Sitting of 21 May 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
MR. SPEAKER[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Affordable Homes
    Mr. David Rendel: If he will make a statement on the number of new affordable homes built in the UK in the past 12 months. [55527]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): In England, a total of 19,535 new affordable homes were built by registered social landlords and local authorities during 2001–02. Over the same period, 10,311 dwellings were acquired, converted or refurbished by registered social landlords and local authorities for use as affordable housing.
    Mr. Rendel: I am sure that everyone would agree that that housebuilding figure is far too low. Indeed, I understand that overall housebuilding is at its lowest since 1927. However, some local authorities are trying in their district plans to set minimum proportions of affordable housing for all major new housing estates. Has the Secretary of State set any maximum at which that minimum percentage can be set by local authorities, because my local authority certainly believes that it cannot set a level anything like that which I would like?
    Mr. Byers: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that there must be concern about the very low number of housebuilding starts last year. The good news is that, for the latest quarter for which we have figures, there has been something like a 10 per cent. increase compared with the quarter the year before. Indeed, in London new starts have doubled compared with the quarter the year before. The good news for affordable housing is that there has been an 18 per cent. increase compared with the quarter a year ago.
    That is partly because local authorities are now using their powers under the planning regime to insist as a condition of granting permission that affordable housing be provided. I would certainly encourage local authorities to do that. We have provided guidance as a Department
    138
    to encourage local authorities to look clearly at how they can secure additional social housing—affordable housing—as part of granting planning applications.
    Ms Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the average income in Tower Hamlets is £12,000 a year but the average cost of a house in Tower Hamlets is £180,000, which effectively means that no normal person in my constituency can afford to buy a house? Will he look, therefore, at the intermediate housing market and at, for example, increasing the cash incentive scheme, so that people in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere can afford to live in a house?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the particular difficulties which I know she has in her constituency and which occur in Tower Hamlets more generally in relation to the dramatic increase in the value of properties in that part of London and, indeed, London and the south-east generally over the recent period. Cash incentives are one of the levers that can be used. The Government are looking very closely at how we can make that scheme even more attractive than it is at the present time.
    To refer to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), because the value of land has also increased dramatically in Tower Hamlets, one real lever is to attach a condition to planning applications that affordable homes be made available. That is one of the most effective ways in the short term of providing additional housing that people can afford to buy. That must be at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through the planning regime.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating West Oxfordshire district council on spending £20 million over the next five years on social housing? Is he aware that the constraint that it faces is the shortage of land for sale? Will he look at two specific proposals to try to help in that respect? One is to allow local councils to pay slightly over the odds for land where social housing is involved, and the second, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), is to consider reducing the number of houses that need to be built before a council is allowed to insist on social housing. That change could make a real difference and lead to more affordable housing in constituencies such as mine.
    Mr. Byers: I certainly applaud any local authority that is able to provide additional housing that people can afford or housing that is available for rent. On the hon. Gentleman's first specific point, I want to give local government the freedom to invest in capital without needing the approval of central Government. That is part of giving local government more power, and his point is a good example of how local authorities can determine their own priorities. I certainly want that to happen, but we will need primary legislation to enable it to occur.
    On the second point, I believe that local government should look constructively and with some imagination at how it can use its present powers under the planning regime. There is one constraint that I want to change. At the moment, it can attach conditions on affordable housing only to applications for residential development.

    139
    It would be far better if it were also able to apply such a condition to retail and commercial development. That would clearly create an opportunity to make more affordable homes available. There are ways forward. It is a serious issue and one which we are taking seriously.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the terrible problem in London, where 50,000 families are in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation? Hardly any council housing is being built and there is a net deficit in the construction of social housing. Will he insist that all development sites include at least 50 per cent. affordable housing, if he has any power to do so? When will the borrowing restrictions on local authorities be lifted so that they can invest in new council housing for people in desperate need?
    Mr. Byers: It would be wrong to have a fixed percentage of affordable housing; my own view is that each application should be judged on its merits. In some cases, therefore, it might be less and in others it might be more than 50 per cent., but each application should be judged in relation to each site. On housebuilding, my hon. Friend is right that for 10 or 15 years there has been a small increase—in fact, a reduction—in the affordable homes and social housing being built. The good news, particularly in London, is that there is now an increase, certainly in the last quarter for which figures are available.
    On the specific point made by my hon. Friend about bed-and-breakfast accommodation, it is scandalous that, for example, 6,600 children are brought up long-term in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are going to tackle that. By March 2004, there will be no need for any child to be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation apart from in emergency situations.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State will no doubt recall that before the 1997 election the Prime Minister said that
    "there is no doubt that the homelessness problem has been increased by the shortage of affordable rented housing…our approach will be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone has the chance to a decent home."
    Why, then, has the number of social housing units plummeted from 150,000 in the three years prior to the 1997 election to 95,000 now, causing a disastrous rise of 11 per cent. in homelessness, including 11 per cent. child homelessness? The number of people housed in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation has trebled since the last election. When is the Secretary of State going to get out and do something about that serious problem, and sort it out for some of the most vulnerable people in our society?
    Mr. Byers: I was interested to note that the Conservative spokesman did not refer to a comment that he made in our interesting debate in Westminster Hall last Thursday. For the information of the House, I shall relay it; I wonder to what extent it reflects Conservative policy. He challenged me and said:
    "What is the Secretary of State doing about the scam of right to buy?"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 355WH.]
    Whether or not that is Conservative policy I do not know, but I want 100,000 affordable new homes to be built or refurbished by March 2004 and made available. We will
    140
    double the amount of money made available to the Housing Corporation for affordable homes to £1.2 billion and we will increase local authority capital allocations by £500 million. Those improvements will make a real difference and provide housing opportunities for people who need them.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What effect neighbourhood and street wardens are having on curtailing antisocial behaviour in towns and cities. [55528]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): Since 2001, 84 neighbourhood warden schemes have been put in place. This year, we are introducing 123 street warden schemes. Most schemes have tackling antisocial behaviour as one of their key objectives. The wardens have been extremely successful in curbing antisocial behaviour by using a variety of measures.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Recently, three street wardens started work in Great Yarmouth town centre, and I could tell her dozens of good news stories that have occurred during this short period. On antisocial behaviour, however, yesterday there was an incident in the town that caused problems for the wardens. The general public have a particular perception of their powers, and they have difficulty getting across the reality. Will my hon. Friend take up the question of their powers, which are distinctly different from those of the police, so that the public are aware of what they can and cannot do?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is right to focus on enforcement powers. At present, the wardens' enforcement powers belong to the local authority although there is provision, some way down the line, for the possibility that they may get policing powers. One reason why wardens are successful is that the public perceive them as being on their side. By operating in the way that they do, not only have wardens contributed to substantial drops in crime in certain areas, but they have been successful in getting antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts agreed, so they have brought about a big improvement in behaviour in particular neighbourhoods. I am sure that people in Great Yarmouth, too, will see an improvement in their town centre.
    Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that restricting the access of under-18s to products used by graffiti vandals would be one of the most effective tools that neighbourhood wardens could be given?
    Ms Keeble: I believe that that has been tried in some areas. It is interesting that some neighbourhood wardens go out with anti-graffiti spray paints. Several neighbourhood wardens have been successful in working with young people and have got them to take part in constructive activities in the area, instead of graffiti and vandalism. The engagement with that group has been extremely important.
    Ms Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work

    141
    of the north Paddington neighbourhood warden scheme, which was one of the first and which has been an extremely successful project that has made a major contribution to reducing the fear of crime and improving community cohesion? Thanks to the Government's neighbourhood renewal fund, we hope to extend the warden scheme to two other deprived parts of my constituency. Can my hon. Friend assure me that she is monitoring the mainstream programmes, such as mainstream policing or other projects delivered by the local authority, to make sure that the existence of Government-funded schemes such as wardens in deprived areas is not an excuse for the diversion of other resources to less needy parts of the community?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is right. I shall make sure that those figures are monitored carefully. The money spent on neighbourhood wardens—more than £40 million, in total—has been a success in putting in place a new range of people to look after public spaces. The public have been enormously supportive and the schemes have shown tangible results, as reflected in the crime figures. I am sure that we shall see neighbourhood warden schemes as a permanent part of our public services.
    Simon Hughes: In the borough in which the Minister used to be the leader of the council and which I partly represent, neighbourhood wardens have been introduced and are welcome and successful. If, next week, when I anticipate that my Liberal Democrats will take over the administration of Southwark, they wish to extend the community warden scheme across the whole of the borough, can the Minister make sure that money will be available for that from one Government pocket or another? Will she and her colleagues seriously consider allowing the community wardens to take over the responsibilities of traffic wardens, so that the local policing of the lower-level offences will be done by one group of people, rather than by two separate and rather restricted organisations?
    Ms Keeble: I believe that the neighbourhood wardens in Bermondsey have been successful in getting 10 acceptable behaviour contracts agreed, to control behaviour in that area. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrat administration is in place only with Conservative support—the Liberal Democrats do not have an overall majority. One of the things that make the wardens so successful is the fact that the public perceive them generally to be on their side. If wardens started issuing parking tickets, that might quickly deter public support. Although it remains an option for wardens to take on some enforcement powers from the local authority, in many places that has not happened because neighbourhood wardens have been so skilful in controlling behaviour and improving public spaces.

    Postal Voting
    Mr. Bill Tynan: If he will make a statement on his plans for the use of postal voting in future elections. [55529]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Electoral Commission is evaluating the recent electoral pilots, which included a number of all-postal ballots. We will wish to consider the commission's evaluation and to make any necessary changes ahead of next year's local elections. In due course, we will need to consider the benefits and disadvantages of moving to all-postal ballots for a national election—for example, elections to the European Parliament to be held in June 2004.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Obviously, any process that would be useful in eliminating voter apathy would be welcomed in all parts of the House, but the recent postal experiment was very small and it is difficult to assess whether it was successful. Does he agree that we should further roll out postal voting in 2003 for the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh elections and the local council elections to obtain concrete evidence about whether it can be successful and remove the problem of voter apathy?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the pilot has been small scale—only 13 local authorities in England opted for all-postal ballots in the local elections in May. The Electoral Commission is considering carefully the experience in relation to turnout and also whether there has been malpractice or fraud. It is very important that those matters are fully investigated by the independent Electoral Commission. We would probably be moving too quickly if we were to adopt all-postal ballots for the Scottish and Welsh elections next year. Once again, we should use May 2003 and the local elections for further pilots. As I said, we might then reach a position in 2004, perhaps in the European Parliament elections in June, in which we can conduct a national postal ballot.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that in conventional voting methods, people's ability to go into a private booth to cast their votes is an element of privacy and confidentiality that is very important? Is he not concerned that the introduction of postal ballots on a mass scale will mean that that element of privacy is lost and that those who wish to vote privately from their own households will not have the same safeguards that people have traditionally enjoyed in casting their votes in the traditional way?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the safeguards that we hold dear in terms of how we cast our votes in elections. That is one of the issues to which the Electoral Commission will want to give proper consideration. We must take this matter slowly and we must get it right; we will not be rushed into taking early decisions. We must use the pilots and learn from them, and we must then make decisions that are in the interests of the democratic process.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome the progress made by my right hon. Friend in this very important area, but is he aware that many people are reluctant to take up their right to a postal vote, even though they may sometimes have difficulty in getting to a polling station? Would he consider it appropriate for his

    143
    Department to produce some promotional material explaining to people how they can apply for a postal vote and use it once they have it, and how easy it is to do so?
    Mr. Byers: That is something to which the Electoral Commission should again give detailed consideration and I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to its attention. It will report to me on 2 August on its evaluation of this year's pilots. No doubt, it will want to say something about the question of publicising not only the entitlement to have a postal vote if that is desired, but the process that somebody must follow to use such a vote, which can be rather confusing in some areas. We need to ensure that, in our desire to make voting more convenient and easier for people, we do not disadvantage particular groups. In particular, pensioners may find postal voting more difficult and prefer to exercise the vote as they have done for generations. We need to consider all those factors if we are to move to a situation in which all-postal ballots are held. In practice, that means that people will not have a polling station to go to on what we call polling day, which needs to be explained to them.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Of course, all-postal ballots were used in some of the mayoral elections on 2 May, in which Robocop was elected in Middlesbrough, a monkey was elected in Hartlepool, and the voters of North Tyneside, which covers the Secretary of State's constituency, elected a Conservative mayor—perhaps the first sign of the Secretary of State's impact on Labour's poll rating. Does he still intend to impose mayoral votes, by post or otherwise, on certain cities?
    Mr. Byers: We have always said that we want to provide communities, cities and towns with the option of voting for a mayor if that is what they desire. They can vote for monkeys—perhaps Conservative monkeys, who knows? That is the choice that the people of North Tyneside had, but had there been a Conservative Government they would not have had that choice.
    Mrs. May: Postal voting was discussed by the Secretary of State at his lunch with women journalists last week, when he told them, as he told the House today, that postal voting could be used for the European elections. Of course, he also referred to the euro referendum and told them when it was to be held. Since then, the euro referendum has been denied by Downing street, his position on road tolls has been rejected by Lord Birt and his poll rating is sinking fast.
    The Secretary of State claims postal ballots as one of his successes, but will he not accept that voter apathy stems from the Government's arrogance, from people's contempt for spin, and from a distrust of politicians who fail to deliver on the issues that matter to them, such as transport? Given his record low rating in the polls, does he take any personal responsibility for that?
    Andrew Mackinlay: Just ignore her and she will go away.
    Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend.
    144
    I take the fact that turnout doubled in areas such as Crawley, Gateshead and South Tyneside as an indication that all-out postal ballots are welcomed by the electorate as being more convenient and more appropriate to the modern world in which we live.
    If the hon. Lady wants to talk about the policies that the Government are pursuing, I simply say this—people will judge what we have done on the improvements that they see. They understand that if there are to be changes in the transport system, they will not happen in a handful of months, but will take time. What we have done in the past 11 months during which I have been Secretary of State for Transport is to make the difficult changes that are necessary to lay the foundations for a transport system that will go from strength to strength. The improvements will be there for people to see, and they are aware of that. I want to be judged on improving the services that people get, whether in local government, transport, planning, housing, urban regeneration or balloting systems, not on one opinion poll in one newspaper.
    Joyce Quin: My right hon. Friend mentioned Gateshead. Will he confirm that there was a turnout of 59 per cent. in the highly successful postal ballot that was held there? In fact, turnout was higher—I am not sure whether I take much comfort from this, as the general election candidate—than in last year's general election. Many people told me that postal balloting fits in very well with today's lifestyles, especially for those who do not work in a nine-to-five routine and may, for whatever reason, find it difficult to get to the polling station. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was possible on the day in Gateshead to hand in a postal vote at the library, the civic centre or any of the other centres that had been arranged, and as had been explained to people during the campaign?
    Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the benefits that were evident in Gateshead as a result of using all-out postal ballots and providing people with the opportunity on the day to go to vote not at a polling station, as they perhaps would have done in the past, but at civic buildings. The Electoral Commission will want to consider that when it undertakes its evaluation of this year's pilots.
    It is rather odd that, at the beginning of the 21st century, we still vote with stubby black pencils in a makeshift booth. Some Conservative Members may be attracted to that, but we need to consider the way in which people cast their votes to make it more convenient for the lives that they lead. That is what we are trying to achieve. We will do it on an all-party basis because we have a shared agenda of ensuring safeguards for the electoral process. However, we cannot get away from the fact that this year's postal ballots have been a success in dramatically improving voter turnout.

    County Councils
    Mr. George Osborne: If he will make a statement on the future of county councils. [55530]
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Our proposals for county and district councils, where an elected regional assembly is to be established in future, are set out in chapter 9 of our White

    145
    Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", published on 9 May. Any move to a wholly unitary structure would apply only in those regions which vote in a referendum to establish an elected regional assembly. We have no proposals to change the structure of county and district councils in other circumstances.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Minister agree that people in England identify with their city, town or county, but not with an amorphous, vast administrative region? Will he confirm that, even if every voter in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria in the north-west region votes against a regional assembly, they can be outvoted by Manchester and Merseyside? Is that local democracy?
    Mr. Raynsford: People in many regions of the United Kingdom identify strongly with their region. If the hon. Gentleman visited the north-east, he would find that out. On elections, we have always operated on the simple principle that majorities prevail. That will apply in any referendum.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper does not provide for a third way? The electorate will have a choice between staying as they are or voting for a unitary structure supported by a regional assembly. Does he also agree that, in the context of Cheshire, voters should consider the successes of the unitary authorities in Halton and Warrington, and cast their vote on that basis?
    Mr. Raynsford: The purpose of a referendum is to judge public support for creating an elected regional assembly, but when people cast their votes, they should consider the likely consequences for the reorganisation of local government to create a wholly unitary structure. That is why the White Paper proposes that that should be identified, through a study by the boundary committee, before people cast their vote in the referendum, which will rightly determine the outcome for their region.
    Mr. Don Foster: In the light of the Minister's answer, what precisely did he mean on 5 March, when he said,
    "there is no agenda for the abolition of county councils"?—[Official Report. 5 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 148]
    In view of his reply to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), what advice would he give to a voter in a referendum for a directly elected assembly if that person not only supported an elected assembly in his or her region, but wanted to retain a county council?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening carefully. I made it perfectly clear that people's primary consideration in the referendum is whether they want an elected regional assembly. The Liberal Democrats have advocated regional assemblies for a long time, but the hon. Gentleman has suddenly become rather coy about it. We have made it clear that people should be conscious of the implications for local government if they vote for a regional assembly. That is why we are asking the independent boundary committee to consider the
    146
    appropriate structure for a wholly unitary pattern of local government. We have no agenda for abolishing county councils.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) champions the case for the status quo but many hon. Members would like the rights of unitary, one-stop local governments to be afforded as soon as possible to electors in England, as it is in Scotland and Wales. What does my right hon. Friend say to the electors of Northampton, who were promised and denied unitary government in 1996? The then Secretary of State said that it was a mistake and that there would be a review. My right hon. Friend's answer today does not give us hope that the review is forthcoming.
    Mr. Raynsford: We are aware that in some areas—Northampton is one—many people strongly believe that a unitary structure of local government would be of benefit to them. Having said that, the Government's view is that, over the next few years, the overriding priority should be to deliver on our local government agenda for raising the standard of service delivery, and that a widespread review of local government structures would not help to achieve that objective. That is why we are saying clearly that there should be such a review only in the regions in which people wish to establish an elected regional assembly. Without such a review, there would be an unnecessary third tier of government below the national level. That is why we are approaching the issue in an extremely sensible and pragmatic way with a view to ensuring that local government concentrates on the primary objective of raising the standard of services.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: It really is time the Minister came clean and admitted that county councils will no longer exist in their present form if and when regional government is introduced. As the condition set by the Government for regional government is that councils should be reorganised into unitary councils, will the Minister confirm that such a reorganisation could cost up to £2 billion if all eight regions opted for regional government? For that huge cost, we would get not one extra teacher, not one extra social worker, and no improvement whatever in local councils' basic services. So what is the point?
    Mr. Raynsford: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should seek to dredge up figures in the usual Conservative way to imply that there will be huge costs involved in reorganisation. The only pointer that I can think of for his figures is the extraordinary waste of time and money during the Banham review, which his Government set up in the 1990s and which created exactly the climate of chaos and confusion in local government that we are determined not to replicate. It is pretty rich of the Conservatives, who have an extraordinary record—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will answer his question. It is pretty rich of the Conservatives, who abolished county councils in Humberside, Avon, Cleveland and Berkshire, to accuse this Government of having an agenda for abolishing local government. We do not.
    Jim Knight: I am a keen supporter of regional government, and I look forward to the prospect

    147
    of unitary local government in shire counties. When the boundary commission considers this matter, however, I would urge it to consider unitary county councils, and a strengthened role for town and parish councils. What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have responsibility for parish councils—bizarrely, in my opinion—on the future of town and parish councils under a regional government structure?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the important role that the boundary committee will have in determining the appropriate and best structure for unitary local government in those regions that opt for elected regional assemblies. Clearly, this will best be determined by an independent body, which is why we have given the task to the boundary committee. It will need to consider whether a structure based predominantly on the county or on the district is the most appropriate in each circumstance. This will therefore be an entirely objective and fair appraisal with no presumption one way or the other. On the role of parish councils, I am sure that the concerns of parishes can be brought to the attention of the boundary committee wherever it is conducting such a review.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Minister believes so strongly in regional government, will he give three reasons why any voter in rural Staffordshire or any other shire county should abandon county hall for government by 25 elected people in a vast region with which they cannot identify?
    Mr. Raynsford: I will give the hon. Gentleman three very simple reasons. First, it could well help to achieve more effective regional co-ordination on matters that are best dealt with at a regional, rather than local, level. For example, transport planning cannot logically be undertaken at county level. It is best undertaken at a regional or national level. Secondly, it will help to ensure that there is proper regional accountability for services that are currently discharged in that region by quangos and other bodies which the Conservative party loved but which are unaccountable. Thirdly, it will help to ensure economic development, which should be the priority in every region. It is the Government's priority to help all the regions to prosper.

    South West Trains
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the progress of new franchise negotiations for South West Trains. [55531]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Strategic Rail Authority remains in negotiation with Stagecoach Group plc, which operates the current South West Trains franchise.
    Dr. Cable: South West Trains is probably even less popular in my constituency than the Secretary of State. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it needs certainty to plan long-term investment? How has he responded to the specific proposal made more than a year ago that the operating companies take over track
    148
    maintenance? Unlike the subcontractors, who have every incentive to cut corners, the operating companies have a long-term incentive to maintain safe and reliable trains over a 20-year franchise period.
    Mr. Byers: The South West Trains franchise is of particular importance because it is the biggest rail passenger franchise that operates in the United Kingdom. The negotiations are taking time because the franchise process must be used to drive up standards and improve the reliability of the service for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other passengers who use the South West Trains franchise area.
    On the specific point about the integration between the franchise operator—the franchise holder—and the maintenance and renewal of the track, Stagecoach Group plc has said that it is interested in taking on that responsibility. The Strategic Rail Authority is giving that proposal some consideration, but we need to work through the detail of exactly what is being proposed before any final decisions are taken. However, in the light of what happened at Potters Bar—although it is too soon to prejudge the conclusions of the Health and Safety Executive investigation—and in view of the Transport Committee's recommendations following the Cullen report, it is very clear that there needs to be a fundamental review of the role played by contractors and subcontractors in the maintenance and renewal of railway track.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the history of the franchise is a difficult one. I ask him to guarantee that whoever gets it will demonstrate an absolute commitment to producing very high-quality services for the passengers which has frankly not been the situation in the immediate past.
    Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend that the South West Trains franchise is not being operated as well as anybody would like. Its performance levels are not acceptable. I want the Strategic Rail Authority to use the franchise renewal as an opportunity to secure real improvements for the travelling public. The SRA recognises that the franchising process is one of the key levers that it has to improve the standard of service offered to the travelling public. The existing franchise is due to be concluded; it comes to an end in February of next year and can be extended by a further seven months. The Strategic Rail Authority must use the time over the next few months to negotiate an agreement with South West Trains—with Stagecoach Group plc. If the SRA cannot negotiate a franchise renewal that puts the interests of the travelling public first, it will be prepared to seek a new franchise operator which will put the interests of the travelling public first, drive up standards and improve reliability.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: What the Secretary of State has just said is very interesting. Prior to his announcement, there was an assumption in the industry that the negotiations would be concluded by July of this year. Now it is clear that they will drag on, possibly for a further year. Already we have had 14 months of indecision. The Secretary of State suggests that this is a natural process, but anybody close to the negotiations will

    149
    tell him that they are bogged down. The result is that there will be considerable delays in introducing passenger benefits, replacing the mark 1 slam-door trains and increasing capacity. The Government are having to underwrite the cost of new trains. These delays are damaging the confidence of the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Strategic Rail Authority's statement that the franchise negotiations are like "treading in treacle"? As a man who has delivered more than a dollop of treacle to the railway industry, what is he going to do to get himself out of this mess?
    Mr. Byers: The position is that the negotiations with Stagecoach Group plc are continuing. The point that I was making is that, if they are not concluded, there is time for the Strategic Rail Authority to negotiate with a new franchise holder if appropriate. The negotiations are not delaying improvements, which are being introduced. The programme for replacing slam-door trains is on schedule, and new class-458 trains are being introduced to increase capacity. The negotiations are taking time because we need to make use of this opportunity. In terms of passenger numbers and revenue from ticket sales, we are talking about the biggest franchise in the whole of the United Kingdom, and this is a golden opportunity to improve the standard of service for the travelling public.
    The Conservative party would sign up to anything, and we have seen the consequences of that approach. This is an opportunity to bring about real improvements for passengers who travel on South West Trains. We want the Strategic Rail Authority to deliver real improvements to the travelling public, and it will.

    Merchant Ships
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: How many British merchant ships have registered under the red ensign since the Government introduced the tonnage tax. [55532]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): Since the tonnage tax was introduced by the Finance Act 2000 in July of that year, a total of 173 merchant ships have joined the UK shipping register.
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend paints a much better picture than that pertaining during the years in which Conservatives waved Union Jacks at their party conference with one hand while lowering the red duster on hundreds of Merchant Navy ships with the other. Is he monitoring the companies that are benefiting from the tonnage tax to ensure that they deliver on training and jobs for the Merchant Navy fleet? If not, perhaps he could begin by monitoring P&O, Lord Sterling's company, to ensure that he not only reaps the benefits but delivers the goods.
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend always takes an assiduous interest in maritime matters on his constituents' behalf. The tonnage tax places an obligation on companies that enter into it to train one new cadet for every 15 existing officers. So far, 58 companies account for 510 training places. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will monitor the situation carefully to ensure that the companies comply. He is right: in five years in
    150
    government, we have re-established the United Kingdom flag, and the Union Jack flies on more vessels now than it did five years ago. The UK is now a force to be reckoned with in the maritime world, after years of neglect under a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that the significant improvement in the amount of tonnage sailing under the red ensign is not enough in itself? Does he share the view of NUMAST, the ships' officers union, that more job security is needed for British officers, and that greater emphasis must be placed on training UK cadets? Given that crews on some UK ferries are operating under contracts that prohibit them from joining unions such as NUMAST, will he ensure that proper social and employment conditions are enforced on ships that come under the red ensign as a result of the tonnage tax?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman half-heartedly notes our success in getting ships on to the UK register. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has done an excellent job in providing a service to the shipping companies and others, thereby ensuring high environmental safety standards for those ships, and the highest safety levels for those who man them. Our commitment extends beyond training, and we will monitor the situation carefully. We have also ploughed a considerable amount of money into the smart training scheme to ensure that there is a proper training base in this country. The Government have done more in five years to enhance training than probably any other Government in the past 50 years. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) nodding in assent.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Does my hon. Friend remember the warm welcome that Jeffrey Sterling gave to the introduction of our tonnage tax when he told us at a Labour party conference that this Government had done more for the merchant fleet in our first 18 months than the Tories had done in the past 18 years? However, can my hon. Friend assure me that the production targets, the targets to increase cadets by 25 per cent. year on year, and the targets mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), will be met? What sanctions can the Government take against those companies that fail to deliver?
    Mr. Jamieson: The answer is simple: if companies do not comply with the conditions of the tonnage tax, they will be taken out of that tax regime. I echo my hon. Friend's comments and commend him on the work that he has done on maritime matters. He has always spoken vigorously in favour of the maritime industry and its interests. The work that we are doing and what we have achieved in the past five years have considerably enhanced the UK flag and our standing in the maritime world. I assure my hon. Friend that the issues he raises are at the forefront of our minds.

    Canal Network
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on expanding the canal network. [55533]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): Questions on this matter would usually be answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I should like to take this opportunity to say that the Highways Agency has carried out work on that and has reached a satisfactory outcome in some cases where there is an intersection of canals and highways in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Michael Fabricant: May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister on behalf of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust Ltd? I also thank the 2,500 people who walked the route of the canal with me. The Minister will be aware of the difficulties that have arisen because the canal will be bisected twice by the Birmingham northern relief road. What guidance, will his Department issue to ensure that future canal routes are not bisected by roads? May I also thank the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his intervention with respect to the guidance on roads and bridges, and for the help that he has given for all modes of transport that travel at under five kilometres an hour?
    Mr. Jamieson: Well, what can I say? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and note his kind remarks about the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether he has cleared them with his Front Bench, although it seems clear from the reaction of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that he has not.
    I am aware that there has been a particular success in the case of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals and the bisection of the Birmingham northern relief road. That came about as a result of undertakings given in the 1998 Transport White Paper in which the Government ensured that environmental needs are a key consideration for the Highways Agency when it makes improvements. In the particular case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, a bridge and foundations for an aqueduct have been put in place to allow the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust to restore the canal. That is a shining example of joined-up government. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman sailing down the canal, perhaps in a barge, to raise funds for the party in government that allowed that to happen.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I thank my hon. Friend for his support in developing the canal network? Will he ensure that when restoration takes place, planning will be such that no development will take place over disused canals and that restoration can proceed without difficulties? Will he also ensure that there is full consultation on restoration and development with those voluntary organisations that have a great interest in the canal network?
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will very much take note of his comments. Where canals intersect roads, and where that affects the work of my Department, we have put in place guidance, in the Department's design manual for roads and bridges, that ensures that those canals are
    152
    not locked out for ever and that they can be redeveloped in the future. That probably has widespread support on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Peter Luff: As vice-president of the Worcester-Birmingham Canal Society and the Droitwich Canals Trust, may I say to the Minister how delighted we are with the progress being made by British Waterways on the reopening of the canal network? May I draw his attention in particular to the proposed reopening of the Droitwich junction and barge canals, which, again, are receiving marvellous support from British Waterways? Will he pledge the support of his Department to the reopening of the spectacular three-day cruising ring between Worcester and Droitwich, particularly with regard to closing trunk roads to enable engineering work to be conducted? Will he help in that specific regard, please?
    Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I look forward to joining him on one of those canals—perhaps I am on the boat—and I shall make sure that those matters that affect my Department will be attended to assiduously.

    Road Traffic Speeds
    Helen Jackson: What action his Department is taking to reduce road traffic speeds. [55534]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The measures being taken by the Government to reduce excessive and inappropriate speeds are contained in the road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads Safer For Everyone", which was published in March 2000.
    Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree that proper enforcement of speed limits is not anti-motorist, as some people think, but pro-safety? Does he understand that, where digital cameras have been introduced and proper enforcement used, there has been a dramatic reduction in deaths and serious injuries? Will he therefore accelerate the programme—not of speed but of digital cameras—to include not only the A616 Stocksbridge bypass, which he knows is a particularly dangerous road, but other particularly dangerous roads in urban and rural areas?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for the delegation that she brought to make representations to me about the Stocksbridge bypass. She rightly identifies the success with cameras. In terms of the pilot projects, on average, at camera sites, the number of people killed or seriously injured fell by 47 per cent. compared with the average over the previous three years. Twenty-six police force areas have now been accepted for the scheme, and, it is hoped, all who want to join will do so in the next 18 months. It is appropriate to stress that one of the key elements of the scheme is that, in order to ensure that reduced speed leads to reduced accidents, cameras are clearly visible, clearly painted and clearly signed. That has been widely recognised and appreciated by motorists across the country who understand the need for cameras but want to ensure that they are not out to catch motorists but to save lives.
    Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister agree that one of the important factors with regard to speed

    153
    limits is appropriate signage? Will he therefore undertake to introduce legislation that will enable repeater signs to be put up to make sure that motorists know what the speed limits are?
    Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a slightly difficult issue in terms of whether having repeater signs in some areas and not in others leads to confusion for motorists. I am particularly concerned about roads where the speed limit has changed—for example, where a road that used to be subject to a 40 mph limit is now subject to a 30 mph limit, as happened, for example, on the Chester road in Birmingham. I am particularly anxious that that should be clearly signed, and, where there are cameras, that the prevailing speed limit should be clearly indicated. There are balanced arguments on the other issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which we are examining at the moment.

    Transport Multi-modal Studies (Midlands)
    Mr. Mark Todd: If he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-modal studies on the M1 and east midlands/west midlands movements. [55535]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): On the west midlands to east midlands multi-modal study, there has been recent public consultation across the corridor on the emerging strategy, and the consultants will be working towards option identification over the coming months. The final report for the study is due in April 2003.
    154
    The final report for the Ml multi-modal study has just been published by the consultants, W. S. Atkins, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The East Midlands Regional Local Government Association will be carrying out consultation on the report before presenting advice to Ministers later in the year. The Government will give very careful consideration to the report and the views of the region before reaching their conclusions.
    Mr. Todd: May I commend the methodology employed in the studies, which has been innovative, and specifically some of the schemes that affect my area? The National Forest line featured in discussion of the M1 study and will feature in the west midlands to east midlands study, and it certainly deserves further support. The opening of the Donington loop from Willington to Nottingham will significantly improve east-west links. However, there have been shortcomings in the process of resolving the issues regarding the parkway station south of Derby, which would improve the access of Midland Mainline customers to London. There have been obstructions that the Strategic Rail Authority could assist in overcoming.
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his observations and suggestions, which he has made not only today but on previous occasions. He is rightly representing the views of his constituents. It would be a little imprudent for me to be seen to endorse any particular suggestions before the examination by the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association. However, I will take serious note of them.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence to make a statement on what Klaus-Peter Klaiber, the European Union's envoy in Afghanistan, has said about prison camps? He told Agence France-Presse that
"people have nothing on their bones any more".
There have been horrific pictures and, if the west is really responsible for the prison camps, it is a matter of shame and it is something about which the House of Commons should be told.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister.

Area Child Protection Committees
3.32 pm
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish local authority responsibility for area child protection committees; to specify the functions of such committees; to require agencies charged with responsibilities for child protection to provide senior representation on such committees; to make provision about the funding of such committees; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to establish a framework for child protection that will be based on best practice and be uniform throughout the country. I acknowledge support and assistance in the Bill's drafting from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Local Government Association.
The recent tragic case of Victoria Climbie has demonstrated that there is an urgent need to strengthen the current child protection system in this country. The huge cross-party support for the early-day motion on an end to child cruelty that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) is a reflection of the House's determination to move child protection into a new era. The Bill seeks to do just that.
The Children Act 1989 and the Department of Health guidance that accompanied it set out the basis for a system whereby all the main agencies involved in child protection, ranging from local authority social services to the local NSPCC, should work together to protect children in a defined local area. The mechanism to carry out such a multi-agency approach is the area child protection committee, or ACPC. In theory, it should ensure that the different agencies co-operate effectively. The committee should use the combined knowledge and expertise of professionals to set appropriate procedures and protocols to identify and protect every child at risk from abuse.
In some instances, where authorities such as my own in Sandwell have the commitment and a culture of partnership working, the committees have worked well. However, research carried out by Christine Hallet, professor of social policy at Stirling university, and the NSPCC has shown that the situation is not uniform throughout the country. There is a huge gulf between theory and practice in different areas.
That was clearly demonstrated in the evidence from phase one of the Climbie inquiry. If there had been a strong, effective ACPC for the London boroughs, it is more likely that representatives from the agencies involved with Victoria Climbie would have collectively identified the abuse, assessed her correctly and prevented her death. As it was, the system failed her. That has led to overwhelming demands to strengthen ACPCs in a range of submissions to phase two of the inquiry. The time has come to end the lottery of postcode protection for children.
The key problem lies with the absence in the Children Act of a defined legal obligation for local authorities to set up a committee. It is mentioned in the section and guidance that accompanies the Act, but crucially there is no statutory obligation on the local authority or other agencies involved to fulfil their functions in relation to the committee. The wording of sections 27 and 47 of the Act compounds that problem. Neither the police nor GPs

157
are named as a necessary part of the ACPC. There is also a "get out" clause for other agencies. They are required to participate only
"if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their other functions".
From that gap in legislation a number of problems have arisen. The two most important are, first, that it reinforces the view that child protection is mainly a social services responsibility and that the other agencies involved are marginal, both to the development of child protection policy and in their consideration of individual cases. That may be reinforced by the professional isolationism in some social services departments where partnership working has not been fostered.
Secondly, the gap in legislation permits those agencies with a wide range of professional responsibilities to downgrade their role in child protection. It becomes an add-on responsibility, not central to the work of the agency and therefore not justifying the same level of resources, time or professional commitment as others. To work, ACPCs effectively rely on the good will of professionals. Without a strong level of commitment from other agencies it is all too easy to leave things to the perceived expertise of the social services professionals without inputting the specialist skills or information that other agencies can bring to the deliberations.
My Bill seeks to change that. It would place an obligation on every local authority to establish an ACPC. It would also place a statutory responsibility on the local authority chief executive to appoint an independent chair of the committee and to agree that appointment with the social services inspectorate.
The reason for that is to ensure that, although the chair would be of a level of competence commensurate with his or her responsibilities, no one agency would dominate the committee and, in the event of a failure of any of the agencies involved to live up to its professional responsibilities, the independence of the chair would ensure that subsequent inquiries were conducted in a suitably impartial manner.
158
The Bill defines the agencies to be involved, and it would place upon them an obligation to be represented by a person of appropriate professional competence and status. It would provide flexible arrangements so that the committees' boundaries could cover more than one local authority where the boundaries of the other agencies involved made that a more suitable basis for organisation. It would commit the committees to providing staff with training and policy development opportunities.
In short, the Bill would place a statutory obligation on local authorities to set up committees that would be independent, representative, inclusive and proactive in the protection of children. Those committees would actively develop local child protection strategies in an environment where all professionals could work effectively. It recognises the concerns outlined by the many who gave evidence in the Climbie inquiry, and it would give ACPCs the strong role needed to make child protection work at a local level.
As politicians, we should use the legacy of the Victoria Climbié case as a spur to put in place legislation that will do everything possible to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy. We must accept responsibility for child abuse across all sectors of our society and work together to end it.
Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adrian Bailey, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Tom Watson, David Wright, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Andrew Lansley.

Area Child Protection Committees
  AREA CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEES
  Mr. Adrian Bailey accordingly presented a Bill to establish local authority responsibility for area child protection committees; to specify the functions of such committees; to require agencies charged with responsibilities for child protection to provide senior representation on such committees; to make provision about the funding of such committees; 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 142].
Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

School Discipline
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.43 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's failure to meet its 1998 Public Service Agreement to cut truancy levels by one third; regrets that unauthorised absences from secondary schools have risen under this Government; further regrets that an estimated 50,000 children are absent from school on a typical day and that another 10,000 children of school age do not attend school at all; is concerned by the decline in standards of discipline in schools and notes evidence from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which shows that assaults against teachers have risen fivefold in three years; deplores the Government's conduct in first removing from head teachers and governors the power to exclude disruptive pupils from their schools, and then failing to collect evidence on the number of assaults by pupils on both other pupils and teachers; believes that the Government's current approach to these problems is flawed; is concerned that the problems of rising unauthorised absence and declining discipline particularly damage the education of children from deprived and inner city areas; and calls on the Government to provide a serious response to the problem of vocational education, while giving more power to head teachers as a first step to reversing the decline in standards of discipline.
As we pass the fifth anniversary of this Government's arrival in power, the threadbare nature of their claim to have made improvements in education is increasingly apparent. Today, the Opposition will pay particular attention to their failures on truancy and discipline because they lie at the heart of so many other failures. Without effective discipline, there can be no effective teaching. Without regular and willing attendance, there can be no effective learning. If the Government cannot solve this crisis, they will be doomed to fail to solve the other crises in our school system, such as demoralised teachers, the widening gap in standards between the best and worst schools and, in particular, the Government's complete failure to give effective support to schools in our inner cities.
Mr. Mark Francois: My hon. Friend mentioned regular and willing attendance. If we are to combat truancy by the example of what we do in the House, is it not a shame that, in a debate of this importance, there are so many Liberal Democrat truants? Only three of them have bothered to turn up.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. The Liberal Democrats have in their time claimed to be a party that cares about education: they were to spend and re-spend the proceeds of the famous, magic 1p on income tax on education. However, they clearly do not care enough about the subject to turn up in the House of Commons to debate the real problems in education today.
It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are not in a position to take anything away from today's debate, but I hope that the Government will take away one message: the underlying, basic problems of truancy and discipline
160
will not be solved by the usual gimmicks that the Department for Education and Skills loves so much. Grabbing the headlines for a morning may delude Ministers into thinking that they have done something effective, but it does not delude teachers, parents and pupils.
Let us take this morning's headline-grabber by the Government, which is on drugs in schools. I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House who does not want tough measures to eliminate drugs from schools and to warn children about the dangers of drugs, but the Government are sending very mixed messages about their attitude to drugs in our society. This morning, the Department for Education and Skills announced a crackdown and that it would be tougher on drugs, yet for months the Home Office has been espousing a softer line on drugs. That is a mixed message; nobody can know what the Government really want.
Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend is right. When the Government announced their proposal to reclassify cannabis, the first people to write to me were the head teachers in my constituency. I wrote to each and every secondary school head, and they all replied saying how concerned they were about the proposal and that it would add to their problems of truancy, particularly after midday. There is no remorse from the Government or any attempt to support head teachers on the issue.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right, as ever.
Quite apart from the mixed message on drugs, the Government are sending a mixed message about exclusions. Today, the Secretary of State and her colleagues have been talking tough. They are to insist that head teachers exclude pupils who are caught drug dealing. There will be no appeal; such pupils will be straight out on their first offence. That is a very tough message, but I seem to remember that four years ago the Government sent out exactly the opposite message. They were instructing head teachers to exclude fewer pupils.
The confusion does not only date back four years. If the Secretary of State had made an honest U-turn, we would have applauded it, because today's policy is better than yesterday's policy. Unfortunately for the Government, I have taken the trouble to read the amendment that they have tabled to our motion—[Interruption.] Before the Minister for Lifelong Learning becomes too excited, I shall quote it. It is fascinating. I assume that it was written yesterday, presumably at the same time as the Department was writing its press releases on how exclusions need to be increased.
The amendment boasts:
"exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent."
since 1996–97. At the press conference this morning, the Government said that a rise in exclusions is a good thing; yesterday, as their amendment shows, they said that a fall in exclusions is a good thing. There is a central confusion. The Government cannot know what they are talking about. It is clear that head teachers across Britain do not know which message the Government are trying to send. The reason is that the Government do not know. All they know is that they must say something tough about drugs.
The Department for Education and Skills is always one of the most willing Departments to say, "You want an announcement, we'll make it. Never mind the policy, coherence or implementation, we'll write the press release

161
for you." Not even the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions would have the gall to say that that central confusion over the attitude to exclusion shows consistency of purpose. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by saying that she is a considerably more honest and straightforward politician than her right hon. Friend.
Everyone in the House and outside it and everyone connected with education hopes that the Government's new policy on drugs in schools will work, but we are right to be suspicious that a Government who rely on spin and announcements rather than substance will not drive through an effective anti-drugs policy.
Let me turn to truancy. Again, there is no difference between the two sides of the House. We all agree that truancy deprives children of their best chance in life and that the Government have a duty—which they share, most notably with parents but also with schools—to ensure that children attend school. Let us look at the facts of what has happened since the Government came to power. In the 1998 comprehensive spending review, the Government promised to cut school truancy drastically. They said that they would reduce the percentage of half-days missed a year through unauthorised absence from 0.7 per cent. to 0.5 per cent. That was a clear and unambiguous promise, but the result is complete failure. There has been no reduction in the percentage of half-days missed through unauthorised absence, which remains 0.7 per cent. In secondary schools, where the problem is most serious, it has risen since 1997 from I per cent. to 1.1 per cent.
I have taken those figures from the Department's own survey of pupil absence and truancy, but Ofsted too revealed growing problems. Unsatisfactory attendance is up from 22 to 30 per cent. in primary schools, and from 29 to 37 per cent. in inspected secondary schools. Those are not abstract figures on the number of children missing school. Truancy Call, a charity that tries to deal with the problem of truancy, estimates that, on a typical school day, 50,000 children are truanting, their life chances disappearing. Most schools, it says, do not have the time or resources to undertake first-day contact with those children. [Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning says that she does not believe it. I do not know who else she is going to try to call a liar. Stephen Clarke, the director of Truancy Call, is extremely respected in the field.
Perhaps the hon. Lady will believe the previous head of Ofsted, who was appointed by the Government. Mike Tomlinson said:
"Statistics suggest that there are 10,000 children who should be in school but are not."
Does the hon. Lady want to disagree with Mike Tomlinson as well? He found that statistic worrying and continued:
"I wonder about what they are up to when they are not in school."
He is right to worry, as we know what too many of those children are doing when they are not in school; they are climbing on the conveyor belt of crime, which will damage their lives and communities, particularly in the inner cities.
I shall cite someone whom even the hon. Lady will believe—the Secretary of State, who said that official figures showed that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and a
162
third of car thefts are carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds at times when they should be in school. By any standard, that is a catalogue of failure by the Government, who have not met promises that they made in their early, happier days in office.
The Government have noticed that they have got a problem and have recently introduced a series of measures to reduce truancy. They announced that they want to put policemen in schools; they have half-announced that they are thinking of taking away child benefit from parents of persistent truants; and they announced £66 million to tackle truancy in the recent Budget.
Having policemen in schools is a sensible idea, and I welcome the Government's initiative. If head teachers want that, it is perfectly reasonable. I would be fascinated to know what the Secretary of State has to say about taking child benefit away from the parents of persistent truants, as the initiative appeared to emanate from the Prime Minister and No. 10, and volunteers in the Cabinet were called on to support it. It was notable that every other Cabinet Minister took a smart step backwards, leaving the right hon. Lady out at the front to defend the policy. I therefore hope that she will tell us later whether she still thinks that it is a good idea and, if so, when the Government propose to introduce it. I am afraid that if she cannot give us a date by which the Government are willing to do so, we will conclude once again that the announcement was made just to grab the headlines.
Mr. Bill Rammell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that opposition is not just about opposing, but about providing constructive alternatives. Can he give the House his view on withdrawing child benefit from parents?
Mr. Green: Our solution to truancy covers a number of aspects, which I shall come to shortly. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall make some positive proposals, as I have done already by supporting the Government's initiative on policemen in schools.
I am fascinated to discover whether the Government in power are capable of taking the decision on child benefit, or whether they are simply floating tough-sounding ideas.
Mr. Barry Sheerman rose—
Mr. Green: I want to carry on with the series of measures announced by the Government recently to reduce truancy, then of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, particularly after his sterling performance in his Select Committee, which produced a report on individual learning accounts that exposed yet another cataclysmic failure of Government policy.
The third issue is the £66 million to tackle truancy in schools across Britain. What the Government have not told us is that the means by which they are funding that—the increase in national insurance contributions—will take £150 million out of school budgets, year after year. The Budget therefore did not put money into schools but took it away.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman might like one of my Committee's reports, but he might not like the fact that the very weekend that that was being discussed, our report on our interview with Mike Tomlinson, the former

163
head of Ofsted, pushed the chief inspector to discuss a range of methods that could be used to bring the truancy figures down. There was an interesting debate over those few days. I wish the hon. Gentleman had joined it in a positive way.
Mr. Green: One of the purposes of this debate is to use the Chamber of the House of Commons, which is a debating chamber, to carry on the debate constructively. I hope and expect that the hon. Gentleman will make his own authoritative contribution later.
The Government are coming up with tough-sounding gimmicks. They know as well as everyone now—notably Mrs. Patricia Amos, who has been sent to jail—that an extremely tough range of measures is already available in the criminal law to stop truanting. This is part of the answer to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). Some of those measures were put in place by the present Government, and some by the previous Conservative Government, so there is no partisan politics involved.
It is clear that when Governments and courts have powers that can end up with a parent being jailed for allowing children to truant persistently, even tougher new measures are not necessarily needed. The Government already have all the tough measures that they could want to deter parents from allowing their children to truant. The Government are trying to pretend that those tough measures are not available, but their cover has been blown by the jailing of Mrs. Amos. That shows how tough the measures already on the statute book are. I hope that they work, and that every parent with a child who persistently truants looks at Mrs. Amos being sent to jail and thinks, "I don't want to go that way. I'm going to do something about my child now."
Caroline Flint: It is interesting that the day that Mrs. Amos went to jail, her children went to school. That is to be welcomed, but it was preceded by two years of activity by those in the education service, the school and others, in an attempt to get those girls into school. It took two years and ended in court. Surely we should be looking for measures that could nip the problem in the bud much earlier.
Mr. Green: If the measures were shown to be practical, of course that should happen. The jailing of one parent will send a shock wave round the country. Let us hope that, for once, the deterrent effect of a court sentence works.
The underlying problem is that the children who are let down most badly by the Government's failure on truancy are those who are most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves. Many of those children, as we know, live in our inner cities and therefore attend inner-city schools. The figures are terrifying. Between 2000 and 2001, in several inner-city areas, truancy rose by as much as 16 times the national average. At the same time, GCSE standards—a strongly related issue—are far below the national average in such areas. Growth in truancy has persisted throughout England, where it has increased by an average of 1.7 per cent. in recent times, and the average proportion of pupils achieving the good GCSE score of five grades of A* to C is 50 per cent. It is terrifying to compare with those averages the figures for some of our
164
inner-city areas. In Hackney, truancy is up 27 per cent. and the average GCSE score—the proportion achieving five or more A* to C grades—is 33.5 per cent. In Liverpool, truancy is up 26.2 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 35.1 per cent. In Sheffield, which was run until so recently by the Liberal Democrats, truancy is up 24 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 41.9 per cent. In Leicester, truancy is up 21.7 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 36.9 per cent.
Those figures tell a stark story. The Government are failing our inner-city children; their rhetoric is not matched by action. They are tough on truants and on the parents of truants, but they are soft on the causes of truancy. Let us consider what they could be doing. The basic challenge on which they have failed is that of making every day at school relevant to every pupil. If pupils think that nothing that they do at school will be relevant, useful or interesting, they will start bunking off. Clearly, the long-term policy must be to reduce the number of regular truants to the hard core. There will always be a hard core, but we need to reduce truancy so that only that hard core remains. [Interruption.] I am glad that Government Front Benchers agree; perhaps they will adopt the policy that I am about to put to them.
The first and most widespread thing that the Government should do is make a radical improvement in the provision of vocational education in our education system. [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), really believes that the Green Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds will lead to a radical change in anything, I suggest that he reads it. The first and most important radical change that should be made is that of rewriting the Green Paper in English, instead of the current jargon. The Green Paper is not remotely adequate to cope with the crisis in vocational education.
The Government do not need Green Papers; they need to do what we do and learn from some other countries. [Interruption.] Clearly, they are so perfect that they have nothing to learn. Let: me tell them about the experience in Holland and Germany. In Holland, for example, I visited classes in which 13-year-olds were rewiring rooms and plastering real brick walls. They were non-academic children in a non-academic stream—the sort of children who are failed by the school system far too often in this country and go out truanting. They were doing something at school that they could see was relevant, which they enjoyed and which they were good at. That was what got them into school, made them do the other lessons and allowed them to leave school having worked on a balanced curriculum and learned something useful, instead of taking the path of truancy and then crime to which far too many of our young people are condemned by the inaction and complacency of the Government.
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore take this opportunity to apologise for the introduction in 1988 of a grammarian national curriculum that drove vocational education out of every single school in the country? Does he now accept that that was a total failure and will he apologise to the thousands of youngsters who fell through the system because of those policies?
Mr. Green: No. I congratulate the previous Conservative Government on introducing the vocational

165
initiative in education in 1983. The policy was a serious attempt to get to grips with the issue that was opposed by the Labour party. I cannot remember what the Lib Dems did. They probably opposed it, as they oppose most good ideas. The hon. Gentleman has tried to go back into history—indeed, many of us think that he might live in history—but he did not go back far enough.
The problem is not new and is not even one of the past 20 years; it a problem of the past 140 years. Let me break the habit of a lifetime and quote Lord Callaghan, who rejected 25 years ago the idea that we should fit
"a so-called inferior group of children with just enough learning to earn their living in the factory".
He was right that children who need a vocational education need more than that. That is pure common sense, and I am surprised that Government Front Benchers are so exercised by it. If those children are looking to the world of work, that is what we should prepare them for, by providing both the basic academic tools and proper vocational training when they are still willing to learn. Too often, the tragedy is that we wait too long, and by the time we seek to engage children who would benefit from a vocational education in proper vocational training, it is too late—they have got out of the habit of learning and into the habit of truanting. In five years, the Government have done nothing to help that dangerous lost generation.
Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that most of the children who truant are those who would not benefit from the normal curriculum—in his words, they are not suited to an academic curriculum. What evidence does he have for that? Under his Government, schools that did badly at GCSEs were overwhelmingly concentrated in the inner cities. This Government have tried to tackle that through the excellence in cities programme, which provides benefits for all children, whatever their talents. What is his solution for those who are truanting and who are bright?
Mr. Green: I am afraid that the hon. Lady may not have been concentrating as hard as usual. I just cited facts from the Government's own statistics showing that despite all their initiatives truancy has gone up, and by more in the inner cities than anywhere else. Whatever the situation that they inherited, what they have done has been relatively worse in its effects on inner cities. They have let down all children, but they have particularly let down those in the inner cities. I hope that she will reflect on that in her calmer moments. If she wants to talk about initiatives, I remember that education action zones were one of the great initiatives launched by the Secretary of State's predecessor and junked by the right hon. Lady as soon as she had the chance.
Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest victims of loss of education are not truants, but those who are permanently excluded and get perhaps one day's education a year? Those people make up 70 per cent. of the prison population. Does he accept that in 1997 the number of people excluded was 30 per cent. higher, and does he endorse the Government's strategy of providing a permanent place for all children in education from this September?
Mr. Green: I think that that intervention may have been written by the Whips yesterday. Perhaps the hon.
166
Gentleman has not noticed that the centrepiece of the Government's anti-drugs in schools strategy, which was announced today, is to increase the number of permanent exclusions. Of course, he is right that a significant percentage of the prison population is made up of those who are permanently excluded from school. That is not surprising. He and his Government Front Bench need to get together on the issue that I mentioned at the beginning—the coherence of their message. He may be right about the problems of permanent exclusion, and the Government may have been right in the policy that they announced in 1998, but that is not their policy today. I suggest that he takes that up with the Secretary of State.
Let me move on to the wider problem of discipline. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) wants permanent exclusions to keep coming down. The Government used to set targets on that. One reason why disciplinary problems in schools have increased under this Government is precisely that the authority has been taken away from head teachers to exclude those whom they want to exclude. Teachers, not only heads, are unhappy with the situation. The Government always get cross when I quote the National Union of Teachers at them, so let me quote the Association of Teachers and Lecturers instead. It says that in the past year it received 120 complaints from teachers about physical abuse at school and that assaults on teachers rose fivefold between 1998 and 2001. That is terrible.
If the ATL is another trade union to which the Government do not want to listen, perhaps they will listen to Ofsted. It points out that the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is cited as the major reason for teachers leaving the profession. If that is true, it is a great shame that the Government have spent much of their first five years in office encouraging the undermining of head teachers' authority and therefore encouraging the increase in violence in schools.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Let me reinforce that point by bringing to hon. Members' attention the deep frustration of at least four secondary head teachers in my constituency. They told me that they feel that their hands are tied by a Government who are constantly trying to tell them how to do their job, especially its discipline aspects.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right, but I resist the temptation to consider the Government's wider interference in the day-to-day work of schools. They have done enough damage through their interference in disciplinary systems.
It is extraordinary that, although the Government have so much information at their disposal, they do not bother to collect facts about the scale of violence in schools. My colleagues and I have asked the Government for some weeks for the number of teachers who are assaulted each year, the number who are assaulted by pupils and the number of assaults on pupils by pupils. The Government do not know the answer.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): Oh no.
Mr. Green: The Secretary of State says, "Oh no". I refer her to written answers from her colleagues that

167
state that they do not collect that information. Why do not the Government collect it? They know that matters are getting worse and are trying to disguise the fact rather than dealing with it.
We propose giving power over exclusions back where it belongs—with heads and governors. If they have the power to discipline children, discipline in schools will improve. That would send clear signals to unruly pupils and irresponsible and potentially violent parents that they cannot get away with their behaviour any longer. The Government have spent too long undermining heads and teachers; it is about time that they got behind them.
The Government's never-ending stream of initiatives has failed to tackle the two fundamental crises in our schools. Until they use something more substantial than summits, press conferences and initiatives, our most vulnerable children will never receive the education that they deserve. That stands as an indictment against the Government for five wasted years. They are betraying the hopes of a generation of children. They will not be forgiven and they do not deserve to be forgiven.
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"applauds the fact that policies to reduce truancy and tackle poor behaviour are central to the Government's strategy to transform secondary schools; notes that, since 1997, the Government has spent over £600 million to support measures to tackle truancy and poor behaviour and that this has been supplemented by a further £66 million from this year's Budget, that behaviour is satisfactory or better in 11 out of 12 secondary schools and 49 out of 50 primary schools, that there are now over 1,050 Learning Support Units and 3,420 Learning Mentors in schools and that there are 331 Pupil Referral Units whose quality Ofsted reports to be steadily improving; welcomes the fact that the Government is promoting multi-agency initiatives such as Behaviour and Education Support Teams and Connexions that are crucial to addressing this issue, that exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent. to 9,200 from their peak of 12,700 in 1996–97; supports the right of Head Teachers to govern their schools as they see fit; further notes that all permanently excluded pupils will receive a full-time education from September this year and that whilst overall truancy levels remain a cause for concern, action is being taken; further notes that children have a right to education and that parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated; and believes that the Government's policies will deliver lasting improvements in pupil attendance and behaviour which will support the achievement of higher standards and prevent social exclusion.'.
I spotted two ideas from Tory Members. The first was our idea of taking away the child benefit from families who do not send their children to school. The second dealt with vocational studies and I shall deal with that later.
Mr. Willis: That is a Liberal Democrat idea.
Estelle Morris: It may be. In that case, it may be unanimously supported.
The speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was rather sad. The subject of the debate is genuinely important and we all need to tackle it. That applies not only to politicians but to every member of the education service and of society. As I shall show, we have done a great deal to deal with the problem in the past five
168
years. However, the hon. Gentleman was bereft of ideas. Indeed, his analysis was so poor that it is not surprising that he has not reached the stage of devising ideas.
I listened to the radio this morning and it became clear that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is so bereft of ideas that the hon. Member for Ashford hardly referred to them. Apparently the hon. Gentleman will talk about the way in which the Tories want to concentrate on education provision for the disadvantaged. What a cheek. After 18 years in power, it is a cheek for the Tories to come to the House and even murmur a word about the most disadvantaged, those in the inner cities, the poor and the deprived. I shall outline the exact position of that group of young people in 1997, when we took over.
Nearly half the 11-year-olds did not achieve the expected standard in English and maths. That half did not consist of the sons and daughters of Members of Parliament; 20 per cent. of pupils who did not obtain GCSEs came from only 203 schools.
When we looked at literacy and numeracy, children in the most deprived areas—on deprived estates, for example—were going into secondary school not being able to read or write. At age seven, 90 per cent. of pupils from better-off families were reaching the expected standard; it was 63 per cent. from the families of the worse off. That is the record of the Conservative party, which now lectures us on the needs of children and their families in the most deprived areas and the most challenging circumstances.
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Mr. George Osborne rose—
Estelle Morris: I will give way eventually. I want to make progress on this first point.
In 1997, the link between social class and educational attainment was more stark in this country than in any of our competitor nations. That is what we have taken on, and we have a tough task. If the Conservatives are interested, as the hon. Member for Ashford claims, in concentrating on education provided for the disadvantaged, he should have stood up today and applauded the fact that, after six years of a Labour Government working with the education service, the percentage of pupils from working-class families reaching the expected standard in English has risen from 34 to 58 per cent. Which is the most improved borough in England, in terms of literacy and numeracy? It is Tower Hamlets. The next most improved boroughs are Darlington—[Interruption.] They were starting from a low base, but they had remained at that level year after year, and decade after decade.
The factor that has blighted our nation's education system is that Government after Government—of both political complexions—have failed to break the historic link between social class and educational attainment. We are beginning to change that.
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Estelle Morris: I will give way in half a second.

169
I will not take from any Tory Member, in the House or outside, any lecturing on their care for the education of disadvantaged children, when we can see their record and we can see the record of our progress.
Mr. Prisk: As a former chairman of an inner-London education establishment, I had to fight tooth and nail against a Labour local education authority that was trying to shut a school down. The Secretary of State's colleague, the Minister for School Standards, will know precisely the school to which I am referring, because he was leader of the council at the time. It is unacceptable for the Secretary of State to lecture hon. Members, saying that support for vulnerable children can come from only one side of the Chamber. All hon. Members on both sides of the House care about children, and to be lectured by the Secretary of State in this patronising manner is unacceptable.
Estelle Morris: Care does not get people a job; care does not get them into university; and care does not give them the skills that they need to earn a living. We get care from the Tories and action from Labour; that is the difference between the two sides in this Chamber. I do not deny that the Conservatives care. Care is not the preserve of any one political party.
Mr. Prisk rose—
Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would remember that I have just said that Governments of both parties have failed to break the historic link between social class and educational attainment. That describes past Labour Governments as much as past Tory Governments, but every time that Labour has been in power, we have taken the action and made the investment to close that gap. The reality is, however, that in 1997, the link between social class and educational attainment was strong. A poor kid of 11 had less chance of being able to read and write. A poor kid of 16 had less chance of getting five grade A to C GCSEs. A poor kid of 18 had a one in 15 chance of going to university, while a middle-class kid had a 70 per cent. chance of doing so at that age.
Okay, the Conservatives care, but this is about anger. This is about being furious that, historically, we have had a system that has not delivered for the poor. There is a difference between me and the hon. Member for Ashford. He says that he now cares for those in deprived areas, and that none of the action that we have taken in the past five years has had any impact. I shall stop talking about this issue, because it is not the main point of the debate. We inherited a system in which the children of the less well off were performing at a lower rate than those from the middle classes, and that gap was wider than in any of our competitor nations. We are beginning to close that gap. If the Conservatives do not believe us, they should look at the standard assessment test results, and at what Ofsted says. They should look at the results that the children are achieving.
I shall talk about truancy.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
Estelle Morris: I shall take one last point on this, then, with permission, I should like to move on to the main subject of the debate.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her attack on Labour local authorities. When the policy of child benefit removal comes into being, who will make the decision to remove child benefit from a family?
Estelle Morris: I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Ashford has decided that the head teacher will have that power. That needs a lot of thinking about. With respect, perhaps it would be better if I answered that question towards the end of my speech.
This is a serious issue. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can ask questions in the way that they see fit; I will answer in the way that I see fit. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raises an important issue. My view is clear: there are many other steps that we can take before we get to that point. However, because the consequences of truancy are so dire for children who miss school, we have to contemplate not only the withdrawal of benefit but imprisonment, as a magistrates court did last week. Talking about withdrawing child benefit has started a debate, and it is right that it has.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about who would withdraw the benefit, it could be a number of people or agencies, including head teachers and courts. When we have consulted on the issue, we will come back, as the Prime Minister said, with suggestions.
As far as I am concerned, such a measure is the end of the line. We hope that things work before such action is taken. I hoped that things would work before that mother was imprisoned, but they did not. There had been two years of intervention, investment and support that had been ignored. It is a difficult issue, but given that it could be one more weapon in our armoury for getting to grips with the problem, I think that it deserves the widest consideration in a mature way from people of all political parties and the nation as a whole.
I should like to make some progress on truancy and exclusions. It is right to say that the truancy figure has not budged—it has stayed stubbornly the same. Most of my Department's other public service agreement targets have moved in the right direction. I am immensely proud of what has been delivered by the education service, but the one PSA target on which we have not made any progress has been picked out for debate. I have no objection to that, but before we discuss the causes and what can be done, we should look further at the figures.
Before 1997, the truancy figures tell a different story. In fact, they have not budged since 1994. The hon. Member for Ashford may use the word "crisis" about figures of 0.7 per cent. in schools as a whole and 1.1 per cent. in secondary schools, but the figures have not increased between 1997 and 2001, and were the same in 1994. They are steady and sustained—they have not budged from when they were first collected in 1994 to 2002. Indeed, the figure for unauthorised absence in 1996 was 6.9 per cent., and we have managed to get that down to 6.5 per cent. In a debate about which party has the best set of figures, we win and the Tories lose. However, it is more serious than that. The truth is that ever since truancy and exclusion figures were first collected, no Government have managed to reduce the figures of 0.7 per cent. and 1.1 per cent.
Mr. George Osborne: The difference between this and the previous Government is that this Government had a

171
target to reduce the figures by a third. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that the figures have not budged—the Government have not kept their promise.
Estelle Morris: I am speechless. So this debate is not about boys and girls whose life chances are being ruined because they truant from school. Apparently it is about a Government target that has not been met. Let me tell the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) that the Government have targets so that we can be publicly accountable and transparent, we can monitor our progress and, at the end of the day, we can make life better for boys, girls, pupils, students and their families.
It does not matter, apparently, that the Tories did nothing to improve attendance—the fact that they did not have a target makes everything all right. That is the most pathetic excuse that I have ever heard for four years of Tory inaction.
Perhaps I might add to the tale of woe by agreeing that the consequences of not attending school are more dire than we might care to imagine. We can all make a long list of such consequences. Some 30 per cent. of current prisoners were truants. Truants are 10 per cent. more likely to be arrested, and 15 per cent. more likely to receive a formal police caution. Excluded pupils are more likely to offend than others. The list goes on and on, and there is the additional obvious point that those who are not at school cannot learn, and if they cannot learn they cannot pass exams. We live in a world where examination success is increasingly the currency that opens doors to life chances and earning a living.
I agree that this issue is important, and that we have found it very difficult to budge the figure, but we have made progress in many areas. I want to talk about some of the things that we have tried to do, the successes, and where we might go from here. However, I want to make the important point that most schools are orderly and disciplined places in which children and teachers are safe and a good standard of education is provided, and in which each and every one of us would be pleased and proud to have our children educated. It is right that we concentrate on the small but growing number of schools in which behaviour is a real problem, but in doing so we must acknowledge the good work that is done and positive ethos that exists in many of our schools.
Mr. John Randall: I am rather worried about the message that might be sent to our young people by the Government telling businesses that employees should be given time off to watch the World cup. Should we also be telling kids that they should have time off to do what they want to do?
Estelle Morris: What employers tell their employees is a matter for them, and I am not going to intervene in that issue. I accept that such situations can arise, and—with the greatest respect—the Queen Mother's funeral was an example. Head teachers debated whether to allow their pupils to miss lessons on the day of the funeral, and such decisions are best left to individual head teachers. I do not mean to sound evasive, but these are difficult issues for employers and head teachers. Of course, the World cup takes place every four years. Thankfully, more
172
serious events do not occur that often, so I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is particularly pertinent to today's discussion
Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend mentions the link between exclusions and crime, and as I have pointed out, 17 per cent. of current prison inmates were excluded from school. Does she accept that such people reoffend within two years of leaving prison? It costs this country £34,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and we have the largest prison population in Europe, excluding Portugal. Would not that money be better spent on education, and is not her Department therefore right to focus on permanent education for all our children from September?
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right: the best investment that we can make is in education—not only to help individuals, but to reduce social incohesion and ensure that such people get back into work and stay out of prison. That is a short, medium and long-term investment, with short, medium and long-term results.
Exclusions were rising in 1997. They fell to 8,000 last year, but they are rising again, as the formal figures will show when they are published later this week. However, the difference is that some of the 12,000 children who were excluded in 1997 were limited to as little as two, three or four hours' education a week. That was a national disgrace. Anyone who is genuinely interested in providing education for our most disadvantaged children—who have so much to lose by not remaining in education—should remember that the previous Tory Government's willingness to tolerate excluded children receiving so little education was a cause not for national concern, but of international disgrace.
The difference is that we have done two things. First, we have said to heads that they have the right to decide whether to exclude a child. Secondly, from September, we have set a target, which will be met, that if heads decide to exclude a child, that child will receive full-time education. That does not sound like too much to ask, but it has taken a Labour Government, five years of investment and a target that has been met to deliver that opportunity for excluded children, and we have done that by giving head teachers the choice about whether they exclude.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I welcome the fact that the Government expect to achieve that target, but how many of those 12,000 excluded pupils in 1997 who failed to be provided with full-time education were the customers of Labour education authorities?
Estelle Morris: I despair. When there is full-time education for excluded pupils in every local education authority in September, it does not matter whether it is provided by the Tories, Labour or Liberal Democrats. A Government have a responsibility—[Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that we are achieving the target by investing and spending money. We ask every LEA what they should be providing and what shortage they are experiencing. We then put in the capital so that they can build pupil referral units and provide the revenue so that they have the staff. That is why there are 1,000 more places in pupil referral units and 600 more staff than there were in 1997. It does not

173
matter whether the authority is Tory or Labour; the investment is spread throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that every Conservative-controlled local authority provided full-time education in 1997 for excluded pupils, I will take a risk and bet that he is wrong.
Chris Grayling: Surely the right hon. Lady must realise that the drive to reduce exclusions and to leave troublesome pupils in school, often by overruling head teachers and governing bodies, has made matters worse because it gives the message to troublemakers that they can get away with it. Many of today's problems have been caused by the drive to leave troublemakers unsanctioned in schools.
Estelle Morris: The issue is difficult. Front-Bench spokesmen, including myself, have made speeches about the problems of truancy and children not being in mainstream school. When exclusion meant as little as two, three or four hours' education a week, I believe that it was responsible of us to ask head teachers to think carefully about whether they should exclude because of the consequences of that decision, but the right to exclude was never removed. I think what happened was that as we were the first government to ask head teachers to think carefully before excluding, they felt a pressure not to exclude. Nothing was written down. There was no law. They were not directed not to exclude. However, I know from talking to heads that they were never happy excluding because they knew the nature of the provision that the child would then receive.
The key difference that we have made is that heads now have real choices. They can be assured that if they come to the end of the line and do not want a child in school for whatever reason—perhaps because of drug dealing, which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), has been dealing with today, or because of an assault on a member of staff—that child can be out of school but will still receive full-time education. Unless we do that, head teachers have no choice and there is no deal for young people.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Estelle Morris: No, I have been generous in giving way and this is a short debate.
Head teachers need other forms of support between telling a child off and excluding them. The hon. Member for Ashford said that no action had been taken in five years. We are now spending 10 times as much—£600 million—on truancy, exclusion and pupils' behaviour than the Tory Government did. That is why there are more than 1,000 on-site learning units that were not available in 1997; 3,500 learning mentors who were not available in 1997; 1,000 more places in pupil referral units that were not available in 1997; and 600 more staff than there were in 1997. In addition, the Connexions service serves all children from 13 upwards and we have provided more money for truancy sweeps so that education welfare officers can work with the police. Those improvements were not available in 1997. That is the nature of the investment, and that is the nature of our approach.
There is a real issue about whether that investment—which is massive, and there are always tough choices for Departments and Ministers about where the money
174
goes—has been effective. I think that it has. Although the global figures show that truancy does not budge much, and we have found it really difficult to move, the figures for the excellence in cities areas, which are the most disadvantaged—some people feel sorry about the children there, while some are determined to do something—show a decrease of 0.25 per cent., whereas the England average has increased by 0.2 per cent. I am not putting those figures to the House, saying, "There, we've found all the solutions, we've found the panacea." I am seriously saying, however, that an investment of £600 million, the introduction of initiatives that did not exist previously, and full-time education for children who are excluded have brought about real and better life chances in this most difficult of areas.
We have accepted the problem, and we have been very upfront about our difficulty in making the truancy target figures budge. This Government, more than any other, have, working with the profession, tried new and innovative ways of ensuring that we make progress. We have made progress, but not enough. In the years to come, however, we shall continue to evaluate carefully what works, and make sure that we spread that good practice to all our schools throughout the country.
4.36 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: May I commence my speech, which I promise the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will be fairly brief, by thanking the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for introducing this debate? As the Secretary of State said, it is about a very important issue, and it saddens me enormously that part of the debate descended into farce—we stopped talking about the real issues that affect long-term and even short-term truancy and exclusions, and were reduced to petty point-scoring across the Chamber.
I am unique on the Front Bench at the moment, as I spent the whole of my career as a teacher, particularly as a head, in schools that served the most demanding communities—in Middlesbrough, in east Leeds, in Chapeltown in Leeds, in Seacroft and in Gipton—where crime is especially high. I find it galling when I hear Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen talk about what the Government are failing to do. I can say with my hand on my heart that throughout my whole teaching career, very little changed for a significant proportion of those youngsters. There are no simplistic solutions—and with all due respect to the Secretary of State, I must add that if she believes that by introducing draconian solutions we can suddenly put an end to this problem, she does herself and her Government a disservice. The Conservatives need to look at some other countries to find a solution.
There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Ashford is right to say that the incidence of violence—pupil-on-pupil, pupil-on-teacher, and particularly parenton-teacher—has increased alarmingly over the last four or five years. That issue was not part of my experience as a head or as a teacher. I remember a lady hitting me over the head with an umbrella on one occasion, because she was annoyed that her daughter had not been allowed to go to a school disco. I presume that that was a spur of the moment action, however, and I am sure that she intended the umbrella for somebody else.
It is important to echo what the Secretary of State said—and, sadly, what the hon. Member for Ashford did not say—that the vast majority of children, in the vast

175
majority of our schools throughout the United Kingdom, not only in England and Wales, do not face a daily diet of violence, and teachers do not face a daily diet of assault. Most children achieve exceptionally well in our school system.
Chris Grayling: Although I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we are fortunate in this country in that the incidence of violence in schools is not great, does he not accept that recent research, particularly that published last year by the National Union of Teachers, highlights the fact that antisocial behaviour, threatening behaviour and abusive language in the classroom go far beyond the so-called problem schools and can be found right across society?
Mr. Willis: As ever, the National Union of Teachers has carried out splendid research. Those on the Conservative Front Bench frequently rely on it in their speeches, which is an interesting phenomenon. The hon. Gentleman attends these debates and always makes interesting interventions. I accept that there is an increased incidence of such behaviour in schools, but that is a reflection of society as a whole. We would find exactly the same behaviour in the village pub, in the supermarket and on the streets, whereas we might not have found it before. We must not single out schools; they are a microcosm of society.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: How dare I not?
Mr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy and good humour in allowing me to intervene. I am sure that he will acknowledge that people are not forced to go to pubs or supermarkets—although I accept that one may be forced to walk along the streets—but children are forced to go to school. Low level indiscipline is as of as much concern to many parents as the more elevated ill discipline about which we read in the press.
Mr. Willis: That is an interesting comment, but I do not think that I need to respond to it.
It is worrying that we are now seeing something that I did not see for most of my career. There has been a huge increase in street crime perpetrated by school children. We must address that issue, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, to suggest, as the hon. Member for Ashford did, that the problem appeared during the life of the present Government simply beggars belief. In 1991 there were 3,000 exclusions, but by 1996–97 the figure had risen to 12,700. If things were so fine in schools at that time, why was there more than a fourfold increase in the number of exclusions? It is wrong to suggest that we are dealing with a new phenomenon.
The hon. Member for Ashford too readily confuses different issues—truancy, poor behaviour, exclusions and crime—and ties the whole lot together, giving the impression that they are all one and the same. All four
176
issues are connected at some point in time, but if we want to find long-term solutions, we must not draw convenient conclusions.
The Secretary of State was right when she said that over the past 10 years the incidence of truancy has hardly risen. It was also honest of her to say that the Government had missed a target. It was a foolish target that was badly set, and although she did not admit that, it was good that she admitted that it had been missed.
The House must also recognise that a significant proportion of truancy—probably 80 per cent.—is condoned by parents. The vast bulk of it is the result of holidays taken not by the ne'er-do-wells in the inner-city areas that the hon. Member for Ashford described, but in well-heeled constituencies such as mine, when parents take their children out of school for their two-week annual holiday, or even longer. We have to accept that that is part and parcel of condoned truancy.
Truants are not necessarily criminals, however, and the House must recognise that there is a plethora of reasons why children do not attend school. School-phobics present a real problem for teachers, but they appear in the statistics as children who play truant. Four per cent. of all children who play truant are being severely bullied, and I know from personal experience how difficult that can be within the family. Children may truant because of peer group pressure or dislike of lessons, particularly PE. Those factors are as prevalent now as they were when hon. Members were at school.
What is not in dispute is the fact that a vast increase in juvenile crime occurs when children are truanting or are excluded, and there is a massive problem that has to be addressed. The Metropolitan police point to alarming statistics: 40 per cent. of robberies, 25 per cent. of burglaries and 20 per cent. of thefts in London are performed by 10 to 16-year-olds during school hours. Even more disturbing is the picture painted by the recently published 2002 youth crime survey, conducted by MORI, with one in four schoolchildren saying that they have committed a crime in the past 12 months. We must address the fact that crime, especially low-level crime, is acceptable to young people.
We must, however, draw a distinction between children who occasionally truant and those who are long-term truants or have been excluded or expelled from school. Another interesting statistic from the youth crime survey is that of those children who commit crime, the number who did so before they truanted from school is almost the same as the number who began committing crime after they started truanting. That supports the point, which I was making to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that this is a societal issue, and there are real problems that must be addressed.
What is particularly damning about the new survey is that two thirds of children excluded from school have been responsible for a recorded crime and that permanently excluded children are responsible, on average, for 44 crimes a year each. Those are two staggering statistics, and they must be addressed. Permanently excluded children are more likely to drink, to take drugs, to damage property, to handle stolen goods, to commit assault and to carry a weapon. However, the biggest problem arising from long-term truancy and exclusion is the damage that those young people do to themselves. The future for them, far from being bright, is distinctly dismal.

177
Equally dismal is the fact that the same categories of children who were excluded 10 years ago are at the centre of today's exclusion bonanza. They include children in care and children from minority communities, particularly Afro-Caribbean boys and Bangladeshis. They include children who have special needs, who are seven times more likely to be excluded than other children, and children with low levels of attainment, many of whom, as the Secretary of State rightly said, end up in our prisons. Eight per cent. of persistent truants achieve five good GCSEs, compared with 54 per cent. of children who do not truant at all. Three quarters of homeless teenagers on the streets today were either permanently excluded or were long-term truants before they ran away from home.
None of those issues was addressed by the hon. Member for Ashford, who spoke for the Conservatives. Yet his party leader made a speech this morning about connecting the Tory party with real communities and offering solutions. That is the sad thing about where the Tory party is, as opposed to where it would like to be. MPs talk glibly about getting tough—with respect, I must point out that Members on both Front Benches have done so—but I hope that they will stop and think that for many of the young people about whom they are talking, life is already very tough indeed.
Mr. John Hayes: As always when I intervene on the hon. Gentleman's speeches in such debates, I pay tribute to his knowledge and his commitment to the subject. I am disappointed, however, that he should pour scorn on what the leader of the Conservative party said this morning, because my right hon. Friend was making some of the same points that the hon. Gentleman makes about our responsibility and duty to address such issues in a non-partisan way for the benefit of those who are least able to speak for themselves. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage and integrity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for making that speech this morning.
Mr. Willis: I, too, have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—we have been friendly adversaries for some time—but with all due respect to him, may I say that words come easily, but it is actions, and providing resources to support those actions, that really matter? Not a single word from the Leader of the Opposition this morning, nor a single word in the book recently written by the hon. Member for Ashford, refers to any solution, with real answers and real resources, to attack real problems; what comes from them is just words.
Geraint Davies: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. Does he agree that the real challenge for the Government is to provide the right sort of specialist educational facilities, properly resourced, to match the real needs of excluded children in a way that will deliver educational success and lower crime? In particular, he says that the Afro-Caribbean community is disproportionately affected by exclusion. That difficulty is in turn reflected in the prison population, and then spirals back on itself through reoffending. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that difficulty can also be addressed by providing the right sort of educational opportunities,
178
not just pupil referral units, which sound a bit like borstals, but proper intensive education to get people back on the straight and narrow?
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for making that point, with which I shall deal—although briefly, because although we would like to spend more time on such issues, I am mindful of my promise to the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
I was about to say that the Government have introduced several interesting initiatives in the past five years to tackle some of the inherent problems. What saddens me is that of late, the Government have gone for the Daily Mail approach of removing benefits from families, which affects the whole family rather than an individual. I find the imprisoning of a single mother for 30 days totally unacceptable. The Secretary of State and her colleagues—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ashford—supported that move. We differ fundamentally there; I do not believe that that mother was a danger to society. We must strip away some of those issues and find coherent wholesome ways to treat some of the problems.
The Government have put a significant amount of additional resources into tackling some of the issues. Electronic registration, pupil referral units, in-school behaviour units, mentors, the Connexions service and even bringing in the police and other agencies are all issues on which the Government have our broad support. However, I find it difficult to understand why the Government have not attacked some of the central reasons why children do not attend school. The evidence is before us: the most significant reason that children give for not attending school long term is that they do not like it; they do not like the lessons.
Liz Blackman: Speaking as one person who has spent all their former life in education to another, and accepting that the problem is very complex, I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that one of the fundamental necessities in motivating children is the quality of the teaching offered in schools. Often children muck about or refuse to go to school because there is nothing on offer. I am not denigrating the majority of teachers, who provide a good service, but I spent a long time in school and I knew, by looking along the corridor, where children would be well served and where they would not. I could see bad behaviour forming as children walked down the corridor. Are not good teaching and the standards that we have driven up an absolutely core element?
Mr. Willis: If the hon. Lady believes that, she must be ashamed of her own Ministers, who have done even more than the Conservative Government to demoralise teachers during their five years in office. I agree with her overall sentiments. I certainly agree that quality teaching is at the heart of the agenda. But if she believes that putting up all those hurdles for pupils to fall over—introducing initiative after initiative in classrooms, and subjecting children to 87 different tests between the age of five, when they start school, and 19, when they leave—is improving the lot of youngsters, I disagree with her.
Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
Mr. Willis: I am too generous; I will.
Liz Blackman: Ofsted has found that the quality of teaching has risen significantly over the past few years. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he has made a pretty cheap point. The evidence is there: teaching is improving, and the results that pupils are achieving are improving as a consequence.
Mr. Willis: I did not mean to be disrespectful to the hon. Lady; it is just that, like her, I feel passionately about this subject.
It is true that for a significant number of young people in a significant number of schools, both the product offered and the results achieved are improving—but the gap between high-performing and low-performing schools is widening, and it is the kids whom we are discussing today who continue to get a poor deal at the bottom of the pile. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashford agrees with the Liberal Democrats about the curriculum currently on offer. The diet presented to a significant number of our youngsters is entirely inappropriate; in 2002 it is not possible to provide a 1988 grammarian's national curriculum handed down from on high, with a "one size fits all" examination structure, and sustain the belief that children can be reconnected.
We must listen to young people. We must listen to the reasons why so many of them have been turned off school. What is being offered to numerous young people is unacceptable. That is not a criticism of our schools; it is a criticism of successive Governments who have been increasingly telling schools what to do, and when and how to do it. We must break out of that spiral.
It is sad that we should allow ourselves to reach a point at which permanent exclusions are seen as the only answer. The Secretary of State half fell into that trap today, and the hon. Member for Ashford constantly makes the same claim. All that the Tories had to say in their 2001 manifesto was that they wanted to give head teachers an instant ability to kick kids out of school. That is not the final solution. [Interruption.] With respect, the hon. Member for Ashford said very little else in that manifesto. Free schools and kick kids out of schools—that was about the sum total.
The subject of exclusions is crucial. It goes right back to an issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight; it is a society issue. A head teacher may exclude a child from a school, but the child cannot be excluded from the community in which he or she lives. Members who represent deprived communities know that only too well. The kids I excluded from my school ended up at the school gates every day, because they had nowhere else to go. Providing full-time education for the kids who are excluded today is important, but it must be the right type of full-time education.
Members visiting Slough today would be able to observe an experiment involving an exclusion-free zone. Children's next port of call is organised before they actually need to be excluded. That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies): we have to make the right provision. It is not merely a matter of giving children five, six or 10 hours a week—we have to offer them the right provision.
Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: I am sorry, but I cannot give way; I must conclude my speech—otherwise I shall be shot.
180
I meet many young people, especially in Lambeth, where I spend time at present, and in Islington. When they talk about school they say that no one ever listens to them. They talk about school as though it were an alien institution. I leave the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), with this thought: if we genuinely want to make inroads into the problems of truancy and exclusion, we must listen to young people. If we listen to why they opt out, ultimately we shall find a solution.
5.1 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I feel rather guilty after making the jocular suggestion that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) make a briefer contribution than normal, because I was really enjoying his speech. It was thoughtful, as ever. The hon. Gentleman's experience in education is almost unparalleled in the Chamber. When he is not making hardline political points, he addresses the question and it is very good to listen to him.
I experience a sense of disappointment on these occasions, however, because we are constricted by these Opposition day debates. The Opposition have to choose a subject; they have to be controversial and they have to be nasty about the Government. Sometimes that knockabout style works well, but it is really not right for the subjects of truancy and discipline which are important educational issues. An enormous amount of thought, research and activity are needed to address the problems.
Every Member who has contributed to the debate—apart from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—agreed that most of our students attend school regularly, enjoy quality teaching and perform pretty well. We know that standards have been rising during the past six years—as we hear in the Select Committee on Education and Skills when we interview Ofsted officials. That is not a partisan political point.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the number of unauthorised school non-attendances has not budged; it is 0.7 per cent. There is a slight change in the numbers when we compare primary and secondary schools, but by and large the level is constant. When the Select Committee visited France to study the parallels between our system and the French one, the chief inspector of schools in France said that the problem was similar—the truancy rate is persistent. From my American connections, I know that that is true in the United States; it is also true in Germany. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom.
The percentage is small but the problem can be made to sound like the end of the civilised world by tabling an early-day motion or an Opposition motion on it. To say that there are 5 million or 6 million unauthorised non-attendances in an average year sounds horrific, but that ignores the fact that although the problem is persistent, the rate is constant.
The Government were unwise to set a target on that most difficult matter. They are satisfied that they have met some of their targets, or have at least made some progress, but they have not met their target on truancy. It is a very difficult problem, all of whose aspects are interconnected. If one talks frankly to teachers about non-attendance, some of them—quietly, yet wisely—say

181
that if the 0.7 per cent. who should be in school were there, it would make life in the classroom much more difficult. That is the truth of the matter. So we must consider such people and decide how to tackle them.
We are not going to get everybody to go to school. Indeed, I confess that there were one or two days on which I did not go to school in Hampton—at that time in my career it was probably because of the lure of taking a boat out on the Thames. That was not with my parents' approval. I feel guilty now about the days that I missed, but let us consider the serious parts of the problem.
Some of the research is very interesting. In his book, "Tackling Truancy in Schools", which is published by Routledge, Ken Reid has broken down the causes of truancy into social, psychological and institutional factors and conducted in-depth research into those who are truants.
Under social factors, the domestic lives of those asked—family circumstances, and so on—account for 16 per cent. of truancy. Peer-group influence accounts for 10 per cent., and going out for a bit of entertainment, as I did for a couple of days, accounts for 2 per cent. Employment is cited as a cause in 1 per cent. of cases. On the psychological side, the figure for illness is 9 per cent., and for psychosomatic disorders it is 1 per cent. Pure laziness accounts for only 2 per cent., which I thought was refreshing. So, the picture is complicated.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough disagreed with one of my hon. Friends on the subject of quality of teaching. I do not think that truancy is a question of the quality of teaching. We have heard much criticism of inner cities, and I note that the Opposition have today criticised the Government on that matter and that the Leader of the Opposition has launched an initiative highlighting problems in those areas. The truth is that teaching in the inner city is difficult in particular because of the transient nature of the population. If one talks to teachers just down the road from these Houses of Parliament, they say "For goodness sake, we do not know on any day who will be there to be taught." That is not because of truancy but because of the nature of the moving populations in our inner cities. According to the research, school transfers, which are listed under the institutional factors relating to truancy, account for 16 per cent. of cases.
Another very worrying figure in the research is that 15 per cent. of truancy is attributable to bullying, and I know that the Government have taken initiatives on bullying. In reflecting on the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on the matter, I think that violence in schools, whether against teachers or pupils, is a no-go area, and that exclusion should be used in response to it.
Only 10 per cent. of truancy is caused by unhappiness with the curriculum and examinations, which is significant, and I entirely agree with other speakers in this debate on that subject. I know that I sometimes become tedious when, in reflecting on my own school experience, I comment on the number of children who were sat at the back or in the middle of a class, not excited by the curriculum or the diet of education that they received at school. Many such pupils always felt that only the pure academics in the class received all the stars, the brownie points and the encouragement. The other pupils felt disheartened and lacked self-esteem as a result.
182
The Government are starting to address the problem—but not fast enough—of exciting the imagination of all the young people in a classroom. I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough agrees with me on that.
Only 6 per cent. of truancy is caused by school rules and punishment. Only 5 per cent. of those asked said that the teachers put them off school and made them play truant. The desire to leave accounts for 4 per cent. of truancy. I have gone through that research because it shows the complexity of the subject. We asked Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector, which were the best ways of tackling that complex area. He came up with a range of proposals that Ofsted is considering; I am surprised that the hon. Member for Ashford did not mention any of them. Ofsted has been looking at absences condoned by parents who do not value school attendance highly; poor resistance to, and recovery from, illness, especially among low-income families, where there is a higher rate of illness; disaffection with the curriculum offered at school, particularly key stage 4; and difficulty coping with school work because of underdeveloped literacy skills, which is very important indeed. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a political point about central direction from the Government and the Department. Of course there is a balance, but if four out of 10 pupils are not reaching literacy and numeracy targets, the Government know that that is important. Any Secretary of State would realise that they must do something.
Liz Blackman: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Does he agree that children without reasonable literacy or numeracy skills cannot access the curriculum, whatever its content?
Mr. Sheerman: Absolutely. I was about to make an even stronger point: if children feel embarrassed because they have not learned to read and write, that quickly becomes apparent to their peers in the classroom. Lack of esteem and self-worth can lead to fear of going to school. There is a lot of evidence that children who do not attain basic literacy skills become school-phobic.
Ofsted also looked at poor relationships with school staff; poor relationships with fellow pupils at key stages 2 and 3; and difficult home circumstances, including lack of parental discipline and control.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points; I was particularly struck by the one that he just made about self-esteem in the classroom. He referred to the transient nature of some school populations. Does he accept that society probably needs to look again at the parental behaviour towards children that it is prepared to tolerate, and the transient lifestyle that moves children from one school to another, week after week? That kind of behaviour does not allow children to develop properly, so should we take steps to prevent it?
Mr. Sheerman: Absolutely. Figures published this morning on drug addiction show that there are 40,000 drug addicts in the country, but some people reckon that that is an underestimate and the true figure is four or five times higher and is about 200,000. A lot of those people are parents; children in Huddersfield, and elsewhere I

183
am sure, have been brought up by drug-addicted parents. The relationship between drug addiction, drug dependency and quality of home life is horrible to contemplate. We should also think about alcohol abuse by parents and many other deficiencies in children's home background.
The methods that we use to get children to come to school, stay there and get the education that will fulfil their potential are a sensitive issue. It is a crime to say that there is a one size fits all solution because there is not. We know that different parts of our constituencies and different communities have different problems. I, too, am horrified by the fact that a woman has gone to prison for not sending her child to school. However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, as I believe that the sentence was correct. We have a system in which people worked with a parent—I do not want to mention her name—for two years. Given the cost to society of working with that family, in which there are five children, and the fact that that still resulted in failing to get the parent to co-operate and send her children to school, a sentence is needed that makes the public realise that the responsibility rests with the parent.
It hurts me that there should be such a sentence; I hate it. In a former life I was the shadow Minister for Home Affairs, and I remember campaigning about the large number of women who went to prison in the mid-1990s for not paying their television licences. There were hundreds of them, every year—800 in the mid-1990s. The courts did not know how to deal with their refusal to pay, so they went to prison. Some went to prison willingly, having refused to pay the fine. Now there are just a few—the last statistic was 30 or 40, mostly women—who go to prison for not paying their television licences.
Some of the laws of our society conclude with a prison sentence. I feel bad about that. Of course we do not want any more people to go to prison for failing to send their children to school, but that must remain a last resort.
We pushed the chief inspector to suggest other ways of making sure that children come to school and that parents co-operate and understand the importance of a child attending school. There has been a great fuss about even contemplating the withdrawal of child benefit, but we should not exclude that as an option. Most of the resources—90 per cent.—must be devoted to encouraging children to go to school, making it a good experience for them. But perhaps someone in society must say to parents, "You are receiving benefit, so perhaps you have a responsibility to act like a responsible citizen."
I shall give the House one example. I do not want to pick on one part of the community, but we know that there is a problem of non-attendance among Afro-Caribbean boys. There are also problems of discipline and non-attendance among white working-class boys in many inner-city constituencies. There is also the example of Asian girls; I have a particular problem in west Yorkshire, where parents take young girls out of school for long periods. The girls might end up as domestic drudges at home or be taken back to Pakistan or Bangladesh for a long time, and come back only when their education is utterly destroyed, sometimes two or three years later. It is not acceptable to destroy someone's life chances like that.
184
For different communities, there should be a range of measures to show that society expects parents to bring their children to school and to encourage them to attend school. In any community, some behaviour which results in the children being kept out of school is not acceptable. I am not saying that withdrawal of child benefit is the right answer, but we should consider all the options and the difficulties in the various communities, and make sure that we get it right.
Mr. Willis: I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. May I inform him that under a Labour Government there are 4,000 women in prison on short-term sentences, which is the largest number since the Victorian era? Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that Asian parents whose children go back to Pakistan or Bangladesh for six months would come before the courts for sentencing because their children had been deliberately excluded from school? Is that under consideration? The hon. Gentleman is very honest, as he usually is, in supporting the proposal to remove benefit. In a family of four, if the benefit for one child is removed, how does that improve the life chances of that family?
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as Chairman of the Select Committee, I am trying to be as thoughtful as possible about the issue. I am trying to underline its complexity. I do not want to throw out of consideration anything that will help in tackling the diverse problems and in handling the different reactions in communities. The discussions and research that have so far occurred have raised some new issues. We may consider the option of child benefit withdrawal and then discard it. As I said, I would hate imprisonment routinely to be considered, as it should be the end of a long journey and is to be avoided at every cost.
Of course, I come back to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough quickly and say that there must be incentives—and perhaps penalties—for people who take their children out of education for long enough to damage their long-term life chances. The House does not know what the right balance is, but it has every right to consider that question in terms of the real people whom we represent in our constituencies and not some unreal set of people and circumstances.
Let us consider all the circumstances. For example, we have all been rather quiescent about the size of schools. Some very interesting American research suggests that truancy and reluctance to go to school are very much related to the size of the institution. We have all been part of the conspiracy that believes that big schools are cheaper and more efficient and effective. I remember visiting a school that I thought to be pretty large as it had 700 pupils; unfortunately, in those days, they were all boys. However, when I now visit comprehensive schools of double that size, I wonder what sort of community can be built in a school that has more than 1,000 pupils.
Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore share my concerns about the future of small sixth forms, which can also provide the sense of community to which he refers and deliver excellent results?
Mr. Sheerman: That question may be relevant, but I want to concentrate on smaller schools. The building of communities is very important in any institution. Some

185
sixth forms are far too small and some are too large. A sixth form must be of a viable size if a community is to be built; equally, schools should not be so big as to make it very difficult for that to happen.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was absolutely right to finish on the note of listening to pupils—something that is often left out in education debates. We must also remember, however, that the essence of a school is a community. The people in a school work and live together for a large part of the week and have all the hallmarks of a community. If we cannot build a community in a school, we are in trouble. Some of the schools that I have visited are struggling on the problem of building a community.
Yes, there are some answers. We should look to smaller schools, homework clubs, family literacy classes and, yes, truancy officers. We need good practice on identifying the problems of truancy and working at them. The difference between good and average practice is dramatic. I have visited schools where staff have been working as a team to identify problems early. The most important thing about truancy is to nip it in the bud early, and there is a need to watch carefully which pupils are likely to play truant and check very quickly when they start failing to appear. That means staff visits; of course, we can all almost hear the National Union of Teachers saying, "So you're expecting members of staff to trail round to people's homes." In the best schools, good practice on truancy also happens in terms of team work, early identification and nipping problems in the bud. The educational welfare officer will be considering the individual circumstances of the child and family and tackling them by finding out whether the problem is bullying or whether the school is not as approachable as it should be.
I suspect that not much progress will be made on getting the awful 0.7 per cent. truancy level down—let us realise that it is only 0.7 per cent.—through central direction, which will not deliver easy and quick results. Indeed, we have already seen that it has not done so. What will work most effectively is to find out what is good practice and who uses it, then to network and spread it as fast as we can. That is not dramatic, nor is it probably what the Government are looking for, because all Governments want to be able to say, "Look what we did, and we did it through this miracle piece of legislation." The work will be much harder than that. It will mean working in partnership with schools—a whole range of people, including governors—to ensure that this difficult problem, which will not go away, is resolved.
5.25 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who brings a particular and extraordinary insight to these matters. If he had been able to continue for even longer with his sensitive remarks about incarceration, he would have begun to engage the interest of the whole House.
Mark Twain said that he never let his schooling get in the way of his education. Behind that piece of wit lies an important truth. Education is not solely about the work of schools, and it is certainly not solely about book learning—it is also about attitudes and values. I guess that most hon. Members would agree with that sentiment, but some might not want to continue on the journey with me
186
when I say that schools' concentration on that which is measurable has obscured much of the central purpose of education—to produce young people who are well balanced, well rounded, positive and have a clear sense of responsibility towards their fellow men and of duty towards their communities and their nation. If education is reduced to a factory process designed to manufacture a product to a common standard, the currency of education is debased and the role of the educator is minimised. That is the temptation for Governments of all political persuasions. They like targets on which they can be measured and on which they are able to champion their achievements, and shy away from dealing with more complex aspects of education such as the measurement of attitudes or values—if indeed those can be measured in any definitive way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said, if one forces people by law to go to school for 11 years and endure education for at least that long, one has certain responsibilities and duties towards them as regards the ethos of the school that they attend, the attitudes of the people who educate them, the behaviour of their fellow students and, ultimately, the quality of life that they can expect to enjoy. This debate is principally about the quality of life, not the measurables that politicians dwell on too much.
The critical issue concerns our expectations about the quality of life that all students should be able to enjoy at school, regardless of whether they happen to be born and educated in an inner city, a leafy suburb or a rural backwater. I would never describe any part of my constituency as a backwater—although water is pretty prevalent in the fens—but historically in some rural areas, including the Lincolnshire fens, educational expectations have not been as high as they should be. It is not easy for teachers in such places, with very small schools and communities, to raise the horizons of individual students. However, that is the task in which they are engaged, and they do sterling work.
Regardless of background, children should be able to expect a decent quality of life in the statutory period of schooling. When that does not happen, it is too easy for parents and communities to blame teachers, and for teachers to blame the people at home. I do not believe that good teachers or sensible parents do that, but it is an easy route to take. We have all heard, "If only they had sorted him out at school and got a grip on the situation, Johnny wouldn't be in the mess he's in today." Similarly, teachers sometimes say, "Why don't we have more support from home? If we could do something about the parents, the problem would disappear." Everyone who takes a keen interest in the subject, including educators and responsible parents, understands that there is a partnership between home and school: the one is inseparable from the other.
Society has wider expectations of standards of decency and responsibility, and Members of Parliament have a duty to pay attention to them. Just as Governments are fond of limiting education to its measurable aspects, so politicians shy away from discussion of attitudes and values because they are hard to measure or change through legislation. However, if we do not deal with them, we ignore important aspects of the human condition that extend beyond standard of living, beyond material self-interest and beyond individual attainment to the quality of life that we should expect not only in schools but in society more generally.

187
Against that background, I want to make three points. None is especially partisan; I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be pleased to hear that as he criticised my honourable, noble and distinguished colleagues on the Front Bench for being too partisan.
Standards of behaviour in our schools are undoubtedly declining. I do not pretend that that started in 1997, and it may be a product of lower expectations and the brutalisation of society. Conservative Members who are conservative to our very core instinctively believe that things were once better than they are. Perhaps that sentiment is in every true Conservative's heart. Perhaps the progressives and radicals who occupy the Labour Benches—I hesitate so that someone may correct me—similarly mislead and deceive themselves that things are inevitably getting better. That is part of the tension between ideas in this House. Yet it is palpably true that standards of behaviour in our schools have declined. We have evidence for that from several sources, including Ofsted. Its annual reports repeatedly draw attention to its anxieties about standards of behaviour. Teaching unions and representatives draw attention to the quality of life that their members and those whom their members teach have sadly to endure. Earlier in the debate, we heard about the increasing incidence of violence in schools, by pupils against teachers and pupils against pupils. They are all causes for sadness and regret, but they must be acknowledged. We should not pretend that everything in the garden is rosy.
I am not a sycophant, but I make no apology for quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I admire the comments that he made earlier today:
"In some of our inner cities, as many as one in 10 pupils leave schools without a single GCSE and truancy is rocketing. Compare this with places like Redbridge or Buckinghamshire where more than 90 per cent. of children gain five or more GCSEs…For generations too many experts have told us all it is unfair to expect children from inner cities to strive for the same standards as everybody else. I say it is unfair to expect anything less."
This issue is also centred on particular parts of the country. We know that there are profound problems in some of our inner cities, and among certain social groups. We also know that the standards that can be expected by parents and students on some estates in some parts of the country are all too low. So this is not simply a problem; it is a problem that disproportionately affects some of our most vulnerable citizens, and we have a particular and special duty to those people to address it.
Similarly, truancy is increasing, and it is all very well for the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, to suggest that this is a matter about which we can be relatively complacent. I was surprised to hear him suggest that we could, because he is a responsible chap who takes his role on that Committee very seriously. The truth of the matter is that truancy is increasing. The Government's own figures tell us that it has increased in each and every year since 1997. The hon. Gentleman will know that the incidence of truancy is disproportionate in certain parts of the country
188
and that it affects certain schools very seriously. I obviously have figures different from those that the hon. Gentleman is using.
Mr. Sheerman: The House of Commons Library, which I normally rely on, has given me the figures for unauthorised absence in all schools for 1993–94, right through to 2001. Those figures do not change: they are 0.7 per cent. for each year. There is a little difference between maintained secondary and maintained primary schools, but that same figure of 0.7 per cent. applied for nine years.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman masks the truth using statistics, as people who are trying to mask the truth often do. Let me tell him the numbers. They have risen consistently, year on year. The number of days lost at all schools in 1997–98 had increased by something like 10 per cent. by 2001. We can bandy figures about, but it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that truancy is a significant problem, when Members on his Front Bench do. They recognise that fact, which is why they have set targets, made speeches about the problem, and believe that measures need to be introduced to address it. I do not want to open up a gulf between Labour Front Benchers and the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, so I suggest that he look at some of their speeches, study some of the measures, and hold further discussions with his ministerial colleagues.
Ofsted certainly recognises the problem of truancy. On 6 February 2002, it suggested that 10,000 children are missing from state schools, and that no one knows exactly what they get up to when they should be in class. Mr. Tomlinson, the chief inspector of schools, suggested that some might be working "in the black economy". Unfortunately, many of them stray into criminal activity. Of course, there is no direct correlation between truancy and crime, but we know, from what the local constabularies and the social services departments of councils tell us, that there is a relationship between truancy and crime, and that should be a matter of grave concern for Members throughout House. Truancy is a significant and growing problem.
Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that teacher demoralisation is a real problem. This is, of course, related to the quality of life that teachers can expect to endure in our schools. Given a choice between teaching in a comfortable school somewhere in the leafy suburbs of London or teaching in the inner city, it would take a brave, devoted and committed person to teach in the inner city. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) wants to intervene to tell me about his teaching experiences in the leafy suburbs.
Vernon Coaker: No, I am just listening.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene; that was just a sedentary intervention. I know that he had an extremely distinguished career as an educator in the leafy suburbs—
Vernon Coaker: It was not in a leafy suburb.
Mr. Hayes: Just a distinguished career, then.

189
Given the choice, most teachers would, not unnaturally, opt for the quieter life. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are motivated, encouraged and rewarded for taking on the difficult challenges involved in educating the children who may not necessarily have the same support from home, and who will not necessarily come to school as well prepared, as their contemporaries out in the leafy suburbs, in which the hon. Gentleman certainly did not teach but which he equally certainly now represents.
Geraint Davies: In my constituency there is an economically challenged area which contains an education action zone. The Good Shepherd Catholic school in the education action zone had the highest level of unauthorised absences in the country last year, at 7.7 per cent. I am pleased to say that this year, the figure for unauthorised absences is down to 0.2 per cent., when the national average is 0.5 per cent. The secret is that the head teacher has been telephoning the parents on the first day of absence, asking why the pupil is not at school and working through the problems—which are varied, as has been mentioned—with the parents. The local authority is now employing people to do that. I mention this to make the point that even in the most challenging area that has the worst history of absenteeism—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is very lengthy.
Mr. Hayes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to be the first and possibly the only person to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) for his contribution to that improvement in the school, for no other reason than the fact that he has raised it in the House. It is important that we celebrate good work, because that is part of re-instilling a sense of pride and purpose in our teachers and our head teachers when they face challenges and difficulties.
Chris Grayling rose—
Mr. Hayes: I know that other hon. Members want to intervene to seek the very same kind of praise so that they can issue local press releases.
Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am not planning to issue a local press release but merely to ask him whether he believes that the amount of initiatives and paperwork that head teachers routinely deal with makes it more or less likely that they will have the time to do what the head teacher in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) has done.
Mr. Hayes: I said that I would not be unnecessarily partisan, but part of the agenda in terms of maintaining the morale of head teachers and classroom teachers is to ensure that they focus on their role as educators and are not taken down the tributary of becoming managers. Of course, there has always been a management function associated with running any school, but it is also true that there has been excessive red tape in schools. I am less concerned about the pen pushing than about the confusion created by a succession of initiatives—some are contradictory and many overlap—that sap the energy, initiative and drive of head teachers, teachers and
190
governors. That is the real problem that lies at the heart of my hon. Friend's question. However, to avoid accusations of not being balanced, I pay tribute to him as well for the work that he has done in highlighting that important matter on behalf of his constituents.
The problem of discipline in schools is acknowledged by the Government and by the hon. Members for Gedling and for Croydon, Central. Only the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee does not acknowledge it, but I think that on this occasion we can regard him as a noble exception to the rule.
I suggest that there are five things that we can do about the problem. I thought initially of four ideas, but four does not sound as good as five, so I thought of another one. First, we should he bold and brave enough to give schools more power to deal with these problems in ways they feel appropriate. In different situations, different parts of the country and different communities, different solutions will apply. In schools with a significant proportion of pupils from ethnic minorities, where Afro-Caribbean or Asian pupils may form the majority, solutions to problems will be entirely different from those relevant to disaffected, white working-class pupils. Of course there will be similarities and parallels, but such schools may well have to adopt different solutions that involve working with local communities and being sensitive to local needs and differences. It is appropriate to be much more bold in devolving power to local communities and institutions, so that they can sort out such matters.
The second solution is to re-elevate the role of the educator. Every great civilisation throughout history—ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Persians, the Chinese—has valued and revered educators, yet early 21st-century western society demeans and diminishes them. What does that say about our faith in the future of our nation and our children? We should not only give our teachers more authority and the power to adapt to local needs to sort out such problems, but support them when they get into difficulties. One of the great cries of teachers is that they do not feel properly supported when parents and pupils subject them to legal challenges and other such difficulties. If we believe in teachers and we want others to do so, it is essential that we support them when they have problems with discipline.
We need also to develop a curriculum that is more relevant to people's needs. As the hon. Member for Gedling will know—he probably experienced what I am about to describe, although not in the leafy suburbs—it is no fun taking out a battered textbook on a wet Friday afternoon and trying to teach the French revolution to a group of dissolute 16-year-olds who want to go home and do something much more exciting. Many teachers are faced with that prospect, and we must be more sensitive to the differing needs of pupils and groups of pupils. We need a curriculum that is relevant. If education is not relevant, we cannot expect to engage a significant number of those who do not see their future as academic and involving further and higher education. We need to provide an education that they regard as relevant to their real potential.
We certainly need more inter-agency work. We must work much more creatively with the different agencies involved with truanting students and their families. In that regard, there is significant overlap between police, social services, other local authority departments, the voluntary sector and schools. Information is not always exchanged

191
as effectively as it could be, and the experts involved do not always communicate well with each other. Parents and communities do not feel that such problems are being approached holistically. Labour and Conservative Governments have failed to grasp that nettle, but given that we are discussing the current Government, it is the Under-Secretary who had better grasp it—and with both hands.
We need to be absolutely clear about what happens to pupils when they are excluded. As truancy has increased—I am surprised that the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee is no longer here to challenge my figures, but he can do so later—exclusions have diminished. They have diminished because the Government took the wrong decision. They set unrealistic and deeply unpopular exclusion targets that took power away from governors and head teachers, and did not enable teachers to follow their instincts on excluding pupils, even when such instincts were entirely justified and right.
Part of the problem is that excluded pupils are often sent into a black hole. I have already mentioned the 10,000 pupils whom we know nothing about. Reports to the local education committee of which I was a member on what was happening to excluded pupils were usually summarised by the phrase: "Work is being set." We never heard what that work was, how it was going to be marked, whether it got there, whether it came back, or at what level it was set. All we knew was that work was being set and we were meant to satisfied with that. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and I did not have a chance to consider that further in our local education committee because of the lack of time. However, I am sure he was as concerned as I was that those pupils who were excluded sometimes—perhaps often—disappeared from the system.
Pupil exclusion units often do a fine job, but we must be more certain about what education is being offered to excluded children. We need to have faith that exclusion does not mean permanent banishment to outer space. There should be more opportunity for children to move in and out of the system. There is a feeling that once children are excluded permanently from a single school, they are banished for ever. The approach needs to be more flexible so that people have another chance. We need to give them another bite of the cherry so that they can be brought back into the system to fulfil their potential.
I have cited five ideas, none of which is partisan or, I hope, too negative. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not in the Chamber to hear my non-partisan speech. If he were, he might have to revise his stereotyped ideas about the Conservatives. It is right that we should raise our sights beyond the partisan debate to a more glorious future, not least because, as Aristotle said:
"Educated men are as much superior to the uneducated men as the living are to the dead."
We do not hear Aristotle quoted often in the House, so I hope that hon. Members pricked up their ears at that. Although I would not go as far as Aristotle, I would go as far as Plutarch, who said:
"The very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in the felicity of lighting on good education."
192
It is because of that that we have to raise our sights beyond the party political squabble.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are committed to providing decent quality education for all our children. I make no apology for saying that that applies disproportionately to the most vulnerable; nor do I apologise for saying that it is my responsibility and, I believe, the responsibility of the House to devote disproportionate time and energy to that group. We must bring all our skills to the problem so that our children get a fair and decent chance, especially those who are most disadvantaged.
That is certainly our duty; let us make it our mission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If contributions are kept brief, perhaps a greater number of hon. Members will be successful in catching my eye.
5.53 pm
Colin Burgon: I hope that my brief contribution will also be effective and continue the non-partisan approach set by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
It is necessary to retain a perspective about truancy and discipline in school. The overwhelming majority of kids in our schools are well behaved and do not truant, and the overwhelming majority of teachers do a highly effective job. As an ex-teacher of 16 years' standing, I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who told us that an irate parent had hit him over the head with an umbrella. I taught just down the road, and umbrellas were a luxury.
It is obvious to anyone with any awareness that truancy is a problem for society. The figures have been mentioned, but they are worth repeating. It is deeply worrying that some 50,000 young people in England alone deliberately truant from school every day. Official figures show that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and 30 per cent. of car thefts are carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds during school hours. Those figures are disturbing. We must all acknowledge that something needs to be done to change that and the attitudes that go with it.
In my distant, although I hope not too dim, past as a schoolboy on the Gipton estate in east Leeds, to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred, kids who legged it from school kept a low profile to avoid both their parents and the board man. What disturbs me so much is that today young people who truant—I know that they are a tiny minority—feel no need to keep a low profile. Indeed, they flaunt their behaviour. Worst of all, in many cases the truanting is done with the support of adults who masquerade as parents.
When we talk about truancy, we must acknowledge that we must vigorously address the depressing cycle of underachievement, apathy and the almost inevitable slide into antisocial behaviour and crime—a cycle that will be stubbornly perpetuated if we do not attempt to get to grips with the problem. That is why I welcome the Government's recently announced plans to base uniformed police officers in up to 400 schools in England's worst crime hotspots as part of their £90 million crackdown on truancy.
Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that recent research discloses that the majority of

193
the crimes committed by such youths on other youths take place outside the school gates after school. Children who have been excluded or who are truanting intimidate children when they leave school. They meet up with their mates, press drugs on them and take mobile phones. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case to be made for having police at the school gate when schools break up to ensure that the perpetrators are caught and to prevent such crimes from being committed?
Conn Burgon: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I was going to cover that later in my contribution.
I also welcome the response of John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, to the Government's support for schools in their attempts to combat truancy. He said:
"Headteachers use a wide range of measures to improve attendance, but too much truancy is condoned by parents".
Parents are key to the problem. Unfortunately, the role of parents is not mentioned in the Opposition motion, and that is one of its great weaknesses.
Similar support was given to the Government's measures by Steve Pilkington, from the Association of Chief Police Officers. He said:
"This approach is not part of the police taking a soft option … youth crime is a complex issue and there is a need to adopt a range of responses—from working with children and young people in and around schools…to effectively targeting and dealing with serious and persistent offenders".
I am pleased that the Select Committee on Education and Skills discussed that problem. It called for a review of the penalties faced by parents of truanting children who assist in letting 6 million days of education go to waste every year. No one, whether it be the Government, schools, teachers, parents or taxpayers, can condone that appalling statistic and its negative knock-on effects.
Bringing parents into the equation is vital. The teachers I regularly talk to go along with that, although some are uneasy about the case of Patricia Amos, the parent who was jailed in Oxfordshire. However, I notice that that liberal organ The Guardian today reports that Ms Amos was visited 71 times in 12 months by social workers who tried to ensure that her daughters went to school. No one can say that an effort was not made to help that woman in those circumstances.
The other issue that I have discussed with teachers—some of them are iffy about this, too—is the consideration of the plans to restrict child benefit to families whose children consistently truant and misbehave. All the teachers I speak to accept that we have to act decisively to address that problem, and I very much share that view.
The Select Committee estimates that 80 per cent. of truants caught in sweeps of shopping centres were accompanied by an adult, often a parent. I congratulate the city centre truancy sweep that took place last October in Leeds, my home city, organised jointly by Education Leeds and the West Yorkshire police force, operating under section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which deals with truants. It was a well-planned and organised sweep that took place over five days. The city centre was swept—figuratively speaking—daily, and a patrol allocated to cover other well-known high-risk truancy areas. During the operation, over five days, 328 children of varying ages from schools throughout the city were stopped. Significantly, the police reported a marked reduction in city centre crime over that week.
194
Some of the excuses given by children who were wandering round the city centre were interesting. One claimed that she had a virus, so she should not have been walking around Dortmund square. Another claimed that she had sickness and diarrhoea, so I would not have advised her to walk round the Merrion centre. A third said that he had a hernia, but it did not stop him walking up the hill at Briggate, so he was doing very well. It is not surprising that the top three sites for apprehending truants were in Leeds city centre. In a way, that is a backhanded compliment to the council's work to make the heart of our city a more attractive place to visit.
A study of those statistics yields much useful information. As I said, one glaring fact is that a high proportion of those 328 truants were accompanied by parents or adults. Clearly, we must therefore factor into our equation parents and their attitudes on this subject.
I commend to the Minister yet another initiative being taken in Leeds—the authorised pupils pass scheme. Under the scheme, pupils who use local shops and amenities, or who visit public areas during normal school lesson time, can be asked to show a pass. The pass carries the name of the school and the pupil, and is entitled "Time Out—Authorised Absence Pass". The pass gives details of the pupil's absence from school, including reasons for the absence, the time out and the expected return time to school. The initiative is funded via private sponsorship and has enabled Education Leeds and West Yorkshire police to get the scheme up and running in the south Leeds area. The aim—thanks to new money from the Government—is to expand the scheme to the whole of Leeds. I ask Ministers to monitor and evaluate the scheme and, if it is successful, provide further funding to refine and enhance the project in the years ahead.
No doubt we have all been watching "Coronation Street" over the past few weeks, as Ken Barlow has struggled with a difficult pupil, but the reality in schools is very different. I find myself in total agreement—not that I am after a job—with the Education Secretary's recent comment:
"we will do what we can to support heads and teachers but without parents taking their responsibilities seriously we will not make the progress we want. Parents have a duty to make sure they are doing all they can to instil discipline in their children".
Anybody who has read the university of Warwick study carried out on behalf of the National Union of Teachers entitled "Unacceptable Pupil Behaviour" will realise the debilitating situation that faces too many of our teachers across the country. There is considerable dissatisfaction among classroom teachers about the lack of support that they feel they get from senior management teams when faced with low-level but frequent disruption. Serious incidents, such as violence from pupils and threats from parents were less frequent but highly disturbing to teachers, who felt that they were being blamed in a climate in which parents were unprepared to take responsibility for their children.
As a teacher who was pursued by a large and irate parent who had an even larger dog, I know that discretion is sometimes the better part of valour, and that one should keep out of the way and let somebody else take the responsibility. In many cases, however, the problems were reported as being due to a minority of children who take up a massive amount of teachers' time and effort. It is a minority of pupils who are responsible. It seems to many teachers that there are no effective sanctions in place, and

195
that is why I welcome current Government thinking, which I hope will soon be turned into action, on such policies as the withdrawal of child benefit from the parents of severely disruptive pupils. If that debate has done nothing else, it has made people focus on the role of parental responsibility.
Teachers do not go into the job to become experts in crowd control or unarmed combat, but because they want to teach, they want to open up pupils' minds to the opportunities before them, and, in many cases, because they have a love of their subject. To make sure that teachers can teach and pupils can learn in a calm and civilised atmosphere will cost money. We must face up to the fact that the solution will not come cheap. My view is that no classroom teacher should have to put up with violent and threatening pupils. When that situation arises, it places great stress on the teacher and also deprives other pupils of their right to learn. To exclude those who make teaching and learning impossible because of their behaviour must be our aim. As I said, however, that is a costly exercise.
The system in Leeds of learning support units on site at nearly every high school, with properly trained staff, is expensive to maintain, but it is a cost that we recognise we must meet. Those pupils who cannot even be taught in a learning support unit are referred to a pupil referral unit, of which I think there are four in Leeds. I have nothing but admiration for the work that the staff do with some extremely difficult children, and they are worthy of our support. I am glad that the Government support both of those units with excellence in cities money and standards fund money.
As a result of talking to teachers in my constituency, I have a few suggestions for the Minister—at least to match the five proposed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—that could help create a more disciplined environment in schools. I hope that they are practical. First, there should be increased funding for and an expansion of pupil referral units so that violent and disruptive pupils can be removed from mainstream schools straight away. Secondly, there should be an enhanced pay and career structure for those who work in pupil referral units with our most difficult pupils—those who do the most difficult job should have the best career and pay structures available.
Thirdly, a framework should be introduced that requires parents to exercise their responsibilities in relation to their children's behaviour in school. That should come at the end of a wide public debate, so that the conclusion reached carries widespread public support. Fourthly, we should make sure that, where possible, all schools have a secure site, that is, for example, effectively fenced. I remember refereeing a football match during which three kids who had hijacked a car drove across the pitch four or five times. Unluckily for me, my school was just about to score a goal. Nevertheless, such incidents—many of which are caused by outsiders wandering on to school premises and creating serious problems—can be addressed fairly simply and effectively.
I have also spoken to teachers—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) who made this point is no longer in his place—who welcome the presence of the police at school gates at the end of the
196
day. That has also had the beneficial effect of lessening shoplifting and other crime-related incidents in the surrounding area at going home time.
Fifthly, increased liaison with the police in schools will help to reinforce the message that we need coherent and joined-up thinking to address all our problems. Sixthly, we should make sure that all senior management teams in schools place the greatest emphasis on supporting teachers in the classroom when it comes to discipline.
Finally, will Ministers consider the effectiveness of a system of staff training in management of unruly pupils? Staff in pupil referral units are trained in a programme called Team Teach, which many teachers consider to be highly effective. If that is judged to be a useful tool for teachers, could we make sure that each secondary school had at least a couple of staff trained in Team Teach so that they could control effectively some fairly aggressive pupils?
The suggestions that I have made are not partisan but I hope that they are practical and effective.
6.8 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon). I shall respond in a moment to some of his remarks.
All Members, on both sides of the debate, have recognised the confluence of issues that lead to difficulties in and out of schools: truancy, discipline and bullying. Bullying leads to school refusal, truancy leads to crime, disorder and, in some cases, pregnancy, and discipline leads to exclusion and the possibilities of solving those problems. That is a complex web of conditions, into which I suspect that outsiders, among whom I number Members and Ministers, should tread with trepidation.
That is why I want to comment on the contribution of the hon. Member for Elmet. He seemed to suggest a range of solutions that were exactly the sort that one would like implemented in schools. I would hope, however, that the profession would already be recognising and implementing—or at least influencing—such solutions, and that we would not be approaching the problem of indiscipline in schools and truancy on a top-down basis.
I am sorry if that point is slightly outside the non-party aspirations of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is not in his place, but I recognise that Ministers feel compelled to do something. I am sure that we welcome many of the things that they have tried to do, but the final responsibility for ensuring the effective management of a school must surely rest with the manager of that school. A balance must be struck between the desires of Ministers—and, for that matter, Opposition Members—to find the right solution and the tendency to micro-manage. I hope therefore that we will show humility in our approach to the issue. We should not dole out just prescriptions, or even money. We should dole out responsibility and real power to those who have the difficult jobs of running our schools and looking after the condition of our communities.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of targets and statistics. It was evident from the friendly dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that statistics are as open to

197
manipulation and misunderstanding as any other form of debate. When reducing unauthorised absence becomes a target, schools are tempted to authorise absence.
I have been told of a case involving a friend of mine whose daughter persistently truanted from a very reputable school. The solution that the school adopted was to ring her parents and ask them to authorise the absences retrospectively. Otherwise, they would damage the school's statistics. I recognise that schools do not commonly adopt that approach, but anyone presented with the difficulty of solving such problems will search for a range of solutions. One of them is to fiddle the statistics.
We have wonderful figures for registration, but pupils have resorted to post-registration truancy. There has also been a shift from one kind of exclusion to another. If a school cannot exclude permanently, it opts for a series of temporary short-term exclusions until the Government clamp down on the number of days allowed for short-term exclusions. All absences relate to a figure that Ministers have in mind.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on alighting on a target for attendance. I welcome that approach because, without such a target, we cannot achieve the successful education at least in the narrow sense of the two senses that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. We will not be successful if pupils are not in class.
We must place more faith and confidence in, and offer more support to, the good sense and professionalism of head teachers and governors. We must also consider the local reputation of a school. Good discipline depends on clear signals from all levels in society backing those who are placed in authority. I recognise that those in authority can make mistakes, but it is incumbent on us—and particularly on those who sit on appeal panels dealing with exclusions—to recognise the relative importance of backing those who may have made mistakes from time to time. The good head teacher backs those of his staff who occasionally make mistakes and the good leader backs those of his supporters who occasionally make mistakes. It is important that we adopt such an approach because we must not undermine people responsible for those lower down the chain.
We give head teachers an extremely difficult job to do and the least that we can do is back them. Therefore, I would like an end to the system by which appeal panels undermine head teachers. Governors must set the policy, head teachers must manage its implementation and an appeal panel should overturn the implementation of the policy in relation to an exclusion only if there has been a clear failure of process. The panel should then refer the matter back for further consideration. Nothing could be worse than leaving a head teacher red faced and impotent, sometimes in the face of a pupil who has persistently flouted the discipline of the school and perhaps acted to endanger the well-being of other pupils. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell—Grainger) for his support.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that schools are only a reflection of society. Of course they are, but they are extremely important not only in reflecting society but in developing it. I hope that society will support schools and offer more support to parents and carers by being less damning of those who do not measure up to our, the Government's and the media's prescriptions
198
of how they should bring up their children. We should be less condemnatory, particularly of those who make a serious effort in the face of difficulty to bring up their children in a decent and honourable way.
I wonder why the Frenchman was hauled off Princes street in Edinburgh and put before the Scottish courts simply because he slapped his child. I wonder why a Scot was similarly treated for slapping his daughter in the dentist's surgery. That is not the approach to discipline that I would have chosen but, fortunately, I do not have to make such decisions because I do not have children. I would not have made a foul-mouthed son or daughter wash his or her mouth out with soap and water, but I am not convinced that doing that just once is a matter that should be taken before the courts. We must support parents in the incredibly difficult job that they are trying to do.
We should also support the police more effectively in the difficult job that they do. Therefore, I congratulate Labour Members on moving from the position that some of them and some of their predecessors took when they were in opposition. They recognise more than they did 10 years ago the difficulties that the police, parents and schools face.
The case of Mrs. Amos in Oxfordshire shows clearly the extent to which liberalism has failed. A huge number of interventions by social services for more than a year failed to persuade Mrs. Amos to send her daughters to school. I found it almost heartbreaking that she should be imprisoned for her failure to do so, but we must accept that it was the right response in this case. However, we must also recognise the difficulties that cause children to stay away from school. Sometimes the problem is as obvious as the failure of school transport or the failure of the school. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough pointed out, the curriculum sometimes fails. However, well before the introduction of the national curriculum, my friend, Dennis O'Keeffe, identified the problem of post-registration truancy.
Bullying in schools is a real problem that schools have acknowledged only recently. They have yet to deal with it successfully. I do not refer necessarily to high-level racist bullying, but to low-level intolerance of those who look different or speak differently. Appallingly, there is sometimes intolerance of the very able or of those who are very pretty. Such pupils are bullied, and that type of low-level disorder makes parents lose their faith in schools. It is no wonder that parents sometimes condone truancy because they need the child at home and feel that it is not worth their going to school.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Turner: Of course I will give way, although I was about to say that I do not intend to speak for much longer because I can see that other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman share the disappointment of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the motion tabled by his party makes no

199
mention of parents when it refers to tackling problems of truancy and bad behaviour? Should not parents, as well as schools, be a central part of the motion?
Mr. Turner: I do not share any such feeling because I have referred to parents in many of my remarks. However, we must recognise that parents have an incredibly difficult job to do in society.
We have to offer escape routes for pupils for whom school is not a satisfactory experience. We have to enable them more easily to go to smaller schools, to go to different kinds of schools and to go into further education, perhaps before the age of 16 Perhaps they could take time out of school and return later. We have to be imaginative in the opportunities that we offer. If we do that, we will at least begin to be successful in tackling this most difficult of problems.
6.21 pm
Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that in his last few contributions the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has been agreeing with most of what the Government are trying to do. We can see from this debate that all parties care about truancy and want to do something about it, but it is fair to point out that the Conservatives had 18 years in government. The children who were truanting during the Thatcher years are now the grandparents of today's truants, so others must take some responsibility for the rot that has set in.
This debate is not all about inner-city areas; it is about areas such as Doncaster and Barnsley in South Yorkshire, where a whole industry was wiped out and nothing was put in its place. The children who thought that they could follow their fathers into a job down the pit found that there was no industry to employ them. I make no excuses for mentioning that because today, with objective 1 funding and other support from the Government, we have a chance to turn that situation round. However, those neighbourhoods were left without a lifeline, and the rot set in because there was no support for them.
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Andrew Selous rose—
Caroline Flint: I will not give way because I have only just started my speech. Hon. Members can ask any professional in Doncaster who works with kids who have offended or with vulnerable families, and they will say that they now have countless opportunities to try to tackle those issues.
I sit on the board of sure start in Denaby and Conisbrough, and we have funded five staff members to work with schools and families before kids even start nursery school. They try lo make sure that there is a connection between the school and the parents. In some cases there is only one parent and in others it is the grandparents who look after the children. We hope that if we can create a good relationship with carers when children are three, we shall be able to sustain it throughout their time at school. That is part of the process of connecting parents to schools, which we are striving to do. Some parents do not respond to such support, and I will return to that subject in a moment.
200
I want to bring some fresh evidence to the debate. I congratulate Doncaster council and South Yorkshire police on beginning a two-week operation of truancy sweeps, deploying 16 police officers and 16 education welfare officers in a targeted campaign. The interim figures from those sweeps show that during the first week alone, 291 pupils who were not in school were stopped; 96 were immediately returned to school, and 101 were in the company of a parent, but 63 of them had no valid reason for not being at school. During the first week the officers visited an additional 163 homes to confront parents whose children's attendance record was less than 85 per cent.
One benefit of the campaign has been the high-profile and visible police presence, which I believe will depress the level of street crime in shopping areas in and around my constituency. I am delighted that constituents have mentioned seeing police vehicles marked "Truancy Patrol", which means that a wider message is being communicated to the public. Doncaster council is very willing to prosecute parents using the new aggravated offence introduced by the Government.
Inevitably, as the sweeps took place in May, some of the 291 pupils stopped were on exam leave. However, schools must try to reinforce the message that such leave is a time for quiet preparation for exams, not for shopping, and it is not an extension to school holidays. We must ensure that there are opportunities for pupils on exam leave to study, if not in schools then perhaps with the library service, and parents must support them in that.
There remains a problem with young people who are not sitting exams and therefore have no studying to do. Many have historically poor attendance at school, and during exam leave they have a lot of time on their hands. The situation of those who are excluded from the exam process reinforces the case for the Government to widen the curriculum to include work-based and vocational study from age 14. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) claims responsibility for that policy, but I know from my time on what was then the Education and Employment Committee that many Labour Members have been involved in campaigning for 14-plus options for a very long time. I welcome the Government's moves in that direction.
A further problem exposed by the sweeps is that if children are in the company of a parent, the truancy team has no power to return them to school, even if they have no valid reason for being absent. The team can only give the parent a letter explaining the consequences of non-attendance and send a form to the school for the school and the education welfare officer to follow up. We should consider how we can strengthen the law in that respect.
We have heard many contributions about the role of parents in relation to children's attendance at school, and I acknowledge that there are many reasons why children fail to attend school. The problem is multi-faceted, by any stretch of the imagination. Many parents need support, and although it may take some time, they become open to the idea of accepting it. Undoubtedly, however, there are hard-core parents who are given a huge amount of support but do not really give a damn. The level of parental connivance in truanting is extraordinary.
I commend Doncaster council for its tough stance on poor attendance. It welcomes the additional powers made available by the Government, and in Doncaster the first

201
parent is about to be prosecuted for the new aggravated offence. The council wants to guarantee that parents who do nothing about truanting—by which I mean that they do nothing to co-operate with any of the services that are available—will make their first court appearance within 18 weeks of a pattern of non-attendance being established. The council is obliged to provide the court with evidence of poor attendance over 13 weeks to prove a pattern. I hope that in Doncaster we will not see a case like that of the mother in Banbury, in which it took two years of work before a conclusion was reached. Stronger action, taken earlier, should achieve a result sooner.
I know from talking to colleagues that there is concern about the removal of benefits. I welcome new powers such as parenting orders, and we need to think about how we can use them. I shall share an anecdote with the House. Discussion with a child who was truanting revealed that he felt that his mother did not give him much time. He was asked, "In return for your going to school, what is the one thing you would like your mother to do?" He replied that he would like her to sit and watch a football match on television with him. That seems ridiculously trivial, but when the mother was told that her son simply wanted to spend more time with her, she complied and the boy went to school. That is an example of imaginative use of a parenting order.
There are, however, some families who are not doing their children justice, and deduction of child benefit may be a way forward. It is erroneous to suggest that that policy is an attack on the poor. If children do not attend school they will not achieve, and they will be relegated to a life of poverty. Along the way, they will set an example for their younger brothers and sisters. We should consider withholding child benefit until parents improve their attitude and their approach to working with the services, and then give it to them if they co-operate. That is all about having policies that provide support and take account of the complexities, but at the end of the day, it is about putting the child's interests first.
People should not kid themselves that we do not consider deducting benefits for other reasons. If people refuse to work they can lose their employment benefit. If people park their cars on double yellow lines they will get parking tickets, regardless of their income. We have to consider poverty in the long term. We cannot give up on such children: it is important that we develop a sense of responsibility among parents. Schools exist to provide a quality service and a good education, but parents are responsible for their children. They have to take up that challenge, and we must ensure that they attend to it.
6.30 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this important debate, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who plays a significant role in my life in so far as he prevents me from truanting from the House—if I were ever to think of doing so, which, of course, I do not—because he is the pairing Whip. It is largely thanks to him that I am here.
I came into politics in the hope, of course, that my ideas might change things. I dreamt that a policy that I conceived might one day influence the Government—so imagine my surprise when on 22 March this year I heard that the Prime Minister was proposing to dock benefits
202
from the parents of truanting children. I thought that I had seen that policy somewhere before, and looked up The Daily Telegraph of 17 January, where I found an article that had evidently inspired new Labour. The resounding penultimate paragraph said:
"If parents will not inculcate discipline in their children, there seems no reason why there should not be a graded and means-tested system of fines, on the parents, for the results of their neglect and irresponsibility."
I looked to see who had written those words, and I was astonished to see that it was me.
I tackled a friend of mine, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), and asked him whether I had inspired the Government's policy, and he all but confirmed it. The Secretary of State is not now in her place, but perhaps other Ministers will be so good as to authenticate my paternity of that policy. It is a better solution than locking up Patricia Amos for 60 days. When the Minister winds up the debate, I should like him to tell me how he thinks the policy might work.
Before we reach that solution, however, we need to consider seriously why we have been driven to those desperate expedients. The reason, of course, is that the position is bleak. I do not know what figures Labour Members are relying on, but our evidence suggests that truancy has risen by 11 per cent. since Labour came to power, and that violence against teachers has risen fivefold. I do not want to be partisan; I agree with the line taken by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). This has been a useful debate, but the Secretary of State was perhaps excessively complacent. Her line seemed to be that this was a chronic problem that had been going on for many years, so she could be forgiven for not attempting to solve it.
There is no room for complacency; 50,000 children a day are truanting. They are blighting their own lives. We all know the figures: 30 per cent. of prisoners are ex-truants. They are blighting the lives of the rest of us. Society is now living in exaggerated terror of feral children. We are now so frightened of children on trains that when we see them mucking around, swearing and threatening people, we cower in our seats and we do not even intervene. Too often in this day and age, we pass by on the other side. That is ignominious and a poor reflection on all of us. The problem must be addressed, and it begins at school. That is why this debate is vital.
What are the causes? I agree with the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough about the causes. Many hon. Members have said a lot about children being fed up with school and not being interested in their lessons. That may be part of the problem, but it is not all the problem. It is not enough to demand that teachers be so electrifying in their performance as to keep the attention of the likes of the hon. Member for Huddersfield and prevent them from goofing off, as he rather alarmingly said he did, thus setting a poor example to his constituents.
It is not enough to ask teachers to pep up their lessons; the central problem is a loss of parents' and teachers' authority. The key reasons for that have been well adumbrated by my hon. Friends. Head teachers' power to exclude was taken away. Exclusion is a terrible thing, but it was a severe diminution of head teachers' authority to circumscribe them in that way.

203
I talked to the head teacher of a primary school who has lost a great deal of authority over his own staff. He cannot decide whether to promote a teacher up the pay spine, as it is called, without a 27-page document from the teacher herself and an independent Whitehall assessor to decide whether that promotion is justified. That is a ridiculous piece of Whitehall bureaucracy, and it should be got rid of.
Head teachers no longer have sufficient authority to discipline either teachers or pupils. That is ridiculous, and I agree with the tenor of much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). It is a shame that a head teacher in my constituency cannot even ask children who have broken several school rules to pick up crisps during break by way of punishment.
It is true that there are no simplistic solutions. We cannot ignore the final point that teachers make to all hon. Members, which is that their problems and difficulties with discipline are very largely passed on—or subcontracted out—to them by the parents who refuse to discipline their children. Of course there are many reasons why parents may not be providing their children with adequate discipline. I am sure that Labour Members will be swift to leap to their feet to blame Thatcherism and 20 years of Tory misrule. Aye, they will blame society.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Johnson: I do not want to take interventions. [Interruption.] Go on then, blame society.
David Taylor: I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but when his own children are old enough he may find that in fact, it is quite difficult to give teenagers sufficient constraints and incentives to go along with their parents' wishes, whether in terms of school attendance or any other aspect of their behaviour. Things are not always the fault of the parents, although they may be.
Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for warning me of my fate when my children reach their teenage years. I listen to him with all humility and sincerity, but it is grossly patronising to many people who live on very low incomes and none the less produce polite, well-mannered and law-abiding children to say that everything is the fault of society.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Johnson: Hang on; hear me out, old boy. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I mean I ask the hon. Gentleman to hear me out.
It strikes me that the fault must lie fundamentally with the parents. In the past 20 to 25 years, we have seen a revolution in the relationship between children and adults in our society as fundamental as the revolution in the relationship between the sexes. Children no longer respect adult authority as they used to. There are many reasons for that, and in some ways it is a good thing, but in some ways it is a bad thing. We need to restore the chain of
204
responsibility between child and adult, and if that means fining the parents of truanting and undisciplined children, I say that that is fine.
I am reminded of a friend of my family—a single mother from Bridlington in Yorkshire—[Interruption.] Is Bridlington in Yorkshire? [Interruption.] Yes, it is. When we were discussing the fall of the Berlin wall, she said that she did not know about that because when she was at school her mother used to say, "Don't worry about history. Let's go off shopping." If some measure, such as the one envisaged by the Government, could stop that casual truanting, it would be a very good thing.
It would be nice to find that the Government are prepared not just to filch an idea from a Tory paper, but to produce some serious ideas about how to carry it out. I genuinely believe that there is no problem more central to many of the ills of our society than that of truanting children and ill discipline in schools. I very much hope that the Government have taken those ideas on board and that they will produce practical solutions. If not, they can, of course, make way for those who will.
6.39 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—which I think I did!
This has been an important if short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) launched a typically trenchant attack on the Government's failures, which was succeeded by—I am afraid—a typically complacent response from the Secretary of State. The tenor of her remarks was "The problems of truancy and indiscipline are being addressed"; but, as even she was prepared to accept, those problems have become worse rather than better. She says that educational opportunities are being improved in inner cities. If that is so, why are the Government determined to lower standards of admissions to universities?
On cue, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), enters the Chamber. Why are the Government focusing on lowering admission standards for pupils from inner-city schools, rather than concentrating on raising standards in those schools to give such children as good a chance of entering higher education as everyone else?
There is a crisis in discipline in our schools, a crisis that is driving teachers out of the profession. It is making it impossible for other children to learn. According to the National Union of Teachers, 45 per cent. of those leaving the profession cite behaviour. Labour's response has been not to tackle discipline, but to prevent heads from excluding violent and disruptive pupils. A teacher from a private prep school whom I met recently made it very clear that he had left his job in a state school entirely because of problems involving discipline and behaviour. He told me that he would rather have swept the streets than remain in his former job. That represents a dismal failure—something with which we cannot be satisfied, and something of which the Government should be ashamed.
Labour's response has been to set a target to reduce the number of exclusions, possibly the only target that the party has met. What has been the cost of meeting that target? The number of exclusions was reduced from 12,668 in 1996–97 to 8,600 in 1999–2000, but only as

205
a result of the then Secretary of State's publication of Department for Education and Employment circular 10/99, which stated:
"A decision to exclude should be taken only: in response to serious breaches of the school's disciplinary policy; once a range of alternative strategies have been tried and have failed".
It was shockingly disingenuous of the Secretary of State to claim earlier that heads had always had freedom to exclude. They have not—and the present Government took away that freedom, through circular 10/99, when she was a Minister in the Department. The fact that they have performed a U-turn and recognised the failure of the policy and the damage that it did is no excuse, and does not absolve the Secretary of State of responsibility. Moreover, for her not to admit—today, in the House of Commons—to what she did was unacceptable.
What prior strategies had Ministers in mind for dealing with a pupil who had threatened his teacher with a knife, or sexually assaulted another child in the classroom? What right did Ministers think they had to interfere with a head teacher's ability to maintain proper discipline in a school—to protect the safety and dignity of his staff, and of the children in his care? Their policy was clearly wrong; only someone who was detached from reality could ever have considered it appropriate or reasonable.
Yet even when the policy had been changed—even when Ministers were saying that it was wrong to focus solely on reducing the number of exclusions, rather than concentrating on tackling the underlying problems—Ministers boasted in the House about reductions, hoping that they would continue along the same lines. In April last year, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), then an Education Minister, said:
"Permanent exclusions have fallen by 18 per cent…and we expect further reductions. There is no evidence that that has been at the expense of other children's learning."—[Official Report, 27 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 621.]
There is such evidence, and Ministers have belatedly accepted it—although one or two Labour Members still do not appear to appreciate it. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) boasted earlier about the reduction in the number of exclusions, although it had been achieved at the cost of massively increased indiscipline and disruption in schools and a huge blow to morale in the teaching profession.
A one third cut in the amount of truancy has not been achieved. In fact there has been no cut whatever, and in secondary schools truancy has increased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford pointed out, it has increased most in inner-city areas—the areas at which most of the Government's gimmicks and initiatives have been directed, and to which most of the money has gone. The number of days lost in schools because of truancy has increased in all big inner-city areas. All that has happened while the Secretary of State has been a Minister in the Department. She cannot blame it all on her predecessor; she must share the blame.
What does Labour propose to do now? What will it do to tackle the results of truancy, about which we have heard today? What will it do about the 50,000 children who play truant on a typical school day? What will it do about the fact that 40 per cent. of street robberies and 25 per cent. of burglaries are committed by truant children who should be at school? I will not recite all the figures that have already been given by Members on both sides of the House.
206
What are the implications for child drug abuse and teenage pregnancies? At least the Chairman of the Select Committee was only punting on the Thames when he was not at school, as he was supposed to be. We are grateful for that.
The latest foray—the latest proposed gimmick—is the docking of child benefit. The Secretary of State was the only Cabinet Minister who was prepared to come out as a supporter of the scheme after the Prime Minister floated it—perhaps because, as the Manchester press reveals, Dame Jean Else, head teacher at the Secretary of State's old school, claims that it was her policy. Perhaps she offered it to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State brought it to the Government. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Henley: the parentage of the policy is obviously extremely doubtful.
The key question is "Will this really happen, or is it just another attempt to grab a headline, like the absurd chaos of the Government's policy on drugs in schools?" The Government are swinging wildly from one extreme to the other. Just a few months ago, in January, the Daily Mail produced a report from DfES sources—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), who is a Government Whip for the time being, at least, should not disparage the Daily Mail, which the Prime Minister regards as the main yardstick of the success or failure of the present Government.
According to the Daily Mail,
"Schools could be told to rewrite their rules on cannabis to fall in line with the relaxation of drug laws and growing tolerance of 'recreational' drugs.
Education Secretary Estelle Morris signalled her endorsement yesterday for changes which would end tough punishments such as suspension as expulsion for pupils who take cannabis.
Officials in her department said schools should 'take account' of the move by Home Secretary David Blunkett to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug when deciding their drugs policy."
Also in January, there was an exchange on the subject of policy to control drug abuse in schools. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), will recall that he said:
"It is unacceptable to take any illegal substance to school, but it is right that head teachers are allowed the discretion to make judgments about the powers at their disposal, whether that is no action, fixed-period exclusion or a permanent exclusion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 January 2002; c. 370.]
There is a huge shift between that and what is now being spun by the Government in the media. We read and hear that they are getting tough on dealers in schools, and that there is zero tolerance for those caught supplying drugs within the school gates. In Committee, the Under-Secretary made clear the Government's belief that this was a matter entirely for head teachers. He refused to issue guidance to schools saying whether those dealing in or taking drugs would be permanently excluded.
Labour's policies on discipline and truancy have been an abject failure. Ministers lurch from gimmick to gimmick, abandoning each failed policy in turn. They swing wildly from one prescription to the opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford highlighted the contradiction between the Government's amendment and this morning's announcement from the Department for Education and Skills. At a time when there is an intense focus on the difference between what the Government

207
spend on public services and what they actually deliver, it is remarkable that their amendment notes that £600 million has been spent on
"measures to tackle truancy and poor behaviour".
The Secretary of State admitted that truancy rates have not improved while violence in schools has mushroomed. There can be no better example of the Government's failure to deliver than the words of their amendment: £600 million has been spent, yet the truancy rate has stood still—as the Secretary of State pointed out—and behaviour has got worse.
The torrent of gimmicks and directives has failed. It is time that we had a Government who backed up heads and allowed them to maintain discipline. It is time that we had a Government who had real aspirations to raise standards in all communities throughout our country. Labour has failed for too long. In two or three years, they will be permanently excluded from office.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): On the whole, the House has been at its best during this debate. We have heard many important contributions and there has been a great deal of consensus on both sides of the House. There was only one exception: Opposition Front-Bench Members did not propose one new idea, one policy or one original thought to tackle something that is fundamentally important to the quality of education in this country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) recognised that complex issues are involved: home, school, peer relationships and relationships in communities. There are no quick-fix, easy solutions. There are social problems, educational under-achievement, low aspirations and family relationship issues.
We heard much about the role of parental responsibility where, interestingly, many Members shared a consensus. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson): new Labour may be a broad church but it will never be so broad as to suggest that one of our ideas originated from him. However, I am willing to suggest to the Prime Minister that he adopts the novel idea of getting children to pick up crisps as a solution to discipline problems in our schools.
There was consensus among Members on the importance of parental responsibility, with one exception—an hon. Member for whom I have a great deal of respect: the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. He rightly talked constantly about prevention, support, early intervention and so on. He talked of people's right to dignity and equality of opportunity—all those aspirations are shared by Labour Members—yet he never talked about responsibilities; he talked only of rights.
Today we have heard descriptions of situations where parents are given intensive support, unimaginable levels of resource, incredible tolerance and compassion, but despite all that they do not fulfil a basic responsibility—to get their children to school. In those circumstances, it is right that we tell parents that, as citizens, they have a responsibility.
208
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made valid points about the curriculum and about listening to young people. He knows that our proposals for 14 to 19-year-olds make clear the need to reconfigure the curriculum, building it around the needs of individual pupils, and to raise the status of vocational education, which we have been unable to do in this country, under successive Governments.
The hon. Gentleman said we must listen to young people. There has never been a Government who were more committed to engaging in a two-way dialogue with young people. We recognise that they are consumers and users of education and youth services and we have introduced a variety of initiatives. We held an open day this week. We have published a Green Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds. Young people were involved in the development of the design and evaluation of the Connexions service from the beginning. The hon. Gentleman was right to make his points, but he must accept that the Government are making more progress on curriculum reform and listening to young people than has occurred for many a year.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) rightly talked of the need to back head teachers, yet the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) criticised us for making absolutely clear where we stand as regards those who deal and supply drugs in our schools. We pointed out that when head teachers decide permanently to exclude such pupils, those decisions should be respected and should not be overturned on appeal. I should have thought—
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lewis: I will not give way.
I should have thought that we were backing head teachers with exactly the support that they suggested we should give them.
We heard an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon)—
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lewis: I will not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet referred to the importance of staff training. We must give our teachers and the adults in our schools the confidence and the skills to manage behaviour effectively in a modern classroom. We are investing in that staff training.
My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley gave us examples of good practice in their constituencies. It is important to shine a light on good practice and to spread it, because in many parts of the country individual schools are tackling ill-discipline and truancy effectively.
I want to make particular reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It was a quality contribution which ended with five specific policy proposals—more than were made by either of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was measured and objective. I realise that the Leader of the Opposition has just entered the Chamber so I am sorry if I am

209
irretrievably damaging the career of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I have some serious points to make about his speech.
The hon. Gentleman talked about our responsibility to support the development of all-round citizens. I could not agree more. That is one of the reasons why, from September, we shall be introducing citizenship as part of the statutory curriculum in our schools. That is one of the reasons why the Green Paper proposes a matriculation diploma at -19, which would recognise voluntary work, citizenship activity and participation in wider activities.
The hon. Gentleman also said that in debates such as this one politicians shy away from discussion of attitudes and values. The hon. Gentleman is right—this is all about attitudes, values and principles. However, he will stop enjoying my contribution at that point. At the end of the day, we cannot shy away from the fact that for 18 years we heard the philosophy that there was no such thing as society and that we were simply a collection of individuals.
That philosophy consigned whole families, whole communities and a whole generation of young people to the margins of society. One in three children grew up in poverty. Our aspiration for the same period of office is to eliminate child poverty. Those are the differences in values and attitudes that influence the Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman constantly pointed out that truancy is increasing. With all due respect, I must correct him: because the Government were so ambitious in their objectives, they set themselves the challenge of significantly reducing truancy. What is true is that truancy rates have remained static for seven or eight years. We are not content with that and we are determined to tackle it.
I shall close my remarks by responding directly to the Front-Bench spokesmen for Her Majesty's official Opposition, who did not offer us a single original idea. I have several rhetorical questions for them. It is a good job that my questions are rhetorical because no answers would come from the Opposition.
During 18 years of unbroken rule, where were the sure start initiatives? Where were reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds? Where was the literacy and numeracy strategy? Where was the reform of secondary education? Where was the strategy to tackle problems in the early years of secondary education? Where were the proposals to reform the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds? Where were the learning mentors, the classroom assistants and the Connexions personal advisers? Where were the learning support and pupil referral units? Where was the commitment to ensuring that all permanently excluded pupils have access to a full-time education? Where was the message to parents that they have a duty to ensure—
Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to ask questions of Conservative Front Benchers and then refuse to give way to them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The Chair is not responsible for hon. Members' speeches.
Mr. Lewis: Do Conservative Members not want to hear the message?
210
The difference between Her Majesty's official Opposition and this Government is that, as behaviour in schools deteriorated and truancy remained too high, the Conservatives did nothing. In contrast, we are waging war on bad behaviour in schools, because it undermines standards and leads to crime on our streets. Their legacy was one in three children growing up in poverty; we will eliminate child poverty. They consigned thousands to the margins of society; we will rebuild society.
I urge hon. Members to reject the motion. It does nothing for pupils, it does nothing for parents, and it does nothing for teachers.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 334.

Division No. 248]

[7 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Allan, Richard

Francois, Mark

Amess, David

Gale, Roger

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Gibb, Nick

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Goodman, Paul

Bacon, Richard

Gray, James

Baldry, Tony

Grayling, Chris

Barrett, John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Bellingham, Henry

Grieve, Dominic

Bercow, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Blunt, Crispin

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hammond, Philip

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Hancock, Mike

Brady, Graham

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Brake, Tom

Harvey, Nick

Brazier, Julian

Hawkins, Nick

Breed, Colin

Hayes, John

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Heald, Oliver

Browning, Mrs Angela

Heath, David

Bruce, Malcolm

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Burnett, John

Hermon, Lady

Burnside, David

Hoban, Mark

Burt, Alistair

Holmes, Paul

Butterfill, John

Horam, John

Cable, Dr Vincent

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cameron, David

warth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

Carmichael, Alistair

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Cash, William

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Chidgey, David

Keetch, Paul

Chope, Christopher

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

Clappison, James

Collins, Tim

Key, Robert

Conway, Derek

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Cotter, Brian

Kirkwood, Archy

Cran, James

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Lamb, Norman

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lansley, Andrew

Doughty, Sue

Laws, David

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Leigh, Edward

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Letwin, Oliver

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Evans, Nigel

Loughton, Tim

Fabricant, Michael

Luff, Peter

Fallon, Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Flight, Howard

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Flook, Adrian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Malins, Humfrey

211

Maples, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Spink, Bob

Mates, Michael

Spring, Richard

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

May, Mrs Theresa

Streeter, Gary

Mercer, Patrick

Stunell, Andrew

Moore, Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Moss, Malcolm

Swire, Hugo

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Syms, Robert

Norman, Archie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Oaten, Mark

Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Page, Richard

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Paterson, Owen

Trend, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Prisk, Mark

Tyler, Paul

Pugh, Dr John

Tyrie, Andrew

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Viggers, Peter

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Walter, Robert

Rendel, David

Waterson, Nigel

Robathan, Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Webb Steve

Roe, Mrs Marion

Whittingdale, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Ruffley, David

Willetts, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Sanders, Adrian

Willis, Phil

Selous, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Simmonds, Mark

Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfield)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

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

Younger—Ross, Richard

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Soames, Nicholas

Mr. Charles Hendry and

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Dr. Julian Lewis.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bryant, Chris

Ainger, Nick

Buck, Ms Karen

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Burgon, Colin

Allen, Graham

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Cairns, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Atkins, Charlotte

Casale, Roger

Austin, John

Caton, Martin

Bailey, Adrian

Cawsey, Ian

Baird, Vera

Challen, Colin

Barron, Kevin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Battle, John

Chaytor, David

Bayley, Hugh

Clapham, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Begg, Miss Anne

Bell, Stuart

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bennett, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Berry, Roger

Clelland, David

Best, Harold

Clwyd, Ann

Betts, Clive

Coaker, Vernon

Blackman, Liz

Cohen, Harry

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coleman, Iain

Blizzard, Bob

Colman, Tony

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Connarty, Michael

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Borrow, David

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Cooper, Yvette

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Corston, Jean

Brennan, Kevin

Cousins, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

Cox, Tom

(Newcastle E& Wallsend)

Crausby, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cruddas, Jon

212

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hurst, Alan

Cummings, John

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Irranca—Davies, Huw

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dalyell, Tam

Jamieson, David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jenkins, Brian

David, Wayne

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

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

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dawson, Hilton

Joyce, Eric

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Denham, Rt Hon John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dhanda, Parmjit

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dismore, Andrew

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dobbin, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Doran, Frank

Kidney, David

Dowd, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Edwards, Huw

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lammy, David

Ennis, Jeff

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Farrelly, Paul

Laxton, Bob

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Fisher, Mark

Lepper, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Leslie, Christopher

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Levitt, Tom

Flint, Caroline

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Follett, Barbara

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lloyd, Tony

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Love, Andrew

Foulkes, George

Lucas, Ian

Francis, Dr Hywel

Luke, Iain

Galloway, George

Lyons, John

Gapes, Mike

McAvoy, Thomas

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McCabe, Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

McCafferty, Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Gilroy, Linda

McDonagh, Siobhain

Godsiff, Roger

MacDonagh, Calum

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

MacDougall, John

Grogan, John

McFall, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McIsaac, Shona

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McKechin, Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hanson, David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McNamara, Kevin

Healey, John

MacShane, Denis

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McWalter, Tony

Hepburn, Stephen

McWilliam, John

Heppell, John

Mahmood, Khalid

Hesford, Stephen

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heyes, David

Mallaber, Judy

Hill, Keith

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Hodge, Margaret

Mann, John

Hoey, Kate

Marris, Rob

Hood, Jimmy

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hope, Phil

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Martlew, Eric

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Howells, Dr Kim

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hoyle, Lindsay

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Moffatt, Laura

213

Morgan, Julie

Ruddock, Joan

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mountford, Kali

Ryan, Joan

Mudie, George

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mullin, Chris

Savidge, Malcolm

Munn, Ms Meg

Sawford, Phil

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Shaw, Jonathan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Sheerman, Barry

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Sheridan, Jim

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Shipley, Ms Debra

Norris, Dan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Singh, Marsha

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Skinner, Dennis

Olner, Bill

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

O'Neill, Martin

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Organ, Diana

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Owen, Albert

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Pearson, Ian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Perham, Linda

Steinberg, Gerry

Picking, Anne

Stevenson, George

Pickthall, Colin

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pike, Peter

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Plaskitt, James

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pollard, Kerry

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Pond, Chris

Stringer, Graham

Pope, Greg

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pound, Stephen

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tami, Mark

Price, Adam

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Purnell, James

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Quinn, Lawrie

Timms, Stephen

Rammell, Bill

Tipping, Paddy

Rapson, Syd

Todd, Mark

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Touhig, Don

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Trickett, Jon

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Truswell, Paul

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rooney, Terry

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ross, Ernie

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Roy, Frank

Tynan, Bill

Ruane, Chris

Vaz, Keith

214

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wills, Michael

Walley, Ms Joan

Winnick, David

Wareing, Robert N

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Watson, Tom

Wood, Mike

Watts, David

Woodward, Shaun

White, Brian

Woolas, Phil

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wright, David (Telford)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Williams, Hywei (Caernarfon)

Mr. Tony McNulty

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House applauds the fact that policies to reduce truancy and tackle poor behaviour are central to the Government's strategy to transform secondary schools; notes that, since 1997, the Government has spent over £600 million to support measures to tackle truancy and poor behaviour and that this has been supplemented by a further £66 million from this year's Budget, that behaviour is satisfactory or better in 11 out of 12 secondary schools and 49 out of 50 primary schools, that there are now over 1,050 Learning Support Units and 3,420 Learning Mentors in schools and that there are 331 Pupil Referral Units whose quality Ofsted reports to be steadily improving; welcomes the fact that the Government is promoting multi-agency initiatives such as Behaviour and Education Support Teams and Connexions that are crucial to addressing this issue, that exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent. to 9,200 from their peak of 12,700 in 1996–97; supports the right of Head Teachers to govern their schools as they see fit; further notes that all permanently excluded pupils will receive a full-time education from September this year and that whilst overall truancy levels remain a cause for concern, action is being taken; further notes that children have a right to education and that parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated; and believes that the Government's policies will deliver lasting improvements in pupil attendance and behaviour which will support the achievement of higher standards and prevent social exclusion.

Special Educational Needs
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.14 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the provision of education for children with Special Educational Needs; notes that last week was Autism Awareness Week; also notes the publication of reports by the National Autistic Society which shows that two-thirds of teachers in England and Wales believe that there are more children with autism disorders now than five years ago and that one in three children in special schools has some form of autism; notes a survey carried out by the Conservative Party showing that one quarter of special schools feel threatened with closure; is concerned by the alarming rise in teacher vacancies in special schools; condemns the threat to SEN services in the Education Bill; and calls on the Government to set out clearly its plans for this sector and remove the uncertainty which harms the education of children with Special Educational Needs.
Special educational needs are not a glamorous subject; I get that feeling as the Chamber empties at their mention, which is sad. They are not a glamorous subject, but they are important. This is not an occasion for witty party political banter; it is too serious for that and, I am sure that the Minister for School Standards would agree, too sad—[Interruption.] I see that he is repeating what I said with disdain, so I shall say it again; it is too serious and too sad. The problem is the thousands of quiet, private little tragedies unfolding all over the country. I believe that the Minister genuinely wants to do his best for the many children who need special help in their education, but unfortunately he is constrained by his Government's dogmatic approach.
We all care about children with disabilities. I was tremendously annoyed whenever the word "care" was used today to hear Government Members laughing—as if Opposition Members are here for any reason other than that we care about vulnerable people in our society. That is certainly why I am here.
Children in Need, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Mencap, the National Autistic Society and many other charities do wonderful work and are brilliantly supported by millions of people throughout the country who care about the disadvantaged in our society. There is no doubt that individual teachers and learning support assistants who work in special schools or look after special needs children in mainstream schools do a remarkable job. I have recently seen many of them in action; their patience and perseverance are astounding. I could not do their job. It is no exaggeration to say that the achievements in the schools and special schools that I have visited sometimes bring a tear to the eye; those people have a difficult job and an uphill struggle, and many of them are trying hard to achieve so much. Much more, however, could be done if the Government put aside their rigid, dogmatic approach and faced the reality of the enormous challenge before them.
216
The Opposition have chosen to debate this subject because it is often at the bottom of the list. One goes through the topical issues in education—exams, exclusions, expenses and so on—and at the end one says, "Oh yes, what about special needs?"
Phil Hope: You might say that.
Mrs. Laing: I am saying exactly the opposite; it has often been said, and one cannot help but feel that it has been said by the Government for many years. Local authorities, too, often say, "Oh, but what about special educational needs?"
Phil Hope: The hon. Lady criticises the Government for not doing anything about special educational needs. Naturally, she is aware that funding for special educational needs has increased dramatically under the Government. We published the first comprehensive White Paper on support for special educational needs and are implementing the key principles of inclusion and partnership. To describe that as not delivering is to misrepresent the situation.
Mrs. Laing: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong; I did not say that that was not delivering. The last Conservative Government did a lot on special educational needs, but not enough; more still needs to be done. The hon. Gentleman talks about not delivering; I have not got to that yet, but he has correctly guessed that I am going to say that the Government are not delivering. Producing papers and having ideas are not the same as delivering, but I shall come to that later.
We want to give more prominence to the problem of providing a good education for children with special needs, because no one is more vulnerable or in need of help than a child who cannot communicate and wants to do what the other children are doing, but cannot understand—nor can his parents or teachers—why he cannot. That is what I mean by the thousands of private little tragedies unfolding throughout the country. We all know that they are taking place, but how can we try to alleviate them?
The number and proportion of special needs children is increasing all the time. We accept, and Ministers will no doubt say, that that may be partly because of better diagnosis, but it cannot be entirely a product of diagnosis. The statistics, particularly those produced recently by the Medical Research Council and by the National Autistic Society, warn us beyond doubt that educating children with special needs is not just a problem, but a growing problem. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
Knowing that the problem is growing, we are negligent if we do not heed that warning, or rather—I said that the debate was not an opportunity for party political banter—we are not negligent: Ministers are negligent if they fail to take the necessary action, having received the warning. I fear that that is what will happen.
The Secretary of State's amendment to our motion states that we should applaud
"the Government's strong record on supporting pupils with special educational needs, notably through providing a clear vision for their education and welfare".
Will the Government never learn that vision does not mean the same as action? Having a vision is fine, as the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said, and it is sometimes necessary, but publishing bits of paper does not mean that anything has been achieved.

217
I feel sorry for Ministers, who have it drummed into them all the time that it is what they say that matters, not what they do. But if they are led by a Prime Minister who believes that saying something three times is tantamount to having achieved it—"education, education education"—[Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning is muttering away, as usual. Is she too repeating it three times? It is time the Government recognised that merely issuing words and documents is not enough. It does not actually produce results. Let us look at the facts.
Mr. John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend discovered, as I often do in constituency cases, that caring parents who have a child who needs special assistance often have a good understanding of the child's problem and a clear view of which local education institution would be best at handling it, but that the council often blocks the parents' preferred choice? Often they are told that there is not sufficient Government money coming through for that purpose. Does my hon. Friend think that parental choice should be better respected, and would she want the Government to make sure that that was possible? In my view, caring parents are often the best judges of what is needed.
Mrs. Laing: Unsurprisingly, my right hon. Friend is correct. In my constituency alone, I have seen so many tragic cases of parents who have spent months, and sometimes years, looking for the right educational establishment for their child, because they know their child's needs, only to find that the funding is not available or that, for some other bureaucratic reason—such as the fact that the establishment in question might be over the county boundary or in another region, or that the transport costs cannot be met—the child cannot get the best education available to him or her.
There is no doubt that this happens. If I have seen that many, many times in my constituency, I assume that the problem is multiplied by at least 650 times around the country, and those are only the cases known to us as Members of Parliament. There must be many more.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: How does the hon. Lady square her remarks with the fact that under the Conservative Government, funding per pupil fell in real terms from 1992 to 1997, whereas under the present Government, funding per pupil has increased by £200 per child? Surely that means that children now have a better chance of receiving the proper education for their special educational needs than they had in 1997?
Mrs. Laing: No—all it means is that the hon. Lady is bandying statistics. What we are talking about is people. [Interruption.] I do not see what is funny about that. It does not matter what the last Conservative Government did, and it does not really matter what the Government said they would do two or three years ago. What matters is that out there, in the real world, there are thousands and thousands of children who need more help than they are getting. If all the hon. Lady can see is some figures that she got from her Whips Office, that is very sad indeed.
I shall examine the facts, starting with the increasing problem of autism. Last week was autism awareness week. I pay tribute to the National Autistic Society, which has done so much, not just last week but throughout this
218
year—this is autism awareness year, as I am sure hon. Members know—to bring the problems of autism into public focus.
There is no doubt that, for whatever reason, the incidence of children with autism spectrum disorders is increasing. I think the Minister for School Standards will agree with me on that point. I shall be interested to hear his comments. No matter how one looks at it, the problem is increasing. It is noticeable that the rate of autism occurring in primary schools is more than three times that in secondary schools, which is an unusual statistic, unless it means that autism is increasing exponentially, which it probably is not. That leads us to further questions, and they are difficult questions. I do not claim to have the answers, but we must consider the questions.
It is possible that there may be many more pupils in secondary schools who have an autism spectrum disorder but who have not been diagnosed, and who have therefore spent their time in education failing to achieve, failing to communicate and being classed simply as disruptive. I wonder how many of the truanting pupils about whom we argued in the earlier debate this evening are, in fact, pupils with special needs which have not been diagnosed. Should not pupil referral units have specialist expertise in special needs and, indeed, in autism spectrum disorders? That is a genuine question. I think they should, but they do not. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on that.
There is, however, no doubt that all the experts and even the Government recognise the importance of early diagnosis and early intervention, because children with unsolved problems grow up to be adults with unsolved problems. That is much more difficult to deal with. The cost to society—I do not mean in financial terms—in so many ways is so very much greater if someone who could be contributing to his or her community is, instead, excluded from it, and is therefore tragically seen as a burden, rather than as the asset which he or she could have been if the right help had been there at the right time, with early diagnosis and early intervention.
Despite some good recent work by the Medical Research Council, which I accept was commissioned by the Government—not by the Minister's Department, but by the Department of Health—we still do not know the extent of the problem or the rate at which it is likely to increase.
Mr. Phil Willis: After 11 or 12 minutes, the hon. Lady is now making some interesting points. Does she agree that despite the importance of early identification of autism, especially mild autism, both it and conditions such as dyspraxia and dyslexia are all difficult to treat? Most children are individually different within the definition of those conditions. Trying to find educational solutions is incredibly difficult. To blame the Government or even the previous Government for that is not fair.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. The subject is extremely complex. Simple answers cannot be given to simple questions. The questions are complex, the answers are complex, and the hon. Gentleman is right. Every child who is in need of special help in his or her education needs it for a different reason. Each one is an individual, which makes it extremely difficult to deal with the problem.

219
I partly agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis): I am not blaming the Government—I am warning them about what must be done. I am not blaming the Government for what has not been done so far; I am warning the Government that if they do not take heed of what we now know and take action now for improvement, the problem will get considerably worse. As I said, special educational needs are not a matter for party political banter. The hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point and I agree with his comments. I am sure that the Minister will proceed in the same genuine way.
The problem is real, but one of the issues is that we do not know its extent. Again, I am not blaming anyone for that. Medical science is producing new ideas and evidence all the time, but we do not know the extent of the problem. A few weeks ago, I asked Ministers what percentage of children with statements of special educational needs were categorised as autistic last year compared with 10 years ago. The Minister answered that the information was not available. I accept that this Government were not in power 10 years ago, although they were in power last year, but it seems that nobody anywhere has collected the statistics even to let us know the extent of the problem.
The statistics should be available. Whatever has happened in the past, I hope that Ministers will pledge today to continue to carry out further research. That is the pledge that I am seeking. Perhaps some of the enormous sums that are currently spent on sending out to teachers, head teachers and local authorities circulars and glossy colour brochures on a huge variety of subjects would be better spent on finding out more about the causes of the problems faced by some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a very telling and interesting point. She and other hon. Members throughout the House will know that a very clear identification of need is critical in the statementing process if the education that is provided by special schools or in the mainstream is to be pertinent and relevant to the child's needs. If she is telling the House that this Government, perhaps like the previous one, do not know how many autistic children there are despite the statementing process, she is also leading us to suspect that they may not know how many children have various other types of special needs. That is very worrying information and the Minister must address it when he responds.
Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what I am telling the House. Nobody knows the extent of the problem; all that we know is that it is increasing. I respect the Minister's attitude on this matter. I hope that he will pledge to find out more and put Government resources into this important research.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is important to point out that in the Warnock report of 1979 and the Education Act 1981—a good measure that was introduced by the Conservative Government—the emphasis of statementing was to categorise children on the basis not of their condition, but of their educational need. The principle was to try to de-stigmatise children
220
with special needs, and it is important that we maintain it. Once we go back to identifying a condition and applying resources only in relation to that condition, we will fail to take on the essence of what the Warnock report said and the principle to which successive Governments, including the previous one, have steadfastly adhered.
Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I said earlier, and as I will always say, we must treat children with special needs as individuals and not statistics. We must not simply consider them in terms of name of the disease from which they suffer, but treat them as individuals.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a very good point about children's individual characteristics and needs, but my hon. Friend is making a point about diagnosis of those needs. That is her point, and it explains the need for research to allow such needs to be diagnosed. I do not think that there is much distance between her and the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Laing: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We are trying in this debate to emphasise how much more must be done from now on. I am interested not in repercussions, but in what has to happen from now on.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress. I shall give way to him later.
I suspect that the Government had no idea of the extent of the liability that they were imposing on local authorities by introducing their policy of inclusion. I forgive them for that, because the information was simply not available. None the less, although inclusion may have sounded like a fine policy when it fitted the general Labour jargon, it does not work in practice. While the Government have been relying on integration in mainstream schools for the vast majority of children with special educational needs, sadly, they have closed 167 special schools in the past five years. That seems a horrific loss of expertise and resources.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend mentioned the number of special schools that have been closed. Is she aware that in Gloucestershire, the Lib-Lab pact that runs the county council has a programme to close every single special school in the county? It is closing five schools because of the Government's policies.
Mrs. Laing: That is a disgrace. There are children who need the schools to which my hon. Friend refers and whose futures will be utterly blighted because they cannot go to them. I cannot imagine why the Government want to close those schools and put other special schools under threat of closure, creating enormous doubt in the minds of parents whose children are already taught there.
David Taylor rose—
Mr. Stephen McCabe rose—
Mrs. Laing: I must give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), but I must then make some progress.
David Taylor: The hon. Lady complains, perhaps rightly, about the paucity of the special needs statistics that might help in the development of appropriate policies. She also said that parents were best placed to know about their children's needs. Is she interested in a statistic from the National Autistic Society, which suggests that more than 75 per cent. of parents are either satisfied or very satisfied with the provision made for their children? Is that not an important base on which to build?
Mrs. Laing: Yes, that is very important, but to me it means that 25 per cent. of parents are not satisfied. They are the ones about whom I am most concerned in this debate.
In talking about the policy of inclusion, I accept that in some cases involving mild autism or Asperger's syndrome, it is good for children to attend a mainstream school. Inclusion is right in many cases because it is good for social integration and allows a child to play with children of his or her own age. It is absolutely right in some cases, but not in all of them. The almost total reliance on integration has simply not been backed up with the necessary resources.
Mr. McCabe: I happen to agree with the hon. Lady, as I believe that we should keep open particular special schools, although we would be well advised to close others. Indeed, we have done some young people a service in closing some schools. Before making the charge that schools have been improperly closed—and in addition to asking for statistics about diagnosis—do we not need to know how schools that are engaged in the inclusion programme spend the special targeted resources provided in the delegated budgets? We need to know which local education authorities are spending that money appropriately and which are not. Should we not be collecting that statistic?
Mrs. Laing: Yes, we should. Even if the Minister will not listen to my requests for that information—I accept that he may do so—I hope that he will listen to the hon. Gentleman. Resources are often earmarked for special needs by the education authority, given to the school and then spent on something else. We know that that happens; I know of instances in which it has occurred and so does the hon. Gentleman, and there must be hundreds more examples throughout the country. That is another problem and another area where the Government simply do not have the necessary information. Now I must make some progress.
The almost total reliance on integration has not been backed up by the necessary resources, so the issuing of a statement of special educational needs, although it theoretically confers on a child the right to a certain amount of time, expertise, therapy and care, is not implemented in practice. That is why people become
222
cynical about politicians, and it is not surprising. No doubt Ministers see the statistics about the number of statements and the amount of money that is supposedly earmarked for their implementation. That may look good on paper, but sadly it does not work in practice.
We spend hours in Parliament having theoretical discussions about statements of special educational needs. I hardly have one constituency surgery where there is not at least one parent, often more than one, who is almost in tears of frustration from fighting the local authority to have the terms of a statement turned into action—or, indeed, to have a statement issued in the first place; for many children it takes far too long to start the ball rolling. Parents have their expectations raised by the rhetoric of the Government, then have their hopes dashed by the reality of provision that is just not there.
When one is looking after a special needs child, life is already difficult enough. The uncertainty that arises out of current policy and its piecemeal implementation makes it very much worse. What frightens me most is that the parents whom I usually see are able and articulate. They have managed to come to see their Member of Parliament, and have folders full of papers, reports, assessments and so on, many of which they have had to pay for themselves, yet even they cannot get the help that their children need. So what happens to the children of parents who are not articulate, do not know how to insist, and are so tired from looking after a disabled child that they do not have the energy to fight?
I do not know what the Minister for Lifelong Learning is sneering at. This is not a matter for sneering. I am describing—[Interruption.] It is not patronising. I am describing what I see in my own constituency. I am describing real people, and the hon. Lady is sneering at them. I have their names written down here, but I will not embarrass them by using them. The hon. Lady is sneering in a disgusting way—it is totally intolerable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise!"] She should indeed apologise. I am sure that the Minister for School Standards, who is sitting next to her, will not take that attitude.
For real people looking after children with real needs, it is a tragic situation. Getting help for one's child should not be an adversarial contest. If the Government are saying that every child has a certain right, they must set up a system whereby that right can be enforced. It does not happen like that in the real world. Parents should not have to fight year after year to get the education that their children need, deserve and, apparently, have a right to.
The fact is that the resources are not there to fulfil all the obligations to the increasing number of children who need special help. I do not suggest for a moment that the solution is simply to throw more money at the problem—we know that it is not. There are not enough specialist teachers, speech therapists, special schools, classroom support assistants or training opportunities for mainstream teachers. There is insufficient infrastructure to help all the children and their families who need help. It is not even clear to most parents where they should begin to look for assistance. Some aspects are dealt by the health authority, some by the social services department and some by the education department, and much time and energy are wasted in convening meetings of all three authorities before a decision that will actually help a child can be reached. The inequality of provision throughout the country is almost incredible. I know of one instance where two little boys who go to the same mainstream school

223
each require about the same amount of speech therapy each week, but one gets three times more than the other because they live in different health authority areas.
What no one wants to hear from the Minister tonight is a complacent list of apparent achievements. That would be an insult to the thousands of families who are currently waiting for help. In the real world, special needs provision is in chaos. This is not a matter for party political banter, and it is very disappointing—
Fiona Mactaggart rose—
Mrs. Laing: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. It is time for others to have their chance to speak. Labour Members who keep sneering at a genuine attempt to ask genuine questions of a genuine Minister are doing their Government and the people they serve as Members of Parliament a great disservice. I am sure that the Minister will not reply in the tone that his hon. Friends who are doughnuting behind him are adopting at present. It is far too sad a situation for that, and I do not know why hon. Members are laughing. It is ridiculous to laugh or sneer. The situation matters too much to families who desperately need help.
We all want to give every child in Britain today the best possible opportunity to develop his or her talents to their fullest potential. That is much more difficult in the case of children with special needs, so much more effort must be put into helping them. I believe that the Minister has, personally, the best of intentions, and I pay every respect to him for that. But good intentions are not the same as action, and it is action that we now need from the Government.
7.46 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes the Government's commitment to helping all pupils release their potential; supports the development of an education service that provides equality of opportunity and raises achievement of all children, including those with special educational needs; welcomes the Government's recognition of the important role of special schools and the forthcoming work to review and develop that role; further welcomes the recent report by the National Autistic Society and recognises the importance of early intervention to help children with autism; applauds the Government's strong record on supporting pupils with special educational needs, notably through providing a clear vision for their education and welfare in its 1998 Green Paper "Excellence for all children" and implementing an ambitious programme of action resulting in this House's approval of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, despite strong opposition from the other side of the House; commends the introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice and the principles of inclusion and partnership that lie behind it; further notes the development of national standards for specialist teachers and a range of training programmes and materials to support them; acknowledges the substantial increases in funding through both SSA and Standards Fund to support these and other initiatives; further notes that the Government will continue to ensure that the rights of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are protected; and looks forward to the forthcoming Code of Practice to reinforce the rights of pupils with disabilities.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that she wanted to avoid party point-scoring in the debate. That was a laudable objective, but unfortunately she
224
wavered in her determination on that score on several occasions. This is not a party issue, because there is enormous interest in special educational needs across the House, and in the other place as well. I counsel the hon. Lady against patronising some of the people we are talking about and their parents. That is a temptation that we need to avoid.
It is essential that all children, whatever their circumstances, should have the opportunity to develop to their full potential as individuals, to contribute economically to our society and to play a full part as active citizens in their communities. That is our conviction, which will be shared across the House. That is why we made it clear, right from the start of the Government's term in office, that we wanted substantially to improve provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It was not by any means at the end of any list. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said, the Green Paper on special educational needs appeared early on—in October 1997, less than six months after the general election. It was a high priority, reflecting the importance that we attach to the whole matter.
The hon. Lady referred to the publication of the National Autistic Society's report for autism awareness week, which adds helpfully to our understanding of the developing picture on autism and raises some important issues. We are working closely with the society, which is doing important work. Several of the matters covered in the report will be addressed in the guidance to be issued by the autism working group, on which the National Autistic Society is represented. We expect that to be published in the summer.
Norman Lamb: On autism, I have been horrified by the stories that I hear parents tell of the battles that they have with, in my case, Norfolk county council's education department in trying to get funding for the Lovaas scheme and the Son-Rise programme. When they get somewhere near the point of securing funding, the health authority tells them that it will not fund the health element, or that speech therapy, which is part of the statement, will not be funded by the education department. There is no attempt to co-ordinate the efforts of the health authority and the education department. Will the Minister look into that to ensure that there is proper co-ordination and joined-up government?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right that some parents struggle to get satisfactory provision for their children. Anxieties about that lie behind our recent changes, to which I shall refer shortly. It is especially important that we join up the various sources of support and ensure co-operation to fulfil parents' needs. He is right to draw attention to the difficulties that many people have encountered.
Mrs. Laing: The Minister agreed with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and therefore with me, that many parents have a struggle. Will he acknowledge that some parents are less able to struggle than others? It is not patronising to say that; I am simply stating the facts because I want to do the best for the most vulnerable.
Mr. Timms: We must ensure that the special educational needs of children are met, and that is the aim of our changes.

225
The hon. Lady referred to the policy on inclusion, which the Conservative Government initiated in some respects. I was pleased that two thirds of the respondents to the report by the National Autistic Society believed that inclusion worked for children with autistic spectrum disorders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, that confirms the society's earlier findings. However, I accept that several pressing issues must be tackled.
Mr. Roger Gale: During the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, I raised teaching the deaf. I referred to a school in my constituency that had a superb unit for the hearing impaired. Does the Minister seriously believe that it has been effective to dissipate the energy and talent in that school and spread it thinly around a group of less specialist schools in the name of inclusion?
Mr. Timms: Those decisions should be made locally. I shall comment on special schools because the hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned them in her speech. Support should be provided in a variety of ways, depending on the resources available in each area, and the decisions should be made locally.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: The Minister says that decisions should be made locally. He knows that the school adjudicator in the case of the first special school in Gloucestershire to close lived in Darlington. How was that decision local?
Mr. Timms: Arrangements for dealing with such matters, including appeals to the adjudicator, are well known. In 1990, just over 99,000 pupils were enrolled in special schools; in 2001, the figure was just under 96,000. Conservative Members must bear the figures in mind. They give a different impression from Opposition Members.
After the publication of the Green Paper in 1997, we issued the SEN programme of action in the following year. That led to the publication of a new SEN code of practice in November last year. Hon. Members will recall that we debated it twice in the House. At the end of last year, we also published additional guidance in the form of the SEN toolkit, which offers advice, for example, on writing statements, encouraging effective partnership with parents, and the role of health and social services working alongside education services. The Teacher Training Agency published material to help to identify teachers' training needs. All that constitutes a large package of support for those who deal with SEN on the ground.
The new code has several key themes, which were widely welcomed in the consultation that we undertook. The first is identifying needs as soon as possible. I believe that we all agree that we have made much progress in recent years and that identification is important in ensuring that we fulfil the needs of as many children as possible. The second key requirement is improving partnership with parents and the third is taking account of the child's views. The fourth key requirement is promoting effective school-based provision and the fifth is reducing unnecessary paperwork for teachers.
226
The code of practice is the cornerstone of our approach to SEN: a detailed framework in which people can operate and that is designed to promote a consistent approach by placing children with special needs at the heart of the process.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I worked in special needs for 10 years, and I was always impressed by the infinite patience of the parents of children with learning disabilities. The Green Paper in 1997 raised expectations and it was disappointing that it was ultimately resource-driven rather than needs-driven. Many parents feel bitterly let down because their expectations were raised only to be dampened because the resources were not forthcoming.
Mr. Timms: I shall comment on resources shortly, but the code took effect in January, and I expect parents to experience the benefits of the changes as they are implemented from now on.
Our approach has been consolidated and extended through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It strengthened, with effect from January this year, the right to a mainstream place for children with special needs when the child and the parents want one.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest wrongly described our approach to inclusion. It is pragmatic; the social and educational benefits of learning in a mainstream environment are undoubtedly significant both for the children and those around them. However, it will not be right for all children and families. In some cases, a mainstream place will not be appropriate and parents will request a specialist placement. We believe that pupils should be included in mainstream provision when their parents want that, subject to protecting the learning and safety of other children.
Schools and local education authorities need support to implement a policy of inclusion, and the statutory guidance that was published last November establishes the new statutory framework for inclusion. It includes practical advice on some steps that schools can take to include special educational needs children successfully. We published support materials and a training package, which have been well received. They set out the way in which inclusion and school improvement can go hand in hand.
The 2001 Act represents a big step forward in strengthening arrangements for collaborative working with parents. That is the key theme of the code. Hon. Members recognised that it was an important subject on which we needed to make progress. We have therefore introduced a new legal duty on local education authorities to provide parent partnership services and provision for resolving disputes when they arise. Of course, parents have a unique understanding of their children's needs and circumstances and we must give them the ability to play a key role in securing effective provision for their children and dealing with some of the frustrations that have arisen in the past.
We have worked closely with others in implementing the SEN action programme. Ofsted produced guidance and training materials on inclusion for inspectors. Schools will be required to show the effective provision that they make for all their pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. The revised national

227
curriculum was effected from September 2000. It provides for a statutory inclusion statement, which is supported by the curriculum guidelines of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for pupils with learning difficulties. The revised P scales are the performance criteria for children who work below level 1 of the national curriculum. Again, they implement another proposal in the 1997 Green Paper. Both were issued in March last year.
Guidance on supporting children with special educational needs has also been issued for the literacy and numeracy strategies.
Mr. Redwood: Is the Minister worried that the policy of inclusion and co-education for these different types of pupil is made more difficult by the regularity and persistence of academic and quasi-academic testing under this Government? Perhaps the Government have overdone the number and regularity of tests, which we now discover from some of the research are not very effective. They end up teaching the better pupils how to pass them, but we then discover that those pupils do not know very much about English or mathematics after all, while some of the other children about whom we are concerned tonight feel even more excluded because of this persistent testing.
Mr. Timms: I do not agree with that. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to visit some of the schools that have made a huge success of implementing a policy of inclusion, while also making a great success of raising their standards as measured by the assessment process that we have in place. There are some superb examples where both are being achieved simultaneously, and I do not agree that there need be a conflict between them.
We have established the 11 SEN regional co-ordination projects to bring together LEAs, health and social services, voluntary agencies and others to share good practice, and to develop their working together as they undoubtedly need to, in this area above all. Effective joint working is of key importance to young people with special educational needs.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is also making a big contribution to securing fair treatment for disabled young people. It extended the coverage of the Disability Discrimination. Act 1995 to education, outlawed discrimination by disability in education for both teachers and students, and placed a duty on schools and LEAs to plan ahead for disabled pupils and to increase accessibility to schools' premises and to the curriculum. Those changes take effect from September. That is another major step forward, a further realisation of the Government's commitment to make a reality of better provision.
Mr. Willis: Before the Minister finishes this section of his speech, will he tell the House what the involvement of the Learning and Skills Council is? Whether or not we think that the Government are delivering on SEN provision for children up to the age of 16, many of us fear that when children move into further education, they do not get the same support as before, and parents do not
228
feel that they have the same rights as before. I would be interested to know what the Minister feels about that function of the Learning and Skills Council.
Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that progress has been made in schools. There is still a good deal further to go, but good progress has been made. We want comparable progress in further education. The duty arising from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 also applies to the activities of the Learning and Skills Council. We have supported that by funding and by capital, and I think that we can be optimistic that we shall see comparable progress in that sector; it may be following a little distance behind, but not very far.
Mr. Willis: I raise this issue because I understand that the Government are now considering removing sixth forms from schools, creating sixth-form college provision throughout the country, and removing 14-to-19 provision from further education colleges. If that is the case, it is a significant change of policy, which will affect special educational needs. I would be grateful if the Minister could either scotch that rumour, confirm it, or at least tell us what the relationship between these new organisations and special needs provision is to be, when he has got his Minister's briefing.
Mr. Timms: I am very happy to scotch that rumour. I am not sure quite what its source was, but it is certainly not in any of the proposals that we have put forward, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had read carefully—as I would expect him to—the documents that we have provided. There will, of course, be a role for the LSC in planning, but the suggestion that we are going to take the sixth forms out of schools is entirely erroneous. Indeed, the Green Paper refers to ways in which we can simplify the expansion of sixth forms, where that is appropriate.
We have ensured that better resources are available to support the active policy of inclusion that we have introduced. This is a key part of this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has referred to it already. Education spending as a share of gross domestic product fell from 6.5 per cent. in the mid-1970s to not much more than 4.5 per cent. in the mid-1990s. Last year, it was back up to 5 per cent., it will rise to 5.3 per cent. by next year, and the Chancellor has foreseen further rises beyond that in his Budget statement. The resources that we need to make a success of the policy are becoming available.
That is certainly the case with recurrent funding, and the average recurrent funding per pupil will have risen in real terms by more than £760 a year by 2003–04, compared with 1997–98. The support that we provide for SEN under the standards fund has risen year on year, and it is running at record levels, supporting expenditure of £91 million in 2002–03, which is more than five times the amount available in 1997–98.
Mr. Hancock: While I accept that many parents welcome the opportunity provided by inclusion and have seen its benefits, an increasing number do not regard it as the ideal solution to the educational needs of their children. There is a great worry that the choice of those parents will be ignored, and that they will be forced into

229
a corner and have to accept what they consider to be the second-best method of achieving their child's full potential. Where does the Minister rank parental choice in the pecking order of priorities when placing someone in education?
Mr. Timms: I assign to it absolutely pivotal importance in these decisions, and that is the basis for the framework that we have put in place. There is undoubtedly an enormous amount to be gained from mainstream provision for disabled children and children with special educational needs, where they can benefit from it. It is also undoubtedly the case that many young people who have not been in mainstream provision would have benefited greatly from it. We want to ensure that it will be possible for those benefits to be available in the future. But that does not apply to all children and young people by any means. There will, therefore, continue to be provision in special schools and elsewhere for those who will benefit from that. The role of the parents in contributing to those decisions is central.
Mr. Hancock: What would the Minister say to an LEA that believes that inclusion is the only solution for the long-term educational needs of such young people, closes special schools and denies a choice to those parents who would have liked their children to stay in special schools, the ethos of which has existed for decades and which have provided great educational benefits for children? What will happen to LEAs that deny their responsibility to provide parents with that choice?
Mr. Timms: That option is not available to LEAs. Parents who are unhappy with a decision made by an LEA can go to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, and the tribunal's decision will be binding. I have already referred to the parent partnership requirements that we have imposed on LEAs, and all this will ensure that parents play a key central role in contributing to these decisions.
In resourcing all this, we have also made a lot of progress on capital spending. Capital spending on schools has more than trebled since 1997–98, and it will go up again this year and next year. Within that, the schools access initiative is providing £220 million over the current three-year period. In the current financial year, £70 million is being provided to improve access to mainstream schools for pupils with disabilities. That includes lifts, ramps and disabled toilets, of course, but also carpeting and the acoustic tiling of classrooms to benefit hearing-impaired children, and the provision of blinds and paint schemes to benefit visually impaired children. These are real practical benefits that will widen opportunities for pupils, and that level of capital investment is about 10 times that of 1997.
Mr. Willis: On capital investment, I have Henshaw's school for the blind in my constituency. It deals with young adults, from 16 upwards. Most are deaf-blind and come to the college from all over the country. The school is an independent charity that desperately needs to provide new facilities to meet the new Care Standards Act 2000. What access does that school, and others that offer what
230
the Government require as alternative provision, have to capital funding to meet the requirements of another piece of legislation?
Mr. Timms: I should be happy to look at the position of the hon. Gentleman's local school. About 10 times more capital is being invested in making the changes that we need than was the case a few years ago.
Mr. Gale: The Hampton hearing-impaired unit in my constituency was a state-of-the-art, purpose-built unit with specialist teachers, concentrated on one site but within a mainstream junior school. The effort has been dissipated, and no amount of capital will replicate all those resources in every school and the teachers to go with them. It simply does not make sense.
Mr. Timms: Clearly, a decision has been made that the best way of providing support for the children in the hon. Gentleman's area is through the new configuration that has been introduced. I am not familiar with the circumstances there, but I emphasise the enormous benefits for children of being in mainstream education, where that is possible, and of being given the support to make a success of that. Opposition Members are losing sight of that in some of their interventions.
We are committed to ensuring that staff have the skills to recognise and address the special educational needs of their pupils. To obtain qualified teacher status, all trainee teachers must demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs, know their responsibilities as teachers under the SEN code of practice and how to seek advice from specialists. From September, all those who are awarded QTS must be able to demonstrate that they can differentiate their teaching to meet the differing needs of pupils, including those with SEN.
John Mann: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I need to make some more progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
For teachers already in post and other staff, we are promoting the creation of new or enhanced training opportunities through two £1 million funding streams in the current financial year supporting training activity by special voluntary organisations and higher education training providers. We are intending to commission new training resources directly in a number of areas, for example, ensuring greater access for pupils with disabilities to PE and sport, and providing a training video for school governors linked to the SEN code of practice.
We have also recognised the importance of investing in the early years to make sure that children get the right help early on and have the best possible start to their education. This is a fundamental change. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, significant numbers of children are entering secondary education without their needs being met, and we do not want that to continue.
In March last year, we announced a £25 million package in support of SEN in the early years, including support for establishing SEN co-ordinators—SENCOs—in early years education settings and area SENCOs, with a target of one area SENCO for every 20 non-maintained settings by 2004.

231
We announced last year that we were drawing together a range of agencies to develop guidance for professionals working with children with disabilities in the birth to two age range and their families. That guidance is ready and will be issued shortly for consultation. There will be a separate but linked document on early intervention and support services for children whose hearing impairments have been identified early, and that will be produced in conjunction with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. Those two sets of guidance will make a big contribution to addressing the needs of very young children and will reinforce the importance of effective partnerships with parents.
In everything that they do, schools rightly want to ensure that the work that they put in to helping all their pupils to learn is properly recognised. We are committed to supplementing the information that is already in performance tables with information about how far schools, including special schools, help their pupils to progress between the various stages of their education. The performance tables, following piloting work, will include value-added measures from 2002 for secondary schools and from 2003 for primary schools. We want to do still more in that area.
There is a great deal more to do if we are to realise our aims. Much of our work since 1997 has focused on widening access and opportunity for children with SEN through improvements to the statutory framework. We are going forward in partnership with schools, local education authorities, health and social services departments and the voluntary sector to bring about real improvements.
John Mann: Statementing in my local education authority is a third of the national average. What advice, guidance or training are LEAs given in determining how to statement children?
Mr. Timms: A good deal of guidance has been given, and I have referred to a number of elements. With the regional SEN consortiums, we are making sure that good practice is spread throughout the regions and that successful LEAs can impart the benefit of their experience to those that have not been as successful. I hope that we will increasingly see good practice being uniformly operated across the country.
We have not reached our destination yet, but we are well on the way.
Mr. Hancock rose—
Mrs. Laing rose—
Mr. Timms: I will not give way again.
I welcome the opportunity of this debate to re-emphasise our commitment to make further progress, which, I know, reflects a high priority that is shared across the House.
8.16 pm
Mr. David Rendel: Let us start with the good news. The good news is that society's growing awareness of special educational needs has, over the past few years, made this a much more civilised country in which to live.
232
One of the commonest mistakes made by people in the second half of their lives—the over-50s, to which group, sadly, I belong—is to believe that since their childhood, everything has been getting gradually worse. I do not believe that, and if there is one thing about our society that has undoubtedly improved during my lifetime, it is the way in which people who have some form of special need—whether that be intellectual, emotional, or physical—are treated.
Let me be fair and say that the Government have cause to be congratulated for contributing to this change in society's attitudes. First, they introduced their 1997 Green Paper "Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs" and then in 2001 came their amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Both measures were very welcome. However, before the Government get too complacent, I wish to press them on one point. Given that the target date for implementation of the measures set out in the Green Paper was 2002, I hope that the Minister winding up for the Government will take the opportunity to provide the House with an update on where they are with their objectives.
To return to my point, in our parents' days it was common practice, sadly, to shut away people with physical or mental disabilities in an institution, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Gradually, during our lifetimes, that has changed. Now, quite rightly, we accept that everyone has the right to opportunities to make the best of their talents and abilities, however great or small those may be.
The waste of talent—the waste of human lives—that used to occur is greatly reduced. Let me give an example from my constituency. Only a few years ago, a young lad with very severe congenital physical problems wanted to go to a local mainstream comprehensive school in west Berkshire. The school simply was not adapted to meet his needs, but the head teacher had the courage to fight for the funds to make the necessary structural changes and, to its credit, the local authority paid up.
The boy went to that mainstream school and was very successful. He obtained good exam results, joined in school expeditions and was popular with his schoolmates. He ended up as head boy and is now a successful university student. He, the local authority, and the head teacher who fought to enable him to be educated alongside others without his level of physical disability deserve great credit.
However, the real success of that story is what happened not to that young man, but to all the other young men and women in that school. They learned far more lessons than he did. They learned what it was like to have a disability, what help he needed, and how much they could gain from him and his companionship. They also learned that, to do that, it was sometimes necessary to give a bit in return. They had to take turns helping to push his wheelchair; they had to help him upstairs; they had to carry things that were too bulky or heavy for him to carry.
That example serves to illustrate some wider themes. First, society benefits from an inclusive education system that is right in principle. Wherever possible, the individual requirements of children with special educational needs should be met within the mainstream educational system. We all benefit from the talents unlocked as a result. Secondly, schools and teachers across the country—the front line—deserve to be congratulated on their hard work

233
and dedication in meeting the diverse needs of the children in their care. Thirdly, they undertake that work in the context of a frequent shortage of money, and the constant development and expansion of our understanding of special educational needs.
That is not the only problem; there is also a lack of joined-up thinking across the education system as a whole. For example, what happens when SEN pupils move through the education system? Sometimes, we discover that facilities are in place to meet their requirements at primary level, but not at secondary level. The standard of provision varies widely across the country, and sometimes such pupils move across the country. As a recent Audit Commission consultative paper pointed out:
"LEAs are working towards inclusion at different paces and using a range of approaches—often without a clear and coherent strategy…the support and educational opportunities children with special needs get vary depending on where they live and what school they go to."
None the less, mainstream schools are not right for everyone. Sadly, however much LEAs try to include young people with special educational needs in such schools, for the foreseeable future at least, there will always be some for whom mainstream schools simply cannot provide properly. Special schools also face major problems.
According to provisional departmental figures for 2002, there are 14,900 teachers in maintained special schools, compared with 15,100 in 2000, and 15,500 in 1997. The teacher vacancy rate for maintained special schools is 2.4 per cent, which is double the rate—1.2 per cent.—for maintained secondary, primary and nursery schools. Unlike elsewhere in the maintained sector, the trend in vacancy rates in maintained special schools is upwards, not downwards.
Underlying all those difficulties is the question of funding. The medical advances of the previous century were such that many people with natural disadvantages can live happy and successful lives as never before—a development that must be welcome. Moreover, such lives often last much longer than in past centuries. It is therefore hugely important that schoolchildren in mainstream schools study alongside others with different natural disadvantages, so that they can learn how to help them and how to get the most out of such schoolmates. However, that costs money. Schools must be given the necessary resources to cope with special educational needs, especially where the pupils' needs are so great that they cannot reasonably be met in a mainstream school.
I shall illustrate these points by considering some examples. We have—sadly, I should say we did have—several excellent special schools in my constituency, but I want to contrast just three, the first of which is the well-known Mary Hare grammar school for the deaf. Anyone who visits it is struck by the outstanding results that are achieved there by some of Britain's most profoundly deaf youngsters. I have never forgotten my first visit. As I was wandering down a corridor, I suddenly heard, as if from some distant place, the beautiful sound of a solo clarinet. Ignorant as I then was of the fantastic musical abilities of many deaf children, I was amazed to discover that a school for deaf children could not only contain many talented individual musicians, but put together an entire orchestra of musicians, just like any mainstream school.
234
Of course, the teachers need special training and the pupils need special help, and the cost of running the school is such that the local authorities sometimes baulk at the expense. Luckily, its reputation is so high that it can still flourish, but who could blame the local authorities—constantly strapped for cash as they are, thanks to real-terms cutbacks by central Government—for hesitating to spend much more on one Mary Hare pupil than they must spend on a mainstream, comprehensive-educated pupil? That is a real dilemma for the local authorities, and it is up to the Government to help them redress it.
The second example is Priors Court school, in Chieveley, to which it is even more difficult to persuade local authorities to send autistic children, despite the good work done by the National Autistic Society. Its facilities are outstanding. For example, it has an amazing swimming pool, with lights and sounds that provide a wonderfully stimulating environment. A very high teacher-pupil ratio gives each child the individual attention that they need to enable them to play a real part in society as adults. Thanks to some generous private individuals—one in particular—some children, at least, are getting the real start in life that they probably could not get anywhere else.
Sadly, that school can be contrasted with what was Enborne Lodge school. Although situated in Newbury, it was originally an old Greater London council school. When Mrs. Thatcher—as she then was—closed down the GLC in a fit of pique, the school was transferred to Lambeth borough. It would be difficult to think of a less suitable London borough. Of course, within a few years, Lambeth's own financial problems led to the closure of the school. What a waste.
While in existence, Enborne Lodge took under its wing some of London's most difficult pupils. Some had committed terrible crimes, such as burning down schools and committing violent acts against family members and others. Such children often came from violent backgrounds. Their parents beat each other up, and sadly they often beat and abused their children as well. None the less, at Enborne Lodge those children were given a completely new start in life. The children had emotional and behavioural difficulties, and for the first time in their lives, they were valued for what they could do instead of being despised for what they could not do.
Enborne Lodge often discovered hidden talents. Some of the pupils became first-class sportsmen and sportswomen. Some took their exams and went on to university and to important jobs in the community. The head teacher believed that all of them would probably have spent most of their lives in jail if they had not been to Enborne Lodge. The cost of the school, which in the end became too much for Lambeth to bear, was far less than the cost to society had those pupils not been given a second opportunity in life and, instead, been left to rot in prison.
The costs of providing properly for those with special educational needs have to be weighed carefully against the often even greater costs of not providing for them properly. At a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, which was called to discuss the closure of the dome, David James, the former executive chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company, made an interesting comment. He said that all too often the Government have such an obsession with getting the

235
cheapest possible service available at any one time that we often end up by spending a great deal more in the long run. The Liberal Democrats have frequently said that, and I was delighted to have it confirmed by such an authoritative source. Moreover, nowhere is it truer than in special educational needs. Short-term thinking, driven by the need to reduce costs, simply results in other costs. There are costs to society, because of the talents and abilities that are wasted as a result, and there are financial costs, because other budgets are often left to pick up the pieces.
Education must be about unlocking the talents and abilities of individuals. That is what SEN provision is about, too. In contrast, league tables and testing assume that all children start their school life equal. The danger is that those with special educational needs are left by the wayside. We cannot afford to let that happen, and we must not let that happen. We must not fail those who need us most.
8.30 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Minister has come under something of an attack. I was surprised by that because over the years the subject of special educational needs has been a matter of consensus rather than combat. SEN policies have been criticised before. I shall remind the Minister of a speech in which it was said:
"Let me tell the Minister that we need more help in the country now. We need more residential educational facilities, and more respite for parents; we also need to provide more day provision for autistic adults. The Government must begin by reviewing the needs of the forgotten children."—[Official Report, 17 May 1995; Vol. 260, c.310.]
That is the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) might have made, but in fact those were the words of the then Member for Finchley.
Special educational needs are important. They involve a vulnerable group of people, and the House needs to be cautious when it chooses to use such people as the subject of an Opposition day debate. It is easy to make criticisms that turn vulnerable people into political footballs without providing adequate ideas about how we should deal with the problem.
Indeed, we have been dealing with the problem for a long time. The solutions evolve as we learn more about the problems of children with SEN and children with autism. The shadow Leader of the House, when he was an Education Minister in 1992, said:
"We hope to establish a consensus and to achieve the greatest possible agreement in order to identify the best ways to serve, help and support the children who deserve every support and help."— [Official Report, 3 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 1134.]
Again, I caution the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the dangers of turning the debate into a combat rather than a matter of consensus.
The problem of a shortfall of specialist teachers is not new either. Back in 1994, it was said:
"There is a shortfall of available specialist teachers. The number completing courses in teaching pupils with severe learning difficulties fell from 200"—
just 200—
"in 1989 to 80 in 1993. The number of teachers of hearing-impaired children qualifying has fallen from 150 to 110. The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf reports an average age of more
236
than 40 for new trainees and a serious fall-off in younger teachers. Special schools and support services are having difficulty in filling appointments with qualified people."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 38.]
We need to be careful of ignoring the fact that the problems are not new. They are continuing and will remain with us for as long as the problem remains with us.
Mrs. Laing: Strange as it may seem, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a matter for party political banter—as I said. He is right to say that the problems have always been with us and are still with us now. We must not look back at statistics, but forwards at what can be done. If a consensus that allows us all to work together can be achieved, let us achieve it.
Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that. However, she needs to achieve greater consensus within her party, which faces the eternal problem of how to fund policies. She talks about the importance of greater resources and more provision, but if a party is committed to reducing Government spending to 35 per cent. of GDP, it raises the fundamental question of where it is going to make the cuts. Knowing her as I do, I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to ring-fence this area. Clearly, we would wish to give her the opportunity to say so this evening.
I shall remind the hon. Lady again of the words of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) a couple of years ago:
"The ambition to develop special schools as centres of expertise to collaborate with and support mainstream schools is a correct aspiration".
He was absolutely right. The head teachers of special schools in my county, however, say that they have heard such ideas before. They are absolutely right—they have heard them before. They are all too well aware of the funding implications. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire continued:
"The issue is how that is to be afforded."—[Official Report, 5 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 628.]
The hon. Lady therefore needs to consult her colleagues on this issue. She also needs to bear in mind, when she puts forward this combative motion, the words of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), among others of her hon. Friends, who recently said:
"What goes on in the classroom and the school is only a small part of the education that the child needs. Especially in the case of a child who suffers from … autism".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 238WH.]
We must therefore see the issue in its real context.
The real criticism relates to how the problem was dealt with before 1991. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the problem of statistics. The fact is that before 1991 we did not even count the numbers. There is real criticism to be made of those lost years, for the sake of those forgotten children—today's adults—who suffered so much. The statistics are important, and she is right to remind Ministers of the importance of continuing to collate them.
The hon. Lady referred earlier to all those tragedies, but we must also be careful to avoid talking only about tragedies. As a result of the changes in our thinking, on which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and others have commented, we—including the hon. Lady's

237
party, when in office—have achieved notable success. We must therefore be careful to avoid pointing only to what is going wrong, not to what is going right. The number of pupils with statements has increased each year since 1991, but the reason for that, of course, is that we are diagnosing those children. There are not suddenly more of them than there were before, but now we know where they are and who they are.
How are we to respond to the problem? Again, it is to the credit of the Conservative Government that the Education Act 1996 sought to give effect to the principle that pupils with special educational needs should normally be educated in mainstream schools. We must not lose sight of the importance of that decision, and the real progress that was achieved when that Government made it. As a principle of provision, the present Government have continued that policy since the election in 1997. That is right, and there have been some fantastic successes. In 1991, 165,875 children were identified as pupils with statements. That figure was up by nearly 100,000 in 1997, and today it is 269,000.
Crucially, those children have gone into mainstream education wherever possible. Let us celebrate that success. In 1991, 42 per cent. were in maintained mainstream schools; today that figure is 61 per cent. That is a good thing. In 1991, 54 per cent. were in special schools and pupil referral units; by 2000 that figure was down to 36 per cent. That is a cause for real celebration. That inclusion was achieved by the hon. Lady's party when in government, and was continued by the Labour party in government. Consensus across the House has been important in achieving that. I note the importance of caution with regard to turning the issue of children with special educational needs into an area of political combat. We have done well to keep it away from that, and we now need to be cautious about moving it into the arena as a political football.
In opposition the Labour party produced the document "Every Child is Special", which rightly drew attention to the fact that
"too high a proportion of the resources devoted to special educational needs was being spent on bureaucratic procedures",
and that too much time was spent on
"confrontational relationships between parents and local authorities."
The Government were right to tackle some of that. They were also right to increase the funding in special schools, despite the fall in the overall balance by 20 per cent. We should acknowledge that that funding has gone in. We should also acknowledge the Government's success in making it possible for children in mainstream schools to have access to such funding. That is not a criticism of the previous Government, but an observation of where our priorities as a society were.
In 1996–97 the extra budget made available to help to make the mainstream accessible to disabled pupils was £10 million. In 2001 it was £50 million, and over the next three years there is a commitment to spend £220 million under the schools access initiative. That is a good record, but we can do more.
The motion draws on the document "Autism in schools: crisis or challenge?" produced by the National Autistic Society. I am proud to be involved with that organisation, and I have enjoyed helping it with fund raising. We owe the society a great debt for the work that it has done. However, let us be fair about the figures. Even the
238
society's current report says that it is surprised by the numbers of children with autism. It points out that only 90 per cent. of all teachers are trained in the specific problems of children with autism, but it realises that catch-up inevitably has to follow diagnosis. Training of teachers will follow recognition of the problem.
Norman Lamb: The Disabilities Trust makes the point about the crucial need for early diagnosis and assessment. Lost years can have a fatal effect on a child's development. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more training needs to go into early diagnosis and assessment?
Mr. Woodward: I agree with that, and towards the end of my remarks I shall have a suggestion for my hon. Friend the Minister that will involve a dialogue with the Treasury.
Part of the Conservative party's criticism of the Government's approach to education is that it is too centralised. However, the hon. Member for Epping Forest should look more closely at the report from the National Autistic Society that is cited in the Opposition's motion. The society wants local education authorities to receive a strong lead from the centre so that they can deal with the problem. It wants central Government to tell LEAs to direct their resources to tackling autism and to concentrate them on providing teachers with more specialist training in dealing with the problems of children with autism. That is not a question of one size fits all; those at the sharp end of dealing with autism say that a lead from the centre will bring about fundamental changes.
We have heard much talk about what has been achieved in hon. Members' constituencies, and it gives me great pleasure to refer to my constituency in St. Helens. Luckily, we have just succeeded with a bid for a new school in St. Helens for children with special educational needs. Through the work of my LEA and its successful leader, Susan Richardson, we received the top award of £5 million. The LEA is providing the extra £1.5 million, and in two years the school will open in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. It will take 170 children, with specialist teachers and specialist training. That must be a step forward, and I am grateful to the Government for providing the money.
However, no matter what we do, the solution for some children with autism will not be found in mainstream education. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, early intervention is crucial. If we meet the children when they are two or two and a half and intervene intensively on a one-to-one basis, there is a chance that, with special help, they can be integrated into mainstream education when they are five or six. I am sure that all Members would want that.
I recently came across the case of a young boy called Toby. He was three when he was diagnosed with autism in 1996. He lives in Camden with his mother, who went to the local authority and said that she needed special help for her boy. Camden had a school for children with special educational needs, but no special provision for children with autism. The boy's mother, who is an enterprising and energetic woman and works in the theatre, got the resources together to create a project called the Treehouse school. Five or six years later, that school has 30 children of primary school age.
I have been carefully complimentary about the Government's policies, so I shall direct my next remarks to my hon. Friend the Minister. The Treehouse school

239
wants to expand its facilities so that it can take 80 children. There is no other such facility in Camden, and all but two of its 30 pupils are paid for by LEAs.
The school is running an appeal to raise nearly £11 million for its expansion, but £2.5 million of that is for VAT, which will find its way to the Chancellor. I am sure that he will find excellent ways to redistribute that money round the country, but I ask the Minister whether it is sensible to expect the school to raise those extra funds before it can build facilities for children whose places will be paid for by an LEA. After all, we are trying to tackle the problems of children with autism and we are encouraging the charitable sector to come up with creative solutions. The school in Camden is an excellent solution, and it fulfils a need that was not previously being met. Treehouse is an excellent model. It is doing pioneering American work that is changing the treatment of autism among young people and children of primary and secondary school age. If we mean what we say, and if we are a reforming Government in every area, we may need to consider reforming VAT to help special schools to do their work.
In their motion the Conservatives call for the Government
"to set out clearly its plans for this sector".
The hon. Member for Epping Forest spoke about vision, and I have to say that not only have the Government displayed vision since their time in opposition, when they published a paper on the subject, but there has been action, in my constituency and throughout the country.
Today I asked charities, such as the one cited in the motion, what they thought of Government policy. First, they are delighted with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Secondly, they feel that the legislation is better than ever before in enshrining the rights of every child with special educational needs. Thirdly, they commend the national autism good practice working group and the national initiative for autism screening and assessment. The people at the coal face think that the Government are doing well.
Mrs. Laing: The theory that the hon. Gentleman puts forward is right, but does he not agree that there are thousands of parents who have to fight to get what is due to their children? A statement of need is issued and parents are told that the child has certain rights, but the local authority, the health authority and social services are unable to honour those rights because the necessary infrastructure does not exist.
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she is making a wonderful case for championing the most vulnerable children. I only wonder, in light of what she said, why special educational needs was not a central part of the speech made by the leader of her party earlier today, in which he said that he would champion children. I have just read the press release of that speech, and I cannot find a word about children with special educational needs or autism.
I know that last week, which was national autism week, the Conservative party carried out a survey, and surveys are important in raising awareness. In the same week the party published its first important document on
240
Education—10,000 words of it, after eight months of intensive work. It is all about how we might begin to modernise education, but in 10,000 words there was not one word about autism and only half a line about special educational needs. There was not a policy or a proposal.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Woodward: No, I am about to finish my speech.
This is an important subject, but if there is to be anything more than combat, and if the leader of the Conservative party means to champion children, he must take the most vulnerable, those who need to be championed, and include them in his speech. Of course the hon. Lady's speech in the House this evening was important, but is she saying that it was more important than that of her party's leader? Last week was national autism week, so why did the Conservative leader not refer to autism if it is important enough to dominate the party's parliamentary time? It is important to match the rhetoric with action.
In the report on education that the Conservative party produced last week, there was nothing about autism but a great deal about Gladstone. When I was at school I learned about Gladstone in the context of the 19th century being a period of reaction and reform. Gladstone was indeed a radical reformer; the problem with the motion is that it is all reaction and no reform.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I point out to right hon. and hon. Members that there is not a great deal of time left in this debate, so brevity would be helpful?
8.50 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am delighted to have the chance to contribute to this debate on a very important subject. I should like to start by saying that it should be absolutely evident that there is no political disagreement about the importance of special educational needs, but that is not the same as saying that there is no disagreement throughout the education system about how those needs are best met. Perhaps more than on any other issue, there is constant and vigorous debate between professionals and parents about the relative merits of special schools and supported education in mainstream schools.
I shall reply briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). He cannot imagine that the document published last week or the speech made today represent the Conservative party's final words on education, and we have initiated this debate to raise a number of issues, including autism.
The watchwords for this debate, as for other education issues, should be diversity and choice in so far as they can be achieved, especially in rural areas, and flexibility in the system, bearing in mind the variety and complexity of the educational needs of the children we are talking about and the fact that those needs are rarely static. To those watchwords we should add the need for the fullest possible information for, and the involvement of, parents and the best achievable co-ordination of the different responsible agencies locally.

241
What has been interesting about this evening—it would be equally interesting if we had more time—is the fact that we all bring our own experiences to this debate. We have heard about some moving examples from hon. Members' constituencies. I know, because I have heard him say so on many occasions, that the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having himself attended a special school, is very much in favour of inclusiveness and educating children with special needs in mainstream schools. Although the Government of whom I was a member certainly stressed the importance of moving towards, where possible, as much inclusion as we could, my own experience of more than 30 years in education, one way and another, has influenced me to differ from the right hon. Gentleman's view.
My memory goes back to my experience of a post-war primary school in rural Norfolk, where the concept of special needs education, except for the blind and deaf, was quite unknown. As a result, in my 30-pupil primary school, children with pronounced special needs were not educated, but seated and, when possible, kept occupied next to the teacher and alongside us. That same teacher, in a two-teacher school, was also the head teacher. She was responsible for organising the work of about 15 children of all abilities between the ages of seven and 11. As a result, the special needs children got no chance at all.
When some residential special schools were opened in Norfolk in the early 1950s, the life chances of the children alongside us and their counterparts in all the other schools were transformed beyond all imagining, especially given some of their family circumstances.
In the intervening many decades since then, the pendulum of educational fashion has swung back and forth. We are currently in a phase that is worrying many heads of special schools. We heard what the Minister for School Standards had to say this evening, and I hope that we shall hear further reassurance from his colleague, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, when she makes her closing remarks. However, given the number of closures that have taken place and the examples of the LEAs' attitudes that we have heard about, there is no doubt that many head teachers of special schools feel that those schools, and the loving care and devotion that they and their staff provide, are under threat.
No one could seriously argue against the rightness of inclusion for all pupils, especially those who throughout their lives, because of their disabilities, may in any case feel excluded from mainstream life. It is a question of how best to balance the needs of any particular child at a given point in his or her life, and how best to equip that child to realise his or her full potential. That, surely, is the point of inclusiveness.
What is needed—we are not there yet, and we were not there in my time either—is the utmost flexibility between the special school system and supported education in mainstream schools. It is a pity if the dedicated work done in special schools is somehow devalued in the eyes of those who work in them because of the swing of the pendulum. We need both routes for these children, but with many crossing points between them at every stage.
Because of the need for crossing points, an essential feature of the education and continuing development of children with special needs is the closest possible
242
co-ordination and co-operation at local level. We can all give excellent examples of that. Because of the time constraint I will not give lengthy examples from my constituency; I merely say that it is possible for a special school to work closely with a local training centre, which can in turn work closely with a further education college.
I did not agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is not here now, about what went on in FE colleges. In my experience at any rate, the work of FE colleges has been one of the great unsung successes of our age. The excitement and satisfaction gained by young people from their status as students is an object lesson in real inclusiveness, which I hope will not be adversely affected by the new regime of training and skills councils.
The main difficulty is coping with the anxieties of parents. They need to know their rights with regard to statements, and they need the greatest possible reassurance at all times. In no area is collaboration between all relevant agencies more vital. Like every other Member, I find that the most distressing letters in my postbag have come from parents who know that something is wrong with their children but are having to put up with delays and, sometimes, failure to communicate on the part of the various agencies. They feel that they are being pushed around through various kinds of bureaucracy, while having to cope with the appalling uncertainty involved in suspecting that their children may be different from others.
Many such parents are reassured by the knowledge that their children will be catered for by the specialised skills of a special school. Despite the best will in the world, a child inappropriately placed in mainstream education, even with support, may be a source of continuing worry and uncertainty for parents. Parents worry about whether the next class teacher will be as understanding as the present one, whether the child is being mocked or bullied and is not telling anyone, whether the support assistant will stay in her job, and whether the hours of support will be reduced.
That is not to denigrate the excellent work done in mainstream education for children with special needs. Clearly the appropriateness of a child's placement is the most important issue; but the parents' interests and peace of mind should not be overlooked, and nor should their responsibilities to the other members of the family. I think that a special school placement can help a whole family to survive, providing support that comes not least from other parents of children at the school.
It has been a privilege to speak in the debate. Let me end by saying that there is no one right route. There is a variety of routes, which can be opened through facilitation of the links between the two main pathways. We did not achieve that, and the present Government are not achieving it yet, but that is the direction in which we must go.
8.59 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I do not usually take part in Opposition day debates, because they tend to be choreographed rituals. First, the Opposition spokesman has to describe all the problems of the world as though they started on 2 May 1997 and everything went downhill from then. Then the Government Front-Bench spokesman has to respond by saying that we are actually making steady progress towards some nirvana, and so it goes on.

243
The beginning of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) did nothing to lift my depression. Although she said that she did not want to turn the debate into a party political football, she did everything she could to make it so during the first 10 minutes of her speech when she spoke in party political language. However, her contribution improved thereafter and she raised some serious questions that I hope we can air presently.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) also raised serious concerns and made some important points. However, the Opposition seem to have overlooked at least some of the Government's achievements. They should recognise our achievements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said, the Government have increased spending on education for children with special needs by 20 per cent. in real terms. That is not nothing—it should at least be acknowledged.
The Opposition seem completely to have forgotten what has been achieved by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It has put parents' preferences first in the legal framework for decisions about a child. Those provisions might not yet be working effectively and that is a legitimate subject for debate, but parents now have the legal right to insist on a mainstream place for their child if they want it. That is in addition to their previous and continuing legal right to insist on a special school place.
Greater inclusion in mainstream education means that local education authorities must constantly review special school provision in their area. I can understand why the Conservative survey found that 25 per cent. of special schools felt threatened. How many of those schools were in Conservative authorities? Conveniently, that information was not included in the Conservative motion.
We all have a responsibility to monitor the provision available in different education authority areas and to make decisions accordingly. It is sad that special schools feel threatened. Many of them—including those in my constituency—are doing a fabulous job, and it would be a tragedy if we lost them. It is up to us, as Members of Parliament, to make that case to our local education authorities; we must make sure that they realise the importance of the work of those schools.
Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman speaks with some pride of the 2001 Act; but I and some others had some quarrel with it. The Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate, in my constituency, also takes children from his constituency. Is he proud of the fact that, under the Act, the Royal School, which is not a state school, and other members of the national association for special schools, suffer discrimination? Should not they, too, be given the state help that they deserve?
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman raises points that are not covered by the Act. The Act gives parents the legal right to insist on a mainstream school place and puts a duty on schools to provide access for disabled people and people with special needs. It discriminates against special schools only in the sense that they no longer have a captive market of children to attend them. In any case, a good local authority will make sure that it works with special schools to preserve their provision.
244
The Government are doing exactly that. A school in my constituency, but run by Wandsworth education authority, has just received £3 million for rebuilding work to provide for the needs of its pupils. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are doing good work and we should acknowledge it.
I have exchanged the ritual abuse with Members on the Opposition Benches. I have fawned appropriately on my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, so I hope that now I can turn to the constructive part of my contribution and talk about the issues raised by the motions. I want especially to talk about autism because, as Members know, I am chairman of the all-party autism group.
There has been discussion today of consensus on autism. The all-party group has 150 members from both Houses and all parties, and I am willing to bet that there is consensus among them on the need for provision for autistic people. There is probably some consensus on the progress that this Government have made, and probably consensus too on where there is still more work to do. It is important that we strive for consensus. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench recognise where they are failing and where they need to do more. We need to give them credit for what they have done already.
So, in a spirit of constructive criticism, and knowing how interested the Government are in standard assessment tests, I have decided to mark my autism scorecard against their performance. I am pretty sure that there will be consensus among members of the all-party group on the provision that I describe, although there may be differences of opinion on how well the Government are doing.
The first thing that I would require of the Government is to improve planning for autistic people and special educational needs. The basis of planning is of course good data—knowing how many people for whom services are to be provided. The report published last week by the National Autistic Society said that one in 86 people has been identified by teachers as somewhere on the autistic spectrum. I point out for accuracy—this has not been mentioned in the debate so far—that the society also acknowledged that only one in 152 people has been formally diagnosed and that its own estimate remains at one in 110, and that the Medical Research Council's estimate of the number of autistic people under the age of eight is one in 166.
What can we deduce from those data? We should first acknowledge that we should not get too hung up on data. The level of variation shows how uncertain we are of our figures. One of the things that I first did when I became interested in autism was to ask in a parliamentary question how many people have autism. The Government answered that they did not know. When I challenged a Minister on that later that day and said that it was terrible, I was told that things were worse than I had feared, as the Government did not know that they did not know until I had asked the question. The Government should be given credit for acknowledging the fact that they did not know, and for trying to work out how many people have autism spectrum disorders. Having said that, we still do not have accurate figures.
The report of the all-party group, "The Rising Challenge", identified that 87 per cent. of local education authorities believe that the number of such people is

245
increasing—whether that is through better diagnosis or whether it is a real increase is debatable. So, we should acknowledge that we need to plan for greater provision. I give the Government five out of 10 for recognising that they need better data, but only one out of 10 on top of that for progress so far. That totals six out of 10 for data collection and planning.
Secondly, we need to recognise the variability of needs. Autism spectrum disorders range from people who are high-functioning, who can probably do well with the right help in a mainstream school, to those who have very serious disorders, who could not possibly survive in a mainstream school. There are many special schools and many specialist support units in mainstream schools, so we have the range of provision, but not sufficient quantity of it.
I shall cite an example from Kent, although I do not do so because Kent is any worse than anywhere else. There are 32 specialist unit places for autistic children in mainstream secondary schools in Kent—two units of 16 places—and we have 12,000 autistic people in the county. I am not by any means saying that they all have the same needs and that it would be appropriate to send them all to such units, but those figures show the imbalance between provision and need. So, on the range of schools and support provided, and efforts to boost numbers, we can give the Government seven out of 10.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) mentioned, we need to assess children at an early age, as that helps us to gather data and provide individuals with intensive support. The Government have recognised the need to identify autistic people at an early age, for which we can give them 10 out of 10, as they are the first Government to do so. The Department of Health has supported a national initiative on autism screening and assessment, and a working party is trying to establish best practice in identifying autism. We can therefore give the Government five out of 10 for supporting that initiative, and they will gain the remaining five marks if and when they roll it out across the country.
We need an autism-aware teacher in every school. I have told the House before of a case often cited by the National Autistic Society. A little girl was disruptive in class during literacy hour, when she had to sit in a circle with her schoolmates. An autism-aware teacher realised that she was disruptive because she was not sitting in the same place every time. A coloured carpet tile was provided, and the little girl knows that that is where she sits during literacy hour. The problem was solved with a nice, cheap solution because there was an autism-aware teacher in that school. The Government have provided £82 million for improved teacher training, which is an excellent step forward, but is not enough; we give them five out of 10.
Earlier, I spoke about the primacy of parental concerns in legislation. We ought to acknowledge that and give the Government 10 out of 10 for recognising it.
Intensive therapy was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is important that we recognise the need to provide such therapy, but there is a lot of dispute about whether that should be done through education or health provision. Many parents have to fight, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, to get intensive therapy. In my early days as an MP, I championed the cause of a family who wanted the Lovaas
246
technique for their child; we could not convince the local education authority, and the family had to provide it at their own expense. The child has prospered and will soon be back in a mainstream school at the cost, however, of the parents becoming bankrupt and the break-up of their marriage. Not providing that need when required involves an emotional cost, so the Government score three out of 10 for that.
Mr. Gale: I shall try to raise something on which we probably agree. Much has been said tonight about schools. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when parents get their children into a special needs school or a mainstream school, it is tremendously sad that provision is for term time only? During the holidays, provision is cut; the children go back about four paces and have to start at that point the next term.
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right; he and I agree on that important aspect of provision. However, we must acknowledge that extending provision would add to costs. I am also championing the case of a child who does not have an autistic spectrum disorder but needs special school provision; the provision identified as meeting his needs covers 52 weeks a year and will cost £170,000 a year. The local education authority told me that that would pay for four special teachers, so a significant judgment and a difficult decision have to be made. I therefore award the Government three out of 10 for the provision of intensive therapy.
Finally, the Minister for School Standards did not mention the national service framework for children, which is being championed largely by the Department of Health, but has close ties with the Department for Education and Skills. If it provides a one-stop shop from the point where a child is identified as having special needs to the fulfilment of those needs in education and health, and given that the Government have talked about using autism as an exemplar, we can give them nine out of 10 because the initiative will bring about the most dramatic improvement to the lives of autistic children in a generation. We will give them 10 out of 10 when the final framework is in place and we can make sure it is as good as promised.
That is a total score of 55 out of 80, or 68 per cent. We can give the Government a B and the comment "Room for improvement", as my school reports always used to say. I was always quite pleased to take a mark of 68 per cent. home to my dad. At least I knew that I was not in trouble at home. In the spirit of an Opposition day debate, I can say that that is certainly better than the C-minus of the Conservatives prior to 1997. The Government get a B, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning will acknowledge that although progress has been made, a heck of a lot of progress remains to be made.
9.15 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: I shall focus on a particular aspect of the autism spectrum—the problems and education of children who are hyperactive. I raise the matter because of a number of distressing constituency cases which have come to my attention over the past year involving children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and its awful consequences for their families and schools.

247
In two cases that come to mind, the children are young boys approaching their early teens. It is no surprise that they are young boys, as four out of five children who suffer from hyperactivity are male. The children in those two cases are violent and aggressive towards their parents and teachers, they threaten their siblings in the most frightening ways, they damage their own homes, and their schools cannot handle them. That has been a matter of awful concern to me. Hyperactive children fall between the stools within the local authority. Neither the education department nor the social services department is fully equipped to deal with such cases.
I have looked around to try and find the most appropriate help. It was a joy to find a small organisation based near Chichester called the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, a small charity run by a remarkable lady named Sally Bunday, who set it up because of her own problems more than 30 years ago with her own son, who suffered in the same way. The group's main conclusion is that a link can be drawn between hyperactivity and diet—deficiencies of certain products or excesses of other products.
That probably comes as no surprise to parents. We all know from our own experience or from that of other families about cases of a child being given a red or a blue Smartie or some other food containing colouring, and then exploding moments later. We can see a direct link in our families or our friends' families between those substances and the activities of such children. We need to focus on the awful knock-on effects when that happens while the child is at school.
There are even children's vitamins which are sold to help the child to be active during the day, but which themselves contain colouring. Parents may think that they are sending their child off to school boosted with the energy that he or she requires for the day, but in fact they are sending into the classroom a little time bomb that can go off at any time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) spoke about the lack of statistics. Just last week I asked the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), how many children were diagnosed with ADHD. I was told that the information requested is not collected centrally, but the reply went on:
"The prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder of all types is estimated at around 5 per cent. of school-aged children, approximately 345,000 six to 16-year-olds in England."—[Official Report, 16 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 872w.]
That means that there are, on average, 500 hyperactive children in each of our constituencies—a frighteningly high level. The problem must be addressed urgently.
There are different approaches, of course. Some suggest prescribing Ritalin, but there is an increasing tendency to look at more natural approaches, such as cutting out colourings and artificial additives. The UK still allows more colourings and additives than any other country in Europe. Perhaps the time has come for labelling to show clearly that the product contains elements which could adversely affect some children and make them subject to hyperactivity. Further work is needed in that direction. We must look at combating mineral deficiency and using products such as evening primrose oil.
248
It has become clear from the debate that every case is different, so the solution to every case will be different. We must be creative in our approach. We need to work with schools to identify the problem and deal with it. There was a fascinating experiment at a small school in Cornwall, the Tywardeath primary school, where the headmaster, Gordon Walker, asked parents to stop their children eating 21 particular additives. All the parents were happy to take part. As a result, more than half of the 140 students behaved better and were able to concentrate more on their school work. The experiment produced nothing definitive, but evidence of how the problem can be addressed.
The Hyperactive Children's Support Group has also carried out its own survey in which people have followed the Feingold diet, which is based on work pioneered by Dr. Feingold in the United States. The survey found that three quarters of children showed a good response to the diet and that about three quarters of the boys surveyed and more than half the girls had zinc levels that were below normal—a direct contributory factor to hyperactivity.
Only last week, The Independent reported on a study carried out by Dr. Madelaine Portwood, a senior educational psychologist at Durham county council, who asked schools in her area to give supplements of fish and plant extracts so that the effect could be monitored. The report states:
"Analysis at the halfway stage of the study shows remarkable advantages among children taking the supplements…One child's reading skills improved by the equivalent of four years after only 12 weeks of taking the supplements."
The report goes on to quote Andrew Westerman, one school's headmaster, as saying:
"It's like lights being switched on."
That is the sort of evidence that we must take into account. Dr. Portwood said:
"Why are there so many more children with developmental problems? The most significant change in the last 20 years has been the diet of children, and that is why we are exploring the use of food supplements."
Those are a number of ways in which schools can help in investigating special educational needs. I hope that we can find a number of schools around the country that are prepared to consider conducting pilot projects that will allow us further to explore these issues, and that the Government will make funding available. They have a healthy eating programme for which they give additional funds to county councils. Perhaps they could use that programme to fund some pilot projects to enable us to find out where the science is correct. There is a strong divergence of views among scientists and we must make an assessment. Even if we asked for children to undergo a nutritional assessment so we could decide and identify deficiencies and find out whether there was a correlation in relation to children with behavioural problems, we would make a significant advance. Every parent knows that a link exists and we must address it more seriously as part of the work of the House.
I should like briefly to mention one other matter that relates directly to autism. Last week, I visited a group in my constituency called Step-by-Step. The group has been set up by parents and grandparents of children who have autism. They want to establish a specialist school in Crowborough. The model on which they have chosen to

249
base the school is the Treehouse school, to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) referred—one of three schools that are currently adopting an approach called applied behaviour analysis. When Nick Hornby, himself the father of an autistic son, addressed that issue in a recent article in The Observer, he asked:
"How are we going to educate all these autistic kids, when there are currently 76.000 of them fighting for 3,000 specialist school places, and when we know from experts that it is only specialist education that can make any difference?"
Of course, wonderful work is done in mainstream education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, we must all pay tribute to the patience and perseverance of people who work in these very difficult cases, but different cases need different solutions. She was also correct to say that inclusion is not right in all cases. I also agreed with the Minister, who said that parents have a unique understanding of their children's circumstances. He told us that two thirds of cases were working satisfactorily, which means that one third are not. We were told by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) that 75 per cent. of families with autistic children are happy with the education that they are getting, but that means that 25 per cent. are not happy. In other words, between 20,000 and 25,000 families are not getting the support that they believe they need.
I hope that the Government will find a way of assisting schools such as the Step-by-Step school that is planned for my constituency. The project is imaginative and creative, and tries to use a system that the families believe will work best for their children. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouraging words.
9.24 pm
Phil Hope: I welcome the chance to contribute, however briefly, to this debate.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) made some interesting points about the possible causes of some special educational needs and offered one or two observations about activities that might deal with them. I have to say, however, that this Opposition day debate has been characterised by an absence of Conservative party policy on what we should be doing to meet the needs of children with special educational needs.
I want to give a local example of a strategy—not just a one-off contribution that is a particularly good way of responding, but a complete strategy that is in accordance with the Government's policy and demonstrates how to deliver special education in a whole area. I am talking about the county of Northamptonshire, where the Labour county council has a reputation for having a very high-quality special educational needs policy. Indeed, a recent Ofsted report described the local education authority's strategy on special educational needs as excellent and as reflecting the national agenda, with a key commitment to the principle of inclusion. Interestingly, Opposition Members talked about watchwords of choice and diversity, but failed to use the word "inclusion" as a key principle in approaching the question of developing education for children with special educational needs.
The local education authority is in the top quartile of performance indicators for carrying out assessments within 18 weeks, at some 90 per cent. The parent
250
partnership scheme that it funds is well developed and provides valuable support to parents through the education system. The Ofsted report said that the fact that parents were so well assisted by that system contributed to a reduction in the number of appeals having to reach tribunal stage.
I have practical experience of the situation in Northamptonshire. Studfall junior school in my constituency has achieved the full integration of children with special educational needs. To pick up a point made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), that includes children with hearing impairments. I witnessed fantastic educational opportunities during a Christmas event, when the whole school—a group of deaf children with hearing children—sang "Silent Night" using sign language. That was astonishing, because the hearing children were doing the signing. Both deaf and hearing children benefit from that kind of inclusiveness in our education system. To include is to provide opportunities for all our children, not just those with special educational needs.
Although Northamptonshire has been recommended by Ofsted as having an excellent system, it wants to go further and is now considering the Government's agenda to decide how better to go forward. It has drawn up a series of principles that will underpin a major review of its provision. Those principles comprise a model that we might wish to apply elsewhere. They hold that the needs of pupils must be paramount; that there must be early identification and intervention for all pupils with special educational needs; and vitally and interestingly, that every pupil with a statement, wherever they are placed, must be put on the register of a local mainstream school. So even a pupil with a statement who attends a special school will be registered with a mainstream school—in effect, they are dual registered. That is a practical step towards linking together the needs of children in the mainstream and special school systems to ensure that those needs are met.
In Northamptonshire, the council is going to create a continuum of special education provision. To support an inclusive educational system, it will create a network of specialist centres with an agreed specification of expertise. Those centres will be directly linked to mainstream local schools so that the geographical distance is minimised to allow for ease of movement of pupils and teachers between them and mainstream schools. New partnerships of training, management, professional advice and expertise will be established, so that instead of isolated silos that children cannot move between, there will be an integrated network of specialist centres, mainstream schools and designated special provision—that is, a mainstream school with a designated special unit on site—that provides a real, multi-agency network of support within the school system. That will mean that young people can move freely and are not pigeonholed, boxed up and left uninspired in a place that cannot take them forward.
Of course, other children in mainstream schools will also have opportunities—the traffic is not one way. The provision in specialist centres is available to mainstream school children if they need it, and special needs children can use the mainstream school. Outside that, there will be a proper system of quality monitoring and control to ensure that the facilities meet the needs of all children.
I mentioned those principles because they will inform a radical review of provision in Northamptonshire. It will not be easy. Parents and providers will have fears and

251
anxieties about what it means in practice. The principles that underpin the review and the reorganisation will create confidence that diversity will exist and be rooted in inclusiveness. That is the crucial new direction in which the Government are leading us.
I want to mention two examples of excellent practice that underpin the changes. It is vital that parents should be at the centre of the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and others have emphasised that. In 1994, we created Parents in Partnership in Northamptonshire. This afternoon, I spoke to the founder member of the organisation, which is now called SNIP—Special Needs in Partnership. It is a funded organisation that is run by volunteers and covers all children up to the age of 19. When a parent contacts it and says, "I'm not sure whether there's something wrong with my child; something is not quite right," a response is received in 24 hours. In days, someone from the organisation visits the family to talk through their problems, needs and worries.
The family may already have a child with special educational needs, or may be trying to get a child statemented. The parent may simply be worried. The service means that parents can have an advocate or mentor beside them—someone who understands the system and can draw on other resources, such as the voluntary organisations and specialist groups that were mentioned earlier—to be with the family. It is a fantastic service which is core funded by the county council. I am talking not about funny money but about real, sustainable money. There are paid and volunteer staff. This is a model of good practice that integrates the community, the voluntary sector and the local authority in providing parents with the support that they need.
Support for very young children is vital. No hon. Member has mentioned the portage service. Children with special educational needs that are identified early are visited by a portage home visitor, and a family with very small babies benefits from a tightly prescribed method for helping their child. The parents are shown what to do and, over a fortnight, they undertake activities every day with the child and keep a record. The volunteer from the portage service visits them again, assesses what has happened and describes the next series of activities. Consequently, the parents do not wonder what to do or feel isolated and the child does not get worse through lack of support.
The child is thus actively and practically supported by the parent, as the first educator, through the expertise and support of the service. The local education authority funds the service, but 50 volunteers provide it across the county. It is the largest service of its kind in the country, and many people could learn from it.
Time is not on our side, but I hope that I have shown that we have a good track record in Northamptonshire of providing services. We have new principles on which to base a reorganisation of those excellent services so as to be in tune with the Government's core aims of partnership with parents and inclusiveness for all children in our communities.
9.33 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: My remarks will, of necessity, be brief. I pay tribute to some of the mainstream schools in my constituency that have pursued inclusion
252
successfully. There is a hearing impairment unit at Wallisdean junior school attached to the mainstream school. Hearing impaired children there can thus receive additional support to help them integrate more fully into the mainstream school. Many physical changes are being made to Park Gate school to enable children with wheelchairs to have access to the mainstream curriculum.
We should pay tribute to the staff, pupils and heads of mainstream schools for their efforts to integrate children with special educational needs into their schools. They have done a terrific job, and everybody in the schools has benefited enormously from their actions.
As well as the recurrent theme of encouraging inclusion in schools in my constituency, another theme has run through meetings and conversations with head teachers. That is the issue of whether children with special educational needs should always be included in mainstream schools. I shall cite a couple of examples, because we need to stop and think about how far this agenda should go, and about what action we should take in consequence.
One head teacher has cited the situation in which an included child can absorb more resources than are funded by the local authority. As a consequence of that child's needs not being met by the additional funding, the classroom assistant or the teacher has to devote disproportionate time to that child's education, to the detriment of the other children in the class. There is concern that the education of other children suffers when there are insufficient resources available, and that the education of the child with special educational needs is not being fully supported in the way that we believe it should be. As a consequence, that child will not get the full chances in life that we all think he is entitled to.
The other example that I have come across in my constituency is one in which the support given to a child, and that child's ability to access the mainstream curriculum, is so limited that, although he is being educated in a classroom alongside his peers, the isolation is such that it would be unfair to say that he was being included. It would be more accurate to say that he was being co-located with his peers. The interests of that child are not being properly considered if he is simply being educated alongside a class, rather than as part of it.
The long-term consequences of pushing a short-term inclusion agenda will cause difficulties for children in that situation, because they need more care and educational support—probably in the form of the more supportive surroundings of a special school—than they are getting by being part of a mainstream school. We need to ensure, in providing the special education that children need, that we think carefully about their needs, in terms of the LEA, the parents and those who provide support and guidance to parents.
I am conscious that we are reaching the time when we shall start to get letters from constituents about statements and the needs that are specified in them, and about the support and help that children need. We should look to LEAs and voluntary groups to work more closely with parents to ensure that the statement of need produced as part of this process is really supportive of the long-term needs of the child, and not driven simply by the need either to cut costs or to pursue an inclusion agenda.
Last year, in my first year as a Member of Parliament, I came across many issues involving the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream

253
schools. The fact that there are fewer special schools means that, when such a school is recommended to parents, transport costs can become an issue for the county council, which has to decide how to fund them and determine what impact that will have on other children's education.
Other methods of special education, which LEAs do not fund, exist outside the school structure. In my constituency, the Rainbow Centre provides conductive education for children with cerebral palsy from across the south-east of England. The centre is not funded by the Government, and I ask the Minister to look carefully at that issue. At present, the centre's valuable work is funded entirely by the tremendous efforts of volunteers, many of whom have put much effort into providing this form of education. I ask the Government to consider funding educational methods that are used outside the mainstream education system funded by the LEAs. I also hope that the inclusion agenda will not be pushed to such an extent that it works against the interests of the very children whom we hope to protect and support in the years ahead.
9.39 pm
Alistair Burt: This has been an interesting debate, well conducted on both sides. As always, it has been enriched by the personal knowledge of colleagues who take a particular interest in this matter in their constituencies. It is appropriate to pay tribute to the parents of the children we have been speaking about, to the many organisations and charities that work with them, and to those who work very hard in local education authorities, including my own in Bedfordshire, through their own schools and through Shaftesbury schools in my constituency such as Hinwick Hall. I also pay tribute to the children themselves, who achieve so much. It was right to pay tribute to some of the achievements of those children in the debate. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) reminded us, quite properly, of where we had come from over the years. The issue of special needs is seen quite differently from how it was seen a generation ago. From my experience as Minister for Disabled People, I have a sense of a continually improving ratchet in relation to disability. Things steadily improve—we are not always where we want to be, but it is always better than how it was. Long may that continue.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke movingly about one of the schools in his constituency—now closed, sadly—which treated the most difficult of pupils. One can well understand the difficulties in that sort of school and how much good it did the pupils whom it was trying to support.
We had a rare sighting of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). He spent the first few minutes of his speech talking about Conservatives—something is repressed there, I suspect. He spoke knowledgeably about them, and then spoke properly about autism and his constituency. He spoke well, and his remaining remarks were in tune with the rest of the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), in a commanding, authoritative and brief speech, reminded us why she was such an exceptionally good Secretary of State for Education. She discussed the importance of flexibility in relation to
254
special needs and how the system had to accommodate individuals, despite a general sense of inclusion that we all share. She made the point about entry into the system in a variety of different ways and at different times and the need to be properly flexible in providing that system. She also mentioned further education, which I will come to in a moment.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), as chairman of the all-party group on autism, referred to autism week. He gave the Government a score of 68 per cent. and said how pleased his dad would have been if he had gone home with that mark. I do not necessarily concur with the mark of 68 per cent., but I agree that taking home 68 per cent. to one's dad was pretty good. I say that tonight because it is my dad's birthday, and I hope that he gives me 68 per cent. for this speech. [Interruption.] We do not often get this sort of chance, so I am not going to miss it. It is a special birthday for my dad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) made a significant speech about the impact of additives and diet on the diagnosis of those with behavioural problems. He produced a number of interesting points of evidence. There is much further work to be done in relation to that. Our diagnosis of special needs is improving, and the relationship between diet and special needs is of interest to a number of Members, as my hon. Friend reminded the House.
The hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) spoke about the portage service. I pay tribute to that; I had one in my previous constituency, and know how important it was for early diagnosis and early support. He also spoke movingly about children signing. As a Minister who signed at the special Christmas service for the Royal School for the Deaf in St. Margarets, I understand how overwhelmingly significant that is and the way it makes one feel in relation to those who have hearing disabilities. When children sign while they are singing, it is really very special. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) paid tribute to local schools in his constituency, and mentioned conductive education at the Rainbow Centre. In doing so, he made a proper and valid contribution to the debate.
I want to pick up on what my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said about further education. We have spent most of our time today talking about special needs in schools, but for two reasons it is terribly important to discuss how they are dealt with in further and higher education. First, we should not forget that knowing that they can leave school and enter further and higher education provides an extraordinary role model for those with disabilities. Secondly, we must pay genuine tribute to those who have worked so hard in further and higher education to enable special needs provision to come on in leaps and bounds in the past decade or so.
Further education colleges are proud of their provision. They already cope with a wide variety of students, as the Minister knows full well. The Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education has produced a toolkit that includes a range of measures to help colleges with the practicalities of providing beneficial places for those with special learning needs. This afternoon, I spoke to Sue Spencer and others at Walsall college, which does particularly well with the deaf and the deaf-blind. I mention this example to give hon. Members a sense of

255
the extent of further education provision for those with disabilities. Walsall college has some 80 students. Four are deaf-blind, and their ages range from 16 to 87. The 87-year-old man, who is deaf-blind, is on a computer course and has already finished courses in mathematics and English. A full range of courses are studied by those with special learning needs. Some go on to university, some to work, and others to different courses.
The keys to success include highly qualified teachers who continually top up their skills, good support systems—including educational interpreters who can offer assistance—along with other elements that the Minister might consider at some stage. As she knows, there is an acute national shortage of signers. The implication of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is that the need for signers, particularly in education, has increased markedly. There is a chronic need to examine that issue, and to consider the way in which British sign language is handled for examination purposes.
What is happening in higher education is remarkable, and universities are doing ever more. About 7 per cent. of students at Leeds university, which I contacted this afternoon, have some form of special need or disability—a figure that is rather higher than the national average. In 1991, about I per cent. of all students had some form of disability, but the national average is now some 5 per cent., a figure which reflects society at large. That shows how far we have come in a decade. Leeds university has many students with dyslexia; indeed, the numbers have increased by 25 per cent. in a year. It also has students with cerebral palsy, and with speech and movement difficulties, who are following full higher education courses. It also has quadriplegics, tetraplegics, and sufferers of muscular dystrophy and trauma injuries.
The greatest difficulties relate to mental health. Given the nature of the illness, it is rather harder for those with mental health problems to participate in higher education, given the concentration required. Moreover, when one examines the destinations of such students, it is noticeable that they are also the most difficult to place. In considering what measures might be adopted, the Minister should note that insufficient research has been undertaken into the destinations of students with learning difficulties. It is difficult to place them with smaller employers, who often imagine that the reality is rather harder to deal with than it actually is. That leads to some frustration, but all in all good things are being done.
Although there is considerable agreement among hon. Members on this issue, several of the points raised by my hon. Friends and in our motion illustrate that certain difficulties exist. The differences between us, and between the motions before us, are sufficient to warrant our dividing the House this evening.
We want greater joined-up support for the various services that look after people with autism. Many hon. Members spoke about those problems. Whereas there is general support for the principle of inclusion, there is also great support for special schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned the special schools in his area that are being closed. Parents there are not being provided with a choice. The Government cannot truly be content to sit on the sidelines
256
and not comment on that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) also spoke about the problems of ending special provision in Margate.
We need greater research. There is concern about the overlap of support between social services and education. Social services have immense funding problems. The vast majority of directors of social services plead that they are in difficulties because they have to provide more and more for the elderly. As a result, money has been removed from those who need it in other services, which has affected those with special needs in particular. Despite the score card mentioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet, our score card would reveal rather more for the Government to do. Although the Minister may address our concerns, I suspect that we may still want to divide the House.
9.51 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): I am grateful to Conservative Members for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that we do not often focus our discussions in the Chamber on those pupils whose needs may be greatest because they have special needs.
Many powerful speeches were made, reflecting a genuine commitment to the large number of complex issues and challenges that we face in trying to give the best possible start in life to children with special educational needs. I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to all those involved. One of the most fulfilling periods in my life was when I worked with people in the disability and special educational needs world as we worked on legislation.
The hon. Gentleman's contribution was in stark contrast to the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. She may have been surprised at our reaction. When she describes children with special educational needs and disabilities as sad, disadvantaged, little tragic cases—
Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
Margaret Hodge: No.
When the hon. Lady says those things and talks about the liability that such children are imposing on LEAs because of inclusion, she displays a patronising attitude and devalues the worth of the individual children whose interest she is claiming to promote.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Margaret Hodge: No, I will not. The hon. Lady talked for far too long tonight.
Mrs. Laing rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Margaret Hodge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I am not behaving disgracefully.
Mrs. Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Lady is not raising a point of order because the Minister is not giving way. That is not really a point of order, is it?
Mrs. Laing: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. Lady is impugning me for something that I have not said. It cannot possibly be in order for her to do so.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate. One day the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to rebut the case that the Minister is making.
Margaret Hodge: She will also have the opportunity to look at the Hansard record.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest and many other hon. Members mentioned autism. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) gave us a score of 68 per cent. I think that five years into a Labour Government, that is good progress. I also accept, however, that there is much left to do. I agree about the need to have better information. In July 2001, we carried out a pilot study, involving 200 schools, to assess the feasibility of collecting data on the broad range of special educational needs. We are considering whether we should introduce a requirement for all schools and LEAs to provide that information from 2004. It is likely to include data on autism. My hon. Friend mentioned other important matters, and we will return to those.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said that further education is important. FE probably has the best record in responding to inclusive education for young people and older people with special educational needs and disabilities. I take on board the issues that he raised about British sign language. One reason why students are doing so much better in an inclusive environment in higher education is that we introduced the non-means tested disabled students allowance. We heard a thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) raised the issue of VAT, which I raise constantly with my colleagues in the Treasury, and I shall do so again following tonight's debate.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) raised some interesting issues about diet in relation to hyperactive children. Sharing that sort of information in the House can do nothing but add to our knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) and the hon. Member for Newbury both talked about the importance of inclusion—supporting not just children with special educational needs but contributing to the experience of all children in the mainstream environment. I was particularly interested to hear about what is happening in Northamptonshire, where specialist centres are being linked to mainstream schools.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) talked about diversity and choice and trying to provide flexibility between special schools and mainstream schools. I agree with her on that. I would fail in my public duty, however, were I not to remind the House of the Conservative party's record in office in relation to special schools. In the last four years of the Tory Government, 83 special schools were closed. That is 50 per cent. more than were closed in the first four years of this Government. We are working with the special schools to ensure a positive future for them. Far from leaving them to the insecurity of the market, as the Tories did, we want to give them the security that comes from sensible planning and strong partnership.
That is why my noble Friend Baroness Ashton has set up a working group to consider the future role of special schools in the wider context of our strategy on inclusion.
258
That group will focus on practical mechanisms that would help special schools to work more effectively. Subjects that it will consider will include: how best to secure regional provision to meet the requirements of those with low-incidence special educational needs; systems, which could include funding, that would enable special schools to deliver outreach support more effectively; how best to use the inspection team to celebrate the achievements of special schools; and provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will accept that that sort of work, leading to a report in the autumn, will ensure that we have proper inter-linking between special schools and the mainstream.
We have considerable achievements under our belt, although we have a long way to go. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is on the statute book, and we have introduced the new SEN code of practice, which has been in force since January. All LEAs now have parent partnership services. We have placed a duty on LEAs to provide informal arrangements to prevent and resolve disagreements before they reach the tribunal stage. We have supported massive increases in funding in education in general and to respond specifically to the requirements of children with special educational needs. The standards fund is now five times larger than when we came into office, and we have introduced the £220 million access initiative into schools. Early years intervention, with special co-ordinators in each setting, is also an attempt to make progress.
I recognise, as have other hon. Members tonight, that we must continue to do more. There will continue to be major challenges in raising the quality and improving the outcomes for children with special educational needs. It is still a fact that a child with a special educational needs statement is seven times more likely to be excluded than a child without a statement. We need to tackle that. It is also still a fact that we need to get better at identifying a child's needs earlier and responding more quickly to them. That is why our guidance on working with children under the age of two will be so important. We hope to issue that guidance shortly. We need to get better at working across the disciplines—between health, social services and education. The special educational needs partnerships are a start in that work.
We need to build a stronger, professional work force to cater for the needs that we identify. Again, progress is being made, with more speech and language therapists, for example, but we want to ensure—
David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 357.

Division No. 249]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bacon, Richard

Amess, David

Baldry, Tony

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Beggs, Roy

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bellingham, Henry

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bercow, John

259

Blunt, Crispin

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Malins, Humfrey

Brazier, Julian

Mates, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Butterfill, John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

May, Mrs Theresa

Cash, William

Mercer, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Moss, Malcolm

Clappison, James

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Collins, Tim

Norman, Archie

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Cran, James

Ottaway, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Page, Richard

Djanogly, Jonathan

Paice, James

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Paterson, Owen

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Pickles, Eric

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Price, Adam

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Prisk, Mark

Evans, Nigel

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Rosindell, Andrew

Flight Howard

Ruffley, David

Flook, Adrian

Selous, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Francois, Mark

Simmonds, Mark

Gale, Roger

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gibb, Nick

Soames, Nicholas

Goodman, Paul

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gray, James

Spicer, Sir Michael

Grayling, Chris

Spink, Bob

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Spring, Richard

Grieve, Dominic

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, Rt Hon William

Streeter, Gary

Swayne, Desmond

Hawkins, Nick

Swire, Hugo

Hayes, John

Syms, Robert

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hendry, Charles

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hermon, Lady

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hoban, Mark

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Horam, John

Tredinnick, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Trend, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Viggers, Peter

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Walter, Robert

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Waterson, Nigel

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Watkinson, Angela

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Lansley, Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Leigh, Edward

Wilshire, David

Letwin, Oliver

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Dr. Julian Lewis and

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Mr. Laurence Robertson.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Baird, Vera

Ainger, Nick

Banks, Tony

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Barrett, John

Allan, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Battle, John

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Bayley, Hugh

Beard, Nigel

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Begg, Miss Anne

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Atkins, Charlotte

Bennett, Andrew

Austin, John

Benton, Joe

Bailey, Adrian

Berry, Roger

260

Best, Harold

Doran, Frank

Betts, Clive

Doughty, Sue

Blackman, Liz

Dowd, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Blizzard, Bob

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

Borrow, David

Edwards, Huw

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ennis, Jeff

Brake, Tom

Farrelly, Paul

Breed, Colin

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Brennan, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flynn, Paul

Bryant, Chris

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Buck, Ms Karen

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Burnett, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Burstow, Paul

Foulkes, George

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Francis, Dr Hywel

Cable, Dr Vincent

Galloway, George

Cairns, David

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gerrard, Neil

Caplin, Ivor

Gibson, Dr Ian

Carmichael, Alistair

Gilroy, Linda

Casale, Roger

Godsiff, Roger

Caton, Martin

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Challen, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Grogan, John

Chaytor, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Chidgey, David

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clapham, Michael

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Hancock, Mike

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clelland, David

Harvey, Nick

Clwyd, Ann

Healey, John

Coaker, Vernon

Heath, David

Cohen, Harry

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Colman, Tony

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Connarty, Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Heppell, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hesford, Stephen

Corston, Jean

Heyes, David

Cousins, Jim

Hill, Keith

Crausby, David

Hodge, Margaret

Cummings, John

Hoey, Kate

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Holmes, Paul

Hood, Jimmy

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Cunningham, Tony (Wortdngton)

Hope, Phil

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hopkins, Kelvin

Dalyell, Tam

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Howells, Dr Kim

David, Wayne

Hoyle, Lindsay

Davidson, Ian

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Humble, Mrs Joan

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

Hurst, Alan

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Dawson, Hilton

Iddon, Dr Brian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Illsley, Eric

Denham, Rt Hon John

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Dhanda, Parmjit

Irranca—Davies, Huw

Dismore, Andrew

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dobbin, Jim

Jamieson, David

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jenkins, Brian

Donohoe, Brian H

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

261

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Oaten, Mark

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Öpik, Lembit

Joyce, Eric

Organ, Diana

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Owen, Albert

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pearson, Ian

Khabra, Piara S

Picking, Anne

Kidney, David

Pickthall, Colin

Kirkwood, Archy

Pike, Peter

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Plaskitt, James

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Pollard, Kerry

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Pond, Chris

Lamb, Norman

Pope, Greg

Lammy, David

Pound, Stephen

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Laws, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Laxton, Bob

Prosser, Gwyn

Lazarowicz, Mark

Pugh, Dr John

Lepper, David

Purchase, Ken

Leslie, Christopher

Purnell, James

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Quinn, Lawrie

Linton, Martin

Rammell, Bill

Lloyd, Tony

Rapson, Syd

Lucas, Ian

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Luke, Iain

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lyons, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

McAvoy, Thomas

Rendel, David

McCabe, Stephen

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

McCafferty, Chris

Rooney, Terry

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Ross, Ernie

McDonagh, Siobhain

Roy, Frank

MacDonald, Calum

Ruane, Chris

McDonnell, John

Ruddock, Joan

MacDougall, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McFall, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ryan, Joan

McIsaac, Shona

Sanders, Adrian

McKechin, Ann

Sarwar, Mohammad

McKenna, Rosemary

Savidge, Malcolm

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sawford, Phil

McNamara, Kevin

Shaw, Jonathan

McNulty, Tony

Sheerman, Barry

MacShane, Denis

Sheridan, Jim

Mactaggart, Fiona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McWalter, Tony

Singh, Marsha

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Mahmood, Khalid

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mann, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marris, Rob

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

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

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Southworth, Helen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Steinberg, Gerry

Martlew, Eric

Stevenson, George

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Miller, Andrew

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Moffatt, Laura

Stunell, Andrew

Moore, Michael

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morgan, Julie

Tami, Mark

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Mudie, George

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Munn, Ms Meg

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Thurso, John

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Timms, Stephen

262

Tipping, Paddy

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Todd, Mark

Wicks, Malcolm

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Touhig, Don

Trickett, Jon

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Truswell, Paul

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Willis, Phil

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Winnick, David

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wood Mike

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Woodward, Shaun

Tyler, Paul

Woolas, Phil

Tynan, Bill

Wray, James

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Walley, Ms Joan

Wright, David (Telford)

Wareing, Robert N

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Watson, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Watts, David

Dan Norris and

White, Brian.

Mr. Graham Stringer.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 167.

Division No. 250]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Challen, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Chaytor, David

Allen, Graham

Clapham, Michael

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Austin, John

Clelland, David

Bailey, Adrian

Clwyd, Ann

Baird, Vera

Coaker, Vernon

Banks, Tony

Cohen, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Colman, Tony

Battle, John

Connarty, Michael

Bayley, Hugh

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Beard, Nigel

Corbyn, Jeremy

Begg, Miss Anne

Corston, Jean

Benton, Joe

Cousins, Jim

Berry, Roger

Crausby, David

Best, Harold

Cummings, John

Betts, Clive

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Blackman, Liz

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blizzard, Bob

Dalyell, Tam

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Borrow, David

David, Wayne

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Davidson, Ian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brennan, Kevin

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

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

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dawson, Hilton

Bryant, Chris

Dean, Mrs Janet

Buck, Ms Karen

Denham, Rt Hon John

Burgon, Colin

Dhanda, Parmjit

Cairns, David

Dismore, Andrew

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dobbin, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Donohoe, Brian H

Caplin, Ivor

Doran, Frank

Casale, Roger

Dowd, Jim

Caton, Martin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Cawsey, Ian

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

263

Edwards, Huw

Lammy, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ennis, Jeff

Laxton, Bob

Farrelly, Paul

Lazarowicz, Mark

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Lepper, David

Fisher, Mark

Leslie, Christopher

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Flint, Caroline

Linton, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Lloyd, Tony

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lucas, Ian

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Luke, Iain

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lyons, John

Foulkes, George

McAvoy, Thomas

Francis, Dr Hywel

McCabe, Stephen

Galloway, George

McCafferty, Chris

Gapes, Mike

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gerrard, Neil

MacDonald, Calum

Gibson, Dr Ian

McDonnell, John

Gilroy, Linda

MacDougall, John

Godsiff, Roger

McFall, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McIsaac, Shona

Grogan, John

McKechin, Ann

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McNamara, Kevin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McNulty, Tony

Hanson, David

MacShane, Denis

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Healey, John

McWalter, Tony

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

McWilliam, John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mahmood, Khalid

Hepburn, Stephen

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heppell, John

Mallaber, Judy

Hesford, Stephen

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Heyes, David

Mann, John

Hill, Keith

Marris, Rob

Hodge, Margaret

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hoey, Kate

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hood, Jimmy

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hope, Phil

Martlew, Eric

Hopkins, Kelvin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Miller, Andrew

Howells, Dr Kim

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Moffatt, Laura

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Morgan, Julie

Humble, Mrs Joan

Mountford, Kali

Hurst, Alan

Mullin, Chris

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Munn, Ms Meg

Iddon, Dr Brian

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Illsley, Eric

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Irranca—Davies, Huw

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jamieson, David

Olner, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

Organ, Diana

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Owen, Albert

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Lynne (Selty Oak)

Picking, Anne

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pickthall, Colin

Joyce, Eric

Pike, Peter

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Plaskitt, James

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pollard, Kerry

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pond, Chris

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pope, Greg

Khabra, Piara S

Pound, Stephen

Kidney, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prosser, Gwyn

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Purchase, Ken

264

Purnell, James

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rammell, Bill

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Rapson, Syd

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Timms, Stephen

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Tipping, Paddy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Todd, Mark

Rooney, Terry

Touhig, Don

Roy, Frank

Trickett, Jon

Ruane, Chris

Truswell, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ryan, Joan

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Savidge, Malcolm

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sawford, Phil

Tynan, Bill

Shaw, Jonathan

Vis, Dr Rudi

Sheerman, Barry

Walley, Ms Joan

Sheridan, Jim

Wareing, Robert N

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Watson, Tom

Singh, Marsha

Watts, David

Skinner, Dennis

White, Brian

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Winnick, David

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wood, Mike

Southworth, Helen

Woodward, Shaun

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Woolas, Phil

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, James

Stevenson, George

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wright, David (Telford)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Dan Norris and

Tami, Mark

Mr. Graham Stringer

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Allan, Richard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Amess, David

Doughty, Sue

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Bacon, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Baldry, Tony

Fabricant, Michael

Barrett, John

Fallon, Michael

Beggs, Roy

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Flight, Howard

Bellingham, Henry

Rook, Adrian

Bercow, John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Blunt, Crispin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Francois, Mark

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gale, Roger

Brake, Tom

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Brazier, Julian

Gibb, Nick

Breed, Colin

Goodman, Paul

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Gray, James

Burnett, John

Grayling, Chris

Burstow, Paul

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Burl, Alistair

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Butterfill, John

Grieve, Dominic

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Carmichael, Alistair

Hancock, Mike

Cash, William

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Chope, Christopher

Harvey, Nick

Clappison, James

Hawkins, Nick

Collins, Tim

Hayes, John

Comnack, Sir Patrick

Heath, David

Cran, James

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hendry, Charles

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Hermon, Lady

265

Hoban, Mark

Robathan, Andrew

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Roe, Mrs Marion

Holmes, Paul

Rosindell, Andrew

Horam, John

Ruffley, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Sanders, Adrian

Hunter, Andrew

Selous, Andrew

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Simmonds, Mark

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Simpson, Keith (MM—Norfolk)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Soames, Nicholas

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lamb, Norman

Spink, Bob

Lansley, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Laws, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Leigh, Edward

Steen, Anthony

Letwin, Oliver

Streeter, Gary

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Stunell, Andrew

Llwyd, Elfyn

Swayne, Desmond

Loughton, Tim

Swire, Hugo

Luff, Peter

Syms, Robert

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tapsell, Sir Peter

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Taylor, John (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Malins, Humfrey

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)

Mates, Michael

Thurso, John

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Tredinnick, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Trend, Michael

Mercer, Patrick

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Moore, Michael

Tyler, Paul

Moss, Malcolm

Tyrie, Andrew

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Norman, Archie

Walter, Robert

Oaten, Mark

Waterson, Nigel

Öpik, Lembit

Watkinson, Angela

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Ottaway, Richard

Wiggin, Bill

Page, Richard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Paice, James

Willis, Phil

Paterson, Owen

Wilshire, David

Pickles, Eric

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Price, Adam

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Prisk, Mark

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Pugh, Dr John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Noes:

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Dr. Julian Lewis and

Rendel, David.

Mr. Laurence Robertson

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Government's commitment to helping all pupils release their potential; supports the development of an education service that provides equality of opportunity and raises achievement of all children, including those with special educational needs; welcomes the Government's recognition of the important role of special schools and the forthcoming work to review and develop that role; further welcomes the recent report by the National Autistic Society and recognises the importance of early intervention to help children with autism; applauds the Government's strong record on supporting pupils with special educational needs, notably through providing a clear vision for their education and welfare in its 1998 Green Paper "Excellence for all children" and implementing an ambitious programme of action resulting in this House's approval of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, despite strong opposition from the other side of the House; commends the introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice and the principles of inclusion and partnership that lie behind it; further notes the
266
development of national standards for specialist teachers and a range of training programmes and materials to support them; acknowledges the substantial increases in funding through both SSA and Standards Fund to support these and other initiatives; further notes that the Government will continue to ensure that the rights of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are protected; and looks forward to the forthcoming Code of Practice to reinforce the rights of pupils with disabilities.

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

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.

  FLAGS
  That the draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th May, he approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That the TSE (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 843), dated 27th March, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ainger.]

PETITION

  Trowbridge Courthouse
  10.26 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: I am privileged to present a petition against the closure of Trowbridge courthouse. The petition bears the signatures of 2,000 people from west Wiltshire.
  The petition states:
  The humble petition of the constituency of West Wiltshire
  sheweth
  That justice must be equally accessible to all and that it is best dispensed in a local context; that to close Trowbridge Courthouse would impose unacceptable burdens on court users, particularly those from deprived and rural areas; and that the decision by Wiltshire Magistrates' Court Committee to close Trowbridge Courthouse is unacceptable.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall take all necessary steps to ensure that Trowbridge Courthouse remains open.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mobile Telephone Masts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
10.27 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on the subject of mobile phone masts, which I know is of concern to many Members. I recall that we have had several Adjournment debates on the subject, secured by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) among others, and that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) introduced a ten-minute Bill on the matter.
There is growing concern on the issue. The Trade and Industry Committee report of March 2001 is probably the best overall summary of the politics, the economics and the technology involved, but the issue is not going away. I do not want simply to reiterate all the old arguments. Many of the scientific data are well summarised in the Stewart report, which remains the standard work on the subject. Much of the policy debate revolves around the Government's planning guidelines. I shall try to take the issues a little further.
I am prompted—I guess that in such Adjournment debates, most of us are—by local concerns. There are currently three big controversies in my constituency over mobile phone masts. None has been generated by politicians; they are very much grass-roots protests. I shall describe them briefly to give a flavour of what many of us are encountering in our constituencies.
One controversy concerns residential development at the edge of my constituency in Hampton. On a field immediately adjacent to a group of houses, Orange and BT Cellnet are trying to erect a mobile phone mast. The land happens to lie in the borough of Hounslow, which is adjacent to my borough, and the residents, with my support, have protested because of the planning problems associated with the application—the visual intrusion as well as anxieties about health.
Hounslow council turned down the application. Within days the mobile phone companies lodged appeals, and there is a fatalistic worry among the residents that the deep pockets of the telecom companies will prevail, despite the fact that there is ample room for manoeuvre: there is a large field, and the residents are perfectly happy for the masts to be sited on its far side. None the less, the pressures from the companies are inexorable.
In another case, Orange is trying to put up a mobile phone mast on a busy road where residents are already concerned about environmental impacts. Again, the matter is going before the council; it already has a recommendation for rejection, I believe, and we expect the case to go to appeal.
Most serious of all, and timely in view of today's debate, is the mobile phone mast erected immediately adjacent to St. Edmund's school in Whitton; I handed in a petition against that with 1,000 signatures this morning. The maximum intensity of the beam was directed at the school playing field, and staff, parents and nearby residents are incensed. Moreover, they have now discovered that Orange, the company promoting the mast,
268
assumed that planning permission would be automatically granted, so did not even begin to apply for planning permission before it started to erect the mast.
Mobile phone companies have a 10-point code of conduct, but in my experience it is rarely applied or communicated to the contractors who carry out the work on their behalf. By contrast, most of the residents whom I encounter view the problem in a broad context, so I do not want to present it in a Nimby spirit; they fully accept that decisions have to be made on the basis of sound science and that there is a need for a national network. I want to focus on the way in which the planning system accommodates highly sensitive applications that arouse strong feelings, because it is not clear that it can do that at the moment.
I do not want to reinvent the wheel, but I shall start with the science. The Stewart report has been discussed endlessly, and it represents the current conventional wisdom. It is fair to say that its conclusions are subtle, complex and rather confusing for many ordinary people. I have picked out some key conclusions; taken together, they tell an ambiguous story.
The companies airways quote the basic conclusion of the expert group in the report:
"We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well being in some cases".
Later, the report states:
"There is now scientific evidence however which suggests that there may be biological … effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines … We conclude that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
The subtlety of that conclusion is surprising; it would have been easy for Professor Stewart and his committee to say, "Let's be brutally rational; there isn't a risk, so let's just proceed. People are misguided and are worried about myths, not a serious problem." However, Professor Stewart did not say that; he hedged his bets. I read in the evidence that he presented subsequently to the relevant Select Committee that he was scarred by the experience of the BSE affair. He was aware of the risks that science might reveal in future, so in his results he presented the need for a precautionary approach. Residents are picking up on that and are concerned about health effects, although there is no hard science to justify their reservations at present.
I should like to pose two questions to the Minister. If she answers them, that will help me to deal with my constituents' worries. How are the Government responding to and monitoring the scientific data as they come in? I have read some of the literature on the vast website on masts. Some interesting experiments are taking place. Work done in Switzerland has alarmed the Swiss and led them to introduce extremely restrictive conditions for mobile phone masts. Work has been done in Germany on the impact on livestock. I do not know whether those studies are good or bad, or whether they have been subject to tough peer review, but clearly the science is advancing. I would be interested to know how the Government intend to evaluate such results as they emerge, and at what point the conclusions of the Stewart report might have to be modified.

269
A further related question is whether the Government are monitoring and analysing the effects of the changes in technology. One of the interesting smaller points in the Select Committee report was the reference to the fact that in Finland, Nokia is developing a new type of technology for wireless telephony which dispenses with masts entirely. It is miniature technology, and it is up and running.
This month I noticed in Scientific American, which my scientific son insists that I read, a reference to something called UWB technology—a wholly new approach to short-range transmission, which could change altogether the way in which the wireless system operates. It would be useful to have some mechanism for understanding the extent to which that technology changes the assumptions on which current policy is based.
I shall now proceed to the issue of planning guidance, for which the Minister is directly responsible, and the extent to which it has helped or hindered residents who are concerned about the problem. I appreciate that there is some difficulty with the way in which planning guidance has emerged. A group of scientists under Professor Stewart said that the planning conditions needed to be changed, but as we know, planners are not qualified to judge science. That dilemma presents a fundamental difficulty.
When the Stewart report was published, the Government undertook
"to introduce a requirement for full planning permission for all new masts".
The Minister will probably acknowledge that there has been a partial movement in that direction. The 15 ft masts are now subject to longer periods of consultation, but the prior approval procedures still apply. They are not subject to full planning clearance procedure. There is a narrow requirement, which is welcome, that schools should be consulted, but there is not an obligation to meet the requests of schools if they choose to make them. That is the problem of my residents in Whitton. The school has been consulted and has expressed its unhappiness, but there is no way in which the mobile phone company can be forced to meet its concerns.
Mr. Mark Oaten: Given the precautionary recommendations about schools, would it not be sensible for the Government to rule out applications that impact on school sites?
Dr. Cable: Yes, I agree. That was one of the conclusions towards which I was working, and I believe that it is the practice in countries such as the United States, which in many respects are much more permissive in their approach to technology, and much more cavalier about the environment, than we are. None the less, the US has a tough regime on schools, which I am sure is right.
The planning guidance is producing, perhaps unintentionally, much confusion among planning officials, councillors and local residents. They are frustrated because they understand that a precautionary principle applies and that there are health concerns, as yet unsubstantiated, but they cannot express those effectively through the planning process.
Dr. John Pugh: Does my hon. Friend accept that most local authorities wish to observe the
270
precautionary principle? Because they do not think that Government rules allow them to do that in a way that satisfies residents, they often adopt strange devices such as moratoriums on council land. In the constituency that I represent, it is impossible to put a mast on the end of a pier because of current council policy. All that is a result of the fact that councils wish to implement a precautionary approach, but do not feel that planning law allows them to do that properly.
Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The process works out in all sorts of ways. Residents who are concerned about health often argue their case in planning committees on the grounds of visual amenity, as that is what the planning system allows them to do. That is not a sensible way of judging the issue, and the process needs to be changed. I am not expressing only a personal view or the views of my colleagues, but those of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, an all-party group that has expressed itself trenchantly. It said:
"Unless it is clear that the planning system has a robust way of dealing with fears expressed by people, the results of the changes will be yet more frustration."
I should like to crystallise the position by asking the Minister a couple of questions. Can she help to clarify whether health anxieties are legitimate grounds for consideration in planning matters? There is a great deal of uncertainty about that. Many councils and council officials believe, on the basis of Government circulars, that they are not allowed to take health considerations into account and that if they do so, they will be taken to appeal by a mobile phone company and lose the case because they are operating outside the rules.
The position is ambiguous. When the planning guidance was circulated, we saw a paragraph stating that health considerations were a material planning consideration, so it is clear that different factors are operating. I know that the Minister's inspectors have looked into some important cases, including those of Newport in 1998, Tandridge in 2000, and Thurrock, Stanmore and others, in which councils have turned down masts because of public anxiety about health and have won the appeal. I want to be as clear as possible about the exact status of a planning application that is rejected by a council because of residents' anxieties about health effects.
The other final consideration that I want to raise relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about schools, which are a special case. There is a particular anxiety about schools, and in his report Sir William Stewart made it clear why that is the case. Children's physical development makes them more vulnerable to the biological effects of waves—if, indeed, those waves are damaging.
In particular, Sir William Stewart urged the introduction of a more stringent set of rules than the Government have evolved for schools. I think that he specifically argued that schools' agreement should be obtained to the arrangements being made, and that that was especially important when beams were aimed directly at a school. Whether or not that is the case, will the Minister explain the position of local communities that feel strongly about the vulnerability of schools, but cannot argue effectively in the planning process that an application be turned down, even when there is strong resistance?

271
In conclusion and in drawing together the threads, it might be useful to summarise the consensus that exists, as this is not a party matter. The Local Government Association, which represents councils across the political spectrum, considered planning for masts recently and made this comment on the application of the precautionary principle:
"the government does not seem to have implemented the recommendation wholeheartedly and therefore the aim of the recommendation has been compromised."
That is a rather harsh judgment—indeed, it may be harsher than it should be—but the association expresses the frustrations of councils throughout the land.
I should like to suggest a way forward, as I hope that we have not heard the last word from the Government on planning guidance. They could indicate, in revised planning guidance, letters to councils or statements in Parliament, that they wanted to find a mechanism enabling residents and local councils who are very concerned about a sensitive planning application to turn it down without running into the difficulties that they currently appear to experience in connection with planning inquiries. Such a mechanism would not relate to narrow planning considerations, but would ensure that broader grounds of public anxiety are accepted as a legitimate reason for turning down an application. That would possibly also allow councils to grant planning permission that is time limited because of anxieties that the science will change.
The compensation for a concession to make it easier to reject some planning applications connected with mobile phone telephony could be to require local authorities to have a plan that makes it easier to roll out the mast programme throughout the country. In other words, they would buy into the roll-out across the borough, but allow specific applications to be tackled more robustly than is possible under current planning procedures. That is a balanced approach that would allow an element of give and take and tackle many of our constituents' anxieties.
10.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate on an important subject, which hon. Members and members of the public raise frequently. It is helpful to have a chance to clarify some issues. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points, which covered health considerations in the planning process, research, the role of planning and roll-out of a plan. There is little time, and if I cannot deal with all the points now, I shall do so in correspondence, if that is helpful.
Clarity is needed, and we have devised a careful presentation that is based on the well-known anxieties that have been raised. I appreciate the opportunity simply to rehearse the arguments. The Government have three key responsibilities for mobile phone masts Our main responsibility is the protection of public health. Secondly, we must facilitate the roll-out of new and existing networks. Thirdly, we must protect the environment. The third responsibility relates especially to planning.
272
The Government want to ensure that the public are able to enjoy the benefits that flow from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services. According to industry figures, more than two thirds of the total population of the UK use a mobile phone—around 45 million people. The growth in the mobile communications sector in the past 15 years has been remarkable and is set to continue. That creates pressure because of the demand for mobile phone services.
Mobile phones will not work without the supporting infrastructure—that is, the masts. Their siting causes the genuine problems on which I want to focus my comments. The issues tend to be the same, whether taken on a case-by-case or a roll-out basis. Whenever it is suggested that local authorities have a planning strategy for an issue that is not popular locally, the roll-out always becomes excessively difficult. If hon. Members consider waste incinerators, they will understand what I mean.
Hon. Members know about the Stewart report on mobile phones and health. On mobile phone base stations, the Stewart group concluded that the balance of evidence suggests no general risk to the health of people living near base stations because exposure is expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on well-being in some cases. I believe that the report specifically identified anxieties that can be caused when people are aware of masts in their areas. That explains the indirect effect on health. Gaps in scientific knowledge led Stewart to recommend a precautionary approach, which comprises a series of specific measures. Several people believe that the precautionary approach means a ban, but it clearly does not; the report did not recommend a ban on constructing mobile phone masts or the establishment of exclusion zones between masts and existing developments.
The Government accepted the recommended precautionary approach and are introducing a range of precautionary actions. Contrary to what people believe, almost every recommendation by the Stewart report, the responsibility for which covers different Departments, is being introduced. There is a slight variation on one planning recommendation, but only in procedure. The net effect on planning is almost the same. So, the idea that we are not complying with the precautionary approach is simply not borne out.
The things that we have done include: ensuring that all base stations meet the international exposure guidelines; setting up a national database with details of base stations; implementing a new £7 million joint Government/industry research programme; publishing leaflets; and auditing mobile phone base stations and masts to assess emissions, focusing on schools. The results from the first 100 audits carried out last year showed emissions ranging from several hundred to many thousands of times lower than the public exposure guideline limits.
The Stewart report suggested that lack of public consultation is a major grievance to the people who suffer loss of amenity when base stations are erected. It also suggested that many people feel excluded and disempowered by the current planning arrangements, and that the resulting frustration can have a negative effect on people's health and well-being. That is one of the indirect effects that I was talking about earlier.
For those reasons, the group recommended that changes to the planning arrangements were necessary, and changes were, indeed, made. I shall not go through the details of

273
them all now, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is probably already aware of them. I will set them out in writing if he would like me to, but I want to move on to some of the other issues that he has raised.
One issue concerned the legislative arrangements that set out the procedure by which a planning application will be considered. Planning policy guidance note 8—known as PPG8—sets out the Government's policies on telecoms development. One of the important themes running through the guidance is the adoption of a partnership approach between the operator, the local planning authority and the local community. Careful consideration of the siting and design of a development should ensure that the right equipment is put in the right place in the right way.
In this context, the Government welcome the 10 commitments that the operators have made to adhere to clear standards and procedures which will deliver significantly improved consultation with local communities. In particular, the operators have pledged to provide their annual roll-out plans to local planning authorities each autumn. The Government strongly encourage operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions based on those plans and on other information.
Mr. Oaten: The Minister referred to the voluntary code and the 10 commitments. Will she give a commitment to review that code, perhaps in a year's time, to see whether it is operating effectively?
Ms Keeble: I am coming to that issue.
Discussions at this stage will provide an opportunity for operators and authorities to identify potential sites that will be acceptable to all parties. This will provide an early opportunity to discuss technical and environmental constraints, and to explore possible alternative approaches—in particular, the opportunities for mast and site sharing. That suggestion is frequently made by people who are concerned about this issue. If an operator is able at this stage to identify potentially sensitive sites, it may be able to adapt its strategy for an area.
PPG8 suggests that pre-application discussions should be carried out by the operators with local planning authorities and other organisations with an interest in the proposed development, such as residential groups, parish councils or amenity groups. Such discussions can identify possible conflicts of interest at an early stage. In particular, our revised guidance makes it clear that there is a duty on both the operator and the local authority to consult the relevant body of a school or college near to which a proposed mast is to be sited. Pre-application discussions between the operators and the local planning authorities will be particularly helpful in identifying which schools or colleges should be consulted prior to an application being submitted.
Evidence of the extent to which these consultations actually take place is mixed, as the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned. I want to reassure him that the Minister for Housing and Planning and I recently met industry representatives to discuss their progress in meeting their commitments. The industry has made a great deal of progress in establishing the procedures needed to take this work forward. We have emphasised strongly the need for pre-application discussions and
274
consultations with the local community, and the importance of listening to, and taking seriously, local concerns.
Dr. Pugh: If such a consensual plan can emerge and be agreed according to a roll-out programme between local authorities and mass providers, would local authorities thereby put themselves in a stronger position to refuse applications that fell outside that plan?
Ms Keeble: I will deal with that point in the time remaining, because it relates in particular to planning concerns and because I want to explain about the consideration of health issues. The Government attach importance to the implementation of the commitments but, in purely practical terms, it is important that local communities are consulted as well.
On health and public concerns, I will have to stick to the wording in front of me; if I stray, I will get into considerable problems with planning appeals and so on. PPG8 also provides advice to local planning authorities about taking into account health and public concerns about mobile phone masts. Our guidance is clear that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. I hope that that gives the clear guidance that is needed. However, whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision maker, usually the local planning authority, to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Keeble: No, because there is only one minute left.
That is how decisions have to be made, and those rules have to be applied to each case.
In conclusion, it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards. If there are health risks, they should be dealt with directly and not obliquely, through the planning process. As I have said, the Government are adopting a range of measures on a precautionary basis, as advised by the Stewart report. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are needed to protect public health. The Government will continue to keep mobile phone technologies under review in the light of further research. I have already mentioned the scale of the research that we have commissioned.
I believe that good planning for telecommunications will be achieved by the development of a partnership approach in all areas. That means parties placing a proper emphasis on discussions about future roll-out plans, particularly the localities involved, and on pre-application discussions to ensure that masts are sensitively and appropriately sited.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o ' clock.

Preamble
SYLVIA HEAL[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Debt Relief
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
James Purnell: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the important subject of debt relief. I shall set the scene. Like many hon. Members, my interest in the subject stems from personal experience, particularly my memories of a recent trip to India. When visiting Gujarat—the site of the earthquake earlier this year—we were shown the reconstruction work, and two memories stand out.
My first memory illustrates the difficulties and dangers of aid programmes. I recall having a difficult conversation with someone from a non-governmental organisation who was complaining about the problems of money reaching the ground. I was told that it was disappearing in bureaucracy, and sometimes into people's pockets. He could see the potential uses of that money, but it was not reaching the ground.
My second memory is of one the real highs of aid policy. We visited the Self-Employed Women's Association, a trade union of more than 400,000 women in Gujarat. They formed themselves into a group to cut out the middle-man—it was always a man—by providing export help, credit services and distribution for women who worked for themselves by producing clothes and growing agricultural products. By acting as a company, those women have increased their earnings by a factor of 10.
That is the hard-headed reality of aid policy. If it is sustainable, if people are given the power to control their lives and if they can create jobs for themselves, aid can have a transforming effect. That is why today's debate is so important. Aid policy needs to be scrutinised and discussed, and I hope that our debate will play a part in that. There can be no more important subject.
We live in a world in which, each day, 30,000 children face death from diseases that could be prevented. We live in a world in which 100 million children have no schooling; in which 150 million grow up malnourished; and in which 600 million people live in conditions of extreme poverty. All of us in developed countries have a moral responsibility to act. I trust that the Financial Secretary—we are delighted to see him here—will go back to the Treasury and argue the case for increased funding for the Department for International Development in the next spending review.
The goal of achieving 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product for aid is most important. Not only will it revive people's faith in politics, but it will show that the Government can make a real difference by spending money wisely and increasing the amount that is being spent. In that respect, I pay tribute to those who have put pressure on the Government—and on Governments
2WH
in all developed countries—to raise their commitment to the issue. We have all seen the effect of the work of Jubilee 2000 and of the drop the debt campaign by hundreds of churches across the country.
Mr. Tom Watson: My hon. Friend rightly said that several aid agencies have played an important role in promoting Government policy on debt. I draw his attention to early-day motion 736, which has cross-party support and has been signed by more than 340 hon. Members. I should also draw to his attention to the Trade Justice Movement event on Wednesday 19 June, which promises to be the biggest mass lobby of Parliament. Does he agree that it is important that parliamentarians show their commitment to ending the problems of world poverty by giving that campaign their full support?
James Purnell: I wholeheartedly agree. I cannot say off the top of my head who introduced the early-day motion, although I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). I was about to congratulate her and the all-party group on Jubilee 2000 on the way in which they have raised the issue in Parliament. Parliament has an important role to play, and hon. Members, among many others, have put pressure on the Government, just as constituents have put pressure on us. I thank the all-party group and its officers for their support in preparing for today's debate, and I encourage everyone to go to the lobby that my hon. Friend mentioned.
It is worth paying tribute to those who have worked from the ground up to put pressure on the Government to act on this issue, and Labour Members can be proud of the Government's record. Only last week in New York, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yet again urged industrialised nations to take action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has also done much work on this issue, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a personal commitment to Africa. We have completed the first stage, which has involved moving the issue up the agenda and demonstrating political commitment to it. The question now is how we find the money to deliver on that commitment and ensure that it is wisely spent. I shall concentrate on those issues, because how the money is spent is just as important as how much money is available.
The first issue is the heavily indebted poor country process. It is important that we place conditions on the way in which money is disbursed, because the present situation was partly caused by the cycle of unsustainable borrowing, by bad governance and, sometimes, by corruption in the countries that borrowed the money. Equally, developing countries and multilateral institutions lent to projects that were not properly researched or pro-poor.
Although I understand why the international community is creating conditions to ensure that the money will be effectively spent, such conditions will affect the pace of progress. More than 40 countries may qualify for the HIPC process, but only five have completed their journey through it. The great worry is that those who are suffering are the poorest people in the world, who could be benefiting from the money that is available.

3WH
I am glad, therefore, that moves are being made to review the HIPC process. I urge the Government to consider the issue of countries that reach completion point, but which still end up with unsustainable levels of debt. The change in commodity prices has badly affected Uganda, for example, which is coming out of the process with levels of debt that may be unsustainable in the future. There must be a review of the issue.
Ms Julia Drown: My hon. Friend mentions the extra help that is needed at completion point. Does he agree that help should be levelled up at decision point if it is already clear at that stage that commodity prices have changed? We could then provide very poor countries with the help that was intended when the process started, rather than always having to wait until completion point.
James Purnell: I entirely agree. It is important to consider commodity prices and the growth rates on which the World Bank bases its work. Overall, those rates seem unduly optimistic, and they will affect calculations of the level of sustainable debt if they are cut in half or three quarters.
The second issue relates to opening markets to developing countries, which is vital. When we met the Self-Employed Women's Association, we asked what its top priority was; it was not aid, but access to EU markets and for that access to be on fair terms. Every day, £1 billion is spent on subsidising farming, hugely more than is spent on aid; that is an astounding statistic. We in the west should consider that. We have a moral duty to enable people to compete in those markets on fair terms. I know that the reform of the common agricultural policy is a difficult issue in this country. However, it is incumbent on all EU countries to take a long, hard look at the way in which the money is spent. Many of the people who suffer as a result live in the poorest countries in the world.
I want to concentrate particularly on the third issue, that of countries that are excluded from the HIPC process. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, but it is not included in the definition of highly indebted poor countries. I shall return later to the issue of definition. Even if we accept that categorisation, Bangladesh—half of whose 130 million people live below the poverty line—spends as much on servicing its debt as it does on health. In absolute numbers, Bangladesh has more people in poverty than any country apart from India and China, yet it does not qualify for the HIPC initiative. The incidence of malnutrition there is the highest in the world. Every day, in addition to those whose development will be stunted by malnutrition, 700 children die of diseases caused by malnutrition. Add to that the depressing regularity with which natural disasters occur there, and there is an unanswerable case that Bangladesh should be at the top of our priority list.
I have two worries about the exclusion of Bangladesh from the HIPC process. First, a direct consequence is that it does not benefit from some of the debt cancellation and rescheduling. More generally, because it is not part of the process, it is not automatically
4WH
included in people's assumptions about which countries deserve the most help; it is falling down the pecking order. The problem is illustrated by the fact that south Asia receives about $10 per person in aid, compared with nearly $1,000 per person in north Africa and the middle east. My worry is that the way in which Bangladesh is defined is contributing to that process. We must examine the way in which the flow of aid and debt cancellation are organised, in order to ensure that countries such as Bangladesh, where the need is so acute, benefit.
Recently, I wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development about the matter. She was able to reassure me that Bangladesh was one of the greatest priorities for her Department and that the budget had increased. That is welcome. I was delighted to hear that we had written off all our bilateral aid debts with Bangladesh; they totalled about £1 billion when we came to power in 1997. Despite that, Bangladesh finds itself in a catch-22 position. It cannot qualify for HIPC because it is not sufficiently indebted, yet the international community is wary of further investment in the country. The Secretary of State went on to say:
"There are substantial additional donor resources available to Bangladesh. We and other donors have made it clear to the Government of Bangladesh that we are keen to increase our expenditures in Bangladesh…However we require the Government to put in place an appropriate policy environment in order to make such expenditures worthwhile."
That is the catch-22. Bangladesh cannot access that aid until it improves its policy framework; yet without the extra aid, it will find it difficult to address the very problems that the international community has identified.
I should like to make two appeals today. The first is to the Government of Bangladesh, to convince the international community that the country is committed to change. In particular, Bangladesh has one of the lowest rates of public revenue raising anywhere in the world; it raises only about 9 per cent. of GDP to spend on public services. I urge the Government of Bangladesh to consider ways to increase that and to ensure that as much as possible of that money can be spent on public services and help for the very poor. At present, a high proportion is spent on supporting domestic industries and it does not reach the poorest in society.
My second appeal is to the British Government and the international community to help to find a way out of the catch-22. The people who are paying for it are the poorest people in Bangladesh; the three quarters of the population who live on less than $2 a day. Unless we end the stand-off, the prospects for Bangladesh are bleak. The International Monetary Fund used to assume that Bangladesh was growing at between 6 and 8 per cent. It then revised that down to 5 per cent. Last week, it changed its forecast for 2001–02 to 3.75 per cent. For a developing country, that is a worryingly low rate of growth. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week in New York, on such rates of growth Bangladesh will start to become poorer. It will not be a matter of failing to reach the millennium goals, but of falling further behind them.
I support the Government's efforts to ensure that aid is well spent. However, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good. I urge the Minister to consider the ways in which this catch-22 situation can be dealt with.

5WH
Could we consider spending money through NGOs, as these are particularly well developed in Bangladesh, which has a great history of micro-credit and self-help? Could we ensure that, if Bangladesh demonstrates a commitment to change, the money will not be withheld indefinitely until that process has been shown to succeed? There should be a route with staging posts along the way at which Bangladesh can receive the extra aid.
Finally, I shall address the definition of a heavily indebted country. Priority for international help should be based on a combination of debt payments and poverty indicators. Debt sustainability is only part of the question. According to different definitions of debt, Bangladesh has a debt stock-to-export capacity of about 180 per cent., which is much greater than the level that the World Bank considers sustainable. Even setting that to one side, the indicators used to qualify countries for the greatest aid should include their progress towards the millennium development goals and levels of absolute poverty because, as I have argued, Bangladesh is in danger not just of missing the millennium goals, but of sliding away from them.
I urge the Government of Bangladesh and the international community to break the deadlock in which the country finds itself. The tragedy is that the money is there, but cannot be released because of that deadlock. Those who are suffering are the poorest people in Bangladesh.
9.46 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) on securing this debate. The debate is important because Members in all parts of the House strongly support the jubilee debt campaign. We are aware that after the big push to relieve debt in 2000, it has been hard to keep the issue high up on the agenda. One of the ways in which we can demonstrate to the many thousands of people in our country who support that campaign that we have not forgotten about the issue and that we do not believe that it has gone away is by having a debate such as this, which enables us to keep the issue in the public domain.
There is no room for complacency in this area. Jubilee debt campaigners and other organisations have pushed hard for the country's attention to be focused on debt relief. Those campaigners are aware that media interest moves away very fast. Once it has gone, it becomes difficult to keep the public imagination captured by the issue. Debt relief is not something that one does once arid for all. Unfortunately, it is more of a process of debt relieving, over time. In 2000, we took a snapshot of the state of indebtedness of various countries, but several months later their situation may well have deteriorated. That is why we as politicians have to keep on our toes with the current situation.
Of the £23 billion in debt owed to this country by developing countries, heavily indebted poor countries owe only £1.3 billion, so the HIPC initiative is just the tip of the iceberg. The hon. Gentleman referred to Bangladesh; there are many other countries that do not qualify and are struggling to manage their debt relief payments. That is inextricably linked to the question of overseas aid—I am sure that this argument is attractive to the Treasury—because, in a crazy situation, we pay
6WH
overseas aid to Governments and they use it to pay off their debts to us. The Treasury's response to the debate is correct, but the debate must deal with the question of balance with overseas aid.
We should place on the record the success of the jubilee debt campaign in January. A poster was launched for the drop the debt campaign that highlighted the fact that only 15 per cent. of unpayable debts have been cancelled. That shows that we cannot afford to relax and that the situation has not been sorted once and for all. In fact, we are only beginning to get the moneys through to where they are intended to go. However, we should not forget the strength of support given to that campaign; no fewer than 24.3 million people signed up to the debt relief campaign. That is a remarkable achievement; indeed, it is one of the most successful political campaigns that I have seen in my short career in the House.
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the question of debt sustainability. I want to impress that particular point on the Minister; the heavily indebted poor countries initiative is, without question, in trouble. In fact, the jubilee debt campaigners went so far as to produce a document, the front of which read "Heavily indebted poor countries initiative is dead." That goes further than I have gone, but I certainly agree with the analysis that the initiative is in trouble. Significantly, the Canadian Foreign Minister has also said that it is not working. That is significant, because his country will host the G8 summit at which the situation will be debated.
Many criticisms have been made of the HIPC initiative, mainly related to the use of the decision point in the calculation and the analysis of what amounts to a sustainable level of debt. The hon. Gentleman referred to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund calculation of 150 per cent. as a sustainable level of debt, and said that many countries that do not qualify for HIPC fall well outside that. Since the present level of sustainability was calculated, there have been serious events and exogenous shocks. The events of 11 September had a major impact on the global economy, which is especially acute for countries with heavy burdens of debt that are dependent on cash crops for their revenue. There has been a collapse in commodity prices across the board for crops such as coffee and cocoa, and many countries utterly depend on such crops. On that basis, Mozambique and Tanzania are the only two countries in sub-Saharan Africa whose debts are sustainable, because both those countries export gold, which was one of the few commodities to increase in price after 11 September. That gives a measure of the seriousness of the situation.
I support the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to review the debt sustainability index to take account of the collapse in commodity prices. That is the position of the International Development Committee, which is calling for a recalculation that takes account of the unforeseen shock to the capacity of those countries to repay their debt on the basis previously calculated. The figure of $1 billion has been placed on that, although that may be approximate. To put that in perspective, we should note that the American Congress has recently passed a new farm Bill giving financial support for its own farmers that will cost the American taxpayer an initial $100 billion. It is important to put such figures in perspective.

7WH
On 18 April, the American Congress passed a Bill that would make a positive contribution to recalibrating the debt sustainability analysis, which called for account to be taken of the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Some countries of sub-Saharan Africa may be decimated by the infection. Some 35 per cent. of the population of Zimbabwe, for example, is infected with HIV/AIDS. Botswana is in the same position, and 21 per cent. of Malawi's population has the disease. That catastrophe not only awaits but already affects the continent of Africa, and it is bound to have an impact on countries' capacity to repay their debts.
I urge the Minister to respond to the American proposal that a new definition for countries afflicted with an HIV/AIDS epidemic should be that if more than 5 per cent. of a heavily indebted poor country's Government revenue is spent servicing the debt, that debt should be regarded as unsustainable. I should be interested to hear how the Minister responds to those proposals. The first response would take account of the collapse in commodity prices, and the other would take account of the impact of HIV/AIDS.
I do not want to speak for long on debt relief. I am conscious that Westminster Hall gives an opportunity for many Back Benchers to speak, and I may be regarded as slightly usurping that, but I feel passionately about the subject. My final point is to ask the Minister for his view on a proposal for resolving international debt crises, the jubilee framework for international insolvency. It is a new method of arbitration produced by the jubilee debt campaign that would deal with countries that struggle under their capacity to repay debt.
The framework proposes that a heavily indebted nation could file for a standstill on debt repayments, or its creditors could declare it insolvent. It also considers a new form of regulation for international capital flows, which would discipline lenders and reckless borrowers. The jubilee debt campaign rightly thinks that those who lend money are also judge and jury on the capacity for repayment, hence the call for greater independence of calculations of a country's real capacity to work its way out of debt. My party is considering those issues, so I should be interested to hear from the Minister about them.
In relation to indebtedness and the growing inequality between the richest and poorest nations, we have to face up to an awful truth. As a member of the G8, we are getting richer, and there is no question but that the G8 is getting meaner to poorer countries.
9.57 am
Valerie Davey: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) on bringing it back to our agenda.
The issue remains important for many of my constituents. Those who actively campaigned for Jubilee 2000 are well aware that it was a starting point. It raised the issues at international settings with the G8 and the World Bank, and began a process of debt cancellation. The continuing work appears to be both
8WH
delayed and complex, so I welcome the opportunity to assess where we are now. Some of the issues on which we must concentrate have been clearly set out, especially that of reassessing sustainability in terms of debt in the heavily indebted poor countries, and the inclusion of counties just outside that category.
I want to use Tanzania as an example for congratulation and caution. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to it as one of the two countries where the debt was sustainable. By comparison, that is true, but even there lessons can be learned. I want to consider what has happened a little more carefully.
Tanzania is one of the five countries with a great deal of support, and its Government worked hard to achieve its status. They got their act together in terms of governance, the first aspect of HIPC definition, and worked hard on the millennium agenda. As we have heard, it is still one of the poorest countries. Even with 54 per cent. of its debt cancelled, Tanzania still spends more on its debt servicing than on education and health put together. That situation cannot take it out of poverty in the long term.
Last November, Tanzania went on to achieve full HIPC status, and its achievements are impressive. Overall, Tanzania has made substantial progress in carrying out specific structural reforms and institutionally strengthening governance and financial management in the authorities identified at the time of the decision. In addition, important steps have been taken to improve transparency, which include publishing and disseminating the national action plan for the control of corruption. Significant progress has also been made in tax reform, improving the business climate and strengthening the performance of the utilities. In the health sector, Tanzania has successfully implemented a programme to ensure the immunisation of at least 75 per cent. of children under two against measles and diphtheria, and has implemented a national campaign against HIV/AIDS, including completion visits to three quarters of all districts.
The Government have undertaken important initiatives in co-operation with donors to improve, and to increase access to, education. The Government have launched an education initiative with the chief aim of increasing access to schools, especially in poor and under-served areas, while trying to alleviate the cost burden on householders, so progress has been achieved, especially at primary level. The budgets have been increased and school fees have been abolished, although those who have worked in the country recently say that other ways are being found to ask parents and others for money. A school mapping exercise is also under way.
Exports are improving. Gross domestic product has increased to 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. in recent years, but that still leaves Tanzania with the huge problem of paying back a debt that forms a higher percentage of its GDP than the amount it spends on education and health. In that context, we need to ask the World Bank and the G8 to reassess what is happening as a result of Tanzania nearing completion of the process. I want to emphasise the importance of the trade campaign and the need for a country such as Tanzania to see real benefits from the sale of agricultural produce, which forms about 85 per cent. of its exports. It has a developing

9WH
tourist industry and some gold for export, but those are minimal by comparison with the need for fair trade for agricultural produce.
Let us briefly consider the case of coffee. I am not an economist and I do not know the detailed background, but I buy coffee and have worked in Tanzania. When I was there, the late President Nyrere told a neighbouring village that if it could double its coffee output, it would be possible to establish a clinic there. The village doubled its output and received exactly the same price on the world market that year. It was a boom year and the Americans who controlled output on to the world market were able to establish a mean price—mean in both senses of the word.
Tanzania has struggled for many years, and we are now told that the price of coffee has plummeted. Do hon. Members recognise the plummet in the price of coffee? Has the price in the shops or coffee bars gone down? No, it has not. Indeed, the prices in Starbucks or any other leading coffee shops would stun a coffee farmer in any developing country in the world. We pay more for a cup of coffee than the coffee producer will receive for the produce of many of his bushes on the small shambas, certainly in Tanzania. That is a shocking indictment. The added value, which producers of coffee in the developing world do not receive, increases while the world market price goes down, and the coffee producer gets less.
If we are not careful we will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The produce—the coffee—is the key element in the coffee trade, but the benefit of the boom in coffee shops in London and any other city one might go to is felt by the developed world. The developed world promotes the known fact, mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden, that the coffee price, plummet though it may, is still increasing the added value to the richest countries, which get richer while the poorest get poorer. Even Tanzania, which has reached completion point under the HIPC initiative and has benefited from the cancellation of 54 per cent. of its debt, will get poorer unless something significant happens.
I must mention the military air traffic control system, an interesting subject from which we can learn many lessons. My recent copy of Tanzanian Affairs, which is produced by the Britain-Tanzania Society but gives a fair viewpoint, mentions how indignant President Mkapa is that we are still trying to interfere in Tanzania's affairs. As we know, the air traffic control system means that new debt is incurred by Tanzania while we are selling it produce and cancelling its debt. That is a vicious cycle that must be broken. I challenge what we are doing. I do not believe that we should grant an export licence. Those are issues that we must consider in great detail.
I urge the Financial Secretary to recognise that thousands in my constituency and millions throughout the country are deeply concerned at the lack of progress in reaching debt cancellation for HIPC countries, and at the complexity that surrounds such debates. There is also concern that the new campaign should urgently press the case for fair trade, which it considers a much more honourable way of ensuring that countries can enter international markets with dignity to pay their own way and no longer be truly indebted.
10.7 am
Hywel Williams: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) on securing this important debate. I am glad that at least some hon. Members are here this morning; would that there were more. I certainly think that some years ago there would have been more.
It is years on from the beginning of the debts campaign and the gatherings in Birmingham and Cologne, and we are still discussing debts. I shall state a fact that puts all our efforts into context. Christian Aid argues that if poor countries' Governments are to have sufficient resources to meet their millennium development goals and other essential expenditure needs, such as those of law and order and developing the civil service, the 42 heavily indebted poor countries cannot afford to make any debt service payments. That is a significant argument. They need not only the cancellation of their debt service payments, but $16.5 billion more in aid to meet their millennium development goals.
I look forward to the lobby on 19 June, and I hope to welcome people from Wales into this very Room. I hope that many thousands will come from Wales; certainly, there will be many thousands outside the House on that day. I shall not give too many detailed figures this morning. They are obscene, and the message that they give is clear. I am sure that several hon. Members have rehearsed the figures, and that others will rehearse them later.
I shall give a small example. In spring this year, I had the opportunity of welcoming Abdon Senne from Senegal to my constituency. He is an aid worker who works on one of Christian Aid's partner projects. He works in agricultural development and education, and uses creative methods, such as drama, in small rural communities, to get his message across. I welcomed him to my mountainous Welsh constituency during one of the wettest weeks of the year. Abdon said that Senegal is a dry and flat country. The experience was instructive for both of us.
The two populations' circumstances are generally different. The west is relatively well off while Senegal is one of the poorest countries in the world. However, Abdon's visit was very valuable. He got to see a little of how we use drama in education and the community. He also saw agricultural production and processing, and he was particularly impressed by an agricultural co-op in my constituency that is involved in meat packing. That was the nitty-gritty of his visit, and he saw how meat packing occurs—unfortunately, so did I, because I did not find it a very interesting or pleasurable experience.
I got a lot out of the visit. I met a person who is working creatively and face-to-face with people to counter poverty. I heard directly about his, and others, efforts. I learned about the conditions that are faced by people involved in agriculture in Abdon's country. I discovered that there is common ground between conditions there and the problems that are faced by marginalised and economically stricken farming communities in my constituency.
I turn to farm subsidies, and I shall highlight one argument of the many that one could choose. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned the current US farm Bill. That will involve huge

11WH
expenditure. A small part of the Bill commits the US Government to provide about $8 billion of aid to rice farmers. That money will go to people who are well off by even the standards of the west. If we consider the incomes of the poorest people on the planet, the rice farmers of the United States are fabulously wealthy. A sum of £8 billion will support agribusiness and that will undermine the economic stability of rice growers throughout the developing world. Hon. Members will have heard about the Africa campaign that was launched last week. Ghana faces a catastrophe in rice production because of the effect of imports.
The United States is giving $8 billion to support agribusiness, but the cost of cancelling debt repayments from the countries that are most heavily indebted over the next five years is $6.8 billion. These figures show the balance that we must measure when we in the west examine our priorities. Clearly, the weighting is wrong. Debt relief must go hand in hand with trade reform, especially when calamities strike, when there is overproduction or if natural disasters occur. The organisation of the world's trade hampers the efforts of people such as Abdon Senne and the hundreds of thousands of others who are using their own efforts to develop their communities. Yesterday's help is available from western Governments and non-governmental organisations, but Abdon Senne and others want and need the opportunity not only to receive, but to create a better future through their own efforts.
We must open markets in the west, but that will not provide sufficient help. Indeed, there is an argument that the effect of opening several such markets would be purely marginal, if not cosmetic. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund prevent developing countries from supporting their agricultural industries, which is fundamentally unfair. That prevents people from developing their own countries, and countries are prevented from exporting finished goods, although the arguments about that are mixed. Therefore, I hope that the Minister agrees that debt relief must go hand in hand with trade reform. It must go hand in hand with reform of the support for agriculture. That is the case with regard to all countries; the United Kingdom and the United States of America are not excluded from that.
10.14 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) on securing the debate. He presented a good case, and it is always heartening to see that hon. Members are interested in this subject.
Progress has been made on the debt issue in the past five years. However, we should remember that the initiative was started by the last Conservative Government. John Major and his Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), had a great deal to do with starting the HIPC initiative, and it has been enthusiastically carried forward by the present Chancellor, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Jubilee 2000 campaign.
The UK, the USA and Canada have promised to cancel 100 per cent. of all bilateral debt for countries, once they qualify under the scheme. That is excellent
12WH
news. We have also promised that the debt repayments of countries that do not have a poverty reduction scheme will be held in trust to pay for poverty relief, once they reach the qualifying point. I am slightly concerned about that; I am unsure whether I understand how it will work, and I seek clarification about that from the Financial Secretary.
Although progress has been made, the other G8 countries have not made such promises, and neither have the multilateral creditors, who are the largest creditors: 33 per cent. of debt is owed to the World bank, and 11 per cent. is owed to the International Monetary Fund. Only 23 per cent. of debt is bilateral. On top of that, there are all of the export credits, which form debt for developing countries. Therefore, there is still a long way to go.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and I helped to form the human chain that encircled the G7 meeting at Birmingham several years ago. She was accompanied by her children; they are lovely, and I envied her for having them. I remember that we spoke at meetings. There were tens of thousands of people in Birmingham on that day; it was inspirational.
Jubilee means forgiveness, and that was the great aim of Jubilee 2000. It was created to mark the millennium, and it was the idea of Professor Martin Dent of Keele university. It is a great idea, but I fear that it is turning into a damp squib, because so little progress is being made. Only 15 per cent. of the debt has been cancelled—as the hon. Lady said, in a great speech, to which I have almost nothing to add.
I share the hon. Lady's concerns about debt sustainability, and the way that it is assessed. That is a huge problem at present. Conditions move so rapidly that we must not have a fixed way of assessing it; that was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. The assessment is measured with regard to the debt export ratio, but that does not necessarily mean very much, because exports might not lead to a lot of revenue coming into a country. Therefore, that is not a fair way of assessing the situation. Even by the World Bank's criteria, many countries have unsustainable debt after they have reached the decision point of HIPC. We must do better with regard to that.
Commodity prices were mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden and other hon. Members. That is an important issue. A fall in the price of coffee triggered the genocide in Rwanda. We must never forget that. One million people died because we ignored the importance of falling commodity prices in a poor and struggling country.
As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, access to markets is extremely important. We must support the trade and justice campaign that is being started by more or less the same non-governmental organisations that combined to create the great Jubilee 2000 campaign. Developing countries must have better access to markets. Subsidies to agribusiness are having a terrible effect on the ability of developing countries to export their products, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said. We must examine all those problems. Debt sustainability should be thought of as a fluid and flexible thing to be measured, and not something written in stone that stays unchanged for a decade. The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned

13WH
a Congress Bill. It is an interesting one because it appears that the USA recognises the problem. I am glad about that. The Americans are suggesting a big change to sustainability criteria.
I am still unsure whether the world realises what a problem the HIV/AIDS crisis will become. In previous generations in developing countries, scourges, plagues, epidemics and endemic illnesses have affected the weak, newborn and elderly. Like the effect of a great storm on a forest of trees, such scourges cut out the weak and unproductive members of society. That was always what happened in developing and poor countries that had no medical care. However, HIV/AIDS affects the productive members of those countries—the young, fit, active and intelligent. That is why it is such a different crisis, and why the world should take it much more seriously. It will affect the productivity of developing countries in an enormous way that is only just beginning to be felt. I hope that the Minister will accept that we must address this crucial problem.
As the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) told us, there is little point in providing countries with debt relief if they immediately fall into the greater debt of unproductive expenditure the minute that they qualify. There have been assurances that the Government have imposed a unilateral ban on export credits for unproductive expenditure, and the phrase "sustainable development" has been packed into every Bill and debate that we have had over the past few years. Why then was the air traffic control system for Tanzania approved, which will plunge that country back into debt the minute it qualifies?
I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to clarify the issue and explain what will happen in the future. Many hon. Members feel that everything that the Government have preached in recent legislation has been completely thrown away by the single act of approving the Tanzania contract. I understand that the contract may be under review, but the Government must still carry the can for approving it.
We must always put sustainable development before any benefits that might accrue to British industry, which was the golden rule in the International Development Act 2002. We must remind ourselves of that rule. We must also exert more pressure on the international community to force greater debt relief from the World Bank and the IMF. They are not moving fast enough and the state of the poorest people in the world is becoming a world emergency that is affecting us directly. That could form the subject of another debate, so I will not go into it now.
The HIPC scheme must be reviewed again. Debt sustainability should especially be re-examined and the scheme must be widened to include more countries, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said. Countries in conflict should be considered, because conflict is not the only problem faced by those countries. Bangladesh is a curious example of a country that superficially appears to be prosperous, doing well and accepted as such. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, Bangladesh has so much poverty. We must look again at the problems.
We must be careful not to make debt relief available for political purposes. I was disturbed that debt relief was recently dished out to Pakistan and I wondered
14WH
what precedent that set. Given the news today, I worry even more about what effect that will have. We must think carefully before debt relief is ever used for political purposes in the future.
The point that I feel strongly about and with which I hope that the Minister will deal is that debt relief must not be paid for by a reduction in the development assistance budget. It must he funded additionally from the Treasury budget for the G8 countries. In the other place, in answer to a question from the noble Lord Williams, Lord Grocott said that, in fact, the rise in the percentage of GNP going to overseas aid—which is expected to increase to 0.036 per cent. in the next couple of years—is due mainly to the increased impact of the HIPC initiative. That smells of double counting.
We cannot trumpet, on the one hand, that we are giving more aid to developing countries because we are increasing the GNP, and trumpet, on the other hand, that we are leading the world in debt relief when we push everything into one budget, which is only one sum of money. We must be careful not to claim that we are doing more than is being done. The Government have much to be proud of, thanks mainly to the Department for International Development and the Secretary of State, helped by the Chancellor. They must not spoil things by making false claims.
10.26 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for the tribute that she rightly paid to the former Prime Minister, John Major, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am sure that her expressions were not motivated at all by her recent experience of the local elections in her constituency—
Dr. Tonge: A mere blip.
Mr. Chope: I accept the hon. Lady's remark in the spirit in which it was intended. She referred in passing to debt relief in Pakistan and to today's news, which is that I million Indian soldiers are massing on the Kashmir border, yet India has the second largest number of poor people in the world. Is it any surprise that many of us find it extremely depressing to debate such a subject, when so many of the actions taken by individual Governments and the priorities that they set for their expenditure bear no resemblance to the needs of their domestic populations?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) on being lucky in the ballot and introducing the debate. He drew on his experience and expressed his worry that money did not necessarily reach the targets and said that we must ensure not only that we make a political commitment but that the money is well spent. He made a heart-felt plea for opening up European Union markets for access on fair terms to wider trade; and so say all of us.
Given the mass lobby on 19 June, I hope that the Government will spell out in specific terms exactly what progress has been achieved in reforming the common agricultural policy. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry visited Doha with an upbeat message that was full of good intentions about delivering on that

15WH
important subject, but I fear—not because of reluctance on the part of the Government or the country, but because of the lack of influence that the Government have over some of the other countries in the European Union—that we are not making the progress that is fundamental to widen access to the European markets for the producers of food and agricultural products in the developing world.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made the valid point, borne from her experience of Tanzania, that 85 per cent. of that country's production is in agricultural goods. It must be able to export its goods to markets. Although farmers in this country are protected against substantial falls in the market price of agricultural produce, if, as the hon. Lady points out, the world market for coffee changes dramatically from one year to the next, farmers in Tanzania, despite doubling production, may be no better off in real terms. That must be a pretty depressing prospect for farmers in Tanzania, and we congratulate them on their efforts to improve the economy in their country.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde discussed the definitions of heavily indebted poor countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) picked up that point and once again showed her passionate interest in the subject. I shall try to imagine the spectacle of her and her children joining hands with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
Dr. Tonge: It is the sort of thing that women do.
Mr. Chope: Is it? In that case, neither I nor the Financial Secretary will be able to comment on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made two telling points. I hope that, in what will be ample time to respond, the Financial Secretary will answer the points that have been made. It seems odd that only 15 per cent. of unpayable debts have been cancelled and that there is insufficient recognition of what happens in the event of a fall in commodity prices and of the problems encountered as a result of HIV/AIDS.
My hon. Friend asserts that the G8 are getting meaner. I am not sure—
Mrs. Spelman: That is statistically correct.
Mr. Chope: If that is so, it is sad that we, as a G8 member and one of the richest countries in the world, cannot persuade other G8 members to be equally generous in the contributions made to resolve issues relating to poverty in the developing world.
In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) referred to Senegal. He is not in his place now, but I do not agree that opening up markets would be merely cosmetic. I thought that there was a consensus in the House that it would be a good idea to open up markets and that that would be the best long-term and sustainable way to help people in indebted and impoverished circumstances.
I am sure that the Financial Secretary will refer to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the UN General Assembly held earlier this month on financing a
16WH
world fit for children. Partly to steal his thunder, I quote from the Treasury press notice of 10 May, in which the Chancellor is quoted as saying:
"We have gathered here together—governments, non-governmental organisations, parents—because of:
our shared concern for all these children who live on the knife's edge of bare existence;
our shared responsibility to end the senseless tragedy of young lives lost to disease and deprivation;our shared belief: that just as each and every child has a right to realise their potential we have a duty to help make it happen;
and most of all, we are here because of our shared conviction that what can be achieved together by unity of purpose is far greater than what we can ever achieve acting on our own, and that is it our duty, from New York onwards, to form a partnership for children so wide, so powerful and so determined that no obstacle should be allowed to impede its path of progress."
He goes on to discuss the Zedillo report, estimating that
"if we are to succeed in achieving these goals, an extra $50 billion will be required each year until 2015."
I agree with all those sentiments, as, I am sure, does everyone in the Chamber. However, is it not extraordinary that Mr. Robert Mugabe was welcomed at that gathering in New York? Why was he not given the cold shoulder? How can we be serious about such issues if we are not prepared to confront Mr. Mugabe, who has single-handedly done more to bring poverty and deprivation to children in Zimbabwe than any living being? He was able to attend that United Nations General Assembly special session on children and was recently elected to the 15-member United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Surely the Government should take a stand when it comes to Zimbabwe. In general, the issues that we are addressing are so enormous and of such mind-boggling complexity, but we can see that matters are regressing rapidly in Zimbabwe. That is a country in which, by virtue of historical connections, we are in a position to influence matters to a greater extent than we do.
If all our wise words and rhetoric are to add up to anything, surely they should add up to taking effective action in Zimbabwe. The country has become a recipient of United Nations food aid, and its agricultural crisis is deepening. The famine is getting worse, and we are entering a cycle in which it will need more food aid in future. The collapse of that country's agriculture is not because of drought, but because of the political corruption of the Mugabe regime. A country that once had a strategic grain reserve of 1 million tonnes now finds itself without maize or the foreign currency with which to buy it. Are we listening to the opposition parties in Zimbabwe? Earlier this month, Mr. Nyati, a leading Zimbabwean opposition parliamentarian, was in London. He said:
"Most of the food aid is being distributed to government officials, which means it is either being sold for profit or it is going to Mugabe's supporters. I know that it is not reaching supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change in the rural areas."
He continued:
"There seems to be confusion about what to do about Zimbabwe. The MDC's position is that until there is an agreed upon distribution network which brings in independent bodies like the Church, food aid should be withheld. If food aid is being used to legitimise Mugabe's party, it serves no useful purpose to Zimbabwe."

17WH
I hope that we shall today hear details of the action that is to be taken by our Government on Zimbabwe. We have heard a host of words; we now need some serious action. So long as we continue to bestow legitimacy on the destructive dictators who have, for so long, been at the centre of Africa's ruination, bailing them out with tranches of aid is not the answer.
James Purnell: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not quoting from the Chancellor merely to use up the time available for the debate. The Chancellor recently said that the UK was committed to the target of raising development assistance to 0.7 per cent. of national income and that he will significantly raise the amount of our development aid in the spending review covering 2005–06. I should like to give some power to the elbow of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in her bids for a future Conservative spending review. Does the Conservative party also aspire to a 0.7 per cent target?
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful intervention. Surely the issue, as he has said, is to look at time scales and to ensure that value is derived from the extra expenditure. My challenge to the Financial Secretary and his Government extends not just to third world aid. It extends to expenditure on the health service and other public expenditure programmes. More important than the total amounts of money being thrown at those topics is that we should ensure that our money is well invested.
That leads me from Zimbabwe to ask about Malawi; again, I hope that the Financial Secretary can answer me. The right hon. Gentleman may have seen an article in The Guardian earlier this month about the disasters occurring in Malawi. Britain has enormous influence in that country because of historical connections. I understand that Malawi is suffering serious shortages of food but, according to The Guardian, it seems that the crisis has been made worse because of international politics and the actions of NGOs.
The NGOs and the Malawi Government are said to have accused the International Monetary Fund and donor countries of forcing them to sell last year's food reserves for ideological and economic reasons. Malawi is under pressure to meet IMF targets and to reduce its expenditure. It costs the Malawi Government more than £3 million a year to store almost 200,000 tonnes of food, much of which was said to be deteriorating. The donor countries, backed by the IMF, said that only 60,000 tonnes was needed as a strategic reserve, but the Government sold all but 4,000 tonnes without refilling the silos. The result is that Malawi has had to borrow in order to obtain grain on the international markets.
Earlier this month, the IMF refused to allow Malawi debt relief, saying that money for food security must come from further budget cuts, although not from education or health. Is what is happening in Malawi good enough? Or, as is said privately, is the explanation that donors despair because Malawi is governed by a small elite who have tied up the economy and done little to help the very poor? I should be interested to hear the Financial Secretary's response.
18WH
Finally, what does the Financial Secretary think of the suggestion that debt relief should be extended to the poorest countries in the former Soviet Union? Does he go along with the argument that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kurdistan, Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan should receive debt relief in order to help them become richer? If so, where does that fit in with the Government's overall policy? I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would respond to that question.
I am sure that the Financial Secretary and I agree that, although the problems are enormous, the fact that individuals are unable to do much is no reason why we should not do as much as we can, whether individually or through the Government. Indeed, we are all humbled by the knowledge that, every week, many of our constituents give money to the charities, churches and other agencies that are trying to bring some relief to the people suffering in the developing countries.
10.43 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been a good debate on an important subject. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) for enabling us to address an issue that is of real concern to many of our constituents, and of grave concern to the millions affected by the decisions made throughout the developed world on aid and debt relief that might allow developing countries better to respond to the crisis that has so many of them in its grip.
The debate has been characterised by an almost total absence of party political rancour and partisanship, and characterises the House's approach to the issue. There was one entirely characteristic fall from grace on the part of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but I shall gloss over it as far as I can, and look instead to the early preferment of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She demonstrated a clear grasp of the subject, and has a distinguished track record. Indeed, that is true of all those who participated, and that enriched the tone and content of the debate.
It would be a mistake to present HIPC and the important initiative before us as the answer to the problems that hon. Members mentioned. The HIPC scheme makes an important contribution, but it is not the answer to poverty in a world in which so many live on so little and in such conditions. It is an important starting point on which we can build, but it was never designed to release enough resources to meet the human development needs of low-income countries. Rather, it was intended to allow heavily indebted poor countries to achieve a sustainable level of debt, and the question for us in the developed world is how we meet that objective and what more we can do in terms of development aid and trade to tackle global poverty.
The hon. Member for Meriden, referring to the Jubilee 2000 research documents, asked whether HIPC was dead, and the only fair answer is, "No, it isn't." We must, however, take steps to ensure that it delivers on its objectives. The latest IMF and World Bank analysis shows that more than half of HIPC countries will reach completion point with unsustainable debt levels. The Government acknowledge that problem, and will continue to argue that countries should exit the HIPC process with sustainable debt levels.

19WH
We must build on the approach taken in the Monterrey consensus, which agreed that
"future reviews of debt sustainability should also bear in mind the impact of debt relief on progress towards the achievement of the development goals contained in the Millennium Declaration".
Those important words recognise the fact that more needs to be done, and give us some hope of developing an international response to the debt crisis.
We should not, however, overlook the fact that, in 2001–02, the scheme increased social expenditures by $1.7 billion in countries that received HIPC debt relief. That is equivalent to 1.2 per cent. of GDP. On average, health and education spending accounted for 65 per cent. of the funds made available under HIPC debt relief. Those are substantial benefits, but we know that they will not be enough of themselves.
Poor countries have a role to play in achieving macroeconomic stability, improving their policy environment, prioritising poverty reduction and investments in education and health, and improving governance and accountability. To judge from what hon. Members have said, there are no illusions about what the developing nations need to do if the issue is to be addressed. Anyone who has lived in Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and I have, knows that good governance has to be fought for. It needs to be developed, and that can be done only when civil society is given the opportunity to contribute.
The history of the HIPC initiative shows that one of the most important developments was the way in which civil society was freed up in the countries, so that it could contribute to the development of poverty reduction strategy plans. Plans that emanate simply from us in Whitehall or the capital cities of the heavily indebted poor countries themselves are unlikely to deliver on the ground. There must be a sense of ownership and involvement from local people who live with the consequences of poverty and struggle to combat it.
Women are vital to that work. All the evidence suggests that they are the best agents of development. When women are empowered through organisations—faith groups, local community development organisations and trade unions—to contribute to the development of local poverty reduction strategy plans, those plans are more likely to deliver their aims.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned Malawi. I travelled there a few months ago to participate in a Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference on HIPC. There I met representatives of civil society who had been engaged with the Government of Malawi in developing a poverty reduction plan. I was enormously heartened by their approach. Trade unionists, church people, women's and youth organisations and rural village community development associations come together to monitor what their Government are supposed to deliver with the moneys coming on-stream as a result of HIPC.
Those people took a direct and practical approach to the monitoring of the impact of poverty reduction plans. Their Government had told them that a certain sum had been spent on education, so they visited schools and villages to ask what had been received recently from the Ministry responsible for education. They would then
20WH
take an inventory of what had been received. They would ask how many teachers worked in the school, and how many had been appointed recently; they would follow the flow of money to the point where it was supposed to make a difference. Then they would compile a report and share it with donor agencies and countries.
That was practical monitoring of plans. It was a hands-on engagement with the development of anti-poverty strategies, and, therefore, that much more likely to make a difference by changing the conditions under which people live in Malawi. I am heartened by that but, at the same time, deeply disappointed by the circumstances in which the current food crisis in that country has been allowed to develop. To pretend that that crisis is the result of any action taken by the IMF, the World Bank, the UK or other donor nations is beyond belief; that is simply not the case. That food crisis, I fear, has its origins in corruption and abuse of power.
Our concern about that corruption and abuse of power made it necessary to suspend direct budgetary support to Malawi. I was obliged to make clear to the Malawi Government our concerns about the way in which the crisis had developed. That has not stopped us continuing to deliver effective programmes of support to the people of Malawi where we are satisfied that that support will go directly to reduce poverty. It has not stopped us from providing the necessary support to the people of Malawi in addressing the food crisis, but there are important lessons to be learned from the experience of Malawi about how effective poverty reduction plans are formulated and put into effect, how they are monitored and how good governance should be developed and grown.
Other aspects of the situation in Malawi, including visible demonstrations of a commitment to democracy and civil society, give cause for hope for the future. It is dangerous to allow ourselves to be sucked into a vortex of defeatism and cynicism when tackling this problem.
The scale of the crisis in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world is made that much worse by HIV/AIDS, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is right to draw attention to the scale of that crisis. In Malawi, I visited schools where the teaching population had been decimated by AIDS. I visited a village where one in three families was in the process of losing or had lost someone through AIDS. The response of NGOs and local people to that crisis in those countries is heartening and worthy of our support.
Mrs. Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the signals that we send to very poor countries; the refusal to give budgetary support to Malawi is a signal of our unhappiness with the corruption in the Government there. However, does he accept that we are sending a strange signal to the people of Tanzania as a result of his Government's decision to sanction the purchase of an air defence system and the decision of the Secretary of State for International Development to withhold overseas aid from the Tanzanian people? What signal does that send?
Mr. Boateng: I am not going to go down that path, for good reasons that the hon. Lady ought to understand; not least as a result of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. There are serious issues there and we understand them. However, it is a mistake to confuse them with issues of good governance or with those arising from the HIPC initiative.
Much has been done, but there is still more to do. Our debate assists in that process, and we owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for enabling the debate to take place.

Bovine TB
11 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Before calling the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) to initiate the debate, I should point out that the Chair has received a lot of written requests to make speeches. I see that many more right hon. and hon. Members are occupying seats in the Chamber, so I remind the House that the debate will last for only 90 minutes and that the longer hon. Members take for their speeches, the less time is left for the Minister to reply and for other Front-Bench Members to speak. I should add that the more interventions that are tolerated, the longer those interventions are and the longer the time taken to respond to them, the less time is left for the rest of the debate.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: With those words in mind, I add that the subject of the debate is extremely complex and arouses various sensitivities. I intend to speak briefly, but hon. Members must forgive me if I seem to go on too long.
The Government's statistics reveal that TB is an increasing problem rather than a diminishing one. In my constituency, farmers have been struck by an enormous increase in positive testing. It has been suggested that as many as 17 farms in my constituency have been hit by TB in the past two months. The total number of new herd incidents has risen to 80 in the region since the beginning of the year, and 52 of those are considered to be new TB incidents. The figures given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs state that the total number of confirmed new incidents in Herefordshire and Worcestershire in the whole of 2000 was 145; the results for 2001 are inconclusive.
If the increase of reactions continues at the same rate as at the start of the year to March, we shall see an enormous difference by the end of the year. Recent press reports focus on the increasing spread of the disease in Wales, which borders my constituency. North Wales' divisional veterinary manager, David Pugh, said that the situation could be as serious, if not more serious, than the foot and mouth epidemic.
In January 2001, the Agriculture Committee called for Government action in response to farmers' growing sense of despair and desperation over the continuing spread of the disease. Since then, farmers in my constituency, some of whom are here today, have had no assurance from the Government that they can expect support. Given that the industry is still shuddering from the foot and mouth epidemic, the lack of positive Government action is harsh, to say the least.
Immediate action is needed because at least three herds a day are succumbing to the disease. Areas previously free from the disease, such as West Sussex and parts of Wales, are now discovering new cases. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is responsible for animal health, said that the comments were misleading but agreed that the disease remained a serious and growing animal health problem. Although bovine TB may not have an effect on the food chain, it has a serious and potentially fatal effect on farm businesses. I wonder why Ministers have

23WH
done so little to calm the fear among the farming community that the disease could have the same effect as foot and mouth.
At Question Time last week, the Secretary of State denied a greater incidence of bovine TB. The testing programme was suspended throughout the foot and mouth crisis, and she suggested that therefore
"it is a little early to conclude that some major unforeseen development is in progress."—[Official Report, 16 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 901.]
That attitude is complacent.
In the meantime, farmers in my area are hit by the enormously crippling task of working with the subsequent restrictions that come with a confirmed case of TB. The Government have made few attempts to ease the pressures facing the farming community with the eradication of the disease. Farmers whose livestock have been given inconclusive or positive reactions to testing must wait 60 days before DEFRA officials come to undertake further testing. If those second tests are clear, another 60 days must pass before the final test is taken. Only when the third test proves negative can the farmer begin to sell and buy livestock.
The Government are showing as much complacency over the issue of animal welfare as they displayed in the initial stages of the foot and mouth crisis. That attitude is setting alarm bells ringing across the farming community in Herefordshire, and I can give farmers in my constituency no assurance that they will not be treated as badly as they were over foot and mouth disease. Farmers in my constituency have been faced with restrictions only recently, but still find them financially crippling. I can only imagine what farmers are going through in other rural areas, such as Gloucestershire, where some farms have been under TB restrictions for years.
Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at least the Labour Government introduced 100 per cent. compensation for destroyed animals, something that the Conservative Government failed to do?
Mr. Wiggin: I am sure that the hon. Lady is absolutely right, but the 27,000 cases awaiting testing are more of a comment on the way in which the Government are handling the disease.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Given the question of animals in need of testing, is my hon. Friend convinced that sufficient resources have been given to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deal with the crisis and cope with the backlog of cases?
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. That is the kernel of where the Government are going wrong. It is not necessarily fair to blame the Government's allocation of resources for research into vaccination, for example. The kernel of the problem is our whole understanding of the disease and the way in which the veterinary service is reacting to the crisis.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Krebs report? When I was elected
24WH
Member of Parliament for Hereford in 1997, the Herefordshire National Farmers Union expressed concern that the Krebs report had not been published quickly enough, which had delayed the whole process of dealing with TB. Does the hon. Gentleman share that concern?
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman was elected considerably earlier than me. Publication of the Krebs report was certainly a step in the right direction, but there is a serious problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—particularly in Aconbury—because the disease has passed not only between badgers and cattle, but is now appearing in cats and possibly even in deer.
Mr. James Paice: My hon. Friend might like to catch up on the history. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) claimed that what the Labour Government had done was right. However, the first thing they did when they came to power was to abandon the interim control strategy that was previously in place. In the first year of the Labour Government, the incidence of TB in cattle increased by 43 per cent. Farmers were less concerned about the level of compensation when there were fewer incidents of TB.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that helpful factual information.
During questions last week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promised to keep the situation under review. Using my own constituency as an example, that seems to be a shallow promise. The last quarterly TB statistics showed that 920 tests were overdue in Herefordshire and Worcestershire alone. What resources are being allocated to facilitate the removal of the 27,000 cases awaiting a test? The backlog is enormous and there is a desperate need to sort it out.
In November 1996, Professor Krebs and the independent review team began a scientific review on behalf of the Government of the link between bovine TB and badgers. The Krebs review concluded that the evidence that badgers were a significant source of TB infection in cattle was compelling. However, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate how much of the disease in cattle originates from badgers. The Krebs recommendations included a randomised badger culling trial to test the effectiveness of different strategies, to provide unambiguous evidence of the role of badgers in cattle TB and to aid the development of improved strategies to reduce outbreaks. The NFU claimed that the Government's delay over the badger culling trial proved disastrous to thousands of farmers.
In my discussions with Dr. Elaine King of the National Federation of Badger Groups, she said that she was not convinced that the disease could move back from badgers to cattle. Because of lack of evidence, thousands of farmers are convinced that badgers are responsible for the spread of the disease. The Under-Secretary, the Minister with responsibility for animal health, said in Westminster Hall earlier this year:
"Badgers and TB constitute a difficult subject. It is difficult for the Government because we are lobbied on the one hand by people who believe that the case against badgers is indisputable, and on

25WH
the other hand by people who argue equally vociferously that the case against badgers is totally unproved; and both groups ask us why are we wasting our time with the Krebs trial.
However, I believe that it is a proper, sound and scientific way of examining the epidemiology of bovine TB. We need that experiment, as it will answer many of the unresolved questions that have been debated for more than 20 years."
Mr. David Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his quote, but I must say that I entirely agree that we need evidence from which to derive any future strategy. That is what the Krebs trial represents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, along with that essential research, there must be an increased emphasis on international research into diagnostic and vaccination techniques, both for cattle and feral species such as badgers?
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and shall come to that subject later. I shall finish the quote:
"We cannot go on like that, which is why the scheme has been restarted. The survey is currently under way—it is the closed season for the culling of badgers—and we recognise that we need to get the scheme back on track. Professor Bourne of the independent scientific group is confident that the disruption of the foot and mouth epidemic will not knock the trial off-course." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 March 2001; Vol. 382, c. 683WH.]
The Under-Secretary, who also deals with animal welfare, has said that the Krebs trial is the proper scientific way of examining the epidemiology of bovine TB. I agree with him that there is need for in-depth research and analysis, but I point out the increased losses experienced by farmers due to the delay in Government action during the foot and mouth epidemic last year. Time is very much of the essence for farmers affected by this latest threat to their livelihoods.
I draw hon. Members' attention once more to the feelings of my constituent, Matthew Oliver. The closed herd at Ode court in my constituency has recently suffered a bovine TB outbreak. The herd at Ocle court were all home grown and home fed, and had no contact with other cattle, yet my constituent was left to watch and weep as his suckler cows were shot as TB reactors. Mr. Oliver told Farmers' Weekly recently:
"I am definitely not anti-badger, but if cattle are not to disappear from some areas, we simply cannot afford to wait for the results of the badger trial."
Past president of the British Veterinary Association, Francis Anthony, said:
"In Herefordshire we have cases of bovine tuberculosis coming out of our ears. It goes against every principle of disease control to cull one species and do nothing about a proven feral pool infection."
In Aconbury, as I have mentioned, the same strain of TB bacteria is being found in cattle and badgers, and has spread to cats. It is also likely that the deer in Wye valley have it. Although we all dread another food scare, I sensitively point out that the disease can be passed to human beings.
Reactors are now being found in 70 per cent. of farms tested in Herefordshire. Waiting for results of the current trial tests on badgers is no longer an acceptable step. Testing must now take place on badgers in farms where there are known reactors. Farmers will continue to link TB with the badger population, but it is right that tests are carried out to ascertain whether or not that is
26WH
true. The longer and more in-depth those tests are, the more the disease will spread, the greater the number of cattle that will have to be destroyed and the more farmers that will go out of business.
How many of those badgers killed on the side of the road—an increasingly common sight in the countryside—have tested positive for tuberculosis? A vet that I spoke to in my constituency recently asserted that those badgers killed on the roadside were hit by cars because they were too sick to move quickly enough, but that is refuted by the National Federation of Badger Groups. I suggest that a greater focus on dead animals—instead of the testing and, possibly, slaughtering of cows alone—may provide us with an increased understanding of the disease and how we should deal with it.
Mr. Richard Bacon: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of dead badgers at the side of the road, would he agree that, even in the seven counties where independent scientific work is going on, there is insufficient publicity? When people find a dead badger, they do not necessarily know what to do with it, or to whom they should report it.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. People are always sad when they see dead badgers at the side of the road. This would provide a useful extra source of information, particularly in hot spots.
I know that the Under-Secretary responsible for animal health has a soft spot for badgers because he said:
"I have a particular interest in bovine tuberculosis and badger control. It is a major area which deserves a debate on its own. I know that it has been proposed to refer the issue to the Select Committee, which would be a welcome step forward. At this stage, the Opposition remain unconvinced that the badger culling policy is either acceptable or, indeed, effective. I know and sympathise with farmers who are facing the problem and the financial impact of the outbreak of bovine TB. Nevertheless, there are a great many anomalies in the approach to the problem. The science is really shaky, because it has not been scientifically proved that badgers cannot be infected by cattle. That needs to be considered very carefully and, at the moment, too many people have set their faces against examining it."—[Official Report, 13 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1184.]
The Under-Secretary said that in 1995, but there has been little improvement in the subsequent seven years. It appears that the disease is spreading faster. I hope that it will now be accepted that this matter must be given a higher priority.
The Minister should make it one of his first priorities to tackle the situation that is facing the state veterinary service. It is a crucial service and it has excellent vets, but they are being prevented from delivering on what they know to be good scientific practice. I am told that the Department's vets are bogged down with paperwork, and that they are struggling with inconclusive tests. They are also getting an increasingly hostile response from farmers, which is hardly surprising. Morale is falling, and although the vets are happy to do the tests, the process must be improved.
In Herefordshire, we are finding that the paperwork takes so long to do that cattle that are positive reactors are still on the farm by the time that the next test is due. If the Government are serious about bovine TB, they

27WH
must back their vets, cut their paperwork and speed up the process. Money is always helpful, but these problems are not merely financial.
If this disease spreads only from cattle to cattle, it is crucial that the problem is sorted out faster. That will appeal to badger groups and farmers alike, and I know that the Minister is keen to appeal to those groups. In a reply that I received to a remark during the dairy debate, the Minister said that an announcement on bovine TB would be made in May. It is now 21 May, and I wish to know when the announcement will be made. I hope that it will be made today—if not, that he will make a statement to the House—and I hope that he will announce that the new gamma interferon tests will be piloted. If that is the case, I wish to know how effective the new tests will be, what will be the likelihood of false positive results and how many positive results they will miss; the tests will be different from the current skin tests, as they are blood tests. Will they be run in parallel, so that the new tests complement the current skin tests?
The Krebs report stated that it would take about 10 years to find the vaccine. For the past 20 years, everyone has been saying that. We now need to consider whether any of the existing vaccines can improve the situation. The Government have admitted that the cost of bovine TB research and control has risen from £16,100,000 in 1997 to £35,900,000 in 2000. The compensation paid for cattle has risen from £2.386 million to £7.074 million, and that is only in 2000. The cost of the disease to individual farm businesses in particular, to the 27,000 farmers currently awaiting bovine TB tests who are trapped by movement restrictions—is rising by a similar proportion. However, only £1.4 million is spent on vaccination research. The rest of the vaccination research comes under the human medical TB research. What trials are the Government providing to see whether the current available vaccines might help to reduce the crisis? What lessons are we learning from abroad?
The Krebs report concluded that the best prospect for the control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine. I cannot believe that it would hurt the Government if they were to increase the £1.4 million that is spent annually on vaccine research, although I accept that money cannot buy everything.
It is essential adequately to resource the research, and to ensure that the backlog of overdue six and 12-month herd tests are dealt with. The disease itself must be focused on if we are to find a decent long-term solution to the problem. There is much debate about the spread of the disease; I have already covered the points that relate to the great badger debate. If the disease could be prevented from entering the cattle pool, we would need to worry far less about the disease carriers. It would be possible to introduce an extended and freely available biosecurity advisory service for farmers that could be operated by their own vets and targeted on high-risk TB areas.
TB breakdowns may affect entitlement to subsidy claims and the milk quota, and perhaps force majeure should be applied in such cases. TB breakdowns damage further the sensitive operation of marketing stock, and facilitating trading among businesses with the same disease status should be considered. The NFU believes
28WH
that DEFRA could take several actions immediately to help to ease the immediate pressures that are imposed on producers who are under movement restrictions. That does not imply in any way that the NFU is prepared to live with the disease at its current levels.
In all probability, the long-term solution to controlling the disease may be vaccination. Cattle and badgers are the primary targets for that, and the Government must maintain full funding for research into effective vaccines. The Country Land and Business Association says that adequate resources must be provided to ensure that DEFRA's target to remove reactors from farms within two weeks is met.
Mr. Swire: Is my hon. Friend aware of the resources that have been given to collate information from other countries, especially Ireland, which has done much research? Does he think that the Government should make putting resources behind the scheme a priority?
Mr. Wiggin: That is essential. No one can afford to ignore lessons that are learned elsewhere. If we can take a step forward, I can think of no better time to do that than now. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend.
Flexibility must be sought when interpreting the European Union ruling that farms with an inconclusive reactor that have had a confirmed case of TB during the previous three years should be put under a movement restriction. The NFU believes that that ruling is too severe given the poor sensitivity of the skin test that is used to identify TB. Producers under the TB2 restriction who wish to claim extensification payments may multiply the number of livestock units on their holding by a coefficient of 0.8 to allow leeway on stocking densities. As a consequence of tightening stocking density requirements under the extensification payment scheme, the coefficient should be reduced to allow producers who are under restriction a greater opportunity to meet the required stocking densities.
The comprehensive TB99 questionnaire is put into use after a TB herd breakdown to investigate all possible sources of infection. The exercise assists epidemiological investigation and must be properly resourced to ensure maximum benefits from the results. The questionnaire is time consuming for farmers and vets, and the NFU suggests that DEFRA should consider introducing a shorter and improved version to ensure that the exercise is carried out.
The spread of the disease since the publication of the Krebs report has resulted in hotspots that are not included in the trial areas. That emphasises the need for an interim strategy to contain the spread of the disease. Reactive trapping, which happened in the Krebs trials, should be started immediately in known TB hot spots, allowing a suitable cordon near trial areas. In new areas in which several farms have been put under movement restriction without obvious imported infection, a wildlife survey should be carried out and trapping should be undertaken if TB is found in the wildlife.
The short-term solution to the crisis will not be a magic bullet vaccine. Sadly, even if such a vaccine could cut the disease by more than 60 per cent., it would take time to reach the market. Better diagnosis will certainly help, as will better biosecurity whereby infected reactors are removed from the farm as quickly as possible. We

29WH
need better research into husbandry factors such as cropping, and we must start pulling together the policy that will halt the spread of the disease now.
Finally, and most importantly, we should give a much-needed boost to the state vets who had trouble with foot and mouth and require massive support from the Government so that they can make the improvements happen and work.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members who were present at the start of the debate will recall the admonition that I gave at that time. I add to that advice that in this Chamber it is customary to start the first of the three wind-up speeches from the Front Benches 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate. Therefore, we have about 36 minutes for debate before that point.
11.24 am
Paddy Tipping: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). Let me start with a confession. His area has real problems, and we in Nottinghamshire are fortunate that that scale of problem does not exist there. I note the increasing incidence of TB in cattle and draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Cumbria, in particular, and Scotland, where new cases have developed out of the blue. That raises questions about the link that many farmers have made between badgers and TB.
Although the problem is enormous, we must put it in context. My impression is that about 9,000 cattle are infected in a national herd of about 8 million. The incidence rate is, therefore, less than one tenth of 1 per cent. Nevertheless, I agree that the incidence seems to be rising. We must examine the figures carefully. The veterinary service effectively faces a two-year backlog of work that must be carried out in just one year. No doubt it has targeted resources on the worst affected areas. It is not surprising that current figures show a peak that may not reflect the underlying trend.
I accept that it is hard to find consensus and common ground. In introducing the debate, the hon. Gentleman referred to the views of farmers and the NFU. Jan Rowe, vice-chairman of the NFU, recently said:
"The case is well proven that the badger is responsible. I think there is absolutely no doubt"
about that. I contrast that with the remarks of Dr. Elaine King, chief executive of the National Federation of Badger Groups, who said that this
"ridiculous campaign has no basis in science or logic. Calling for badger culling is no better than calling for witch burning."
Given such comments, it is hard to see a consensus on the way forward, as the hon. Gentleman recognised in his opening remarks.
The Krebs trial gives us a basis for going forward. I strongly believe that we must examine the science to try to find solutions. I caution against those who call for greater culling now. It is important that the Krebs trials are given a chance to deliver the goods.
30WH
How long will the delay caused by foot and mouth disease delay Sir John Bourne's work? My impression is that the delay will not be great. I hope that we shall receive his report by 2005. In the meantime, there will be real problems. However, given the strength of argument and feeling, it is important to try to establish the science and not be taken in or taken down a false road by siren voices.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is also important to build on the gamma interferon test. I regard it as an additional and supplementary test, but it seems to be a useful step forward. Does the Department intend to use it more widely in the Krebs trial?
The ultimate solution must be to move towards vaccination. I have followed the debate for 20 years, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, vaccination is always 10 years in the future. However, I feel that we may now be getting somewhere. I note the work of several partners in developing the M. bovis genome sequence. That may be the breakthrough—not an immediate one, but one that will take us forward. It is an important piece of work.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to invest in vaccine research 10 years is too long to wait. I question his figures on the amount spent on research. My own information is that approximately £9 million is being spent on vaccine research, however, I join him in pressing the Minister to increase that amount and to develop the tests.
We must find consensus on the way forward to build on the science, develop and get the results of the Krebs test, use the new testing and, most importantly, to develop the vaccine. At the end of the day, we cannot be blown from the course that has been adopted. Everyone has welcomed Krebs, although it is hard. Farmers will not like me saying that the important thing is to see the research through in its entirety. It will give us a springboard for the future.
11.30 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on securing this important debate.
We should put the quote from the north Wales vet in its context. The hon. Gentleman quoted him as saying that the problem was as important or worse than foot and mouth for the individual farm. That is an important point to make in reply to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who suggested that it was not such a great problem because few cattle had been affected. It is not a question of the cattle that are affected, but the herds and, therefore, the farms.
When the hon. Gentleman quoted the numbers affected, I had a quick look at DEFRA's website, which shows that 2 per cent. of herds in Wales were affected by TB last year. Unfortunately, that figure has increased considerably this year. We had 128 new incidents in Wales last year but, in the first three months of 2002, there have been 127. Not all have yet been confirmed, but it would suggest a two to three times increase in the incidence of TB in herds in Wales. Undoubtedly, an animal health problem is waiting to explode in Wales.
Considering Wales has approximately 20 per cent. as many herds as England, one wonders why 40 per cent have been slaughtered because they are reactors to TB

31WH
It suggests that the likelihood of TB in cattle in Wales is twice that in England. There is also the problem of hot spots within Wales. Of the 1,467 cattle slaughtered last year in Wales, 1,044 were in Dyfed. Unfortunately, the figures are not broken down between the new counties, but Dyfed is one of the milk-producing area of Wales and includes areas such as Caernarfonshire and Ceredigion my own constituency the south of which has recently experienced an alarming number of so far isolated TB outbreaks. I fear that a hot spot could develop in Ceredigion in the near future.
Dealing with the TB and brucellosis outbreaks is one of the few animal health matters devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. However, we cannot get the full picture because the Assembly can work only with the state veterinary service—a non-devolved service and therefore works only with the concordat of DEFRA. The state veterinary service is under strain and stress in Wales. Nearly 5,400 TB tests are outstanding in Wales, which is having a huge impact on farmers and animal welfare. As the hon. Member for Leominster said, if one cannot move the cattle off the farm within a maximum of three days, there is potential for infection and a breakdown in hygiene. Perhaps that is one reason why hot spots are not being eliminated and TB is being recycled.
There are no Krebs trials in Wales. Although that is not significant in itself, it is important to know that those that are taking place some 30 throughout England—are in areas that reflect the topography of Wales. In his winding-speech, will the Minister confirm that the Krebs trials will be applicable to Wales?
Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: I will not give way, because I must conclude my remarks.
We have a good area in Wales for trialling the new gamma interferon blood tests. Because most of Dyfed was not affected by foot and mouth, it has been put to me by the farming unions that if the Government are looking for an area to trial gamma interferon blood tests outside of the Krebs trial area, Dyfed would be ideal. I met both farming unions in my constituency yesterday and I want to put some of their questions to the Minister, one of which concerned the testing of road-kill badgers. It is unfortunate, but many badgers are killed on the roads. I apportion blame for that to the speed of cars, not the speed of badgers; nevertheless why are the badgers not tested for TB? That is outside the Krebs testing areas.
Will the Minister say more about vaccination? As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, we have always been told that such matters are for 10 or 15 years hence, but we must know that the Government are working properly on such a strategy. What about flexibility and trading between restricted farms, particularly pedigree stock? The current state veterinary service is under extreme pressure, and that is exacerbated because skin testing is inconclusive in so many cases. The testing and clear-up rates must be improved and we may need some additional farm hygiene measures. The key message from Wales is that there is an increasing prevalence of
32WH
TB within the bovine population; that incidence rate is increasing and it must be urgently dealt with by the Minister and the National Assembly if we are not to see a serious outbreak of hot spots of TB in areas such as Ceredigion.
11.36 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: We would do well to remember that, according to the siren voices that sounded in the foot and mouth outbreak, science is crucial to the provision of advice during the development of our policy. Quantitative epidemiology provided a sound scientific basis for decision making. Operational research provided the means to assess the logistics of performing tasks. Regular meetings of scientists, the Departments and the foot and mouth science group kept the advice up to date throughout the epidemic. Some say the development of the science saved the Government's skin. There was a dramatic change in policy; they took the science by the scruff of the neck and asked, "What can it tell us and what can't it tell us?" The Government's action was a success.
Epidemiology looks at causation, transmission and control of disease within populations of horse species. That is a key discipline in the bovine TB studies that are being undertaken. People argue that the disease is getting out of control and reaching the same level as foot and mouth. I do not agree. I accept that there are problems and that multiple drug-resisting strains are developing, but that happens with any organism. It always tries to cheat humanity; there is always a battle, at which point science comes in and gets ahead of the game.
Many arguments are beset by dogma. The data is not good enough, which is why I welcome the Krebs development of badger experimentation. TB may be in other organisms in other countries and other wildlife developments—who knows? For example, in New Zealand, possums carry the TB bug. There is no doubt that there is a correlation between the development of TB in badgers and in cattle. Whether or not they are the same bug, much has to be done. Few tests have been carried out on live badgers; many have been carried out on dead badgers and there is no doubt that tuberculosis bacillus can be found in badgers in every county in the United Kingdom.
We cannot just say that vaccines are the answer, but there have been dramatic changes in vaccination and its development in this country. There has been a huge influx of money from the Government into vaccination right across the board, from humans to cattle. It is difficult to predict what kind of vaccine will emerge, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, there have been dramatic results in the last few months, which were announced at the end of March. The mycobacterium bovis found in cattle and the mycobacterium tuberculosis found in human beings are 99.9 per cent. similar in their DNA. That means that a whole body of research into human vaccine production, which has been successful in eliminating tuberculosis, will now be applicable to the bovine situation.
I do not think that the development of a vaccine is years away; we may yet get a shock and find that comes about within six to 18 months. People are working

33WH
extremely hard to develop that vaccine and with the new developments in the production of vaccines—including peptide technologies—emanating from the molecular biology in which we are pre-eminent in this country, who knows what will happen? We should be much more positive about that area.
David Taylor: Despite the undoubted potential of the vaccine, did not the Select Committee on Agriculture point to a flaw in the Krebs report, in that it did not spend sufficient time on the potential for improved husbandry? The Government responded to that by saying that they would initiate a report, but they have not done so. Does my hon. Friend hope that the Minister will say something about improved husbandry?
Dr. Gibson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and was moving on to that subject. Vaccines on their own will not be enough. We cannot sit back and wait for a vaccine to appear, whether tomorrow, next week or whenever. That has been confirmed by an independent scientific group.
There are many other kinds of research going on. A recent meeting in docklands, at which the Food Standards Agency considered the incidence of the bacteria in particular milk herds, brought Government activity into this arena on all fronts. Such a level of activity is bound to lead to a breakthrough in vaccine research.
There are major questions relating to factors influencing the prevalence and persistence of the disease in cattle and wildlife. On animal husbandry it is argued that, because of the way in which they treat animals, some farms are predisposed to tubercular infections. Some suspect husbandry goes on in this country and that is being investigated.
There are many other areas of research dealing with the transmission routes and the pathogenesis of the species, and others that deal with how the mycobacterium infects and how it moves among cattle. There is a huge arena of activity. I put my trust in science and I hope that other Members will.
Charlotte Atkins: In a research context, does my hon. Friend support the testing of badger roadside casualties, not just in Gloucestershire but nationwide?
Dr. Gibson: That is an amazing project. I hope that people are applying to do that through the grant-giving system. The technology is there, and we could examine the particular species of the tubercle bacillus that is present in badgers and correlate it with that found in humans. There is a huge argument about how humans got tuberculosis and whether they gave it to badgers or vice versa. That affects the debate about the origins of the different species. That may be a little academic in relation to the current situation and farmers' plight, but research into that would add to our knowledge and develop vaccination procedures that could eliminate the disease from our herds and our farming communities.
I am pleased to have had a chance to speak in this debate and to say that I believe and have confidence that science will provide the answers much sooner than many of us think.
11.43 am
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I want to be brief and simply to add a point that has not yet come out in the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) for having missed the first seven minutes of his speech.
The dairy farmers in my constituency are—I do not think that this is hyperbole—on the brink of extinction, as I have pointed out to the Minister and to his predecessors on several occasions. However, the situation has merely moved from bad to worse. The possibility of a serious national level of bovine TB is not merely or mainly a problem for farmers, as it will have ricochet effects on the customer. Under the present conditions of near hysteria about food and its quality, it is all too likely that the killer blow to the dairy industry in West Dorset and large parts of Britain could come from that source, even if the scale of the outbreak were much more limited than would justify such a disaster.
Everything that has been said today should be attended to in a different way from how DEFRA and its predecessor frequently acted in the past, which was with care and diligence, but a certain leisure. I hope that that is not unduly uncharitable. There should be a certain urgency, and I profoundly hope that there will be early vaccination. We all have much to be hopeful about.
In the meantime, our farms and farmers are showing reactors, as has been increasingly reflected in other contributions. Many of the dairy farmers who suffer from that and the restrictions that it entails are on the brink of going out of business, and will almost certainly be driven out of business if no interim action is taken. It is on that action that I want to press the Minister. I asked the local branch of the National Farmers Union to produce a wish list of actions, on which there are 16 items. I will not trouble hon. Members by referring to all 16, but shall pick five. I would be happy to send the Minister the full list, but am sure that he will have received representations directly from the NFU on the subject.
First, we could introduce a system to allow easier movement of stock between farms under restriction. Secondly, we could have a much better and quicker updating of the information available for my farmers. Many of their farms are relatively small, with many farmers who are not expert on the science, unlike the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We would like the booklet entitled "Dealing with TB in your herd" to be updated more regularly. Thirdly, a specific TB helpline could be set up for those under restriction, so that they could get through to a specialist quickly. Fourthly, arrangements could be made for store cattle markets from farms under restriction, with sales only to finishers under restriction or who are guaranteed not to move the cattle on. Fifthly, priority could be given to the slaughter of reactive cattle, with removal from the farm within three days, my correspondent suggests. I do not insist on the three-day limit, but removal is clearly dilatory at the moment.
I give those as examples. I hope that the Minister will explain that DEFRA will attend urgently to the interim problem of farmers in West Dorset and elsewhere who are likely to go out of business, not because of the national scale of the outbreak, but because they have been affected and because no interim measure sufficient to relieve the pressure on them has yet been taken.
11.48 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I shall be brief. I made a speech on the subject two years ago, so I have cut out a significant amount of what I was going to say so as not to repeat it.
My key message is for a commitment to the science. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) was right that the prospects for fulfilling at least the promises of the 10-year success, if not his much more optimistic expectation, are better than for many years. Commitment to the Krebs trials is important, as they should provide a better scientific basis for understanding the relationship between TB in badgers and cattle.
Two years ago, I suggested a number of additional steps. The first was to increase the frequency and scope of testing for TB. That has a straightforward resource implication, and I support the hon. Gentleman in highlighting the need for additional veterinary resources. We must put more effort into identifying and, as several hon. Members have said, removing the source of TB as rapidly as possible. Those are reasonable proposals.
Secondly, as hon. Members have suggested, we should widen the scope of the road traffic accident tests on badgers. It should be possible to find out whether badgers that are knocked down on the side of the road are carrying TB, and that would provide useful intelligence. Restrictions have been placed on the number of counties covered by RTA tests, but we should broaden their scope.
Thirdly, I still believe that it would be wise to increase the level of compensation to farmers who face restrictions as a result of a TB outbreak. That is partly because the 100 per cent. value compensation is insufficient to meet the economic effects on farmers, and we should be concerned about that. There are, however, also straightforward practical reasons. We expect a high level of co-operation from farmers on other measures that will be required in their areas. It is reasonable to recognise that such co-operation will be necessary for the control measures that we seek to put in place. Discussions are under way on how to assist farmers affected by TB with their income flows, and I would be open to suggestions other than simply increasing compensation, although that is probably the simplest step.
Finally, we must support further the measures to improve husbandry and bio-security. The Department took quite a long time to produce its helpful leaflet on the subject, but simply producing a leaflet is not enough. It is reasonably clear that costly measures are sometimes necessary to improve bio-security in high-risk areas, and we should be prepared to fund an increase in our armoury of appropriate measures so that we can reduce the potential spread of the disease.
The implications of not taking action have been spelled out in personal terms, and are obvious. We shall, however, face a major national problem if we are affected by a further animal disease, and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rightly said that the impact on consumer perceptions is important. Much more significant, however, will be the impact on UK trade. We are resuming trading in the world, and a
36WH
further animal health restriction would put off export customers and persuade them to place further restrictions on us. That can only be negative.
11.49 am
Mr. Roger Williams: I draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and to my interests in agriculture. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on obtaining the debate. It is said in my constituency that all the good farmers in Herefordshire originated in Brecon and Radnorshire. That illustrates that this issue transcends local authority and even national borders, and huge commitment will be needed if we are to get to grips with it.
It is a tragedy that this country's terrific reputation for animal health has been afflicted by a series of problems, which have brought it almost to an all-time low. In previous years, Britain exported pedigree stock throughout the world, but now, because of our problems with BSE, foot and mouth, TB and sheep scab, those exports are non-existent and show little likelihood of being resumed.
However, Britain has proved that when it is committed to eliminating a disease, when it makes full use of all the scientific and technical information at its disposal, it is capable of eliminating such diseases. I am sure that we could eliminate TB if we committed ourselves to making the effort, but the farming community fears that such commitment and effort are lacking.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that certain differences in management could mitigate the problems faced by farmers under restriction, and I am sure that we would all support that. Mention has also been made of the gamma interferon test and improved diagnoses, but doubts have been expressed about that. However, if it was integrated with a skin test, we might be more certain about the status of infection of various animals.
I want to focus on the key to addressing the issue, which is the state of the veterinary service in Great Britain in both the private and the public sectors. It is a sad fact that the falling profitability of the livestock sector has led to a fall in the profitability of the large animal veterinary service. That has happened to such an extent that places in Wales are finding it very difficult to get a veterinary surgeon to attend farm animals in emergencies such as calvings or accidents, because large veterinary practices have gone out of business or do not attend outside office hours.
The Minister may wish to write to hon. Members if he cannot answer now, but it has been suggested that the Government might tender for the provision of routine testing for brucellosis and TB rather than allowing the farmers' veterinary surgeons to undertake it. If so, the service could be provided not only by people from outside the area but from other countries. That would be disastrous for our veterinary practices. If the Minister could assure us on that point, it would give some comfort to our veterinary practices.
The state veterinary service has been under enormous pressure for a considerable time, and under Governments of both parties. The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the state veterinary service has

37WH
declined. It was once a local service provided by local vets, but it has now become centralised. Indeed, it could be called the central veterinary service. That has not added to its effectiveness or to its reputation among farming people.
Finally, we must commit ourselves to science, but we need a commitment from the Government as well. The feeling among the farming community is that the Government are denying the science because they will otherwise be faced with difficult decisions.
11.58 am
Mr. Huw Edwards: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on securing this debate. He represents a border constituency similar to mine, which was recently similarly affected by TB. It is what one might call a hot spot, but it was not included in the Krebs trials, as there are no Krebs trial areas in Wales.
There has been a serious outbreak of bovine TB in the Raglan and Llantrisant areas of my constituency and in the Usk valley. In the past, those areas had a thriving dairy industry, but it has sadly diminished during the past 20 years. Some farmers have had their stock culled as a result of TB, and others are either unable to trade or face serious movement restrictions on their livestock. One of my constituents, Mr. Colin Pritchard of Llantrisant, has had his herd destroyed; Mr. John Biggs of Raglan has been under movement restrictions for two years; and Ms Carol Jones of Hardwick farm in Abergavenny wrote to me to say that although her herd of pedigree Fresians had been clean for over thirty years, a third of the stock had been slaughtered as a result of TB.
I recently addressed the Raglan farmers association, where I was given a warm reception. The dominant issue in discussions was TB in cattle. I understand that the Minister for Rural Affairs in the Welsh Assembly, Carwyn Jones, also attended that meeting. Mr. Alastair Mitchell, a veterinary surgeon in my constituency, is clear that, whereas Monmouthshire was virtually TB free in the early 1990s, the problem has now become very serious. He says:
"I am concerned that TB in cattle in this area has risen to epidemic proportions."
I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the matter, enclosing Mr. Mitchell's letter, and I am grateful for the reply that I have received. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to continue to work with the National Assembly for Wales and the Ministry for Rural Affairs in Wales to do all that can possibly be done to overcome the problem—to support the farmers who have been affected by ensuring that they are compensated for the hardship that they have experienced; to speed up testing, especially the gamma interferon test; to continue research into live testing on badgers; to develop a vaccine for cattle and, if possible, for badgers as well, and to ensure that the Krebs trials are completed as soon as possible and that the results are made available.
12 noon
Mr. James Paice: I hope very much that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is right that science has an answer
38WH
just round the corner, but we have been being assured of that for a long time and I am not as optimistic as he is. We need to consider what can be done now. A number of hon. Members have put forward proposals to deal with testing. However, two matters have not been raised. The first is the frequency of testing. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to the debate two years ago in which I advocated moving to annual testing, certainly in the parts of the country that I term the frontier counties, into which the disease is spreading, in order to curtail its spread—that remains important.
The second relates to the developments since foot and mouth. In the last seven or eight months, we have seen a vast movement of breeding stock around the country while farmers have restocked. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred to outbreaks that occur for no apparent reason. I would lay a lot of money on there being a reason: the movement of stock around the country. There are no prizes in politics for saying "I told you so," but I did advocate two years ago that all stock should be tested within three months of movement. I hope that the Minister will, in today's conclusion and beyond, address the matter of the spread of disease through the country due to cattle movement. It has happened more often in the past few months and I am convinced that it is a major reason for further outbreaks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I and fellow occupants of the Chair are very disappointed that other hon. Members who were keen to speak have not been able to participate in the debate.
12.3 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: This has been a useful debate and there is broad agreement in all parties. We have sympathy for all farmers who have been afflicted by the misery and morale sapping that disease brings, let alone the financial cost. The issue is becoming topical in all farming groups. I have a Krebs trial triplet in my constituency, and there are others in the south-west. Confidence in the value of the Krebs trials is diminishing, not least since foot and mouth. If we are to have the sound science that will drive future policy, it is essential for the trials to be able to continue, for them to be monitored and for us to receive the right information. Unfortunately, there is a lot of worry in the areas where they are being conducted as to whether sabotage—on both sides—might have an inordinate effect on the results.
Clearly, current policies are failing to control the spread of the disease we have heard that from many quarters—and, having heard about post-foot and mouth restocking incidents, we know that areas that have been free of TB for many years are now experiencing it, which is a huge shame.
Will the Minister comment on the current state of the Krebs trials? Is additional research being collated, or will we be entirely dependent on those trials and on the vaccine research when formulating policy in a couple of years' time?
We may need a meeting between those who conduct the Krebs trials and hon. Members who are interested in the issue. I attended two meetings that were held by the

39WH
Minister's former colleague, Baroness Hayman. She brought along Professor Bourne, and we discussed what was happening. I hope that the Minister will consider holding such meetings so that hon. Members with TB problems in their constituencies can discuss the value of the Krebs trials and their current status.
As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, we must consider relaxing the movement restrictions, although without compromising disease control. The restrictions have huge financial implications for all farms, and I would not like dairy farmers who have got through foot and mouth to be torpedoed by TB.
Additional resources will clearly be necessary if we are to reduce the backlog of overdue six and 12-month herd tests. We must get on top of that issue, particularly given the problem of postponements during foot and mouth.
As with foot and mouth, we need regular reports and detailed statistics to be published. We had such reports throughout the period of the problem with foot and mouth, and bovine TB, too, is important. It may not be quite as significant as foot and mouth, as has been said, but it is a growing feature, and statistics should be published regularly so that we can see exactly what is happening.
We certainly need an interim strategy to contain the spread of the disease during the period of the Krebs trials, and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned a buffer zone. We need a buffer zone so that we can detect, almost farm by farm, who is likely to be in the next round of TB. Plotting such things is not rocket science.
In the light of the problems with foot and mouth and low milk prices, I urge the Minister to consider consequential loss compensation. As has been said, compensation is not simply a matter of the value of the animals. Problems can have a huge effect on the financial operation of many farms, a lot of which are only now recovering from foot and mouth.
Mr. Heath: There are examples of huge personal problems that can derive from delays in the testing process. A constituent from Aller is trying to dispose of his farm and his herd for pressing personal reasons. As a result of two testers, however—one was okay, but the other must be repeated—disposal has been delayed, which could have a crucial impact on his future wellbeing and prosperity. The Ministry must deal with such issues.
Mr. Breed: That scenario could probably be repeated m several places. People are even prevented from undertaking diversification plans that have been approved and for which grants have been made available. Suddenly, because of a reactor, everything is held in abeyance, and people can do nothing.
Finally, only 8,000 animals out of about a million have been affected, but, as has been said, it is herds that are important in retaining this country's disease-free status. It has been suggested that the national herd is getting perilously close to losing its TB-free status. Will the Minister comment on these issues?
12.8 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on raising this important issue. I also extend our sympathies to those farmers and their families who have been directly affected by it. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said that there may not be a national crisis, but, as several hon. Members have said, particular families face a crisis. There is a danger that the phrase "Crisis? What Crisis?" may rebound on us all in a few months' time. I do not intend to rehearse all the points made by hon. Members. The debate has been an excellent one, attended by 20 hon. Members of whom some 11 or 12 have made speeches. Clearly, hon. Members recognise the seriousness of the problem.
I want briefly to tease out one aspect of the problem. Having read the reports of the old Agriculture Committee—now the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—and answers to parliamentary questions, I cautiously suggest that the Government have a problem giving a definitive answer to many of our questions. That problem was epitomised yesterday, when Lord Whitty attempted to answer a number of questions put to him in the other place. He often failed to give any answer, or he gave answers that simply raised more questions. For example, Lord Whitty said:
"Approximately 10 per cent. of all cattle herds have been affected. The total number of individual cattle affected thus far is quite low—some 9,000 in a national herd of 8 million—but the incidence of the disease is growing in a worrying way."
Why is it growing? The Government do not know.
In the same exchange, Lord Whitty admitted:
"It appears that the growth in the incidence of TB in cattle has been greater here than in other European countries."
Why should that be so? Do we have any knowledge? He further stated that
"there is a correlation between the growth in the number of badgers and the growth in bovine TB, but not area by area. Correlation does not mean cause."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 51–17.]
What does it mean, in that case?
Concern has been expressed in both Houses and by the farming community over delays in veterinary testing caused by the priority given to controlling foot and mouth disease. I urge the Minister to consider the resources available in his Department. The Secretary of State may have to press the Chancellor on the matter, because the problem seems to be one of resources as much as anything else. The position of the state veterinary service has been raised in the debate by several hon. Members. Given what has happened with animal health in the past five to 10 years, it may be wise to assume that we will face an outbreak of another animal health problem, which could mean that bovine TB testing must again go on the back burner. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider the problem.
I shall not discuss the problems facing the farming community, as vividly described by hon. Members, but I shall address a crucial issue that was raised here and in the Select Committee. The Government have installed a long-term scientific strategy that may or may not produce the required results, but there is no plan B, in the words of the old Select Committee. There is no interim strategy, in the words of my hon. Friend the

41WH
Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and there is no short-term strategy to deal with the immediate problems that appear to be escalating. I urge the Minister to state clearly and categorically what the short-term strategy might be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) put it to the Secretary of State during last weeks parliamentary questions that although the long-term strategy is scientifically based and stately as a galleon, it may be overtaken by the increasing spread of bovine TB. That is not an easy question for the Department to handle, but if the Department does not develop a short-term strategy it will not only be overcome by events but lose the confidence of the farming community and the consumer.
Finally, I urge the Minister to answer our questions. I realise that he does not have enough time for that in the debate, but perhaps he will write to hon. Members. Will he and his hon. Friends consider making a statement on the current state of bovine TB? Many hon. Members feel that getting information out of the Department is like pulling teeth. I am waiting for a reply from the Secretary of State. I have given up telephoning her private office. A piece of statistical information was promised to me by this morning, but I have given up on it now. Such delays must be even more frustrating for members of the farming community.
I urge the Minister to issue an interim report in the next few weeks to establish the current facts and to admit, where possible, that there are problems. We all understand that this is not an easy issue. Perhaps we should do what has been suggested by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and update the statistical information. If the Minister did that, he would draw out the fire from the criticisms made not only by those outside Parliament, but by many of us present.
12.15 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): In the short time available, I shall do my best to do justice to an excellent and wide-ranging debate on a topic that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) rightly described as difficult and complex.
I should say to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) that it is difficult to come up with simple answers unless such simple answers exist. We need to be more politically mature in our approach to difficult issues than to seek to pluck answers from the air, especially as the complexity of the issue has been made evident in today's debate. As he and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) suggested, I shall write if, in view of the time available, I am not able to cover all the topics raised in the debate.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk may still be experiencing delays in some of his correspondence with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is difficult for anyone who has not been involved to understand just how bad the correspondence situation was in DEFRA, but I assure him that it is continuing to improve dramatically. I can offer him hope for the future.
Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Alun Michael: As my noble Friend Lord Whitty said yesterday in the House of Lords, tuberculosis in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems that we face. The increase in its incidence continues to give rise to considerable concerns. The Government are seeking to proceed on the basis of sound science drawn from independent scientific and veterinary experts. That is very much the approach argued for by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
The causes of the disease are complex, but there is evidence to suggest that the badger plays a role in bovine tuberculosis. The badger field trial is designed to identify and quantify any such role and, if it exists, to find out whether culling badgers has a part to play in controlling the disease. That was the focus of discussion in the other place yesterday, and I hope to have time to return to that subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to badgers found dead on roadsides. They are being collected from seven counties, and the results of the post-mortem examination of those carcases is being validated against the more representative results obtained by examining badgers killed in the Krebs trial. Interim results of the trial are not yet available. My hon. Friend also referred to developing a vaccine and the importance of animal husbandry, and I echo his remarks.
I should also mention the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). A potentially promising candidate auxiliary test is that known as the gamma interferon test. Only last week, the UK voted in favour of that test being given recognition in the European Union. We hope to begin testing its applications more extensively in limited trial areas this year.
The hon. Member for Leominster quoted views put forward by the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. It is worth mentioning that both organisations are fully involved in discussions with DEFRA to tackle the problem. Officials do meet industry representatives; I believe that a meeting to discuss proposals put forward by both organisations and the National Beef Association and other representatives is imminent. The hon. Gentleman suggested that restrictions are crippling. Farms that are under restriction may not move cattle from one farm to another. However, cattle may be moved direct for slaughter under licence. Additionally, the state veterinary service will consider other licensed movements, such as to summer grazing, on a case-by-case basis.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the 60-day period between tests is too long. That period is required to ensure that cattle respond properly to skin tests because shorter periods cause cattle to be desensitised to the tests. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern that the test should be carried out in circumstances that give certainty to the outcome of the tests and ensure the quality of the results.

43WH
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rightly set the remarks of a Welsh vet in context. It is right that attention should be focused on the tragedy of individual farmers and their families rather than on exaggerating industry-wide implications of the disease. I shall not stray on to issues on which the Welsh Assembly takes the lead, but DEFRA and the Assembly's officials are working closely, and I commend the co-operation that is taking place to deal with the matter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned overdue tests in Wales and the role of the state veterinary service, as did the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. The number of overdue tests in April this year was 4,300. A total of 1,204 tests were cleared in April, and 567 more overdue tests were added. Hon. Members can appreciate the way in which the backlog is reducing—I shall return to the figures for England in a moment. We should maintain the testing effort throughout the summer period, which will require farmers' co-operation while cattle are at summer pasture. I hope that such co-operation will be forthcoming.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned the need to avoid the spread of TB after foot and mouth disease and he rightly referred to the risks that are associated with cattle movement. Steps have been taken to prevent the spread of TB following FMD. Movement restrictions were imposed on several high-risk herds and additional TB testing of restocked herds after FMD is being undertaken. That testing has successfully identified 122 incidences, which has reduced the risk of spread. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to that, and I hope that although I have illustrated the point that he graphically made, he is reassured.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) queried statistics. Statistics are published monthly on the internet, and the April figures will be available there early next week, I hope.
Ministers certainly share worries about the rising incidence of bovine TB in the south and west of England and south Wales over the past 20 years or more. The high numbers of herds, and cattle within herds, that have tested positive to the tuberculin skin test since the resumption of testing in December 2001 especially worries DEFRA and Ministers in the Welsh Assembly.
There are two reasons why those high figures should be treated with caution. First, in many herds, the state veterinary service is effectively doing two seasons' testing in one. If testing had occurred a year ago, rather than being precluded by foot and mouth disease, infected animals might have been identified at that stage and removed. Therefore, the spread of infected animals might have been curtailed. In such circumstances, it would have been odd if current testing had not discovered higher numbers of infected animals.
Secondly, the restart of testing was specifically targeted at herds that were suspected of having a higher risk of infection. Both factors tend artificially to raise the number of incidents disclosed. Therefore, it is too early to say whether the suspension of TB testing under foot and mouth disease controls to reduce the risk of
44WH
bringing the disease on to farms has caused a step-change in the annual increase in the incidence of bovine TB, or is simply a continuation of the previous trend.
Mr. Breed: Surely you are not trying to suggest, with regard to all the animals that have been slaughtered under the foot and mouth scheme—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not trying to suggest anything.
Mr. Breed: I am sorry. Surely the Minister is not trying to suggest that animals that were slaughtered under the foot and mouth scheme were unlikely to have bovine TB. That is the corollary of what he is saying.
Alun Michael: No, I was not referring to animals slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease; nor was Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The trend was already running at 22 per cent. per year throughout the 1990s. Although the initial base was small, the size of those annual increases is worrying and unacceptable. The suspension of testing left a backlog of 27,000 overdue TB tests. That is being reduced; at the end of April, the backlog had fallen to 22,500. That is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the state veterinary service and its local veterinary inspectors. I have indicated why it is unsurprising that those numbers are high at present.
It must be remembered that, if infection is detected more tests are triggered, because testing of the herd, and in the vicinity of the herd, is conducted more frequently. The reduction of the backlog will continue as quickly as is possible, and that will be helped if farmers co-operate with the proposals that have been agreed with industry representatives to continue testing throughout the summer, even though the cattle will have to be called in from pasture for the tests to take place. I appreciate that that will involve additional work, but I hope that the industry will accept that it is important to undertake the tests, for the reasons that have been raised in this debate.
There is little agreement between the various groups on the causes behind the increased incidence of bovine TB in cattle. The public debate on the role that badgers play in the spread of bovine TB in cattle is emotional and polarised. Many farmers and vets are convinced that wildlife—in particular, the badger—plays a significant role in the transmission of bovine TB to cattle. Many of them are also convinced that killing badgers represents the best method of limiting the spread of the disease.
However, badger ecologists and animal welfare and wildlife groups are equally convinced that the badger plays little or no role in the transmission of the disease. They believe that the badger has been unfairly targeted in the past, and that that continues to be the case today. They hold that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays a far larger role, and that that has not been given due recognition.
It has proved difficult to find common ground between those two groups, and to find scientific research that is acceptable to both of them. However, dialogue is being actively encouraged through the TB forum. DEFRA is putting a lot of effort into trying to find common ground between groups that have differing views on a variety of issues.

45WH
After the badger culling policy of gassing was deemed to be inhumane, it became clear that the badger culling strategies of the 1980s and 1990s were failing to control the spread of bovine TB. That is why, in 1997, we declared a moratorium on the use of badger culling as a general bovine TB control tool.
Since then, the Government have not stood idly by. We have sought to put in place research that will deliver the sound scientific base that is so desperately needed to avoid the circular arguments on how TB is spread from continuing for another twenty or so years. This scientific research makes up three of the five points of the Government's five point plan for tackling bovine TB: the development of a TB vaccine; the carrying out of research into how TB is spread; and the carrying out of research involving limited badger culling in trial areas.
The independent scientific group on bovine tuberculosis, under the chairmanship of Professor John Bourne, has taken a leading role in overseeing the badger culling research trial, which is also known as the Krebs trial. The badger culling trial took longer than expected to set up, and it was affected by the foot and mouth outbreak, but it is important to note that Professor Bourne has stated that neither of those delays has compromised its statistical integrity. He has advised Ministers that it is likely that results from the trial will be put back by about four months, and that he expects to be able to put advice before them in 2004–05. In the meantime, we are actively pursuing the final two points of the Government's five-point strategy—protecting human health and strengthening controls.
Current hygiene controls on milk and meat have recently been reviewed by the Food Standards Agency, which accepted that current controls on milk—the most likely route of transmission of bovine TB to humans—are satisfactory, and that the risk of transmission from meat is very low. It is important to note that human cases of bovine TB do not mirror the geographical spread of bovine TB in cattle.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but time is up.

Suez Veterans
12.30 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: One of the most moving experiences of my life took place several years ago when I stood on a beach in Normandy with my father. It was the beach where he had fought his way ashore when he took part in the D-day landings. As I stood there, I could see it all and imagine what he and thousands of others went through. It is what I now think of when I remember my Dad. That experience changed my thinking about war, and I realised fully what it meant to serve one's country—to risk or give one's life as a member of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Men such as my father did not get much by way of reward, and most returned to modest livelihoods. They were, however, awarded a medal or two, which is important. For most of his life, my father never talked about the war or his part in it. Like many others, I suspect, when he retired and looked back at his life, his contribution to that war was his most important achievement. That is why medals mean so much to veterans. Medals recognise their courage, the service that they gave and the sacrifice that they made, which is why they wear them with pride, as my father did.
A group of veterans who did all the things that constitute serving their country, however, have no medal to wear—veterans of the Suez canal campaign from 1951 to 1954. It is a disgrace that those men have been so treated. Although Suez was not D-day, any objective assessment would conclude that a medal should be awarded, and that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in this country would want one to be given.
The Suez canal zone operation began in October 1951 and, soon afterwards, the garrison was increased from 20,000 to approximately 80,000 troops and stayed at that size. It was no small operation. October and November saw the swiftest build up of the British Army outside a major war. Cabinet minutes of November 1951 declared that it was "active service". As they landed in Egypt, many troops reported that they had been advised to make wills.
The operation involved the use of artillery, including a set-piece battle at the police barracks in Ismailia on 21 January 1952 that involved a tank. Sir Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, is recorded in Hansard in January 1952 as referring to the conflict as "war".
Grimly and sadly, we often measure the scale and significance of a conflict by its death toll. An official memo from the British middle east office to the Foreign Office, dated 10 June 1954, provided information for a parliamentary question. It confirms the number of service men killed from 16 October 1951 to 1 June 1954 as 47, with seven missing presumed dead—a total of 54 fatalities. Many more service men have been recorded as having died, and were buried in Egyptian graveyards between 1951 and 54, giving a total of more than 300. I am told that that is the basis on which the Ministry of Defence has counted the death toll relating to similar operations since the second world war.
The conditions that the men suffered were clearly harsh. It is a matter of record that General Sir Brian Robertson, Commander in Chief of the Middle East

47WH
forces, applied for a general service medal to be awarded on 18 January 1952. It is not hard to see why. As he said in his letter,
"we have got beyond the stage where our clashes with armed Egyptian thugs and police can be classed as incidents and it has become necessary to mount properly coordinated operations to deal with organized attacks on our troops and installations".
Indeed, individual awards for service in Suez were given out of the military ration in the Queen's birthday honours, and others were published separately for gallantry, including a George medal. Yet no campaign medal or general service medal clasp has ever been issued. That is staggering and upsetting, especially when comparisons are made with other campaigns in which our armed forces have been involved since world war two.
I asked the Library to look into the matter. The research paper that I was given states that
"the absence of such an award appears somewhat anomalous given that bars were awarded for related end of colony campaigns, such as Palestine and Cyprus. Moreover, a bar was affixed to the later Campaign Service Medal for service in the Multinational Force in Lebanon…an operation in which not a single British serviceman was killed nor was the force the subject of hostile fire."
The comparative facts are neatly summed up in a report issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in November 2000, when he announced that a monument would be built to all our service men who have fallen in conflict since 1945. Each of the 16 conflicts listed, except that in Sierra Leone, which still continues, attracted a campaign medal, except Egypt 1951–54—the Suez veterans.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on not only having secured the debate, but on the campaign that he is waging on the issue, with which I entirely agree. As he knows, my brother served in Suez during the period, so I have a personal as well as a constituency interest. Does he believe that the peculiarity that has given rise to the anomaly is subsequent events in Suez, in 1956, which were embarrassing for the then Government, who did not want to know?
Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I know that all the veterans involved in the campaign will appreciate his support.
Grimly, when we consider the league table of deaths in those 16 conflicts, Egypt comes in eighth highest.
Mr. William Cash: One of my colleagues at Stonyhurst was killed at Suez, and my father was killed in the last war. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate with another Member whose father was involved in those wars.
In debating awarding medals, the real question is, did those involved not do just as much as anyone in any other war? It is not their fault if the politicians got something wrong. It is therefore essential that my constituent, Mr. Collier, of Cheadle, should, like the other distinguished gentlemen, receive a medal in recognition of service. It was not their fault that things went wrong.
Mr. Blizzard: I entirely agree. Our case is overwhelming. In light of those grim fatalities, it is incredible that Suez has missed out on recognition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) is present. One of the arguments advanced by the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), in a debate on 14 March 2001 was that
"the case must be considered against the standards of the time. Policy on medals changes over the years, and it is for each generation to consider whom it should honour."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 14 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 300WH.]
Let us consider other so-called anti-terrorist operations that took place in the 1950s. In Palestine, 233 people died; in Malaya, 340; in Cyprus, 79; and in Kenya, 12. Medals were issued for all those campaigns. Medals were later awarded to those who served in not only Lebanon but Rhodesia and 17 United Nations operations in which no one died.
Given the evidence, any fair-minded person would conclude that Suez vets deserve a medal. It is a double injustice that none was ever awarded and that 50 years later the mistake has not been rectified.
Why has that happened? Justice seems to have become locked up in procedure. What went wrong in the early 1950s was either cock-up or conspiracy. I believe that the former was more likely, which gives us more cause to put things right. It has never been entirely clear what exactly happened after General Robertson requested on 18 January 1952 that a medal be granted.
At various times down the years, the Ministry of Defence has made several assertions. First, it said that the Army council considered the matter in 1952 and rejected the claim, but I have seen no evidence of that. That assertion was made on the basis of unsigned and undated handwritten short notes. Proper documents that appeared finally in 1999 show that those notes refer to applications for individual awards also requested by General Robertson.
It has also been asserted that the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—the HD committee—considered the matter in 1956. The evidence is that it did not examine the case. That is because the proposal to institute such a medal came from a member of the public. The HD committee was unable to act on it because it can only consider formal submissions from Government Departments, not members of the public.
It is clear from all the evidence that the matter was not properly dealt with at the time and that full consideration has never been given to the case for a medal. Why has the matter not been sorted out since then and why cannot we correct it today? We are told that authorities cannot second guess a decision that should have been made in the early 1950s. I contend, however, that the MOD has repeatedly attempted to second guess what happened procedurally in 1952 and 1956 on the basis of unclear evidence. For example, it was claimed in 1956 when a member of the public suggested an award—a suggestion that the committee could not act on—that the committee
"had ample opportunity to take the hint and to prepare a case for a medal…should they have considered it to be justified. Presumably they did not feel it to be necessary."

49WH
Those are words of a letter from a MOD official. If that is not a classic case of second guessing, I do not know what is. It is trying to maintain years later what was in the minds of the committee. It is really saying that the committee was always right and that it could never get anything wrong.
We are told that the committee now has a policy of no retrospection and that that is an iron rule. Who made that policy? No one seems to know. Did the committee make the policy? In a matter of such import, should such a committee be making its own policy in a modern democracy? Who sets the policies for the HD committee? To whom is the committee accountable? The House of Commons Library said:
"There appears to be no legal impediment to the retrospective creation of a campaign medal or the addition of a particular bar to an award."
Does the HD committee stand above the law? Even criminal justice cases can be reopened as we have recently seen. Both Australia and Canada have created retrospective awards for prescribed operations between 1945 and 1975. I have said that the matter seems to be locked in procedure; in fact, it seems to be locked in arcane procedure. The Library said that
"this process was not necessarily logical and is sometimes bureaucratic."
It has been claimed that there is a five-year rule beyond which retrospection cannot occur. It was said that King George VI decided that rule, although it has now been conceded that there is no proof that he did. Indeed, an HD committee official admitted in a letter last year that
"we do not have any record of the Committee's initial formal agreement to operate this rule".
Interestingly, I have been told that there are two instances when retrospective awards have been approved by the committee, although not actually made by it. They involve a Russian award that was made to British service men in 1985 and an award from Malta in 1995. The HD committee allows those medals to be worn.
Since the campaign for a medal started, the MOD has carried out reviews. It continues to say that it will look at new evidence. I ask the Under-Secretary to publish full details of all hitherto reviews so that we know what evidence has been looked at and what has not. Such matters need to be looked at again. In 1991, Sir David Ramsbotham, a member of one of the previous review teams, put in writing that the issue should be re-examined and that natural justice must be allowed to prevail. It has now been referred to Sir Richard Wilson, the head of the civil service, who is chairman of the HD committee. I am glad that he wrote at the beginning of this year that
"the issue is indeed still alive."
I hope that he has asked to find a way forward and I hope that it will be confirmed this morning that the MOD supports that aim.
Andrew Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is important for Sir Richard to make a decision before he retires, rather than leaving the matter as a hot potato for his successor?
Mr. Blizzard: That is absolutely right. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) clarify
50WH
exactly what Sir Richard has been asked to do? All that my inquiries revealed was that he was to consider all representations from the campaign by Suez veterans and from veterans involved in other campaigns where the non-award of a medal was an issue, and that he would report in due course to the Prime Minister and the Queen but that no report would be published. I am told that he will see a group of Suez veterans in the next month. Such a report should be published, and so should the minutes of the HD committee, as it should be accountable.
For too long, Suez veterans have been denied by procedure. People should not hide behind procedure, and we should not let it stand in the way of applying fairness and the basic human need to right a wrong. We do not ask that history be rewritten, but that it be properly acknowledged. I sense that the authorities are worried about opening the floodgates of retrospective awards with the case, but that is the worst of arguments, because cases should be decided on their own merits. The case has never considered properly, and the Government have a duty to ensure that proper action is taken and that mistakes are corrected. If no procedure exists to put matters right, such procedure should be established.
I acknowledge Mr. David Podd, a constituent of mine who brought the matter to my attention, as well as Mr. Charles Golder and Lt. Col. Ashley Tinson for the information and material that they have provided. They are serving the Suez veterans' campaign well.
The campaign will not go away. This is the third Adjournment debate on the subject in 15 months. There have been early-day motions, and a petition with 20,000 signatures was handed to a Defence Minister. The campaign would go away only if all the veterans died before justice was done, which would be a disgrace. The veterans march to the Cenotaph, but they have no medal to wear. Why do we deny them that? What do we have to lose?
This year, we celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee. The occasion is a rare opportunity that should be taken to rectify the injustice, and it would be a fitting tribute to all those who served their country in the Suez from 1951 to 1954.
12.47 pm
Dan Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing the debate. He will be aware that this is the second debate on the subject this year, the previous one having taken place on 16 January. I think that I am right to say that it is the fourth Adjournment debate on the subject since 2000, so it has been well debated.
In the January debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said that he could add little to what had been said in previous debates. I must offer the same apology, as I am in the same position. He is not here today, as he is on Government business in north America, but he will be keen to read Hansard and discuss the debate with me on his return.
The disturbance in the Suez canal zone in the early 1950s lasted more than two and a half years, with about 64,000 troops stationed there at the peak of the troubles. The men were on declared active service and 40 were

51WH
killed as a result of terrorist action. Why, then, was no campaign medal awarded at the time, and why have successive Governments resisted demands for one?
Recommendations on the institution of medals are made to the Queen by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, known for brevity as the HD committee. The committee is interdepartmental and is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. Since the end of the second world war, the HD committee has maintained a policy that it will not consider the institution of awards and medals for service given many years earlier. Specifically, it will not consider operations that ended more than five years previously.
There are reasons for the policy. The committee is not qualified so long after the event to say that those who were in a position to submit a case but did not do so were wrong, if no contemporary claim were made. If a claim were made but rejected at the time, either by a Department or by the committee itself, those who rejected it would have had access to the full facts and their judgment would have been based on contemporary understanding of the situation. That is the policy governing this issue. Nevertheless, veterans continue to ask whether a case was made at the time and if not, why not?
Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate what complete rubbish he has just enunciated? One does not need a comprehension of what he has described as a policy in order to know that people who went on active service, or were involved in a "disturbance", as he called it, have put their lives on the line for their country. It seems inconceivable that this policy can be pursued.
Dan Norris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not accept the tone in which he made it, but perhaps points that I make later will deal with the issues that he is concerned about.
Veterans continue to ask whether a case was made at the time, and if not, why not? If a case were made, was it properly considered? Why was it rejected? It is no secret that little documentary evidence on these matters has survived from the 1950s. We know that the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces wrote to the Military Secretary in January 1952, some three months after the troubles started, asking about the award of operational gallantry decorations. Unfortunately, the letter has not survived and we do not know whether he also mentioned a campaign medal.
We do know that when the Military Secretary replied, he said he would sound out the Adjutant-General about the possibility, so it is a reasonable supposition that the Commander-in-Chief had raised the question. It has been claimed that the Military Secretary did not in fact mention a campaign medal to the Adjutant-General, and that the matter was not discussed by the Army council. In the absence of documentary evidence, the case cannot be proved either way. There is no mention of a campaign medal in the minutes of the Army council, but consideration would not necessarily have been in a formal meeting, where minutes would have been taken.
52WH
There is no doubt that the Army council was well aware of conditions and circumstances in the canal zone; it was, after all, the largest British forces base in the eastern Mediterranean and middle east. The Secretary of State for War had visited the area and spoke about it at a meeting of the council. We know that the council considered operational gallantry awards and decided that the scale and scope of the operations did not justify them. That conclusion may well have weighed against the question of a campaign medal being taken further.
Having been told that the Adjutant-General would be sounded out about a campaign medal, the Commander-in-Chief would obviously want to know the outcome. Again, documentation is unfortunately lacking, but no evidence has been found and it has never been suggested that the Commander-in-Chief ever raised the matter again. The obvious conclusion is that he accepted that it had been dealt with properly and conclusively. A few years later, consideration of a clasp to the general service medal for the 1956 Suez operation provided an opportunity to re-open the question within the period governed by the HD committee's five-year retrospection rule, but nobody took up that option.
I have suggested what seems the most likely reason for no case being taken forward; that the scale of operations was not considered to be great enough. It should be remembered that, at the time, the second world war was a recent memory. During the period since that war, internal security operations in Palestine had resulted in about 260 servicemen being killed over a three-year period, compared with 40 in the canal zone. I should mention that much higher death figures are quoted for the canal zone, but the figures that I have given are for deaths from terrorist action only. They do not cover death from other causes, or death of non-military personnel.
The Korean war was still going on, with far more intensive military operations and a much heavier loss of life. It is true that service in the canal zone was unpleasant and at times dangerous, but that was very often the lot of British troops stationed overseas during that period. I should admit to an interest in that my uncle, Brian Norris, was stationed in the canal zone in 1954, so I have had personal discussions about the conditions that prevailed then.
Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend say where the figure for deaths, which was quoted in a previous debate by the Under-Secretary, comes from? I have seen the memo from the middle eastern office, which referred to 54 deaths. If that is a mistake, the Ministry should publish the evidence that shows that the figure is 40, because an official document states that it is 54.
Dan Norris: I understand why my hon. Friend would raise that point if there appeared to be a discrepancy. As I understand it, the figures are worked out carefully from all the documentation that has been made available in previous reviews of the matter, and they are robust, so we should be able to rely on the figure of 40. However, I shall look into the matter and ensure that my hon. Friend receives a written response regarding the figure of 54.

53WH
It is also true that active service had been declared, but that in itself is no argument for a medal. Declarations of active service are made when, for example, it is necessary to increase disciplinary powers. The declaration of the General Officer Commanding in Egypt emphasised that it was
"a purely administrative decision in order that the status of troops regarding Courts Martial shall remain unchanged."
In other words, it was the legal status that was important.
Other reasons have been suggested. A wish to avoid embarrassment is often mentioned. It is claimed that the War Office would have been embarrassed by the institution of a medal, which would have drawn attention to what was happening in the canal zone. However, that was public knowledge at the time. Opinions varied about the British role there, but whatever view might have been taken, there was nothing dishonourable about what the troops were doing. They were there to ensure the safe passage of shipping and to protect a limited British presence, which existed in accordance with the treaty with the Egyptians. In the best tradition of the British services, the troops carried out their duties successfully and with minimal force.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dan Norris: I shall not because time is of the essence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas interton): Order. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has some ground to cover yet in this important debate.
Dan Norris: It has been alleged many times over the years that the Foreign Office anticipated the likelihood of embarrassment, and therefore interfered to block a medal-awarding process before a case could be put before the HD committee. There are two suggestions about what the potential embarrassment might have been. One is that the award of a medal could have constituted an admission that we were, in effect, at war, and would thus have jeopardised delicate negotiations with the Egyptians.
The other is that the award of a medal would have pleased the Egyptians by elevating the status of their actions from terrorism to a military operation. Both cannot be true. In fact, there is no reason to believe that either consideration carried any weight. Such issues clearly did not prevent the award of medals for other security operations at about that time, such as in Palestine and Malaya. No evidence whatsoever has been found to suggest that there was any consultation between the War Office and the Foreign Office, or that the Foreign Office intervened formally or informally.
54WH
Leaving aside the factors that may or may not have affected the decisions of fifty years ago, many canal zone veterans argue that a medal is justified by comparison with subsequent military deployments, including those of the present day. The claim is often made that the canal zone was the only action after the second world war for which a medal or clasp was not awarded. That is not correct. During the period from the end of the war to the mid-1950s, there were more than a dozen internal security deployments for which no medal or clasp was issued, such as Libya in 1945, Burma from 1945 to 1948, Singapore in 1950 and Hong Kong in 1956. Comparison with the present day is not relevant. Policy on medals changes with the times. For example, three medals were awarded for the first world war, but 10 were awarded for the second world war.
Notwithstanding the non-retrospection rule, and despite continual accusations to the contrary, the Ministry of Defence has kept an open mind on this subject. The claim for a medal was effectively launched in 1974, and its supporters have been especially active since about 1990. During the latter period, there have been several reviews by successive Adjutants-General, and two Chiefs of the General Staff have also looked into the matter. In 1998, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence set up a full review of all available documents, including those held by the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Public Record Office. The following year, some papers dating from 1952 came to light.
Canal zone veterans have been assiduous in searching old records, and anything brought to the Department's notice receives appropriate study. Nothing, however, has given us any reason to think that the matter was dealt with insufficiently or improperly in the early 1950s. We remain willing to consider anything new that offers a different slant, and an undertaking to that effect was given as recently as the Adjournment debate on this subject in January 2002.
At the outset, I said that there was not much new to say. However, I can add something. In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), the Prime Minister said that he would make sure that the HD committee carefully considered any further representations, including the one made to him at that time. I can confirm that the HD committee is indeed reviewing the question. I would not wish to anticipate what the outcome of that review might be, but I hope that, in due course, it will satisfy all concerned that the subject has received full, fair and conclusive consideration.
In closing, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for putting his case so clearly and congratulate him on securing the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the authorities will have heard the comments made by hon. Members during the debate.

Illegal Immigration (Channel Tunnel)
1 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to draw to the Government's attention once again my constituents' concerns over the level of illegal immigration through the channel tunnel. The English terminal of the tunnel is situated in Cheriton in my constituency. The facilities for the freight terminal are situated at Dollonds moor, also in my constituency. As my constituents know only too well, the situation is now completely out of control. It is the gravest possible indictment of the Government that they have failed totally to get to grips with the problem.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what the situation was in 1997. As a result of a combination of measures taken by the previous Government, when I was Home Secretary, the number of people seeking asylum in this country had fallen by 40 per cent. The backlog of outstanding asylum applications was coming down fast. There was in place an agreement between France and the United Kingdom, under which France agreed to take back those who came from France to apply for asylum here. There was no camp at Sangatte. There were no stories of people seeking nightly to break into trains coming through the tunnel in order to get to this country.
Five years on, there is no agreement with France. There is a camp at Sangatte, which exists simply and solely as a staging post for those who seek illegal entry into the United Kingdom. There are nightly reports of people breaking into the trains coming through the channel tunnel, endangering their own safety and the safety of others by doing so. The number of people seeking asylum in this country has tripled during that time. The situation is completely out of control.
Nothing that I say today bears upon the entitlement to asylum of those fleeing persecution. That principle was certainly adhered to throughout the period in office of the last Conservative Government. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the Minister for Asylum and Immigration, Lord Rooker, said last week that only one in 10 of those who apply for asylum in this country are entitled to it and get it. Indeed, if any of those seeking to enter this country illegally through the channel tunnel are fleeing persecution, there is no reason whatever why they could not apply for asylum in France, or in any of the other countries that they have to travel through to get to the United Kingdom.
The reason they are here, as they told me when I visited Sangatte just over a year ago—apart from the English language, about which I accept the Government can do nothing—is that they think that they can get more money and better accommodation in this country than in any other country in Europe. That is doubtless why the number of people seeking asylum in this country has, in the lifetime of the present Government, exceeded those seeking asylum in any other European country. Given our geography, and the lengths that people have to go to in order to get into Britain to claim asylum, that statistic is truly astonishing.
It is worth examining in some detail the Government's lamentable record in dealing with the problem. Instead of pursuing the benefit policies that
56WH
had, in part, contributed to the reduction in the number seeking asylum in this country prior to 1997, they refused to do so. Indeed, they did nothing at all for three years until the Home Secretary's predecessor introduced his ill-fated and wholly unsuccessful legislation, now entirely disowned by the present Home Secretary.
Less than two years after those measures were introduced the present Home Secretary acknowledged that they had not worked. He is introducing his own measures to deal with the problem; the signs are that they will be no more successful than those introduced by his predecessor.
To cap it all—almost incredibly—we hear reports that the Government have agreed to surrender their veto on European Union decisions relating to asylum. Those reports emanate not from a statement to this House, nor from an answer to a parliamentary question, but from a speech made by the Foreign Secretary to Dutch dignitaries and politicians in The Hague on 21 February. He called for the national veto to be scrapped in some key areas such as asylum and immigration, arguing that majority voting by EU countries would speed decision making. The sheer irresponsibility of that argument beggars belief. It means that decisions could be taken, against the opposition of the Government of the United Kingdom, that had far-reaching consequences for communities in our country.
The Government will have rendered themselves powerless to deal with one of the most serious problems we face. Let us examine some of the consequences of that extraordinary capitulation. It has always been accepted, at least in principle, that those who claim to be fleeing persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country that they enter. In the EU, that has meant applying for asylum in the first member state in which they find themselves.
That was the principle underlying the Dublin convention, agreed as long ago as 1990. I entirely accept that the convention, which did not come into force until summer 1997, after the general election, has not worked well in practice, but at least it was based on the right principle.
What if, now, a majority of member states of the European Union decided to agree a different principle? What if they decided that asylum seekers should have complete freedom to choose in which country to make their claim? We know that more of them want to come to this country than to any other, for reasons that I have already given. If the Government surrender their veto, we will be powerless to resist such a change.
What if a majority of members of the European Union decided to realise the long-standing ambition of many of them to introduce a quota system for dealing with claims for asylum, and that quota system was grossly unfair to the United Kingdom? The Government of the United Kingdom will be powerless to resist.
I cannot recall a more irresponsible, unnecessary and wanton surrender of power than that. I cannot imagine what possessed the Government to contemplate taking that step. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will deal fully with that astonishing decision, which remains wholly unexplained, and give Parliament, for the first time, a full account of why the shift in the Government's position has occurred.

57WH
Meanwhile, on the ground, things go from bad to worse. The number of freight trains operated by English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Limited continues to fall. That means that more goods have to be carried by lorries on our roads, adding to the congestion and the environmental detriment that we all wish to avoid. The future of EWS as a going concern has been called into question. It faces great uncertainty; the number of trains that it can run through the tunnel has been severely reduced and the basis of its operations is uncertain. The number of asylum seekers on the freight trains that they operate has reached unprecedented heights, and approached 200 in one week last month. Those are the ones who were caught.
I pay tribute to my constituents. Fortunately, my constituency has not witnessed a significant number of difficulties or incidents of trouble between asylum seekers and local residents, and I hope that that continues. However, my constituents feel considerable and mounting frustration, as they see evidence all around of a situation that is wholly out of control.
It is clear what the Government should do. They should reconsider some of the measures that make this country a relatively attractive place for asylum seekers. They should reinstate the bilateral agreement with France, which was so helpful in dealing with the problem before 1997. They should persuade the French Government to close the camp at Sangatte, and urge them to instruct French railways—which, after all, remains a nationalised company—to put in place at Fréthun the security arrangements that it has promised for the past two years.
The Government pretend—I hope that the Minister will not persist in this pretence—that they cannot reinstate the bilateral agreement with France because the Dublin convention has come into force. The convention was signed in 1990, when asylum was much less of a problem in this country. It is true that it has not worked as effectively as it could and should have done. As I said, its underlying principle is that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first European Union member state in which they find themselves. If that principle were respected, the problem facing this country and my constituents would be much less severe.
There is nothing in the convention to prevent a bilateral agreement from being concluded. Germany and Denmark are both signatories, and have put in place an agreement that is similar to that which I negotiated with the French before 1997, when I was Home Secretary; so much for the Government's paper-thin excuses.
The Government are constantly telling us what wonderful relations they have with our European partners. If they are only half as good as the Government say they are, it is about time that they used them. It should not be too difficult to put in place arrangements similar to those that I have precisely identified.
The truth is that the political will is lacking. I have no great hopes of the Minister's reply, although I shall leave him ample time to deal with all the points that I have raised. Against all expectations, my constituents are looking for a belated indication that the Government are not as lacking in political will as their record on this issue demonstrates.
1.13 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on securing this Adjournment debate and on raising a series of serious issues on which he has invited me to reply. He outlined four issues that I should seek to address. The first is the question of the bilateral agreement with France, the second the issue of Sangatte, the third that of security at Fr^thun and the fourth the objectives of Government policy with regard to co-operation in the European Union on issues of asylum.
I should like to start with the bilateral agreement, or so-called gentleman's agreement. That agreement, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman so often refers, allowed for returns of asylum seekers to France only in limited circumstances. It covered arrangements for the return of asylum seekers, refused passengers and illegal entrants arriving at the channel ports or via the channel tunnel.
The agreement was always going to be superseded by the Dublin convention once the latter was implemented. The first paragraph of the agreement on the bilateral arrangements with France, reached when the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party was in power, states:
"it shall be superseded by the relevant provisions of the Dublin Convention once that convention has entered into force."
In other words, the ending of the bilateral agreement was planned for and put in place by the previous Conservative Administration. It makes no sense to suggest that it is simply a matter of political will that the agreement is no longer in place.
Having reached a gentleman's agreement, the previous Administration at the same time ensured that it would cease to operate when the Dublin convention came into force. That means that the agreement was effectively in operation for only a short period of time. When it was first in place in 1996, between 150 and 200 people were returned to France. It gives a wholly misleading impression of what the bilateral agreement did to suggest that the return of between 150 and 200 people is the answer to the challenges that we face with asylum. The issues are serious and they require serious responses. It does not help the debate to suggest that an agreement that returned between 150 and 200 people in an entire year somehow holds the key.
The following year, the total number of people returned under the agreement reached 516. That was it. By that stage, the system was becoming bogged down in the process of judicial review, by which asylum seekers who did not wish to be returned could thwart the system.
Mr. Howard: Does the Minister not understand that the deterrent effect of the agreement was wholly disproportionate to the numbers to which he referred? If people knew that they were going to be returned to France from this country, they did not bother to make the efforts that they are now making in order to get into this country. The Minister must face up to the fact that on the ground, the situation before 1997 was nothing like what it is now. The agreement was not the only factor, but was one of the most important factors that led to that completely different state of affairs.

59WH
Does the Minister not also appreciate that although it is true that the agreement was to come to an end when the Dublin convention came into force—everyone hoping that the Dublin convention would be effective—the existence of the Dublin convention has not prevented Germany and Denmark, who are both signatories to the convention, from reaching an agreement similar to the one that existed between Britain and France? Why cannot we do the same?
Mr. Denham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wriggling in the face of the fact that he has made claims for the impact of the bilateral agreement that are not justified by the facts. With regard to the agreement between Denmark and Germany, my understanding is that that is an agreement for the facilitation of the Dublin convention, not as an alternative to it or a provision separate from it.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: I will, but I am aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe asked a number of questions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very brief.
Mr. Swire: Will the Minister reverse up a bit and address the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? What is important is not that the bilateral agreement got between 150 and 200 people back to France, but that it sent out a message that Britain is not a soft underbelly on immigration and that we had agreements in force that meant that we would be harder to approach across the channel. The issue is the positive signals that we give out.
Mr. Denham: I do not believe that there was the impact that was claimed. The substantial numbers of people who seek asylum throughout Europe reflect developments in the wider world rather than the existence, or otherwise, of the agreement. It was clear that people soon realised that its effect—I do not say that it had no value—could be thwarted through judicial review.
I turn to the situation at Fréthun. We are worried about the disruption to train services and the number of illegal immigrants who come through the tunnel. We have repeatedly stressed to SNCF and all levels of the French Government the need for rapid security improvements. We are aware of the serious effect on UK business that has been caused by the disruption to freight services through the tunnel. That is why we will continue to monitor the situation and we will take further concerted action until the overall policing and security levels are adequate.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the House that he will begin immediate discussions with the French Government on the situation in northern France when the French elections have finished in June and a
60WH
new Administration is formed. He has spoken with Nicolas Sarkozy, who is the new French Minister of the Interior. I understand that they had a constructive discussion last week that especially focused on the problem of clandestine immigration in the Calais region.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe discussed the continuing problems at the SNCF freight yard at Fréthun with the French ambassador last week. He made it clear that the situation is intolerable. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has raised the issue with his new French counterpart, and contacts have been made at official level. In response to our representations, the French Government have agreed to increase police cover at Fréthun. Since March, an additional gendarme squad of 50 men who are dedicated to the security of Fréthun has been in place at the freight yard.
It is essential to restore a viable rail freight service and to deter would-be stowaways. We continue to press SNCF to complete the physical security improvements to its freight yard. We welcome last week's announcement by the head of SNCF that tsshe company is to spend 7.5 million euro on improved security measures at Fréthun. They will include greatly improved fencing with razor wire, detection equipment, improved lighting and closed circuit television monitoring. We welcome even more his statement that the measures, some of which have been promised for more than a year, will be put in place over the next two months. The improvements should reduce the likelihood of the site being overrun by clandestines as occurred in the past.
However, at the same time, it is essential that the level of police cover is maintained. Recent newspaper reports that the French police were pulling out of Fréthun were untrue. Regrettably, one squadron of gendarmes was temporarily assigned to other duties and replaced only several days later. The new French Minister of the Interior gave my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary his personal assurance that that will not happen again.
We are grateful for the French Government's efforts on improving security in the Calais area. We know that a combination of effective anti-intrusion measures and effective policing works. For example, the measures taken by Eurotunnel at its Coquelles terminal reduced the number of clandestine entrants arriving in freight shuttle trains from 808 in July 2001 to seven in April 2002. That shows that it is feasible to implement effective measures to deter would-be illegal immigrants. We are also grateful that the French Government have assured us that there has been no change to their overall policing policy at Fréthun. However, during all our contacts with the French authorities we will continue to stress the need for the police presence at Fréthun to he continuous—all day, every day.
The civil penalty and carriers' liability regimes are important and successful elements of our border controls and they will remain important parts of our strategy to prevent illegal entry. Prior to their introduction, the number of clandestine entrants being dealt with at Dover increased at a rate in excess of 170 per cent. a year. That upward trend has been halted and reversed, and the number of entrants detected at Dover in 2001 was down 27 per cent. from the previous year.

61WH
We believe that it is the fundamental right of any nation to require those who enter it to say what goods or people they are carrying, and to bear responsibility for goods or people that they should not be carrying. Although we welcome the Court of Appeal's recent findings that this important regime is lawful and valid, it is our intention to modify the civil penalty regime to ensure that it is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. In order to comply with the Roth ruling and maintain the strength of our borders, a new system of variable penalties for carriers and hauliers will be introduced. The revised regime will retain all the important elements of the existing one and will be tough but fair.
The United Kingdom is also deploying new technologies to good effect in strengthening us in our fight against illegal immigration. Various forms of sophisticated detection equipment are already in use at our ports, and we are in local discussions with the French authorities about partnerships to share our expertise and equipment.
Addressing cross-channel illegal immigration, and the unsatisfactory case of Sangatte in particular, is a priority for the Government. The existence and location of the Red Cross centre in Sangatte is clearly not helpful. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made no secret of his wish that it should, ultimately, be closed down. We also recognise the social impact of the 1,500 migrants in the area. Together with French colleagues, we are considering solutions to the problem of large numbers of would-be illegal immigrants congregating in northern France.
Those issues will be at the top of the Home Secretary's agenda when he speaks to the new French Minister of the Interior after the elections in France. He will make it clear, as he has done before, that we are keen to work closely with the French to combat the flow through the channel tunnel and to help to create conditions in northern France that would render the centre unnecessary. I do not suggest that that will be easy, particularly as many of the immigrants are not returnable to their country of origin at present, but we are determined to find ways of alleviating the problem. A key concern is ensuring that any arrangements between the UK and France do not result in attracting even more immigrants to northern France.
As well as considering specific bilateral solutions, an important part of the process will be co-operation within the European Union. Sangatte is a symptom of a shared European problem of people-smuggling and illegal immigration. The occupants of the Sangatte centre must have crossed several of the European Union member states to reach northern France. We need to work with our European partners to strengthen the EU's borders, to address the root causes of illegal immigration, and to return those who do not, or no longer, have a right of residence in the EU.
The comprehensive plan on illegal immigration and people-trafficking in the EU was adopted by Ministers at the Joint Home Affairs Council on 28 February. It
62WH
covered several matters that are to be implemented by February 2003 in the short term, and by February 2005 in the medium term. The UK considers all the issues to be important but is particularly keen to make progress on the subjects of return and operational co-operation on the EU's current and future external borders.
We think that there is a strong need to work with the border services of member states to combat illegal immigration into the EU. The UK-led initiative to assist the state border service of Bosnia-Herzegovina is an excellent example of what that type of co-operation can achieve.
Mr. Howard: I hope that the Minister will deal with the veto.
Mr. Denham: I intend to set out the practical measures that we would like to agree with our European partners and have in place to deal with the problems that we are debating. It is important that the EU continues its work with source countries of illegal immigration. We have to address the root causes of illegal immigration. We support the continued strengthening of the approach of the high-level working group on asylum and migration. It is important to stress the strong lead that the UK is taking in pushing the issues forward; it has asked that they be included on the agenda for the Seville European Council.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Spanish Prime Minister, José Maria Aznar, to underline the need for the EU to redouble its efforts on speeding up progress on asylum measures and on joint work on returns, and on taking rapid action to strengthen the EU's external frontiers. It has been well publicised that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the Spanish Prime Minister yesterday to discuss these matters and to underline the importance that we attach to them.
There are other issues about which I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am unsure whether it will be a point of order, but I shall give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Howard: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether it is in order—especially when the Member who has initiated a debate of this sort has taken less time than the allotted 15 minutes—for the Minister completely to ignore in his reply one of the most substantive points—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to resume his seat. The Minister's response is his responsibility; As the Chair, I am not responsible for it.

Consumer Protection (Holidays)
1.30 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the opportunity to initiate this debate on consumer protection and the sale of holidays.
For most of us, the purchase of a foreign holiday is our largest annual financial outlay. These holidays are eagerly looked forward to, and, frequently, carefully saved for. Most of us dream that, in our retirement, we will be able to take more frequent breaks at the time of our choosing, because we will be free from the constraints of work. Foreign holidays account for 30 per cent. of the holidays that are taken each year; the annual worth of that business is £29 billion.
The vast majority of those foreign holidays are booked with reputable companies, which provide a first-class product, to the satisfaction of their consumers. However, the growth of the foreign holiday market has led to practices that can only be described as unscrupulous—and, in some cases, downright fraudulent.
One sector that earned such a reputation was the sale of timeshare holidays. Following much publicity and complaint, regulations were enacted by European institutions, and they were added to by the Timeshare Act 1992 and by timeshare regulations in April 1997. They have rightly given consumers protection, and they have done much to clean up a sector that had a bad reputation.
The issue that I wish to highlight in this debate is the sale of holidays through what are known as holiday clubs. Many of the techniques that are used to sell membership of such clubs are identical to the worst sales techniques of the bad days of timeshare selling. Though many holiday clubs are selling access to timeshare accommodation, they are not covered by current legislation governing such sales. One could come to the conclusion that the sale of membership of holiday clubs is a new way for those involved in the more disreputable end of the timeshare market to avoid the regulations that now govern the timeshare industry.
To highlight the problems, I wish to draw attention to a company called On-Line Vacations, which has been operating in north-east England. However, as I will explain, that is just one of the names that that company trades under. It has left many of my constituents feeling dissatisfied, and out of pocket by many thousands of pounds.
On-Line Vacations first appeared in the north-east, where it traded as G M Leisure from an office in Monkwearmouth in Sunderland. It then moved to Vermont house in Washington in Tyne and Wear, and its name was changed to On-Line Vacations. After having disappeared without explanation at the beginning of this year, the company is now based at 2 Deemouth centre, South Esplanade, east Aberdeen where it is trading as Dream Vacations Ltd.
Although the company has often changed its name, it is one and the same company; the common individual throughout is a director, Mr. William Millar. The company's product is membership of a holiday club. For a fee of between £1,950 and £4,800, customers receive a PIN number that gives them exclusive access to
64WH
an agency website offering discount accommodation in "holiday exchange properties"—a new name for timeshare accommodation, I am reliably informed. The accommodation itself was not provided directly by On-Line Vacations but by a company ironically called either Qualycon or Qualyeurope. Again, the name changes throughout the saga depending on the company with which one is dealing.
As I said earlier, many of the techniques used to sell membership are reminiscent of the worst techniques used in the sale of timeshares that resulted in legislation. One such method is to cold call individuals by telephone using the classic bait and trap tactic—individuals are offered a free holiday in return for attending a company's presentation. Once at the presentation, all who have complained to me state that the technique was hard sell. Mr. Martin Alexander and his wife of Seaham, County Durham attended a sales session. They said that
"the pressure was unrelenting, at no time did a member of their staff leave you alone during the three hour session.
Mr. Alexander and his wife signed an agreement with the company in order to be allowed to leave the room. Very wisely, they did not hand over any money, saying that they wished to have time to think about what was on offer.
On further investigation, Mr. Alexander discovered information that questioned the legitimacy of what was offered. Although the company claimed to be long established, the consumer credit licence was only five days old. Also, no mention was made of the fact that On-Line Vacations was acting as an agent for Qualyeurope. On making inquiries, Mr. Alexander found that the trading standards department in Durham county council had received numerous complaints about the company's activities.
Mr. Alexander wrote to the company declining to take the matter further and what followed over the next few months can be described only as a heavy-handed and threatening approach. Threatening letters and telephone calls stated that the bailiffs would be instructed if the Alexanders did not pay £3,500 to On-Line Vacations. All credit to the Alexanders, they stood their ground and, with the help of their solicitor, did not give in.
Alas, some of my constituents have not been so fortunate. Mr. and Mrs. Cooper, of Chester-le-Street, attended a presentation in May 2000 at On-Line Vacations' Washington offices, following an invitation sent to them by post promising a free holiday in return for attending. They paid £4,000 to On-Line Vacations for the unique PIN number that enabled them to book discount accommodation. The sales person stressed that it was not timeshare accommodation. They received the PIN number but could not access the website, so they went to the company's offices in Washington to try and book their free holiday, only to be told by a member of staff that there were problems with the computer, so it was not possible.
To date, Mr. and Mrs. Cooper have received nothing in return for their £4,000 some two years after being signed up by the company, which was called GM Leisure at the time. They were left to pay off the loan that they had taken out to pay their joining fee. That is one of many cases reported to Durham county council's trading standards department. I pay tribute to its

65WH
representatives, especially Sue Constable, for their persistence in trying to unravel the web of dishonesty that surrounds the activities of that company in Durham.
Clearly, the activities of On-Line Vacations has left many honest, hardworking people in the north-east out of pocket and feeling that they have been victims of a sophisticated con. That does not stop at those who have purchased membership. A constituent who has a holiday cottage in the village of Plawsworth in north Durham is owed outstanding rent from On-Line Vacations, which used the cottage to house staff while operating in the north-east.
The web of companies involved in the operation of On-Line Vacations is complex. On the face of it, it appears that those involved are avoiding their responsibilities. The main director, Mr. Millar, signed a trust deed on 10 April 2000, effectively signing his assets to a trust deed to be realised in favour of his creditors. The only problem for those owed money by On-Line Vacations is that they do not appear as creditors, despite Mr. Millar's numerous promises that they would receive their money back in full. The trading standards department of Durham county council told me that Douglas Cooke, who was involved in On-Line Vacations, is now running a similar operation in Coventry. The other director, Ronald Mathews, is still in the north-east. It is ironic that, as of yesterday, the website of On-Line Vacations was still up and running, and giving a local telephone number for people to contact.
This week, I have again written to Durham police asking them to look into the case of On-Line Vacations. To date, both they and Northumbria police have considered it a civil matter, but clearly the work undertaken by the trading standards department of Durham county council raises serious questions about whether the operation was not an elaborate fraud from the start. Will the Minister's Department investigate, as a matter of urgency, the operation of the company? One question needs to be answered: why was a credit licence issued to the company by the Office of Fair Trading, despite objections from the trading standards department of Sunderland city council?
At present, the activities of holiday club operations such as On-Line Vacations seem to fall outside the law or regulations. They are not covered by the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 because they are not package holidays as defined under the regulations. Likewise, although in many cases such operations trade in timeshare accommodation, they are not covered by the Timeshare Act 1992 or the Timeshare Regulations 1997. To the credit of the trading standards department of Durham county council, it alerted the Office of Fair Trading in April 2001 to the fact that no appropriate OFT code covers that type of holiday club.
The Department of Trade and Industry has produced a leaflet warning that holiday clubs are not cancellable agreements and has consulted on proposed changes in the law. Clearly, the case of On-Line Vacations demonstrates the urgent need for laws or regulations to protect consumers. Regulation of the timeshare industry has done much to clear up its reputation. It seems that holiday clubs have been used as a way in which to avoid such regulations. It is interesting that one
66WH
of the companies supplying accommodation to On-Line Vacations, Timelinx.com, is based in Spain, an area that was notorious for the mis-selling of timeshare accommodation in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Will the Minister consider the points that I have raised in today's debate and ensure that legislation or regulations are brought forward urgently to prevent more hardworking, honest people such as my constituents from being defrauded of money that they can ill afford to lose?
1.44 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing a debate on such an important issue, which is of great worry to his constituents, especially Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and Mr. and Mrs. Cooper. The cases that he outlined are extremely distressing and show the fraudsters' guile in trying to bypass consumer protection legislation. I shall start by describing existing legislation.
The Timeshare Act 1992 regulates the timeshare market in the UK, while the timeshare directive of 1994 ensures that consumers throughout Europe are protected. The legislation gives consumers important protections at the point of sale, when they are often most vulnerable. It insists on a 14-day cooling-off period in which to cancel the contract. In the rest of Europe, the period is a minimum of 10 days. It also insists on a ban on timeshare sellers asking for or taking deposits during the cooling-off period, and on the right to a brochure and written contract with basic information on the timeshare property in the consumer's own language.
The legislation has been very successful. In a way, the emergence of new scams designed to avoid the law is testimony to how successful it has been. It has greatly helped to tackle the unscrupulous practices that have tarnished the timeshare industry in the past. However, the Department of Trade and Industry has been made aware of several new products that have been introduced to the market that have similar characteristics to timeshare but are often not covered by timeshare legislation. In many cases, as my hon. Friend said, they seem to have been deliberately designed to get round the legislation.
In the case of holiday clubs, the schemes involve consumers purchasing what amounts to a promise by the club to provide them with holidays for a long period into the future—sometimes a lifetime. As membership of the club does not give rights to purchasers for a particular property, it is not covered by timeshare legislation. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, many companies use the fact that the product is not timeshare as a selling ploy.
Although the products are not covered under timeshare legislation, they may be covered by other consumer legislation. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 also provide protection. Indeed, consumers have successfully pursued court cases against holiday club companies using the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. Protections are also provided for sales promotions that take place in hotels away from a company's business premises under the doorstep selling regulations.

67WH
My Department issued a consultation paper in April 2000 to find out more about how the timeshare legislation had worked and the extent of any problems experienced in the sector. The European Commission recently announced that it will review and amend the timeshare directive by 2003 to ensure that consumers are fully protected.
Extending the scope of existing timeshare legislation to cover holiday club products is best done at EU level. British consumers are often targeted while on holiday in Europe, or the company is registered in Spain. My Department will work closely with the Commission during the review to ensure that British consumers are better protected, as my hon. Friend suggests.
The Government are also asking for more rigorous enforcement by the Spanish authorities of timeshare and other relevant legislation, such as the misleading advertising directive. As my hon. Friend said, part of the problem is tracking down people who set up different companies in different countries.
Officials from the Office of Fair Trading recently returned from Madrid, where they presented evidence to the police on the perceived fraudulent activities of certain Spanish companies involved in the sale of holiday clubs and timeshare resale. Working closely with their Spanish counterparts, the police authorities in Spain and Interpol, the OFT is trying to protect UK consumers who choose to purchase timeshare products, and to improve consumer confidence in the market through the eradication of unlawful practices.
Under the gloriously named Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001, which came into effect on 1 June 2001, the Office of Fair Trading has the power to apply for orders to stop traders in the United Kingdom and other member states infringing legislation implementing 10 specific European Community consumer protection directives, including distance selling, doorstep selling and timeshare if the collective interests of UK consumers are harmed. That gives the OFT even more power to crack down on fraudulent companies targeting UK consumers.
Some of the more disreputable companies that engage in fraud will be covered under criminal law. Company investigations in my Department are also able to investigate companies under the powers of the Companies Act 1985 if fraud or misconduct is suspected. If the public are at risk, the Secretary of State may ask the court to stop a company trading at once by appointing a provisional liquidator. If there is evidence of misconduct by a company's directors, the Secretary of State can also ask the courts to disqualify them. In other cases, my Department may use the information that it has obtained to prosecute offenders, or it can pass the information to the Crown Prosecution Service for further consideration. The DTI has recently wound up
68WH
other holiday clubs, such as Diamond VSI Ltd, Somerville Leisure plc, Hever Worldwide Properties plc and Expanding Horizons Ltd.
I urge my hon. Friend to forward any details or information that he has about such companies for my Department's further consideration. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumers, competition and markets will look carefully at the points raised in today's debate. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that investigations conducted by my Department are strictly confidential and are never disclosed to any party except for the statutory purposes provided under the Act, such as for the institution of civil or criminal proceedings. It is departmental policy not to confirm or deny that such investigations are taking or have taken place, for the obvious reason that a company under investigation might be found innocent.
My hon. Friend also raises the question of consumer credit licences, and he cites a situation in his area. I emphasise that licences are awarded by the Office of Fair Trading if it is satisfied that the trader is a fit person to engage in the activities covered by the licence. The OFT can refuse or take away a licence if a trader is considered unfit. It is entirely a matter for the OFT, and I am unable to disclose details of particular cases.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that prevention is always better than cure. Well-informed consumers are the best means of tackling bad practice and of preventing problems before they arise. Last June, the Government relaunched the leaflet "Timeshare—Making the Right Choice". That leaflet informed consumers about developments in the market and the undesirable practices at the margins of the industry, some of which have been mentioned today. The leaflet was distributed with the help of the industry, and it is included in UK holidaymakers' airline ticket wallets in order to draw such scams to their attention. The responsible timeshare industry is working hard on developing robust codes of practice. Holiday clubs, vacation packs and sellers of timeshare points who belong to the main trade association voluntarily provide consumers with the same protections afforded under the timeshare directive.
I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that rogue traders will always seek ways to avoid legislation in order to exploit the unwary consumer. The Government will be working closely with the European Commission on its forthcoming review of the timeshare directive in order to ensure that a future definition of timeshare encompasses new products such as holiday clubs. The DTI will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading and other enforcement bodies to ensure better enforcement of existing legislation. It will also continue to encourage the industry to develop more effective self-regulation, and to work in partnership with the industry in order to improve information and publicity for consumers on their rights under the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Harriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Harrier GR7 and GR9 will be equipped with ASRAAM. [56195]

  Mr. Ingram
  ASRAAM will not be fitted to Harrier GR7, nor do we intend to integrate the missile on to the aircraft during the programme to upgrade GR7 to GR9 standard.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Meteor missile programme. [56196]

  Mr. Ingram
  A finalised draft contract for the Meteor missile was sent to our partner nations at the end of April. Once approval is obtained from each nation we will be in a position to award the Meteor contract to MBDA. This is currently planned for early July.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capability will be available in 2006 to replace the withdrawn Sea Harriers; and if he will make a statement. [56684]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Navy Task Groups will retain a significant air defence capability after the Sea Harrier is withdrawn from service in 2006, including against sea-skimming missiles, against which Sea Harrier has little capability. This air defence capability will include type 42 anti-air warfare destroyers armed with updated Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles, type 22 and 23 frigates armed with point defence missile systems (including the enhanced Sea Wolf missile system) and close-in weapon systems. From later this year, the first upgraded airborne early warning Sea King flight will go to sea providing an improved detection capability over land and sea. All task group warships and some support shipping are also equipped with decoy systems against air and surface launched anti-ship missiles. Additionally, the Harrier GR aircraft possess a point defence capability through the sidewinder short range air-to-air missile.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis the decision on the timing of the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier was made; and if he will make a statement. [56686]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Sea Harrier FA2 is being withdrawn by 2006 as to retain it as a viable weapon system beyond the middle of this decade would require significant investment and would also involve significant technical risk.

  As the Sea Harrier FA2 is essentially a modified Harrier GR3, an all-metal aircraft that was withdrawn from RAF service in the late 1980s, investment will instead be concentrated on the more modern Harrier GR7
  164W
  that will be upgraded to GR9 standard to provide an enhanced expeditionary capability for land attack operations from both land and aircraft carriers.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the benefits of integrating the Sea Harrier's specific capabilities on to the remaining GR Harriers; and if he will make a statement. [56683]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of upgrading the Harrier GR7 to include an advanced air defence radar capable of using AMRAAM; what the cost is estimated to be; and if he will make a statement. [56535]

  Mr. Ingram
  The role of the Harrier GR7 is in support of force projection. Its air-to-air capability is optimised for its own defence. To integrate the Sea Harrier's specific air defence capabilities on to the GR Harrier would entail the fitting of the Blue Vixen radar and Advance Medium Range Air to Air Missiles (AMRAAM) missiles. While it would, in theory, be possible to do this we currently have no requirement to do so. Therefore no detailed work has been undertaken by the Department into the practicality and cost effectiveness of such a modification.

  Such a programme would be at least as complex, lengthy and costly as the Sea Harrier Blue Vixen/AMRAAM update in the mid-90s. Given the considerable cost, time scale and technical risk involved, and the planned entry into service of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft in 2012, the benefits of integrating the Sea Harrier specific capabilities onto the GR Harrier would be of limited duration and utility.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the(a) French, (b) Spanish, (c) Italian and (d) German defence ministers in respect of his decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier from service. [57645]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding reply Monday 20 May 2002]: None. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 2452W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). These countries will be advised of this change as part of the annual submission to the NATO Defence Planning Questionnaire, and also in the annual update to the european Headline Goal Helsinki Catalogue.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with the(a) US Defence Secretary and (b) NATO Secretary General in respect of his decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier from service. [57644]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: None. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 1451W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). The United States of America and NATO will be advised of this change as part of the annual submission to the NATO Defence Planning Questionnaire.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of continuing the Harrier FA2 in service until 2012 without an engine upgrade; and what estimate he has made of the cost of this. [57231]
  165W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: In determining the future strategy for Joint Force Harrier ahead of the introduction of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft in around 2012 a variety of investment strategies were considered for both Harrier GR7 and Sea Harrier FA2. Our recent operational experience, and consideration of likely future threats, led us to conclude that the priority is for carrier-borne aircraft that can fulfil the ground attack role. The Sea Harrier FA2 has an extremely limited ground attack capability and without a new engine, a high risk technical challenge, has major performance limitations. Further, a number of the FA2's avionic and defensive systems are becoming increasingly obsolescent and by the middle of the decade will have significant operational deficiencies. The cost of recovering this obsolescence would be around £250 million. Such a significant investment was deemed incoherent without a more powerful engine that could deliver world-wide year-round embarked capability and when it would only restore elements of the air defence capability. It would do nothing to equip the aircraft to carry current and near term smart offensive weapons, our key future need. This would have required a full replacement of the avionic system which was judged to be unachievable.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to upgrade the air-to-air capability of the Harrier GR7; and if he plans to fit the aircraft with AMRAAM missiles. [57646]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: We have no plans to upgrade the existing air to air capability of the Harrier GR7.

  AMRAAM will not be fitted to Harrier GR7, nor do we intend to integrate the missile onto the aircraft during the programme to upgrade GR7 to GR9 standard.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the remaining Harrier GR7s will be upgraded to GR9; and how many GR9s will be in service at the end of the upgrade programme. [57229]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: We currently plan to upgrade all Harrier GR7 aircraft to GR9 standard, up to 68 aircraft in total. The GR7 upgrade programme is due to begin in late 2003 and be completed during 2008.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of upgrading the Harrier GR7 to GR9; and what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading the engine of the Harrier FA2. [57230]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1166–67W.

  The integration of the Pegasus Mk 107 engine into 11 Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft was the subject of a feasibility study in 2000. The cost of integration was estimated to be approximately £230 million. The study concluded that there would be significant technical difficulties and that overall the programme did not represent good value for money.

  Army Headquarters
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 340W, and of 28 February 2002, Official
  166W
  Report, column 1463W, on Army HQ, when the final assessment of the cost of moving the Army's northern headquarters from York to Edinburgh will have been made. [56640]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1463W. I will, of course, write to him when the assessment is complete and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Arms Sales
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions P. W. Pains Wessex have attended MOD-organised sales and marketing events in the past two years; and what was the nature of their attendance. [56572]

  Mr. Ingram
  I understand that P. W. Defence Ltd. was formed last September from the amalgamation of several subsidiaries of the Chemring Group plc. Delegates from the company attended the Ministry of Defence's Export Services Organisation's symposium for defence exporters held in March 2002.

  Attendance by companies attending or exhibiting at other sales and marketing events organised by commercial organisations is a matter for the organisers concerned.

  Military Ethos
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the way in which military ethos has changed since 1997. [56530]

  Mr. Ingram
  The core values of the armed services have not changed since 1997.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the benefits of a distinct military ethos to the effectiveness of the British Army. [56529]

  Mr. Ingram
  Military ethos may be defined as:"That spirit which inspires soldiers to fight. It derives from, and depends upon, the high degrees of commitment, self-sacrifice and mutual trust which together are so essential to the maintenance of morale".
  This was articulated in the pamphlet "Values and Standards of the British Army", which was published in March 2000, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  We believe that the constituent values of military ethos contribute significantly to military effectiveness.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra capability the £600 million of UK specific requirement for the Joint Strike Fighter will provide; and if he will make a statement. [56693]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimate of £600 million, which was announced in January 2001, will optimise the aircraft's capability for the United Kingdom environment. It represents the costs of providing and integrating certain UK weapons systems, to be selected in due course, securing the Joint Strike Fighter's compatibility with UK Command and Control arrangements and ensuring compliance with our safety and environmental requirements.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of a lack of BVRAAM on the Eurofighter's operational ability; and if he will make a statement. [56685]

  Mr. Ingram
  Eurofighter's primary role is air superiority. Without a BVRAAM, it would be wholly reliant on short-range missiles in this role and would be disadvantaged in medium and beyond visual range engagements. We have therefore assessed that Eurofighter will require a BVRAAM capability. From the outset, it is planned that the aircraft will be cleared to carry and fire the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM). This capability will be enhanced by the acquisition of Meteor. Meteor's planned In-Service Date is 2012.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the contracted June 2002 delivery date for the Eurofighter will be achieved; and if he will make a statement. [57648]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) on 30 April 2002, Official Report, column 745W. We are now considering the results of this review, including the implications for delivery dates, and will make an announcement shortly.

  Trigat
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what off-the-shelf options are being evaluated to replace the Medium Range Trigat; how much they cost; and if he will make a statement. [56688]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two off-the-shelf medium range antitank guided weapon systems are being evaluated to replace the capability which Medium Range Trigat was expected to deliver for use by Light Forces and Mechanised Infantry: Javelin offered by a joint venture between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and supported by the US Government; and Spike offered by MBDA.

  As part of the evaluation the Ministry of Defence is conducting a commercial competition between the two equipments, and as such I am withholding details of the costs in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the financial consequences of the Lewis ECHR case. [57642]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I assume that the question concerns a case before the European Court of Human Rights, but we do not immediately recognise a Lewis case. I answered a question from the hon. Member on 1 March about that court's judgment in the case of Mr. Morris, Official Report, column 1624W, and it may be this to which he is now referring.

  Hitherto there have been no quantifiable financial consequences for the Ministry of Defence as a result of this case, apart from legal fees and the award by the court of a proportion of Mr. Morris's costs.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long HMS Ocean has been at sea on her current deployment; and when she will return to the UK. [57799]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: HMS Ocean has been at sea on her current deployment since 11 February 2002. On current plans she returns to the United Kingdom (Plymouth) in early June 2002.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical difficulties HMS Ocean has experienced on her current deployment. [57800]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: HMS Ocean has experienced some minor technical difficulties during her current deployment. These were associated with the propulsion system, air conditioning and chilled water plant, the side ramp and some other equipments and systems. Such difficulties are consistent with a deployment of this duration and nature. The majority have already been resolved and none has adversely affected HMS Ocean's ability to undertake her operational tasks at any stage of her deployment.

  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the contribution of the anti-ballistic missile treaty to strategic stability. [57978]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have always valued strategic stability between the United States and Russia, a stability to which the anti-ballistic missile treaty made a major contribution throughout the cold war. But it is important to recognise that the strategic context is changing and that it is stability we value rather than one particular means for achieving it. To this end we welcome the progress that the United States and Russia have made towards a new strategic framework, in particular their recent agreement on major reductions in nuclear weapons.

  Performance Targets
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [58607]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following key targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency:

  Key Target 1:
  To achieve at least 65% patrol activity from those officers devoted to patrolling.
  Key Target 2:
  To achieve a crime-solving rate of 42 per cent. for the investigation of primary crime.
  Key Target 3:
  By 31 March 2003, to ensure that the force fulfils at least 95 per cent. of its agreed customer taskings at those establishments where the force undertakes security related taskings.
  Key Target 4:
  By 31 March 2003, to have the appropriate systems in place to evaluate the force's effective contribution to security measures at those establishments where the force undertakes security related taskings.

  169W
  Key Target 5:
  By 31 March 2003, to have implemented the Force Diversity Action Plan, and within the overall recruitment to the force to have recruited 30 per cent. women and 8 per cent. from minority ethnic communities.

  Key Target 6:
  By 31 March 2003, to reduce the amount of overtime worked by each officer to no more than 48 hours overtime per 28 day period averaged over a 17 week period.

  ASTOR
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ASTOR aircraft he plans to procure. [57805]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Five aircraft are being procured for the ASTOR programme.

  Armed Forces Personnel (Deaths on Military Premises)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors are taken into account when determining which organisations investigate the circumstances of a death or serious injury of a member of Her Majesty's armed forces on his Department's property. [56696]

  Mr. Ingram
  Jurisdiction for the investigation of incidents resulting in death or serious injury will vary depending upon the nature of the incident and whether it occurs in the United Kingdom, overseas or, in the case of the Royal Navy, on board ship. The rules governing jurisdiction are detailed in the Queen's Regulations for each service. In the case of a death in the United Kingdom, primacy for any investigation lies with the local civilian police force, who would usually be supported by the appropriate service police authority or Ministry of Defence police, and other agencies as required. For example, where a death is suspected to have been caused by an accident, an investigation could also be carried out by a service accident investigation team. Cause of death can only be concluded by Her Majesty's Coroner. A service Board of Inquiry would normally be carried out following the conclusion of any associated police investigations.

  In cases of serious injury, factors such as the cause of injury, level of severity and any suspicion of criminality would determine whether the civilian police, Ministry of Defence police or service police authorities would investigate. Again, where serious injury is suspected to have been caused by an accident, the relevant service accident investigation team could also be involved. All of these factors would be considered in determining whether a service Board of Inquiry is required.

  RAF Portreath
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the volume of waste to be removed from land at RAF Portreath as part of the Ministry of Defence's clean-up operation; what guidance has been issued to local authorities and agencies responsible for the removal and disposal of waste from RAF Portreath; at which locations waste from RAF Portreath will be deposited; and what assurances he has 170W
  given local residents and local authorities regarding the disposal of waste removed from RAF Portreath in landfill. [57175]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking the planning process for the voluntary remediation of five dump sites at RAF Portreath. For these purposes it is estimated that the total waste from all five dumps is approximately 100,000 cu m of material, which is likely to be a mix of inert, hazardous and special waste.

  On completion of the planning process and the consultation phase, involving the local authorities, residents and interested agencies, MOD will issue the relevant information and guidance.

  Landmines
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the British armed forces have(a) procured and (b) deployed the E100 Series Integrated Grenade System with the fragmentation grenade E105 incorporated into the trip wire mechanism manufactured by PW Defence. [57228]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British armed forces have never procured or deployed the El00 Series Integrated Grenade System with the fragmentation grenade E105 incorporated into the trip wire mechanism manufactured by PW Defence.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between his officials and PW Defence regarding the status of the El00 Series Integrated Grenade System and fragmentation grenade E105 incorporated into the trip wire mechanism under the Landmines Act 1998. [57227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has not had any discussions with PW Defence regarding the status of the E100 Series Integrated Grenade System and fragmentation grenade E105 incorporated into the trip wire mechanism under the Landmines Act 1998.

  Low-flying Areas
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate a system of independent review of decisions concerning low-flying areas. [57306]

  Mr. Ingram
  Decisions taken in respect of the United Kingdom Low Flying System are already subject to appropriate review. Such reviews may include investigations by the Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team, consultation across Ministry of Defence and reference to external specialists as necessary.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned in-service dates are for each of the ordered type 45 destroyers. [56704]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The First of Class, HMS Daring, is planned to enter service in late 2007, with the second ship, HMS Dauntless following in 2009. It is planned that the remaining four ships on contract will enter service at intervals up until 2011.
  171W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis the decision was made to reject the BAE proposal to build all 12 type 45 warships; and if he will make a statement. [57348]

  Mr. Ingram
  The BAE Systems unsolicited proposal was very carefully considered. However, it was decided not to take it further because of the serious implications it would have for competition downstream for future United Kingdom warships and the very substantial forward commitment it sought on a variety of shipbuilding programmes. The revised type 45 procurement strategy, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 10 July 2001, should offer better value for money in the longer run, if it enables competition to be pursued on other warship programmes.

  Naval Dockyards
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites in the UK are capable of assembling a large enough vessel to operate conventional take-off and landing aircraft; what modifications are needed to potential sites to bring them to this capability; and if he will make a statement. [57351]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is assumed that the question refers to potential sites for the assembly of the United Kingdom's future aircraft carrier. The competing primes on the carrier programme—BAE Systems and Thales—are assessing the capability of a number of sites within the United Kingdom that have the potential to participate in the build (the construction and outfitting of modules or blocks of the vessel) and assembly (the joining together of the blocks into a whole ship in a dry dock of sufficient size). No final decisions have been made on the mix of sites that will be utilised in the ship build programme. A number of potential facilities for assembly have been identified to date, including Harland and Wolff in Belfast, Inch Green on the Clyde, and Swan Hunter on Tyneside. Other potential assembly sites continue to be assessed and much will depend on the design and dimensions of the carrier that is eventually taken forward and the method of construction. The two prime contractors are due to submit proposals on ship procurement towards the end of this year. This will include preferred assembly sites together with an assessment of any required modifications.

  Warship Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the RAND study into warship procurement; and if he will make a statement. [57347]

  Mr. Ingram
  Pursuant to my reply to the hon. Member on 16 July 2001,Official Report, columns 1–2W, RAND have completed their study into alternative procurement strategies for the Ministry of Defence's future warship programme. Interim results from the study helped inform the MOD's decision to proceed with a revised procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 10 July 2001, Official Report, columns 675–85.

  It was originally planned that RAND would publish a report of their findings last autumn. However, it has taken them longer than expected to produce it for a variety of reasons, including a redirection of effort to undertake
  172W
  more urgent work into shipbuilding strategies for the future carrier and disruption caused by the events of 11 September. RAND have also been at pains to produce the best possible report and have accordingly engaged in detailed consultation with interested parties over its content. The report is now very close to being finalised and is scheduled for publication this June.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings(a) he and (b) his officials have held with representatives of local authorities to discuss options for RAF Lyneham. [57238]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: As the first round of the consultation process for the Strategic Review of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St. Mawgan, a meeting was held between officials and representatives of the relevant local authorities and Regional Development Agencies on 29 January. As the review progresses, further meetings will be held. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor I have met any representatives of local authorities to discuss options for RAF Lyneham.

  Bases
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where each of the(a) Astute class submarines and (b) EF2000 will be based. [57647]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The basing of the Astute class submarines is currently being considered as part of a wider review of base-porting and waterfront infrastructure. The review is proceeding to schedule and it is hoped that announcements will be made during the summer of this year. The Eurofighter will be based at RAF Leeming, RAF Leuchars and RAF Coningsby.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the length is of the PFI contracts for(a) the River class offshore patrol vessels and (b) the RN ro-ros; and what criteria he uses to decide the optimal length of PFI contracts on such ships. [57237]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The River class offshore patrol vessel contract is an operating lease arrangement rather than a pure PFI deal. It has a duration of five years with the option to extend. The ro-ro contract is still being negotiated but the intention is that it will be a service-based PFI running until 2024.

  The optimal length of any PFI type contract varies according to the circumstances of the particular deal. In practice this means taking account of the duration and scope of the requirement, the potential asset life and residual value at the end of the deal, and optimising capital financing charges. These key criteria are considered together with the scope for risk transfer to determine the length of contract that is expected to deliver the optimal value for money solution for the project.

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes in the ownership of land at and adjacent to Throckmorton airfield since 1992 with reference to the Crichel Down rules. [57337]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1992 the Ministry of Defence has not recorded any sales of land at Throckmorton airfield although some leases have been completed in areas of land and buildings. Most of the Throckmorton site, formerly known as DERA Pershore, is now owned by QinetiQ. The remainder of the site, used last year to deal with some of the consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak, is in the final stages of being transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  All of the property sold to QinetiQ was exempted from the provisions of the Crichel Down rules under provision 14.6 concerning the transfer of Government functions to the private sector.

  Nepal
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance has been provided to Nepal in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [57179]

  Mr. Ingram
  Nepal is a long-standing friend of the United Kingdom and our armies have always had close links. Over the past five years, the UK has provided low-level military assistance to Nepal through the provision of places on training courses in the UK, limited training in country with UK experts and the supply of non-lethal equipment. The Royal Nepalese Army personnel have routinely sent students to our Joint Staff College at Shrivenham, on commissioning courses at Sandhurst and to the Royal College of Defence Studies.

  All our military courses are undertaken within the framework of the democratic and accountable use of military force in order to improve the general professionalism of the RNA. They include modules on legal use of force, proportionality and respect for human rights.

  The UK is also funding infrastructure work being undertaken at the regional peacekeeping centre at Panchkal.

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement about the A400M project. [57240]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave on 8 May 2002, Official Report, column 176W.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the delay to the A400M project will have on his consideration of the future of RAF Lyneham. [57239]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The delay to the A400M project is not expected to have any effect on the conclusions that will be reached by the strategic review on the future roles of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St. Mawgan.

  Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding will be made available for the facilitation of multinational brigades and possible multinational battalions for international operations as agreed in the meeting between the Defence Ministers of Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway and the UK in Alesund, Norway; what are the terms of the agreement; and if he will make a statement. [57681]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Nordic Defence Ministers' meeting in Alesund, I signed a Letter of Intent that provides the basis for the United Kingdom's co-operation with NORDCAPS (the Nordic Co-ordinated Arrangement for Peace Support). This builds on the co-operative arrangements that we already enjoy with our Nordic partners in the Balkans. Our involvement is on a case-by-case basis. It does not commit the UK to participate in operations, exercises or training, and no additional funding has been made available.

  NORDCAPS, and the UK's co-operation with it, is an excellent example of how multinational defence co-operation can enhance overall military capability. It is a pool of Nordic forces (in this case from Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden) available for peace support operations by summer 2003.

  Infantry Training
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the infantry wastage rate for Army recruits embarking on phase 1 of their infantry training was in each of the last five years; and what measures are in place to combat wastage. [57637]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The figures requested are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Year

  Wastage rate for infantry phase 1 training

  1997–98

  29.6

  1998–99

  21.2

  1999–2000

  19.9

  2000–01

  23.9

  2001–02

  21.8

  Measures in place to combat wastage include:

  Training teams at the Recruit Selection Centres to run military activities to motivate and enthuse the candidates. Candidates also receive briefing on what they can expect in training and the opportunity to meet recruits in phase 1 training. This applies to all employment groups.

  Phase 1 instructors undergo a two-week induction course designed to give them the skills to deal with new recruits and to help them provide nurturing to recruits during training to minimise wastage.

  Infantry phase 1 and 2 training has now been combined into one course at Catterick. Trials conducted last year showed that a considerable reduction in overall wastage could be achieved by allowing training to be more progressive over the combined course, particularly on the physical demands of infantry training. Rehabilitation facilities across the phase 1 training establishments and at

  175W
  Catterick have been improved to assist those recruits injured during training to recover more quickly and rejoin training.

  The adoption of the combined phase 1 and 2 infantry course has enabled mid-course leave and adventure training to be introduced into the syllabus at Catterick; a retention positive measure.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Army recruits will wait for more than one month until they can be admitted to those waiting to be admitted to phase 1 of infantry training; [57638]

  (2) how many soldiers are awaiting training. [57639]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: As at 16 May 2002, there were 2,668 potential recruits in the system who have passed selection (i.e. received a job offer) but have not yet enlisted (i.e. finally accepted the offer). This figure includes those who are awaiting allocation to a training vacancy; those who are already allocated but not yet enlisted because their allocated course is more than 21 days away; those who have chosen to delay entry for personal reasons, such as work or educational commitments; junior entrants whose courses do not commence until July and September this year; and finally a proportion who remain undecided on whether or not to accept the job offer. Of the 2,668, 474 are earmarked for the infantry already; 113 are awaiting a course allocation, 361 are allocated to a course commencing after 16 June 2002.

  This figure changes on an almost daily basis as new recruits commence training and others pass selection. The Army Training and Recruiting Agency's Allocation Committee meets weekly in order to plan the loading of recruits onto courses; the aim is always to minimise the waiting time.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships will be involved in events connected with Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations; and if he will make a statement. [57802]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The key tri-service event is in Portsmouth on 27 June. The following ships will be present during Her Majesty's visit:

  Name of Ship

  Aircraft carrier

  HMS Ark Royal

  Destroyer

  HMS Cardiff

  Frigate

  HMS Cornwall

  Frigate

  HMS Kent

  Frigate

  HMS Lancaster

  Offshore patrol vessel

  HMS Alderney

  Mine counter measure vessel

  HMS Bangor

  Mine counter measure vessel

  HMS Cattistock

  Mine counter measure vessel

  HMS Hurworth

  Mine counter measure vessel

  HMS Penzance

  University RN unit patrol craft

  HMS Blazer

  University RN unit patrol craft

  HMS Dasher

  University RN unit patrol craft

  HMS Raider

  University RN unit patrol craft

  HMS Tracker

  Royal fleet auxiliaries

  RFA Fort Victoria

  Royal fleet auxiliaries

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  176W
  Royal Navy vessels will participate in other single Golden Jubilee events elsewhere in the United Kingdom as their constantly changing operational tasking permits.

  Cadets
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadets there are in the(a) Army Cadet Force, (b) Air Cadets, (c) Sea Cadets and (d) Combined Cadet Force. [57806]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: As at 1 April 2001, the most recent date for which figures are available, the numbers of cadets was as follows:

  Number

  Army Cadet Force

  40,573

  Air Training Corps

  33,177

  Sea Cadet Corps

  10,662

  Combined Cadet Force

  40,783

  Total

  125,195

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets are in place for numbers of cadets. [57808]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: There are no targets set by any of the four cadet forces for numbers of cadets. We are constantly encouraging young people to consider the development opportunities offered by the cadets and hope to see as many as possible join in order to benefit from these.

  Frigates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement is of each type 23 and type 22 frigate. [57643]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The complement for each type 22 and type 23 frigate is shown in the table.

  Ship

  Complement

  Type 22

  Sheffield

  234

  Cornwall

  240

  Cumberland

  238

  Campbeltown

  225

  Chatham

  239

  Type 23

  Norfolk

  173

  Marlborough

  167

  Argyll

  169

  Lancaster

  169

  Iron Duke

  169

  Monmouth

  168

  Montrose

  168

  Westminster

  168

  Northumberland

  171

  Richmond

  169

  Somerset

  168

  Grafton

  168

  Sutherland

  169

  Kent

  168

  Portland

  168

  St. Albans

  173

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of(a) the minutes of meetings held between departmental ministers and the Chief Veterinary Officer and (b) the minutes of meetings and other communications between Ministers and (i) the Environment Agency, (ii) SEAC and (iii) European Union officials, in respect of dealing with foot and mouth, since the outbreak of the disease. [3959]

  Mr. Morley
  Minutes of meetings between Ministers and others are not normally disclosed.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the advice which her Department and the Prime Minister received from the Chief Scientist on foot and mouth disease. [5253]

  Mr. Morley
  Advice which Ministers receive from officials is not normally made public.

  Refrigerators and Freezers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of representations received from the UK retail industry from October 2000 about EU Regulation 2037/2000. [34842]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I will place copies of these representations in the Library within the next week, subject to agreement from the authors.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what professional indemnity insurance clause is part of her Department's standard consultants' contract. [50828]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The Department's standard conditions of contract for indemnity and insurance is set out below.
  The Contractor shall indemnify the Department, the Crown, its servants and agents against all actions, claims demands, costs and expenses incurred by or made against each or any of them in respect of any loss or damage (including consequential and indirect loss, loss of profit, goodwill or revenue) or personal injury (including death) which arises out of or in connection with his and any sub-contractor's performance of the Services under this contract.
  The indemnity contained in the Condition above shall not apply to the extent that the loss, damage or injury is caused by the negligent or wilful act or omission of the Department, the Crown or any servant or agent of the Crown.
  The Contractor shall have in force and maintain and shall require any sub-contractor to have in force and maintain insurance with a reputable insurance company, including (but not limited) to employer's liability, public liability and professional indemnity insurance, for such range of cover as the Contractor deems to be appropriate but covering at least all matters which are the subject of indemnities or compensation obligations under these
  178W
  Conditions in such sum as may be specified in the Contract Letter, or, if no such sum is specified, the sum of not less than £5,000,000 for any one incident and unlimited in total.
  The policy or policies of insurance referred to in the condition above shall be shown to the Department whenever it requests, together with satisfactory evidence of payment of premiums.
  The terms of any insurance or the amount of cover shall not relieve the Contractor of any liabilities under the Contract.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often she has made an exception to the professional indemnity requirement of her Department's standard consultants' contract in the last five years. [50831]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from small businesses about the level of professional indemnity insurance in contracts with her Department; and if she will make a statement about professional indemnity insurance with small contractors. [50832]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: From information held centrally, the Department is unaware of any recent representations received from small businesses about the level of professional indemnity insurance in contracts with the Department.

  Departments are expected to set the level of professional indemnity insurance at a level appropriate to the size of the contract and the level of risk involved. The terms of any insurance or the amount of cover shall not relieve the contractor of any liabilities under the contract.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of professional indemnity insurance was required by her Department of small businesses contracted with them in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [50829]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Business Contracts
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many small businesses have individual contracts with her Department. [50830]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: DEFRA came into being on 8 June, 2001. From information held centrally, it is estimated that DEFRA has dealings with 2,799 contractors falling to be classed as small businesses.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much agrimonetary compensation the Government can draw down for(a) dairy, (b) sheep and (c) arable farmers. [52417]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Government could have claimed approximately £37 million for the dairy sector and £9 million for the

  179W
  sheep sector. No agrimonetary compensation was available for arable farmers in that package. While we acknowledge the difficulties the livestock sector is facing and are working with them on the recommendations of the Policy Commission on Farming and Food, we have decided not to make a claim on these funds given the many competing demands on the Exchequer at present, particularly as more than eighty per cent. of the £46 million would in effect have to be met by the British taxpayer.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [52848]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: DEFRA came into being on 8 June, 2001. From information held centrally, no digital radios are owned by the Department for use in departmental buildings in which Ministers work.

  Farming Industry
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes have taken place in each of the past 10 years in the value of(a) farmland and (b) farms and farm buildings. [51281]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Disaggregated data that distinguish overall farmland values from farms and farm buildings values are not available. Estimates for the valuations of land and buildings together in the UK can be derived on a consistent basis since 1993 from the aggregate agricultural balance sheet.

  Estimated UK values—land and buildings1

  As at December each year

  £ million

  1993

  50, 702

  1994

  56, 286

  1995

  67, 876

  1996

  77, 424

  1997

  84, 038

  1998

  84, 643

  1999

  90, 605

  2000

  93, 665

  1 The valuations of land and buildings are at average market prices. Includes the value of owner-occupied and tenanted land. Includes that proportion of the dwelling house that is attributed to business use.

  One important component in determining such values are market prices and the relevant series for England are shown. The tables give the changes that have taken place in (a) the value of agricultural land transacted in England and (b) the value of land and agricultural buildings in England since 1993 as represented by the average price of land sold in these categories. The data can be supplied only on a consistent basis back to 1993, as since then the category 'agricultural land' refers strictly to "land only", whereas the prior to 1993 it could include dwelling-house
  180W
  attachments. In addition the previous series was calculated on an October-September basis as opposed to a calendar year basis for the series from 1993.

  Average price of agricultural land in England

  £ per hectare

  1993

  3,791

  1994

  4,229

  1995

  4,788

  1996

  6,058

  1997

  6,448

  1998

  6,139

  1999

  6,645

  2000

  7,051

  Average price of land and agricultural buildings in England

  £ per hectare

  1993

  3,315

  1994

  3,918

  1995

  5,125

  1996

  5,596

  1997

  6,565

  1998

  6,300

  1999

  6,268

  2000

  7,104

  Illegal Logging
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1064W, which countries other than Indonesia she has (a) made approaches to and (b) intends to approach for negotiations on illegal logging and associated trade. [53756]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have informally discussed the memorandum with representatives of the United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Malaysia. The Government have also raised the memorandum with EU member states and the Commission at a recent European Union workshop on Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade. The European Commission has recently committed to produce an Action Plan on illegal logging and associated trade by the end of this year.

  The Government also plans to raise the memorandum with both timber producing and timber consuming countries at the next Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Bali, 27 May to 7 June) and with African countries at the next African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (Brazzaville in June) as a possible model for taking forward actions on combating illegal logging on a bilateral basis in support of existing international commitments, for example under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Forum on Forests.

  Veterinary Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the
  181W
  proportion of her departmental budget allocated to the state veterinary service broken down by main category of expenditure, in each of the last 10 years. [54226]

  Year

  Administration costs (£ million)

  Programme costs (£ million)

  Capital (£ million)

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  Total budget (%)

  1995–96

  36.7

  24.3

  0.3

  61.3

  6.6

  1996–97

  32.0

  35.1

  0.5

  67.6

  6.0

  1997–98

  33.8

  33.6

  0.2

  67.7

  7.2

  1998–99

  34.2

  47.0

  1.0

  82.3

  8.8

  1999–2000

  35.5

  37.2

  1.7

  74.3

  7.6

  2000–01

  41.1

  52.7

  1.1

  94.9

  9.1

  2001–02

  45.6

  48.4

  1.0

  95.0

  1.7

  Notes:

  1. The expenditure figures reflect the outturns at 31 March each year;

  2. Figures for 1992–93 to 1994–95 are not readily to hand and constructing them would involve disproportionate cost;

  3. Budgets can fluctuate because of disease outbreaks in certain years (eg foot and mouth) and because of departmental structural changes (eg creation of DEFRA in 2001–02).

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 162W, on the veterinary service, how many private veterinary surgeons have (a) applied, (b) received temporary appointments and (c) received permanent appointments as local veterinary inspectors broken down by region in each of the last 10 years. [56883]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Information regarding the number of private veterinary surgeons who (a) have applied, and (b) received temporary appointments as local veterinary inspectors (LVIs) broken down by region in each of the last ten years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Numbers of private veterinary surgeons who received new permanent appointments as LVIs broken down by region in each of the last ten years is set out in the table.

  Year

  North

  East

  West

  Scotland

  Wales

  1992

  29

  61

  11

  30

  11

  1993

  1,027

  1,383

  1,006

  214

  256

  1994

  190

  165

  98

  56

  47

  1995

  152

  147

  111

  50

  84

  1996

  128

  156

  97

  41

  49

  1997

  188

  176

  108

  63

  53

  1998

  160

  195

  112

  52

  42

  1999

  222

  265

  119

  50

  50

  2000

  195

  298

  130

  52

  73

  2001

  185

  205

  109

  49

  56

  Note:

  Total LVIs permanently appointed on 17 May 2002 are 7,506.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the state veterinary service in Scotland. [56325]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The State veterinary service is a GB body responsible to all GB Agriculture Ministers. Were any changes to the existing arrangements as they apply to Scotland to be considered, then these would be developed fully with the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the future of the state veterinary service in Scotland. [56324]
  182W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The proportion of budget allocated to the state veterinary service has been:

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: None.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on agricultural structures and rural development 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. [55661]

  Alun Michael
  The European Union's Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development (STAR) covers issues regarding the implementation of the Rural Development Regulation and the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD; an instrument for support of rural development in pre-accession countries). The committee functions as an advisory or "management comitology committee" according to the issue before it.

  The committee normally meets monthly and has met 13 times in the last 12 months.

  The UK representation at the committee is provided by DEFRA. The Commission pays transport costs for two delegates attending each meeting. Our costs amount to approximately 4,000 (£2,500) per annum.

  Current issues under consideration at the committee are:

  (a)Annual Modifications to country and regional rural development programmes,

  (b)Implementation of SAPARD,

  (c)Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes.

  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".

  183W
  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 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the implementation of the directive on the reduction of the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels 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. [56814]

  Mr. Meacher
  The role of the Advisory Committee is to assist the Commission with matters on which it is required to take a decision under the provisions of the directive such as considering requests from member states for derogations and on the format of reports. There was one meeting of the Committee over the last 12 months at which the UK was represented by an official from my Department at a travel and subsistence cost of about £150. That meeting considered a request from Greece for a derogation; there are no other matters currently under consideration. The annual cost of the work includes the time taken to prepare for and attend meetings and the travel and subsistence costs incurred. Specific information is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  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 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of legislation on ambient air quality assessment and management 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. [56810]

  Mr. Meacher
  The role of the Committee is to decide on amendments to technical measures described in the directive and to assist the Commission in preparing detailed instructions on the forwarding of information. There have been no meetings of the Committee over the 184W
  last 12 months. The UK would usually be represented by an official from my Department. The annual cost of the work includes the time taken to prepare for and attend meetings and the travel and subsistence costs incurred. Specific information is not available without incurring disproportionate cost. There are no matters currently under consideration.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of the directive on bathing water is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months is; 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. [56797]

  Mr. Morley
  The Committee for the adaptation to the technical progress on the quality of bathing water is a regulatory committee provided for under Article 10 of the EC bathing water directive.

  The Committee has met twice over the last 12 months with the UK incurring £2,150 in annual costs. The UK can be represented by up to four policy officials.

  The Committee has recently been considering a revised bathing water policy and reporting arrangements under the existing bathing water directive.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the protection of the environment and in particular of the soil when sewage sludge is used in agriculture 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. [56839]

  Mr. Meacher
  Article 14 of Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, provides for the establishment of a committee to adapt the Directive to technical or scientific progress.

  This committee has not met in the last twelve months and has no items currently under consideration. If it were to meet, costs to the public purse would be limited to the cost of any additional work incurred in contributing to its considerations and any travel and subsistence expenses of officials representing the United Kingdom not met by the Commission.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the committee for the adaptation to technical progress of the Directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide 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. [56812]
  185W
  Mr. Meacher
  This part of Directive 85/203/EEC on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide has been repealed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on a limit value for lead in the air 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. [56813]

  Mr. Meacher
  This part of Directive 82/884/EEC on a limit value for lead in the air has been repealed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the monitoring mechanism of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the Community 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. [56729]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Committee on the monitoring mechanism of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the Community was established by Council Decision 93/389/EEC of 24 June 1993 (as amended by Council Decision 1999/296/EC of 26 April 1999). The monitoring mechanism is an instrument to assess accurately and regularly the extent of progress being made towards the Community's commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol.

  The Committee has met twice in the last 12 months. The UK is usually represented by two officials from my Department. The costs incurred by the Department in contributing to the Committee's work are largely travel and subsistence costs of about £650 per meeting, incurred in attending the one day meetings in Brussels, and staff costs of about £700 per meeting. In addition to the time spent at the meetings themselves, officials spend a similar amount of time preparing for and reporting back on the meetings.

  Items currently being considered by the Committee include submissions to the UNFCCC on the EU greenhouse gas emissions inventory and a possible revision to the monitoring mechanism decision in the light of the Marrakech Accords.

  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 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the
  186W
  Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 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. [56801]

  Mr. Meacher
  The mandate of the EC Nitrates Regulatory Committee is to assist the European Commission in responding to scientific and technical progress relevant to the requirements of the Nitrates Directive.

  The Committee meets twice a year.

  Four representatives are permitted from each member state. The Commission pays for one representative to attend from each member state. Additional experts from the UK cost between £300 and £400 per representative per meeting.

  Items under consideration for the next meeting include a technical discussion on manure spreading on grassland, discussion of guidelines for monitoring groundwaters for high nitrate concentrations and discussion of criteria used to identify eutrophic waters. The Committee has also recently heard and voted on derogation requests from member states and discussed comparisons of implementation and Action Programme measures between member states.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates 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. [56811]

  Mr. Meacher
  This part of directive 80/779/EEC on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particles has been repealed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee for implementation of the Directive on the marketing of biocidal products 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. [56822]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Standing Committee on Biocidal Products (SCBP) has several functions specified in Directive 98/8/EC, including delivering opinions to the Commission on

  187W
  adoption of regulations governing the review of active substances; the inclusion of active substances in Annex I of the Directive; the mutual recognition of biocidal products across member states; the temporary authorisation of products in emergency situations; common conditions and minimum data requirements for authorisations for research and development purposes; and public disclosure and confidentiality of information. The first meeting of the SCBP took place on 18 May 2000. This has been its only meeting to date. There are no items currently under consideration by the SCBP. The UK representation at such meetings would depend on the subject(s) under consideration, and would normally consist of officials of the Health and Safety Executive. The draft rules prescribe that the Commission will cover the expenses of one representative per member state, and so the cost to UK public funds is minimal.

  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 1994/468/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 the House on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on training in architecture 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. [56761]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate of the Advisory Committee on Training and Education in the Field of Architecture (ACETA) is to help to ensure a comparably high standard of education and training for architects throughout the Community and permit free movement of people and provision of services as Single Market objectives. It has met once in the last 12 months.

  The UK Delegation consists of one Government official from my Department, the chief executive of the Architects Registration Board, two representatives from the architectural profession, and two representatives from schools of architecture. The costs for the attendance by the Government official to the one day meeting in Brussels are approximately £500. The Committee has recently considered the compliance of university courses on architecture in member states with Directive 85/384/EEC, and in particular a number of Spanish diplomas.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line
  188W
  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 has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Seveso II) 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. [56808]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply. The European Commission has established a Committee of Competent Authorities (CCA) for the Seveso Directive under article 19 of the Directive.

  The mandate of the CCA is to promote coherent implementation and consistent application of the provision of the Directive throughout the Community. This necessitates close co-operation of the competent authorities of all member states and the European Commission. the CCA consists of representatives of the member states and the Commission services. It discusses issues concerning the implementation of the Seveso II Directive.

  The committee meets twice a year and is attended on behalf of the UK by representatives of the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Where appropriate officials from other relevant Departments also attend. It is estimated that the annual cost to public funds in the UK is approximately £3,000.

  Recent meetings of the CCA have considered the role of the European Commission's major accident hazards bureau, implementation issues of the Seveso Directive in member states, land use planning issues around major hazard installations and relevant research. The comitology committee provided for by Article 22 of the Seveso Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances has not met over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Community framework for co-cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution 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. [56809]
  189W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Management Committee on Marine Pollution is established under Decision No. 2850/2000/EC of 20/12/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council setting up a community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution. This framework has been established for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2006. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission.

  The aim of the committee is to:

  a) support and supplement member states' efforts;

  b) contribute to improving the capabilities of the member states for response in case of incidents;

  c) strengthen the conditions for and facilitate efficient mutual assistance and co-operation;

  d) promote co-operation among member states in order to provide for compensation for damage in accordance with the polluter-pays principle.

  The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £1,500. The committee is presently considering training courses in oil pollution for member states.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress and for the implementation of the Directive on contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms 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. [56820]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee for adaptation to technical progress and implementation of the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) Directive (90/219/EEC as amended by 98/81/EC) is mandated to consider information on the
  techniques and methods of genetic modification excluded from the Directive;
  elements to be considered and procedures to be followed in the assessment of the harmful effects of GMMs;
  containment and other protective measures required; requirements for notification to the Competent Authorities on premises and activities where GMMs are being used; and
  the types of GMMs considered to be safe to human health and the environment.
  190W
  This committee consists of representatives from all member states and the European Commission. Officials from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) attend on behalf of the UK. This committee meets on an ad hoc basis. There have been no meetings in the last year, and no meetings are timetabled for the immediate future. Considerable effort has already taken place in developing the technical information underpinning this Directive. The secretariat to the committee would be provided by the European Commission, which provides interpreting services etc. The European Commission would also pay the travel expenses of the UK representatives. Any potential costs to UK public funds would therefore consist largely of the accommodation costs for the staff attending meetings and their salary costs.

  If any changes to the Directive were proposed, HSE would seek advice from the Health and Safety Commission's tripartite Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM). Agendas and papers for ACGM meetings are fully available to the public.

  Also, 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 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Directive relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars 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. [56816]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate of the committee is set out in Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC which deals with the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect to the marketing of new passenger cars. The function of the committee is to deliver prompt adjustment of the detailed requirements of the Annexes to the Directive regarding the format of consumer information labels and guides, and the inclusion of fuel economy and CO2 data in advertising.

  The committee has not met since the adoption of this Directive, and therefore there has, so far, been no cost to public funds. The annual cost of the committee to public funds would be restricted to staff time, their travel and

  191W
  subsistence costs. UK representation would normally be by officials of the Department's Vehicle Standards and Engineering Division.

  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 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Fluorocarbon
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to prohibit the use of partly and fully fluorinated hydrocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride in commercial and industrial processes and consumer products; and if she will make a statement. [56041]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The UK Climate Change Programme published in November 2000 set out our position on hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. Currently, there are no plans to prohibit the general use of fluorinated gases.

  Under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), the Environment Council, at its meeting of 12 December 2001, "Welcomed the intention of the (European) Commission, as announced in the ECCP Communication, to make a proposal for a Framework Directive on fluorinated gases, including containment of emissions from stationary and mobile sources, monitoring of quantities of fluorinated gases being placed on the market as well as marketing and use restrictions, where appropriate, for relevant applications where viable alternatives are available and if improvement of containment is not feasible, taking into account existing voluntary initiatives by some fluorinated gases industry sectors, where the development of alternatives is still ongoing."

  Composting Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list new licences granted for the composting of waste in the last 12 months. [56034]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: In England and Wales, the Environment Agency issued 7 new waste management licences to composting installations between November 2000 and November
  192W
  2001. The installations were located in Hertfordshire, Lancashire (2), Leicestershire, Somerset, Surrey and the West Midlands. There are 67 licensed composting sites in total, with over 600 smaller installations registered as exemptions. Information on licensed composting installations will shortly be updated to 1 April 2002. Household composting is excluded from any licensing requirement.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the draft EU Regulation on Animal By-Products will come into force; and if she has given consideration to the early implementation of those parts of the draft regulation which relate to composting. [56035]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The draft Animal By-Products Regulation has yet to be adopted and it is not clear when it will come into force. However, we expect it to apply in member states in the first half of 2003. We have commissioned a risk assessment on the risks to public, animal and plant health from the land spreading of composted catering waste and animal by-products. In the light of that assessment we will review our current legislation and consider whether this should be amended in advance of the EU Regulation coming into force.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to facilitate the granting of composting licences. [56037]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: When an establishment chooses to apply to the Environment Agency for a composting site license the agency has a series of application and working plan guidance notes to assist in understanding the licensing process. The agency has also issued guidance and risk assessment procedures to help those operating smaller establishments who wish to register exemptions. In addition, the agency recently issued a standard waste management licence pack to those applicants with a low risk impact green waste composting proposal. This allows the use of a simplified application process that results in a speedier processing of the licence application. Finally, the agency has consulted on technical guidance for composting that will be published later this year.

  Livestock Premiums
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are making claims for(a) sheep and (b) cattle premiums, by regional service centre, broken down by claims for (i) minimum threshold number, (ii) minimum threshold number to 10 animals and (iii) minimum threshold number to 20 animals. [56012]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The number of claims received broken down by regional service centre is set out in the table. Cattle premiums are not subject to minimum threshold numbers. For sheep the minimum threshold number is 10 animals.
  193W

  Latest available number of claims by administrative region

  Sheep premiums

  Cattle premiums

  Number of claims for SAPS (2002)

  Number of claims for EPS (2001)

  Number of claims for SPS (2001)

  RPA site

  10 animals

  11–20 animals

  Number of claims for BSPS (2001)

  Simplified

  Standard

  Adult

  Veal

  Number of claims for SCPS (2001)

  Bristol

  42

  225

  3,771

  1,178

  1,771

  —

  —

  1,654

  Cambridge

  30

  144

  1,758

  481

  681

  1,747

  4

  1,115

  Carlisle

  32

  168

  4,796

  2,073

  2,501

  6,404

  295

  2,514

  Crewe

  41

  210

  3,852

  1,119

  1,515

  3,014

  247

  1,827

  Exeter

  38

  219

  6,152

  1,673

  3,869

  9,538

  104

  3,090

  Northallerton

  41

  229

  4,989

  1,833

  1,912

  6,303

  18

  2,893

  Nottingham

  42

  167

  3,592

  961

  1,634

  3,555

  57

  2,019

  Reading

  49

  257

  3,014

  1,233

  1,599

  905

  5

  1,917

  Worcester

  52

  261

  2,935

  902

  1,511

  1,380

  6

  1,669

  Total

  367

  1,880

  34,859

  11,453

  16,993

  32,846

  736

  18,698

  Water Quality
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the level of nitrates were in rivers in each year since 1990, broken down by(a) region and (b) river; and if she will make a statement; [56554]

  (2) what assessment has been made by her Department of nitrate levels in rivers; and if she will make a statement. [56556]

  Mr. Meacher
  In England and Wales the Environment Agency's general quality assessment (GQA) scheme is used to classify water quality in rivers and canals. Figures showing changes in quality against a baseline of 1990 are published each year by the Environment Agency. Results for Scotland are collected by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and in Northern Ireland by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Chemical quality is assessed on the basis of biochemical oxygen demand and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and ammonia. Stretches of rivers and canals are classed as good, fair, poor or bad based on different degrees of chemical quality.

  Phosphates and nitrates are measured to determine the average concentrations of nutrients in rivers. Each monitored river stretch is assigned one of six grades from 1 (very low) to 6 (excessively high for phosphate, very high for nitrate). The grade assigned to the water is based on three years of sampling.

  Since the Environment Agency monitors water quality at about 7,000 sites representing 40,000 km of rivers and canals in England and Wales it would be impractical to list the results in the detail requested. However, they can be supplied electronically on application to the Environment Agency. In addition the Environment Agency website has a section called "What's in your backyard" which enables anyone with an interest in a particular river to obtain all available monitoring results for the particular stretch from 1990 to 2000. The website address is www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

  The following table summarises the results of assessments since 1990.

  percentage length

  GQA: nutrient status—nitrate

  1995

  2000

  1

  17.6

  15.7

  2

  14.7

  12.6

  3

  19.7

  21.1

  194W

  percentage length

  GQA: nutrient status—nitrate

  1995

  2000

  4

  17.7

  18.8

  5

  15.1

  15.9

  6

  15.2

  15.8

  High

  30.3

  31.7

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on(a) the levels of phosphorous in and (b) the quality of rivers in each year since 1990; if she will break the information down (i) by region and (ii) by river; and if she will make a statement; [56559]

  (2) what assessment has been made by her Department of levels of phosphorous in rivers; and if she will make a statement. [56560]

  Mr. Meacher
  In England and Wales the Environment Agency's general quality assessment (GQA) scheme is used to classify water quality in rivers and canals. Figures showing changes in quality against a baseline of 1990 are published each year by the Environment Agency. Results for Scotland are collected by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and in Northern Ireland by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Chemical quality is assessed on the basis of biochemical oxygen demand and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and ammonia. Stretches of rivers and canals are classed as good, fair, poor or bad based on different degrees of chemical quality.

  Phosphates and nitrates are measured to determine the average concentrations of nutrients in rivers. Each monitored river stretch is assigned one of six grades from 1 (very low) to 6 (excessively high for phosphate, very high for nitrate). The grade assigned to the water is based on three years of sampling.

  Since the Environment Agency monitors water quality at about 7,000 sites representing 40,000 km of rivers and canals in England and Wales it would be impractical to list the results in the detail requested. However, they can be supplied electronically on application to the Environment Agency. In addition the Environment Agency website has a section called "What's in your backyard" which enables anyone with an interest in a particular river to obtain all available monitoring results for the particular stretch from 1990 to 2000. The website address is www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

  195W
  The following table summarises the results of assessments since 1990.

  percentage length

  GQA: nutrient status—phosphate

  1990

  1995

  2000

  1

  8.0

  14.8

  14.0

  2

  17.7

  22.7

  21.4

  3

  10.3

  11.0

  10.1

  4

  13.1

  13.3

  15.1

  5

  28.0

  27.4

  28.9

  6

  22.9

  10.9

  10.6

  High

  64.0

  51.6

  54.5

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment(a) has been and (b) is being made of the impact of the water framework directive and what measures will be required as a result; and if she will make a statement. [56553]

  Mr. Meacher
  An assessment of the costs and benefits of implementing the directive was set out in the first consultation paper issued jointly by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales in March 2001. This partial regulatory impact assessment estimated total costs for England and Wales in the range of £2 billion to £9.2 billion: benefits in the range of £1.6 billion to £6.2 billion. A copy of the paper is in the House Library.

  We will consult on measures necessary under the directive in a second consultation paper this year.

  GQA: Summary results for England and Wales

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  Good or Fair

  Poor or Bad

  GQA: chemistry quality (percentage length)

  1990

  17.6

  30.2

  23.2

  14.0

  12.7

  2.3

  84.9

  15.1

  1995

  26.9

  32.7

  21.0

  10.3

  8.1

  1.0

  91.0

  9.0

  1996

  27.2

  31.2

  21.3

  10.4

  8.8

  1.0

  90.2

  9.8

  1997

  26.3

  30.5

  21.4

  10.8

  9.9

  1.0

  89.0

  11.0

  1998

  27.6

  31.5

  20.2

  10.7

  9.3

  0.7

  90.0

  10.0

  1999

  29.1

  34.2

  19.6

  9.2

  7.5

  0.6

  91.9

  8.1

  2000

  31.9

  35.8

  18.9

  7.7

  5.4

  0.4

  94.2

  5.8

  GQA: biological quality (percentage length)

  1990

  24.0

  31.6

  21.6

  9.8

  7.3

  5.7

  87.0

  13.0

  1995

  34.6

  31.6

  18.4

  8.1

  5.4

  1.9

  92.6

  7.4

  2000

  34.6

  32.3

  19.8

  7.6

  4.8

  0.9

  94.3

  5.7

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the speech she made to Water UK on 2 May on the Water Framework Directive; and if she will make a statement. [56548]

  Mr. Meacher
  A copy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech to Water UK was placed in the Library today. During her speech my right hon. Friend announced the Government's response to the consultation on the draft Water Bill, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 2 May.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what European
  196W
  An updated regulatory impact assessment will form part of a third consultation paper on implementation of the directive in England and Wales, planned for 2003.

  Implementation of the directive in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and with respect to the devolved functions in Wales, are matters for the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made by her Department of the quality of rivers; and if she will make a statement. [56557]

  Mr. Meacher
  In England and Wales the Environment Agency's General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme is used to classify water quality in rivers and canals. Figures showing changes in quality against a baseline of 1990 are published each year by the Environment Agency. Results for Scotland are collected by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and in Northern Ireland by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  The GQA also reports on the aesthetic quality of rivers. This includes: litter on the banks and in the river; sewage derived waste such as sanitary towels and cotton buds; the colour and smell of the water; oil, scum, foam, sewage fungus and ochreous deposits; and dog fouling.

  Biological quality is assessed by comparing the populations of macroinvertebrates found in samples taken twice a year at each sampling site, with the population that would normally be found in unpolluted waters with the same physical characteristics. Stretches of rivers and canals are classed as very good, good, fairly good, fair, poor or bad.

  Directives relate to levels of nitrates in groundwater; what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are planned to meet the deadlines of such Directives; and if she will make a statement. [56558]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Nitrates Directive and Water Framework Directive both relate in part to levels of nitrate in groundwater.

  The Nitrates Directive aims to protect waters from nitrate pollution from agricultural land. It requires identification of groundwaters that contain, or could contain if preventative action is not taken, more than 50mg/l nitrates. In 1996, England designated 59 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) specifically for the protection

  197W
  of groundwaters. Since 1998, farmers within NVZs have been required to apply Action Programme measures to limit organic manure and inorganic nitrogen fertiliser use.

  A European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in 2000 held that the UK had failed to designate sufficient NVZs for the protection of all waters. A recent consultation outlined two options for implementing the Nitrates Directive, both of which would extend the protection of groundwater in England. We are currently carefully considering the responses made to this consultation and will announce a decision in due course.

  In the future, the Water Framework Directive will add further force to this protection because it requires that member states aim to achieve good groundwater status for all bodies of groundwater within 15 years of the Directive coming into force. The Commission is currently developing specific measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution, which will complement the provisions of existing Directives.

  Recycling
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what role recycling credits have in ensuring businesses meet recycling targets; what assessment her Department has made of their impact on local authorities, businesses and charitable organisations; and if she will make a statement; [56562]

  (2) what representations her Department has received from (a) local authorities, (b) the Association of Charity Shops and (c) businesses; and what discussions it has had with other organisations regarding the role and impact of recycling credits in meeting recycling targets; and if she will make a statement. [56561]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 waste disposal authorities are required to pay waste collection authorities recycling credits for all waste which the latter recycle. The value of the recycling credit should be equal to the saving the disposal authority makes through not having to dispose of the recycled material.

  Local authorities have the option (but not a duty) to pay recycling credits to third parties (businesses, charities and community groups) collecting waste for recycling. Practice among local authorities varies, but I am aware that a number have a policy of not paying recycling credits to businesses.

  I have had no specific representations from, or discussions with, the groups mentioned on the issue of recycling credits, nor has my Department carried out an assessment of their impact on them. However, "Waste Strategy 2000" recognised that the current scheme in England and Wales might in some cases work against the closer working relationships between collection and disposal authorities and other interested parties which the national strategy advocates. The Government are committed to reviewing the recycling credits scheme to see whether incentives for the promotion of recycling can be improved. In so doing we will consult fully with relevant parties, including those listed.

  Water Industry
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes she proposes to the regulation of the water industry; if her preparatory work included consideration of their effect on sustainable development; and if she will make a statement. [56549]

  Mr. Meacher
  The main changes proposed to the regulation of the water industry are contained in the draft Water Bill, which has sustainability as a central theme. The Government response to the consultation was published on 2 May and the Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  The Water Bill contains changes to the water abstraction authorisation system to ensure that water is used sustainably. It also aims to put consumers at the heart of regulation of the water industry, through mechanisms such as the creation of an independent Consumer Council for Water and requiring companies to make clear any links between directors' pay and company performance. The Bill also includes proposals to give the Director General of Water Services a specific sustainable development duty.

  Any future regulatory measures that are needed to ensure compliance with obligations in new European Community water quality legislation will be fully consulted on with the water industry and other stakeholders.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations(a) have been undertaken and (b) are planned by her Department relating to the water industry; and if she will make a statement. [56550]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since May 2001 there have been the following formal consultations relating specifically to the water industry:How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive? (February 2002)
  Draft Guidance on the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (March 2002)
  Water Grid PPP: Removal of Restrictions on British Waterways Statutory Powers (May 2002).
  The Department also intends over the coming months to undertake further formal consultations on the following subjects:
  competition in the Water Industry
  revisions to the Vulnerable Groups Scheme
  implementation of the Water Framework Directive
  requirements in Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive regarding the Priority List daughter directives
  implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in respect of certain water resource projects
  water industry and environment policy document.
  Aside from formal consultations, Ministers and officials from DEFRA have frequent contact and discussions with a wide range of stakeholders in the water industry.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of sick leave were taken in her Department last year; how
  199W
  many related to employees suffering (a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to her Department. [56486]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Records are not yet available for the number of days sickness absence in 2001. In 2000, the latest year for which records are available, an average of 9 days per staff year were taken by employees in what was then the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including its agencies. These figures are published in the Cabinet Office annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", copies of which are placed in House Libraries.

  The report does not separately identify stress and other mental health related absences, and the Department is able to obtain these figures and put a cost to these cases only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department is committed to meeting its targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence, which are contained in the published Service Delivery Agreement. The Department is also committed to reducing the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill health arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  EU Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions in the last six months(a) she and (b) her officials have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56886]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet with our Italian counterparts at meetings of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment Councils. Similarly, my officials have regular contacts with their Italian counterparts at meetings in Brussels. Two of my senior officials travelled to Rome earlier this month for a meeting to discuss CAP reform and the forthcoming mid-term review of Agenda 2000.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to discuss reform of the Common Agricultural Policy with her French counterpart; and if she will make a statement. [56972]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to her new French counterpart congratulating him on his appointment and suggesting an early meeting to discuss this and other key issues. She also looks forward to meeting him in the Agriculture Council on 27 May.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Spanish presidency regarding the agenda for her meeting with her EU counterparts in Mallorca; and if she will make a statement. [56975]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: No DEFRA Ministers, including myself, have had discussions or meetings with the presidency regarding the informal meeting of Environment Ministers on 24–26 May in Mallorca. The presidency decides the topic for informal ministerial meetings and has chosen soil protection. Its paper "Policy for the integrated protection of soil quality" will steer the discussion, but this has yet to emerge.
  200W
  Although my officials have not had a meeting with the presidency to discuss the agenda for the informal meeting of Ministers, they met on 4 April to discuss the Thematic Strategy for Soil. This will be an output of the sixth Environmental Action Programme, which is expected to be adopted shortly.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to her Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south-east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56508]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The Department has only been in existence since June 2001, so does not have such historical information. Constructing it retrospectively would involve disproportionate cost.

  Imported Meat
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what imports of meat there were in the last 12 months into the United Kingdom from nations which have not adopted equivalent legislative controls to those banning the use of certain growth promoters within the European Union; and what controls are in place to prevent the importation of such meat. [56597]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: In accordance with harmonised Community legislation, the importation into the EU of fresh meat derived from animals which have been treated with certain substances, including hormonal growth promoters, is not permitted.

  All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks, which may include sampling. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many claims for work-related illness were settled by her Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56078]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The most recent statistics available are for the year 2000 and relate to the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and its agencies; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was not created until June 2001.

  Records show that in the core Department, there was one case where compensation was awarded for work-related illness, at a cost of £2,000. There were no cases in the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) agencies. There was one case in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

  201W
  Letter from Professor Steven Edwards to Mr. Michael Clapham, dated May 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many claims for work-related illness were settled by her Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation.
  The VLA is committed to providing a safe and healthy working environment for staff, is proactive in monitoring procedures and ensures that comprehensive advice and guidance is available to all staff and managers.
  VLA is also committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally to work related injuries and illness arising from the Government Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.
  No claims for work-related illness were settled in 2000.
  One claim for a work-related accident was settled in 2000. The total cost of this compensation case was £56,073.09—broken down as follows:

  £

  Settlement

  30,000.00

  Costs

  26,000.00

  Additional travel costs and interest

  73.09

  Letter from Professor Mike Roberts to Mr. Michael Clapham, dated 21 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning how many claims for work-related illness were settled in the last year for which records are available, and what the cost was in compensation.
  There were no claims for work-related illness at CSL in the last year.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in her Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56080]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: In 2000, the latest year for which records are available, an average of nine days per staff year were taken by employees in what was then the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including its agencies. These figures are published in the Cabinet Office annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", copies of which are placed in House Libraries.

  The Department does not hold figures on the proportion of these absences that were due to work-related illness or injury, or the cost of these absences, and these could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department is committed to meeting its targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence, which are contained in the published Service Delivery Agreement. The Department is also committed to reducing the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill health, in response to the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees of her Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56079]
  202W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Records are not maintained by the Department which enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work-related. The number of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) medical adviser for the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001, was 20. Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and laid before Parliament, and provide for an immediate payment of an enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill-health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure from the vote was £310 million in respect of all civil service cases for which an ill-health pension has been awarded. These cases number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formerly been ill-health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  This reply covers staff of the Intervention Board and the former MAFF and its agencies who joined DEFRA in June last year following Machinery of Government changes, but does not include the former DETR staff who are now part of DEFRA.

  New Forest National Park
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends to call a local inquiry to consider the Designation Order for a New Forest National Park. [58528]

  Margaret Beckett
  Under schedule 1 to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, an inquiry must be held into the Designation Order if a local authority has objected and the objection has not been withdrawn. Several local authorities have lodged objections, which are being maintained. A letter is being sent to all those who have made objections or representations, advising them that a local inquiry is to be held and what the scope of the inquiry will be. A copy of the letter is in the Library of the House. The inquiry is expected to start in October.

  Sewage Treatment
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to clarify the powers which local authorities have to act in respect of smell nuisance from sewage treatment works. [32065]

  Mr. Meacher
  Pursuant to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 749W, the information provided should be properly clarified. Local authorities are not able to use their powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as previous case law has deemed that public sewers and sewage treatment works cannot be considered "premises" within the context of that Act. My officials are exploring the available legislation and existing controls as a possible means to deal with odour nuisance from sewage treatment works in the future.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, how many specialist advisers have been employed since 1997 by each select committee; what was the duration of their contract and scale of remuneration; in each case, whether the post was openly advertised; what the total cost of special advisers was, broken down by committee; and if he will break down the numbers of special advisers by(a) sex and (b) ethnic origin. [57159]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Lists of specialist advisers appointed by each select committee in the last Parliament and their cost are contained in the Sessional Returns ordered to be printed by the House on 25 January 1999 (HC142), 16 December 1999 (HC1), 5 February 2001 (HC100) and 20 July 2001 (HC1). The equivalent information so far in the current Session is being assembled and will be placed in the Library.

  The arrangements for the selection of candidates are the responsibility of individual select committees, not of the House of Commons Commission. Committees normally appoint specialist advisers for a particular subject or a particular inquiry. Typically, an appointment remains valid until the end of a Parliament in case a committee returns to a subject. Specialist advisers are not House employees but are paid as contractors. Details of duration of their appointment and scale of remuneration are collated by each committee separately. Daily rates, which are currently under review, range up to £150. As specialist advisers are not employees of the House, we have no separate record by gender and ethnic origin.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her EU colleagues regarding the EU's response to the food shortages in Malawi. [56970]

  Clare Short
  My officials in Lilongwe are in regular contact with the two other member states represented in Malawi (Denmark and Germany) as well as the EC delegation. The Danes are withdrawing from Malawi and have not therefore been active in helping to provide food. Neither have the Germans (who argue that their contribution is through the EC).

  The EC have now agreed to purchase 40,000 tonnes of maize from the local market to replenish National Food Reserve Agency stocks. This will be held until the lean season (starting October) and then released for distribution to those in need. A further 10,000 tonnes will be purchased internationally. The EC are preparing a proposal seeking financial contributions from all member states to finance another 30,000 tonnes of maize to be procured internationally.

  Nepal
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what development programmes and financial support have been provided to Nepal in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [57178]

  Clare Short
  UK development assistance to Nepal in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  17,280

  1998–99

  16,627

  1999–2000

  15,989

  2000–01

  17,165

  2001–02

  20,400

  Note:

  The figure for 2001–02 is provisional

  This development assistance has been spent on programmes to:

  (i) Improve governance, through a programme to strengthen governance and build pressure for change, through support to implement effectively the Government's decentralisation programme, and for effective management of public finances.

  (ii) Enhance human development, through support for secondary education and community literacy, and through support for safer motherhood services, commodity support to the national TB programme and to family planning, and programme support to polio eradication in Nepal and to the national AIDS programme.

  (iii) Strengthen approaches to rural livelihoods including better physical access, through programmes to enhance rural access, agricultural productivity, community forestry management, by strengthening capacity to tackle deep-seated problems such as bonded labour, and through community-based and area-based poverty alleviation projects.

  The worsening conflict situation in Nepal has restricted some development activities, though work is continuing in many areas. Over the past six months my officials have been developing a number of short-term initiatives to deliver development benefits to people in conflict-affected areas.

  Illegal Logging
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support she gives to developing countries to help them combat illegal logging. [55292]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Worldwide we spend just under £20 million from DFID's country programme budgets on helping countries improve their forest governance and move towards more equitable and sustainable forest management. This strengthens the capacity of Governments, NGOs and local communities to enforce forest law.

  Roughly 5 per cent. of this support specifically targets better documentation and understanding of the problem of illegal logging, as well as the establishment of improved monitoring and transparency in countries.

  Over the past three years we have also contributed a total of about £450,000 from our central policy budget to supporting global dialogue and information exchange on the underlying causes of deforestation, some of which is caused by illegal logging, and helping countries come together to agree policy action.

  205W
  We are providing £300,000 to Global Forest Watch, which is based in the World Resources Institute. Last year we were active in sponsoring, jointly with the US State Department and the World Bank institute, a regional ministerial conference on forest law enforcement and governance in Indonesia, where the private sector, East Asia Governments and civil society came together to generate political will and agree policy action. We contributed £39,464 to the costs. We will jointly sponsor similar initiatives in Africa and Latin America over the coming two years.

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library the report from UNMAS on their programme of visits to sites where cluster bombs were dropped in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [57699]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: We understand from the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) that there is no specific report currently available on its programme of visits. Field survey data is currently being collected on behalf of UNMAS as access becomes available. This information is available to humanitarian demining personnel in Afghanistan on the Mine Action Centre for Afghanistan (MACA) database.

  Middle East
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the UK contribution to European Union and World Bank activities in Israel has been for each of the past 10 years(a) by monetary value, (b) in terms of percentage of activity total and (c) in terms of percentage of her Department's annual spending total; and if she will make a statement. [58294]

  Clare Short
  Israel's level of economic development is relatively high. Israel is not therefore a recipient of UK, EC or World Bank development assistance.

WALES

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 10 April,Official Report, column 6W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of his Department since June 1997 but are not included in the Cabinet Office's annual report 'Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01'. [57035]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into existence on 1 July 1999. It has not had any assistance from unpaid advisers.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [54706]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No losses have been identified for these years.

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which his Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45443]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has very few executive functions and so has published no supplementary material. It is producing a Publication Scheme under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is taking to increase the supply of affordable housing in London. [55541]

  Ms Keeble
  Increasing the supply of affordable housing is a key priority of the Government, and the problem in London is of particular concern.

  The Government has recently announced that the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) allocation for London will be £545 million. This includes an additional £95 million which will fund an extra 1,363 units. London will also receive £146 million of the Starter Home Initiative funding, which will help 4,600 of London's key workers.

  Abandoned Properties
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to help local authorities deal with privately owned abandoned properties. [55536]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government are taking action to deal with empty and abandoned properties in areas of both high and low demand. The measures in place, which are set out in detail in our recent response to the Select Committee report on empty homes, include: funding the Empty Homes Agency to help local authorities bring empty properties back into use; reforming private sector renewal legislation; and introducing pathfinder projects, backed by £25 million of investment, to tackle low demand where the problem is most acute.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received concerning the new arrangements for registration of interests by parish councillors. [55537]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has had from parish councils about the introduction of the new code of conduct. [55554]
  207W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Since the New Year, there have been 268 representations received by my Department about the model code of conduct for parishes.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures the Government are undertaking to encourage public participation in parish councils. [57328]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government are encouraging public engagement with, and participation in local democracy across, all tiers of local government, including parish councils.

  The consultation paper on Quality Parish and Town councils took forward a key aim of the rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the Future—a Fair Deal for Rural England", that is to help parish councils develop a new role in giving the communities they serve the opportunity to help shape their future. In order to gain quality status, we are proposing that parish councils will need to pass six tests, for instance to show that their seats have been filled by members who have been democratically elected and that they are holding a minimum number of open council meetings.

  The Government are also providing £5 million to help 1,000 rural communities develop town or village plans that will set out the facilities and services they need.

  Rail Services, Hassocks
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in his negotiations with the train operating companies on railway services to Hassocks, West Sussex. [55538]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is currently negotiating the new South Central franchise agreement and hopes to reach a conclusion to these negotiations by September 2002.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what weighting factors will be given to poverty and health factors in the new local government financing system. [55539]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are working to develop options for a fairer and more intelligible grant distribution system. We will consult on options over the summer and will consider the detailed responses when we come to take decisions.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress is being made towards replacing the Standard Spending Assessment. [55550]

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

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met representatives of the F40 group of authorities to discuss the grant distribution system for 2003–04. [55566]
  208W
  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the F40 group of authorities on Tuesday 14 May 2002 to discuss this issue.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform the uniform business rate. [55540]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Our proposals for business rates in England are set out in the Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership Quality Public Services", published on 11 December. It includes among other proposals our new schemes for rate relief for small businesses and Business Improvement Districts.

  Regional Planning Authorities
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the role of regional planning authorities. [55542]

  Ms Keeble
  We propose to strengthen regional planning by replacing Regional Planning Guidance with Regional Spatial Strategies. These would have statutory status and focus on strategic issues. These will be more fully integrated with other regional strategies and have an important sub-regional dimension.

  Downing Street Transport Seminar
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to what extent the seminar in No. 10 Downing Street chaired by Ms C. Booth QC in February has assisted in the formulation of transport policy; and if he will make a statement. [55543]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Downing Street lectures are not policy-making seminars, and Mrs. Blair does not chair them. I attended the lecture given by Jeremy Acklam (Smart Economy, Smart Transport) and welcomed his thoughts on the potential gains from better transport information and technology.

  For general information on the lectures, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 15 May 2002, Official Report, column 712–15W.

  Regional Airports (Rail Links)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve rail links to regional airports. [55546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is working with a number of airport operators, and in the case of Glasgow and Edinburgh airports alongside the Scottish Executive, in the development of proposals to improve rail links to regional airports.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the financing of regional assemblies. [55548]
  209W
  Dr. Whitehead
  Our policy on the financing of regional assemblies was set out in chapter 5 of our White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", which was published on Thursday 9 May 2002.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the introduction of regional assemblies. [55553]

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on regional assemblies. [55557]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government's policy on establishing elected assemblies in the English regions was set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511), which was published on 9 May.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the role of regional assemblies in respect of development policies. [55562]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Our policy is set out in Chapters 2 and 4 of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", which was published on 9 May.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates he has made of the cost of introducing regional government in England; and if he will make a statement. [55556]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The cost of establishing elected regional assemblies was discussed in paragraphs 5.12 to 5.16 of our White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, published on 9 May.

  Light Railway Systems
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to fund the installation of tram and light railway systems in smaller towns. [55549]

  Ms Keeble
  As I explained to the hon. Member at our meeting on 1 May, our ten-year plan reflects our commitment to light rail in major cities. Whether light rail offers the most appropriate and cost-effective response to transport needs in other circumstances is a matter, in the first instance, for the local authorities concerned to consider in formulating and reviewing their local transport plans. Thereafter, any light rail scheme or other major transport project would need to undergo rigorous appraisal and examination under any relevant statutory procedures before funding approval could be considered.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to regenerate areas of deprivation. [55551]

  Ms Keeble
  We are continuing to tackle deprivation. The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal has gathered widespread acceptance from all key stakeholders. Even though the strategy is a long-term initiative, we are already beginning to see early wins for 210W
  our poorest communities through programmes such as Neighbourhood Wardens, Street Wardens and the New Deal for Communities.

  Aviation Industry
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on projected growth in passenger and flight numbers in the aviation industry over the next 10 years. [55552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's latest air traffic forecasts for the UK published in 2000 show the total passenger demand at UK airports increasing by 6 per cent. a year from 160 million passengers in 1998 to 276 million in 2010. The Department does not make forecasts of the number of flights.

  Planning Reform
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to introduce legislation to reform the planning process. [55555]

  Ms Keeble
  Following consideration of the responses to the Green Paper consultation we would hope to press ahead as soon as possible with those reforms requiring legislation, subject to parliamentary time being available.

  Children's Play Facilities
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has for improving children's play facilities in towns and cities. [55558]

  Ms Keeble
  The Urban Green Spaces Taskforce, which was set up in January 2001 to provide advice on policies for improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces, published its final report: Green Spaces, Better Places on Tuesday 7 May 2002. We will respond to the conclusions and recommendations of this report in a policy statement later this summer.

  Local Authority Housing Stock Transfers
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been set aside for debt write-off connected to large scale transfers of council housing stock(a) in respect of properties already transferred and (b) to cover planned transfers. [55559]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on Friday 12 April 2002,Official Report, column 628W.

  Public Transport (Heathrow)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his assessment is of the impact Terminal 5's extra passengers will have on M4 traffic to the west of Heathrow; and how he intends to improve public transport to Heathrow from the west. [55560]
  211W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Public transport access and impact on the road network were considered at length during the Terminal 5 inquiry. In approving Terminal 5, the Secretary of State decided that questions about widening the M4 in the Heathrow area and improving Junctions 3 and 4 should be referred to the London to Reading Multi-Modal Study. The Strategic Rail Authority is actively working with BAA to develop proposals for rail service improvements including the possibility of new and improved rail links to the west.

  Housing Market Renewal Fund
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in setting up a housing market renewal fund. [55561]

  Ms Keeble
  We are making excellent progress in pursuing our objective to turn round the incidence of low demand by 2010.

  Last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced that we are inviting nine areas to work with the Government in developing pathfinders to tackle low demand and abandoned housing.

  Last Thursday my right hon. Friend announced that £25 million was being made available from the Capital Modernisation Fund for investment in the nine pathfinder areas. This will enable each pathfinder to start early the process of preparing a strategic plan and inform future investment.

  Local Election Turnouts
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what evaluation has been made of pilot schemes to encourage higher turnout in local elections. [55563]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Electoral Commission began its evaluation of the pilot schemes on 3 May and will report to the Secretary of State by 2 August 2002. The evaluation will provide a detailed assessment of the impact of new voting methods on election turnout and voting.

  Early indications are that postal voting has boosted turnout and the various electronic means of voting have been positively received.

  Council Tax
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the reform of the operation of council tax. [55564]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In our White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published last December, we set out our plans for the council tax. These include first revaluation in 2007 with 10-yearly revaluations thereafter; giving local authorities discretion on discounts and exemptions; and not using the reserve capping powers for high performing authorities.

  Road Works
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to regulate road works on major roads. [55565]

  Ms Keeble
  We are introducing a range of regulatory measures to deal with disruption to road users caused by works on the street. In particular, last April we introduced powers allowing highway authorities to levy charges on utility works which are not completed to deadline. We are also piloting powers allowing authorities to levy "lane rental" on utilities for the whole duration of their works.

  As to maintenance work carried out on trunk roads, the Highways Agency aims to keep to a minimum disruption caused by such works; for example, wherever possible routine maintenance is undertaken outside peak hours.

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assumptions underlie the capital value of the London Underground public-private partnership capital value as stated in table C18 of Financial Statement and Budget report 2002 (HC592); and if he will make a statement. [53391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Financial Statement and Budget report 2002 as a whole is of course a matter for HM Treasury. Table C18 of the report refers to the £16 billion of investment and maintenance in the tube that the London Underground public-private partnerships are expected to deliver over the next 15 years. This estimate, which is in April 2002 prices, is consistent with the preferred bids for the PPP contracts. The figure is also consistent with the guidance for reporting the information in table C18 as set out in Treasury Taskforce Policy Statement (Number 5).

  Local Government Officers
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on progress made on the review of political restrictions on local government officers; [54216]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his proposals to alter the political restrictions on local government officers in England and Wales. [54217]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We will shortly be starting the review process looking at political restrictions on local government officers and intend to publish a consultation paper containing proposals later this year.

  Infrastructure Charging Research
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 675W, on infrastructure charging research, if he will publish figures for the cost of research commissioned by his Department, or the DETR, in each year since 1997; if he will publish the estimated cost for the forthcoming year; and if he will publish a summary of the work so far on (a) user acceptance, (b) social-spatial inclusion and

  213W
  exclusion, (c) trade-off between practical and optimal cordon congestion charging and (d) economic geography of congestion charging; [55263]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002, Official Report, column 675W, on infrastructure charging research, when the commissioned work will terminate; and what the estimated cost of such research is up to the termination date; [55265]

  £000

  Actual annual spend

  Forecast spend

  Project title

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Totals

  End

  Demonstration of Interoperable Charging and Telematics Systems

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,600

  7,000

  9,000

  3,400

  22,000

  December 2004

  Dynamic Freight Analysis

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  32

  12

  —

  55

  April 2004

  Economic Geography of Congestion Charging

  —

  —

  12

  13

  16

  4

  —

  —

  45

  December 2003

  Trade-off between practical and optimal cordon congestion charging

  —

  —

  —

  6

  5

  6

  —

  —

  17

  December 2003

  Charging Appraisal Frameworks

  —

  —

  7

  10

  19

  14

  7

  —

  57

  December 2004

  Scheme Design and User Acceptance

  —

  —

  8

  16

  10

  18

  —

  —

  52

  December 2002

  Measuring the impacts of road user charging and the workplace parking levy on social-spatial inclusion and exclusion

  —

  —

  —

  4

  9

  116

  —

  —

  129

  March 2003

  The research project summaries requested by the hon. Member are:

  Scheme Design and User Acceptance

  The research seeks to help local authorities select the most appropriate form of road user charging scheme for an urban area, taking into account local economic, social and environmental circumstances. To do this an "options decision matrix" has been developed; its practical validity will be assessed by applying it to a number of case study areas.

  Measuring the impacts of road user charging and the workplace parking levy on social-spatial inclusion and exclusion

  This work looks at the effects of road user charging and the work place parking levy on social inclusion and social exclusion, both generally and in terms of gender, ethnicity, and age. It includes contracts with the universities of Oxford and Lancaster worth a total of £116,000. The aim of the research is to provide material and advice which will assist local authorities in assessing the possible social impact of particular congestion charging scheme options.

  Trade-off between practical and optimal cordon congestion charging

  The research examines the balance between congestion reduction and public acceptance of cordon charging schemes. It partly involves formulating a mathematical representation of an urban charging cordon. However, it seeks to ensure that the model has practical relevance by incorporating the results of a survey of six UK local authorities. This survey looks at the design of charging cordons and their objectives and effects, and public response to them. The overall aim is to assist local authorities in the design of such schemes.

  Economic Geography of Congestion Charging

  The project is examining the possible links between congestion charging and the long-term use and development of land. It is assessing the effects on a case study area of various different assumptions about
  214W
  (3) if he will make a statement on the assessment he has made of the effect of congestion charging on social-spatial inclusion and exclusion. [55264]

  Mr. Byers
  The annual spend, total spend and likely termination date for the projects listed in the answer of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 675W is given in the following table:

  charging, the use of the charging revenues, and other forms of traffic restraint. Here too, the aim is to help local authorities assess the implications of possible congestion charging schemes.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Technical Adaptation Committee on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels 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. [55229]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This committee has never functioned.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the committee on the reciprocal recognition of national boatmasters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterways is; how many
  215W
  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. [55684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The committee's mandate is to review technical aspects relating to the mutual recognition of boatmasters' licences. The UK is not represented at the committee's meetings. There is no cost to public funds.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the committee on application of the legislation on the minimum level of training for seafarers and the recognition of certificates issued by training institutes or administrations of third countries (STCW) 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. [56833]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The regulatory committee set up under Article 23 of Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training for seafarers has met twice in the last 12 months. The committee is composed of representatives of member states and is chaired by the European Commission. The remit of the committee is to oversee the implementation of the directive and its main focus is the recognition of non-EU certificates of competency. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the annual cost of its work to public funds is about £1,600. The committee will next consider a revision of the maritime training directive to improve the procedure for the recognition of certificates of competency issued by non-EU countries.

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

  Postal Ballots
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many allegations of fraud are being investigated in connection with the use of postal ballots in the local elections; and if he will make a statement. [55715]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is for the police locally to investigate any allegations of fraud. Records of such investigations are not centrally recorded. Should either the Electoral Commission or local electoral administrators identify any issues of particular concern in relation to fraud or the procedures for processing postal votes, they will alert us.

  Rail Access Charges
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if contractual provisions will be made to offer rail freight operators the same protection against increased access charges as train operating companies. [55785]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 901W and 7 May 2002, Official Report, column 28W.

  New Homes (South-East)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of new homes in the south-east that will be required as a result of(a) migration from other regions and (b) immigration from overseas. [55714]

  Ms Keeble
  No estimate has been made of the proportion of new homes required in the south-east as a result either of migration from other regions or immigration from overseas. In determining the overall level of housing provision in the south-east, as set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east (RPG9), the Secretary of State took account of a number of factors and these are referred to in RPG9.

  e-Government
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to promote e-Government at parish council level; and what funds are available to parish councils to achieve this. [55823]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government's target to see all local government services electronically enabled by 2005 only applies to principal local authorities and fire authorities, and does not apply to parish and town councils.

  As they are not subject to this target, parish councils are not being funded directly under the £350 million Local Government On-Line (LGOL) Programme. The national strategy for local e-government, which is currently being subject to wide consultation, makes clear that successful local e-government and customer focused services depend upon the interaction of local authorities with a range of other public, voluntary, community and private sector bodies. Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) are potential leaders in joining up e-enabled access channels and

  217W
  service delivery at the local level. Parish councils, as their tier of government closest to local communities, have a significant role to play in these LSPs.

  We are making available up to £75 million over two years to support the development of local and regional partnerships between councils, and other local service providers such as the police and the health service. Parish councils will also be able to tap into the knowledge and skills already being developed under LGOL.

  Martin Sixsmith
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2002,Official Report, column 1569W, on civil servants, on what basis the termination payment to Martin Sixsmith was made. [55748]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 May 2002.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what formula was used to calculate the value of compensation paid to Mr. Martin Sixsmith. [56423]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 May 2002.

  Department Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of his Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56306]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I would refer the hon. Member to the Cabinet Office reports "Civil Service Statistics", published on the Cabinet Office website and also available in the Libraries of both Houses. These reports give a regional breakdown of the total number of staff employed by my Department including agencies.

  I am unable to say how many are employed within non-departmental public bodies, as this information is not held centrally by my Department. Since 1997 the centre of the Department has not relocated any jobs to Scotland. Information on relocation is also not held centrally for the agencies and NDPBs.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56472]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The most recent figures published in the Cabinet Office "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" are for the calendar year 2000. For the 'Environment and Transport Group', the average working days absence per
  218W
  staff year was 9.0 days compared with a civil service average of 9.9 days. The total number of days lost was 142,853.

  The Department does not have details of days lost and associated cost for stress or other mental health problems.

  Consultaion
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many consultation documents and consultative drafts of legislation have been issued by his Department since January 2001; and what proportion of these have observed criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation. [57007]

  Dr. Whitehead
  According to central records the Department has issued 88 consultation documents since January 2001. In 10 cases the period for consultation agreed was less than the 12-week standard minimum period recommended in criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation, but in all cases the procedures in the code were complied with in full.

  Local Election Dates
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under what mechanism the date of the local elections was moved to 8 May in 1996; whether this mechanism will be implemented in May 2003; and if he will make a statement. [56843]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The local elections in 1996 took place as usual on the first Thursday in May. Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by section 18(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, provides authority for the Secretary of State to change the normal day of polling from the first Thursday in May to another day by order made no later than 1 February in the year preceding the year in which the order is to take effect. It is thus now too late to alter the date for local elections in May 2003 by this means. Postponement in any other circumstances would require primary legislation as happened for the local elections in 1986 and 2001.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many staff were employed in the Audit Commission at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56861]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of staff employed by the Audit Commission was 2,114 at 1 April. No Audit Commission staff carry out a clinical role with respect to NHS patients as part of their employment with the Commission.

  Edinburgh Airport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what recent discussions he has had with representatives of BAA on safety standards at Edinburgh airport; [57311]
  219W
  (2) when Government safety inspectors last visited Edinburgh airport; and when the next scheduled inspections will take place. [57312]

  (3) what were the main findings of Government safety inspectors when they last visited Edinburgh airport with specific reference to (a) staff turnover, (b) staff working hours and (c) staff morale. [57313]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Transport Security Inspectors have regular discussions with BAA management at Edinburgh airport on security matters, and carry out regular inspections. The last inspection was earlier this month. Inspections are unannounced for maximum effect and it would be inappropriate to indicate when the next inspections will take place. Staff management issues are for BAA to address. The CAA does not have any safety concerns regarding staff at the airport.

  Key Workers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what definition he employs of the term key worker; and what plans he has to change the definition. [56689]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: There is no national definition of the term key worker, although it is generally understood to be someone whose services are essential to the local community. In assessing local housing needs, it is for local authorities to decide upon those key worker groups in need of affordable housing who contribute to essential service provision.

  The Starter Home Initiative is assisting key workers, particularly teachers, police, nurses and other health workers, to buy their first home. Bids for Starter Home Initiative funding were also invited to assist other key workers, and as a result social workers, fire fighters and transport workers are also being assisted.

  London Stations (Access)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures are being undertaken to improve accessibility to London's overground rail stations. [57331]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has issued a Code of Practice, "Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers", setting out the standard of facilities required to meet the travel needs of disabled passengers. The SRA has asked all station operators to identify where facilities currently fall short of these standards. In the light of this, a programme of work will be drawn up.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the circular 18/84 proposed development procedures require a Government Department to provide an environmental impact assessment for a development that is within Schedules 1 or 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999; [57342]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the compatibility of Circular 18/84, Development by Government Departments, with European directives on environmental impact assessments. [57340]
  220W
  Ms Keeble
  The position on environmental impact assessment in relation to Crown development is detailed in paragraph 157 of DETR Circular 02/99. Environmental impact assessment is required for all proposed development falling within Annexe I to the EIA directive, as amended, and for proposed development falling within Annexe II if it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. A Crown body proposing such development will submit an environmental statement to the local planning authority when consulting it under the arrangements set out in Part IV of the Memorandum to Circular 18/84.

  Housing Construction Guidelines
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidelines there are governing the minimum size and amount of living space to be provided in new housing; and if he will make a statement. [57272]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Building Regulations in England and Wales make no requirements with regard to the minimum size or amount of living space that should be provided in new homes. The Housing Corporation require registered social landlords (RSLs) to comply with the Scheme Development Standards as a condition of Social Housing Grant funding for new build schemes. Although the Scheme Development Standards do not specifically set a minimum size and amount of living space to be provided in new housing, they do require RSLs to adopt good space planning and room layouts.

  Telecommunications Masts
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which elements of the Stewart report(a) have been and (b) will be implemented by his Department. [57590]

  Mr. Byers
  On 22 August last year, taking into account the recommendations in the Stewart report published in May 2000 and following our public consultation, we introduced changes that significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development. Our changes:strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are the same as for planning applications
  increased the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college: and
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
  We have no plans to amend further the planning arrangements for telecommunications development.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many appeals he has received from mobile phone companies to erect transmission masts in the last 12 months; and how many appeals were upheld. [57589]

  Mr. Byers
  Information is not held centrally about appeal decisions for mobile phone masts.

  QE II Centre
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 516W on the QE II Centre, if the relevant Government policies include the climate change policy; and whether the financial assessment will be on the basis of the whole life costs including energy efficiency of the air conditioning chiller. [58262]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Yes.

  Housing Estates
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the deprived local authority housing estates and the local authority and local authority wards that those estates fall into, referred to in DETR, Housing Research Summary No. 65 (1997); [57568]

  (2) which of the deprived local authority housing estates referred to in DETR Housing Research Summary No. 65 (1997) have subsequently been part of a stock transfer to housing associations. [57569]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The publication referred to in these questions is the DoE report on "Mapping Local Authority Estates Using the Index of Local Conditions" No.65 (1997).

  The study was designed to show the probable distribution and concentration of deprived local authority estates at the regional level. The main report explains that the Department cannot publish the list of estates on which the study was based, or provide specific details on the particular local authority wards which they are in.

  There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the analysis was based on one specific definition of deprived estates. It used the 5 per cent. of Census Enumeration Districts with the highest scores on the Index of Local Conditions which had more than 50 per cent. of households renting from the local council. The report stressed that the study did not produce a definitive list of deprived estates. Alternative definitions could be used, based on other data, which could produce different lists. Secondly, the Department wanted to avoid creating or contributing to the stigmatisation of estates.

  Both these reasons for non-disclosure are still valid and therefore DTLR cannot provide a list of the estates.

  Public Information
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what right of access members of the public have to information on(a) building control, (b) environmental health, (c) drainage and (d) highways from local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [57705]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) Regulations 2000, gives the public significant general rights of access to local authority meetings and related papers.

  222W
  There are also certain service specific rights, including for
  (a)building control
  the right under the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to inspect an authority's planning register;
  (b)environmental health
  the right for the public, under the Environmental Regulations 1992, to have access to environmental information held by a local authority;
  (c)drainage
  a right pursuant the Water Industry Act 1991, for the public to inspect drainage maps held in local authority offices; and for
  (d)highways
  the right for the public, under the Highways Act 1980, to inspect a list of highways in the area which are maintainable at the public expense, and under the New Road and Street Works Act 1991, a register of street works executed or proposed to be executed in the streets in the area.

  Crown Immunity
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had on the removal of Crown immunity from prosecution for health and safety offences; and if he will make a statement. [58036]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have had discussions with external bodies and officials on this matter from time to time.

  Union Health and Safety Representatives
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had on improving the effectiveness of union health and safety representatives; and if he will make a statement. [58037]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Union safety representatives play a vital role in securing improved health and safety in the workplace. I hold regular meetings with trade unions, where the role of safety representatives is discussed.

  Airport Policing Costs (Bristol)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the designation of Bristol airport so that the extra costs of policing the airport since 11 September 2001 are met by the airport authorities rather than Avon and Somerset police; and if he will make a statement. [56536]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have no plans to designate Bristol airport at present. My Department is currently reviewing its policy on designation, specifically as regards what criteria to use to decide whether an airport should be designated where the airport operator and police authority are unable to agree.

  Independent Rail Accident Investigation Body
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the consultation exercise on the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation body will begin; and what the deadline is for(a) completion of the exercise and (b) the report to his Department. [58174]
  223W
  Mr. Byers
  We expect to consult this summer on proposals for the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation branch. The consultation exercise will run for 12 weeks from the date of publication, as set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on written consultation. Responses to the consultation will be carefully analysed following this period, and in advance of primary legislation.

  Local Government White Paper
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on implementing the Local Government White Paper. [55544]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published an implementation plan on the Department's website on 10 April setting out the key milestones and planned dates for completion. It is updated monthly.

  Neighbourhood and Street Wardens
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what effect neighbourhood and street wardens are having on curtailing antisocial behaviour in towns and cities. [55545]

  Ms Keeble
  Since 2001, 84 Neighbourhood Warden schemes have become active. This year we are bringing forward 123 Street Warden schemes.

  Most schemes have curtailing antisocial behaviour as one of their key objectives. Wardens are having an increasing effect on curtailing antisocial behaviour through their deterrent value, their relationship with local communities and enabling the relevant agencies to respond to incidents.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to change planning law with regard to the green belt. [55547]

  Ms Keeble
  None. Planning Policy Guidance note 2: "Green Belts" continues to require that local authority development plans include a strict presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt.

  Grant Clawback (Newcastle)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made to meet the request by Newcastle city council to identify situations where clawback of grant in relation to past regeneration schemes will be waived; and if he will make a statement. [58820]

  Ms Keeble
  On 1 May 2001, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions (Hilary Armstrong), announced the signing of a local public service agreement with Newcastle city council,Official Report, column 594.

  One of the Government commitments made in that local PSA, in return for a commitment from the council to increase the level of regeneration, was to have discussions
  224W
  about alterations to the arrangements for clawback of regeneration grants on change of use or disposal of an asset.

  The council have argued that for some older regeneration schemes, where any clawback which might apply would be small, that the costs of delay—administratively and in terms of starting valuable projects—would be disproportionate to the sums that might be recovered. The Government have concluded that for regeneration schemes that are now closed, in respect of transactions where receipts are relatively low (and thus the maximum potential level of clawback is also low), and where Government can have confidence that any receipt which might have been due to the Government is recycled into further regeneration consistent with the Government's regeneration objectives, it can offer value for money to offer a waiver of clawback.

  In view of the council's undertaking to achieve the enhanced regeneration objectives set out in the local PSA, the Government undertook to consider what scope there is to assist and encourage the council to achieve its targets by waiving the council's contingent liability to repay grant under certain discontinued grant regimes.

  The council was seeking a waiver of my Department's right to clawback in both situations where a liability to repay grant can arise, namely (1) where there is a change of use of an asset constructed or acquired wholly or partly out of funds paid under a relevant grant scheme; and (2) where there is a disposal of such an asset. It was the Council's intention to use any proceeds that might have arisen from the waiver to further its regeneration objectives in the East End and West End Going for Growth areas of Newcastle.

  After careful consideration. I have concluded that my Department can waive its entitlement to claw back grant under the terms of the former Urban Programme and City Challenge grant schemes:
  in order to assist and encourage the council to deliver its regeneration targets under the local PSA;
  in relation to assets constructed or acquired using grant given for regeneration activities in the East End and West End Going for Growth areas of Newcastle, as defined in the respective regeneration plans published by the council in July 2001;
  so far as liability to repay grant can arise from a disposal of an asset, including land, only where the potential for grant clawback derived from a disposal is £100,000 or less;
  so far as liability to repay grant can arise from a change of use of an asset, including land, only where a new use of an asset continues to further the objectives of the grant scheme or wider Government regeneration objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5 published in the DTLR Business Plan 2001; and
  for disposals agreed or changes of use effected on or after the date that the Council accepts the terms of the waiver and before 31 March 2004 (the date on which the local PSA expires), unless the waiver is withdrawn before that date on the grounds that it is not being applied properly.
  Accordingly, my Department has written to the council today.

  For transactions in which potential clawback could exceed £100,000, a full analysis of whether any clawback is due will continue to be required from the council, together with a calculation of the amount due, and waivers will be considered on a case by case basis.

  225W
  The Government are prepared to consider requests for similar treatment from other local authorities who might propose local PSA targets for regeneration, where it is appropriate in the circumstances of the authority.

PRIME MINISTER

  Galileo
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the military applications of Galileo; and what discussions he has had on this subject. [57900]

  The Prime Minister
  Galileo is a civil programme under civil control. European Transport Ministers reaffirmed this when giving the go-ahead for the development phase of the programme on 26 March.

  Referendums
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister if (1) he will make a statement on his policy towards the role of Whitehall officials in referendum campaigns; [57918]

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to increase the budget to departmental information campaigns in the run-up to a referendum on UK participation in the single currency; and if he will make a statement. [57916]

  The Prime Minister
  Civil servants' involvement and expenditure on departmental information activities in referendum campaigns would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 620W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of his Department since June 1997 but are not included in (i) the Cabinet Office's annual report "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01" and (ii) his previous answer. [57038]

  The Prime Minister
  I have made no other appointments than those listed in my answer of 25 March to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 429W, on the Czech Republic, whether he discussed the proposed offset deal with the Czech Prime Minister. [58173]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. The Czech Prime Minister did raise the issue of offset arrangements during my visit of 8 April.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 429W, on the Czech Republic, how many jobs in the United Kingdom would be protected and created if the bid by Gripen International to sell fighter/trainer aircraft to the Czech Air Force goes ahead. [58170]

  The Prime Minister
  If the contract worth around £250 million to the UK, is successfully completed it will directly benefit the company which will help to secure British jobs and strengthen the British economy. The UK defence industry is highly successful, employing around 180,000 directly and 160,000 in associated industries.

  European Treaties (France)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will have discussions with France on their adherence to the European treaties that require the free movement of goods between member countries of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [57599]

  The Prime Minister
  Government Ministers, including myself, have made representations to France on the problems affecting the free movement of goods through the channel tunnel. We remain in close contact with the French Government about the action that is required to enable normal rail freight to resume.

  The Commission has also invoked the Free Movement of Goods Regulation in this case and we are following this closely.

  Devolved Assemblies (Voting Systems)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to carry out a review of the voting systems used to elect the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [56230]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Tuesday 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 93W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Data Protection
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [53376]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 446W. Additionally, I am placing in the Libraries of the House an extract referring to subject access requests that appears in my Department's internal guidance on the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Common Rules for Exports of Products 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. [55346]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee on Common Rules for Exports of Products is established under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2603/69 for the purpose of consultation between member states and the Commission on any requests for taking protective measures on exports, to examine the effects of any such measures that may be taken, and on their amendment or termination. Its only activity in recent years has been to exercise surveillance of market trends as regards the export of copper scrap to certain third countries—for which it last met, briefly, on 8 May 2001—with UK representation by a DTI official. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds on the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on the Specific Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration on Promotion of Innovation and Participation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 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. [55354]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee on the Scientific Programme for Research, Technologic Development and Demonstration (RTD) on the promotion of Innovation and Participation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises is one of seven comitology committees established in relation to the management of the EU 5th Framework programme.

  228W
  It has met on five occasions over the last 12 months: on 16 May 2001, 4 July 2001, 26 September 2001, 21 November 2001 and 6 March 2002.

  Officials from the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry provide the UK representation.

  The UK usually sends one delegate to meetings of this committee, which are held in Luxembourg. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. paItems under consideration concern the ongoing implementation of the Framework 5 Innovation/SME programme, in particular the third call for innovation projects and the appraisal of Innovation Relay Centres' performance across the EU.

  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".

  Following Council Decision 1999/468/EC, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be made accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on the Directive on Names and Labelling of Textile Products 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. [55370]

  Ms Hewitt
  This committee was created under Article 5 of directive 96/73/EC on certain methods for the quantitative analysis of binary textile fibre mixtures (OJ L32, 3.2.97, p.1). The committee is convened periodically to consider adaptations to technical progress of testing methods for fibre mixtures and additions and to the table of textile fibres and the list of agreed allowances used to calculate the mass of fibre contained in a textile product in annexes 1 and 2 respectively of directive 97/74/EC on textile names (OJ L32, 3.2.97, p.38). The committee last met in 1996. UK representation consists of one official from my Department. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The Commission reimburses the travelling costs of national representatives. There are no items currently being considered by the committee. However, a technical expert working group on textile labelling met recently to consider the application by two textile fibre manufacturers for the addition of two new fibres to the aforementioned annexe 1.

  229W
  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 House on 26 February (COM(2001)783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Measuring Instruments and Methods of Metrological Control 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 she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55213]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the committee is to consider changes needed to a number of directives on measuring instruments adopted subsequent to Council directive 71/316/EEC to bring them into line with technical developments. The committee has not met for many years. Consequently it has not been necessary to designate a UK representative, and there has been no cost to public funds.

  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 the House on 28 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of the directive on the removal of technical barriers to trade in electric materials used in an explosive atmosphere 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. [55374]
  230W
  Ms Hewitt
  It is my understanding that the hon. Member is referring to the Committee on the adaptation to technical progress set up under Article 6 of directive 76/117/EEC on the approximation of laws of the member states concerning electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. This committee has not met for several years because directive 76/117/EEC is being superseded by directive 94/9/EC and will be repealed on 1 July 2003 when directive 94/9/EC comes fully into force.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on Defence against Obstacles to Trade which Affect the Market of the Community or a Non-member Country 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. [55399]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee on Defence against Obstacle to Trade is established under Council regulation (EC) No. 3286/94, for the purposes of consultations between member states and the Commission on complaints by Community enterprises, industries or individual member states of alleged breach of international trade rules by a third country resulting in adverse trade effects. As appropriate, the committee also considers the results of investigations which the Commission may undertake in relation to such complaints and any follow-up action it may propose to take with the country concerned. As provided for in the regulation, details of both the opening of any such investigations and of any commercial policy measures that may eventually be taken are published in the Community's Official Journal.

  The committee has met on four occasions since 1 May 2001: representation is by a DTI official. It is not possible to calculate the annual cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  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 1999/268/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 the Houses on 26 February (COM (2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Cosmetics 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. [55217]
  231W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in the Cosmetic Sector (CATP) was set up to deliver opinions on draft proposals relating to the safety of cosmetics put forward by the Commission. It also considers other issues submitted for information or an exchange of views. The CATP consists of representatives of member states with a representative of the Commission as chairman. The UK is represented at meetings by officials from the Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate of DTI. The CATP has met once in the past 12 months. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The main focus of the Committee's work of late has been consideration of the 26th Adaptation of the Cosmetics Directive in relation to ingredients which can/cannot be used in cosmetics.

  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 House on 26 February (COM(2001)783Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Standing Committee for the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States Concerning Pressure Equipment 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. [55362]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the Standing Committee is contained in Article 7.2 of the Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC. The provisions of this Article have not yet been put into effect so the committee has never met.

  An informal 'Working Group on Pressure' has been convened, however, under the auspices of Article 17 of the Directive. The Commission chairs these meetings with a view, among other things, to developing guidelines in order to ensure that there is uniform interpretation of these measures throughout the European Union and also to ensure that any technical barriers to trade within the Single Market are removed. In the last 12 months this Committee has met on four occasions. Representation from the United Kingdom is led by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry with a technical expert from the Health and Safety Executive to provide technical advice. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  232W
  Items under consideration vary between meetings but usually include issues of standardisation in the field of pressure equipment and specific issues of interpretation of the Directive. As this is only an advisory committee without decision making power its work is handled at official level. My officials do, however, publish a record of each meeting which is available to any interested party inside and outside government upon application to officials in my Department and is also posted on our web-site.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Common Rules for Imports of Products from Third Countries 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. [55348]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of this Committee is to cover, when necessary, in particular the terms and conditions of imports, import trends and the various aspects of the economic and commercial situation of specific products, and to discuss any required safeguards measures. It has met three times in the last four months to discuss the United States steel safeguards measures and the European Community response. This was the first time it had been convened in the last five years. A Department of Trade and Industry official represents the UK. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The Committee is currently continuing its consideration of the United States steel safeguards and the European Community response. Any European Community legislation resulting from this Committee is already subject to the Parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.
  233W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for Implementation of the Community Market Access Strategy 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. [55396]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee for the Implementation of the Community Market Access Strategy is established under Council Decision (98/552/EC) for consultation among members states and the Commission to assist the Commission in its activities to implement the Council's market access strategy. It has met once in the last 12 months, with UK representation by a DTI official. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Details of the Market Access Strategy, including how to access the EU Market Access Data Base, a key component of the Strategy and which the Commission are as a present priority endeavouring to make a more effective and more user friendly tool for traders, are available on-line at http://europa.eu.int/comm./trade/mkaccess/indexen.htm.

  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 1999/268/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 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on Conformity Assessment and Surveillance of the Telecommunications Market 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. [55356]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the Telecommunication Conformity Assessment and Market Surveillance Committee (TCAM) is contained in Articles 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 95/5/EC, The Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (RTTE) Directive. In particular, the Committee shall be consulted on matters covered by specified Articles of the Directive and shall express its opinion on draft measures submitted by the Commission. The Committee has met three times during the last 12 months. Items currently under consideration include the relation of the RTTE Directive with the Medical Devices Directive; coverage by the Directive of equipment containing an RTTE component; and market surveillance.

  234W
  The UK representation on the Committee comprises officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and OFTEL, and a technical expert. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Common Rules for Imports of Products from Certain Third Countries 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. [55400]

  Ms Hewitt
  This Committee meets, when required, as part of the "Commercial Questions Group". Its mandate is to manage the policy on the EC's licensing control regimes for the import of non-textile products from non-market economies. The Group as a whole has met six times over the last year. A Department of Trade and Industry official represents the UK. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. This Committee is currently considering the on-going EC policy on imports. Any EC legislation resulting from these Committees is already subject to the Parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Standing Committee for the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Lifts 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
  235W
  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. [55360]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the Standing Committee is contained in Article 6.3 of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC. In essence it is convened to consider matters of interpretation which are brought to its attention by member states. It has, however, only met in its capacity as an advisory committee. Officials of the European Commission chair these meetings with a view to providing advice based on consensus in order to ensure that there is uniform interpretation of these measures throughout the European Union and also to ensure that any technical barriers to trade within the Single Market are removed. In the last 12 months this Committee has met twice. Representation from the United Kingdom is led by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry with a technical expert from the Health and Safety Committee to provide technical advice. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost. paItems under consideration vary between meetings but usually include issues of standardisation and interpretation.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Quota Administration Committee 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. [55347]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of this Committee is to manage the EC import licensing control system under the EC's Chinese non-textile imports regime. It has met twice over the last year. A Department of Trade and Industry official represents the UK. It is not possible to calculate the cost of its work to public funds without incurring disproportionate cost. This Committee is currently considering the management of the licensing regime for imports of certain Chinese non-textile products for 2003. Any EC legislation resulting from these committees is already subject to the parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers
  236W
  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 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Standing Committee on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Machinery 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. [55368]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the Standing Committee is contained in Article 6.2 of the Machinery Directive 98/37/EC. It has, however, only met as an advisory committee. In essence it is convened to consider matters of interpretation which are brought to its attention by member states. The Commission chairs these meetings and delivers an opinion in order to ensure that there is uniform interpretation of the Directive throughout the European Union and also to ensure that any technical barriers to trade within the single market are removed. In the last 12 months this Committee has met twice. Representation from the United Kingdom is led by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry with a technical expert from the Health and Safety Executive to provide technical advice. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Items under consideration vary between meetings but usually include issues of standardisation in the field of machinery and specific issues of interpretation of the Directive. My officials publish a record of each meeting which is available to any interested party inside and outside Government on request.

  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 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Standardisation in the Field of Information Technology (SOGITS) 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. [55359]
  237W
  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate establishing SOGITS was set out in Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986. The Committee has not met for over two years and there are no issues under consideration at present. Discussions are currently taking place to reactivate this committee.

  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 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).

  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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on Implementation of the Multi-annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises 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. [55353]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the Enterprise Programme Management Committee is to assist the European Commission in carrying out the measures and actions necessary for the implementation of the Multi-annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, in particular for SMEs. The work of the Committee includes agreeing the annual work programme and corresponding budget allocations, the criteria and content of invitations to tender exceeding Euro 100,000, and the performance indicators for evaluating the actions needed to achieve the programme's objectives.

  The Committee meets four times each year for the duration of the programme. The UK is represented by an official from the European section of the Small Business Service. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  At its last meeting, the Committee looked at:
  progress on the implementation of the work programme for 2001;
  budgetary issues related to individual programme projects;
  amendments to the work programme for 2002, in particular three new priority projects on environmental management systems, improved institutions for technology transfer to enterprises, and restructuring bankruptcy and a fresh start;
  the opening of the programme to candidate countries.
  The UK supports fully the purpose of the Multi-annual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship which aims to enhance growth and competitiveness, promote entrepreneurship, improve the regulatory and administrative framework, improve the financial environment for SMEs
  238W
  and provide easier access to Community support services. The programme is based on targeted financial measures and well-focused projects underpinned by the principle of exchange of good practice. It has the potential to help deliver some of the key aims of the European Small Firms Charter, the central plank for the development of enterprise policy in the European Union.

  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 the committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the directive on the removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Protective Equipment and Systems for Use in Explosive Atmospheres 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. [55375]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the Standing Committee set up under Article 6 of directive 94/9/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states concerning equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The mandate of the Standing Committee is contained in Article 6 of that directive. It is an advisory committee, which aims to provide advice based on consensus to facilitate a common interpretation of the directive throughout the European Union. Officials of the European Commission chair these meetings. During the last 12 months this Committee has met twice. Representation from the United Kingdom is led by officials from the Department for Trade and Industry, with a technical expert from the Health and Safety Executive. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost. Items under consideration vary from meeting to meeting, but include issues of interpretation and technical standardisation. Current issues include questions of scope and detailed application of the technical requirements of the directive.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the

  239W
  Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to he accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Harmonisation of Credit and Insurance Provisions for Transactions with Medium and Long-term Cover 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. [55393]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee for the Harmonisation of the Main Provisions concerning Export Credit Insurance for Transactions with Medium and Long-term Cover is a comitology committee covering the work of the European Council Working Group on Export Credits.

  Comitology procedures only exist for a very limited number of issues, and the Committee has had no reason to meet in the past 12 months.

  If a meeting of the Committee was convened, the UK would be represented by our delegation to the Council Working Group comprising officials (usually numbering three) from the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The Council Working Group meets on a monthly basis with no meeting in August. Meetings last one or two days. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The purpose of the Working Group is to develop policies within the EU which achieve a more level playing field on which all of our exporters can compete for business. The framework for these discussions is provided by the OECD arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits, which constitutes the major body of international rules governing export credits for project exports.

  The UK delegation reports back after each Working Group meeting with a note which is circulated widely within ECGD and around other interested Government Departments. Progress against ECGD's international objectives is regularly reported to the Export Guarantees Advisory Council and summarised in ECGD's annual report.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Standing Committee on Technical Rules and Standards including Rules Relating to Information Society Services is; how many 240W
  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. [55365]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the Committee is contained in Articles 5 and 6 of directive 98/34/EC, as amended (the technical standards and regulation directive). In particular, the Committee shall express its opinion on the communications and proposals submitted to it by the Commission and must be consulted, for example, when the Commission is reviewing the operation of the system set up by the directive. The Committee has met three times during the last 12 months. On two occasions it met for part of the meeting in a specific composition to examine questions relating to information society services and twice it met with representatives of the European and national standards bodies in accordance with provisions of Article 6 of the technical standards and regulations directive. The United Kingdom representation on the Committee comprises officials from my Department and representatives of the British Standards Institution attend when the Committee meets with national standards bodies. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Committee regularly considers notifications by member states of draft technical regulations and proposals from the Commission to request the European standards institutions to draw up a European standard within a given time limit. Current issues also include:

  (a) the introduction of a new technical regulations information system for communications between the Commission and member states;

  (b) the possible participation of candidate countries in the technical regulations notification procedure;

  (c) the confidentiality of detailed opinions made by the Commission or member states;

  (d) initial discussions on a possible extension of the notification requirements to services other than information society services;

  (e) formal objections from The Netherlands and the United Kingdom in respect of standards relating to gas appliances;

  (f) progress of work relating to standards mandated in support of directives;

  (g) follow-up of the Council resolution of 28 October 1999 on the role of standardisation in Europe.

  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 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.
  241W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Aerosol Dispensers 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. [55379]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to trade in Aerosol Dispensers was set up to deliver opinions on draft proposals relating to the safety of Aerosol Dispensers put forward by the Commission. The UK is represented at meetings by officials from the Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate of DTI. The Committee has not met in the last 12 months. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The main focus of the Committee's work of late has been consideration of appropriate test methodologies to assess the flammability of products expelled from aerosol dispensers.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the technical adaptation of the community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users 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. [55648]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee for the technical Adaptation of the community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users was set up to assist the Commission should any changes be made to the Annexes of the Directive (90/377/EEC), which deal with the methodology. This Committee has not met since 1996. Should the Committee meet in the near future it is envisaged that DTI officials would represent the UK.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line
  242W
  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the harmonisation of national measures on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances 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. [55646]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Council Directive 92/75/EEC on the Indication by Labelling and Standard Product Information of the Consumption of Energy and Other Resources by Household Appliances is intended to enable the harmonization of national measures on the publication, particularly by means of labelling and of product information, of information on the consumption of energy and of other essential resources, and additional information concerning certain types of household appliances, thereby allowing consumers to choose more energy-efficient appliances. A Committee composed of representatives of member states and chaired by the Commission has been established to assist the Commission in the delivery of the requirements of this Directive.

  The Committee has met four times in the last 12 months. The UK is formally represented on the Committee by officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The cost of attending this Committee over the last 12 months was approximately £3,000.

  The main issues currently being considered by this Committee are the up-rating of energy labels for domestic cold appliances, a draft proposal for a Framework Directive on Minimum Energy Efficiency Requirements for End-use Equipment, the energy labelling of televisions and the review of Directive 92/75/EEC.

  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 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the

  243W
  Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the labelling of household appliances 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. [55649]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no committee with responsibility for all the labelling issues which might arise in connection with household appliances. There is however a committee which is concerned with "the harmonisation of national measures on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Agricultural and Forestry Tractors 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. [55210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate of the Committee is set out in Articles 11 to 13 of Framework Directive 74/150/EEC, which, together with separate directives on components and systems, deals with the type approval of Agricultural and Forestry Tractors. The Committee's function is to deliver prompt adjustment, reflecting technical progress, of the technical requirements in the annexes to the Framework Directive and, unless otherwise provided for, to the provisions of the separate component and system directives. It has not met in the last 12 months. The UK representation is normally by officials of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The annual cost to public funds would he restricted to staff time, their travel and subsistence costs.

  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 2002 (Com (2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the 244W
  Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Explosives for Civilian Uses 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. [55378]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The remit of this committee is set out in Article 13 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC (harmonization of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses). This says that:
  "The Committee shall examine any matter concerning the application of this Directive raised by its chairman either on his own initiative or at the request of a representative of a member state."
  The Committee has met once in the last 12 months, in December 2001. The UK representatives at the meeting were the Health and Safety Executive's Head of Mines, Quarries and Explosives Safety Policy Section and the Head of the GB Explosives Notified Body.

  The secretariat is provided by the European Commission, which also pays a proportion of travel expenses. The costs to UK public funds are therefore the balance of the travel costs and the accommodation costs for the staff attending (less than £830 in total) and their salary costs.

  The Committee is currently considering a number of issues where there are differing interpretations of the application of the Directive. These include the on-site mixing of explosives, the definition of pyrotechnics and the acceptability of manufacturer's test data.

  HSE would seek to ensure that there was consultation on any proposals to amend the requirements of the Directive. Any changes which required new regulations, or amendments to regulations, would be subject to formal consultation and then approval by the Health and Safety Commission and by Ministers. The draft regulations would ultimately be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Motor Vehicles and their Trailers 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. [55211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate of the committee is set out in Article 13 of Framework Directive 70/156/EEC, which, together with separate directives on components and systems, deals with the type approval of motor vehicles and their trailers. The committee's function is to deliver prompt adjustment, reflecting technical progress, of the technical requirements in the annexes to the Framework Directive and, unless otherwise provided for, to the provisions of the separate component and system directives.

  245W
  Since 1 May 2001, the committee has met four times. Officials from the Department's Vehicle Standards and Engineering Division represent the UK. The annual cost to public funds varies depending on the matters under consideration but is of the order of £5,000.

  The next meeting of the committee is due to consider:
  the EC's position concerning the adaptation to technical progress of several United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulations on vehicle standards;
  a Commission directive adapting to technical progress Council Directive 70/220/EEC relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles; and
  a Commission directive adapting to technical progress Council Directive 97/27/EC relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers.
  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 2002 (Com (2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Standing Committee on the Approximation of the Laws Relating to Construction Products 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. [55367]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate of the Standing Committee on Construction (SCC) is to remove technical barriers to trade in construction products between member states in the European Economic Area (EEA). It has met three times in the last 12 months. The UK delegation to it consists of two Government officials from my Department and a representative from the UK construction industry. The costs for the attendance by the two Government officials to the two-day meetings in Brussels are approximately £3,000. The committee has an extensive work programme for the year 2002 to progress the internal market for construction products through CE marking. Among the items under consideration are:
  Implementation of the CPD through agreeing technical specifications, notified bodies to carry out attestation procedures and market surveillance.
  Enlargement including PECA-CPD implementation.
  Competitiveness related issues.
  Eurocodes.
  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line
  246W
  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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the establishment of the information society in Europe 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. [56733]

  Ms Hewitt
  The programme was originally known as STIMULIS (STIMULating the Information Society) but adopted the name PROMISE (PROMoting the Information Society in Europe) subsequently. The mandate of the Information Society Committee (also known as the PROMISE Management Committee) is to ensure that the European Commission implements the programme according to the requirements agreed with the Council and set out in Council Decision 98/253/EC of 30 March 1998. Essentially, this involves the approval of the annual work programme and the content of any Calls for Proposals, providing financial support of euro 200,000 (£125,000) or more to proposals, the terms of reference for external assessment and by budgetary adjustments between different parts of the programme. The committee has met twice over the past 12 months. The UK is normally represented by one DTI official.

  It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The items under consideration include the results of the benchmarking activities related to the eEurope initiative, identifying and disseminating best practice on Information Society activities, the allocation of the budget, an analysis of the result of the programme to date and approval of the 2002 work programme.

  The programme was the subject of two Explanatory Memorandums; No. 12934/96 submitted by the DTI on 3 February 1997 covered the original proposal and No. 11421/97 covered the revised proposal. The programme underwent a mid-term review which was the subject of a further unsigned explanatory memorandum No. 10557–01 of 13 September 2001. The programme was then refocused towards eEurope activities, principally the benchmarking of national activities.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line

  247W
  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).

  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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Accounting Directives Contact Committee 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. [56768]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Accounting Directives Contact Committee is mandated by European accounting directives to:

  (a) facilitate, without prejudice to the provisions of articles 169 and 170 of the treaty, harmonised application of the directives through regular meetings dealing in particular with practical problems arising in connection with their application;

  (b) advise the Commission, if necessary, on additions or amendments to the directives.

  The committee is currently considering modernisation of the European accounting directives and their alignment with international accounting standards, and related issues.

  The committee's role is merely advisory. Any proposals arising from its advice would be taken forward by the European Commission itself.

  The committee has met twice over the last 12 months. The UK is normally represented by two officials from the Department's Company Law and Investigations Directorate and a departmental lawyer. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on checks for conformity with the rules on product safety in the case of products imported from third countries 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. [56751]

  Ms Hewitt
  The mandate of the committee under Regulation (EEC) 339/93 is to assist the Commission by giving its opinion on measures adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 9 of the regulation. The purpose of the regulation is to reduce the risk of unsafe products from third countries entering into free circulation in the Community.

  248W
  The committee has not met in the last 12 months. The UK is represented on the committee by the Department of Trade and Industry and by Customs and Excise. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  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 the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of this review, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [55098]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: None. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 1443W, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 599W and 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 91W.

  Budget
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from business groups regarding the effect of the 2002 Budget on the(a) competitiveness and (b) productivity of UK businesses. [55907]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 May 2002, Official Report, column 661W.

  Businesses and their representatives have welcomed the cuts in corporation tax, the tax exemption for substantial shareholdings and the new regime for giving tax relief for intangible assets, all of which contribute to the competitiveness of UK companies. Increased innovation and workforce training are both important components in improving productivity. Businesses have therefore also welcomed the large company tax credits for research and development, the additional details on the skills pilot schemes and the targeted support for smaller organisations to reach the IIP standard.

  Enterprise Bill
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the new powers to be given to the Office of Fair Trading in the Enterprise Bill; and if she will list them. [57459]
  249W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department received 72 written responses to the White Paper "Productivity and Enterprise—A World Class Competition Regime" (Cm 5233) published in July 2001. The White Paper included discussion of the OFT's duties and powers.

  The Department also received 49 written responses to the consultation paper "Proposed New Structure for the Office of Fair Trading" published in September 2001.

  The Department subsequently received one representation on OFT's new powers from the Federation of Electronics Industry on 18 February 2002.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost to her Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south-east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56513]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The information at the disaggregated level requested is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department maintains records on the total expenditure on employment agency staff only from 1998–99 onwards. The table shows details of this expenditure, which represents between 3 and 4 per cent. of staff costs for each respective year.

  Outturn

  £million

  1998–99

  7.2

  1999–2000

  7.7

  2000–01

  7.2

  2001–021

  8.2

  1 Provisional

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 399W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of her Department since June 1997 but are not included in the Cabinet Office's annual report 'Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01'. [57040]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, columns 398–99W. Ministers in this Department have not appointed any unpaid advisers other than those accounted for in the list of task forces, reviews and other ad hoc advisory groups.

  Freight Movement (Channel Tunnel)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has made to the European Commission in connection with the free movement of freight through the channel tunnel; and if she will make a statement. [57600]

  Alan Johnson
  The Commission has invoked the Free Movement of Goods Regulation in this case. They have kept the Department fully informed about their actions. The Government remains in close contact with them and 250W
  with the French Government about the action that is required to resolve the problems affecting rail freight traffic through the channel tunnel.

  Online Services
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the level of electronic access to the main basic public services; and if she will make a statement. [57552]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over half of all central Government services are now e-enabled. The latest Office for National Statistics data show that 3.84 million citizens use the Internet to use or access Government services.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [56483]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report "Analysis of Sickness absence in the Civil Service". In the 2000 report for the Department for Culture Media and Sport the working days absence per staff year figures were:

  Absence

  Certified sickness

  3.9

  Self-certification

  2.2

  Total

  6.0

  Staff years

  404

  Records are not maintained by DCMS which enable sick leave to be separately identified as work related. There is no known record of anyone having had a work-related injury.

  DCMS is committed to meet targets arising from the Government's revitalising health and safety initiative, for reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence generally and due to work-related injuries and illness.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many employees of her Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56101]

  Mr. Caborn
  Records are not maintained by DCMS which enable ill-health retirements to be separately identified as work related. For DCMS there was one member of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser for the last year. Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules of the principal civil service pension scheme and laid before Parliament, and provide for an immediate payment of an
  251W
  enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill-health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure met from the Vote was £310 million in respect of all civil services cases for which an ill-health pension has been awarded. These cases number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formerly been ill-health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many claims for work-related illness were settled by her Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56100]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Records are not maintained by DCMS which enable sick leave to be separately identified as work related and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  DCMS has a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees. The Department is committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally due to sickness absence and due to work related injuries and illness arising from the Government's revitalising health and safety initiative.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in her Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56102]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The most recently published figures are for the calendar year 2000. For DCMS the working days absence per staff year figures were:

  Absence

  Certified sickness

  3.9

  Self-certification

  2.2

  Total

  6.0

  Staff years

  404

  Records are not maintained by DCMS which enable sick leave to be separately identified as work-related. There is no known record of anyone having had a work-related injury.

  DCMS is committed to meet targets arising from the Government's revitalising health and safety initiative, for reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence generally and due to work-related injuries and illness.

  Sports Action Zones
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to establish another round of sports action zones; and if she will make a statement. [57923]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England has now begun the process of designating a further 18 Sport Action Zones. To ensure that the most needy areas of the country are supported in 252W
  developing bids, regional development teams have been established in each region to oversee the submission of bids and to ensure that decision making is kept as close to local communities as possible. Each team will be taking a strategic view of its region's needs and will encourage and facilitate bids where realistic and discouraging those less so.

  Explicit criteria against which bids will be assessed have been established that, among other things, will ensure that there will be at least one action zone in each region and that there will be zones of similar types to enable comparisons to be made. The factors which will be taken into account in designating the new zones will be the degree of deprivation and sporting need, the partnership arrangements and the presence of other complimentary initiatives in the area. Bidding for Action Zone designation is in two stages with the first stage due to be completed by 3 July and the second stage by 20 November leading to final decisions by Sport England by February 2003.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of her Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57360]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Civil servants are eligible for membership of an occupational pension scheme. The Cabinet Office is responsible for this occupational pension scheme—the principal civil service pension scheme (PCSPS), and pays the pensions of retired members of the scheme centrally.

  English Heritage
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to publish the report of the quinquennial review of English Heritage. [58525]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blackstone yesterday placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the report of the quinquennial review of English Heritage. The report is also available on-line at the DCMS website www.culture.gov.uk. The report affirms the value of English Heritage and its statutory functions. It also highlights a number of areas which need further work, in particular reviews of English Heritage's:

  (1) property management function including consideration of alternative options for the management of its properties;

  (2) national, regional and local roles leading to a new structure which will equip the organisation to deliver its statutory and leadership responsibilities in a cost-effective and consistent manner;

  (3) research programme leading to the adoption of a targeted strategy linked to priorities for the sector as a whole.

  253W
  English Heritage already has much work under way as part of its modernisation programme. My right hon. and noble Friend has therefore asked them to integrate the review's findings and recommendations into the process. DCMS and other interested Departments will work closely with English Heritage to ensure that the recommendations in the report are implemented quickly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the allocated budget is for entertainment for the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe; what representations he has made thereon; and if he will make a statement. [57896]

  Peter Hain
  Of the Convention's euro 10.5 million (approximately £6.49 million) budget (which includes administrative costs and travel expenses), euro 150,000 (approximately £92,700) has been set aside for 'representational expenses'. An inter-institutional agreement provides for regular reports on expenditure of the Convention to be provided to the institutions, including the Council.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his policy within the discussions on the Convention on the Future of Europe as concerns development of(a) the Common Defence Policy, with particular reference to existing provisions for possible development of communal defence, (b) Justice and Home Affairs matters, (c) the Common Foreign Policy, (d) extension of qualified majority voting, (e) repatriation of powers, (f) the establishment of a set determination of powers and (g) extension of Social Chapter material; [57884]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy on discussions on (a) environmental issues, (b)(i) incorporation and (ii) extension of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (c) treaty simplification, (d) introducing sunset clauses into EU legislation, (e) common fisheries policy, (f) common agricultural policy, (g) the role of national Parliaments, (h) implementation and development of subsidiarity, (i) fiscal harmonisation, (j) employment law, (k) education, (l) culture, (m) budgetary control, (n) election of Commissioners and (o) ratification through referendums in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [57861]

  Peter Hain
  We are in the early days of the Future of Europe Convention, which is currently in a 'listening phase'. Our overall objective is an EU which is better understood, more democratic and which delivers the benefits out citizens expect. Details of Convention discussions can be found at www.european-convention.eu.int.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals he is seeking to include for discussion at the Convention on the Future of Europe for increased parliamentary participation in the legislative programme at European level. [57915]
  254W
  Peter Hain
  The Laeken Declaration noted the contribution of national Parliaments to the legitimacy of the European project. We wish to promote open debate about how this might be achieved.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's planned role in publicising the(a) activities, (b) conclusions and (c) variety of opinions of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [57903]

  Peter Hain
  Discussions and all official documents of the Future of Europe Convention are in the public domain. Progress can be followed, and submitted documents can be consulted, via the Convention's website (http://european-convention.eu.int). The FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) also provides information on the Future of Europe.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has(a) made and (b) received on the establishment of an agenda for discussions at the Convention on the Future of Europe. [57914]

  Peter Hain
  The Laeken Declaration, agreed by Heads of State and Government of all the member states, convened the Future of Europe Convention and established its agenda—"to consider the key issues arising for the Union's future development and try to identify the various possible responses".

  European Union Institute for Security Studies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the European Union Institute for Security Studies. [57867]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The European Union's Institute of Security Studies' main responsibility is to conduct academic research and analysis on issues related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Specifically, it produces and commissions research papers and arranges seminars. The Institute maintains a network of exchanges with other research institutes and think-tanks both inside and outside the European Union.

  Eurozone
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which states applying to join the EU have indicated(a) willingness and (b) desire for an opt-out, with respect to accession to the Eurozone; [57883]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the obligations of applicant EU states with regard to accession to the Eurozone upon attaining membership. [57902]

  Peter Hain
  A candidate is not required to adopt the euro before acceding to the EU. Rather, upon accession, new EU member states will be granted a derogation from the adoption of the euro. Candidates have agreed to aim towards the adoption of the euro as an eventual objective and no candidate has requested an opt-out.

  Zimbabwe Embargo
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when EC 310/2002, on the
  255W
  prohibition of export to Zimbabwe of items which could be used in internal repression, was first (a) tabled and (b) discussed in permanent Council committees. [57870]

  Mr. MacShane
  Discussions of EC Regulation 310/2002 began following the decision of 28 January 2002 by the General Affairs Council (GAC) of the European Union to implement targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe if the Government of Zimbabwe failed to act on specific EU concerns about Zimbabwe, such as political violence, election observers, and free internal media access.

  The regulation imposing the embargo on the sale or supply of items which might be used in internal repression was submitted to the parliamentary scrutiny committees in draft on 12 February 2002.

  The General Affairs Council agreed the regulation at its meeting of 18 February.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of restraints permitted for export to Zimbabwe following EU sanctions agreement. [57874]

  Mr. MacShane
  EC Regulation 310/2002 of 18 February 2002 places inter alia an embargo on the sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression. Annexe II of the regulation establishes a list of such goods to be subject to the embargo. These goods include "leg-irons, gang-chains, shackles and electric shock belts, specially designed for restraining human beings; except handcuffs for which the maximum overall dimension including chain does not exceed 240 mm when locked".

  This embargo is in addition to the full scope arms embargo imposed by the Council Common Position (2002/145/CFSP).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Annex II of EC 310/2002 of 18 February 2002 permits exports of bombs and grenades not other than those specially designed for military use; and if he will make a statement. [57871]

  Mr. MacShane
  EC Regulation 310/2002 of 18 February 2002 places inter alia an embargo on sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression. Annex II of the Regulation establishes a list of such goods to be subject to the embargo. These goods include "bombs and grenades, other than those specially designed for military use, and especially designed components".

  Export of bombs and grenades specially designed for military use are subject to the full scope arms embargo imposed against Zimbabwe by the Council Common Position (2002/145/CFSP).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on paragraph I of Annexe II of EC 310/2002 in the context of Article 7.[57872]

  Mr. MacShane
  Article 7 of Regulation 310/2002 imposes an embargo on the sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression as set out in Annexe II of that Regulation.

  256W
  This embargo is in addition to the full scope arms embargo imposed by the Council Common Position (2002/145/CFSP). In the UK this is implemented by prohibiting the export of goods and technology on the Military List which forms Part III of Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  Meetings With Embassy Staff
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the criteria are for meeting a British ambassador or commercial secretary by business people seeking endorsements in relation to commercial contracts. [37726]

  Mr. Straw
  It is part of every ambassador and commercial secretary's job to promote UK commercial interests. In determining whether to meet business figures seeking endorsements in relation to commercial contracts, diplomatic staff are expected to consider the benefit to the UK, including the effect on British commercial, economic and foreign policy interests.

  Majority Voting
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times a decision has been taken by majority voting in the European Council this year. [57165]

  Peter Hain
  The European Council does not at present take decisions qualified majority voting (QMV), but agrees its conclusions by consensus.

  Overseas Hotels
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the criteria are for booking overseas hotel accommodation for(a) Ministers, (b) officials and (c) special advisers when on publicly funded visits. [57833]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Generally Ministers, officials and special advisers will be accommodated in a hotel identified by our diplomatic mission, often in consultation with the host country, as being a non-luxury, business hotel located relatively close to the mission and suitable for representational officers. In some countries, a second class of hotel is used for officials with no representational duties. During conferences the host nation may well limit delegations to particular hotels for security, protocol and logistical purposes.

  Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Cuban authorities concerning the case of the imprisoned human rights campaigner, Juan Carlos Gonzales Leiva. [57812]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are aware of parliamentary and public interest in the case of Juan Carlos Leiva. We regularly raise human rights issues with the Cuban Government and we have raised this case with the Cuban MFA.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives from the Lebanon; when a minister next plans to visit that country; and if he will make a statement. [57851]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the Lebanese Ambassador, His Excellency Jihad Mortada, at a lunch they are attending on 22 May hosted by the Council of Arab Ambassadors. The Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri's planned visit to the UK was postponed because of The Queen Mother's funeral. We hope that the visit will be reinstated soon.

  I visited Lebanon on 24 July 2001 and had a number of meetings, including with the Prime Minister, the President (Emile Lahoud) and the Speaker of Parliament (Nabi Berri). I also met the Lebanese Minister responsible for Public Works and Transport (Muhammad Najib Miqati) in London on 5 April.

  There are no current plans for Ministers to visit Lebanon.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in Pakistan and India concerning recent attacks on Indian army personnel in Kashmir. [57641]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs telephoned his Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, shortly after he heard news of the 14 May attack in Jammu. The Secretary of State also issued a statement on 14 May condemning the attach and expressing his condolences to the relatives of those killed and to those injured. In the statement, he called on all countries in the region to condemn the attack.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the budget was for Europe Day events signposted on the dedicated website; and if he will make a statement on the maintenance of political neutrality thereon. [57912]

  Peter Hain
  The total cost of the Europe Day event held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9 May is anticipated to be less than £23,000. All other events listed on the Europe Day website were self-funded.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Public Service Agreement commits the Government to promote increased support for and better understanding of the merits of European Union membership. The Europe Day event was a part of the Government's EU information campaign to raise awareness of our membership of the EU, the countries of the EU and the countries that will be joining.

  Trans-EU Political Parties
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a258W
  statement on the state of developments for the funding of trans-EU political parties; and what his position is thereon. [57860]

  Peter Hain
  The Government strongly support the Commission's proposal for a statute to regulate the funding of European political parties, to make it more transparent. The conclusions of the Nice European Council in December ensured that in the future no money going to European political parties would be transferred, either directly or indirectly, to national political parties.

  Information Moneys
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the European Commission spending of information moneys in applicant states, with respect to impartiality. [57901]

  Peter Hain
  In the candidate countries for accession to the European Union, information activities are carried out by the European Commission's delegations. The overall strategy has been endorsed by the council and implementation on the ground takes place in full consultation with the national Government concerned as well as with the embassies of the member states in the relevant capital.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards monitoring public contributions to his Department's website. [57910]

  Mr. MacShane
  The guidelines for moderating public contributions to the FCO website are published on the site itself under "Acceptable Use Policy".

  EU Information Campaigns
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of organisations external to the European Communities which receive Communities funding for information campaigns (budget lines under B3). [57893]

  Peter Hain
  Chapter B3 of the European Communities budget covers a wide range of activities including European Resource Centres, training for librarians, the SOCRATES programme, the Leonardo programme and promoting minority languages. Providing a full list of the several hundred organisations who receive funding for information initiatives could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 196W, if he will list expenditure on his EU Information Campaign broken down by publication and project. [57888]

  Peter Hain
  The total cost to date of the EU information campaign for the financial year 2001–02 is £246,819.
  259W
  Major EU information initiatives included:

  £

  FCO website, Europe Day website and other new media initiatives

  52,203

  Opinion polls

  25,477

  Grants

  40,000

  Regional visits, display materials, consultancy research and other initiative costs (transport, accommodation etc.)

  82,833

  The cost of each publication follows:

  £

  EU newsletter

  5,377

  Britain: a Champion of EU Enlargement booklet

  8,758

  Europe Day promotional flyers, posters and cards

  5,057

  "Heard about European Law?" booklet

  2,244

  "What has the EU ever done for us?" leaflet

  450

  "The EU: What's in it for you?" leaflet

  880

  The Stockholm European Council leaflet

  1,458

  "The European Treaties in under 300 words" leaflet

  2,465

  Information posters and flyers regarding the introduction of euro notes and coins

  16,425

  "The EU: Fighting Crime and Promoting Justice" leaflet

  1,068

  The Treaty of Nice leaflet

  2,124

  Liaison Officers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 26 March, to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz),Official Report, column 815W, if he will list the pay grades of those liaison officers identified; and if he will identify companies involved. [57889]

  Mr. MacShane
  In accordance with good employer practice and under exemptions 8a and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not appropriate to release such information into the public domain.

  Companies are not involved; liaison officers are employed on a freelance basis.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many EU(a) directives and (b) regulations have been incorporated into UK law in each year since 1997. [57879]

  Peter Hain
  We estimate that the number of EU directives incorporated into EU law is as follows:

  1997: 85;

  1998: 109;

  1999: 100;

  2000: 91; and

  2001: 83 (until end November).

  It would require a disproportionate cost to compile the number of regulations incorporated over the same period.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the red lines which Britain will not cross in its negotiations with Spain on the future of Gibraltar under the Brussels Process; and if he will make a statement. [57550]
  260W
  Peter Hain
  Our objectives under the Brussels Process remain to preserve Gibraltar's way of life, establish greater self-government, deliver lasting practical benefits and a stronger economy, and secure a lasting agreement on sovereignty so that Gibraltarians can enjoy security for their way of life. Negotiations continue.

  Chechnya
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report of the Parliamentary ombudsman into the complaint received from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on behalf of Mrs. Louisa Petschi (Case No. C974/01) concerning his Department's handling of a news report received on Sunday 6 December 1998 about actions affecting British nationals held hostage in Chechnya. [58710]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I welcome the fact that the ombudsman found no evidence of maladministration by officials in the way in which the decision to discount the report was taken, and therefore no basis for questioning the merits of that decision. However, in view of the possible confusion over the timing of the handling of the report by FCO officials, reflected in statements by Ministers at the time, the Permanent Under-Secretary, on the Ombudsman's recommendation, wrote to Mrs. Petschi and her Member of Parliament on 21 March to offer his apologies for the lack of clarity as to the sequence of events.

  To the extent that this touches on the statement of the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to the House on 9 December 1998, Official Report, column 322, I wish to confirm that the Minister's answer reflected the judgment of officials at the time that the news report did not represent an advance warning of a rescue attempt. This remains our view.

  Chemical Weapons
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the states that he described in his letter of 19 March to José Bustani as OPCW's main member states were. [58331]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In this context, the 41 member states drawn from all regional groups represented on the Executive Council—the executive organ of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what complaints were made by the Chief Financial Officer of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in respect of the financial management of the organisation. [58320]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no post with the title of Chief Financial Officer at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, the former Director-General, as Chief Executive Officer of the OPCW Technical Secretariat did, on occasions, criticise the staff working under him in the financial areas of the Secretariat.
  261W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the differences between OPCS's main member states and José Bustani referred to by the Foreign Secretary in his letter to Mr. Bustani dated 19 March were. [58330]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The differences between Mr. Bustani and states represented on the Executive Council of the OPCW, centred on the financial and administrative management of the organisation.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent complaints were made about the Chief Financial Officer to member states of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in respect of the financial management of the organisation. [58307]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no post of Chief Financial Officer at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, a number of complaints about the former Director-General—the Chief Executive Officer of the OPCW—were published by the United States. These mainly related to the failure to monitor expenditure in 2000, leading to a deficit; failure to explain financial problems arising in 2001; and presentation of unrealistically high budgetary bids.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions Dame Rosemary Spencer made representations to José Bustani on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that were critical of his stewardship, or the direction, of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons during her period as ambassador. [58308]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer below (UIN 58306).

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the UK ambassador to the Hague made representations to José Bustani that were critical of(a) his stewardship and (b) the direction of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons prior to the latter's dismissal. [58306]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The then British ambassador (Dame Rosemary Spencer) joined other major financial contributors in a call on Mr. Bustani, on 23 February 2001, to express our concern at his decision to apply major cuts to the verification programme. On 6 April 2001, the UK representative to the OPCW Executive Council took part in a similar call, urging a more co-operative approach, pressing for assurances that financial controls had been put in place to correct evident shortcomings, and requesting revision of Mr. Bustani's 2002 budget proposals. The UK representative on the Executive Council had made similar points in a private meeting with Mr. Bustani on 5 April 2001. The current British ambassador (Colin Budd) met with Mr. Bustani on 15 March 2002 to inform him that the UK believed that it would be in the best interests of the OPCW and the chemical weapons convention if he were to resign.

  Middle East
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when meetings have taken place since 1 April between members of his Department and(a) Israeli officials and (b) members of
  262W
  the Israeli diplomatic staff in the United Kingdom; what topics were discussed on each occasion; and if he will make a statement; [58295]

  (2) when meetings have taken place since 1 April between members of the British diplomatic staff in Israel and Israeli officials; what topics were discussed on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [58293]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials in London and our embassy in Tel Aviv have regular, almost daily, contact with their Israeli counterparts. These cover a number of issues, but the Israeli-Palestinian crisis predominates. Contact with the Israelis is a key part of the international effort to secure progress in the peace process.

  Delegations (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason no devolved Administration Minister attended the 2425 European Union Council of Ministers meeting (General Affairs) on 13 May; which particular suggestions and matters of concern from the Scottish Executive were raised in their absence by the United Kingdom Government delegation; and what information and evidence was provided by his Department to enable post-council security by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [58305]

  Peter Hain
  Decisions on Ministerial attendance at Council meetings are taken on a case-by-case basis by the lead UK Minister. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended this meeting, representing all parts of the UK.

  It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for and follow-up to EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Sex Offenders
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the protocols for cross-border information-sharing on child sex offenders and child abusers. [55286]

  Jane Kennedy
  The protocols currently being developed for information sharing on a variety of subjects including child sex offenders and child abusers will be confidential to the participating agencies. They have no plans to publish.

  Motor Fuel
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many successful prosecutions there have been in each year since 1997 for smuggling motor fuel products into Northern Ireland; and what penalties were imposed. [54294]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  263W
  For the number of prosecutions each year since 1997 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 20 November 2001, Official Report, column 266W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which umbrella bodies registered with the Criminal Records Bureau do not charge a fee for processing applications for disclosures from volunteers; and if he will make a statement; [55450]

  (2) what criteria the Criminal Records Bureau uses to define umbrella bodies as (a) open and (b) closed; [55449]

  (3) if he will list by (a) region and (b) county the number of open voluntary sector umbrella bodies registered with the Criminal Records Bureau; [55452]

  (4) what arrangements his Department has made to obtain information on the fees charged to process applications for disclosures by umbrella bodies registered with the Criminal Records Bureau. [55451]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  An "open" umbrella registered body is an organisation in the public, private or voluntary sector that is prepared to countersign applications for higher level disclosures at the request of others outside their own circle or sector. A "closed" umbrella registered body is one that provides the countersignatory service to those within its circle or sector only.

  Information is not kept as to the charging of fees by umbrella bodies, and there are no plans to collect such information. In guidance for umbrella bodies, the Criminal Records Bureau urges that any such charges are kept to a minimum. Those wishing to use the services of an umbrella body would be well advised to ask whether charges are made and, if so, compare charges.

  As at 10 May 2002 the number of open voluntary sector bodies was as follows:

  Open voluntary sector bodies

  Number

  (a) By area

  East Midlands

  7

  Eastern

  8

  Greater London

  6

  Merseyside

  1

  Mid Wales

  0

  North East

  5

  North Wales

  0

  North West

  6

  South East

  12

  South Wales

  0

  South West

  4

  West Midlands

  10

  Yorkshire

  2

  (b) By county

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Cumbria

  1

  Derbyshire

  4

  Dorset

  2

  Durham

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  264W

  Open voluntary sector bodies

  Number

  Essex

  4

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Greater London

  7

  Greater Manchester

  3

  Hampshire

  3

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Humberside

  1

  Kent

  4

  Lancashire

  2

  Merseyside

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Shropshire

  1

  Somerset

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  Suffolk

  2

  Teesside

  2

  Tyneside

  2

  Warwickshire

  3

  West Midlands

  5

  West Sussex

  1

  Sentences
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) detention and training orders and (b) referral orders have been imposed in each police force area in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [55854]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Statistics on detention and training orders for 2001 will be published in the autumn.

  Offenders given detention and training orders or referral orders by police force area, 2000 and 2001, England and Wales

  Police force

  Detention and training orders1,2

  Referral orders3,4

  Avon and Somerset

  67

  —

  Bedfordshire

  53

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  44

  —

  Cheshire

  80

  —

  Cleveland

  86

  —

  Cumbria

  65

  —

  Derbyshire

  86

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  22

  —

  Dorset

  31

  —

  Durham

  71

  —

  Essex

  107

  —

  Gloucestershire

  47

  —

  Greater Manchester

  445

  —

  Hampshire

  193

  —

  Hertfordshire

  52

  —

  Humberside

  72

  —

  Kent

  114

  —

  Lancashire

  139

  152

  Leicestershire

  120

  —

  Lincolnshire

  27

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  193

  —

  Metropolitan police

  738

  115

  Norfolk

  27

  —

  Northamptonshire

  29

  —

  Northumbria

  158

  —

  North Yorkshire

  81

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  164

  867

  265W

  Offenders given detention and training orders or referral orders by police force area, 2000 and 2001, England and Wales

  Police force

  Detention and training orders1,2

  Referral orders3,4

  South Yorkshire

  159

  —

  Staffordshire5

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  42

  408

  Surrey

  27

  —

  Sussex

  74

  —

  Thames Valley

  132

  415

  Warwickshire

  47

  —

  West Mercia

  86

  —

  West Midlands

  525

  —

  West Yorkshire

  234

  —

  Wiltshire

  35

  436

  Dyfed-Powys

  10

  —

  Gwent

  35

  —

  North Wales

  60

  —

  South Wales

  221

  339

  Total England and Wales

  4,998

  2,732

  1 Introduced 1 April 2000

  2 All areas, 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2000

  3 Piloted in seven areas from April 2000—to be introduced nationally from May 2002. Figures are approximate as orders made in August and September 2001 have been estimated.

  4 Pilot areas, 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2001

  5 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Prison Service pay queries have been outstanding at the end of each month since July 2001; [55729]

  (2) how many Prison Service personnel have been (a) incorrectly paid and (b) unpaid following the implementation of Payfact. [55728]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Payment of Prison Service personnel is handled by the Home Office Pay and Pensions Service. This service operates 28 payrolls for 69,000 employees. Of these over 40,000 are in the Prison Service. Up until now, the Pay Service has not kept figures for the number of Prison Service pay queries outstanding at the end of each month. However, ways of measuring the number of pay queries on a month by month basis are currently being developed and therefore this information will be available in the future.

  Pay Service's priority must be to concentrate on paying personnel correctly, accounting for the disbursement of funds from the payroll and providing financial management information. Pay Service does not retain statistics specifically related to the number of people paid incorrectly or unpaid each month. However, the feasibility of doing so is currently being examined. It does retain statistics for the number of payments made outside payday, both for manually calculated payments and those made through the Payfact system. The figures provide a good indicator of where there are problems. The figures include the numbers of advances of overtime requested by individuals and advances of salary for new entrants; as
  266W
  such, they cannot he used to indicate the number of personnel who have been unpaid or paid incorrectly each month.

  Month

  Number of prison service personnel

  Combined total of manual payments and advances

  2001

  July1

  45,024

  219

  August

  46,943

  588

  September

  45,074

  953

  October

  45,551

  780

  November

  46,358

  1,185

  December

  44,870

  737

  2002

  January

  45,148

  648

  February

  45,609

  1,001

  March

  45,408

  636

  1 Date from when Payfact went live.

  Court Escapes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people escaped from a court in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [56298]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland (Helen Liddell) and Northern Ireland. (Dr. John Reid).

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of drink driving offences and ordered to retake their driving tests in the last 12 months by courts in England and Wales. [56296]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The number of people ordered to retake their driving test following conviction for drink driving offences for the year 2000 (latest available) was 665.

  Juvenile Detention
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress has been made with the Youth Justice Board's review of methods of physical control and restraint in juvenile secure accommodation; [56158]

  (2) when the physical control and care methods which are used in secure training centres will be introduced uniformly across the juvenile secure estate. [56159]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) commissions and purchases secure accommodation for juveniles from the prison service, private sector and local authority secure children's homes, and sets and monitors standards.

  During the first six months of 2000, the YJB reviewed the control and restraint methods used in the local authority secure children's homes where it places young people. It concluded that it would be inappropriate to

  267W
  prescribe one method across all homes because of variations in size, ratio of welfare to criminal justice placements, and age groups. However, through its contracting arrangements the YJB requires homes providing criminal justice placements to use the control and restraint methods approved and specified by the Department of Health for use in that particular home.

  The board does not plan to extend the physical control and care methods used in secure training centres (STCs) to the rest of the juvenile secure estate for essentially similar reasons. Custodial facilities vary significantly in size, age groups, staff/trainee ratios and individual operational circumstances. But all facilities operate to the governing principle that their control and restraint methods should minimise the risk of injury to the young person, staff, and other residents.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detention centres for children aged 12–15 he plans to build; in what circumstance children will be referred to the new detention centres; who will run the new detention centres; what activities will take place within them; and if he will make a statement. [52149]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) is responsible for commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for juveniles from the prison service, private sector and local authority secure children's homes, and for setting and monitoring standards.

  The YJB began a building programme in March 2001 to provide 400 new independent sector secure training centre (STC) places by 2005. These places will result from the expansion of two of the existing STCs, Rainsbrook and Medway, and the creation of five new STCs in areas of shortfall across England and Wales. The new STCs will be operated by private providers under private finance initiative contracts managed by the YJB in the same way as the existing centres. In addition, all STCs are governed by the secure training centre rules 1998.

  The majority of young people detained in STCs are those sentenced to a detention and training order. However, STCs may also accommodate remandees and those who are subject to detention under s90 or s91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 for murder and other specified serious offences.

  The aim is to provide a safe and secure environment where young people have structured, individually tailored training plans. These include 25 hours a week of education; one hour a day to tackle offending behaviour; regular practical tuition in social and life skills; and the opportunity through award schemes and constructive leisure time to develop new interests both in custody and upon transfer to the community. Regular contact with family and friends is encouraged and weekly family visits are funded by the YJB.

  Prison Deaths
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support is provided by his Department to the families of prisoners who have died in Her Majesty's prisons. [56854]
  268W
  Beverley Hughes
  Prison service practice seeks to provide support to the family of the deceased in a number of ways. These include the provision at an early stage of the factual details of the circumstances of the death; an offer of a visit to the prison; and a letter of condolence from the governor of the prison which will include the notification of a named contact point at the prison.

  Prisons also forward to families a leaflet that contains details of INQUEST (an independent support group) who are available to offer advice and support; the prison may offer, where appropriate, to make a contribution to the payment of funeral services; and any personal property is handed over.

  Following completion of an investigation into the death, the investigating officer offers to meet with the family and disclose the investigation report to them, with the coroner's consent, in advance of the inquest.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those convicted of criminal offences against young people were themselves young people in each of the last three years. [55045]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: In 1998 and 1999, 10 per cent. of those convicted of criminal offences against young people where the age of the victim is known from the description of the offence were themselves young people. In 2000 the figure was 9 per cent.

  Statistics for 2001 will be published in the autumn.

  HMP Brixton
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference are of the Review of Deaths in Custody in HMP Brixton; who has been appointed to conduct this review; when he expects a report; and if he will lay the report before the House. [57205]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Area Manager for London has asked the Governor of Wandsworth prison to conduct the review. The final report is due by mid-August 2002. I will place a copy of the report in the Library, subject to constraints of security and confidentiality.

  The terms of reference are to review and report:

  1. The profiles of all the prisoners who have died or self harmed at Brixton since 1998 to establish any common themes or if particular groups of prisoners present a higher than normal risk.

  2. The profiles of all prisoners who have registered any complaints during the last two years to the race relations liaison officer, via the request/complaint procedure or by any other means and the results of any subsequent investigations.

  3. The profiles of prisoners over the same period who have undergone adjudications, segregation, control and restraint (C&R) removal or have had injuries registered on F213 forms.

  4. The nature and number of staff grievances during the last 12 months and any common themes.

  5. Any examples of best practice evident at Brixton.

  6. Any other relevant matters that come to light during the course of inquiries.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the(a) capacity of the English prisons system and (b) the number of actual prisoners in the English prisons system in each year since 1980–81; [56221]

  (2) how many people have been in prison in England in each reporting period since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [56235]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have placed in the Library tables showing the population in prisons in England and Wales from January 1979 to March 2002, the In-use Certified Normal Accommodation (uncrowded capacity), and the population in prisons in England from January 1989 to March 2002 (the latest data available).

  Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of the prison population in(a) HMP Brixton and (b) England and Wales are non-literate or at severe disadvantage as a result of their literacy skills; what measures are being taken to address this disadvantage; and what targeting is in place to address those groups disproportionately affected by non-literacy. [57204]

  Beverley Hughes
  40 per cent. of prisoners screened for basic skills at Brixton prison last year were found to be non-literate, and a further 43 per cent. were found to have serious literacy problems. This compares with 24 per cent. of non-literate prisoners nationally and a

  Asylum appeals and removals in the United Kingdom, for nationals of Slovakia1,2

  Principal applicants

  Appeals sent to the IAA

  Total appeals determined

  Allowed

  Appeal outcomes Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Removals3

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  120

  1998

  90

  125

  5

  80

  40

  240

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20004

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20014,5,6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  n/a = not available

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Removals do not necessarily relate to appeals dismissed in the same period.

  3 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, and may include some persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  4 Provisional figures, subject to change.

  5 April to September.

  6 Removals figures for April to September are estimated.

  Asylum appeals and removals in the United Kingdom, for nationals of Slovakia1,2

  Principal applicants

  Appeals sent to the IAA

  Total appeals determined

  Allowed

  Appeal outcomes Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Removals3

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  110

  1998

  105

  130

  5

  100

  25

  170

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20004

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20014,5,6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  425

  n/a = not available

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Removals do not necessarily relate to appeals dismissed in the same period.

  3 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, and may include some persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  4 Provisional figures, subject to change.

  5 April to September.

  6 Removals figures for April to September are estimated.

  270W
  further 56 per cent. with serious needs. In addition to screening tests we will be introducing a diagnostic assessment for basic skills, and will fund purpose built or modified accommodation in local prisons to support assessment. We will then expect prisons to ensure that identified needs are addressed in an appropriate way, including support for prisoners with learning difficulties. Our basic skills strategy, which includes the widening of education targets at national and establishment level, is ensuring that we can address needs at all levels. New funding for classrooms adjacent to workshops will help to integrate basic skills into other prison activities. And we will ensure that teachers and trainers in prisons have the same access to training as their mainstream colleagues including in the new curriculum standards for English for Speakers of Other Languages.

  Asylum Seekers
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to questions refs 54013 and 54019, what happened to those asylum seekers from Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania from 1997 to 2001 who were not granted asylum, granted extended leave to remain, or had their application refused. [56447]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to determine how many persons, refused asylum from 1997 to 2001, have subsequently appealed and/or been removed, and/or left the country voluntarily. This information, where available, could be obtained only by examination of individual case files at disproportionate costs.

  The available information is given in the tables. Appeals and removals do not necessarily relate to decisions made in 1997 to 2001.
  271W

  Asylum appeals and removals in the United Kingdom, for nationals of Romania1,2

  Principal applicants

  Appeals sent to the IAA

  Total appeals determined

  Allowed

  Appeal outcomes Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Removals3

  1997

  340

  540

  5

  490

  45

  305

  1998

  470

  665

  5

  620

  45

  335

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20004

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20014,5,6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  235

  n/a = not available

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Removals do not necessarily relate to appeals dismissed in the same period.

  3 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them, and may include some persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  4 Provisional figures, subject to change.

  5 April to September.

  6 Removals figures for April to September are estimated.

  Information on asylum appeals and removals is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to March 2002, and will be available from 30 May 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Contraception
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent efforts his Department has made to make access to contraception easier, cheaper, and provided with relevant advice. [56266]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Contraceptives are available free of charge from the national health service on prescription. One of the aims of the Sexual Health and HIV Strategy, which was published for consultation in July 2001, is to improve access to contraception and to advise on sexual health. In addition, we have also provided funding to 14 areas to enable them to develop schemes for the free NHS supply of emergency contraception in pharmacies using a patient group direction.

  The Government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy recognises the importance of helping young people resist peer pressure to have early sex, while seeking to ensure that those who are sexually active have easy access to high quality contraceptive advice. A series of guidance notes have been issued to local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators on improving contraceptive and advice services for young people. Local co-ordinators have audited youth contraceptive services in clinics and general practice against these criteria for effective services in order to identify gaps in service provision and to plan improvements. We are also working closely with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing to improve young people's access to contraceptive advice within general practice.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place with(a) religious groups and (b) youth organisations to agree a strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies. [56267]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  272W
  Development of the teenage pregnancy strategy was informed by consultation with individuals and organisations representing both young people and a wide range of faiths.

  To ensure ongoing dialogue with faith groups during the implementation of the strategy, the teenage pregnancy unit has established an inter-faith forum involving individuals and organisations from diverse faiths. The forum meets twice a year.

  The teenage pregnancy unit has established a national young people's forum to advise on implementation, which meets three times a year, and undertakes targeted consultations with specific groups of young people. The unit also works closely with voluntary sector organisations representing the interests of young people through its forum for non-statutory organisations.

  Local teenage pregnancy strategies, developed for each top tier local authority area, are also actively involving young people and the wider community. Guidance on involving young people was published and distributed to local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators in 2001. A resource is currently being developed for local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators on working with those from different faiths and cultures, which will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been done since 1997 to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies in the UK. [56265]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  After research by the social exclusion unit into the complex causes of teenage pregnancy, a comprehensive, cross-Government teenage pregnancy strategy was launched in 1999. This sets a target to halve the under-18s conception rate by 2010 and aims to increase the participation of teenage parents in education and training to reduce their long term risk of social exclusion.

  The strategy is informed by the best available evidence of what works. This encompasses a multi-faceted approach to help young people resist peer pressure to have early sex, improve sex and relationship education, increase access to effective contraception and sexual health services and support parents in talking to their children about sex and relationship issues.

  273W
  The teenage pregnancy unit has been established to implement the strategy. Every top tier local authority area has a local teenage pregnancy strategy and reduction target to underpin the delivery of the national strategy. Local strategies are managed by a teenage pregnancy partnership board, with a lead teenage pregnancy co-ordinator and representation from the local authority, primary care trusts and other key local partners, including the voluntary sector. Over £60 million has been invested across Government during the first three years of implementation. Early signs of the strategy's impact are encouraging with figures for 2000 showing a 6.2 per cent. reduction from 1998 in both under-18 and under-16 conception rates.

  Almost all of the strategy's action points have now been implemented but further work needs to be done to ensure that early progress is sustained. The strategy's independent advisory group has published its first annual report setting out 49 recommendations for further action to underpin implementation of the strategy and delivery of the targets. The Government will publish their response to this report in the summer.

  Action on teenage pregnancy relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which her Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45399]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since the Department was constituted in June last year, no internal guidance or administrative manuals have been published.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the mandate of the Leonardo da Vinci Committee 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 he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [56719]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The purpose of the Leonardo da Vinci Committee is set out in the Council decision 1999/382/EC of 26 April 1999, which established the second phase of the Leonardo programme. The Leonardo Committee has met three times over the last 12 Months. Travel expenses were met from Commission resources. Two officials from the UK attend the meetings. The subsistence cost incurred by this Department was £1,560.

  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
  274W
  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 2002 (Com(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training 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. [56720]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Advisory Committee on Vocational Training (ACVT) was established by Council Decision no. 63/266/EEC dated 2 April 1963 which laid down general principles for implementing a common vocational training policy across the EU. Its purpose is to offer advice and submit opinions to the European Commission on vocational training policy which the Commission is obliged to take account of. It has met twice in the last 12 months.

  The UK is represented by two officials from the Department for Education and Skills, the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).

  Costs to UK public funds were limited to the officials' expenses, approximately £2,660, less any reimbursements provided by the European Commission.

  At its next meeting, ACVT is considering a number of vocational training and related items.

  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 2002 (Com(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Stewart Report
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress she has made on implementing the Stewart report recommendations on the beam of greatest intensity from mobile phone masts and schools on their grounds. [57095]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]We have agreed with the network operators that they will provide schools, on request, with information on the level of intensity of radio frequency radiation from a mast on
  275W
  or near their premises. Schools and parents can then make an informed decision as to whether to give their agreement to that operation. We have informed local education authorities and schools of this.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days of sick leave were taken by(a) primary and secondary school teachers and (b) other staff in those schools in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was. [56059]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]In the calendar year 2000, full-time teachers in the English maintained schools sector took 2,392,400 days of sick leave', and part-time teachers in the English maintained schools sector took 301,970 days of sick leave. These figures cannot be broken down by phase.

  Provisional 2001 data will be published on 30 May 2002.

  The estimated cost of this lost teacher time2 is £430 million.

  The Department does not collect information on sick leave taken by non-teaching staff in schools.
  1 Sickness absence on working days, whether paid absence or not, of teachers with permanent contracts or contracts of over one month, including teachers without QTS. The number of days taken as sick leave includes all periods of sick leave.
  2 The cost of a teacher's working day is calculated using estimates of teacher salaries and additional teacher costs in 2000.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the financial consequence is to a secondary school of excluding a pupil. [57499]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Pupil Retention Grant (PRG) is part of the Social Inclusion: Pupil Support (SIPS) grant which is available to tackle disaffection in schools and to provide education outside school. It is available only to secondary pupils.

  PRG has given secondary schools significant additional resources to tackle poor behaviour, while at the same time ensuring that when pupils are excluded LEAs have the resources they need to provide alternative education. In 2001–02, we increased the PRG to £122 million from £100 million in 2000–01. LEAs must allocate the PRG direct to schools.

  Where permanent exclusion has taken place, a child will still need to be educated. In these cases the exclusion will trigger the transfer of at least some of the PRG from the school to the LEA as a contribution to the education of that child. The LEA has flexibility about the amount it will seek to transfer back from the school that it negotiates with head teachers. On average, between £3,000—£6,000 will be deducted from the excluded school's budget allocation per excludee.

  The LEA can then use the PRG to provide education outside of school and/or support a reintegration package at a new school, helping to ensure that full-time education really does become a reality for excluded children and young people. Schools accepting pupils previously excluded from other schools should therefore benefit from
  276W
  these additional funds. This procedure follows the principle introduced by the last Government of money following the excluded pupil.

  Truancy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many parents have been prosecuted in each of the last 10 years for failing to send their children to school; and what the average fine was for parents who have been successfully prosecuted and fined. [57505]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 90W.

  After School Clubs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) after school and (b) holiday clubs have been (i) closed, (ii) established and (iii) supported by funding from her Department on the Isle of Wight in each year since 1997. [57538]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]The information is not available in the form requested, statistics are gathered in the form of the number of places rather than the number of clubs (as the size of clubs varies considerably).

  Since April 1999 local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) have provided information on all the new child care places that have been established and all those that close within their local area. Between April 1999 and December 2001, Isle of Wight EYDCP has reported the creation of 515 out of school places and 202 holiday only places. During the same period the EYDCP reported the closure of 45 out of school places. The year on year breakdown is set out in the table.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  April to December 2001

  New places

  Out of school1

  270

  138

  107

  Holiday only

  42

  44

  116

  Closed places

  Out of school1

  0

  0

  45

  Holiday only

  0

  0

  0

  1 The data on out of school places includes before and after school places and all year round provision.

  Detailed information prior to April 1999 is not available.

  Funding for out of school and holiday clubs is provided by the New Opportunities Fund. Since April 1999 the New Opportunities Fund has made seven awards totalling £289,262 specifically to support out of school child care projects in the Isle of Wight.

  In addition infrastructure support funding is provided by the Government through the child care grant made available to EYDCPs who are tasked with providing and supporting good quality, affordable child care in their respective areas. The annual child care grant allocations to Isle of Wight EYDCP since April 1999 are set out in the table.
  277W

  £

  Child care grant allocation

  1999–2000

  99,400

  2000–01

  124,740

  2001–02

  299,650

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) after school and (b) holiday clubs achieved financial sustainability within three years; and what steps she is taking to ensure that new clubs are not set up at the expense of those already in existence. [57539]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have been given the target of ensuring that a minimum of 80 per cent. of all New Opportunities Fund sponsored out of school child care places remain viable and available five years after being established. The Fund has rigorous assessment procedures in place to ensure that funded projects have sound plans to ensure long term sustainability. The current position is that 90 per cent. of places opened are still in operation, irrespective of whether they are still receiving funding support, and we are well on track to achieve our sustainability target.

  The available figures for sustainability do not separately identify after school and holiday clubs.

  EYDCPs are responsible for planning and co-ordinating child care in their areas; ensuring that available funding is targeted in locations where there is a shortfall in provision to avoid conflicting with existing provision: and keep provision and demand under continuous review.

  Nursery Provision (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nursery places have been available in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [57282]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]The available information is shown in the table.

  Table 1: Number of places at day nurseries1 England and Lancashire local authority area 1997–2001

  Position as at 31 March each area

  England

  Lancashire local authority area

  1997

  193,800

  29,900

  1998

  223,000

  3—

  1999

  247,700

  8,800

  2000

  264,200

  9,600

  2001

  285,100

  10,900

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 Includes Blackburn and Darwen and Blackpool.

  3 Not available.

  The figures are as returned by local authorities. Figures for Lancashire local authority area for 1999–2001 are not directly comparable with 1997 because they do not include Blackburn and Darwen and Blackpool local authority areas.

  The latest figures on day care facilities in England were published by my Department in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001" in October 2001, a copy of which is available from the
  278W
  Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on my Department's web-site www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  The increase in the number of day nursery places ensures that a wide choice of child care provision is available to parents. We expect this trend to continue with the creation of 45,000 places in neighbourhood nurseries (equivalent to 900 new 50 place nurseries) in disadvantaged areas.

  Faith-based Academies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills where an academy is created involving(a) the Church Schools Company and (b) any other faith-based organisation, whether the school will be allowed to select and dismiss teachers in accordance with sections 58 to 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. [58106]

  Mr. Timms
  Employment law allows any school with a religious character—whether maintained or independent—to take into account in appointing or promoting teaching staff, their ability to promote the religious character of the school. Where an academy has a religious character, we would consider proposals to include provisions in the funding agreement analogous to the provisions of sections 58 to 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act as these apply to aided schools with a religious character. This would include the parts of sections 58–60 which allow governing bodies of maintained schools to dismiss teachers appointed to give religious education in accordance with the character of the school, where they fail to do so efficiently and suitably.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure that teaching assistants receive adequate ongoing training throughout their careers. [57290]

  Mr. Timms
  Induction training was introduced for newly-recruited teaching assistants in 2000, funded by the DfES. National Vocational Qualifications, based on the new National Occupational Standards for Teaching Assistants, are expected to be in place later this year. Training opportunities are being considered as part of wider work on the development of new roles and career structures for teaching assistants and other school support staff, which will be the subject of consultation later this year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to introduce a career structure for teaching assistants. [57287]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, columns 579–80W.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she has taken to encourage more people to enter into a career as a teaching assistant. [57288]

  Mr. Timms
  A working party involving representatives of teachers and support staff, the local government employers and other Government bodies, is currently
  279W
  considering the roles, responsibilities and career development of teaching assistants and other school support staff. Proposals for improving career structures for support staff will he published in a consultation paper later this year. Provisional figures for January 2002 show that the number of teaching assistants in maintained schools is 103,624, an increase of 61 per cent. since 1998, and that the Government's target for increasing the number of school support staff by 20,000 in this Parliament was exceeded by 6,000, four years early.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects the School Workforce Remodelling Working Party to report. [57289]

  Mr. Timms
  The School Workforce Remodelling Working Party was not set up to work towards a report. Rather, it was established last December so that key stakeholders could meet to consider issues raised by the Secretary of State in her Social Market Foundation pamphlet—"Professionalism and Trust".

  The Working Party's debates have been wide-ranging, from the future deployment of teaching assistants through to reforms to teachers' contracts to deal with workload issues and the status of the teaching profession. The Working Party will shortly be debating the report on teacher workload from the School Teachers' Review Body which we published on 8 May.

SCOTLAND

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the reasons were for the delay in answering the question from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions tabled on 22 April, ref: 52079. [58333]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An oversight by my parliamentary branch.

TREASURY

  EU Energy Tax
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 94W, on what dates since June 2001 (a) Ministers and (b) officials have met their EU counterparts to discuss the proposed EU energy tax. [53069]

  Mr. Boateng
  The proposed energy products directive has been discussed at meetings of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) taking place on 5 June, 22 September and 13 December 2001 and associated preparatory meetings of permanent representatives (COREPER).

  The Financial Questions Group, a working group of officials, has discussed proposals for the energy products directive. It has met on 17 July, 18 September, 23 October and 27 November 2001, and 14 February, 7 March and 17 April 2002.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how many European Union states apply a reduced rate of duty on beer for small brewers; and on which states apply the reduced rate up to the maximum production level of 200,000 hectolitres allowable under EU law. [55600]

  Mr. Boateng
  Seven other member states apply reduced rates of duty based on brewers' production levels. Belgium, Denmark, Germany. Luxembourg and Portugal offer a degree of relief up to the maximum production level allowable under EU law.

  Oil and Gas Industry (Taxation)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will begin consultation on his proposal to abolish royalty tax on the oil and gas industry; and how long the consultation period will last. [57441]

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the timetable is for reviewing the royalty tax on oil revenues. [57300]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will publish a consultation paper shortly.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research he has commissioned on the effect of the supplementary charge and 100 per cent. first year capital allowances on expected monetary values of oil and gas assets and investments in the UK; [57442]

  (2) what assumptions about future levels of investment in the UK by the oil and gas industry underlie his estimates of the additional revenue raised from the supplementary charge on corporation tax. [57436]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A full analysis was made of reform's effect on investment. The Government examined the impact on all investment, exploration and appraised development projects that had already commenced, probable and possible developments on new fields that had already been discovered, and incremental developments of fields already in production.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the additional revenue that will be raised from the supplementary charge on the oil and gas industry between 2006 and 2010. [57437]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government do not publish such estimates. The overall impact of the Budget measures are taken into account in the forecasts of the economy and public finances as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the analysis of the effect of changes in taxation of the oil and gas industry on(a) investment, (b) exploration and appraisal and (c) developments referred to in the oral statement by the Economic Secretary of 9 May 2002, Official Report, column 362. [58008]

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the effect on the(a) timing and (b) number of North sea oil and gas projects of tax changes introduced in the Budget. [58164]
  281W
  Dawn Primarolo
  A full analysis was made of reform's effect on investment. The Government examined the impact on all investment, exploration and appraisal development projects that had already commenced, probably and possible developments on new fields that had already been discovered, and incremental developments of fields already in production. Such information is commercially sensitive and it would be inappropriate to make it public, as provided for in exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received from non-UK oil companies operating in the North sea on the effects of preventing companies from claiming funding costs against profits under the Budget tax changes on their overall liability for tax. [58165]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations regarding the Budget.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the effect of the decision not to allow financing costs against profits when assessing the 10 per cent. budget tax levy on North sea profits. [58166]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the effect which corporation tax changes announced in the Budget of 2002 will have on UK small businesses which are(a) incorporated and (b) unincorporated. [57969]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As set out in Budget 2002 cutting the corporation tax starting rate and the small companies rate will benefit around 485,000 smaller companies. An average small company will save around £700 a year.

  Non-domiciled Tax Status
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the review of non-domiciled tax status; who is leading this review; and what its remit is. [56227]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor announced a review of the residence and domicile rules as they affect the tax liabilities of individuals in his Budget statement. As paragraph 5.83 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report makes clear, we believe that modernisation of these rules needs to be based on clear principles: the rules should be fair, clear, easy to operate and support the competitiveness of the British economy.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the increased employers' NI contribution on charities. [58175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the changes to employer NICs announced in the Budget will add around 0.7 per cent. to pay costs on average next year. The 282W
  changes will help to fund improvements to public services and a real terms increase in spending on health over the next five years of over 40 per cent.

  VAT (Charities)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received to waive value added tax payments for charities; and if he will make a statement. [58176]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have received a number of representations about VAT and charities. The Government regularly discuss taxation issues with the charitable sector.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Succession to Titles
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will take steps to amend the law relating to succession to titles to allow equality of rights to succeed between men and women. [57813]

  Mr. Wills
  There are no plans to legislate in this area.

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what statutory law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities there are within the responsibility of his Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57129]

  Mr. Wills
  The Information Commissioner exercises her statutory enforcement powers and brings prosecutions independently of the Government, but is sponsored by my Department. A new, two stage, complaints procedure, designed to ensure that all complaints are dealt with expeditiously by a senior member of staff, and the most serious ones by a Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner herself, is about to be implemented.

  While there are no enforcement agencies as such within the civil and family courts and Supreme Court, there are county court bailiffs employed by the Court Service as part of the civil service structure, and Sheriffs Officers who are not employed by the Court Service but are authorised to act for the Supreme Court. The complaints procedures for county court bailiffs and Sheriffs Officers are set out in a public leaflet available in all courts.

  There are no prosecuting agencies within the civil and family courts system.

  Libra Project
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how much money additional to that already committed the Libra IT system will require before it is operational. [55282]

  Mr. Wills
  The Office Infrastructure has operated since October 2000 and is now in use in more than 70 per cent. of the magistrates court offices. The software application was not delivered on the planned date of July 2001. The contract is currently under renegotiation and it is not yet possible to indicate the outcome.
  283W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what contractual obligations there are in the Libra IT deal with Fujitsu that would require it to fund an overspend. [55284]

  Mr. Wills
  There is no obligation within the current contract with Fujitsu Services that would require the Department to fund an overspend.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department recommended Fujitsu for the Libra IT deal. [55285]

  Mr. Wills
  Fujitsu (then ICL) were selected through a formal evaluation, which conformed to procurement laws and guidelines. The evaluation was carried out by staff from LCD and the magistrates court service supported by independent advisers.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Libra IT system to be up and running; and if he will make a statement. [55281]

  Mr. Wills
  The Libra IT system consists of two elements. The office infrastructure has been progressively installed and used across the country since late 2000 and is now more than 70 per cent. complete. The software application was due to begin rollout in July 2001 but was delayed. We are currently in negotiation with the suppliers, Fujitsu Services about this matter.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many computer companies hid for the Libra contract in 1997. [55283]

  Mr. Wills
  Two companies went forward to the final stage of the competition in 1997 for Libra but one withdrew at a late stage and only one formal hid was received.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35026]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department's net expenditure with external consultants over the past four years was:

  £ million

  Expenditure

  1998–99

  1.2

  1999–2000

  1.9

  2000–01

  2.6

  2001–03

  6.5

  The recent increase reflects a wide-ranging and fast paced programme to modernise the courts and the tribunal system to increase efficiency, provide better customer service, and value for money for the tax payer.

  Delivering such a programme has necessitated the use of external expertise and skills to supplement the Department's own resources.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the mandate of the 284W
  Committee on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data 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. [56745]

  Mr. Wills
  This is the committee of representatives of EU member states' Governments, which is established by Article 31 of the EC Data Protection directive (95/46/EC). Its mandate is to assist the European Commission in taking decisions relating to the adequacy of data protection in countries outside the European Union. Meetings of the committee are also used by the Commission to keep member states informed about other matters relating to the directive.

  In the 12 months ending 30 April 2002, the committee met three times. The UK representation is provided by an official from my Department. The total cost to the Department of the meetings mentioned above is estimated at £1,100.

  The committee currently has before it no draft Commission decisions, but the Commission is keeping the committee informed of matters that the Commission has under consideration. These include discussions with the United States authorities about the adequacy of US data protection laws for the financial sector; consideration of the adequacy of data protection in Argentina; and the Commission's future report on the implementation of directive 95/46/EC. The United Kingdom has also asked the Commission to consider an adequacy decision for the recently adopted Guernsey data protection law.

  Together with the member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision I999/468/EC to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". There is an obligation under this decision for the Commission to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report (Com(2001)783 Final) was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002. 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the mandate of the group on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data 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. [56746]

  Mr. Wills
  The group is the Working Party of EU member states' independent data protection supervisory authorities, which is set up under Article 29 of the EC Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). Its mandate is to examine questions about the application of national measures adopted under the directive; to give the
  285W
  European Commission opinions on the level of data protection in the European Community and in third countries; to advise the Commission on any proposed amendments of the directive, and on other data protection matters; and to give opinions on data protection codes of practice drawn up at Community level.

  In the 12 months ending 30 April 2002, the Working Party met four times. In the same period there were also six meetings of sub-groups at which the UK was represented. The UK representation is provided by staff from the Office of the Information Commissioner. The total cost to the Commissioner's office of the meetings mentioned above is estimated at £6,800. The Working Party is currently considering a wide range of matters including the effect of certain provisions of the directive; the data protection implications of certain draft EU instruments; various draft codes of practices; and various requests which the European Commission have received for formal decisions relating to the adequacy of data protection in third countries.

  A new regulation on public access to EU documents, fully supported by the UK, came into force in December 2001. It provides a clear and effective mechanism for any interested party to request access to documents of the European institutions, including the Commission. As the committee in question is an advisory body to the Commission, its conclusions are covered by that regulation.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [56477]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The most recently published annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" records the number of working days lost through sickness absence in the Lord Chancellor's Department as 10 working days per staff year for the calendar year 2000.

  A recent analysis of sick absence by type indicates that around 23 per cent. of all sick absence in the Department is due to stress, depression or anxiety-related illnesses. We are unable accurately to cost this figure.

  The Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively. A great deal of work has been undertaken to raise awareness of our Service Delivery Agreement targets, of the need to manage attendance in accordance with best practice policies, and to reduce absence due to work related injuries and illness in line with the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  Jury Central Summoning Bureau
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the Jury Central Summoning Bureau in Pocock Street SE1 is using last year's electoral roll for Thurrock when selecting jurors; what year's electoral rolls are being used for these purposes in respect of other local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [58336]
  286W
  Mr. Wills
  Last year's electoral rolls are being used for summoning jurors in all areas of England and Wales.

  Current data from local authorities is still being received, checked and collated before entry on to the system. This will begin, for those areas where data sets are complete, in the near future although specific dates have yet to be arranged.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the cause and extent of delay in the despatch of summons following their issue by the summoning officer at the Jury Central Summoning Bureau based at Pocock Street, London; and if he will make a statement. [58337]

  Mr. Wills
  Summonses are sent by electronic transfer from the Bureau to a print centre for despatch by second class post within 2 working days of generation.

  Confusion has arisen because summonses were endorsed with the date on which they were generated rather than the date on which they were despatched. The anticipated date of despatch, 2 days after generation, has been endorsed on summonses since 7 May to overcome this.

  Land Charges Registers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what duties are placed on local authorities with regard to maintaining their land charges register. [57701]

  Mr. Wills
  The duties of local authorities in relation to the maintenance of their local land charges register are set out in the Local Land Charges Act 1975 and the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines he has issued to local authorities with regard to levels of payment due for public access to local authority land charges registers. [57702]

  Mr. Wills
  No guidelines have been issued with regard to levels of payment due for public access to local land charges registers.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what statutory provision governs access to local authority land charges registers. [57700]

  Mr. Wills
  Access to the local land charges register is governed by the Local Land Charges Act 1975 and the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985).

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what analysis he has made of local authorities' charges for access to their land records and their opening of their records for public inspection; and if he will make a statement. [58109]

  Mr. Wills
  None. Charges for access to the register of local land charges are prescribed by the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985). These charges were last revised in 1998 (SI 1998 No. 1190). Records open to public inspection and held by local authorities may be inspected free of charge. These records include the planning register and the register of enforcement notices, stop notices and breach of condition notices
  287W
  (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, ss 69 and 188). Other records open to public inspection relating to land include maps of public sewers, publicly adopted highways, and public rights of way (Water Industry Act 1991, ss 199 and 200; Highways Act 1980 s 36(7); and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s 57(5) respectively). A local authority must behave reasonably in fulfilling its duty to allow access to public records. If reasonable access is denied the matter may be referred to the courts or the local government ombudsman. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 will improve the rights of individuals to have access to information, and provide a right to complain to the Information Commissioner if access is prevented. The Act is expected to come into force in relation to information held by local government on 1 January 2005.

  Legal Searches
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the statutory requirement is for provision of public access to local authority information as found on the forms(a) CON 29, Inquiries of Local Authorities and (b) LLC1, Requisition and Certificate of Search. [57706]

  Mr. Wills
  Some of the information contained in answers to questions in CON 29 is available from public records that are held by local authorities. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to allow public inspection, free of charge, to these records. In the case of the planning register, for example, sections 69, 188 and 214 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require local authorities to make the register available for inspection by the public "at all reasonable hours". The statutory requirement for the provisions of public access to the register of local land charges is set out in the Local Land Charges Act 1975 and the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines he has issued to local authorities with regard to charging for searches based on the forms(a) CON 29, Inquiries of Local Authorities and (b) LLC1, Requisition and Certificate of Search. [57704]

  Mr. Wills
  The Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 1885) give local authorities the power to charge for CON 29 inquiries. The regulations provide that these charges are at the local authority's discretion "but should have regard to its costs in dealing with inquiries". Fees for searches of a local charges register are prescribed by the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to amend(a) the forms (i) CON 29, Inquiries of Local Authorities and (ii) LLC1, Requisition and Certificate of Search and (b) the regulations and guidelines associated with them; and if he will make a statement. [57707]

  Mr. Wills
  CON 29 is not a statutory form. The Local Government Association and The Law Society have recently revised CON 29. The new version will be brought into use on 1 July 2002. I have lodged a copy of the draft of the revised form in the Library of the House of Commons.

  288W
  Form LLC 1 'Register of Local Land Charges Requisition for Search and Official Certificate of Search' is a prescribed form (see Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985)). The Government have no plans to amend it or the regulations relating to it.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the required contents are of forms(a) CON 29, Inquiries of Local Authorities and (b) LLCI, Requisition and Certificate of Search; and what their status is. [57703]

  Mr. Wills
  CON 29 is not a statutory form and is not subject to any statutory requirements as to content. The contents are agreed between local authorities and The Law Society. I have lodged a copy of the current form CON 29 in the Library of the House of Commons. The contents of form LLCI (Register of Local Land Charges, Requisition for Search and Official Certificate of Search) are prescribed by the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 (SI 1977 No. 985).

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 828W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of his Department since June 1997 but are not included in the Cabinet Office's annual report "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01". [57039]

  Mr. Leslie
  As my answer to the right hon. Gentleman of 26 March made clear, Ministers in this Department have not appointed any unpaid advisers other than those accounted for in the list of task forces, reviews and other ad hoc advisory groups.

  Review Bodies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he plans to improve the opportunities for(a) members of the House and (b) members of the public to become members of task forces and other ad hoc and review bodies; [58004]

  (2) what the membership is of task forces and other ad hoc advisory and review bodies broken down into (a) public servants, (b) members of the House of Commons, (c) members of the Houses of Lords, (d) representatives of business, (e) representatives of trade unions, (f) representatives of consumers, (g) representatives of the voluntary sector, (h) representatives of local government and (i) volunteers for public appointments on the list maintained by the Cabinet Office; [58003]

  (3) if he plans to (a) increase public knowledge of task forces and other ad hoc and review bodies, with particular reference to when they are first appointed, and (b) invite greater contributions from the general public to their work. [58005]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office's annual report on task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews was produced in October 2001 and a copy is in the Library.

  289W
  The report contains details of the date of establishment of each body, as well as the membership of each, broken down into Ministers, civil servants, wider public servants, volunteers or charity workers and others, including private sector members. Information on the numbers of members who are Lords, representatives of trade unions and representatives of consumers specifically is not recorded. There is no restriction on Members of Parliament or members of the public being appointed to a task force, ad hoc advisory body or review, subject to any actual or perceived conflict of interest.

  Task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews are, by their nature, created to provide advice on a particular subject or subject area. However, in order to carry out their functions, their memberships will consist of those best able because of their position, knowledge or experience, or best qualified to contribute. Individual Departments are responsible for announcing, setting up and organising the membership of these bodies as required.

  The Government remain committed to increasing the involvement of people and groups in public consultations, which play an important part in improving the way new policies are developed and how new services are provided. The Code of Practice on written consultation published by Cabinet Office sets out new standards for consultation documents issued by the Government aimed at making it easier for people to put their views forward to ensure a wider range of views is heard in making decisions.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the members of the Better Regulation Task Force are; what their other occupations are; and what the date of their appointment was. [58006]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF), David Arculus, was appointed on 1 April 2002. The other 15 members were appointed on 29 April 2002. A list of their names and principal organisation is as follows:

  David Arculus, Chair-Chair, Severn Trent plc

  Teresa Graham, Deputy Chair-Partner, Barker Tilly

  Matti Alderson—Director, FireHorses Ltd.

  Stephen Falder—Marketing Director, HMG Paints

  Michael Gibbons—Formerly Director of UK Communications, Powergen plc

  Kevin Hawking—Director of Communications, Safeway Stores plc

  Deirdre Hutton—Chair, National Consumer Council

  Simon Petch—General Secretary, CONNECT

  Ian Peters—Director of External Affairs and Marketing, Engineering Employers Federation

  Penelope Rowlatt—Independent economist

  Janet Russell—Director of Environment and Transport, Kirklees Metropolitan borough council

  Sukhvinder Stubbs—Director, Barrow Cadbury Trust

  Tim Sweeney—Independent consultant: financial services

  Barbara Thomas—Private Enquity Investor plc

  Simon Ward—Independent consultant: hospitality industry.

  290W
  A Register of members' interests is available on the Task Force website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/TaskForce/members.htm.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the mandate of the Committee on the Community Action Programme in the field of civil protection 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. [56807]

  Mr. Leslie
  The mandate of Committee for the Action Programme and for the Mechanism in the Field of Civil Protection, which is composed of representatives of all the member states and is chaired by a representative of the Commission, is to implement the Community Action Programme.

  The UK currently has two projects under consideration for funding, one each from the Home Office and the Red Cross.

  The committee has met five times in the past 12 months, and a member of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat of the Cabinet Office represents the UK.

  The Committee comes under the remit of the Community Mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions. This has been subject to scrutiny by Parliament. The Committee's work is made known to the Emergency Planning community throughout the European Union and reports are available on EU websites.

  The costs to public fund are included in the total running costs of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Charities and Voluntary Bodies (Funding)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from charities and voluntary bodies about the administrative burden applying to funding sources from national and local government and other bodies with different(a) timetables, (b) criteria and (c) monitoring systems; and what plans he has to ease this burden. [52230]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are several linked initiatives taking place across Government aimed at easing the administrative burdens that may face voluntary and community sector bodies when they apply for funding.

  The Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) of the Cabinet Office has undertaken a study to explore how regeneration and community funding can be made more accessible.

  In addition the Home Office's Active Community Unit (ACU) is developing a pilot website to provide information on grants available to voluntary and community sector organisations. This is part of a wider ACU exercise aimed at introducing a more integrated and accessible approach to the Government funding of community groups, particularly small grant schemes.

  291W
  The Regional Co-ordination Unit has, since October 2001, been carrying out a series of reviews to better co-ordinate and rationalise central Government initiatives targeted on areas of deprivation, many of which involve voluntary agencies in delivering services or working in partnership with statutory agencies.

  In each of these initiatives, representatives from the sector have been closely involved in shaping conclusions and recommendations.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  PPP/PFI
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for the five largest PFI contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement; [45590]

  (2) what the difference was between the price offered in reaching preferred bidder stage and the final contract price for PPP contracts let by his Department in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [45605]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]A preferred bidder stage was used to cover seven of the nine PPP deals managed by this Department and let in the last four years. Of these seven PPP deals, five are also PFIs. Details of the use of the preferred bidder stage in letting these deals are provided below.

  Five PPP deals for IS/IT support, of which three are also PFIs, have been let to date under the ACCORD Project. For evaluation purposes, ACCORD used the preferred bidder stage for the initial selection of partners against a set of typical service package scenarios. Ultimate business allocations, such as Child Support Reform support, which make up the five deals, were always likely to be packaged differently and this proved to be the case. There is therefore no simple correlation between prices offered at preferred bidder stage and final prices for individual business allocations. The ACCORD framework provides for internal competition to select suppliers for individual business allocations and secure value for money. Further to such internal competition ongoing value for money is established by means of independent benchmarking of suppliers prices.

  The procurement leading to the PRIME PPP/PFI deal covering ex-DSS estate ownership and management and let in April 1998 selected Partnership Property Management (now Land Securities Trillium) as preferred bidder. At the selection of preferred bidder stage the price offered was £1.93 billion. In subsequent negotiation it was agreed to re-measure the estate and as a result the scope of the deal increased, other service improvements were also secured. These changes resulted in the price increasing by £78 million. The PRIME procurement was examined by the NAO in 1999 and the resulting deal was considered to represent value for money.

  The Employment Service procurement leading to the PPP/PFI contract for human resources services, including payroll and personnel administration, selected the joint proposal from Rebus Resources Services and Norwich Systems Accounting as the preferred bid. Subsequent
  292W
  negotiations to final contract, awarded in February 1999, secured a reduction of £530,000 in price over the term of the contract.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many British pensioners living overseas do not have their basic state pension uprated annually in line with inflation according to their country of residence; [46892]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the age profile of British pensioners living overseas in countries with which the UK does not have a reciprocal agreement to uprate pensions annually in line with inflation; [46893]

  (3) what recent assessment he has made of the costs involved in uprating the pensions of British pensioners overseas in line with inflation in those countries with which the UK does not have a reciprocal agreement; [46895]

  (4) how many British pensioners living overseas are in receipt of the basic state pension; and what percentage of total spending on the basic state pension has payment to British pensioners overseas represented in each year since 1997. [46897]

  Mr. McCartney
  Such information as is available is as follows.

  The UK state pension is paid to those who satisfy the qualifying conditions, which do not include nationality. The information requested on numbers of pensioners who do not receive annual uprating is contained in Table RP4 of the "Retirement Pension Summary of Statistics—September 2001", a copy of which is available in the Library. Costs involved in uprating the pensions of British pensioners overseas will depend on the outcome of the current Judicial Review.

  A breakdown of pensioners in receipt of a British state pension in frozen rate countries by sex and age1

  Thousand

  Age

  All

  Female

  Male

  All

  478.9

  287.9

  191.0

  60

  5.4

  5.4

  —

  61

  7.4

  7.4

  —

  62

  9.2

  9.2

  —

  63

  10.1

  10.1

  —

  64

  11.6

  11.6

  —

  65

  21.2

  11.5

  9.7

  66

  23.2

  12.4

  10.8

  67

  22.4

  11.8

  10.5

  68

  23.7

  12.5

  11.1

  69

  23.5

  12.3

  11.2

  70

  23.6

  12.8

  10.8

  71

  24.3

  12.4

  11.8

  72

  23.7

  12.3

  11.4

  73

  22.8

  12.8

  10.0

  74

  21.3

  11.7

  9.6

  75

  22.6

  13.1

  9.5

  76

  21.8

  11.9

  9.9

  77

  19.9

  11.7

  8.2

  78

  19.1

  10.2

  8.8

  79

  18.8

  10.3

  8.5

  80

  17.6

  10.3

  7.3

  81

  18.5

  10.4

  8.1

  82

  10.0

  6.0

  4.0

  83

  8.5

  4.8

  3.7

  84

  8.2

  5.0

  3.2

  85

  7.6

  4.5

  3.1

  293W

  A breakdown of pensioners in receipt of a British state pension in frozen rate countries by sex and age1

  Thousand

  Age

  All

  Female

  Male

  86

  7.2

  4.8

  2.5

  87

  5.1

  3.3

  1.8

  88

  4.7

  3.2

  1.5

  89

  3.7

  2.5

  1.2

  90

  3.0

  2.2

  0.8

  91

  2.3

  1.7

  0.6

  92

  1.8

  1.4

  20.4

  93

  1.1

  0.9

  20.2

  94

  1.3

  1.0

  20.3

  95

  0.6

  0.5

  20.1

  96

  20.5

  20.4

  20.1

  97

  20.5

  20.4

  20.1

  98

  20.3

  20.3

  —

  99

  20.3

  20.2

  —

  100 and over

  0.5

  20.5

  20.1

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred; totals may not sum due to rounding.

  2 Figures subject to high degree of sampling error and should only be used as a guide to the correct situation.

  Number of pensioners living overseas (thousand)

  Percentage of total BSP expenditure

  1997

  740

  3.6

  1998

  770

  3.6

  1999

  790

  3.7

  2000

  810

  3.8

  2001

  840

  3.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 10,000.

  2. Taken from March administrative data.

  3. Figures exclude those in receipt of additional pension/graduated retirement benefit only.

  4. Figures exclude Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made with his project on modernisation of disability living allowance. [54645]

  Maria Eagle
  We are delivering our commitment to modernise disability living allowance (DLA) by introducing a system of active case management which ensures that entitlements are right at the outset and remain right.

  We are ensuring that the period for which disability living allowance is awarded more appropriately reflects the effects of the customer's disability. As a result the majority of DLA awards are now for a fixed period, and therefore subject to later renewal and review. In addition, in June 1999, we introduced a system of periodic inquiry to ensure that longer term awards remained correct. In April 2002 we introduced refinements to the periodic inquiry process to focus more effort on those cases with the greatest likelihood of incorrectness.

  Extensive work has already been done to shorten and simplify the claiming process for disability living allowance. A shorter claim pack, reduced by 10 pages, was introduced in April 2001 and tests of a new attendance allowance claim pack for people aged 75 and over, which is currently taking place, shows that further significant shortening of the claim pack used for extra cost disability benefits is possible. From September 2002 it is
  294W
  planned to test a significantly shortened disability living allowance claim pack tailored to the needs of individual customers, as part of a new streamlined claim process.

  New report forms to enable general practitioners and Examining Medical Officers to provide clinical rather than subjective medical information about customers are being introduced. These are currently being developed and tested and subject to the satisfactory evaluation of live testing will be rolled out nationally commencing with the general practitioner form in June 2002.

  Staff involved in the DLA decision making process are receiving specialist training on disability awareness and the initial training programme is due to be completed by the end of December. Two additional modules to the programme are now being developed and delivery to staff is due to commence later this year.

  We are continuing to examine the feasibility of making greater use of health care professionals in the decision making process.

  Fraud and Improprieties
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department are involved in work to investigate suspicions of fraud from his Department's vote I budget. [54711]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments.

  The number of the Department's staff employed at 31 March 2002 specifically in work to investigate suspicions of fraud in the areas previously covered' by the Department's vote 1 budget was 5,469.
  1 As a result of the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the Department moved from three votes to one departmental vote on 1 April 2001. The last vote 1 and vote 2 accounts were for the 2000–01 financial year.
  Source:

  Professional Standards Unit. Figure includes investigators and dedicated administrative support staff.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed undertaking specific work on counter fraud policy issues from his Department's vote 2 budget on 8 April. [54712]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The overall aim of the Department's anti-fraud strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of all staff in the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments.

  As a result of the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the Department moved from three votes to one departmental vote on 1 April 2001. The last vote 1 and vote 2 accounts were for the 2000–01 financial year.
  295W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies (i) were disciplined, (ii) resigned and (iii) were dismissed after suspicions of fraud or corruption arose in 2000–01. [54719]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department treats very seriously any suspicions of fraud or corruption by its officers and takes firm action in any cases that arise.

  No instances of corruption were identified in 2000–01. Information on cases where misconduct as a consequence of fraud was identified in 2000–01 is in the table.

  Number of cases

  Benefits Agency

  65

  Departmental directorates

  10

  War Pensions Agency

  2

  Child Support Agency

  5

  The Appeals Service

  0

  Employment Service

  26

  Total

  108

  Note:

  DWP was only formed in 2001–02 and the Employment Service was formerly part of the Department for Education and Employment.

  Information on the outcomes of cases in 2000–01 is in the following table.

  Disciplinary penalty

  Dismissed

  Resigned

  Other1

  Benefits Agency

  31

  14

  9

  11

  Departmental directorates

  9

  0

  0

  1

  War Pensions Agency

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Child Support Agency

  0

  0

  2

  3

  The Appeals Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Employment Service

  19

  5

  2

  0

  Total

  59

  19

  14

  16

  1 Including cases not proven, not culpable, not yet decided, those where no further action has been taken and those where an appeal is ongoing.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies with access to national insurance records were (i) disciplined, (ii) resigned and (iii) dismissed as a result of improprieties concerning their use of this access in 2000–01. [54718]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department treats very seriously any suspicions of unauthorised access by its officers and takes firm action in any cases that arise.

  Information on the number of cases in 2000–01 where misconduct was identified is in the table.

  Number of cases

  Benefits Agency

  50

  Departmental directorates

  1

  War Pensions Agency

  0

  Child Support Agency

  2

  The Appeals Service

  0

  Employment Service

  7

  Total

  60

  Note:

  DWP was only formed in 2001–02 and the Employment Service was formerly part of the Department for Education and Employment.

  Information on the outcomes of cases in 2000–01 is in the following table.
  296W

  Disciplinary penalty

  Dismissed

  Resigned

  Other

  Benefits Agency

  28

  12

  9

  11

  Departmental directorates

  1

  0

  0

  0

  War Pensions Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Child Support Agency

  0

  2

  0

  0

  The Appeals Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Employment Service

  4

  2

  1

  0

  Total

  33

  16

  10

  1

  1 No formal action was taken.

  Genetic Discrimination
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the Government will introduce legislation to prevent genetic discrimination by employers, with specific reference to the refusal of employment on the grounds of adverse genetic test results. [55634]

  Maria Eagle
  We have no plans to introduce such legislation. The Human Genetics Commission is drawing up a report to Health and Science Ministers on the storage, protection and use of personal genetic information. This will include advice on the use of genetic testing in employment. We will carefully consider the commission's advice when it is received.

  Benefit Rules
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he plans to take to simplify the benefit rules for people in residential care. [58527]

  Maria Eagle
  From 8 April 2002 all new customers (and all former preserved rights customers) in independent residential care, nursing homes and local authorities accommodation are entitled to the standard income support, personal allowance. Customers already in receipt of the residential allowance or part III accommodation rate on 8 April 2002 continue to receive it for as long as they satisfy the conditions for entitlement.

  From October 2003 we intend to simplify the rules governing those customers in residential care by removing the residential allowance and part III accommodation rate for all customers. Introducing the same rules for people in care as for those supported in their own homes will simplify the system, making it more transparent and easier for customers to understand.

  A consultation document setting out our proposals in detail is published today and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39933]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 760W.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46802]
  297W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in May 2001. This involved the amalgamation of parts of Department for Education and Employment (including the Employment Service) with the Department for Social Security.

  The annual running cost for the press office from May 2001 to the end of April 2002 was £1.211 million. This figure includes both salaries and running costs for all press office activity.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each of the last five years the total amount of money spent by Ministers in his Department on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes. [47208]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department's accounting systems do not separately identify entertainment costs incurred by Ministers. The information could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Incapacity Benefits
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his written answers of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 411W, and 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 983W, for what reason a revised version of the system used to allocate individuals to local areas was used; and what criteria he has used to calculate the number of claimants of incapacity benefits. [56201]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of people claiming incapacity benefit is taken from a quarterly 5 per cent. scan of the benefit computer system. The process of calculating the number of incapacity benefit claimants was not altered for August 2001.

  Individuals are assigned to local authorities and other areas by matching postcodes against the relevant Office for National Statistics (ONS) postcode directory. The ONS postcode directory used in the original allocation of August 2001 incapacity benefit data was later revised by ONS using an improved methodology. Numbers of incapacity benefit recipients by local authority were consequently recalculated and revised.

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities designated with legislation there are within the responsibility of his Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57100]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: There are no law enforcement agencies nor prosecuting authorities designated with legislation within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what time limit for claims for winter fuel payments will be imposed for winter 2002; and if it will 298W
  be possible to accept claims now from pensioners who would have qualified for payments in winter 2000 and 2001 who did not submit claims in time. [57207]

  Mr. McCartney
  The majority of eligible people will again receive their winter fuel payments automatically for winter 2002–3. Those people who need to claim for winter 2002–03 will have until 30 March 2003 to do so. Claims from people who did not claim within the time limits for winters 2000–01 and 2001–02 cannot now be paid for those winters. However, failure to submit a claim for one winter does not preclude a person from claiming for the next winter, subject to the time limits. Claim forms for winter 2002–03 will be available later this year.

  Pensions
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensions are underfunded on an MFR basis in the(a) public and (b) private sector; and if he will make a statement on trends in each sector. [57308]

  Mr. McCartney
  Private sector defined benefit pension schemes are generally subject to the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR). Many public sector pension schemes are either unfunded (such as the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme) or covered by alternative legislation (such as the Local Government Pension Scheme) and are therefore not subject to the MFR. There are, however, a number of funded public sector schemes to which the MFR applies, such as those covering employees of some non-departmental public bodies.

  Information on the MFR funding levels of private sector defined benefit schemes is available from the Employers' Pension Provision (EPP) Survey. Information is not available for public sector pension schemes which are subject to the MFR.

  The latest EPP survey, carried out in 2000, indicated that around one in eight (13 per cent.) private sector defined benefit schemes were less than 100 per cent. funded on the MFR basis. Six per cent. of schemes were funded at less than 90 per cent. and 7 per cent. were funded at least at 90 per cent. but at less than 100 per cent. Almost all schemes surveyed that were underfunded had taken action to rectify this situation. These actions included increasing the employers' contributions (78 per cent.), increasing the members' contributions (29 per cent.) and making a cash injection to the fund (19 per cent).

  It is not possible at present to identify funding trends from the data available, because only one full cycle of triennial scheme valuations has been carried out since the MFR was introduced in 1997. However, in February 2002, for the purposes of the regulatory impact assessment which accompanied the regulations recently introduced to make interim changes to the MFR, around one in six private sector defined benefit pension schemes were estimated to be underfunded on the MFR basis. This estimate was based on information collected by the actuarial profession from consulting actuaries and insurance companies between 1997 and 2000, and has been adjusted by the Government Actuary's Department broadly to take account of the likely effects on scheme funding levels of subsequent changes in conditions.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if home responsibilities protection will be given to foster carers; [56240]

  (2) what pension arrangement foster carers are entitled to; and if he will make a statement on support for those who give up work to care for foster children. [56241]

  Mr. McCartney
  Home responsibilities protection in respect of carers of children is awarded through child benefit entitlement. Foster parents do not receive child benefit directly unless they have a child of their own aged under 16. We are currently reviewing these arrangements to ascertain if the position of foster carers can be improved.

  Housing Benefit
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of housing benefit regulation 5 on the receipt of housing benefit for a period of notice required by a landlord of a hospitalised claimant who is too unwell to return to their normal dwelling; and if he will make a statement; [57148]

  (2) if housing benefit regulation 5 requires the benefits service of a local authority to treat a hospitalised claimant as no longer occupying their normal home and ineligible for benefit if the local social services believe that the claimant is not well enough to return to their normal dwelling. [57149]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The housing benefit scheme is designed to help people on low incomes meet the costs of the accommodation which they rent and occupy as their normal home. We recognise that there are circumstances in which people will reasonably be absent from their normal home for temporary periods and it is right that benefit should remain in payment in these cases.

  People in hospital can continue to receive housing benefit in respect of their normal home for up to 52 weeks, or until the local authority decides that their absence is likely to be substantially more than 52 weeks or become permanent. At this point housing benefit is withdrawn. In reaching a decision on the likely length of a person's absence from their normal home, the local authority takes account of all available evidence including, where appropriate, the views of the local social services.

  Child Support
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will initiate the new CSA maintenance formula; and whether sums being calculated during the interim period from April represent(a) definitive and (b) provisional obligations on absent parents being assessed. [57244]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Regarding the introduction of the new scheme, I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to this House on 20 March 2002,Official Report, columns 315–16. In all cases where a non-resident parent's liability begins before the new scheme is introduced, the assessment will be made using existing rules, until the case is converted to the new arrangements.

  Public Sector Pension Schemes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information he collates as to the adequacy of(a) funded provision and (b) direct funding for public sector pension schemes to discharge their present and future obligations. [57245]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department does not collate information on the adequacy of public sector pension schemes to discharge present and future liabilities.

  In the case of funded public sector schemes, this would be taken into account in discussions with the sponsoring Department.

  In the case of unfunded public sector schemes, projections of future expenditure are taken into account as part of the long-term fiscal projections of Her Majesty's Treasury. These are published as part of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report at the time of the Budget. A copy of the 2002 report is in the Library and shows that the public finances are sustainable in the long term.

HEALTH

  Vaccines
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on charging students for a hepatitis B vaccination when it is a condition of university entry. [44656]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 March 2002j: Under the national health service general practitioners (GPs) are required to provide free of charge for their patients all necessary and appropriate medical services of the type usually provided by GPs. This may include immunisation against hepatitis B, if in the GP's clinical opinion, such a procedure is medically necessary. In determining medical necessity GPs may make reference to "Immunisation against Infectious Diseases"—the "Green Book". This lists one of the risk groups to whom hepatitis B should be offered as, "health care workers including students and trainees who have direct contact with patients' blood or blood stained body fluids or with patients' tissues".

  If a GP thinks it is not medically necessary, then a charge can be made even if the vaccination is a requirement of employment or of university entry.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of BCG and Tuberculin PPD vaccination stocks was on 31 March in each of the past five years. [56998]

  Yvette Cooper
  The stock levels of licensed BCG vaccination and Tuberculin PPD on 31 March each year are shown in the table.

  Year

  BCG vaccine(number of doses)

  Tuberculin PPD(number of tests)

  2002

  2,364,650

  530,575

  2001

  2,217,200

  711,875

  2000

  1,195,650

  1,117,275

  1999

  110,100

  131,575

  1998

  5,093,750

  412,375

  301W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates(a) tenders were sought and (b) contracts were awarded for supply of (i) BCG vaccines, (ii) Tuberculin PPD solutions and (iii) influenza vaccine in the last 12 months. [56656]

  Yvette Cooper
  No tenders were sought and no contracts awarded in the last 12 months for BCG vaccine or Tuberculin PPD solutions.

  For influenza vaccine, tenders were sought on 13 June 2001 and awards were made to four suppliers on 1 July 2001. The contract award notice appeared in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) on 7 August 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the written questions asked of him between(a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if he will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. [54084]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council (Mr. Cook) on 2 May 2002, Official Report, columns 949–50W.

  The information is shown in the table.

  February

  March

  April

  Number of written questions yet to receive a substantive answer by 30 April

  5

  70

  391

  of which:

  Number subsequently answered

  4

  46

  329

  The number of written questions tabled for the Department was 923 in February, 821 in March, and 1,139 in April. The size of the backlog is unfortunate, but nonetheless the key figure—the amount answered—demonstrates our commitment to responding as promptly and helpfully to Members' questions as we possibly can, regardless of the volume.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, ref. 51604, tabled on 17 April. [58178]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to the hon. Member on 20 May 2002.

  Smoking
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent information he has collated on the extent to which smoking reduces life expectancy. [55404]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Health Education Authority publication titled "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995" by Christine Callum sets out the impact of smoking on life expectancy, table Fl on page 65. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  302W
  The report shows, for example, that men of 35 who smoke will, on average, die seven years earlier than men who have never been smokers. Similarly, women of 35 who smoke will, on average, die six years earlier than women who have never been smokers.

  Genetic Discrimination
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will introduce legislation to prevent genetic discrimination by insurers, with specific reference to the refusal of insurance on the grounds of adverse genetic test results. [55633]

  Yvette Cooper
  The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on genetics and insurance published in April 2001 recommended that the best way forward would be for Government and industry to agree a voluntary moratorium on the use of genetic tests by insurers. The moratorium came into effect on 1 November 2001 and will last for five years. Details of the moratorium are set out in the Government's response to the select Committee published in October 2001. However, if there is evidence of serious and persistent non-compliance with the terms of the moratorium, then the Government are prepared to introduce legislation if necessary.

  London
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the number of people living in London who do not feature in the official statistics on which funding for the NHS in London is based; [56189]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the change in the population in London over the last 10 years on demands for the NHS in London. [56188]

  Mr. Hutton
  The allocation of resources to health authorities and primary care trusts is informed by weighted capitation targets which take account of the health need of local populations.

  The populations used to calculate weighted capitation targets are based on Office for National Statistics population projections. These are updated to take account of trends in births, deaths, internal migration and international migration. The population projections used are the latest available at the time of allocations.

  The Department has not made any separate assessment of the number of people living in London who do not feature in these official statistics.

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is collected on the(a) number and (b) proportion of homeless people committing suicide who are (a) rough sleepers and (b) living in temporary accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [56157]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not routinely collected. However, the Department funds the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People
  303W
  with Mental Illness. In March 2001, the National Confidential Inquiry team published its five-year report, "Safety First", building on the earlier report "Safer Services". It was based on a detailed study of 5,582 suicides and 186 homicides by psychiatric patients in the United Kingdom between 1996 and 2000. It found that there were 131 suicides among homeless people, 3 per cent. of the inquiry sample.

  The Department is in the process of developing, under the direction of the National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, a coherent national suicide prevention strategy to ensure that we are doing all we can to prevent suicides. This strategy was launched for public consultation on 26 April 2002. Copies of the strategy are available in the Library.

  Asthma
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to develop a comprehensive service within the NHS to(a) research the causes and (b) treat the condition of asthma; [56444]

  (2) what proposals his Department has for extending the provision of rehabilitation facilities in general hospitals and medical centres for asthma sufferers. [56445]

  Jacqui Smith
  Management of asthma mainly takes place in primary care. The chronic disease management programme (CDMP), introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the GMS national contract for GPs. Participating GPs (93 per cent.) receive a fixed annual payment for running organised programmes of care for patients with asthma (and for those with diabetes).

  People with asthma will benefit from the emerging Expert Patients Programme which will—via the national health service—provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase has recently begun in selected primary care trust sites, with activity to take place both on a generic and a disease-specific basis.

  The Medical Research Council always welcomes high quality applications from the scientific community for support into any aspect of biomedical research and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The Department of Health spend on directly commissioned research projects on asthma since 1997 is an estimated £7.24 million.

  Doctors
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of doctors is per 100 beds in NHS hospitals in(a) West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust, (c) James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust, (d) Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust and (e) Addenbrooke's NHS Trust. [56404]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is given in the following table.
  304W

  Number of hospital medical staff within specified trusts (as at 30 September)

  20001

  Staff per100 beds2,3

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  200

  29.4

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  440

  48.4

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  200

  38.0

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  290

  37.3

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  720

  57.0

  1 Data are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2 Staff per 100 beds were calculated using unrounded figures.

  3 Staff per 100 beds were calculated using average total daily number of available beds which includes beds in the following wards, Acute, Geriatric, Mental Illness, Patients with Learning Disabilities, and Maternity. The returns are made on a financial year basis and the latest year for which data are available is 2000–01. Figures are taken from the annual Körner return KH03—"Bed availability and occupancy".

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental workforce census

  Immunisation (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on respiratory syncytial virus infection immunisation in the last three years in Portsmouth primary care trust; and if he will make a statement. [56149]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is no licensed immunisation available for respiratory syncytial virus. Palivizumab, a monoconal antibody, is prescribed through hospital consultants to assist with the condition. Information on the cost to Portsmouth primary care trust of this treatment is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the proposed charges will be to social services departments to cover the costs of beds needlessly blocked through delayed discharges, as set out in paragraph 8.10 of 'Delivering the NHS Plan'; [56620]

  (2) what the proposed incentive charges will be to NHS trusts to cover the costs of emergency readmissions to ensure patients are not discharged prematurely as set out in paragraph 8.10 of 'Delivering the NHS Plan'; [56619]

  (3) if he will place in the Library the evidence that he has collated that NHS hospitals are discharging patients prematurely as set out in paragraph 8.10 of 'Delivering the NHS Plan'. [56618]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 15 May 2002,Official Report, columns 734–35W.

  On the issue of premature discharge from hospital, information on emergency readmissions is available in 'NHS Performance Indicators: Acute NHS Hospital Trusts' (ref 26829) and 'NHS Performance Indicators: Health Authorities' (ref 26830) which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Treatment
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patient referrals from general practitioners
  305W
  were made within the Barking and Havering health authority area in (a) each year from 1994 to date and (b) each month of the last year. [56526]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of GP written referral requests for first out-patient appointments: Barking, Havering and Redbridge health authority

  Year/quarter

  GP written referral requests

  1997–98

  2

  15,628

  3

  16,283

  4

  15,140

  1998–99

  1

  16,847

  2

  17,217

  3

  17,290

  4

  17,430

  1999–2000

  1

  18,165

  2

  15,540

  3

  14,279

  4

  17,881

  2000–01

  1

  20,268

  2

  17,595

  3

  16,982

  4

  17,780

  2001–02

  1

  18,255

  2

  17,337

  3

  17,185

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMO8R

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elective patients received in-patient treatment within the Barking and Havering health authority area in(a) each year from 1994 to date and (b) each of the past 12 months. [56519]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Elective admissions by month—NHS hospitals in Barking, Havering and Redbridge health authority 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Admission date

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  April

  2,627

  2,783

  2,307

  2,405

  2,310

  May

  2,579

  2,376

  2,178

  2,315

  2,770

  June

  2,511

  2,342

  2,513

  2,752

  2,726

  July

  2,780

  2,792

  2,870

  2,584

  2,832

  August

  2,125

  1,977

  2,551

  2,510

  2,893

  September

  2,592

  2,713

  2,857

  2,530

  2,583

  October

  3,013

  2,943

  2,878

  2,597

  2,779

  November

  2,723

  2,684

  2,957

  2,818

  2,667

  December

  1,938

  2,252

  2,258

  2,022

  1,886

  January

  2,076

  1,932

  2,302

  2,126

  2,280

  February

  2,466

  2,159

  2,818

  2,579

  2,300

  March

  2,380

  2,368

  3,048

  2,752

  2,500

  Total

  29,810

  29,321

  31,537

  29,990

  30,526

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Dementia (Closure of Facilities)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the closure of long-stay beds for dementia patients. [56582]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework for older people, published in March 2001, sets out the Government's strategy to ensure fair, high quality integrated health and social care services for older people. This covers services for people with dementia. An adequate supply of long-term care beds needs to be available for those people with dementia for whom this is the appropriate form of care.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the NHS long-stay provision for severely demented patients in North Hertfordshire and (b) the closure of beds at Elizabeth Court and Victoria Court; [56580]

  (2) what his assessment is of the effect on delayed discharges at the Lister Hospital Stevenage of the closure of NHS long-stay beds for patients with dementia at Elizabeth Court and Victoria Court. [56581]

  Yvette Cooper
  Hertfordshire County Council are in discussion with local primary care trusts and Bedfordshire and Luton Community National Health Service Trust on their proposals for the long term care of patients suffering with dementia.

  Alzheimer's Disease (Memory Test)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on demand for NHS long-stay provision in respect of Alzheimer's disease if the Cantab Paired Associates memory test for Alzheimer's disease were more widely used; [56578]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Cantab Paired Associates memory test for Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement as to what guidance his Department has issued as to the use of this test. [56575]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not assessed the effectiveness or the implications on demand for NHS long-stay provision of the Cantab Paired Associates memory test.

  Consideration is being given to the inclusion of a clinical guideline on the management of dementia within the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's programme of work. Such a guideline would cover diagnosis of dementia, including memory tests.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the appraisal by NICE of the Cantab Paired Associates memory test for Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement. [56577]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Cantab Paired Associates memory test for Alzheimer's disease is not currently on the NICE work programme.

  Consideration is being given to the inclusion of a clinical guideline on the management of dementia within the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's programme of work. Such a guideline would cover diagnosis of dementia, including memory tests.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the committee of senior officials on public health 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. [56753]

  Yvette Cooper
  The committee of senior officials on public health (CSOPH) was established in 1975 by European Council Decision 75/365/EEC, as a result of the adoption of the directives relating to medical training. Its mandate is set down in Article 2, which states that the task of the Committee shall be:to identify and analyse any difficulties which might arise from the implementation of Directives 75/362/EEC and 75/363/EEC (now Directive 93/16/EC);
  to collect all relevant information on the conditions under which general and specialist medical care is given by doctors in the Member States;
  to deliver opinions which could guide the Commission's work with a view to amendment of the above mentioned Directives.
  CSOPH's remit was extended by later Decisions to take in the same tasks for:

  Nurses responsible for general care;

  Midwives; and

  Dentists.

  The Committee is made up of senior officials with responsibility for national health care systems. Each member state is entitled to nominate one representative and one alternate. The UK representative and his alternate represent the Department of Health.

  CSOPH meets twice each year, in July and December. Meetings last one day. Costs to public funds are minimal. The Commission pays the travel costs of the nominated representative but member states meet the costs if it is necessary for the alternate to attend as well.

  In carrying out its duties, CSOPH is advised by a group of training advisory committees (TACs) made up of representatives from the relevant professional bodies.

  Items on CSOPH's agenda vary, but typically include:
  Problems relating to particular groups or individuals affected by the directives;
  Information on events of major importance that have occurred in each member state affecting the application of the directives;
  Medical demography; and
  Discussions about necessary updates to the directives (for instance CSOPH is empowered to make certain decisions relating to training for medical specialisms).

  Member States are currently considering Commission proposals for streamlining the directives and processes relating to free movement of professionals. The issues arising from the Commission's proposals for the future of professional recognition were submitted to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees (Explanatory Memorandum No. 7239/92—COM(2002)119final) in April 2002.

  CAT Scanners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many CAT scanners there are in London. [56946]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are currently approximately 60 Computed Tomography (CT) scanners installed in the national health service in the London region.

  Under a central modernisation programme, funding has been made available to ensure that no CT scanner used in the diagnosis of cancer will be more than 10 years old by 2004. This programme will allow the replacement of 19 CT scanners in London, of which 14 have already been delivered.

  Nursing Homes and Care Homes
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to help residents of care and nursing homes who pay their own fees from civil service pensions cope with the increases to their fees above inflation. [57137]

  Jacqui Smith
  If self-funding residents of care homes have insufficient income to pay their own fees they may approach their local authority for advice and possible financial assistance. In considering whether or not to provide financial support, and the extent of that support, local authorities should refer to the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the changes of national insurance contribution on the care home sector; and what estimates he has made of the increased costs to care homes following the increase in national insurance contributions by(a) employers and (b) employees. [57181]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is estimated that the changes to employers and employees' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. next year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the success of the long-term relationship between social services and the independent care home sector following the launch of the(a) concordat, (b) building capacity, (c) joint funding and (d) change agent arrangement initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [57189]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our long-term care policy has led to more constructive partnerships between social services and the independent health and social care sectors. This is already bringing about better outcomes for patients and service users by delivering speedier and more flexible services to individuals, positively using the plurality of providers within our system. This is true for short-term services such as intermediate care as well as residential and nursing care. We are supporting these changes in many ways, including a substantial increase in the funding for personal social services and additional money and assistance through the change agents team-working with individual councils.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) local authorities and (b) other care home owners imposing charges on residents for services which were intended to be free of charge under the Health and Social Care Act 2001. [58029]
  309W
  Jacqui Smith
  From 1 October 2001, the national health service has taken on responsibility for the funding of care from a registered nurse for all care home residents who, prior to that, paid for all or part of that care.

  From 1 April 2003, the NHS, rather than local authorities, will become responsible for funding the care from a registered nurse for residents who are currently supported by local authorities.

  Professions Allied to Medicine
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the health budget in each NHS trust area in England is spent on professions allied to medicine broken down by each discipline. [57298]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex hospital trust area were awaiting in-patient treatment in the last two available months; and how many were waiting(a) over 12 months and (b) over 15 months for treatment. [57242]

  Yvette Cooper
  At Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust there were 9,732 patients waiting for elective admission at 31 March 2002, of these 320 were waiting more than 12 months and none were waiting more than 15 months. At the end of February there were 9,646 patients waiting for elective admission, of these 286 were waiting more than 12 months and five were waiting more than 15 months.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex hospital trust area are waiting for an out-patient appointment; how many have been waiting more than(a) 13 weeks and (b) 26 weeks in the latest available quarter. [57243]

  Yvette Cooper
  As at 31 March 2002 at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust 794 patients were waiting more than 13 weeks for first consultant out-patient appointment following a general practitioner written referral, and no patients were waiting more than 26 weeks.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the steps which he is taking to ensure that hepatitis C is diagnosed and treated and (b) the budget for health awareness promotion concerning hepatitis C. [58300]

  Yvette Cooper
  We plan to publish a consultation document on a strategy for hepatitis C during the summer, which will propose how prevention, testing and treatment services might be strengthened.

  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. Since then, we have placed health authorities and primary care trusts 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.

  310W
  Work on the strategy has identified the need to raise professional and public awareness of hepatitis C. The Department recently held four regional hepatitis C seminars for primary care professionals and sent a hepatitis C briefing pack to all general practitioners and practice nurses in England. The pack includes information leaflets for patients. We will be assessing the need for further health promotion activities to raise professional and public awareness.

  Implementation of the strategy will form a key component of the hepatitis action plan proposed in the chief medical officer's infectious diseases strategy, "Getting Ahead of the Curve".

  Child Mental Health Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the date was of the last meeting held between Ministers in his Department and Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills at which child mental health services were discussed. [58297]

  Jacqui Smith
  I met with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) on 6 February 2002 to discuss a wide range of subjects, one of which was child and adolescent mental health.

  Chiropody and Podiatry Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued about the circumstances in which patients should receive NHS chiropody services. [58290]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not issued any guidance on access specifically to national health service chiropody services. However, chiropody/podiatry services are essential parts of the national service frameworks for older people and diabetes.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the NHS to develop a partnership with private sector state registered chiropodists. [58285]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no specific plans to develop a partnership with the private sector state registered chiropodists. However, the NHS Plan document "Delivering the NHS Plan" states that primary care trusts will be free to purchase care from public, private or voluntary providers as appropriate.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the initial contacts and (b) the first contacts in respect of chiropody by region in each year since 1997. [58289]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about initial contacts and first contacts by region with the chiropody service are contained in the statistical report "Chiropody Services, Summary Information for 2000–01, England". A copy of the report is in the Library and it is also available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/kt230001.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about(a) the reasons for substantial regional variations in the episodes of care in chiropody and (b) what steps he is taking in respect of such variations. [58286]
  311W
  Jacqui Smith
  We acknowledge that there are regional variations in national health service chiropody/podiatry services. These variations may result from NHS organisations prioritising the services they provide to meet local demand for chiropody/podiatry services. The criteria used to clinically prioritise will be determined locally.

  We are committed to recruiting more allied health professionals (AHPs) which include chiropodists/podiatrists through the NHS Plan targets and will build on the over 6,500 extra AHPs as announced in the 2002 Budget.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the trend in foot health of persons aged over 75 years. [58287]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework for older people sets a performance measure to collect numbers/rates of people aged 75+ who access chiropody/podiatry services. Information from that may be used to inform future planning of services.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the use of(a) art and (b) counselling in the care and treatment of those with mental health problems. [58312]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has made no assessment of the use of art therapy and counselling either alone or in comparison with other treatments or services. However, creative arts therapy is increasingly recognised as a valuable treatment for people with a range of problems, including mental health problems. It offers an opportunity for expression and communication and can be particularly helpful to those individuals who find it hard to express their feelings verbally. The art therapist may work as part of a team in both primary and specialised health and social care settings. Equally, counselling, like psychotherapy, is offered within the national health service by a large number of both medical and non-medical staff in primary and specialised care settings and has been shown in a number of independent trials to make an important contribution to the treatment of common mental disorders.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expenditure was in(a) Manchester, (b) Salford and (c) Trafford on mental health services in each of the past five years. [56934]

  Jacqui Smith
  The expenditure on mental health services in the Manchester, Salford and Trafford areas over the past five years is shown in the table.

  £000

  Manchester health health authority area

  Salford and Trafford health authority area

  1996–97

  37,596

  27,653

  1997–98

  36,853

  26,570

  1998–99

  39,867

  27,580

  1999–2000

  43,425

  33,093

  2000–01

  44,949

  35,623

  312W
  Notes:

  1. "Salford and Trafford" was formerly one health authority and data cannot be subdivided.

  2. Data relates to expenditure in the two health authority areas (Manchester, Salford and Trafford) on the purchase of secondary health care—mental illness for the five years from 1996–97 to 2000–01, which is the latest year for which information is available.

  3. The 2000–01 figures include expenditure by primary care trusts within the relevant health authority area, to enable comparison.

  Sources:

  Annual accounts of the Manchester, and Salford and Trafford, health authorities 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Summarisation forms of the Manchester, and Salford and Trafford, health authorities 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Summarisation schedules of the primary care trusts within the Manchester, and Salford and Trafford, health authority areas 2000–01

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new automated defibrillators will be installed in public places in the current financial year. [58301]

  Yvette Cooper
  By 31 March 2002 the "Defibrillators in Public Places Programme" had seen 487 Automated External Defibrillator devices installed at a total of 64 sites across England, including airports, mainline railway stations, bus and coach stations, and large shopping complexes.

  The current financial year will see the installation of a further 205 units.

  Family Centre Places
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family centre places are provided by local authorities. [56957]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Richard House Children's Hospice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much central Government funding is being given to the Richard House Children's Hospice. [56963]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on levels of funding for individual hospices is not collected centrally. Funding for hospices is a matter for arrangement between the hospice concerned, primary care trusts and local authorities. Hospices may also apply to the new opportunities fund which has a specific initiative to support and develop palliative care services for children, for which £48 million has been made available.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting over six months on the in-patient waiting list in each month since January 2001. [56961]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the total number of patients who have been waiting over six months for elective admission.
  313W

  Patients waiting for elective admission: Position at the end of the month: health authorities, England

  Thousand

  Month ending

  Patients waiting longer than six months

  2001

  January

  262

  February

  251

  March

  243

  April

  256

  May

  268

  June

  264

  July

  265

  August

  271

  September

  274

  October

  259

  November

  244

  December

  256

  2002

  January

  256

  February

  243

  March1

  238

  1 On 3 May 2002 the Department of Health issued a press release about malpractice in the management of waiting lists at the Royal United Hospitals Bath (reference 2002–0211). This malpractice is now known to have affected the accuracy of the figures for long waiters reported by the trust for end March 2002.

  We have sampled records for patients that could have been long waiters and have been able to confirm 25 over 15 month waiters. Based on this we estimate that there would be 180 such cases in total, but allowing for uncertainty the 95 per cent. confidence interval suggests this could be as high as 280.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether waiting list data is collected centrally, in England and Wales, for the period between diagnosis and treatment for cancer. [57020]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out new goals to reduce waiting times for cancer patients including a target of a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer by December 2001. Central monitoring of performance against this standard began on 1 January 2002 and figures will be published quarterly, with the first data due in June 2002. The Cancer Plan also sets the target that by 2005 no one should wait longer than one month from diagnosis to first treatment except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice. We are currently putting in place data collection mechanisms to show performance against this target.

  Hypothermia
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hypothermia there were in Tyne and Wear in each year since 1997. [56933]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Admissions to national health service hospitals in England for hypothermia patients resident in Newcastle and north Tyneside health authority, Gateshead and south Tyneside health authority and Sunderland health authority.
  314W

  Number of cases

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  15

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  19

  Note:

  Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 2000–02 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Intermediate Care Beds
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the additional intermediate care beds are in(a) general and acute hospitals, (b) cottage hospitals, (c) patients' own homes, (d) care homes and (e) bed-and-breakfast accommodation. [56962]

  Jacqui Smith
  A breakdown of the number of additional intermediate care beds by setting is not available centrally. However, the Department is not aware of any intermediate care service being provided in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Intermediate care services provided in patients' own homes do not count as "beds".

  Vulnerable Adults
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1179–80W, what complex issues in the health care aspects of the protection of vulnerable adults scheme have caused the delay in implementation. [57090]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Care Standards Act 2000, which sets out the legal basis for the protection of vulnerable adults scheme, defines 'vulnerable adult' in terms of the 'services' received. These services are to be prescribed in regulations and it has been important to ensure that as many vulnerable adults as possible are protected within the legal framework of the Care Standards Act.

  Colposcopy
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) women and (b) women from the Asian community have used the community-based colposcopy service in Luton. [56938]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures for uptake of the community-based colposcopy service in Luton are not collected by ethnic group.

  Out-of-area Referrals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-of-area referrals were made in the NHS in each of the last five years. [56949]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of referrals made under the out-of-area treatment arrangements is not available centrally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to decide which NHS nurses in Mid
  315W
  Essex will receive the new living allowances; and whether auxiliary nurses without an NVQ qualification will receive the allowances. [56490]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: From 1 April qualified nurses (grades C and above) in Essex are eligible for cost of living supplements of up to £600 per year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he has had with nurse managers concerning the return of nurses to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [56652]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers meet front line staff regularly, including nurse managers to discuss recruitment, retention and return.

  In addition, on 5 February 2002 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held a meeting on recruitment, retention and return attended by a number of nurse managers from the national health service.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified health visitors are available to supervise the return of nurses to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [56710]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Local work force development confederations organise return to practice programmes, in conjunction with higher education institutes and local national health service organisations. This includes the organisation of supervising work placements.

  The Department is working closely with the Community Practitioner and Health Visitor Association to look at ways to extend efforts to bring health visitors back into the NHS.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultation he has had with health visitors as to the supervision of nurses returning to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [56654]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers meet front line staff regularly, including health visitors to discuss recruitment, retention and return.

  At the Community Practitioner and Health Visitor Association (CPHVA) conference in November 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised the Government's commitment to bring health visitors back to the national health service. The Department is currently working with the CPHVA to take this work forward.

  In addition, on 5 February 2002 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held a nursing summit on recruitment, retention and return attended by the director of CPHVA.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of those nurses who have indicated they wish to return to the NHS he calculates have home commitments that prevent them from attending the necessary out-of-area training sessions; where such courses are available; how long they are; what the cost of the courses was in the last 12 months and if he will make a statement. [56712]
  316W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the home commitments of potential returners is not collected centrally.

  Work force development confederations organise and fund a range of part-time, full-time and distance learning return to practice courses which may vary in length, according to the needs of the returner and the vacancies available.

  Return-to-practice courses are free to the returner, who is entitled to financial support of at least £1,000 while retraining. Further financial assistance is available to cover the costs of books and travel. The returners package also offers child care support where needed.

  In 2001–02, the Department distributed a total of £11 million to work force development confederations to fund return-to-practice initiatives and refresher training. 4,385 health care professionals returned, of which 3,763 were nurses, midwives and health visitors. An additional 2,030 health care professionals are on their way back in.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses who wish to return to the NHS have so far been offered places; how long on average they have been out of practice; and if he will make a statement. [56709]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Since the first recruitment campaign in 1999, over 10,000 qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors have returned to the national health service.

  71 per cent. of nurses who contacted the NHS in 2001–02 about returning practised more than five years ago. No further breakdown is collected.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the Social Care Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56870]

  Jacqui Smith
  For the purpose of reply, it is assumed that the Social Care Council referred to is the General Social Care Council (GSCC), established under the Care Standards Act 2000 and with the objective to register, regulate and raise standards in the social care work force in England.

  The GSCC employed 82 staff as of 1 April 2002.

  No GSCC staff have any clinical contact with national health service patients as their task is to regulate the social care work force and not to provide frontline services.

  Assisted Conception
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is(a) age range of patients accepted for treatment on the NHS, (b) age at which female NHS patients begin treatment and (c) waiting times for NHS patients on the lists at assisted conception units in England with NHS lists is the average; [57012]

  (2) when the NICE report on access to fertility treatment will be published; [57021]

  317W
  (3) if he will list the assisted conception units in England with NHS lists on which patients are prioritised by (a) age, (b) other factors and (c) date of referral. [57011]

  Yvette Cooper
  The statistical information requested is not available centrally. The Department undertook a baseline survey of infertility provision in the national health service in 1999. A report on this "Survey of NHS Infertility Services 1997–98" has been published and copies are available in the Library.

  We understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence expects to deliver its clinical guidelines on infertility by October 2003.

  Carers
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will amend the Assessment of Resources Regulations 1992 to include a mandatory disregard of property in situations where a carer who is aged under 60 or is not a relative of the person he is caring for remains in the property of that person when that person moves into a care home; [57018]

  (2) if he will use the additional funds announced in the Budget for social care to make mandatory the discretionary disregard for carers who remain in the property of the person they are caring for when that person requires care in a care home. [57019]

  Jacqui Smith
  During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 through Parliament, Ministers gave a commitment to review the need for a mandatory property disregard in situations where former carers, not already covered under the current Assessment of Resources Regulations 1992, continue to live in properties of individuals permanently admitted to residential care. Ministers emphasised that progress could only be made should resources become available.

  318W
  For the time being the Government are aware that many properties of care home residents are disregarded by statute from the financial assessment for residential accommodation because they continue to be the main home of spouses and other family members listed in the regulations. In many instances these individuals will have cared for the residents prior to admission. Additionally many councils use their discretion to disregard the value of residents' property from the financial assessment when it continues to be the home of carers not covered by the regulations.

  Adoption
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were adopted in each year since 1990. [57193]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Registrar General. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 21 May 2002:
  As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on numbers of adoptions since 1990. (57193)
  Figures are given in the table below.

  Number of adoptions in England and Wales from 1990 until 2001

  Year

  Number of adoptions

  1990

  6,733

  1991

  6,912

  1992

  7,466

  1993

  6,799

  1994

  6,165

  1995

  5,840

  1996

  5,741

  1997

  5,212

  1998

  4,617

  1999

  4,988

  2000

  5,036

  2001

  5,131

Preamble
The House met at half—past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Zimbabwe
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their current policies towards Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, our policy towards Zimbabwe is to work with African and international partners to restore democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the election the erosion of human rights has proceeded apace in Zimbabwe and that farms are still being taken over illegally, which has a consequent effect on the livelihood of farmers and farm workers and therefore on hunger and unemployment? Am I right in believing that the sanctions that were imposed by the European Union on Mr Mugabe and his cronies in respect of foreign travel and foreign assets do not apply to the spouses and families of those people? If so, should not those sanctions be extended, or are we content that Mrs Mugabe could still come here and shop at Harrods?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is quite right. The number of politically motivated deaths has been assessed at 55 by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. We have continued to express our concern about the violence, harassment and intimidation that continues in Zimbabwe. We also continue to be concerned about the economic collapse of the Zimbabwean economy and the implications that that has for the people of Zimbabwe. It has been estimated that about 7 million Zimbabweans—about 60 per cent of the population—may be dependent on food aid by the end of the year. The noble Lord was also right to suggest that current EU sanctions do not apply to spouses and children. The General Affairs Council will clearly wish to return to that. It will discuss Zimbabwe at its next meeting in June.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is rapidly deteriorating? That is due not just to political strife but to a large degree to regional drought and the oncoming famine in the region. What measures are Her Majesty's
634
Government planning to take in order to alleviate the famine that will inevitably affect thousands of innocent Zimbabweans?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, points to the regional problem with respect to drought and difficulties with food. That has been exacerbated by the Zimbabwean Government's economic policies and the fast-tracked land reform programme, which has meant that farmers have not, for example, planted in critical areas.
On the measures that we have taken, noble Lords will know that we were the first to introduce a supplementary feeding programme into Zimbabwe. We did so in September last year and we contributed £4 million to that. We have also contributed an additional £6 million to UN agencies—the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation. The FAO and the World Food Programme are currently assessing the regional food security situation. There will be a conference in Johannesburg in June to consider that.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Government's anxieties about the economic collapse in Zimbabwe. What are the implications of that for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, in which she has been playing such a crucial role, and for southern Africa as a whole? How is that affecting the need for the leadership in that partnership to be taken by the leaders from southern Africa themselves?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is absolutely critical that the leadership of the New Partnership for Africa's Development comes from within the continent and the southern African region. One reason that we have sought to build a partnership between the G8 and NePAD is precisely because we recognise the importance of that leadership coming from within Africa. NePAD has done some good theoretical work on political and economic governance issues. The proof of that will be in its implementation. That is particularly important in view of the situation in Zimbabwe, which we do not regard as a test case for NePAD; it points to the serious issues that can arise in African countries and which require leadership from across the continent.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if NePAD is not prepared to implement measures for good governance, the rule of law and human rights or to establish mechanisms for monitoring the performance of those matters in member states, confidence in the G8/NePAD process would be severely undermined? I refer in particular in that regard to the arrest of 11 journalists since the new press law was introduced in the middle of March and the prospect that all the journalists who refuse to sign up to Moyo's application will be deprived of their livelihood on 18th June. Those serious matters need to be dealt with at the top level by NePAD.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that the whole NePAD/G8 process could be undermined if African leaders did not take political and economic governance issues seriously. That is absolutely essential to the NePAD agenda. With regard to journalists in Zimbabwe, we have always deplored the action taken by the Zimbabwean Government in relation to the media. We believe that freedom of expression is a core principle in a democratic country.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while the children in Harare are starving and apparently hunting in dustbins for food, is it correct that Mr Mugabe has been attending a UN conference on child poverty in New York? Is it also correct that the blood-stained chief of police, Mr Chihuri, has been attending a police conference in Lisle? Who permitted these sanctioned individuals to travel? Why were they not apprehended and sent back to their own country at the very least, and what do the sanctions mean if they allow people who have committed or sanctioned atrocities to wander round the world at will?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the US was obliged to let Mr Mugabe attend the UN, just as, under international treaty obligations, France was obliged to allow Mr Chihuri to attend the Interpol meeting. I believe that Mr Mugabe was consigned to within 22 miles of UN headquarters. Mr Chihuri is vice-president of the executive committee of Interpol.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is correct. The EU common position provides that member states may grant exemptions from these measures where travel is justified on the grounds of attending meetings of international bodies. And, yes, Mr Mugabe did attend the UN special session on children.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
Lord Acton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we could hear shortly from my noble friend Lord Acton, who knows a little about this matter.
Lord Acton: My Lords, while I applaud the efforts that the Government have made in giving aid to Zimbabwe in the desperate circumstances of hunger in which so many people find themselves, can my noble friend say whether, in the light of the conference next month, the Government will consider giving still further aid?
Baroness Amos: Yes, my Lords. We are concerned about the situation of ordinary people in Zimbabwe and we shall review the humanitarian position.

Railways
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Railtrack's refusal to agree any further contractually guaranteed journey times with passenger train operators will contribute to the achievement of improved reliability and growth targets contained in the 10—year transport plan.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, track access agreements are matters for the train operating companies and the network infrastructure manager. In the event that the parties fail to agree, the Rail Regulator has the power both to determine the terms of an access contract and to direct the parties to enter into one.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Is he aware that four train operators, including Great Western Trains and South West Trains, have been told by Railtrack that it can no longer guarantee timetable paths? Does he agree that that therefore means that no timetable can be relied upon? Of course, it also means that Railtrack will not have to pay compensation to any of the train operators for delays or for digging up the track. Given that the Government are probably paying three-quarters of Railtrack's costs at present, is there anything that they believe they should be doing about this before the administration ends?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the train operating companies and Railtrack in administration to negotiate the terms of the arrangements that exist between them. The Rail Regulator has a role in that. If he is not satisfied with the arrangements that are being made, he can intervene. I believe that that is the right way for the matter to be left.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the job of a regulator in any privatised industry is to promote efficiency, reduce the prices charged to users, secure safety and promote the sharing of capacity? Which of those duties does the Minister consider the regulator to have discharged successfully? If the answer is none, why is he still in his job?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as read out to me, the summary of the role of the regulator sounds correct, but I hope that noble Lords will not hold me to the precise wording. I believe that the regulator has an incredibly important role to play in relation to the rail industry. Precisely where the rail industry is in relation to each of those issues is plainly a matter for conjecture. However, it is important that, in performing his role, the Rail Regulator delivers on all the tasks to which the noble Lord referred in his summary of the Rail Regulator's role.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister is very proud of his Government's 10-year transport plan.

637
However, can he explain how the train operators are expected to co-operate with that plan when they are being given only a two-year extension to their franchises?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the 10-year plan sets out a proposal for infrastructure in this country. It deals with the future of the rail industry. My right honourable friend in another place explained some time ago why two-year extensions were being given. It was in the context of the long-term future of transport in this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware whether Railtrack is aware that the track between platforms 1 and 2 at Lewes station is in a decrepit and wholly dangerous state and has been for some time?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of that until the noble Lord mentioned it. Obviously his remark will be passed straight to Railtrack.

Postal Voting
2.49 p m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the safeguards in relation to postal voting in the recent local elections operated satisfactorily.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the safeguards in relation to postal voting, which have been in place for many years, did not operate satisfactorily in last May's local elections. Some of the all-postal voting pilot projects experimented with changes to the postal voting arrangements. The Electoral Commission's evaluations of the pilot projects, which are due to be published before 2nd August, will include examinations of how each change worked.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In fact, it has been reported that a number of severe abuses of the postal voting system took place on 2nd May throughout the country, including in my own borough of Pendle in Lancashire. There, some 984 postal votes in four marginal wards were sent out, not to the electors to whom they were addressed but to a number of central addresses which turned out to be those of close relatives of Labour candidates or of known party activists. The votes were then delivered—if they were delivered at all— to the electors at a time and in a manner of their choosing. Does the Minister agree that that should not happen within the postal voting regulations and that the potential for abuse—people walking down the street with fists full of postal voting papers belonging to other people—is huge? Before any further extension of postal voting can take place, does he also agree that some of the loopholes that are being discovered and
638
exploited by unscrupulous people in Britain, as well as in Northern Ireland, should be investigated and closed? This matter is extremely serious as it concerns electoral fraud and the foundations of our democracy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot comment on the allegations made by the noble Lord, as I know nothing about them. Postal voting was extended for the last general election, when it was made easier to obtain a postal vote than it had been previously. The number of people who used postal votes increased from about 2·1 per cent to about 3·9 per cent. The Electoral Commission looked at the overall conduct of the general election and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to suppose that there had been increased fraud in relation to an increase in postal voting. As the noble Lord knows, a number of all-postal voting electoral pilots in the local elections led to a significant increase in voting. Those pilots will be examined by the Electoral Commission and it intends to report on 2nd August. Perhaps we should wait to see what the commission says before coming to any conclusions.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, if anyone has a complaint of an improper act, he or she should report it to the police and not to the House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it has been suggested that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is considering introducing all-postal voting for the European elections, as appeared in the press over the weekend. In view of what the Minister has said about the report of the Electoral Commission, will the results of that report be discussed in the House before any further decision is made about all-postal voting" Will the House have an opportunity to consider the safeguards raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves? All-postal voting means that votes will be sent to everyone in a constituency, where quite often there can be a 40 per cent turnover of people in an area. Will the House see the report and have an opportunity to discuss and to consider it before any further decisions are taken about all-postal voting elections?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Electoral Commission is an independent body. It says that it will publish the report before 2nd August. These issues are important, but it is more than my life is worth to commit the Chief Whip to any agreement to a debate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Electoral Commission is carrying out work because of the low turn-out in recent elections. Does the Minister agree that it takes democrats to make democracy work? Walking into a polling station to deliver a vote is not the most onerous of civic duties. Rather than experimenting in various ways with polling stations

639
hither and thither, postal ballots and so on, a programme of civic education in our schools and wider could be instituted and we could ask the media to co-operate so that our citizens put a value on a vote for which our parents and grandparents sacrificed a great deal.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that it takes democrats to make a proper election, but there is no reason at all why sensible steps should not be taken to make it easier for people to vote. Let us see the effects of the Electoral Commission's report on 2nd August. We should all applaud increases in voting if they have occurred in a proper manner.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that one of the functions of the Electoral Commission is to provide voter education and to look at the bodies that can most satisfactorily help in that process? The Opposition opposed that proposal when it was put forward during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware that that is the role of the Electoral Commission. It is an important role that it is discharging with considerable skill. Yes, I am aware that the Opposition opposed such a proposal.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Australia has an effective electoral system, whereby one is obliged to vote. If people do not vote they are heavily fined, and if people conscientiously do not want to vote, they can deface their paper, so there is no restriction on that. Does the Minister agree that such a process may overcome the lack of education in relation to voting?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware that there is compulsory voting in Australia. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for this country.

Ian Stillman
2.56 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Indian authorities about the alleged miscarriage of justice in the case of Ian Stillman.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the British Government have made repeated representations to the Indian authorities on behalf of Ian Stillman. Our objectives have been to ensure proper conditions for him and a transparent and expeditious judicial process. The judicial process concluded on 6th May this year. We have noted the allegation of a miscarriage of justice
640
and await permission from Mr Stillman and his family to refer the case to a lawyer on our pro bono panel to obtain legal advice on this.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that Ian Stillman is an Englishman, who was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in India because cannabis was found in a taxi in which he was travelling with other people. Ian Stillman is profoundly deaf and relies upon sign language, yet at his trial he was denied an interpreter, which meant that he could not follow the proceedings. That means that he did not have a fair trial. As my noble friend knows, the organisation Fair Trials Abroad has said that this is the worst miscarriage of justice that it has ever seen. I ask my noble friend whether it is possible for the Government to institute vigorous, urgent and determined action at the highest level, not only in regard to his conditions in gaol, but also on his conviction.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the facts of the case and that Ian Stillman is profoundly deaf. I am also aware of the comments made by Fair Trials Abroad. We have been active in Mr Stillman's case, not only with respect to his welfare, but also, on a number of occasions, in raising this case with the Indian authorities. We have reached the point where the judicial process has come to an end and we are waiting to hear from Mr Stillman's family what next steps they intend to take. On that basis we shall determine the next steps that the Government take. We have to understand what Ian Stillman and his family intend to do next.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is Mr Stillman's family being given any advice by the Government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Mr Stillman's family is being given advice by the Government about his welfare. The legal aspects of his case are being handled by Mr Stillman's legal representatives. We have offered the use of a lawyer from our pro bono legal panel.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad. Does the Minister recognise that this state of affairs does not apply to Mr Stillman alone? In many countries around the world people suffering from deafness, or other disabilities that interfere with their ability to understand what is taking place in a trial, do not receive proper assistance. Will the Government take all steps open to them to ensure that proper practices are observed in foreign trials?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to Mr Stillman's disability, I am aware that disparaging remarks were made about that at the recent trial. I have asked our High Commissioner in Delhi to take up the matter with the Indian authorities. Of course we shall look at other ways in which we can bring this to the attention of authorities in other countries of the world where this practice is ongoing.

641
We have explained our policy on pardons and clemency pleas to Mr Stillman's family. We consider supporting pleas on a case-by-case basis as a last resort. That is why we await a decision from his family as to the steps they would wish to take next.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come hack again, but can my noble friend respond to my points about top-level representation by the Government and making application not only on his prison conditions but on his conviction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I hope I have explained, we support pleas for clemency and on pardons on a case-by-case basis if there is prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice. We also support pleas on health grounds if a prisoner is chronically ill or where continued incarceration would endanger or reduce life expectancy. But in order to do that we need a decision from the family and from the individual.
With respect to top-level representation, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed our concerns with the Indian authorities. Of course we shall continue to think about the most appropriate level at which representations should be made once the next steps have been decided.

Adoption and Children Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, although there is no formal time limit to today's debate, the usual channels suggest that if there is the usual allowance for the Front Bench speakers and if the Back-Bench speakers limit their speeches to a maximum length of eight minutes, the debate should conclude between 8 and 8.30 p.m. Of course if any Peer wants to speak for less than eight minutes that will not attract any criticism from any Bench.
Your Lordships will also he aware that there is an important National Health Service order which follows the debate on working practices of the House.

Working Practices of the House
3.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostynrose to move, That this House takes note of the report by the working group appointed to consider how the working practices of the House can be improved, and to make recommendations (HL Paper 111); and that the report be remitted to the Procedure Committee, with an instruction that it makes by 8th July recommendations, for approval by the House, as to the implementation of the report.
642
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is an important time for this House, and the decisions that we make about this report may be critical for our future. The debate today is to take note of the report of the group which I chaired. The Motion also asks the Procedure Committee to consider the practical implementation of the group's recommendations and to report back to this House by 8th July with proposals for its approval.
The report is the product of nine months' work. The group comprised the present Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the former Conservative Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I invite your Lordships to study that list and to try and find one of whom it could fairly be said is not devoted to the interests of this House.
We took evidence. We circulated a questionnaire. Our starting point—I ask your Lordships to accept this—was that this House has a duty on behalf of the public to hold any government to account. We believe that Parliament's scrutiny of the Government needs to be enhanced. This is particularly true when any government has a substantial Commons majority.
The changes recommended in the report are intended to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of this House. The watchdog must have a louder hark and sharper teeth. If one looks at the changes in a fair and open-minded way, I believe that they offer enhanced opportunities to this House.
Efficiency, of course, is bound up with other issues, such as procedural reform, sitting hours and working conditions. Procedural reform alone will not make us more effective. My belief, shared by my colleagues on that small group, is that the effectiveness of the House depends significantly on an approach by consensus in the interests of the general health of Parliament as a whole.
The Government ought to be willing to agree to changes which they may find burdensome or inconvenient. Some of these changes, if approved and adopted, will be. Burdens and inconvenience ought to be accepted if we are to deliver the great prize of improving the quality of legislative scrutiny and therefore of legislative output.
Such an approach is reflected in all that we have tried to do. I fundamentally believe that we can improve the institution of Parliament as a whole. Effective parliamentary scrutiny is a valued and valuable discipline for governments of all complexions. If we go forward on this path, we can go some way to reducing the undoubted present public disenchantment with politics and political systems.
We tried to produce a coherent whole. From the identities I have so far disclosed, plainly, we do not share a unanimous political view, but we have the

643
general view that we ought to have looked for consensus, which we achieved. This is a unanimous report. Therefore, all of us had to bend to the others' opinion. No one could be adamant to his original stance. I stress, as we tried to do in the report, that this is intended to be a package, not every item of which will satisfy everyone, but the broad thrust of which I hope commends itself to the House.
Some proposals looked at in isolation will seem either to burden or benefit the Government, the Opposition or the Cross Benches. I invite your Lordships to look at the totality of what we have tried to achieve. We recognise that the House may want to test the package. Your Lordships will have seen in paragraph 4 of the report that we suggest a trial period of two Sessions, thereafter the House would have to approve any continuation.
In speaking of the drafting of the report, I pay particular tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Significantly, it was he who induced and encouraged us to produce a short report which was easily understood. Perhaps I may quote from the recent report of the Hansard Society, entitled The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. I suggest that these are useful words. It stated:
"The potential exists [for the Lords) to develop a different dynamic to the Commons, opening up new and innovative means of scrutinising the Government".
As a group, we tried to respond to that general call.
We have made some minor, early starts. We now have much more realistic subsistence allowances. At last, we have access to the postal system without paying for it ourselves. Last summer, we acquired Fielden House which will provide more accommodation for your Lordships, who work in difficult circumstances. But we need to do a lot more. As we improve our working conditions, we need to improve our methods of work.
I repeat: we proceeded entirely on the basis of consensus and agreement. At page 7, recommendation (a), our first recommendation, states:
"virtually all major government bills should as a matter of course be subject in draft to pre-legislative scrutiny".
That is closely linked to recommendation (b), which states:
"subject to the right of the House of Commons to determine its own procedures, bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the house in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried-over into the next session; but if a bill that has been carried over does not reach the statute book by the end of the session following carry-over it should fall, as now".
This is a long-term agenda. We are speaking of years, not months, but I have no doubt that if we can achieve more pre-legislative scrutiny, we will have better Bills and a significant lessening of the need to return to the same topic.
Parliament as a whole does not perform its legislative scrutiny well. I must say—I hope without offence to anyone in the other place—that the way to cure that, the remedy, will be found in this House. If
644
we have pre-legislative scrutiny, we will at least address and, I hope, solve a problem. It is a criticism frequently levelled that we produce legislation that is ambiguous, inaccurate and not always fully thought out. In my 10 years' experience here—which I know is brief compared to many of your Lordships—that has been true of all governmental legislation. Constantly, observers of Parliament say that defective legislation is the result of weaknesses in the system. It is often easier for the Government to accept changes to a draft Bill than to seem to accept the humiliation of a change once policy is set. That recommendation will increase the burden on Ministers. The length of time for which each Bill is scrutinised and the lead-time from publication to delivery of Royal Assent will lengthen. However, the potential benefit to the public good is such that that burden is well worth taking on.
It is not in our power alone to make that a reality. It will depend on the Government producing Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny in the first place. My right honourable friend Robin Cook has already given his view that that is the way that we ought to proceed, and I absolutely agree with him. I hope that your Lordships today and subsequently will give strength to that argument by encouraging the Government to follow that direction.
In the past, pre-legislative scrutiny has been conducted in Lords Committees, Commons Committees and Joint Committees. It could occur in the House of introduction or in the other House. Our group thought that it would be a good idea if liaison arrangements were established between the Houses to determine which scrutiny option to adopt. We can proceed with that only if carry-over is adopted. Proposal (a) is utterly linked to proposal (b). The ability to carry over for a single Session would enable each Bill to proceed at its own pace, but I stress that that is dependent on the decision of the House on any particular occasion. In the past, we have performed too little pre-legislative scrutiny. When we have done so, we have produced a better outcome.
I turn to recommendation (c). One of the strengths of this House is that we have a large number of experts who know of which they speak. We do not fully realise the potential of the financial expertise to be found here. I stress as firmly as I can—this is highlighted several times in the report— that we do not intend in any way to encroach upon the financial privileges of the Commons, but we ought to be able to work towards a procedure to enable this House to deal more effectively, within its limited scope, on matters relating to Finance Bills. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Roper, for their contribution to developing the proposals either in written evidence or, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his personal comments.
We suggest for consideration at least that, before the Chancellor makes his Budget Statement, this House should appoint an ad hoc committee to consider and comment on the Budget and Finance Bill. The terms of reference would absolutely preclude the committee from considering the incidence and rates of tax rates. It would concentrate on the technical issues of tax

645
administration and make suggestions— they can be no more than that—that the Commons may or may not accept. That would enhance the House's opportunity to contribute in an area of undoubted expertise, but I stress again that we make no form of challenge to the Commons. We simply intend, if the proposal is carried, to offer suggestions.
A number of your Lordships from all quarters have said that secondary legislation is not properly scrutinised. It is often as complex and detailed as any Bill. Recently, an extremely thoughtful and careful leader in the Daily Telegraph made that very point. Large chunks of law— secondary legislation—are passed without effective scrutiny. Again, without disrespect to the Commons, I suggest that we can do work here that is not presently attempted elsewhere. Since 1980, the number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament has increased by more than a third. It is no exaggeration to say that much secondary legislation may affect the individual more keenly than primary legislation, which we scrutinise.
We therefore recommend a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to examine the merits of every statutory instrument subject to parliamentary activity. There would have to be a sifting process—the work would he impossible otherwise—but if we work at the mechanisms, we can produce a good outcome.
I turn to Questions. They are extremely burdensome for a Minister who is not entirely on top of his or her brief. They offer the House not only an enjoyable opportunity for those who, like myself, are keen supporters of blood sports hut, especially in topical questions, allow the House to challenge the Government before time passes. We have therefore suggested that, as an experiment, for two days a week—on Tuesdays and Wednesdays—Question Time should be extended to 40 minutes and that the extra, final Question should be a topical Question.
It cannot be claimed, as has been said somewhere, that that is a plot by me to try to safeguard the Government. I did not consult my colleagues before offering that proposal; I expect that they will be extremely cross with me, but I shall have to bear that with such fortitude as I can muster. That is, and is intended to be, an extra burden on Ministers. At present, the executive faces insufficient challenge, as it did when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister. There is a minor quid pro quo. There would be one day when, say, the Home Office or the education or health departments would not be subject to questions, simply so that Ministers could go to prisons— as they ought to—schools and hospitals.
I shall be as brief as possible, because I know that there has been quite a rush on the red document, but as part of the package, we recommend that we should not sit after 10 o'clock at night, which would mean a new Standing Order. In our happier moments, we frequently congratulate ourselves that we perform revision extremely well. We do not after 10 o'clock at night. We collude together to go home in the early hours of the morning because we are exhausted. If that proposal is acceptable, the detail will have to be worked out by the Procedure Committee.
646
We suggest a greater use of Grand Committees, which were first proposed as long ago as 1994 by the committee chaired by Lord Rippon. Lord Rippon made it perfectly plain that they are not a device to help the Government to pass more legislation more quickly. They are intended to improve scrutiny and therefore produce better quality.
There is no nomination to a Grand Committee; it is a Committee of the whole House. I understand the criticism made in the Commons that the composition of a Committee for the Committee stage of a Bill can be fiddled. There is no prospect of that here, nor ought there ever to he. All Members can attend, and the procedure will be the same, except that there will be no Divisions. We recommended—again, unanimously— that "Rippon Bills" ought to be committed to Grand Committee, but the decision will be one for the House to make on every occasion.
In this House, we receive very good reports from Select Committees, and sometimes, I think, we deal with them rather churlishly. They are of exceptionally high quality. I do not say that in a self-congratulatory mode; I have never been on one. Often, high quality material is produced, only for it to be debated in the dead hours of a Friday. Therefore, it is not properly reported or, ultimately, properly considered.
We also recommend that there should be three additional Wednesdays for Back-Bench debates in each Session and more debates on Select Committee reports and general topics in prime time. That is not a device to emasculate the House: utterly the opposite. We suggested that, on. Thursdays—this is not our old friend, the Wednesday/Thursday split, on which we decided relatively recently—we should start at 11 o'clock and finish at 7 o'clock. Many of us do not live in the South East, and it would be a legitimate convenience for people to know that they could be away—after quite a long day, after all—at 7 o'clock on Thursday.
We recommend that the House—in particular, the Grand Committees— should be willing to sit in September. We will adjust our sitting times, and, in accordance with what has been generally welcomed about my noble friend Lord Carter's timetable for this year, we will have sensible breaks at convenient times. We shall sit not longer but, I hope, more conveniently. The Grand Committees could do useful work in September. I shall explain our underlying thoughts on the matter. Most Committees are not well represented on the Floor of the House. If there are 12 of us present late in the evening, that is a good turn-out. Not every one of your Lordships is interested in every Bill. If we could have Second Readings, say, before we rose in July and had the Committee stages organised well in advance for two or three days:in September, your Lordships would be able to plan, and everyone with an interest in a particular Bill—and others—could attend.
There is a vast wodge of excellent Law Commission reports, most of which have draft Bills at the back, carefully locked away in a cupboard marked "Not to be disturbed". We do not do those things well. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridgeman, has, rightly.

647
frequently complained that consolidation Bills would be useful to the general public, practitioners and the courts. Subject to your Lordships' views, we could consider doing consolidation Bills. I think that I can say, with the eyes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridgeman, boring into me, that consolidation Bills are not—
A noble Lord: It is Lord Brightman.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am so sorry. I meant to say the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. His eyes were boring into me for another reason. That was my fault.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has frequently said that consolidation Bills would be useful. They are not a subject of pulsating interest to many people. If we could sit in Grand Committees on unwhipped business—there would be no votes in September—we would make the House work better.
I am approaching 20 minutes. The last point that I shall make relates to an observation made by many noble Lords. The increasing volume of Europe-derived legislation is not subject to sufficient scrutiny. That is why we suggest that the Select Committee on the European Union, which does excellent work, should review the House's scrutiny of European legislation and consider the appropriate balance between the scrutiny of general policy and that of specific legislative proposals.
I am sorry if the wording of the Motion caused distress. The original draft Motion that I considered was in a form that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roper, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said was inappropriate. I accepted their suggestion, and we had correspondence about it. The date—8th July—was thought appropriate by the Clerk of the Parliaments. In correspondence, every member of the group agreed that this was an appropriate Motion. I hope that it is not regarded, in any way, as an arrogant attempt on my part to dictate to your Lordships: it is not. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roper, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, can confirm that. We all agreed on it.
It is not a brief time. There are seven weeks for consideration of the matters, and not all the recommendations need any scrutiny by the Procedure Committee. I stress that the Motion says that the Procedure Committee should report back by 8th July with proposals—I underline the words—for the approval of your Lordships. The Committee will offer us a menu, and we must come to our conclusion.
I said that that was the last word; lawyers always say that when they have another paragraph. I shall end by thanking Brendan Keith and Chloe Mawson, who put up with us for a long time—16 meetings over many weeks. They smiled tactfully and Delphically, and their work was invaluable, underlining again the high quality of the officials who serve the House. I commend the Motion to the House.
648
Moved, That this House takes note of the report by the working group appointed to consider how the working practices of the House can be improved, and to make recommendations (HL Paper 111); and that the report be remitted to the Procedure Committee, with an instruction that it makes by 8th July recommendations, for approval by the House, as to the implementation of the report.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Denhamrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "Committee".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, procedures in both Houses of Parliament have evolved over the years, and it is right that they should do so, in order to take account of new circumstances as they arise. But it has always been an accepted rule, again in both Houses, that any change should be made by agreement.
The history of the body whose report we are considering this afternoon has been an unusual one. Its existence was announced by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in answer to a Question for Written Answer on 19th July last year, as,
"a Leader's Group to consider how the working practices of the House can be improved and to make recommendations".—[Official Report, 19/7/01; cal. WA 144]
Those recommendations were presumably to be made to the noble and learned Lord himself, although it was he who was to chair the group.
Of course, the noble and learned Lord had every right to appoint such a body to advise him and to select the membership himself. I would have liked to see the inclusion of the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, whose knowledge and experience would have had much to add, even among such an already illustrious group of Peers. Again, as the group was set up to advise him, I would have preferred the noble and learned Lord to send such of the suggestions as he personally supported to the Procedure Committee for it to consider and make recommendations to the House in the usual way. However, I shall not make too much of that.
On the morning of Thursday 2nd May, it was widely believed that today's debate would be on a straight "take note" Motion. By the time of the party meetings, however, it had been made known that the debate was to be on a Motion for approval of the whole report. By that time, a considerable number of noble Lords, myself included, had begun to have the gravest reservations on many of the recommendations in the report, but that was not the point. Even to ask the House to approve the report, referred directly to it, of a wholly unofficial group would have been conferring on both the group and the report an authority that neither of them possessed.
When, later that afternoon, I found that the draft Motion for approval had, indeed, been tabled, I added to it a "next business" Motion, which, as your Lordships will know, is the prescribed remedy for a Motion on which it is held to be improper for the

649
House to record an opinion. Within a couple of hours, the Motion, together with my addition, had left the draft Order Paper as mysteriously as it had arrived. I had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would thereafter revert to their original intention of tabling a straight "take note" Motion. That would have been the procedurally correct thing to do. Not a bit of it, however.
On Wednesday, 8th May, a new Motion was tabled in the form in which it stands today, a "take note" Motion to which has been added referral to the Procedure Committee, which is unnecessary, and the setting of a time limit for the Procedure Committee to report, which is unheard of.
A Motion that "this House takes note" is described in the Companion to the Standing Orders as enabling,
"the House to debate a situation or a document without coming to any positive decision.
"Guidance about the wording of motions for papers",
continues the Companion,
"applies to take—note motions".
And of Motions for papers, it says that,
"such a motion should normally be withdrawn, since… there is neither advantage nor significance in pressing it".
I can find no precedent for "tacking"—and I use a word that, in parliamentary terms, has always been considered highly pejorative, deliberately—any form of instruction on to a "take note" Motion. Nor can I find one for setting the Procedure Committee a time limit over any matter referred to it. On these two grounds alone, I believe that I am justified in pressing my amendment to a vote.
I must also tell noble Lords opposite that I, together with a large number of Peers, have the gravest of reservations about, at the very least, the majority of the recommendations that this report contains. Some of them are all too seductive at first sight—the House normally rising not later than 10 p.m., for example. Who in his right mind could object to that? Yet, if we should reach that hour on the last of the days scheduled on a particular stage of a particular Bill and we still have not finished—we are a revising Chamber, remember—what happens then? Does the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms produce an extra day or two out of somewhere? Or could it be that some gentle form of guillotine might contrive to creep surreptitiously in? I can tell your Lordships this. If, in my time as Chief Whip, I had tried to sell this package or anything approaching it, to the noble and learned Lord's predecessors as business managers of his party, I would have received a very rough answer indeed.
Your Lordships will be aware of the many ways in which, since the general election of 1997, procedures in another place have been changed—not by agreement between the parties which, as I say, has been the long established practice, but through the sheer voting power of the Government's vast majority. Those changes have included, first, the reduction of Prime Minister's Question Time from two afternoons to one, and, no, half an hour on a Wednesday is not an adequate substitute for two separate quarters of an hour on Tuesday and Thursday afternoon; secondly,
650
the all too frequent practice of political advisers making statements direct to the press from Downing Street rather than Ministers making them on the Floor of the House; thirdly, no votes on business after 10 p.m., with all too rare exceptions; fourthly, deferred Divisions on business debated after 10 p.m., these to be taken at 3.30 p.m., the following Wednesday afternoon, by a happy coincidence (for the Government) immediately following the one Prime Minister's Question Time of the week; and fifthly, routine severe timetable motions—guillotines—of Committee and Report stages.
And still to come, first, Tuesday and Wednesday sittings from 11.30 a m. to 7 p.m.; secondly, only 13 Friday sittings for Private Member's Bills; and, thirdly, carrying-over of Bills from one Session to another, this last being already familiar to your Lordships as one of the recommendations on the paper before the House today.
Her Majesty's Government have not got an overall majority in your Lordships' House, but it is against this backdrop that every one of the proposals in the group's report should be examined minutely to make absolutely certain that no hidden agenda attaches to any of them. And this is why it is so vitally important that the Procedure Committee should not feel pressurised by a time limit into taking what might, just might, be disastrous decisions for your Lordships' House. That is all I am asking by my amendment.
I beg your Lordships not to hand to this Government on a plate, just because they have asked you nicely, things they have taken for themselves by brute force of numbers in another place.
I understand that the Table has ruled that today's Motion is in order. Indeed, it has accepted the Motion, so I suppose it must be so. But it is certainly not in accordance with convention—and conventions in this House are always honoured.
The value of the "take note" Motion— I say this to the noble and learned Lord having had the benefit of some years' experience of the procedures of the House—is that it enables important, and sometimes highly controversial matters to be debated dispassionately, without risking a Division. It is infinitely more often used by the government of the day than it is by either opposition party or by Cross-Bench or Back-Bench Peers. If the noble and learned Lord allows this convention to be breached this afternoon, for the sake of some passing convenience, I can tell him that he and, perhaps more important, his noble friend the Chief Whip, will come to regret it, again and again and again. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "Committee".—(Lord Denham.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Denham. I have always believed that if he were not in this House we would have to invent him, because he is a true guardian of its procedures. If one looks at his record, one can see why.

651
My noble friend was for 11 years government Chief Whip and spent 30 years on the Front Bench. What he does not know about procedure and the reasons for it is not worth knowing. We need that expertise in this House. It leads me to recognise how much I miss the contributions made by the late Lord Shepherd and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. Between them and with my noble friend they ran this House extremely effectively over many years.
Just after the last general election, not yet 12 months ago, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House told me that he intended to set up a Leaders' group to examine the working practices of this House. I suggested that it should be chaired by a senior BackBencher, as was the case eight years ago in 1994 when the late Lord Rippon of Hexham chaired such a committee, or as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, did in the previous Parliament. But the noble and learned Lord felt that this issue was of such importance that he wished to chair the committee himself. I and other noble Lords who have been mentioned joined it.
I regard this as entirely a House matter. I represented myself, not the Conservative party. If any of these matters come to a vote, it will be a free vote. I thank my noble friend Lord Waddington for his work and I join the noble and learned Lord in thanking the Clerks, who worked extremely hard.
Over many meetings we covered almost every subject imaginable dealing with the working practices of this House. It has been said many times outside the Chamber—perhaps it will be said in this debate—that the report hides a secret hidden agenda of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. That is not true. The noble and learned Lord has been open about his ambitions. He has discussed them in this House and outside it. His comments have been reported in the press. He has never hidden his view that more business should be taken off the Floor of the House and that, for example, there should be no votes in Committees. He proposes also the selection of amendments; programming debates; the use of guillotines or "bringing down the knife" as it is referred to in another place; the possibility of a Speaker for the House; codifying the conventions; morning sittings and so on.
Those suggestions have been more than a gleam in the noble and learned Lord's eye.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the original intention had been to report well before the Christmas Recess. The report is the result of our work and debates. As the noble and learned Lord said in his introduction, the report was brought about by consent and agreement. It will still affect every single Member of your Lordships' House. It is in part a fundamental change.
When I agreed to the changes, I had two principles uppermost in my mind. The first was to ask whether the proposals reduced the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation. The second was to ask whether they allowed the Government to cram even more, often unnecessary, legislation through Parliament. My
652
view is that on balance the proposals do not offend those principles. On that basis, and after a great deal of discussion, I have agreed to them.
Perhaps I may briefly examine the proposals. There are seven broad issues, four of which are non-contentious. I welcome the new proposals for the Finance Bill. As regards the proposal for a committee on statutory instruments, I believe that we should see how that works. As regards more Starred Questions, I am not wholly convinced that we need more than half an hour, but if topical Questions are on offer let us see how they work in practice. If a ministerial off-day is the quid pro quo, fair enough, but when I asked the Library how many Questions had not been answered by Ministers since the turn of the year I was told just under 20 per cent. Therefore, we already have a system which allows Ministers to visit prisons, schools and hospitals. The fourth relatively non-contentious item is the review of the European committees and I hope that that will take place.
However, three other issues raise more serious concerns. The first is the sittings of the House and how they will fit in with Grand Committees. The second is pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over. The third is September sittings. As regards our daily sittings, the proposed change to sittings on Thursday was the issue least debated in the group because it had been overwhelmingly popular in the questionnaire sent to every Member of this House. That is precisely the kind of issue on which the House will have a vote when the report comes back from the Procedure Committee in due course.
Likewise, closing at 10 p.m. was popular, but that will not work unless there is clear co—operation between Front and Back Benches and between the Front Benches through the usual channels. In exchange for the time lost after 10 p.m., there is a recommendation that there should be an increase in the number of Grand Committees. In my experience, Grand Committees are not hugely popular. They do not provide much better scrutiny than Committees on the Floor of the House and they do not save much time. But I have agreed with the proposal for an increase during the experimental period in order to see how the system works.
I note in passing that in the 1994 debate on Lord Rippon's report, the then Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he was not convinced of the merit of Grand Committees.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as the noble Lord has been kind enough to mention me, perhaps he will give way. He will recollect that in 1994 the Labour Party representation in this House was approximately 120, while the government representation in this House was approximately 600. If any noble Lord believed that in those circumstances I would have agreed to give away some of the most important weapons in the Opposition's armoury, I should have been surprised.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point and that is why many Members of the House are concerned about a substantial increase in

653
the use of Grand Committees. In addition, the promise in relation to Grand Committees made in 1994 did not work because it was then also tied to an earlier closing by agreement and in the event that did not happen.
I turn to pre-legislative scrutiny and carry-over. We are all in favour of more pre-legislative scrutiny. It is entirely in the hands of the Government and not in the hands of this House, and there is no reason why we should not previously have had more. However, we will need to be reassured by the Lord Privy Seal that it does not mean that another place will undertake all the pre-legislative scrutiny and that the House of Lords will undertake all the carry-over work. That would be unacceptable and it would fulfil the worst fears of those who oppose the proposal.
Sessions are a good discipline for the Government, for the Opposition and for Parliament. Everyone knows where they stand. However, the new proposal is but a limited extension of an existing right that the House has given itself in exchange for the desirability of pre-legislative scrutiny. Again, I believe that we should see how it goes, but in the Procedure Committee the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will need to explain what, if any, ramifications there are for the workings of the Parliament.
The next contentious issue is that of September sittings. The report is not prescriptive. My view is that if another place starts to sit in September, it will be very difficult for us not to go down that route also, particularly if it is tied in with an earlier rising in July. But that is also a matter on which the House can reach a view in due course.
I am slightly more concerned about Grand Committees sitting in September when the House is not sitting. After all, if Grand Committees can sit, why does not the House sit in a full Committee? I am not sure how the proposal will be made to work in practice. In addition, Law Commission Bills and Bills for consolidation are to change the law and in some cases they are highly contentious. We would find it difficult to agree to the passage of such legislation if they were so highly contentious.
Finally, I turn to my noble friend Lord Denham. I hope that he will not press his amendment to a Division. He raises a most important point today, but it is not hugely significant whether or not the Procedure Committee must meet the 8th July deadline. I am not sure what will happen if the committee does not meet that deadline and, as far as I am concerned, there is no magic in the 8th July date. However, as it was recommended by the Clerk of the Parliaments, I am happy to go along with it. On my understanding of the work which the Procedure Committee must carry out, it should not take it many meetings to deal with the matter.
I know that some noble Lords, including many of my noble friends, have misgivings about the proposals, but clearly the Procedure Committee will take careful note of many of the points raised in today's debate. The Leader of the House will no doubt reaffirm that we will have an opportunity to vote on the proposals in the light of the Procedure Committee report.
654
What is more, I would like to re-emphasise a point I made at the beginning of my comments. I would not have put my name to these ideas if I felt that they limited the ability of the House to scrutinise governments; if I felt that they would enable governments to force even more legislation through Parliament; or if I felt that they encroached on the freedoms and privileges of each and every noble Lord in this House. On balance, I do not believe that they threaten any of that. But if the House believes that they do, it has the unfettered right to amend or reject the report of the Procedure Committee when it comes back.
It would be a fine thing if work in the House was always to the convenience of Members and even of Ministers. However, the old ways and the little inconveniences also have their merits. The noble and learned Lord called them the "burdens". We should never lose sight of our fundamental objective, which is to enhance the authority of this House; sustain it as an independent revising Chamber; and preserve its freedoms.
I have said previously that I believe that many of our procedures could usefully be exported to another place and that, if they were, the whole of Parliament might work better. The worst result would be to import procedures from the increasingly discredited House of Commons. Our free and open procedures have made this House the pre-eminent place for the revision of legislation. We should value those procedures; we should not imperil them. I do not believe that these proposals do so and that is why, with all clue diffidence, I commend them to the attention of the House and to the Procedure Committee.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he told us that he was speaking as an independent in terms of a free vote. However, he is the Leader of the Opposition. Is he recommending, in his own right as Leader of the Opposition, that his noble friends and the rest of the House should vote against his noble friend if he insists on pressing his amendment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I expressed the wish that my noble friend would not press his amendment to a vote. I stand by my signing of the report. If there is a vote, I shall be supporting the original Motion.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I too speak as one of those who served, with a number of other colleagues, on the Leaders Group. I support the recommendations in the report introduced this afternoon by the Leader of the House. Serving on the group was an educational experience. I learnt a great deal more about the procedures of this House. I want to thank particularly the Clerks, who enabled us to make, over quite a long period, some significant progress. The report is, I believe, in keeping with the evolutionary change in our working practices as reflected in our Standing Orders and in the Companion.

655
It is one of the charms of this House that each of the Standing Orders is accompanied by a side-note giving the date on which that particular Standing Order was first introduced. It is, therefore, interesting to read that we are still governed by Standing Orders the majority of which go back to the 17th century. They have, in fact, been modified and changed on a number of occasions since then; but if the noble Lord, Lord Graham, consults the list of Standing Orders, he will see from the side-notes that, in the majority of cases, their original introduction dates back to the 17th century. We need, therefore, to look at how these can be re-examined and revised to make them relevant; at how we can, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, improve our consideration of legislation; and at how we can find ways of holding the Government more effectively to account.
But perhaps the most important point about our report—as was made clear by both the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—was that its proposals have been put forward as an experiment. When they come forward from the Procedure Committee later this summer, they will, if the report is accepted, have a sunset clause attached; that is, they will operate for two years; then it will be for the House to decide whether they will provide a satisfactory way of taking our procedures forward, and we shall have a chance to re-examine them. Therefore, some of the fears that I have heard expressed, both in the Chamber today and elsewhere, have to be seen in the light of that sunset clause.
In another way, this debate reflects the maturity of this House. In no part of this House today will our votes be subject to advice from the Whips, even though the procedural matters that we are considering today—the mechanisms that we use to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Government to account— are probably the most political subject that we have to consider. It is right that we should make decisions ourselves, individually, on this topic.
As has been stated, we came at the end of our work to a consensual unanimity on the proposals that we place before the House today. It was as if, during those 16 meetings, we had been climbing a mountain from different sides. We certainly did not all begin in the same position. However, during the process of our discussions we came to conclusions which we felt we could share and put forward as a useful contribution as an experiment to improve the workings of our House. It was for that reason that, although I do not find the word particularly happy, the word "package" has been used to describe our outcome.
Perhaps I may begin by describing five of the matters that I believe will be widely welcomed, as they will, without doubt, add to the effectiveness of the House. I suggest that the acceptance by the Government that it would be the normal practice for Bills—it is Bills to which I refer, not Green Papers or anything less clear—should go first for pre-legislative scrutiny is an important step forward. It will certainly improve the quality of legislation. To that extent, it
656
will be to the Government's advantage. It will also be to the advantage of all the citizens of this country if we get legislation which is clearer and which does not need—as has happened too often in the recent past— very rapid amendment after its introduction.
The second is the proposal which has been referred to for giving this House, with the expertise that it has, an opportunity to contribute, without interfering with the privileges of the Commons, to the consideration of Finance Bills. Like the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and indeed my noble friend Lord Newby for some suggestions which led to the final product being something which I believe will be a useful contribution to the future work of the House in this area.
The third area where I believe we are taking an important step forward if, after the considerations by the Procedure Committee, we are able to go forward and make a change, relates to our consideration of statutory instruments. At present, our scrutiny of the substance of statutory instruments, as distinct from the vires of instruments, is selective and far from satisfactory. The new committee that has been proposed would act as an effective filter and would ensure that statutory instruments of political importance were properly considered by this House. That would he an important step forward in this House fulfilling the tasks that it should undertake.
The fourth matter relates to Questions. The half-hour that we have for Questions each day is a relatively effective method—it is one of the ways— of holding the Government to account. This modest increase should therefore be welcomed, particularly as it will include two further topical Questions, which are one of the real strengths of Question Time in this House as compared with that in another place.
Finally, I believe that the extra time made available for debates on the Floor of the House—three extra days, two for the opposition parties and one for the Cross-Benchers, together with more time for debates on Select Committee reports and general debates—is welcome. It is one way of ensuring that the extra time that will become available by more Bills going to Grand Committee will not be used by the Government to push more legislation through the House. That is one dimension of the package.
The second group of proposals, which may well be more controversial, are related to what the Leader of the House has referred to elsewhere as a more rational use of our time. The suggestions for a more balanced year—including a Sitting in September, balanced by more generous Recesses at Christmas, Easter and at the spring holiday, and an earlier date for the commencement of the Summer Recess in July—are, I know, unpopular with those who like to take their holidays in September. But there will be many others of your Lordships who will find that, on balance, a significant step forward—particularly if the dates can be given well in advance so that we have some predictability of the totality of the parliamentary year.

657
As has been said, if the other place is moving to a September Sitting, this is one of the matters with which it seems to make sense for this place to experiment.
The second change in our own sitting times is the suggestion for an earlier start on Thursday. Here, there is obviously a division between those who live and work in the South East and do not like the idea that their morning should be disturbed on a Thursday, and those who live outside the South East and would like to get away on a Thursday evening. This is clearly one of the issues that we shall need to debate in some detail when the report comes back from the Procedure Committee.
Is the proposed 10 o'clock cut-ff a subtle form of guillotine—as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Denham—taken from another place? Certainly that was not what we discovered in our discussions in the committee. I hope that the work of the Procedure Committee will reassure the noble Lord on that particular point.
There is a feeling in many parts of the House that continuing our debates until midnight and beyond does not always improve the quality of scrutiny. If we had earlier closure, more time would be available because of Committee stages being taken in Grand Committee.
I turn to more controversial issues. It is true to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, suggested, that when a Leader of the House comes forward with a set of proposals for procedural changes, many remember the Latin tag, "Timeo danaos ut dona ferentes". Those of your Lordships who are naturally suspicious of any Leader of the House of another party will look carefully at the proposals for carry-over and greater use of Grand Committees. I suspect that we will hear more of those topics today.
Both proposals seem at first sight to make things easier for the Government, so why have we come to accept them as part of the totality? The possibility of carrying a Bill forward from one Session to another would apply only if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny. The addition of pre-legislative scrutiny inevitably lengthens the time between the beginning of the process and completion of consideration of a Bill. In those circumstances, the House should be prepared to consider carryover on a case-by-case basis.
There are three problems with Grand Committees. First, they may be seen as providing the Government with an opportunity to push through more measures in their legislative programme, by removing one of the restrictions available to opposition parties. We have been given assurances by the Leader of the House that such is not his intention. The proof of that pudding will be in the eating, which is why the two-year experimental period is of great importance. We have seen the number of ways in which the time saved will be used for other useful purposes.
The second serious objection for some is that there are no votes in Grand Committees. We on these Benches do not normally initiate votes in Committee, so we are not so worried about that aspect as others. The third objection stems from the negative view held
658
in all parts of the House about the use of the Moses Room, in terms of its acoustics and ambience. The report has adopted as a possibility the particularly imaginative proposal made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that the Robing Room should be used. I realise the prerogative problems but I was interested to discover that the Robing Room was used on two occasions in the 1930s—in 1931 and 435—for meetings of Joint Committees. The second was of a constitutional nature, although admittedly to do with the constitution of India rather than the future of this place.
Apart from procedural issues, the report raises significant problems in respect of resources. There are clearly staffing implications for the additional pre-legislative committees, Grand Committees and Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. There will also be more demands made on Peers to serve on those Committees. We should not agree to the proposals without being aware of the resource implications.
Speaking for myself and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I hope that the House will consider the amendment but reject it if the noble Lord decides to press it to a vote—and accept instead the Motion moved by the Leader of the House. That will give us the opportunity to try some important experiments in making our work more effective in holding the Government to account.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, as a member of the Leader's Group, I encourage your Lordships to take note of our report and to agree that its ideas and proposals be taken forward by the appropriate committees of the House before formal consideration by your Lordships. I acknowledge a departure from past practice in that the Leader arranged the terms of reference and the membership of his group, which he chaired, on his own authority. He rightly afforded the House the courtesy of informing your Lordships of his intentions in a Written Answer last July, before the committee began its work. Since then, there have been further references to the group and its work. The questionnaire that we circulated in January brought the group's existence and work to the personal attention of all noble Lords.
Before we began our meetings, I inquired whether the Leader intended his group to follow up on the report of the group that had considered the House's committee structure and working practices. There are areas of overlap when considering the broad canvas of work in your Lordships' House but, after nine months and 16 sittings, I am personally grateful that the Leader decreed that that work was for the group working under the chairmanship of the Lord Chairman of Committees.
The Leader's Motion brings the result of our work to the early attention of the House. At first, we were not all agreed to whom we were reporting or the path that the report should take to seek the approval of the House. I made clear from the outset and throughout the course of our work my view that the Procedure

659
Committee and other appropriate committees must be involved—not merely for the sake of form but because a number of practical matters had to be taken into account—such as the need for more deputy chairmen, clerks, Hansard writers and other staff, not least in the Refreshment Department; and the impact on the upkeep of the palace and its rolling programme of works.
Moreover, in the case of issues that involve agreement with the other place and are not matters that can be fixed by government fiat, we should look to the Lord Chairman of Committees to take them forward. I do not underrate the task that we are setting the Lord Chairman and our House committees. It would greatly assist their work to know your Lordships' views, as expressed in this debate. I therefore endorsed the Leader's wish to table his Motion in the form in which it appears today.
While there is a view represented in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that the Motion goes too far and is outwith the companion in its prescriptive second part, that is not objectionable if we are to attempt to get our package of recommended changes in place by the start of the next Session. I hope that the noble Lord and those who may have been initially minded to support him will give the Leader's Motion a fair wind as it stands.
I attached great importance to achieving an agreed report. That was not an easy task, bearing in mind the different interests and perceptions of political parties and Cross-Benchers—and the range of individual commitments in which many of your Lordships are engaged, additional to those in the House. However, for an issue that affects all Members of your Lordships' House, broad consensus is essential. It will rarely be possible to achieve unanimity, but if there is not to be continual and even heated debate about any changes, a large measure of acceptance is important. I hope that this will be made easier to achieve because the whole package is put before the House as a trial over two Sessions. It will be for the House to decide in the light of experience whether the package or any parts of it are to continue thereafter.
Part of the difficulty of identifying weaknesses in our working methods is that what is terrible for one is an essential tactical position for another. However, there is a good deal of anecdotal evidence, and responses to the questionnaire reinforces it, that there is genuine dissatisfaction with some of our working arrangements. The changes that we recommend will improve scrutiny, better use the time of Members of the House, and improve the quality of legislation, including secondary legislation. Too much legislation, despite our efforts, does not finish up as good law on the statute book.
Like so much of this type of study, it is not until one gets to the end that one is able to see the whole picture of ideas and proposals that have been discussed at some length individually. The amount of use of Grand Committees, for example, was an issue that caused us difficulty, although this was more a partisan one than one of pressing concern to Cross-Benchers. However,
660
for most of us, there was a worry that it would allow the government of the day additional opportunities to force even more legislation, perhaps inadequately considered, through this House. Eventually, with the commitment to limit late sitting times by Standing Order and to have lengthier short recesses, and with some magnanimous give and take on all sides, a packaged solution was devised in recommendation (g).
I believe that there could be some confusion if we rely on the phrase Grand Committee to cover all sittings off the Floor of the House. I believe that the words Grand Committee should be confined to actual committee work. If an additional sitting takes place at the same time as one in this Chamber, it might be described as, for example, a Moses Room sitting. Parenthetically, I should say that I recognise and share the dislike that the acoustics and microphones of the Moses Room engender, which is why I proposed—as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, mentioned—that, until these are rectified, we should consider using the Robing Room as our equivalent to Westminster Hall for the other place.
The Robing Room was used during World War II for our sittings when the Commons was bombed and then moved into this Chamber. The Robing Room is rarely used except for State occasions, and it should be possible to arrange any sittings in it around such well-programmed events. Moreover, it is almost as adjacent to this Chamber as the Moses Room. Proximity is important if a Division is called here or to allow individual Peers—and not all are so nimble on their feet as they may once have been— who have an interest in both sittings to move easily from one location to the other.
The Lord Privy Seal and earlier speakers have dealt in more detail with our recommendations and the reasons for them. All those recommendations have my full support, and I add my thanks and commendation for the work which the Clerks did in supporting our group. I commend the Leader's Motion to the House.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble and gallant Lord sits down, perhaps he can help me with one point. He said that he felt that these proposals, as they may eventually come forward, should be in place by the next Session. Given that some of our arrangements have been in place for very many hundreds of years, why is that necessary?
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, that was the view of the group.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate and to commend to the House the recommendations of the group that was appointed to consider how the working practices of the House could be improved. I must, of course, immediately declare an interest in that I was selected to be a member of the group, even though I am a relatively new Member of the House. I come to the subject as one of the many Peers appointed in 1997, and since, as a working Peer. I am

661
a Member of the Select Committee on the European Union as well as being chairman of one of its sub-committees. So, as one who attends regularly, I think that I have been here long enough to have begun to understand not only the accumulated wisdom of this House, but to develop a deep respect for the House.
I come from a background in which change has been a significant feature of the past two decades; namely, in the Civil Service and the trade unions. I know the difficulties that change brings in its wake, but I know, too, the advantages. I found it particularly interesting to hear Her Majesty's reply to the Loyal Addresses of both Houses, in Westminster Hall, when she said that,
"Change has become a constant; managing it has become an expanding discipline. The way we embrace it defines our future".—[Official Report, 30/4/02; col. 563.]
I think that the last sentence has particular relevance for all of us at present.
We all know that change is a condition of life on this planet and that it can be for the better or for the worse. It is in the application of change that the hand of man and woman can affect the consequences. The problem often lies in trying to come to a nice judgement about what is better. But what is true is that our instincts, and the instincts of this House, are for pragmatic change, evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and that we must hold on to accumulated wisdom while trying to find a more effective way of using it.
This House has already seen some quite substantial recent changes, which many would argue were for the better. Indeed, just last week, no less a person than the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the House's successes since 1999. These have led to the House increasingly being seen to be at the heart of the legislative process.
Politicians recognise that it is even more important now than it was in the past to connect with the electorate. The electorate expects change, especially of those who, through legislation, expect change of them. It is in the House's own interests to demonstrate its willingness to change.
This report on working practices embodies, in my opinion, the virtues of the House. It represents a considered and cautious examination of the issues. This examination began as long ago as last summer with the aim of securing better, more effective scrutiny, and the more efficient use of the time of all Members of the House. It has not been an easy process. The Leader of the House is to be commended for his patience and desire to proceed by consensus and agreement. Concessions have had to be made by all.
Although the report is not all that I would have wished it to be, I am sure that it is more than others would wish it to be. I am sure that it does not meet all the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who should be congratulated on and thanked for initiating this process quite some time ago by means of a Back—Bench debate in this Chamber. Noble Lords will recall his despair and frustration with the House's committee structure, which had consistently failed to deliver the changes that many Peers had been calling for over the
662
years. None the less, I believe that this report goes a long way towards meeting his and other Back-Benchers' aspirations.
I trust that the report's cohesiveness will not he undermined, nor its implementation delayed, in the Procedure Committee to which it will be referred. However, wherever we end up, I believe that fairness and the democracy of 2002 require that this Chamber should have the final say on what is implemented. Regrettably, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, would prevent that. If it is taken to a vote— I still hope that it will not be, particularly given the urging of the Leader of the Opposition—I would hope that the House will reject it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. He said that if my amendment were carried, it would be the end of the matter. But, all that I am asking for is the time limit on the Procedure Committee to be removed. It may do what it has to do within the time limit in any case. It is not a wrecking amendment by any means.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I would argue that if the time limit were lifted, we would have the problem that my noble friend Lord Peston referred to when he introduced his debate—that the Procedure Committee never brings back issues and changes are never implemented. There is that possibility.
We were conscious that some of the changes might be seen as eroding some of the rights and powers of the opposition and that some proposals might be regarded as making it easier for the Government. But, that is not the case when viewed in the round. We should always remember that governments are in opposition some time, and if they have treated the opposition unfairly, they will suffer the consequences in due course.
The report also places many additional burdens and checks on government, as previous speakers have said. Indeed, it also places additional burdens on the staff of the House. I join others in commending the hard work that was undertaken by the Clerk and his assistant. The extension of legislative scrutiny to virtually all major government Bills as a matter of course is a significant change for all, which, it is to be hoped, will be ultimately beneficial to the public at large.
I am conscious of the Chief Whip's gentle pointer to the advice of the Companion on the length of speeches. We spent some time in the group discussing the Companion, how to get better compliance with it and how to avoid repetition. In recalling those discussions, your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go through all the recommendations in the report and tread in previous speakers' footsteps.
The area in which I have experience is in scrutinising legislation emanating from the European Union. As your Lordships undoubtedly know, the two Houses adopt quite different ways of attempting to scrutinise European legislation. The other place looks at all the documentation with an eye to its political and legal implications. This House has always added an element

663
of in-depth scrutiny which has found a faithful readership even in the European Commission. But it is an inescapable fact of life that the tide of paper increases in proportion to the numbers handling it. The European Union is on the threshold of quite dramatic enlargement. One consequence of that will be a further stimulus to the legislative output of Brussels. We must attempt to meet that challenge.
Apart from a quantitative increase, we are faced at the same time by the deepening of the Union where common practices and regulation now extend to areas of our national life to a far greater extent than they did when we joined nearly 30 years ago. The current convention that is examining how the European Union should organise itself to deal with enlargement and to reconnect with its electorate has identified scrutiny by the national Parliaments of member states as an important element in the future design of the Union.
I particularly believe that the time has come for us to consider some way of using the resources and skills of both Houses to deal with this tide of legislation. It has been growing apace, but the time that both Houses devote to it has not. It is a change which I feel the country would want to see.
This package of reform must he taken as a whole. The moment when we start to pick off particular items that we do not like in the package, it will inevitably start to unravel. In seeking minor change in one area, we risk losing the lot.
The electorate has a right to expect better of Parliament and of this House. If we do not embrace these sensible proposals, we cannot simply revert to the status quo. Change is inevitable and it is better that we have a hand in shaping it.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall try to be as brief. Three separate questions need to be addressed this afternoon.
First, is there a need for improvement in our procedures, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seems to think? I am not persuaded. Of course, it is well known that when the House sits late Chief Whips of all parties have difficulty in detaining some noble Lords, but that has been the position for as far back as I can remember. I believe that when my noble friend Lord Denham was a distinguished Government Chief Whip, he had as much difficulty then as I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has now in keeping his noble friends here late at night to vote.
That is part of the political process that has been inherent in our system for as far back as any of us can remember, and indeed a great deal further. The idea that we shall somehow improve our proceedings by avoiding the need to sit late is not necessarily self-evident. I do not think that that case has been made for the wholesale improvement in our procedures.
664
I turn to the second question and the procedure by which so-called improvements will be arrived at. This is the second time in recent memory that we have had a Leader's Group to inquire into our affairs. Such groups are naturally staffed by eminent Members of your Lordships' House. The Leader of the House himself chaired this one and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde assisted him. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the Leader of the Cross-Benchers and a very distinguished member of the Liberal Democrat Party, also sat on the committee. Such committees tend to develop a momentum of their own, and they come to the House with proposals that have been recommended from a high source. Perhaps slightly more respectful noble Lords than myself are bowled over by such recommendations and tend to nod them through. I am afraid that I am not prepared to do that, but it will be recognised at once that I was not well brought up and perhaps I should learn better manners.
Be that as it may, such committees are not formally constituted committees of the House. They are selected by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. I do not disagree with that, but let it be clear that they have no authority, save their own self-interest. Your Lordships should take their proposals on that basis.
I turn to the merits of the proposals. I shall not run through each one from (a) to (n), but they are all designed to facilitate the passage of government legislation. There is nothing wrong in the noble and learned Lord introducing proposals that will enable him to get his business through the House more quickly and easily, but your Lordships should see them for what they are. The noble and learned Lord is seeking to reduce the capacity of the House—I suppose that that means the Opposition—to question, delay, reform and revise, which is the role of your Lordships' House.
That would be a mistake. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not seek to shackle the Procedure Committee, not least by asking it to steam through its consideration of his proposals and to make its recommendations as early as 8th July. I, therefore, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Denham. I hope that the House will agree to it, and I hope that your Lordships will give careful scrutiny to the recommendations of the Procedure Committee when they eventually come before us.
4.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have only three comments to make.
First, there is a moral good in conducting our business effectively and also humanely. If the recommendations of the Leader's Group will help the House to do its work better, use its Members' time more effectively and help them to get to bed at a reasonable hour, they are to be welcomed.
Secondly, I note that the subject is the working practices of the House. These are a matter of housekeeping, not about building the kingdom of heaven. In such matters, we look for improvement,

665
not perfection. We know from experience that all reforms have unintended consequences. The only way to find out what those are, unless we can truly lay our hand on our heart and predict disaster, is to put the proposals to the test of practice, and then review them in the light of experience, as is proposed.
Thirdly, by standing back from the recommendations, I observe that they are one more sign of the increasing professionalisation of the work of the House.
There is an increasingly heavy load of work to be done, not least in the scrutiny of legislation and in the work of government. That work has to be done thoroughly by persons who have both the time and the competence to do it. I am not concerned to pass any judgment on that development; I simply note it. But I also note the consequence for people such as those of us who sit on these Benches. Our primary duties in life lie elsewhere. The more demanding the work of this House becomes in terms of lime and attention, the harder it is for people like us to pull our weight and fully participate in the kind of work that has to be done. I note the fact. How does that lie with the benefit to this House of those who are not members of the political class and who bring with them their day-to-day experience of life and responsibilities that are exercised primarily elsewhere? I ask the question.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I speak as chairman of your Lordships' European Union Select Committee. My comments will be confined solely to the contents of the paragraph under the heading, "Select Committees", in which the committee I chair is singled out for uniquely close attention. I am grateful to those noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who have been kind enough to make kind references to the work of the committee.
In passing, I wonder why the work of the European Union Committee was the only one which the group decided to have a look at. I suspect that the reason may lie in the membership of the working group in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, but there are, of course, other valuable Select Committees in your Lordships' House, including particularly the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which does such useful work on scrutiny.
Turning back to the European Union Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, as chairman of the Leader's Group, wrote to me last December asking for comments from our committee on the working methods we follow and on some more general matters relating to the House's consideration of European business. The committee had the opportunity to consider the request in some detail and responded in January. That response is available in the Library. I should also add that the committee authorised me to appear before the Leader's Group to give evidence should I have been invited to do so, but no such invitation was in the event received.
666
I turn to the recommendations or the report as they relate to European scrutiny. Your Lordships will note that there is a recommendation for,
"a review of the House's scrutiny of European legislation".
I take that to be a review not only of the work of the European Union Committee but also of the House's scrutiny of European legislation in a more general sense. One area where this point is particularly relevant is the time allowed for debates on our reports. One of the key points made in the committee's submission to the group, and a matter on which the committee felt most strongly, was that there should be more time for debates on the Floor of the House for our committee's reports. We recognise that the usual channels do their level best to make quality time available, but we nevertheless concluded that better arrangements could and should be made. We accordingly proposed that Select Committee reports should usually be debated within 12 sitting weeks of publication, and earlier where necessary. That recommendation, unfortunately, does not appear to have been carried forward by the group.
I should add that, not knowing what the House will make of the other recommendations of the Leader's Group report, if one of the consequences of what is agreed is that there is more time on the Floor of the House for debates on committee reports in prime time, my committee would very much welcome that. I am encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said on that issue in his opening remarks.
Tied up with the question of debates is the question of how seriously the Government take our scrutiny work. I have recently received a government response to a very thorough report by one of our subcommittees which can best be summarised in the phrase, "Thank you for your letter, the contents of which have been noted". I shall not name the department concerned—it will by now have received a strongly worded letter from me making clear that that is not good enough and demanding a proper response—but the case does illustrate that, in addition to the House having the responsibility to discharge its duty of scrutiny thoroughly, the Government have a duty to consider and respond in an equally thorough manner.
I turn now to the details of paragraph 30 of the report before us today. The suggestion made in the report for a review of European scrutiny includes a review of,
"the appropriate balance between the scrutiny of general policy and that of specific legislative proposals".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to that. That is an interesting distinction and one to which the committee is constantly alive. All the six sub-committees, which as your Lordships will know conduct most of the substantive scrutiny work, are aware of that distinction. There is also a related question: at what stage in the cycle of European policy making and legislation can the reports from your Lordships' committees have most impact on those formulating policy?

667
There is a strongly argued case that your Lordships can have most impact at an early stage in the process. This is because the detailed scrutiny of European legislation by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers is not a process in which your Lordships' House, or any other national parliament, is directly involved in the same kind of detailed way as we are in passing United Kingdom legislation.
The suggestion for a review also refers to,
"the desirability of a greater number of shorter and more focussed reports".
The committee will need to consider that suggestion most carefully. There is, of course, no necessary correlation between the shortness of a report and its focus. A quite substantial report can be neatly focused on a complex series of issues while a short report can present its arguments in a muddled and diffuse way, although of course none of ours ever does.
The report from the Leader's Group also refers back to the debate on our committee's report on the possibility of a second parliamentary chamber for Europe and cites the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Williamson of Horton and Lord Desai in that debate. Without asking why those noble Lords were singled out for particular mention, I am sure that the House will be pleased to learn that the committee has already taken steps to follow up many of the matters raised in the debate. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, proposed that more attention should be paid to scrutiny of the Commission's Annual Work Programme. We have already heard evidence from senior Commission officials on that topic and next week we shall see a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we shall then produce a report on how we might take that matter forward.
I should also add that a number of points made in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, are not matters on which the committee can itself take a decision. For example, one of the suggestions was for the whole European scrutiny business to be made "mandatory and legal". I am not quite sure myself how such a development could be taken forward—it would certainly require a resolution of the House and, indeed, possibly primary legislation. Neither of those are matters which the Select Committee itself can deliver, but it would be happy to give the House the benefit of its views should the House wish that. It would be in that spirit that I would invite the Select Committee to take forward the suggestion in the report and consider those matters.
The paragraph on Select Committees concludes with an invitation to the European Union Committee and the Procedure Committee to explore some of the suggestions made in the second chamber debate. As I have already said, we have already taken some steps in that direction. But if the House through this debate gives the green light to this recommendation in the Leader's Group report, I shall of course report back to the Select Committee and we shall begin work on those issues. We would need to consider taking evidence
668
from, among others, the party leaders in this House, other elements of the Government and, indeed, other national parliaments, to name but a few, to see how we could take our work forward constructively.
If such a review is to be done, it would, of course, need to be done properly. For that reason I am assuming that, whatever the result of the amendment tabled today by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, our committee need not feel under pressure to produce its report by 8th July.
To sum up: I shall invite my committee to take note of the recommendations of the Leader's Group report and in this debate and, if the Motion is carried today, to carry out a review along the lines suggested, building on the work we already do to keep our scrutiny procedures under review.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the Leader's Group on producing a unanimous report. I am sure that that is a fairly rare event. It is to the great credit of all the members of that group that they were able to use their skill and expertise to produce a unanimous report.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is clearly very suspicious of the recommendations contained in the report. I am equally suspicious that the motivation for the amendment is to prevent change, particularly as the ultimate decisions will not be taken today but will be presented to the Procedure Committee, which will have to report back to this House before the decisions are approved. I do not believe that it would be impossible for the Procedure Committee to consider those recommendations in the space of seven weeks. There is no reason to suggest that the process should be delayed. Having been a member of the Procedure Committee, I know that the proposals will be scrutinised in depth, not least taking into account the question of resources that has previously been raised.
During a similar debate almost exactly two years ago, introduced by my noble friend Lord Peston and referred to by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, it was suspected that the object of calling for change to our working practices was to make matters easier for the Government and to dilute our scrutiny of the executive. The expression then used was "to make the House more government friendly", about which we have heard a little more today. That is completely wrong. This package clearly does not do that—quite the reverse. I would not support any changes unless they related to efficiency, to doing our job of scrutiny better, to making good law and to making the House more people friendly. These proposals are not about changing the ethos of the House or cloning the Commons; nor are they about diminishing the right of Back-Benchers or introducing timetables and guillotines. If that were the case, I would strongly oppose them. They are not merely about getting through government business, but improving that business.

669
The measures presented to us today show that, with skill and thought, it is possible to restructure and reorganise our working practices, while at the same time increasing the ability of this Chamber to scrutinise in more depth and detail. We should not lose that opportunity.
It seems to me that the recommendations fall neatly into two, but interrelated categories: those relating to improving the level of scrutiny, which is not always done as well as we pretend, and those designed to provide more sensible working hours. I make no apology for specifically referring to a number of them and to the reasons that I support them.
Whether or not we like it, the makeup of this House has changed, giving rise to changing expectations. There has been a significant drop in the average age of Members; the number of women has increased; more Members have young children or care responsibilities for the young and old; more Members have full-time occupations outside the House, and very differing work patterns.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that there has been a drop in the average age of this House. However, she will find that between the removal of the hereditary Peers and the formation of the new House post-1999, the average age of the House actually rose.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, although I am happy to be corrected by the noble Lord, my understanding is that the average age has dropped from 75 to 72; but we shall have to discuss that further. There is no doubt that Members have to balance their parliamentary duties with their outside responsibilities, which we have to recognise and respect.
I am sure that we all appreciate and thank the Chief Whip for the better planning of our time, for earlier notice of dates of Recesses and for earlier notice of business. Now is the opportunity to further improve the domestic management of this House and to some degree remove our unpredictable and unsociable hours. I am sure that we should all be very happy to have extended breaks at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun. However, those cannot be achieved without some other adjustments on time.
In addition, we sometimes forget that this House is a major employer. Changing the procedures, including sitting hours, would be of great benefit to the staff, who do an amazing job, working such ridiculous hours. Late hours do not equate to effectiveness, efficiency or adequate scrutiny. It is a myth that we earn respect from sitting into the early hours of the morning. That is, and is perceived to be, a nonsense. The proposals before us do not diminish the time taken on our deliberations—rather the reverse. The fact that the Committee stage of more Bills will be held in Grand Committee will allow parallel sittings to take place and will make it feasible for us to end our Sessions at about the reasonably respectable hour of 10 p.m., after which time no new item of business could be raised.
670
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal said, there are other advantages of increasing our work in Grand Committee. It would allow for greater flexibility in the number of days spent in Committee and, consequently, for greater exploration of issues, more detailed debate and more detailed questioning of the Government as Bills arc examined line by line. It certainly would improve the level of our scrutiny of legislation.
When the idea of a morning sitting was previously considered, it was suggested that it would create a clash with Committee work. So far in this debate, that has not been suggested. Before it is, I would say that the argument is not relevant, as many Select Committees now sit in the afternoons and, to my knowledge, no one has suggested that the House should cease to sit in the afternoons in order to accommodate the Select Committees.
We all agree that any procedural change must increase our ability to check the Government, to make them pause and think again and to make good law. We have here a package of measures that would do exactly that, by providing more power of scrutiny to Back-Benchers. That could be achieved in important and cleverly constructed ways, by the extension of Question Time, and by enabling more detailed examination of the merits of every statutory instrument subject to Parliamentary scrutiny—something that we do rather badly at the moment but which has a direct impact on the implementation of legislation and on people's lives.
Increasing the number of policy debates would be a valuable way of making the Government consider issues in detail—not necessarily issues that they would have chosen to debate. A sharper focus on our many excellent Select Committees would ensure a greater government awareness of our views on topics of public importance, which often prepare the way for future legislation.
Last week, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House, of which I am a member, as part of its work on devolution, visited the Scottish Parliament to take evidence. That included a consideration of its procedures for the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills. Its exposure of Bills to public criticism and to non-parliamentary groups not only influences the shape and quality of Bills before they are finalised, but also the entire legislative process is perceived to be much more open and accessible than it is in Westminster—a lesson from which we could learn. The clear advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny are set out in paragraph 7 of the document. I agree with them all. I particularly agree that if they create a less confrontational approach to the way in which we handle our legislation they must be good.
Although it is right that each item should be considered on a case-by-case basis, I believe that, whenever possible and appropriate, a Joint Committee of both Houses is the best course. That would not: only provide more acceptable legislation to both Houses but would also assist the development of better relations between the two Houses.

671
It is also eminently sensible to link that proposal to the question of carry-over to subsequent Sessions. It is a waste of parliamentary time— that is, our time— and a little ludicrous that when we reach almost the final stage of a Bill at the end of a Session, we have to start it all over again in the next Session. That seems to me, and I am sure to many of the electorate, absolutely ridiculous.
In conclusion, the fact that we have functioned in a particular way for a long period—I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, spoke about the 17th century—does not mean that we should always work in that way. It is clear that some people are opposed to and refuse to accept that change is absolutely necessary. The composition of this House has changed, expectations have changed, and we need to adapt accordingly. We need to evolve to suit the changed House. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who is no longer in his place, I believe that there is a need for change. That was clearly illustrated in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when Peers on all sides of the House called for changes to our procedures.
The proposals before us form a package of measures that gives your Lordships an opportunity to more effectively scrutinise the Government, to improve the quality of legislation and to make the House more people friendly. I hope that these proposals will gain the support of the House and that the amendment, which will prevent us doing that work more effectively, will be rejected.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am sure the House will he relieved to know that I shall make an extremely short speech. That is because I wish only to make one proposal. If this report does go to the Procedure Committee, as I suspect it will, it is a suggestion that that committee might like to consider. It concerns the question of Bills going to a Grand Committee.
When I read the report soon after its publication, I scribbled in the margin against paragraph 23, the paragraph recommending greater use of the Grand Committee procedure, the question, "Why not split the Bill, cf. Finance Bills in the House of Commons?" I was involved in the huge arguments that took place on the Floor of the House of another place during 1966, 1967 and 1968, at the end of which it was initially decided that the whole of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill should go before a Standing Committee.
However, in the end, that decision led to a procedure that has found favour under successive governments and oppositions of different parties. The procedure is quite simply this: when the Finance Bill is tabled, and after Second Reading, the opposition parties are given the opportunity to identify particular issues of great political or economic importance which they would like to take on the Floor of the House. Those debates are taken first. Thereafter, when those issues have been debated in Committee of the whole House, the rest of the Bill is remitted to a Committee upstairs.
672
That process would enable us to overcome the difficulty referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roper; namely, of there being no votes in Grand Committees in this House. Apart from anything else, I find the Moses Room an absolutely impossible place to hear what anyone is saying that I do not go there very often. If you have a good debate in the Moses Room during a Committee stage, I can well understand it being very frustrating if you cannot vote at the end of it. All I am asking at this stage is that the Procedure Committee should consider splitting the Bill as one of the ways of making the sending of Bills to a Grand Committee perhaps more acceptable to the House. If the Opposition have the chance of choosing certain issues in a Bill for debate in the full House before it goes upstairs, or wherever, that would seem to me an advantage.
On delving into the matter, I discovered that the other place does not now confine this procedure to Finance Bills; indeed, it has been applied to a number of Bills in recent years. I am told that it was applied to the Criminal Justice Bill 1989–90, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 1989–90, the Sunday Trading Bill 1993–94, the Family Law Bill 1995–96, and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill 1996–97. In those cases, it was applied particularly to issues that might be described as "issues of conscience"—in other words, issues on which there might be a free vote. However, if the Opposition, as in Finance Bills, is choosing the subject, that could equally apply to issues of considerable political consequence.
I know that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said that we should not,
"import procedures from the increasingly discredited House of Commons".
In a sense, I should like to put the issue the other way round. As many of my honourable friends who are still Members of the other place have said, the processes of holding the Government to account these days have become a pale shadow of what they used to be. Indeed, how many times have I heard, "Patrick, it's awful, compared with when you, and others, were here". I believe that that increases the importance of this House being able to hold Her Majesty's Government to account and carry through our legislative functions as effectively as we can.
I am attracted by the parts of the package that involve sending Bills to a committee because of the advantage that it gives in providing more time on the Floor of the House for major debates. Perhaps I may plead a particular case. After an inquiry that I was privileged to chair, the Select Committee on Science and Technology produced a report a few years ago entitled, Science and Society. As those who follow such matters will know, since that report was published there has been an enormous amount of interest and activity, especially among the learned and scientific societies and other bodies, in recognition of the fact that the whole relationship between science and the public is changing, has changed, and, indeed, must change further.

673
We had to debate that report on a Friday. Like other members of that committee, I tried very hard to get a debate in the middle of the week when the subject matter would have attracted more attention. We had a good debate, but it took place on a Friday and attracted no attention outside the House. There are other examples of Select Committee debates suffering a similar fate. If one of the consequences of this package is that such debates on Select Committee reports can be taken on the Floor of the House in prime time, I should be prepared to see more Bills going to a standing committee, subject, of course, to my caveat that we should adopt the procedure of the other place, which is not of recent origin—it dates back 30 years— of splitting the Bill and having the more controversial parts debated on the Floor of the House.
I do not necessarily share the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, though I hope I get my Virgil right when I say:
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"—
"I fear the Greeks, even when [they are] bearing gifts". I do not believe that I need fear this particular noble and learned Greek sitting on the Front Bench opposite. I think that it is certainly right for the Procedure Committee to consider this package. However, perhaps I may also ask members of that committee to consider my suggestion of splitting the Committee stage.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes. I wonder whether he could assist me. I remember well the occasion that he mentioned regarding the Finance Bill in the 1960s. I believe that it followed a very lengthy and contentious Finance Bill, which caused a good deal of alarm and dissension. I agree with the noble Lord as regards splitting the process. However, when the Finance Bill and other measures in the other place are remitted to a Committee upstairs, I seem to recall that votes are still taken. If that is so, I cannot see why votes should not be taken in our committees in the Moses Room, or wherever. Can the noble Lord say whether I am right in that generalised recollection?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Yes, of course, my Lords. I do not want to weary the House, but in the other place Standing Committees consist of limited numbers. That is the difference. If any Member of this House is entitled to attend and speak at a me1eting of a Grand Committee, I can well understand why votes cannot be taken at that stage. My suggestion of splitting the Bill would allow votes to be taken on the Floor of the House.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is very good to follow the very thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, which I believe highlighted a number of useful points that some of us may want to take further. I well remember the excellent report on Science and Society. Two or three months after its publication I happened to be attending a seminar on that theme at Harvard. I suggested to the professor in
674
charge that she might like a copy of the report. She replied, "Oh, I have already read it". Even if it was not debated properly in our House, the report was widely read by experts across the world.
I welcome the package before the House. I believe that we should accept it as such, even though some aspects of it may not be ideal. I am conscious that there is a divide within my own group between those who mainly work and live in London and those who work and live outside the capital. As I work in London but like to spend my weekends mainly outside the capital, I am torn on the Thursday issue because the attraction of taking the 19·25 evening plane to Florence, where my wife works, pushes me very strongly in favour of the experiment for the early Sitting. However, that is a personal view on the matter.
The point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham is one about which we all need to think most carefully. It implies heavier time commitments for a greater number of Members of this House. We are a part-time House; many of us who were nominated to your Lordships' House still earn our salaries elsewhere. We hope that the expertise that we gain from our occupations elsewhere brings something to the House. However, the added strain that more Committee work will place on Members of the House raises questions about the future balance between part-timers and full-timers.
I would like to see an extension of the role of committees in the House. I am happy to hear that we have now got over the old argument that we could not have more committees because we could not possibly have more staff—we used to hear that even four or five years ago. I should like to see not just pre-legislative scrutiny committees but also good, solid committees of inquiry—sometimes Joint Committees, sometimes Committees of your Lordships' House— which would fulfil the functions that were met, many years ago, by Royal Commissions. They would occasionally meet and take evidence outside London to promote a wider and more informed public debate.
My main point is about the Committee stage of Bills. It is high time that we took the Committee stage of more Bills off the Floor of the House. During the past nine months I have examined how many Members were in the Chamber during Committee stages. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that the average was 12; that matches my observations. There have been five-hour debates in Committee at which no more than seven Members have spoken. I say to those on the Conservative Benches that attendance has most often been thinnest on those Benches. To resist the idea that a Bill's Committee stage, when there is proper inquiry into the Bill's details, should take place in a Committee Room does not fit with Conservative Members' attendance at Committee.
I have worked in Grand Committees. I do not find the Moses Room as difficult as some other Members. I well remember the first time that I was involved with a Bill in Committee, along with Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It was, I believe, considering the

675
adoption into British law of a chemical convention protocol. We learnt a great deal in Committee and we tested the government, who could not answer all of our questions. It was a useful non-voting experience and it meant that when we reached the Report stage, we could get on with the business rather more effectively. Consideration in Committee has a different purpose from consideration on Report, at which votes should properly take place whenever the government have failed satisfactorily to provide answers to questions that were raised in Committee.
Resistance to the proposal comes from the old idea that Parliament involves a zero-sum game between two parties: the government struggle to get everything through unamended and the opposition attempt to block everything. That is a sort of Westminster wall game, for those who are familiar with that form of public school entertainment.
However, politics is not a game and the House of Lords is not the Oxford Union or the Eton College debating society; nor is it a club. It is a revising Chamber of a legislature. We should all take to heart the words of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—that we have to be concerned with the reputation and proper role of Parliament and that we should demonstrate, as a revising Chamber, that we are fulfilling that proper role.
This Chamber benefits from the fact that no party now has a majority. It means that Ministers have to persuade and that compromise and dialogue are the preferred style—Incidentally, that is one of the arguments for multi-party politics as such—it promotes a greater degree of accountability and responsibility. I therefore very much welcome the overall package. It will enable the House to fulfil a proper legislative function and a proper scrutiny function much more efficiently. I hope that we shall go ahead with the proposal.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, the committee did well to produce a unanimous report. However, knowing the standing of the people concerned, that does not surprise me unduly. It appears that implicitly it took account of the fact that the reputation of the House is actually increasing. It is up to us to maintain that improvement in our reputation through the work that we are yet to do.
I am all in favour of the experimental period. However, the decisions that we take today may not last for such a long time. Other things are happening. Any introduction of elected Peers will change the character of this House much more than any decisions that we take today, dividing the House not just between those who have an electorate and those who do not but between those who will be trying to satisfy their electorate and those who will not need to. Those elected Members will need office accommodation with secretaries and other facilities and they will have something of a payroll. At Question Time and in debate they will demand a greater presence because
676
their needs may be perceived as being more pressing. They have to satisfy their voters and obtain their support at any subsequent election. In reality, then, if elected Members join this House, all our efforts to improve the working of the House of Lords will not involve long-term measures. So my approach to the report is based on the assumption that the working practices that we are discussing do not take account of any such changes in our membership.
There are particular matters that concern me. The first is that major government Bills should, as a matter of course, be subject to draft pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament. That is obviously desirable. However, I believe that the report is rather over-optimistic in assuming that so much extra examination of legislation can be slotted into the same timetable that we have at present. It is a worthy ambition hut, in addition, Members would need to give much more time to that extra examination—and such time would be extra. To have better prepared legislation will save some time in its later examination but not much. So the total time spent in examining legislation—draft legislation as well as legislation at later stages—will be increased. That is right and proper but such scrutiny can he applied only to a limited number of Bills.
I turn to the proposal to carry over legislation to the following Session. It is true that failure to carry over leads to distortion of the parliamentary year. It leads to the rush at the end of the year when all sorts of Bills are passed that should not be. There is no question about that. The proposal could involve two years of gestation. If a Bill is introduced in October and it carried through to September, nearly two years could be involved from Second Reading. That is far too long. I suggest that the carry over should be no more than 12 months after Second Reading. That is mainly because legislation needs to deal with changes that take place and ensuing further amendments. The process has to reach the end of the line at some stage.
I turn to the questions raised by Finance Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made a useful point about the way in which Finance Bills are divided. I remember very well, as will my noble friend Lord Barnett, those days back in 1968 when lain Macleod led for the opposition. He complained for one and a half days that the temperature of the room was too hot. He thereby got the great concession of dividing the Bill, which has been of value to that House and which would be of value to this place as well. It is not the whole Bill that has to have such an examination. I agree with the greater use of committees, as the noble Lord suggested.
We should be careful with Finance Bills because they are rather special. They have technical aspects, which will obviously go to the Grand Committee. However, we should take account of the fact that such technical aspects are not easily distinguishable from the political aspects. I know full well the enormous volume of correspondence that one receives from lobbyists. If we go along that route, the House will have to endure—and, possibly, accept—sophisticated and expensive lobbying.

677
We must also consider the proposal to examine the merits of statutory instruments. The House of Commons has many problems with statutory instruments. There are thousands of them; over 3,000, I believe. My noble friend mentioned the filtering that will be required. There is no question about that. It already happens in the House of Commons. The amount of filtering required may be so great that one has to place great trust in the people who carry it out. Therefore, statutory instruments will never be brought under the kind of control that I would dearly like to see. In a parliamentary democracy, I can see no way in which the elected Members or the Members of this House could obtain such a degree of control over all statutory instruments.
I am delighted with the proposal to have five oral Questions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I believe that one enormous advantage that this House has is that it is able to deal straightaway with topical matters that suddenly crop up. The House of Commons does not deal with topical questions in the way that we do here. However, there will be a consequence to the proposal. The gentlemanly behaviour whereby we concede the Floor to each other is becoming unworkable now. If we had elected Peers, it would become completely unworkable. It would not be possible to shut them up. They would have elections to fight and would be determined to put their questions. We should need to have a form of Speaker to decide objectively which person was to speak.
The proposal for Ministers to have one day off is right. Great pressure is placed on Ministers. They must frequently answer questions outside their main area of responsibility. The fact that Ministers know the details of each department and that they answer hostile questions on a range of subjects is a tribute to their ability and their work. Of course, that warrants this minor concession.
I turn to the question of additional Back-Bench debates on Wednesdays. The Wednesday debates are among the finest of almost any legislature in the world. Noble Lords do not fight cases from political viewpoints; they fight them because they want this House to take account of matters in which they believe. I consider that additional Back-Bench debates would be wholly valuable.
With regard to Thursday sittings, speaking personally, I do not believe that we should ape the House of Commons and create ever-extended weekends. After all, Friday used to be a full day. It then became a half-day and was then abolished. Now Thursday is coming near to being abolished. As we know, that is also happening in much of industry. When I was young, we used to work on Saturday mornings and finish at one o'clock. That was one's weekend. Of course, the generation before me worked all day on Saturday.
There is a limit to what we can do here. The ability to carry over legislation is valuable, and the next Session should not be so hectic an experience. September sittings could also be worthwhile so long as the dates
678
and debates were announced well in advance. The working group has worked hard on its report and it deserves the support of the House.
5.13 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is an important debate in so far as it may have far-reaching effects on the way in which your Lordships' House conducts itself and on the effect that this House has in scrutinising legislation. I can well understand the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House wishing to alter the methods by which the House operates. I believe that we all want to do that from time to time. But the noble and learned Lord seems to take the view that, if anything has stood the test of time tolerably well, it should be changed. That is called "modernising", which gives it a halo of respectability. The noble and learned Lord sometimes reminds me of Boadicea standing upright in her chariot, careering around the arena and ensuring that, if anything stands, it is felled by the knives on the end of the wheels.
I can understand why the noble and learned Lord wants these changes but I cannot understand why he has set up a special committee. The members of it are, of course, all good men and true. But one becomes suspicious when the noble and learned Lord has co-opted the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and the Convenor of the Cross Benches. It would be difficult for them not to take part. That would be unco-operative on their pan and they would not know what was going on. On the other hand, if they all become involved and produce—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I did not choose who was to be on the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, selected himself and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The Liberal Democrats chose the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and it was a matter entirely for the noble and gallant Lord to decide who would represent the interests of the Cross-Benchers. I chose only myself and my noble friend Lord Brooke.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord did decide on the total number of Peers who should sit on the committee.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for at least putting me right on that point. I admire his modesty and the fact that the only person whom he chose was himself.
The point is that he succeeded in getting all the chief chicks in his coop. One wonders whether a report which involves all these people does not sometimes look like a Front-Bench stitch-up, and some lesser mortals, such as myself', wonder what is going on and why. If the noble and learned Lord wants to change the procedures of the House, there is a perfectly good and authoritative body which can and should consider the matter; namely, the Procedure Committee.
On principle, it is undesirable that a report of this nature should be made, considered by your Lordships and then passed to the procedure Committee, with the

679
inference that virtually all the work on the subject has been done by this ad hoc committee and all that the Procedure Committee has to do is to rubber-stamp the proposals. The noble and learned Lord said that his committee had worked on the proposals for nine months. We all admire the assiduity with which the committee spent its time. But, under this Motion, the noble and learned Lord gives the Procedure Committee only six weeks. During his speech, he said that the report would go to the Procedure Committee with an instruction to give recommendations. However, he failed to say that the Procedure Committee's recommendations would relate to the implementation of the report.
To my mind, the method of going about this matter is all back to front. The Procedure Committee should have considered the problem first and given the House its views. The House could then amend, reject or approve its proposals. As we all know, the noble and learned Lord has the ability to argue any case, good or bad, with great skill—so much so that he has hoist himself with his own petard. One never really knows whether the noble and learned Lord believes in what he is saying or whether he is simply arguing like a good advocate for a very bad case. Either way, it is enchanting to listen to.
I am bound to say that I find it difficult to equate the view, which the Government are always correctly expressing and which the noble and learned Lord expressed this afternoon and on television on Sunday in a characteristically polished performance, that it is the duty of Parliament to hold the executive to account and that ways must be found of improving that with the endless measures which the Government introduce, which have precisely the reverse effect.
Like school boys, we now have half-term to give us all a rest and to let us go back and spend more time with our families and children. Business on Thursdays should stop at 7 p.m. in order that we should spend more time with our families and children. The noble and learned Lord would like the House to sit in September and probably to rise earlier in July—in order to let us spend more time with our families and children. That all follows the pattern of what is happening in the other place. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Sheldon, that we do not want to ape the procedures of the other place.
The concept of spending time with families and children may be admirable, but this is all done at a time when the Members of another place have given themselves huge salary rises and when your Lordships' expenses have been greatly increased, too. The idea that all these changes will be implemented for the better scrutiny of Bills is, with respect, absolute nonsense. It is being done for two reasons. The first is to give Members of both Houses an easier time. But if they had wanted that, they should not have become involved in parliamentary business in the first place. The second is to allow Bills less scrutiny.
All noble Lords know that, despite grandiose words about the authority of Parliament, the Prime Minister has an intense dislike of Parliament interfering with his
680
wishes. Early rising truncates business in another place; no voting takes place after 10 o'clock; the Chamber of another place is practically empty; and controversial Bills receive even less scrutiny. Many come to this House with huge tranches not even considered by another place, of which the Animal Health Bill was a good example, as not one amendment was made to it in another place. One merely has to look at the televised proceedings of another place to realise that the House is virtually dead.
The only place where there is any semblance of a check on the executive is here, as the noble and learned Lord has said. Now the Government want to change that. The idea that longer breaks away from Parliament for the convenience of Members of Parliament and Peers should be compensated for by taking more Bills off the Floor of the House and sending them to Grand Committees where no Divisions can take place is unsatisfactory.
One of the great advantages of this place is that, unlike another place, any amendment can be, and has to be, considered. The Floor of the House is the right place for that. Grand Committees are good for various purposes, but they are not the same as the Chamber. They may have their place for specialised Bills, but if we take more Bills away from the Chamber, in effect we shall create two debating chambers. Although any noble Lord may take part in Grand Committees, one is less likely to make an effort to attend, whereas one naturally attends the Chamber. Anyhow, there is no voting in Grand Committees, which certainly makes them less effective.
I am not convinced, although I am prepared to be, that pre-legislative scrutiny is a good thing. As I understand it, it can become a long, drawn-out process, in which, among other things, every lobby group in creation can write in and even come and have its say. That may be fine, but the danger is that once a Bill has received its pre-legislative scrutiny, the Committee stage may be considered de minimis. I believe that that is what the Government want. If the noble and learned Lord and the Government want more of a check on the executive, how can that be achieved without having votes at Committee stage?
It is the duty of Parliament—not of lobby groups—to go through the Bill line by line. In my view, cutting down on the Committee stage of Bills, taking the Committee stage off the Floor of the House and giving it to smaller Committees does not equate with the Government's expressed desire for Parliament to provide greater scrutiny of Bills and a greater check on the Government. In fact, it has the reverse effect.
The idea of Question Time being extended would be universally popular. Every noble Lord enjoys Question Time—rather like schoolboys—not necessarily to elicit the answer, but in order to trip up the master. So much of that is ruined because frequently our questions are too long and Ministers' replies are almost universally too long. At Question Time I once asked the noble and learned Lord—he may remember the occasion—during a somewhat

681
truncated question, whether he thought that Question Time would be more fun if the questions and answers were shorter. As one may expect, his reply was a gem. "Yes", he said and sat down. That said it all; it was all good fun; and it was short, sharp and to the point. I just wish that the noble and learned Lord could persuade his fellow Ministers to follow suit.
Of course, practices will have to change over time, but I regard these proposals with great suspicion. I believe that they will have an effect on Parliament and on parliamentary scrutiny which will be way beyond that expected and that they will be deleterious both to Parliament and to the purpose of Parliament. I do not like the idea that we should give the ideas a whirl for two years to see what happens. That is the same argument as is used for imposing speed limits, but once they are imposed they are seldom taken away again.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, I warmly welcome the proposal for five Starred Questions, with eight minutes for each, on certain days of the week. That was not an option set out in the questionnaire sent to noble Lords, but I suggested it as a possible compromise that would not impose excessive burdens on the ministerial team of the day. It is gratifying that the working group evidently found the argument compelling. Of course, there are many other admirable aspects of the report, but, given the short time available, I want to concentrate upon two of the more contentious, starting with the proposal that the House should sit in September.
Most noble Lords have found that to be a bad idea and have disagreed with it as, significantly, the Officers of the House did by an even greater margin—no less than two to one against. It is easy to see why. September has always been an excellent holiday month for the British. Most continentals are back at work or school—la rentrée—by the end of August. In September, beaches, mountains, lakes, villages, cities are all less crowded, low or shoulder-season prices are in force and with any luck discounted flights once again become available. For those who stalk, fish or shoot grouse, which I do not, September has other temptations to offer.
However, there is another reason. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roper, talked of the House of Commons sitting in September, but we are not like that Chamber. The House of Commons works hardest in November, December, January, February, March and possibly April, after which it starts to relax a little. By contrast, this House, despite the best endeavours of successive Chief Whips and Ministers of all political persuasions, tends to twiddle its thumbs to some extent in late autumn and in winter and then works flat out in May, June and July. The fact that the other place is rising a full six days earlier than this House for the Jubilee holiday at the end of the month is evidence of that.
682
I am sure that I am not alone in finding that I usually need to devote the first fortnight of every August to sorting out business matters that have had to be put on the hack-burner during the frenetic days of June and July. I submit that, whatever may be the case for the Commons, in this House we need a long summer break. Moreover, a long break has some of the qualities of a sabbatical. As any good doctor will confirm, sabbaticals are good for one's health, especially if one is over 40, and I am afraid that most of us in this House fall within that age category.
The Leader of the House talked of a few extra days at Christmas and at Easter by way of compensation for September sittings, but one would have to scrabble for the few remaining holiday rooms, if they were available, at high-season prices and one would have to pay high-season fares if one could get on a plane or a ferry to get to one's destination. Unlike the situation in September, one would have to compete with millions of people.
One cannot help suspecting that the proposal for September sittings is not unconnected with the proposal that we should normally rise by 10 p.m. All other things being equal, of course we should welcome that, but all other things are not equal. If we start to rise by 10 p.m., that will have to be balanced by .more Friday sittings or shorter holidays or both. It is a fallacy, of course, to imagine that late sittings are a recent phenomenon. Twenty-five or 26 years ago, when another Labour government were in power, it was common practice to sit well into the small hours. Indeed, Earl Grey made his maiden speech from the Liberal Benches at 3.15—not 3.15 p.m., but 3.15 a.m. I remember that well as I had the privilege of being the first to congratulate him on his speech in October 1976. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, may remember that too as he took part in the same debate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who temporarily is not in his place.
That was not considered a particularly newsworthy or unusual event. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should return to those days—far from it. People's concentration wanders after midnight and far too much bad legislation slipped through then. Even midnight is somewhat on the late side. But I submit that 11 p.m., when public transport is still running, is not too late. I would guess that if Peers and Officers of the House were given a choice of opting for either a 10 p.m. finish, coupled with more Friday sittings and shorter holidays, or for finishing at 11 p.m. balanced by fewer Friday sittings and slightly longer holidays that they would opt for the latter.
I believe that we need more time to consider this matter and for that reason I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Denham, if he presses his Motion to a Division.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, my initial reaction on reading the report was one of disappointment. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was happy to see his write-in suggestion of

683
extra Starred Questions adopted, I found my write-in suggestion of a change to three consecutive legislative days dismissed in paragraph 27. Although it was acknowledged that many Members favoured the suggestion, the paragraph stated:
"The House did not agree to proposals on these lines in 1999 and 2001 and we do not believe that it would be timely to invite the House to consider the matter again so soon".
If one considers that the margin in 2001 was 130 to 128, I think that with an extra little shove we would have achieved it.
I also feel slightly guilty because I did not intervene in the 2001 debate. My remarks in the 1999 debate have been misrepresented as being those of personal convenience since I was coming from Scotland. In fact, my substantive argument is that this House is in danger of overrating the amount of expertise it has within the Chamber. Nowadays, the shelf life of knowledge is very short. There are a good many areas where current experience is needed in order to make a valid contribution. In my view—pace the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—if people are giving up four full days a week they cannot adequately be participating in any outside activity. I think that three full days a week is more than enough for an unsalaried post.
Having got over that disappointment I recognise that the Leader of the House has probably a much greater sense of what he has referred to in the report as "the balance of acceptability of proposals", than I have. So I then tried to read it dispassionately. The Leader of the House and the group went about things as fairly as they possibly could. They circulated a questionnaire. It is encouraging to notice that 362 Members and 26 members of staff responded to it. I pay particular attention to the views of members of staff because, as other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, have mentioned, the proposals will put an extra workload on staff. That must be recognised upfront and we must staff-up accordingly to make sure that the job is done properly.
The group is as representative as it can be. It may be dismissed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as putting all the chief chicks in one coop, but how else, other than having a committee or a group of the entire House, could one get a representative opinion without using leading figures in each political party and the Cross Benches? Truly, the Latin tag quot hominess tot sententiae was coined for this place. Our very individuality means that no one Peer, even on the same side of the House, represents fully the views of another. That is a good thing. But if one is to have a small and workable group, this assembled one did that job admirably.
One of the report's main recommendations is pre-legislative scrutiny. I very much welcome that. Every government issues White Papers which are increasingly glossy and full of sentiments that we all agree with. Equally, the responses in the consultation period are for motherhood and against sin. It is only when one sees a draft Bill and realises that Schedule 2,
684
Clause 4, subsection (2)(c) will put one out of business that one really responds to legislation. Seeing a draft Bill is an essential part of the legislative process.
That does not in any way inhibit the Committee stage of a Bill. The fact that there is scrutiny by a committee does not inhibit new scrutiny when the Bill is finally published. As an aside, perhaps I may say that I would favour a Joint Committee of both Houses wherever possible. It is absolutely appalling the way that the two Houses of the one Parliament live in total isolation from one another. It would help if we even had one common watering hole. I have that, I suppose, in the airport departure lounges at Glasgow. I can hear from MPs what they have been lobbied about and what pressures they are under. Equally, it sometimes comes as a surprise to them to realise what our attitudes are about matters. It would be ideal if we could enmesh both Houses and get them working closely together.
The Committee stage of a Bill should have a more collegiate atmosphere than a confrontational one. Votes are not necessary at that stage. A Committee stage can identify the points of principle on which legitimate differences of opinion are possible and, indeed, necessary. Those will be voted on and debated fully by the whole House at Third Reading. But a great deal of the rest of the work is removing the gremlins from a piece of legislation. Any government, however well intentioned, frequently finds that the actual legislation produces results other than they had intended. As that is best done in a more collegiate atmosphere, I endorse the idea of Grand Committees.
The new procedures for debating the Budget and Finance Bill are an important step forward and a belated recognition of the tremendous financial expertise in this House. With the number of former Chancellors, senior Treasury Ministers and officials in the Chamber, the idea that we do not talk about Finance Bills at all is, frankly, daft. That is a long overdue reform. But again it is increasing the amount of scrutiny given to government proposals. We have an Economic Affairs Committee and there should be a presumption that we use that body rather than create another committee.
With regard to statutory instruments, from the consumers' point of view they are as much legislation as a Bill, and therefore they should be subjected to as much scrutiny. I realise that the report says that they cannot be amended. I ask why not? I suppose that a Select Committee with the power to replace an instrument,
"with an instrument cast in different terms",
is the equivalent to allowing amendments to be tabled.
I need not dwell on the Starred Questions issue. That proposal has been universally welcomed.
I turn to the 10 p.m. finish. Some people may think that they function better after midnight. I remind noble Lords about what Charlie Parker, the jazz musician said about drugs. He said:
"They don't make you play better, they just make you think you play better".

685
The problem is that our critical faculties to perform decline after midnight. So we may think that we are doing a good job, but frankly we are not. I abide by the advice given by my late mother as regards sleep—an hour before midnight is worth two after.
The holding of Grand Committees in September is a first-class notion. I am quite happy to come back in September for Bills too if that will help the further scrutiny of legislation. Above all, for anyone who was unconvinced by the proposals, the idea that this is only a trial for two Sessions should surely convince the doubters. Then the House will have a chance to re-approve the whole situation.
As I mentioned, not everything that I wanted is in the Bill. That applies to quite a few other people. There will also be many proposals that Peers do not want. But there can be few Peers who would not recognise that the effect of the package, taken as a whole, will be to improve our procedures and our efficiency in scrutinising legislation.
In closing, I ask your Lordships to remember the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, when he said, "We are dealing with improvement, not perfection". I think that this package gives us an improvement. We should support it today.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well said.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I welcome four of the recommendations in the report: first, the proposal to enable the knowledge and experience of finance in your Lordships' House to be used more effectively; secondly, the proposal for the new Select Committee to examine the merits of statutory instruments where we are clearly defective at the present moment; thirdly, the extension of starred questions; and, fourthly, more Wednesday debates. I have no time to elaborate in the time available on those four points.
I now turn to some criticisms. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal is noted for his vivid phrases. He told us at the beginning of the debate that he wanted this House to have a louder bark and sharper teeth. There are at least two recommendations in this report where the bark will be muted and the teeth blunt. The first criticism is the 10 o'clock cut off point where no new items of business could be taken after that time. That is the "office hours" mentality that has infected another place and which is wholly inappropriate to us. On occasion, the only effective weapon that the Opposition of the day have is talk. They must use powerful arguments and many voices to try to persuade the Government of the day that they are wrong and, if that fails, to try to defeat the Government. A 10 o'clock cut-off point would make it easier for the Government of the day and more difficult for the Opposition—not provide a louder bark or sharper teeth.
My second criticism is of the carry-over of Bills from one Session to the next. That is a dangerous process on which to embark. The report says that that will apply
686
only to Bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny. But once that principle is conceded, the pass will have been sold and it will be but an easy step to extend it to all Bills. One of the fundamental facts of parliamentary life is that if the Government of the day cannot persuade both Houses of Parliament to pass their Bills by the end of the Session, they fall. That is a powerful discipline on any Government. It should make them think twice before they introduce too many Bills. Remove that discipline and more Bills will be brought forward. I think that most noble Lords would agree that we need fewer and better Bills.
So as well as making life easier for the Government, carry-over would deprive the Opposition of the day of one of their most powerful weapons. What about the implications for the Parliament Acts? That will take us into difficult and controversial territory. It will be handed to the Procedure Committee to advise us. That is difficult country, and I should hate to see us embarking on it. Good government needs a stronger, not a weaker Parliament. Again, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said, we need a louder bark and sharper teeth.
I am sorry to be so critical of the report produced by noble Lords from all parts of the House who are highly respected in all parts of the House—I hope that I can say that without appearing patronising—including my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the Conservative Party. I hope that he will still talk to me after this debate. But on occasions—not too often, I hope—the time comes when some of us on the Back Benches feel impelled to speak out. For me, this is such a time.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have sat through the whole of the debate getting more and more depressed. Indeed, I was in a black mood until my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton spoke and told us what she believed was the average age of your Lordships' House—72. That cheered me up enormously because it would have meant that I am still one of the younger Peers. However, I have since been informed that she got her facts slightly wrong and that the average age is 67, so I am no longer one of the younger Peers. I therefore revert to my gloom.
Anyone who has been a member of your Lordships' House for as long as I have—many Peers have been here longer—is aware of what I have called in my notes the slow pace of change. The correct expression is the zero pace of change. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gave the game away rather beautifully when he said that we have had these ways of proceeding for hundreds of years and do not need any changes; we are perfectly all right. I am surprised at that.
I suppose that if the noble Lord had been around—as he is an hereditary Peer, perhaps his father was around—when that great man, Harold Macmillan, introduced the Life Peerages Act 1958, he would have said, "What? We do not need any life Peers; we are perfectly happy with hereditary Peers. What? A

687
Conservative Prime Minister is going to let lady Peers into the House? We have done perfectly well with men who have beards and wear silk hats". Incidentally, that demonstrates that if we want a revolutionary change, we should always choose a Conservative to do it. I imagine that when Macmillan also said that Peers who inherit through the female line could join the House, our predecessors had apoplexy.
The fact is that there are Peers who simply do not want any change. Some of my noble friends referred to the debate that I introduced on the subject. If I remember rightly, every single Peer who spoke proposed changes. No one said that it was all OK. One would have thought—and here I follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who also gave the game away—that the Procedure Committee on which he is so keen would have met and said, "Well, there has been this debate in your Lordships' House in which everyone said that they wanted things to move forward. We are called the Procedure Committee, which means that we ought to give some thought to that and do something". I must tell noble Lords that at no point did any member of the Procedure Committee come to me to say, "I hear that you introduced this debate. How should we proceed?"
The point is that to go down the route of the Procedure Committee is again to go down the road of no change. The great benefit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, which I hope that he will press to a vote, is that it will divide the House between those of us who want to move forward on the basis of rational change and those who want no change whatever. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House has been far too generous. He is the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal. In my judgment, despite some personal remarks that have been made about him, he carries great authority. I am staggered that instead of saying, "Do it!", he is merely saying, "Take note and let us give it to this ridiculous committee".
I can hardly find any language in which to respond to the absurd notion that, after all these years—I have been here 15 years—we are steaming ahead by telling the committee that it might come back to us by 8th July. One knows why the Conservative Party is called the Conservative Party and why it is in the mess that it is if it thinks that this place is steaming ahead in some way or other.
We all have views on what changes we would like and what are our priorities. As your Lordships know, I could detain your Lordships for a long time with various ideas, but I hasten to add that I have no intention of doing so. Instead, my general position is that this is a remarkable report both because of its unanimity and because of its reasonable content. As I said, it provides nowhere near all that I would want, but I shall certainly vote in favour of it. In particular, it takes us towards our ultimate function—which, I am convinced, is to be a dispassionate, genuine scrutinising Chamber based on a combination of
688
expertise, experience and good judgment. In my view, that is what the report will lead us towards and that is where our future lies.
One aspect of the report, however, amazes me. We have been told that the report is balanced between the various interests in your Lordships' House. I find that difficult to accept. There is a bias in the report, and it is a bias entirely in favour of the Opposition and against the Government. Indeed, I am amazed that my noble friend the Chief Whip, on being told of the contents of the report, did not simply storm in to my noble and learned friend and say, "You have got to be joking! You have simply made my job completely impossible."
Lord Carter: My Lords, how does my noble friend know that I did not?
Lord Peston: My Lords, the idea that the report makes life easier for the Government is incredible. The 10 o'clock finishing time means that the Government have to accept more amendments to get their business through. They must respond in an entirely reasonable way when confronted with reasonable arguments from the other side. My noble friend the Chief Whip cannot threaten those of us—including, I regret to say, me—who occasionally make trouble for the Government by saying, "You make any more trouble and I will keep you here all night". He will have to find more days on which we can all make trouble. I cannot see where noble Lords have got the idea that it is a way of strengthening the Government and weakening the Opposition.
I have one last comment to make. I hope that it is a correct interpretation of the substantive Motion to say that the Procedure Committee is not being asked to respond on substance. I interpret the Motion as asking the Procedure Committee to respond on the practicalities of anything in the report that looks good but, on reflection, poses difficulties. It is not part of the Procedure Committee's remit to come up with changes that differ totally from what is in the report. I would regard that—to echo the remarks of, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Denham—as the equivalent of a wrecking amendment. We all know the House's view of wrecking amendments.
I shall give the House a purely hypothetical example of something that is within the committee's remit. I would not necessarily advocate this, but it is an example of what it can do. If the committee were to suggest that we should have prayers 10 minutes before the half-hour so that Questions could start on the half-hour, that would be a sensible, mechanical change that it might put forward in order to make better use of your Lordships' time. If, however, it suggested that, rather than 10 o'clock, the cut-off time should be 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock, I would regard that as a wrecking amendment that we should reject.

689
This is a chance for us to go forward. It is also a chance for noble Lords here today to say exactly where they stand on reform of the House. I shall vote for the Motion, and I hope to get a chance to vote against the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, might it be possible for somebody on the Government Benches to tell us what is right here? The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, have both alleged that my noble friend's amendment is a wrecking amendment. That is a serious charge, but it could easily be answered. We are being asked by the Government Front Bench to tell the Procedure Committee that it cannot change anything.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will have the chance to reply and can tell us what he thinks.
I believe that it is a wrecking amendment on two bases. One is that the record of the Procedure Committee is one of doing nothing. Saying that it should be given more opportunities to do nothing is a way of wrecking the proposals. Secondly, giving it any chance of saying that it wants things changed in a major way is another way of doing nothing. Speaking for myself, I do not want it to have that chance. I have watched the committee do nothing for 15 years; I do not want to give it more than a few weeks to do nothing again.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas is right. We must nail this matter. Several noble Lords have accused my noble friend Lord Denham of putting down a wrecking amendment. It is not. His amendment removes the obligation on the Procedure Committee to report back by 8th July. That is a minor amendment. It is not a serious issue. It does not really matter whether the Procedure Committee reports by 8th July, 18th July or in September. The changes will not take effect until the new Session.
My second point is more important. There is the idea that the Motion obliges the Procedure Committee to report back on every aspect. It must be up to the Procedure Committee to decide what it brings forward and what it does not. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was a good one. If the Procedure Committee recommends that the cut-off time should be midnight, that is what will come back to the House. It is then up to the House to decide whether to accept it.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggesting that any points in the report with which the Procedure Committee disagrees fundamentally will not come back to the House for us to decide on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what did the noble Baroness think that the Procedure Committee was for? It is entirely right that that should happen if the committee decides that it should. Such are the powers
690
that the House has given to the Procedure Committee. Nothing in the Motion or the amendment changes that position.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to come back once more. It is within our rules. The noble Lord is giving the game away. There is a distinction between change and no change. He wants the existing state of affairs to continue; some of us do not. It is as simple as that.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it seems that, after that little interlude, the dock is about to start on my contribution.
This debate is of interest to all Members of the House and probably no one outside it. We are discussing the seemingly mundane, day-to-day operation of the parliamentary business of the House. With over 30 names on the speaking list and given the tradition that we must all be present to hear most, if not all, of the other speakers, it will be a long debate. Much has already been said, and there is little to add. I like and support some—but not all—of the recommendations. The way in which they are offered as a package is not to my taste; I would prefer to pick and mix. However, I understand that I do not have that choice. So, on the whole, I support the proposals.
The proposal for pre-legislative scrutiny is good, but I do not like the idea of allowing government Bills to extend over two parliamentary Sessions. I thought that my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree made the point clearly that it would not be an improvement, only a convenience for the government of the day. It is a healthy thing for the government to be under pressure to get on with legislation within a parliament. Scrutiny of statutory instruments is not enough; it must be possible to amend them. The present situation—all or nothing—allows unsatisfactory statutory instruments to be passed.
I would like to see more topical Questions each week. Sometimes, a Question must be tabled so far ahead that it is out of date by the time that its turn comes. In any review of Questions, consideration should be given to allowing each Peer to have two topical Questions per term—meaning between recesses—rather than per parliament. I refer to the Questions selected by ballot.
Remembering late and all-night sittings, I am sure that the 10 o'clock finishing time would give us a more alert House. I favour that recommendation. I am a keen supporter of committees being Committees of the Whole House and believe that it is a hugely better system for considering the detail of Bills than exists in the other place. If we are to have Grand Committees, it is essential that they take place on the Principal Floor of the House rather than being tucked away upstairs. They must be open to all Members of the House, and I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House confirmed that they would.
I have a preference for sitting on Thursday morning and ending earlier, but I would hate to silt in September, and I am sorry to see that it has been

691
suggested. For an Antipodean, it means either insufficient time to visit family down under if the recess is allocated in little bits through the year, or catching the wintertime in Australia if the recess is in July. That is a personal point and is unlikely to interest the House. More likely to appeal is the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Monson, that the recess is better when it does not match the dates of school holidays. Places are less crowded, and accommodation is easier to find and less costly.
The code of conduct, under the heading "Primacy of the public interest", says:
"Members of the House shall resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest in favour of the public interest".
I must forget my wish to enjoy the Australian sunshine. However, it is in the public interest for Peers to have a relaxed holiday, as that respite enables them to do their work better when the House is sitting.
It adds insult to my September injury to say that Grand Committees may sit in September whether the House is sitting or not. Paragraph 29 states:
"In practice the number of members involved will be comparatively small".
That is exactly the opposite of my view that the full House should be involved in committees. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House confirmed that the committees would be open to all Members, but that seems to conflict with the statement that, in practice, small numbers would be involved. I ask that particularly because in March your Lordships introduced a code of conduct for Members which stated that they should observe the seven general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. This is surely a time for those to apply.
Since I entered the House in 1981 I have often felt that there should be greater transparency. I appreciate that in party terms the usual channels are important and on the whole work well, but Members should receive honest, open answers to questions and have information available on how things work.
It took me almost 12 years to obtain a desk in the House. During that time I told my Chief Whip of a number of desks that I discovered were not in use. Each time I received the reply, "Thank you for telling me, I have someone else I shall give that to". No hope was ever held out of a desk coming my way.
I know that I was unpopular with the Chief Whip because when the toilet facilities became desperately short for the growing number of women Peers, I was asked to appear before the Offices Committee to fight for and win the battle to have a second loo allocated for our use. Unfortunately the very toilet Black Rod had decided would be ideal to convert for the ladies was the favourite of the then Chief Whip. When I went to see him to plead on the matter, his response was, "You women want everything. You want to take over this place!" If your Lordships look around you will see that that has not happened yet.
692
I shall never know why I waited so long for a desk, but it was a strange coincidence that in the first week of the new Chief Whip's appointment, I was called in to hear the long-awaited words, "I thought you might like a desk". Perhaps we have sufficient office space now and it is no longer an issue, but it would be better for noble Lords to know where they stand on any waiting list for House facilities. Everyone appreciates that there have to be priority cases, and provision could he made for them, but it would be encouraging to see one's place on a list and some sign of upward movement over the years. A degree of openness in those minor matters would be helpful and should be simple.
The procedures of the Committee of Selection are wrapped in mystery still, as I discovered when I put a Question recently in this Chamber to the Chairman of Committees. At an earlier date I had asked him who had the right to decide on how and when committee members should be changed and he said that he did. My view, expressed to him, was that people had a right to understand those procedures. His reply was that he was in the same position as the Prime Minister and had full power to make decisions. It was confirmed by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who added that noble Lords have never questioned those matters. Why not? It would he healthy if they did.
Whatever its outcome, I welcome the openness and inclusiveness of this debate on our working practices. I hope that we will benefit from wise procedural changes in accordance with the seven general principles of conduct and not find ourselves swept along to suit administrative convenience. If there is a vote, I shall support the original Motion.
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, will be interested to know that on both occasions when I was admitted to this House I had to wait 18 months for a desk. Perhaps I behaved myself slightly better.
I am another Member from the periphery who applauds many of the report's recommendations. As someone who commutes to the House from central Scotland and stays overnight in the Farmers Club when necessary, I welcome the proposals for an end to business at 7 p.m. on Thursdays and the 10 p.m. rise of the House on other days. The Thursday 7 p.m. rise would allow the use of the last flights to central Scotland at 8.40 p.m. and 9 p.m., and hence the opportunity to be compos mentis the next day. The proposed 10 p.m. rise is reasonable at least for the Anglo-Scottish sleepers which leave Euston at 11.55 p.m. There would be no need to leave early before business was completed, as I have often had to do in the past.
It is reasonable to enable noble Lords from the peripheral areas, not only Scotland, to take a full part in the House's work and to recognise that they have other things to do in their home areas, including maintaining some connection with a career. Contributions in the House are made more worthwhile

693
according to the Member's active outside interests in his or her home area. The House must accept that it is not possible to attend regularly and have a job unless it is in south-east England.
That said, I am pleased that pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills is recommended. That practice has been introduced successfully in the Scottish Parliament, where it is carried out before the equivalent of Second Reading. The merit is that Members can become well acquainted with the Bill's practicalities and engage fully with the legislation through its later stages.
I have long believed that the House goes about its scrutiny in an odd way, trying to alter Bills before gaining a good grasp of the central purpose. Current practice may have been suitable in the past when Bills were shorter and may have had only one central principle, but that is no longer the nature of most legislation. Many Bills have multiple purposes and many principles. The House will gather that I am in favour of a Select Committee inquiry style for pre-legislative scrutiny.
On the subject of incorporating newcomers, I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats Whip Office for showing me how and encouraging me in 1994 to take part in the somewhat unfathomable procedures of this House. I have long likened the process to a swimming pool: it is the deep end but they want you to learn how to swim. More needs to be done to enable newcomers to learn the ways of this House and for former Members of another place to convert to them.
I turn to the Grand Committee rooms. Despite all that is said of the Moses Room—and yes, it needs to be improved—at least there one has a desk to keep the Bill, Marshalled List., groupings, Explanatory Notes and one's speaking notes in order. I hope that other noble Lords will support the changes and that this House will move on from being an "afternoon tea" Parliament organised for those who live or work in the London area to one which values all its Members and their constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, on the question of working on Thursdays I am reminded of an apocryphal story told by the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon. A shop steward reported to a mass meeting on what he described as the greatest agreement on working time reduction ever made. He negotiated a one-day week working on Thursdays. He then paused and asked for any questions. A hand went up: "Surely you don't mean we work every Thursday."
I strongly support the main thrust of the report. It is a package deal which we should accept. I will concentrate on the section on statutory instruments in paragraphs 16 and 17. The principal recommendation is a Lords Select Committee to establish the merits of every statutory instrument subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It had already occurred to me that there would need to be a good deal of flesh put on the bones of this particular proposal. Perhaps I may mention some of the considerations.
694
At its meeting last week, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—I mentioned this point to the Leader of the House—decided to write to the Leader of the Commons on the points that arose before the other place relating to this recommendation. The letter indicates that the Joint Committee would wish to establish good relations with any committee established for the purpose to ensure that the respective roles were complementary. But it was apparent that this could not be done in the absence of any certainty on the future shape of scrutiny of delegated legislation in the House of Commons. It was noted that our intention in this place would be to bring in the necessary Standing Orders by the beginning of next Session. I suggest that the time-scale for that may need to be in two bites: an agreement in principle, and possibly joint consideration about how we finalise the detail.
That raises some interesting points about the role of Joint Committees generally—which might be described as a mild form of unicameralism, as well as providing flexibility for the two Houses to carry out work in different, but complementary, ways, having regard, however, to the fact that both horses eventually have to cross the same finishing line.
Among the issues discussed by the Joint Committee is the idea of periodically reviewing a group of generic instruments. I use the word "generic" to mean issues arising out of a particular field—for example, agriculture or transport. So it is not merely a question of examining a particular statutory instrument before it comes into effect, but also of reviewing some of the experiences. Criteria for the consideration of those experiences could include how far the instruments are comprehensible not only to those who have to operate them, but also to those affected by them.
A different question arises as to whether there may be an overlap between the vires of a measure and the terms of its transposition.
Then there is the question of who will carry out all this work. I was interested in the point made by my noble friend Lord Sheldon. Perhaps I may make a parallel point. If Members of this House are to be elected, an issue will arise as to who will do the donkey work and who will be watching the television set in terms of receiving public recognition for the job that they do. That requires some thought.
Finally, if we stop the clock on a particular statutory instrument, how will that affect Civil Service planning dealing with expenditure on all the likely implementations of the statutory instruments? Will civil servants be told in good time to "stop the clock"? There is a wide range of territory where we could be stopping the clock.
Those are some of the questions that arise from the proposals.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understood him to say that his committee got in touch with the Leader of another place and stated that the new arrangements would have to be in place by the beginning of the next Session. If I understood

695
him correctly, will he tell the House when that letter was written and why it was thought that arrangements had to be in place by then?
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has intervened. Perhaps I may clarify what I said. The letter written to the Leader of the House of Commons was dated 14th May. It refers, among other matters, to the decision—potentially by this House today—in our report that the matters relating to statutory instruments will possibly be in place by the beginning of the next Session. That was the point to which I referred.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, before beginning my remarks, perhaps as an aside I may observe that five minutes for Back-Benchers is more than adequate, and I wonder why the usual channels cannot tune in a little more sensibly to what Back-Benchers feel.
I am motivated by paragraph 3 of the report, and in particular by the sentence:
"Parliament also has the duty on behalf of the public to hold the government of the day to account".
That is my principal motivation for being here.
It seems to me that there is an enormous consensus in favour of pre-legislative hearings. That is basic good practice. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said that pre-legislative scrutiny is working well in the Scottish Parliament, and there is probably unanimity across the House that that would be a major advance.
However, there does not seem to be any linkage in legislative terms between the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny and a trade-off. The House may have to agree to a hold-over. The two considerations are entirely separate. One is a matter of trying to improve the nature of legislation; the other is the length of time that it takes a Bill to complete its passage in this House. It is one of the pressures of Opposition to force the government of the day, who may ill-advisedly have chosen to introduce far too many major Bills, to choose which one to drop. But if all the Bills have received a pre-legislative hearing, they will all get through, and the pressure that the Opposition can apply will have been mitigated.
Parliament needs to go so far as to say to itself that the real problem is that no government have ever agreed to contain the number of major and minor Bills that they will bring forward in a Session. That should be attainable. It would not be for Parliament to determine the nature of those Bills, but the number of Bills should be agreed by all parties. Until that happens, the capacity of Parliament to legislate will remain constant, and there will always be a logjam. If agreement on pre-legislative hearings leads to an automatic carry-over, I for one shall not join that particular army of supporters.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord who has just spoken, who is a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I had the privilege to chair many years ago. It is an invaluable
696
committee. Your Lordships may need reminding that some 4,000 statutory instruments go through in any one year. That is a huge number. The concept of a new committee of this House helping out is laudable and would represent progress, but it is not a gigantic leap forward. We as parliamentarians, must find a way of making sure that, first, we understand the contents of those statutory instruments and, secondly—the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was absolutely right—having understood them, and having found some wanting in terms of time, content or impact, Parliament must have the ability to control those elements. At present, although the Royal Commission made it clear that there should be change and that we should have the ability to amend statutory instruments, until such time as we have such an ability, these proposals are laudable but are only a tiny step forward. I hope that the knowledge of the noble Lord who is a member of the Joint Committee will be used when the Procedure Committee takes its further hurried evidence before 8th July.
On the question of September Sittings, such a proposal is highly questionable unless they take place towards the end of September. It seems to me quite wrong that everyone in the United Kingdom should have to take their vacation in August. That should be resisted.
In conclusion, perhaps I may put two questions to the Lord Privy Seal. He said in his opening remarks that the report is a package of measures. My first question is: will it come back from the Procedure Committee as a package of measures? If it does, that will be a major problem. If it comes back as a series of four or five recommendations, I believe that this House will want to vote on them. If only four get through, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that will be progress.
Secondly—the noble and learned Lord may be intending to refer to this point in his reply—why is 8th July so precious? It is difficult to understand why that particular date is so precious as opposed to a date at the end of July or in September. I can understand why it is necessary for the Procedure Committee to present its proposals before the start of the new Session, but I am mystified as to why it must be by 8th July, unless the House is rising on 10th July.
6.20 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, many of us want to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for tabling his amendment—for which I shall certainly vote. An admirable guardian of the conventions of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord spotted that the original Motion was out of order—so much so that an uncharitably disposed person might even imagine that the leaders of the parties were trying to sneak through this House changes in working practices, the effects of some of which almost amount to constitutional change.
I well understand why the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, signed the report. Many of its recommendations would help

697
the Government to push their legislation through Parliament, whatever they say. I cannot understand why anyone else signed. Perhaps the other party leaders were happily anticipating the day when they would be in government and wanting to push through legislation.
I am hard pushed to find anything good to say about the report. I start with paragraph 4, concerning the trial period. We have all heard that one before. It reminds me of a nightmarish double roundabout at Barnton in Edinburgh, which was introduced about 25 years ago on an "experimental basis" and was one of the most difficult and dangerous hazards for a driver to negotiate that I have ever encountered. That experiment lasted about 20 years before minimal alterations were made, so I have little faith in trial periods ever coming to an end.
Pre-legislative scrutiny seems to be the flavour of the decade. It is used in the Scottish Parliament—where, disastrously, it is deemed a fit substitute for a second Chamber. If the Government were not trying to produce more Bills than they have time to think through—and the parliamentary draftsmen had time to draft properly—pre-legislative scrutiny would be unnecessary. I have many misgivings. Not least is my dark suspicion that the next step might be the abolition of one of the latter stages of Bills hitherto taken by the whole House, not by a committee sitting in some upstairs room in the mornings.
Of all the report's thoroughly undesirable recommendations, the carry-over of Bills is much the worse. It is a blatant attempt to neutralize—I would almost say, sterilise— the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, expressed concern that carry-over would affect the operation of the Parliament Act—which gives rise to constitutional implications.
I do not approve of Bills being committed to Grand Committees unless they can divide on amendments. I am horrified at the suggestion that the House or Grand Committees should sit in September and that Grand Committees should sit when the House is not sitting—which virtually negates the right of any Peer to sit on a Grand Committee. As to either the House or committees sitting in September, I wonder what consultations took place with Black Rod or the superintendent of the Refreshment Department. It is curious that the report's signatories appear to have forgotten completely repairs and maintenance work on this palace—for which it is absolutely necessary to have at least two clear months in August and September. Extra weeks at Christmas and Easter are no use at all. For serious structural work, it is necessary to have a long, unbroken period at a time when tradesmen are not on holiday. Scant thought appears to have been given to the security staff, catering staff, Doorkeepers and Clerks whose holidays would be affected. We all know how willingly they return for emergency debates, such as that following September 11 and the tributes to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother—but that is no excuse for them to be imposed upon.
698
My list of unacceptable proposals includes sitting at 11 a.m. on Thursday. One reason that the House cannot sit in the mornings is that many Peers still have to earn their livings—which they try to do in the mornings, coming here when they can get away from work. Attending morning sittings on Thursdays would not be possible for them. As one who lives in the north of Scotland, the latest that it is possible for me to leave the House and return home the same night is 6 o'clock—and then It do not get home until after 11 p.m. If the House were to sit at 9 o'clock and rise by 4 p.m., that would be more helpful for getting home that night for those of us who live far away. Most of us just leave early unless we are involved with the business of the day. I think that is a better way. Morning sittings should wait until the House consists entirely of paid Members.
I could live with most of the other proposals reasonably happily and I agree with one—the recommendation that the shortcomings of the Moses Room should be corrected. The acoustics are deplorable and the cold in winter can be such that, on one occasion, I had to leave a meeting to put on my overcoat. Proper heating would be welcome. That should be provided in any event, not be dependent on the implementation of the rest of the proposals.
There is one simple solution to the problems that the report's recommendations are intended to solve—less legislation. Give the poor people of this country a break from endless new laws and regulations to fall foul of—some unenforceable—and from endless changes in the way that the health service, education and local government are run and justice is administered, which drive those responsible for implementing them dotty. Only the lawyers will weep. Then there might be time for the necessary scrutiny of the rules and regulations that pour out or Brussels, which must be properly examined. It would help if another place did its job better, by discussing all amendments to Bills as we do—instead of wasting time on points of order—and getting rid of the guillotine.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, that we need a common watering hole—something about which I have spoken often to Chief Whips, Leaders of the House and others. Nothing has come of it yet. How can we seriously operate as a Parliament? I have been here 10 years and have yet to meet an NIP socially. There is nowhere that I can run into Members of another place, unless I encounter them on business occasionally. I have no rights to go where MPs have a drink and they have no rights here. We cannot even meet to eat. It is ridiculous and something that we should address as a matter of urgency. I am delighted to enjoy support in all parts of the House and wish that there could be the same support from members of the Front Benches.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that we need to consider the way that committee members are selected. We are giving significant new powers to those who select committees.

699
It is to that extent natural for members of the Front Benches to think that they should choose. The time is coming for moving in the same direction as another place, by giving Back-Benchers a say in who gets on to committees. If we go down the road proposed, Members of the Front Benches will have the power to exclude the likes of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the ground that we might disagree with Front Bench policy. That would be entirely undesirable, especially in respect of the noble Lord.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is a good report. I am delighted that the Leader of the House has produced, with typical energy and direction, something that for a long time our own procedures have failed to produce. It would have been nice if this had been done gradually over the past 20 years, but that has not happened.
I stand on my dignity as a Back-Bencher and say that this report is not an order to us but a request to us. It is for this House as a whole to consider. The report is very well put together, and I can see the arguments for treating it as a package. However, it is our privilege to decide whether to treat it as a package. There is nothing that this group, however august, can do to instruct us on what our procedures should be.
I was disturbed by the brief discussion that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the implications of the Lord Privy Seal's Motion. If the effect is to tell the Procedure Committee that it cannot consider substantive changes to the report and must implement it as it is, I would be very concerned. The report has been produced by Front-Benchers, but there are many Back-Bench aspects that should properly be taken into account.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am not for one moment suggesting that, at some point—I hope sooner rather than later—noble Lords who so wish will not be able to move that this or that recommendation should be deleted. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that your Lordships will decide the matter. We may differ on what we may like to delete, but we do not differ on that. I have no doubt at all that this Chamber is sovereign.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that we agree on that. The authorities of the House should therefore take note that, if the report comes back in its current form, I shall have half a dozen to a dozen amendments to table to it. We should also ensure that we can debate the report in a sensible manner, committee style, rather than having to take all the amendments at the end of the debate. I am sure that the authorities of the House can find a sensible way of dealing with the matter if the report's rough edges are left unsmoothed.
The first specific proposal I shall deal with is pre-legislative scrutiny, a concept of which I thoroughly approve. The report, however, does not define pre-legislative scrutiny. On a previous occasion, the Government published a Bill which we had one month to consider. Two weeks later, they published the final Bill. That was considered pre-legislative scrutiny.
700
Does such a process justify carrying a Bill over to the next Session? We must have some rules on what constitutes proper pre-legislative scrutiny. In some cases with which I am familiar, the effect of pre-legislative scrutiny has been to fossilise Bills, making it much harder to amend legislation as it is considered by the House. There are so many conversations and deals with outside parties, and so much is agreed between civil servants and various pressure groups, that it becomes extremely difficult to make even small changes to legislation.
It is very important that Back-Benchers who wish to be involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny process have the chance to do so. Under the proposals, it is possible that pre-legislative scrutiny will be done entirely by another place. However, if it is done by this place, those who take part in the process will be chosen by the Front-Benchers. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, that would be neither sensible nor acceptable.
We already effectively form ourselves into groupings in committees, which are composed of noble Lords who wish to participate and the Front-Benchers' choice of who should participate. We need a similar arrangement for the creation of such committees for pre-legislative scrutiny. Participation in the committees should be open to the whole House. If it is not so open, Back-Benchers may find themselves excluded entirely from the opportunity to influence the legislative detail, as everything may have been decided by those chosen by Front-Benchers at the pre-legislative stage.
As my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree said, we need to consider details such as the interface with the Parliament Acts. Currently, those Acts seem to allow the Government to choose whether to use those powers when we have either taken more than one month to send carry-over legislation back to the other place or failed to do so by the end of the Session. We have to consider such details, and I would welcome it if we could get them right.
It is important that Back-Benchers should have a say on who is appointed to the committee that will consider the Finance Bill as it is going through another place. It does not seem right that Front-Benchers should choose the membership. If a Back-Bencher truly wishes to participate on the committee, why should he not be able to do so? Such a committee would surely not suffer from having one or two more members. It seems undesirable to put the matter within the gift of the Front-Benchers.
Front-Benchers would also exercise control under the proposals for a statutory instruments select committee. They would appoint that committee, which would be this House's only instrument to amend statutory instruments. If I as a Back-Bencher objected to a statutory instrument, I would not have the power to amend it; only the committee could do that. That might be a reasonable arrangement, but it would not be reasonable for the committee to be chosen exclusively by the Front-Benchers. The committee membership must be within the gift of the Back-Benchers. As I said, for very good reason, the other

701
place is moving in that direction. If we accept the proposals, we shall be creating three more extremely powerful, very influential and very important committees that will make decisions that are crucial to the lives and effectiveness of Back-Benchers. Consequently, we Back-Benchers should have at least some say on who sits on the committees. Perhaps we should also be able to talk to the committees and influence their decisions, particularly in relation to statutory instruments. It would be ridiculous if I had no way of asking the statutory instruments committee to amend a statutory instrument about which I had specific knowledge.
If we are to have an amendment process, which I presume will be judiciously used, surely it should be a public process that takes place on the Floor of the House and not locked away in a committee. The committees would not have access to the specialist expertise of other noble Lords, but would consist of those chosen to sacrifice a very large part of their lives to look through an endless succession of statutory instruments. I think that the Procedure Committee should consider that point. If it does not, we shall certainly consider it when we again consider the report.
As for a 10 o'clock cut-off, I think that that should be a matter for the House as a whole to decide. I would favour an 11 o'clock cut-off. I think that if one is here for the night, one is here for the night, and there is nothing much that one can do at 10 o'clock except go home to bed. I do not know why I should be forced to sit up and watch television for an hour until my natural time for going to sleep. It should be a matter for the House. If one is down here from Scotland, one is down here from Scotland. Why should one have to spend more days coming down here from Scotland when one could sit through to 11 o'clock? We should be allowed a voice on such issues, which I do not think are crucial to the proposals. Moreover, if one had dinner from 7.30 to 8.30, there would be only an hour and a half of debate remaining, which is scarcely enough time to get into a good argument. One would have time to deal with only one or two groups of amendments, if they were at all serious. An additional hour would allow us to have a decent session in which momentum could be built up and a fair amount of business could be dealt with.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, surely there are other things in life than sitting here in a debate after 10 o'clock or going to bed.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord does after 10 o'clock and I shall not ask.
Paragraph 24 states:
"The precise sitting hours of the Grand Committees should be settled to suit the convenience of the key players",
which I take again to be the Front-Benchers. There must be some way in which Back-Benchers can have a say in the matter. If we are dealing with an education issue, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I should have some say in it. The decision should not be dictated solely by the fact that the Front-Benchers are
702
night-owls or want to go home at 6 p.m. It should he a matter for noble Lords who wish to participate and not for the Front-Benchers.
The paragraph which I assume should be numbered 30 mentions nine specific suggestions by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. I cannot find those suggestions. I do not know where they are. They do not seem to be in the Printed Paper Office or in the Whips' Office. Perhaps I could have looked more extensively, hut it seems that we are being asked to approve proposals that have not been included in the report and to which we have no access. Unless I have simply overlooked the suggestions, I do not think that our approval of the Motion can be taken as approval of those suggestions.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for giving way. Perhaps I can enlighten him. The proposals were made by his noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford during the debate about a second chamber for the European Parliament.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to footnote 15 on page 6 of this admirable document.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, unfortunately, I do not have my glasses with me and I am incapable of reading such small type. Depending on what the Leader of the House tells us about the meaning of his Motion, I do not think that we should regard something that is not spelt out as being an instruction to the Procedure Committee to accept. We should look at the issue in its full form, and not merely by way of a footnote, which I cannot read.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. It is clear that the report deserves serious reflection, and having reflected and listened to the debate, I believe that the report goes largely in the right direction. I am therefore 95 per cent in favour of the recommendations.
However, at a time when we know that the composition of the House will be considered by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, I believe that it would be wrong to change working practices on the basis that we have, or can have in the immediate future, full-time working Peers who are able to switch between morning and evening working. That is the assumption lying behind the decision to recommend that the House should sit at 11 a.m. and rise at 7 p.m. on Thursdays. I firmly believe, despite discussions with the Leader of the House, whom I thank for his courtesy, that this is the thin end of the wedge and will lead to morning sittings as a regular occurrence.
I and many other colleagues would find morning sittings even on one day a week a major problem. As an opposition Front-Bencher, it would be virtually impossible for me to fulfil my professional and political commitments if we sat on Thursday mornings. I only undertook my professional

703
commitments in the first place knowing that they were compatible with membership of the House. I do not believe that morning working is a reasonable expectation until we are an elected and remunerated House. I recognise that that proposal may suit the interests of those who live out of town, but catering for those interests means that we are moving towards a three-day week when we may only in reality call the Government to account on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, aptly described from his long experience the way in which the process has gone down a rather slippery slope. He emphasised that we should not ape another place. Indeed, we should recognise the impossibility of doing so, given the current make-up of this House.
The Leader of the House stressed the package aspect of the proposals. They stand or fall together. But the package has to be right in the first place. I hope that it will be a package in due course that can be backed by the majority of the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will therefore reconsider whether the Thursday morning working suggestion should really be part of the core package. The Leader of the House in the other place, Robin Cook, had to agree to delete elements of his original package. If the Leader in the other place, with its huge majority had to agree to that, why cannot we do that here, where the Government do not have a majority?
My opposition to Thursday morning sittings is not just born out of my own circumstances and, I suspect, those of many other colleagues. It comes from considering whether the changes will add to or subtract from our ability to hold the Government to account, as we should. I believe that the morning sitting proposal will subtract from that. It will be easier for the Government to keep house; it will assist Ministers; and it will make it more difficult for the working opposition—Front and Back-Benchers—to attend. We shall therefore have less effective scrutiny.
I should like to give the report a fair wind, but I cannot do so currently. I therefore hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the Procedure Committee will have serious thoughts in the meantime about Thursday morning working before coming back to the House.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I fully accept that the working practices of this House are not the subject of passionate debate in the real world outside. I do not think that the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus gives the matter a thought.
Nevertheless, when people do consider what we are about, I suspect that most of them think that if we sit beyond 10 or 11 at night, we are plain silly. When I was in the Commons, my local party members used to say, "If you must sit all night and are daft enough not to change the system, don't blame us because you are tired the following day". The public, whom we are here to serve, cannot believe that legislation is scrutinized
704
better because we do it at midnight. Ministers are tired by then, so they will not do better, and opposition Front-Benchers will not do better; they have to work the following morning. All in all, we do not do ourselves much credit; nor do we provide the public with better scrutiny of legislation. It is plain silly, and in our heart of hearts we must admit that.
Some years ago, before I was a Member of this House, I was talking to a Member of the Canadian Senate who told me that they had embarked on a study of how hard various western legislative assemblies worked. On the basis of hours worked, number of sitting days, and so on, they concluded that the hardest-working legislative assembly in the western world was the House of Commons. Given that I am talking here, there are no prizes for guessing that the second hardest-working legislative assembly was this place. I do not know whether that is still true; perhaps we work harder than the Commons now. There are not many prizes for working the hardest. It is output which counts, not the number of hours spent getting there.
I make no bones about the fact that I am delighted with the report. I trust the six colleagues of all parties who produced it, and I believe that they have come up with a package that will make the House more modern and more in touch with the present century, without sacrificing the effectiveness of the House. I do not believe that the proposals are aimed at benefiting the Government; they provide a balance, and in some respects will make the task of government more difficult.
I could join other noble Lords in unpicking the package and saying that I have this or that idea. But it is best to let the package go to the Procedure Committee in its entirety, without the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, as that would simply kick it into the long grass. We can then get it back and see what happens.
With regard to the amendment, I cannot think of any aspect of British life outside the Palace of Westminster where we would say that we want something, give it to a group of people to take it further, and then say that there was no deadline. Would anyone in business not set a deadline? Surely any self-respecting commercial business or public body would set a deadline for the plan to take the changes that they want further.
Why not do that here? Why adopt standards that we would not expect any self-respecting business outside to adopt? I do not understand that.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but never before has a deadline been set for the Procedure Committee. The long grass would not be that long by the time it reported. My amendment seeks to give it the amount of time that it usually has to discuss such matters, as a courtesy. It would help to ensure that the sometimes difficult to understand recommendations are gone through carefully. Surely that is a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is confirming my point when he says that we have never

705
set deadlines before. Why not set deadlines? Why make a virtue of inefficiency and incompetence? I do not understand that.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we normally keep them. That is why we have not set them before.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am sure that we have done that for several hundred years but I suggest that the world has to move on a little. I take my cue from business outside. If business feels that there is a way of moving forward and adopting deadlines as a way of expediting business and making a profit, why cannot we, without the profit motive, also adopt similar standards of efficiency? I am not against all traditions. There are some very important traditions in this House which I would defend to the last, but I do not think that this is one of them. This is an example of a tradition, practice or procedure which is not conducive to efficiency. That is my case but the noble Lord is obviously not persuaded by it.
I particularly welcome the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny. I give an example to set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at rest. When I was in the Commons I took part in one of the first Special Standing Committees. I accept that that concerned one House only and I very much believe that pre-legislative scrutiny should now concern both Houses. In that committee about 20 years ago we discussed the Criminal Attempts Bill. The Law Commission gave evidence, at the end of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was then Minister of State at the Home Office, announced to the committee that in the light of the Law Commission's evidence, he proposed to withdraw one particular part of the Bill and redraft it. That was a great success. It meant that we did not have to go through all the business of probing amendments and other such measures. The Minister said that in the spirit of pre-legislative scrutiny he would withdraw a whole section of the Bill and bring it back amended. When it returned amended, it did not require much debate in Committee as we had already made the relevant point. If the proposals are given effect in that spirit—I trust that that will be the case—and government Ministers regard them in that light, it will be a victory for common sense. I give way.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. He reinforces my point when he says that the Bill did not require much scrutiny in Committee; in other words, the crucial part was the pre-legislative scrutiny. That is what Back-Benchers must have access to.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not want to go into the minutiae of how one can establish the best structure for pre-legislative scrutiny. Clearly, one cannot have half the House doing it as that would not work. However, it does not preclude subsequent debate and scrutiny by Members of the House who were not part of the pre-legislative process. I rest my case.
I move on quickly. Carry-over is a long overdue procedure. At the moment we battle to get things finished by the end of the spill-over period. To my
706
mind that does not make much sense as a way of conducting business efficiently. I believe that the changes proposed for Starred Questions, particularly topical questions, will make life much tougher for Ministers. I believe that Questions in this House are tougher for Ministers anyway than they usually are in the other place as they are longer and are subject to scrutiny. The topical questions hit Ministers very quickly indeed. In the other place I never answered Questions; I only asked them. However, having answered Questions in this House, I am convinced that it is a tough procedure. The proposed increase in the number of Starred Questions and the additional topical questions will make life tougher for Ministers but better for Back-Benchers on both sides of the House as regards subjecting Ministers to scrutiny.
I have already said my piece about the proposed 10 p.m. finish. We are daft to think that we can do anything sensible in a political sense late at night, although we may be able to deal with other matters. As regards September sittings, if the quid pro quo is that we get longer recesses at Christmas and Easter and do not have such long summer recesses, I believe that that is a sensible way of managing things.
I conclude by saying that we have a responsibility to the general public to conduct our business in a sensible, efficient and businesslike manner. That way we earn the respect of the public. If we sit late at night and into the morning, the public will think that we are not serious. I believe that we are serious and that these proposals will help us to demonstrate that.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, as a relatively new Peer I am pleased to speak in the debate. I came to your Lordships' House exactly two years and one week ago today. Therefore, I am very new in comparison with many who are speaking in the debate. However, I can say that the past two years have been among the most enjoyable of my life. Not only have I encountered friendliness, courtesy and inclusiveness, and that from all sides of the House, but I have also been able to sit in this wonderful Chamber and hear experts in all fields speak. I can sit and learn about new topics.
I particularly enjoy Question Time. I enjoy the repartee and the quick thinking of both those who ask the questions and those who answer them. I try to attend Question Time whenever I can. However, being new to the House, I have found some of the ways of the Chamber rather strange. I refer, first, to the timing of sittings. When I first joined the House I found it very strange indeed to commence a sitting half-way through a normal working day and continue late into the evening.
I add to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Dubs among others. Not many people know what this House does. I have discovered that as I have been asked about it by family and friends and, indeed, by strangers, as I was this lunchtime at a reception. I was asked what exactly the House of Lords does. When one explains what it does in detail, they are quite

707
impressed by the amount of time we devote to examining legislation, as many people consider that that is mainly the job of the Commons. But when one tells them about the timing of Sittings, they think we are mad. Not only do they think we are mad, they think, as I do, that it cannot possibly be in the best interests of our legislative procedures to work as late as we sometimes do. No one can perform at their best late at night, however long such traditions have continued. We need to consider them seriously, as, indeed, the members of the working group did.
When I first joined the House I also found it strange to be able to table amendments which comprised almost the same wording at three different stages of a Bill. I appreciate that that wording must be slightly different but it does not take anyone who has dealt with amendments for some years long to change a few words. Therefore, we are considering almost the same amendments at three different stages of a Bill. I realise that sometimes Ministers become worn down but that does not happen regularly. The working group has considered that matter in relation to Grand Committees. I welcome that consideration.
When the report was published I read it eagerly and thought that it comprised a very interesting package indeed. I congratulate all those who devoted so much time to it. I am also pleased that it is proposed to implement the recommendations for a trial period. I am a great believer in trial periods. When one is changing procedures which have been in place for many years, it is a good idea to do so for a trial period after which one can review the new procedures to determine whether they are exactly right.
I particularly welcome the proposal to increase the number of Starred Questions and to extend the time allotted to them. As I said earlier, I enjoy Question Time. It is also an occasion on which the Government can be held to account on the part of noble Lords on all sides of the House, as, indeed, is the case. Therefore, as I say, I welcome those proposals.
I am afraid that I am in total opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is not present at the moment. I welcome the proposal for an earlier start and a 7 p.m. finish on Thursdays. Indeed, I would he even more radical and suggest that we should follow that timing every day as they seem much more sensible working hours. Just as some of the noble Lord's colleagues agreed with his views on that matter, I know that some of my colleagues agree with my views.
I also welcome the proposal that the House should normally rise no later than 10 p.m. I have already explained why I welcome that proposal. I also welcome the proposal to increase the number of Grand Committees. Since I arrived in the House I have attended two Grand Committees. The first concerned the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and took place in the Moses Room. I agree with all the comments that have been made about the acoustics in that room. The second concerned the Employment Bill which took place in Committee Room 4 on the committee corridor. Those experiences were very different. The Employment Bill sat for nine days in
708
Grand Committee. However, much understanding was reached during that time. Had that Committee taken place on the Floor of the Chamber, it would still have taken a long time.
The report is a good achievement. I hope that the Motion will be carried so that the Procedure Committee's work can begin.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, as the first two or three minutes of her speech comprised exactly the speech that I would have made. I have enjoyed myself—I hope that I shall still do so—in your Lordships' House. One of the first lessons that I learnt was not to bore your Lordships and to try to be brief. I shall attempt to do that.
The report is to my mind very interesting, legible and digestible. I was fascinated by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, who I believe was the first speaker today to touch on the composition of the House and on how the proposals in the fascinating report might affect a reconstituted House. Indeed, I believe that that was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall.
If we have a recomposed House, I wonder whether we shall have two classes of Peer—those who wish to appear on television and act as professional politicians and those who are here to give advice and act as we do. As it is, I try to explain to my colleagues, as clearly as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, has explained—I have to say to her that in the glens of Angus people think that this is about as far as the moon and regard me as very brave, coming here and going back every day—that the bicameral system of Parliament is akin to the Wimbledon tennis championships for a fortnight in 1968. Those of your Lordships who, like me, are getting a little long in the tooth may remember that, until 1968, the Wimbledon tennis championships were open only to amateurs. Suddenly, in 1968, professionals were allowed to play, and Mr Rod Laver returned and showed us the talents that we had been missing for all those years. That is one way in which I try to explain the difference between your Lordships' House and the other place; namely, that although we play on one court, we are the amateurs and the other place is for the professionals. I hope that we do our duties in a professional way. But, of course, the Government always must and should get their legislation.
I was very interested in what the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Clement-Jones, had to say—that perhaps sitting in September might not suit some of the more professional of your Lordships; those who, prior to coming to your Lordships' House, had given commitments to do their duty to the very best of their abilities but had then found those commitments affected by the introduction of the proposed changes. But that is something that can be smoothed over and should not affect our consideration of the report before us today.

709
I enjoyed the comments of my noble friend Earl Ferrers, who referred to the great and the good. He is certainly both. Much of what he said is relevant to the fairly stern and perhaps justified criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, let alone others, about the Procedure Committee. Who does the noble Lord consider to be members of the committee? As far as I understand it, the committee consists of many of the great and good who sit on the Front Benches. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord agrees. I do not think they are all dinosaurs; I speak as a minor, long-legged dinosaur at the back of your Lordships' House. Be that as it may, the report certainly gives us a great glimpse of the powers that could be given to Back Benchers, which is why I shall be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has to say in reply to my noble friend Lord Lucas.
With regard to the content of the report, I note that the wonderful word "virtually" is used in paragraph 31(a). The noble Lords, Lord Blake and Lord McCarthy, both of whom formed my political knowledge all of 40 years ago at Oxford, let alone my alma mater, the chartered accountant of Scotland, would not give me particularly high marks for using the word "virtually". It seems to cover quite a lot. However, it may be clarified either by the noble and learned Lord today or on consideration of the entire report when it comes back from the Procedure Committee.
I am not entirely happy with the recommendations in paragraphs 31(k), (1) and (m). If the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, believes that he can leave here at seven o'clock and still catch the last flight to Edinburgh, I shall be joining him on it. Like the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who is not in her place, even if I manage to take that flight, I do not get home until 11 p.m. But it shows that there is a vast geographical and perhaps ability-spread in your Lordships' House.
I conclude by conveying my deepest compliments to the noble Lords, Lord Brabazon, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and Lord Grenfell, three of the chairmen of the European scrutiny committees. Of all the work that we do—surely we do the bread and butter work, the revision work, the catching up work, and perhaps some of the work that might have been missed in another place—that of our European scrutiny committees and sub-committees is, in the words of that marvellous regimental motto of the Coldstream Guards, nulli secundus, which means "second to none"; not, as I put it in my recruit days, "no second helpings", for which I finished up in the guard room. The work done by the European scrutiny committees is a jewel in your Lordships' House and a jewel in British democracy, and I am given to understand that it is widely admired in Brussels.
When the noble and learned Lord winds up, perhaps he will indicate what on earth is the significance of the date 8th July 2002. I have two little letters after my name: "CA" stands for chartered accountant; I could also use "CB", which has nothing to do with Companion (of the order) of the Bath, but "a cynical so and so". I wonder whether the noble and learned
710
Lord believes that England are going to win the World Cup, which may perhaps be a suitable day of triumph on which the Prime Minister and the Government could begin to settle and something might happen. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten me on that, particularly in view of his great love for kicking the round ball.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I joined your Lordships' House just under two years ago. That is obviously a very short time in which to get to know the place well enough to feel entitled to speak in this debate. However, it also has its advantages, including perhaps a willingness to raise questions about some of our procedures that others occasionally tend to take for granted.
For those of us who live quite a distance from London and have to earn a living, our hours of work cause a few problems. Sitting well beyond 10 p.m. is neither family friendly nor particularly debate friendly. The attendance is almost invariably thin and sometimes limited to the Front Benches. Even the most determined among us cannot be sure of sustaining the high quality of debate that is the hallmark of your Lordships' House. Sitting late on Thursdays would mean that those of us who live outside London could not manage to get home until Friday afternoon, with only two days to recover and spend with our families before getting back on the train on Monday morning.
The hours of our business cannot be discussed in isolation from the kind of work that we do. They are made necessary by the facts that the Government want to get through their legislation and we want to scrutinise it as rigorously as we can. We cannot therefore radically tamper with our hours of business unless we ensure that Bills which come before us are carefully thought through, skilfully drafted and do not require probing amendments or extensive clarification. We also need to find ways of devolving the business of the House to Grand Committees, as well as better balancing our parliamentary year. In short, every part of our business is tied up with some other, and we cannot change one without making appropriate changes to the other.
It is in that context that I want to endorse most warmly the recommendations of the Leader's Group. They sensitively link different areas of our work and constitute a coherent package. They also represent a cross-party consensus, are unanimously arrived at, and are based on ample reflection, as well as the written and oral evidence of those who know your Lordships' House most intimately.
It makes a great deal of sense to meet on Thursdays at 11 a.m. and finish at approximately 7 p.m. The proposal that no new item of business, including a new group of amendments, should be entertained after 10 p.m. on any day of the week also has much to be said for it. In order to make that possible, the report rightly recommends that drafts of all major government Bills should be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny and that more of the House's business should be conducted in

711
Grand Committee. If these and other proposals were to damage our ability to discharge our functions effectively, we may wish to reject them or radically revise them. But that is not at all the case.
Among many functions performed by your Lordships' House, three are particularly important: first, scrutiny of the executive; secondly, rigorous examination of legislative proposals; and, thirdly, debates on major issues, in which we can discuss important proposals and outline our views. The report's proposals will strengthen our ability to discharge all three functions. For example, it is proposed that the time for Starred Questions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays should be extended to 40 minutes, with the number of Questions being increased from four to five.
Similarly, the proposed greater use of the Grand Committee process and of pre-legislative scrutiny will enable us to scrutinise legislation far more effectively than previously. Moreover, the provision of three additional Wednesdays for Back-Bench debates in each Session, as well as holding more debates on Select Committee reports and on general topics in prime time on the Floor of the House, will also provide great opportunities for the kind of debates for which this House is rightly well known. Therefore, I am convinced that the report is a long-overdue step in the right direction. It deserves to be welcomed and tried out for the period of two Sessions, as proposed.
Your Lordships' House is, rightly, anxious to reform its composition. It would be odd, and even inconsistent, not to reform its procedures, because the two are closely connected. Further, not to accept the report would be to send out the wrong message to the country where there is widespread—obviously mistaken—prejudice that we are opposed to all kinds of change. I therefore suggest that the time for change has long been over due, and that we should grasp the nettle and accept the report's major proposals.
However, that is not to say that one is happy with all the proposals contained in the report. Indeed, many noble Lords have talked about the proposals for September. As an academic, I believe that some of us might find that month a little difficult to accommodate. But such difficulties are only to he expected. No package of proposals will be equally acceptable to all. Therefore, I warmly endorse the report, and commend it to the House.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I assume that this debate will be read by the members of the Procedure Committee. Therefore, I begin my remarks with a footnote. At this stage of the debate, I am sure that no one would wish me to speak on every item contained in the report. But silence does definitely not signify consent in every case. I should like to mention only four matters.
First, I was tempted to join in the mini-debate between the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lord Denham by pointing out that we have it on
712
the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, that the committee of the Leader of the House was expecting to report by Christmas. It was not subject to a direction that it should report by a particular time; hut, in fact, the report has only just arrived. I see from the expression on the noble and learned Lord's face that I may be slightly wrong, but perhaps he will put me right when he responds. It is unnecessary to have a direction to conclude proceedings at a particular time to ensure that those proceedings are so concluded, even when there is great difficulty in arriving at consensus. What we do in that respect will depend on what my noble friend says at the end of the debate.
Secondly, on a lesser point, it has been suggested that we should use the Robing Room for Grand Committees "and other business". When I was a young man, I well recall my father taking me on a tour of the House of Lords. He became quite sentimental in the Robing Room, and said, "This is where we sat when the House of Commons was bombed by Hitler"; in other words, those from another place had come here and we had moved to the Robing Room. He added, "By the time you had screened off a Lobby on either side, put railings in front of the Throne and a Bar for the Commons and the public at the bottom, you were left with something rather like a large drawing room in which it was impossible to make speeches. The result was an infinite benefit to legislation, because you could only talk to each other. The worst thing that happened was when we came back here". So perhaps we shall do better when we go there.
Thirdly, subject to the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which I warmly share, I believe that pre-legislative scrutiny is very desirable. I accept what the noble Lord. Lord Roper, says; namely, that it inevitably extends the time that legislation is in Parliament. However, I do not understand why it is necessary to accompany that with a carry-over at the end of a process. If it is extended by the length of the pre-legislative scrutiny, it seems to me that it should be possible to carry over Bills that have been so scrutinised into the next Session. But if they are only half-way through the process at the end of a Session, I do not believe that Bills should be exempted from the carry-over rule any more than any other legislation.
I see doubt mirrored in the faces of many noble Lords sitting opposite me. However, I should remind them that, like it or not, the day will come when they are sitting here on this side of the Chamber and their only really significant means of keeping the government of the day to account will be by marshalling the expenditure of time. The threat of losing a Bill at the end of a Session gives an opposition considerable leverage over government which they would lose completely if two Sessions could be devoted to one piece of legislation.
Incidentally, I notice from the table in the report that, in one Session—I shall draw a veil over which government were in office at the time—no fewer than 86 Bills went through your Lordships' House.

713
Therefore, to extend the ability to put material through this House seems to me superfluous; it should not happen.
My final point relates to the question of when this House should sit. At the opening of his speech, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that our decisions today—and, presumably those that flow from it—
"may be critical for our future".
We should not take those words lightly; nor, indeed, those that were said two paragraphs later:
"Procedural reform alone will not make … [the House] more effective".
I understand the temptation to make our hours match more closely the hours of the working world, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, hit the nail squarely on the head time and again in his remarks. It is not possible for some of us to play a useful role in this House if we are prevented from playing a useful role elsewhere of a morning—in the noble Lord's case, one morning only in the week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, mentioned how much she had been instructed by those who speak in this House. The reason they are able to instruct her more than others is that they are actually out there learning what they subsequently come here and say. The report makes much of the financial expertise of many noble Lords. That is not because some of us have held high office in the Treasury, and elsewhere, in the distant past: what matters is up-to-date knowledge.
I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will not mind my recalling something that he said elsewhere yesterday. I hope this will be a quotation, not a paraphrase. I believe he said that Members of your Lordships' House must make up their minds between being effective parliamentarians and being "part-time Members". I must stress to your Lordships that there is no contradiction between being a part-time Member and an effective politician. Indeed, in this House it is necessary to be a part-time Member in order to be an effective politician, because you live in the wider world. That is becoming increasingly rare in another place. We are here to balance the other place. It is also self-evidently valuable in the debates that take place in your Lordships' House.
I am tempted to continue, but noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I shall put that temptation behind me. Many noble Lords have put the important points so well. I shall, therefore, sit down.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, I am a member of the class of May 2000; I have been here almost exactly two years. It has been interesting to listen to people who have been here for considerably longer, and to hear their different perspectives. Before we came here, we were obviously told many things about this place—some of which have turned out to be what are known these days as "urban myths", while many have turned out to be true.
714
I should like to list three or four of those things that have turned out to be the truth and which, to my surprise, I have found to be very much "pluses".
The first relates to legislation. Without your Lordships' House, I should hate to think of the state of much legislation. Much current legislation is still in great need of improvement, as many noble Lords have said. Without this House's role of revising and scrutinising legislation, that legislation would he a great deal worse.
Secondly, we have the occasional showdown with the other place. I remember one amazing occasion not too long ago when we were all singing in the Lobby—or at least Members on these Benches were, Your Lordships probably all thought that we were mad, but you are not alone in that. This raises a useful function that this House performs. Occasionally—it would be wrong if it were more frequent—the Government are made to fight hard for their legislation and to defend their proposals. In many cases, they do so against arguments that are based on fundamental principles. It would be wrong if the House were deprived of the ability to do that.
My third point involves the debates that we have in this House, which several noble Lords have mentioned. There was a proposal that the arrangements for Wednesdays and Thursdays should be swapped. The suggestion was that arrangements for Wednesdays are not really terribly important because all we do is debate. Sometimes those of us who take part in such debates go away and think, "That was interesting and good for us. It was stimulating but, for the outside world, what was the point of it? Was it of any value?". Debates in this House are often rational and informed. They are one of the last bastions in this country of something that is important—an affirmation of the value of rational, informed debate. So little of that now goes on outside. The serious newspapers have dumbed down in many ways, so that they are not very different from the Daily Express and the News Chronicle of 30 or 40 years ago. The way in which politics is debated out there on television involves instant opinions on little information, focus group manipulation, instant opinion polls and so on. It is vital to maintain the value and tradition of debate in your Lordships' House.
To my astonishment, I find that a great deal of what is debated here gets noticed out there and sometimes is brought up months after the debate took place. As a North of England person, I have an interest to get back home as soon as possible before a weekend but I am against changing the arrangements for Wednesdays and Thursdays for the reason that I have given. That change would result in the "new" Thursdays being regarded as the fag-end of the week.
To my astonishment, I also find that your Lordships' House is one of the few remaining places in which the Government still have to defend their position on many issues. They are held accountable in the face of what I should call criticism from a broad liberal/Left standpoint. Perhaps we are the last bastion of that. I refer not only to these Benches but also to the

715
Government Benches and the Cross Benches. Indeed, on occasion, the Conservative Front Bench turns out to be taking a more liberal and progressive view of legislation than the Government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I do not suggest that all Conservatives do so. I notice that my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is looking quizzically at me. I willingly except him from the accusation of being Left/liberal! Nevertheless, people have said that some on the Conservative Benches represent the last bastion of the old Liberal/Tory tradition. Long may it continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that we are interested in these matters but asked whether anybody out there was. These are vital matters because the detailed procedures of this House, as part of the British Parliament, involve the basic liberties and rights of Members of the British Parliament to hold the Government to account. I do not suggest that we should go as slowly as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said we had been going during the past 100 years; however, we should move carefully. I believe that the package is modest, evolutionary and reversible and therefore, as a package, I am very happy to support it.
I turn to Thursday morning sittings. I am with my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and not with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones in this regard. I was once described by David Steel, as he then was—my noble friend now—as being a "North of England nationalist". I said, "No, I am not. I am no more a nationalist than you are a Scottish nationalist. My view of the North of England is as your view of Scotland". I have spent my life arguing against people who believe that the institutions of this country should be organised only for those who live and work in London. I do not suggest that we should move Parliament to Harrogate—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I do not suggest that for the moment; and I do not suggest that our arrangements should be only for those living in the North of England. We are simply asking for a bit of give and take.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said that if he could not be here at 11 o'clock on a Thursday, scrutiny would be more difficult. However, it may be that towards the end of business on a Thursday, many Members from the North of England, Scotland, Cornwall or wherever who currently go home early and miss our proceedings will be present and able to scrutinise. Individual Members of this House—myself, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and anyone else—do not necessarily have to be here; the important thing is that enough of us are here and that there is a balance. I am in favour of the proposals for Thursdays. I should go on later than 10 o'clock at night, which is
716
nowadays a bit early to finish. I should go on until 11 o'clock or midnight, but not later than that. However, that is a detail.
The package as a whole is a welcome step forward. As a "North of England non-nationalist but protagonist", I suggest that it is a small step towards a future in which this House is more representative not just of the people in the South East or London but of people from all the regions and nations of this country.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, the hour is relatively late— although possibly not as late as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would like—and we have had a long debate, so I shall try to be brief.
I find this package eminently sensible. I also find the proposals, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, extremely reasonable. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House made the case for the package eloquently and persuasively. There is little that I can add at this hour. Many other noble Lords, on all sides of the House, have made a similarly positive case.
There is no hidden agenda in the report. It is an honest attempt to improve our working practices to the benefit of the whole House and—dare I say it—Parliament as a whole. If there is any hidden agenda, I suggest that it is to be found not on these Benches but somewhere else.
We will have plenty of time to discuss all of the proposals in detail when, as I hope, the proposal is agreed and the Procedure Committee comes back at a later date. At this late stage of our debate, I shall say no more about the substance of the report except to express a certain relief and pleasure that among the excellent recommendations is the call for a thorough review of the House's scrutiny of European legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, that is urgently needed; I totally agree with him.
As a next step, it strikes me as wholly logical and businesslike to remit the report as it stands to the Procedure Committee with an instruction to come up with detailed proposals by 8th July on the implementation of the package so that the House has an early opportunity to debate the proposals fully and to vote on them. Equally logical and businesslike is the proposed trial period of two Sessions. That means that changes in our working practices are not immediately set in stone but can be revisited in the light of two Sessions of practical experience. On that basis, any suggestion that the proposals are being rammed down the throats of noble Lords would be totally absurd.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham—a person for whom I have both respect and affection. The report's proposals comprise 14 points. As noble Lords may recall, some 85 years ago President Woodrow Wilson produced a rather more famous list of 14 points. Of them, Georges Clemenceau said:
"They bore me. Even God Almighty had only ten".
I should love to think that the noble Lord's amendment was motivated either by mere boredom

717
with the recommendations or by a simple complaint that there are four too many. I am afraid that that is not the case. Like the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and, I believe, probably the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and a number of others, I was brought up on Hymns Ancient and Modern. But I did not make a personal mantra of the famous line:
"Change and decay in all around I see".
However, I am afraid that that is not the case in relation to some noble Lords in this House. Change is not to be equated with decay. Change is regeneration and it is life. That is what we are talking about: the regeneration and the life of your Lordships' House.
Agreement to the amendment would risk unnecessary delay, and that carries with it the risk that this House would be seen as delaying changes on the mere supposition that they might not work rather than putting them early to a practical test to see whether they can work.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to give way for a moment. Can he explain how, if the House sits for less time, it can provide greater scrutiny?
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I understand that the whole purpose of the proposals is not that the House should sit for fewer hours; their purpose is simply to bring about a redistribution of the time in which we sit. I honestly believe that that was the intention of the recommendations, and I welcome them.
That, and particularly, if I may say so, the very negative line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, hardly squares with what I perceive to he the prevailing consensus in this House; that is, that improvements in our practices are needed to enhance not only our efficiency but also the quality of our working life and that those improvements are long overdue.
Whatever the effect of the amendment, it certainly cannot lend impetus to the process of change, without which we shall remain hobbled by practices which simply do not match the demands of a House which is in the process of modernisation.
Herbert Samuel once, rather unfairly I believe, complained that with the Civil Service there was always,
"a difficulty for every solution".
That could perhaps be more fairly applied today to those who would frustrate progress on this entirely sensible and timely set of proposals. If the noble Lord, Lord Denham, insists on dividing the House, I shall certainly vote against the amendment.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I fear that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House may have been painfully aware of the fact that, when I joined his committee, I did so in a somewhat gloomy and grumpy frame of mind. I had the gravest doubts as to whether a Leader's committee was the right body to consider change. I had the gravest doubts as to whether it was
718
the right time to consider change, when second stage reform was in the offing. And, looking at what had happened in the House of Commons, I believed that I had every reason to be suspicious when the Leader of the House seemed to think that change was necessary.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to mock those of us who are suspicious of change, but he should go down to the other end of this building to see what change has done there. In the Commons drastic change has taken place in the name of modernisation: change which has drastically curtailed debate; change which has made life easier for the Members and much easier for the Government; and change which has almost completely destroyed the effectiveness of the place. If anyone doubts that, they should ask themselves what would have happened if, when we took the terrorism legislation through this place, the same restrictions on debate had applied here as applied in the House of Commons. No proper consideration of that legislation would have taken place at all. The Commons have made complete fools of themselves and have allowed the Government to make fools of the people. And — I must say this to the House—I did not want us to make fools of ourselves.
But the committee met and we found that we were able to work together. We came to the conclusion that it was only common sense for us to try to find issues on which we could all agree. The result is a report which is a compromise. One proposal which might advantage the Government is balanced against another which might not. For example, carry-over would occur only if pre-legislative scrutiny took place, and there would be more use of Grand Committees, but not to give the Government even more time to introduce bad legislation.
Perhaps I may deal with just four of the proposals. First, I turn to carry-over. I can tell noble Lords that I should never have agreed to carry-over had it not been linked to pre-legislative scrutiny. Almost every person today has said that pre-legislative scrutiny is a good idea. Here is an incentive to the Government to provide for it. It goes without saying that we were not agreeing to token pre-legislative scrutiny, with the committee setting a ridiculously tight timetable for reporting. Therefore, it will mean that several months will elapse from the publication of a consultative document on a draft Bill to the committee reporting, and the whole legislative process will he considerably extended. Therefore, it does not mean an easy ride for the Government. Indeed, I have my doubts as to whether, in reality, the Government will be able to proceed on the basis that virtually every Bill will have pre-legislative scrutiny.
We tried to strike the same type of balance in relation to the use of Grand Committees. I want to emphasise to noble Lords that the report recommends a greater use of Grand Committees; it does not recommend that many more Bills go to Grand Committee. It does not recommend—here I must correct the Leader of the House if I heard him aright in his opening speech—that the type of Bill envisaged by Rippon should go to Grand Committee; it

719
recommends that additional Bills of the type envisaged by Rippon should go to Grand Committee. To me, that signifies "some" more Bills.
But, even with a 10 o'clock cut-off, it is clear that simply a few more Bills going to Grand Committee will mean that more time is available on the Floor of the House. That is not to be used for even more badly prepared legislation but for more debates—debates on Select Committee reports and general debates.
As to the 10 o'clock cut-off, at no time did the committee envisage that that would mean less time for Bills taken on the Floor and less time for Bills which went to Grand Committee. At no time did anyone on the committee—least of all the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—suggest that a 10 o'clock cut-off would imply some type of timetabling. Nothing of that kind is mentioned in the report, and I should never have agreed to a cut-off if there had been any such suggestion. The Government are honour bound—I know that they will proceed on that basis—to ensure that Bills receive the same time as they do now.
So far as concerns starting at 11 o'clock on Thursdays, I consider that to be a reasonable solution to a problem recognised on all sides. There was some unhappiness about the decision not to switch the business on Wednesdays and Thursdays. We all considered that it was far too early to readdress that issue. But this is a different way of approaching the very real feelings of those who, in particular, live a long way from London and have a hard time if there is important business on Thursday and the House sits until late in the evening.
With regard to recesses, I believe that recommendation 31(1) is a little unhappily worded. We did not discuss longer recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun. However, we did agree that, if the House of Commons rose at the beginning of July and returned in September, we should be wise to follow suit. The same applied in relation to the other recesses.
I do not think much of the suggestion in paragraph (m). I went along with it because my understanding is that from 2003 the House of Commons will sit in September and, as a result of our other recommendations, this House will sit in September. Therefore, the situation of this House not sitting and a Committee sitting on Bills will not arise. That was the only basis on which I agreed with the suggestion that the Leader of the House wanted to put in the report, but which I could see was entirely irrelevant.
I support the recommendations in the report, but in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I say that the Motion before the House means precisely what it says. Clearly the Procedure Committee is entitled to recommend as it thinks fit: it can recommend that the report be implemented or that some parts of the report be implemented and not others. That is that.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I want to take advantage of the gap to
720
make what will be the shortest speech in this debate. I want to add a word about those orphans, consolidation Bills, that the Leader of the House told us in opening were securely locked in a cupboard and no doubt the key has been thrown away. Perhaps I may give your Lordships the figures. In the three Sessions, 1990 to 1993, no fewer than 28 consolidation Bills were enacted. In the three Sessions, 1998 to 2001, only one consolidation Bill was enacted. That information was kindly given to me in a Written Answer by the noble and learned Lord's predecessor. I hope that some working practice can be invented that will cope with the backlog of consolidation Bills.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated and express my gratitude for the evident care and conscientious approach that has been demonstrated. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, summed up our deliberations in a masterly and generous way. He may be wrong about the second part of paragraph (g). I thought I said that,
"(a) the House should normally rise not later than 10pm;
"(b) this should be coupled with greater use of Grand Committees for the kind of bills considered suitable by the Rippon group".
It is in the report. Apart from that I believe that we are in entire agreement.
I believe that we all approached each other with a certain degree of caution, overlain with a certain degree of suspicion. At every meeting it was a pleasure to see how much closer we could get, with everyone having to give and take. I shall not respond to every point because I hope that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the matter and to come to our distinct conclusions. I shall deal with the substance, and then turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has just dealt with consolidated Bills. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Consolidated Bills do not change the law in substance; they pull it together and they are not contentious. They are important. We could carry out useful work. Not every noble Lord would need to be present at a Grand Committee on a consolidation Bill or a Law Commission Bill. The key is that those who wish to be present in September—if we use that opportunity—could attend. There will be no disincentive, no discouragement for anyone else who simply wants to attend for the whole or part of the Session, whether he or she wants to contribute or not.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that I was trying to steam matters through—in my dreams!
Lord Carter: My Lords, in my dreams!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, between my noble friend Lord Carter and I, we have massed behind us quality battalions that amount to just over a quarter of the strength of this House—about 28 or 29 per cent. He and I, with our quality troops, have 25 fewer than

721
the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, so how will we manage to steam anything through? The Liberal Democrats and the Cross-Benchers could vote against us; they have an iron grip on this House. For my part, I see no disadvantage in that. We have to accommodate each other's different views; we have to listen to other people's arguments; and sometimes in a democracy it is salutary that that should occur. It is not for me to say anything about the House of Commons.
I turn to one or two distinct contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for a graceful and informed speech about the problems of European legislation. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his short contribution that reminded us that we are attending to housekeeping and not building the kingdom of God. It is a shame that this will be almost his last appearance; I believe that he is due to retire on 31st May. I shall miss his contributions as I know your Lordships will.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is sometimes said that this is a part-time House. It is not. It is a full-time House that depends significantly upon those who attend part time. We actually work very hard indeed. The Canadian sample, quoted by my noble friend Lord Dubs, is out of date. Compared with any other chamber in the world, the House of Lords is the busiest. Most of the time is spent to the benefit of the public.
I turn to my friend, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who said that with sinking heart he is never quite sure whether I mean what I say. With even more of a sinking heart, I know that when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, speaks he means what he says. Gently and politely as always, he chaffed me by saying that I had said on a number of occasions that our duty is to hold the executive to account. It is. It is absolutely critical to the health of a functioning democracy, particularly when any regime has a large majority in the other place, that someone attempts to hold the Government to account. It is a matter of pure indifference to me—I cannot say this more strongly—whether a strong government is headed by Mr Blair or by Mrs Thatcher. Any democracy requires the checks and the balances that are offered in this place. That does not mean that the way in which we have always worked over the centuries is productive or useful.
The noble Earl asked what was in the package to hold the executive to account. There is pre-legislative scrutiny and scrutiny of secondary legislation that we all agree is not carried out sufficiently well. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that that will have to be approached with great subtlety and care, but we could carry out the work that presently lies undone. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, made observations about the scrutiny of European legislation. That may be holding to account an executive that may not necessarily be domestically based, but nevertheless the work needs to be done.
722
It is not for me to say—but I shall—that Question Time offers a marvellous opportunity, particularly in relation to topical questions, to challenge Ministers, to bring them to account and occasionally to see whether or not they may be induced into an embarrassing pitfall.
On the matter of debates in prime time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the voice of Back-Benchers should be heard. The proposal is that there should be more prime-time debates for Back-Benchers on Wednesdays and that the committee reports that are so important should also be debated in prime time. That is my reply to my friend, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who asked me where the material is upon which this House may further, more effectively, more diligently, challenge the executive and bring it to account.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can answer better the question that I asked his noble friend Lord Grenfell: how will the House of Lords provide better scrutiny if it finishes work earlier and sits fewer days?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two answers to that question. I shall deal with each of them. First, a blunt calculation of what hours are spent in the Chamber or in committees is not a true indicator of the way we do our work.
Secondly, there is no contemplation—the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is absolutely right—that we should sit less. Indeed,if we sit in September and take longer holidays at other times of the year, the proposal is—and it is plainly implied, if not explicit, in the report—that we should sit the same amount of time. What we will be able to do is to go home at a sane hour, such as 10 o'clock, sit more sensible hours, such as 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. on Thursdays, and have the great advantage, with the disbenefits to governments if departments do not get their Bills in order, of pre-legislative scrutiny allied to Grand Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right. If pre-legislative scrutiny becomes the norm, then carry-over of Bills is linked to it. But he is right in saying that if there is no pre-legislative scrutiny there will not be the consequential understanding that carry-over will be available. I stress—and it is worth looking at the text—that carry-over will be available only if the House agrees. I repeat, my noble friend Lord Carter and I have 28 per cent of the vote. So if we were conspirators we should be in the unsuccessful class of Guy Fawkes rather than in the successful—
Lord Naseby: My Lords, why are the two impenetrably linked? Pre-legislative assessment clearly has the support of all the parties in the House. Carryover of Bills has almost nil support, unless there is a specific and agreed basis to go forward The Lord Privy Seal said initially that the two were linked entirely. If he is now saying that it needs the unanimous agreement of all parties in the House, he has shifted his ground a little.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not shifted my ground in the slightest. They are linked because if one has pre-legislative scrutiny, the legislative process for a particular Bill is much longer. In the nature of things, it must be. I have not shifted my ground in any particular. Paragraph 31(b) states:
"subject to the right of the House of Commons to determine its own procedures, hills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the House in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried over".
I repeat, if I were to move such a Motion and your Lordships were against me, that is the end of carryover for that Bill. If we do not behave scrupulously and decently then your Lordships will not agree to carryover. So they are linked, and they are linked in those particular ways.
Perhaps I may mention one matter in passing. With regard to the common watering hole, the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has the matter well in hand. Someone in the People's Republic of China will read that and wonder what it means.
I now turn away from the debate, which has been an excellent debate with different nuances, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. The noble Lord must make his own decision. I hope that he does not press the amendment, but in case he does I must deal with his question. I shall deal with the matter in some detail because it may be that the matter troubles your Lordships.
Originally, I had had set down a draft Motion for future business. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, both wrote to me—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, spoke to me—saying that they were not happy with the original form. Accordingly I wrote to all three with copies to everyone in the group in these terms:
"Further to your letter, I have given some careful thought to the exact form of the Motion to he tabled in my name for 21st May. I do see the points that you raise and I certainly have no wish to provoke hostility. We have come so far in a consensual way, I would like to proceed by consensus if at all possible. I have talked the matter over with the Clerk of the Parliaments and I would like to suggest a compromise wording which Michael Davies advises he would be content with. My suggestion is",
and then it is word for word the Motion here.
"Michael thinks this is a reasonable timetable. I would not like to go on without the group agreeing".
I hope that your Lordships think that that was appropriate. The original Motion may have been too harsh. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked me to rethink the matter. I took advice. The advice was that 8th July would give seven weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked the question: Why did I not bring my report in on time before Christmas? I am expecting—I hope that your Lordships expect—the Procedure Committee to produce its report on time. The answer is plain. We were not working to a defined agenda; it was open-ended. The Procedure Committee is being asked to deal with certain particulars. Not all of these recommendations, I remind your Lordships, require any action by the Procedure Committee.
724
I am not imputing bad motive to anyone. There was a suggestion that the group which I had the privilege to chair could be accused of trying to sneak something through. I am sorry that such words were used. In response I shall say no more than, "Please look at who was in the group before using words of that kind." I put that matter on one side.
We are not trying to sneak anything through. What we are saying is that we now have a decent momentum and dynamic for improvement. Much of that is additional burden on the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, was concerned about the carry-over of Bills. I listened, as I always do, with great care to what he said. But your Lordships will have noted on page 2 of the report that our House has already approved the principle of carry-over. The reference is given in footnote 7 on page 2. I shall not trouble the House by reading it out.
I think that it is reasonable and proportionate and not. I hope, aggressive to ask the House to vote in the terms of my Motion. I recognise the concerns that some noble Lords have, but I believe that we have come a very long way in a spirit of amity and consensus achieved at the 16 meetings. I would ask your Lordships to trust the group and to support my Motion.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he share my noble friend Lord Waddington's interpretation of his Motion?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Motion is perfectly plain. The instruction is, by 8th July, to make recommendations—and I underline the following words—"for approval by the House, as to the implementation of the Report".
All this rests with the House.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. My main concern in this was seeing that the conventions of the House were not disturbed. The two that particularly worried me over this matter were: first, that a take note Motion had an instruction tacked on to it, which has never been done before and is certainly against the spirit of the Companion; and, secondly, it had never been done before and I thought it dangerous to do it on this occasion to set a time limit for the Procedure Committee.
It has been a very friendly debate on the main topics of the report. I do not think that I managed to get a great deal of support among my noble friends and others who spoke to my particular worry over the time limit and the Procedure Committee. I think in that case it would probably be unwise for me to divide the House without support going across the debate. So, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002
8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have returned time and time again in this Chamber to debate how to get the balance right between medical confidentiality and the need to conduct medical research and epidemiological studies. Striking a balance between individual rights and the interests of society more generally is an issue of the greatest importance.
There can be no doubt of the importance of patient confidentiality. We must also be clear that confidential patient information is currently used by the health service to support a wide range of purposes. Those extend well beyond the information sharing needed to support care and treatment. They certainly extend well beyond what patients understand to be the case. Without understanding, there cannot be consent.
The Government are committed to openness and to developing relationships between service providers and service users based on trust, partnership and informed consent. We must recognise that that represents a considerable challenge. For many years, the NHS has been run along paternalistic lines, with managers and clinicians making decisions about what is best for patients with little or no input from patients and their families.
Confidential medical records have been rightly seen as a valuable resource—to be protected, yes, but also to be exploited for the wider public good. Indeed, much good has come from that. We need to bring services in line with the expectations of patients, with the requirements of law and with the high standards that we have set as our goals. We need to put in place systems and processes that support the scientific community and deliver a public good while respecting patients' rights and preferences.
But it is important to acknowledge that it will take time to implement those changes. We cannot simply stop medical research or clinical audit, abandon all the valuable work on cancer that is underway or leave aside our responsibilities to monitor and sustain public health while we take time out to build systems and devise ways of working that meet the standards that we now know should apply. We have yet to determine whether we can support every key activity through consent procedures or new anonymisation techniques. This may not be the case—some very important work may always need the support that the regulations provide. I know that a number of noble Lords who work in medical research fields already believe that to be the case and would prefer stronger support than the regulations provide. But it is only right that every activity is robustly tested clearly to establish genuine need. That itself will take time.
726
So we have to manage change in a way that supports essential activity while the building blocks for improvement are put in place. We cannot risk some of the most important health service work programmes grinding to a halt because they are unable at present to meet required standards. We also do not think it appropriate for NHS staff, who are working hard in the interests of us all, to bear the burden of knowing that they are working without a robust basis in law for what they do.
Those were the key reasons for including Sect ion 60 in the Health and Social Care Act 2001. I remind your Lordships that Section 60 is intended largely as a transitional measure. It will allow essential NHS activities that rely on access to confidential patient-identifiable information to continue while the NHS devises procedures to satisfy the obligations of confidentiality—obligations that we fully accept should apply. Section 60 is driven by health service requirements, with support being provided only to those who can demonstrate both justification and need.
It may be helpful if I summarise the requirements and safeguards introduced by the Health and Social Care Act 2001. They were as follows. Use of the power provided must be approved by Parliament through the affirmative procedure. The Data Protection Act 1998 continues to apply. The activity supported must be a medical purpose. The activity must aim to improve patient care or otherwise be in the public interest. There must be no reasonably practicable alternative way of achieving the medical purpose—with this in mind, there must be an annual review of any regulations laid. An independent statutory watchdog must be created: the Patient Information Advisory Group.
It is important to bear in mind a II those provisions, as the safeguards and requirements introduced through the regulations add to and complement those in the Act. The Patient Information Advisory Group, in particular, has proven to be a conscientious and demanding group, as noble Lords who have read its published advice will be aware. That is a good thing. The group will play an increasingly important and visible part in the work to set things right in respect of confidentiality and consent in the health service.
The group has considered six applications for Section 60 to date and, having also taken note of the responses generated by wider consultation, advised that support be offered to two of them. I shall turn to those in a moment. However, the group also advised the Secretary of State that an application on behalf of all disease registers was too broad in its application and that applications by the Health and Safety Executive, by a renal register and on behalf of a major research project were not clear on the issue of why consent could not be obtained. We have followed the group's advice and rejected those applications.
We are confident that the advisory group will not support any activity that has not been fully justified on the grounds that it is of benefit to patients and the public and that the support of Section 60 will be provided only where it is truly needed.

727
I turn to the regulations. They are essentially in two parts. The first part outlines two specific areas of work that require access to patient-identifiable information where, through consultation and consideration by the independent Patient Information Advisory Group, it has been demonstrated that common law requirements for consent cannot currently be met. The two areas are: the work carried out by cancer registries to monitor the incidence of cancer and measure mortality and survival rates; and work to tackle risks to public health such as the communicable disease surveillance and prevention undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service and other contributing agencies.
I am sure that the House will agree that those are important activities that we should support. Reporting on the future of cancer research, the Science and Technology Select Committee in another place stated in March that,
"unless legislation is put in place swiftly, medical research will be irretrievably damaged".
With regard to communicable disease surveillance, the Public Health Laboratory Service's work to monitor infections such as E.coli and new variant CJD is clearly in the public interest. Dr Diana Walford, Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service has stated:
"These regulations are essential if we are to avoid compromising public health. If our current surveillance systems are damaged, then there is a real danger of unnecessary cases of infectious disease and even deaths".
Professor Sian Griffiths, President of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, said that there is,
"a clear public health justification for the practice of effective communicable disease surveillance".
The second part of the regulations, usually referred to as class support, outlines a small number of potential justifications for limited access to confidential information where it is likely to he impractical to gain consent. The proposals were developed primarily by the Medical Research Council in relation to the needs of researchers and others of whom they have become increasingly aware. Class support is therefore intended to support medical research, but will also be of great value to those engaged in epidemiology and the audit of the care that the NHS provides. The need for such limited support is service-wide and each and every example could not realistically be brought before this House.
Instead, it is proposed that responsibility for approving class support should rest with the Secretary of State, guided appropriately by the independent Patient Information Advisory Group. I will say a little more about the approval process in a moment, because I know that it has been a cause of concern.
Specifically, class support may enable staff to access records in order to remove names and addresses and other identifying details. In the near future, electronic records will be able to do that automatically, but that is not currently the case. The expertise to select
728
appropriate research subjects and the resources effectively to anonymise records are often simply not available locally.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister referred to the removal of addresses. One can see the argument for privacy. It is very strong. What about cases in which the research is into alleged cancer clusters? In that situation, is the address not a material circumstance to the research? How will that dilemma be resolved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised an interesting question. There is no doubt that, in researching some issues, it would be important to consider precise geographical location. The noble Earl mentioned cancer clusters, but one might also want to examine the effects of living close to power lines or landfill sites, for which such information would be relevant.
There is a problem. Even if names and addresses are removed, a postcode might still serve to identify an individual in a rural area or with a rare condition. That is why one needs the kind of class support that is contained in the regulations.
Where the only reason for processing strong identifiers is to enable information from separate sources to be linked—for example, death registration details with health records—or to enable staff to go back to source data to validate information, class support may be required. Where there is a need to monitor the quality of care and treatment, which is vitally important in the overall monitoring of clinical outcomes, the class support in the regulations might help. I stress that class support will be provided only if it is clear that common law obligations cannot be met and that a key aspect of providing such support is the regulation of supported activity, requiring adherence to the code introduced by the regulations. Without support, an activity—whether it is the work of a cancer registry or a major MRC-sponsored research project—may be unable to continue or get under way.
Consultation again resulted in broad support for the proposals, and the Patient Information Advisory Group has agreed to monitor and assist with the process of approving applications for class support. I briefly referred to the approval process a moment ago. The advisory group has been asked to devise the approvals process and will have a central role in it. There have been calls for the advisory group, a body with advisory functions, to be given decision-making powers. That would require primary legislation to achieve and would be unnecessary and undesirable. It would be unnecessary because the Secretary of State has, in effect, delegated considerable power to the group and has every intention of acting on its advice. It would be undesirable because accountability should remain with the Secretary of State. We reached a similar conclusion in our debates only 12 months ago about Section 60, with its careful balance between many different issues.
There has been a certain amount of speculation about what the regulations may permit. Much of it is based on a somewhat exaggerated interpretation of the

729
regulations, possibly because the safeguards in Section 60 have been overlooked. I shall take the opportunity of laying to rest some of the principal concerns. First, the regulations are driven by health service needs. The suggestion that Ministers may use the powers to snoop through health records is both offensive and untrue. A key requirement of the regulations is that only health professionals or those with equivalent obligations of confidentiality doing work for one of the medical purposes set out in the regulations are permitted access to confidential patient information. Ministers are not, nor are civil servants. It will be only health professionals or others bound by equivalent duties of confidence. That would almost certainly mean contractual obligations, tied closely to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
The purposes that may be supported include work on cancer, work on risks to public health, work to make records anonymous, work to identify and contact people to gain their consent, the analysis of geographical data such as postcodes, record linkage and validation, clinical audit and monitoring of healthcare provision. It will happen only if it is not reasonably practicable to rely on consent or anonymous data, only if items of information that identify patients are kept to the minimum and only if appropriate standards of security, transparency and commitment to improvement are met.
The regulations replace common law obligations with a code that, although permissive—or, in exceptional circumstances relating to cancer work or public health risks that may require disclosure of confidential information for supported purposes—is more prescriptive than the common law. The substitution of a regulatory code for the common law is an important safeguard for patients. The Data Protection Act 1998 served to enforce the common law duty of confidence, and it will, when the regulations are in place, serve to enforce adherence to the code.
The regulatory code is more direct and includes a power to fine those who fail to adhere to its requirements. Suggestions that the power to fine might be directed at doctors asked to disclose information for supported purposes are wide of the mark. Requirements could be imposed to support cancer work or the tackling of communicable disease—an epidemic—but it is extremely unlikely that a doctor would hesitate to comply in such circumstances. Regulations requiring the notification of certain diseases and infections have been in place for many years, and I am unaware of any doctor raising objections. Nor is it likely that a fine would be the appropriate response to non-compliance in such circumstances. I suspect that it might be an issue of professional misconduct to be discussed and considered by the General Medical Council.
I recognise that there has been concern about potential conflict arising for doctors between ethics and the law. The first point that I would like to make is that doctors have been disclosing information for those purposes for years, recognising the importance of the work that they support. It is only recently that awareness of the law has changed matters. Secondly, I
730
will make it clear that, unless—exceptionally—a requirement to disclose is introduced, doctors are free to respect any objections that a patient may raise.
I shall be particularly interested to hear the reasons why the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has tabled his amendment. I have some concerns about the wording, particularly the use of the word "paramount", which is consistent with Section 60. However, I understand the need to get the balance right. I take seriously concerns about patient confidentiality, just as I take seriously the concerns of those who need access to patient information to do critically important health service work. Section 60 and the regulations get the balance right. They are for the good of the health service and, more importantly, serve the public interest. I commend the draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howerose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert, "subject only to Her Majesty's Government undertaking that they will protect the continuing work of cancer registries and protect the public from communicable diseases with the minimum infringement of patient confidentiality and that in all other circumstances patient confidentiality should remain paramount".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is difficult to explain in a few minutes the full enormity of the regulations and to set out the long list of reasons why I tabled the amendment. However, I shall try my best.
With the warmest respect from those of us on these Benches, I say to the Minister that his speech puts a gloss on the statutory instrument that it does not deserve. Almost every argument that the Government have used to justify the provisions in the SI relies on part truth, wholesale omission and an absence of clarity on key points. My position can be summed up at the outset: I do not think that such an approach is satisfactory or acceptable for such a serious and sensitive matter. The least that Parliament is entitled to is clarity about what is in front of us. I hope that, when he comes to sum up, the Minister will comment fully on the points that I shall make.
I shall start with what, I hope, is a self-evident truth. The relationship between a doctor and his patient is founded on trust. A doctor cannot treat a patient properly unless he knows that he is being given all the material facts with complete frankness. Patients will be disposed towards such frankness only if they know that whatever is said in the doctor's surgery remains strictly confidential.
If there is a need for the doctor to disclose to a third party confidential information about the patient, there is one commonly accepted basis for him doing so: obtaining the patient's prior informed consent. Any proposals to deviate from the norm of strict doctor-patient confidentiality and informed patient consent require the tightest possible justification. In the

731
statutory instrument we are considering we are offered two such justifications above all others. The first is that there is an overriding need for named patient data to be made available to cancer registries. The second is that named patient data are required for the control of communicable diseases and certain types of essential research.
Cancer registries perform an important, indeed, essential public service. I do not contend that their work should be threatened or brought to an end. It is, however, possible to have a debate about whether they could function satisfactorily if they were restricted to collecting data released with the informed consent of cancer patients. Much as I believe that more could be done to minimise the need for data about cancer patients to be disclosed in the absence of consent, I do not intend to argue that issue today.
Nor do I intend to argue against the proposition that named patient data are a necessary prerequisite for the proper surveillance of communicable disease. We are likely to hear from distinguished noble Lords opposite how vital the regulations are for the continued work of the Public Health Laboratory Service. Let there be no argument between us about that. The argument between us centres on different issues. The Government assert that the regulations respect the principle of informed consent; that they are tightly drawn; that they conform with human rights and other legislation; and that they are in patients' interests. I intend to show that none of those assertions holds water.
The Explanatory Memorandum states—and the Minister confirmed this today:
"The regulations will apply where confidential patient information is processed … in circumstances where it is either not practicable at the present time, or not appropriate, to seek the consent of the patient to whom information relates."
Nothing in either the regulations or in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 draws that distinction. It is absolute bunk for the Government to assert that the regulations safeguard the principle of informed consent to the maximum possible extent: they ignore it.
Legally, neither a research ethics committee nor the Secretary of State is obliged to approve research applications only in circumstances where all efforts have been made to obtain patient consent or achieve anonymisation. No attempt is made in the regulations to make informed consent the preferred option for disclosures required for audit and analysis purposes.
The position is yet more open-ended, because not only is the patient's consent unnecessary, but also there is no need to notify the patient that identifiable data relating to him have been used in that way. In a speech to the King's Fund in January, the Secretary of State said,
"Above all else, for trust to thrive there has to be informed consent. Not a tick-in-the-box consent regime but consent that is based on discussion and dialogue. Where consent is actively sought and positively given".
732
To put it bluntly, that is merely a lot of words. The regulations, in keeping with the Cabinet Office proposals for information-sharing, run in the opposite direction. It is not as if the information, once released, is to be confined to health professionals. Regulation 3(3)(c) makes it clear that anyone,
"employed or engaged by a Government Department or other public authority in communicable disease surveillance",
may process—that is to say, gain access to—confidential patient information. That covers a huge range of people: public officials, statisticians, government employees, contractors and sub-contractors, none of whom need be health professionals. What information will they be entitled to? We do not know.
Regulation 3(1)(a) sets out one of the purposes of unconsented disclosure; namely, diagnosing communicable diseases. The sentence does not stop there; it continues:
"and other risks to public health".
In other words, there is no limit to the type of confidential information that could be required. No wonder the RCN, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Patients Association, the National Association of Nurses for Contraception and Sexual Health and the Mental Aftercare Association—to name only some—have expressed extreme concern about the regulations.
If, for example, sexual and mental health services are seen by the public as having even the potential to throw patient confidentiality to the four winds, they will run the risk of collapse. Patients will not trust them; some will refrain from using them and in so doing put their health at risk. One has to ask why the Government have seen fit to create uncertainty and doubt where there need be neither. The phrase,
"other risks to public health",
adds nothing to the power to monitor communicable diseases, but opens the provision to misuse in respect of other illnesses.
Grave concern has also been expressed about the regulations' legality. Regulation 2(1)(e) provides for the processing of information for the purpose that it is required for the counselling and support of a person, yet section 60(5) of the Health and Social Care Act prohibits regulations on the processing of patient information.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that when we last debated the issue no one would have considered discussing the symptoms of anthrax under risks to public health, whereas now we might do so; and that other such cases might occur in the future?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is already a set of regulations enabling the Government to deploy emergency powers in the event of an outbreak of communicable disease. I do not know whether anthrax would be covered, but, if the noble Earl's point is valid, why have the Government chosen this course instead of making such conditions notifiable? That would

733
have been the easy way round. It is not necessary to include a blanket phrase to catch every eventuality such as that in the regulations.
Section 60(5) of the Health and Social Care Act prohibits regulations on the processing of patient information for determining the care and treatment to be given to individuals. Counselling and support are a form of care. The regulations appear therefore to be ultra vires.
Regulation 8 provides that a person who does not comply with a requirement under the regulations may be subject to a civil penalty. The Secretary of State determines non-compliance and the level of penalty. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a list of procedural safeguards which apply in criminal proceedings. "Criminal" has its own meaning in ECHR law and can include charges which in UK law are regarded as civil. Lawyers have expressed to me the opinion that if the civil penalty in Regulation 8 is criminal under European law, as they believe it to be, none of the Article 6 safeguards is provided for and the regulations do not therefore comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.
The primary reason for my amendment is not to give expression to legalistic doubts but to emphasise in the strongest possible terms the primacy of a key principle of medical ethics and practice. The principle of confidentiality between doctor and patient is upheld for a good reason; the good of the patient. That principle has now been lost sight of.
The breadth and generality of the powers in the order mean one thing; the dignity and privacy of the individual is being subordinated to the administrative convenience of the NHS. That convenience extends to giving the Secretary of State the power to instruct any health professional to divulge individual patient data, even against the express wishes of the patient. It also extends to giving the Secretary of State a power, without due process of law, to impose a substantial fine on those who do not comply with the terms of the order. The practice within the NHS of free and easy sharing of medical records without consent, far from being prohibited, is instead being sanctified and legalised. I deplore that.
At the moment, patients in Britain are legally entitled to decide on who may and who may not have access to their personal medical records. With the approval of this order, that entitlement is being transferred to the Secretary of State. I believe that we cannot allow that event to pass without making the most emphatic possible statement in defence of patient choice and patient confidentiality. That is why I have tabled my amendment and it is for that reason that I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert, "subject only to Her Majesty's Government undertaking that they will protect the continuing work of cancer registries and protect the public from communicable diseases with the minimum infringement of patient confidentiality and that in all other circumstances patient confidentiality should remain paramount".—(Earl Howe.)
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, Britain has had an outstanding record in clinical research since atleast the 1920s and that has been based on the use of patient information on a scale not easily achievable in other countries. The assumption which doctors made before the war was that any information about their voluntary hospital patients or their local infirmary patients could be used for research purposes. It was the same assumption which ran through the assumption that out-patient facilities needed no curtains, screening one patient from another. That ethos carried on into the NHS and yet that approach has enabled the disease registries to grow up and public health surveillance to take place.
That ethos has changed. Post Alder Hey, one cannot make such assumptions. Somehow, we have to balance the needs of society as a whole in terms of public health and protect the rights of individual patients to confidentiality. The Government brought forward a measure in the Health and Social Care Bill 2001 to try to clarify matters. Our concern then was that the Secretary of State was taking too much power into his hands. We put forward the proposal of a Patient Information Advisory Group to advise the Secretary of State on this matter and to which the Secretary of State must pay attention.
With the support of this House we prevailed and the Patient Information Advisory Group was established. Slowly, with no apparent sense of urgency of the matter, months passed while PIAG was set up. Despite the fact that the Act passed in the spring, the members of PIAG were not agreed until Christmas. It has had time to meet only twice prior to now.
Despite that, it has already made its mark. As we have heard, it considered five applications for approval under Section 60 of the Act, approved that from the Public Health Laboratory Service—I commend the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, on the sterling work of his service—and that of the cancer registries. It turned down three others, including, I understand, one from the Department of Health itself as well as one from the Health and Safety Executive. Therefore, those who said to me last year that there was no point setting up the group because it would have no teeth have been proved wrong.
We seem to have given birth to a fine, flourishing bouncing baby which, like any other baby, shows every sign of having a major impact on those around it. And, continuing the metaphor, we must ensure that the baby is fed, watered and allowed to flourish because it has already played a vital part and must continue to do so.
We must recognise that we are in a period of transition. We need to promote a change of culture in the health service, and here GPs will surely play a key part, asking patients early on for permission to use information which no doubt will usually be very straightforwardly given. Of course, we need to develop to anonymise and pseudonomise data.

735
We do not yet know how the regulations will work out. Nevertheless, we know we need to move away from the paternalistic system which has held sway up to now. It was not some heavenly place where all was well. These regulations and the section of the Act which preceded them have been greeted with concern both from medical researchers, who feel fettered, distrusted and stymied in their research, and from those who are concerned about the rights and liberties of the individual and who feel that this trespasses on that. So perhaps a reasonable balance has been struck.
But let us look at their concerns. Medical researchers feel distrusted. They feel there is no certainty that the research they start can be continued if policy changes. They need stability, clarity and continuity. We should therefore keep open the possibility that there might in future need to be primary legislation to clarify this whole area. But of one thing I am certain: there would be no easy agreement on the shape of that legislation.
Meanwhile, they feel very strongly that these regulations must go through. Thus the Association of Medical Research Charities argues that,
"further delay by Parliament will lead to a loss of valuable data and research opportunities and have a negative effect on our efforts to improve human health".
The GMC states that it supports the regulations as a temporary measure. Noble Lords who remember last year's debates will remember that the GMC was not happy until the Patient Information Advisory Group was set up. Cancer Research UK argues that:
"Since September 2002 cancer registration in this country has been at risk following guidance from the General Medical Council issued to doctors. Cancer Research UK believes that these draft regulations will help solve the problem in the short term and allow for incidences of cancer to be reported to the registries".
We must pay attention to those views. We should and must bear in mind the enormous advances in understanding that have been promoted by researchers into medicine. We must also bear in mind that the past is not littered with court cases from aggrieved patients who have felt that their confidentiality has been abused. Far from it. We must remember that there is such a thing as society and that in some cases it is more important to look at society's needs than the apparent needs of an individual.
However, on the other side there are questions. The system has clearly been too lax in the past and those who have been concerned about the rights of the individual are surely right to he concerned about the release of any information without informed consent. A system based on consent has to be the way forward.
We were concerned last year at the Secretary of State's powers in this area. That is why we fought so hard for the Patient Information Advisory Group and that is why we are so pleased that in the end we prevailed. We remain concerned about the role of the Secretary of State. It would be nice for all concerned, not least for the Secretary of State, to take him out of the equation. The role of the Secretary of State must be scrutinised to try to ensure that the process is as independent as possible and seen to be so.
736
I stated last year when we proposed the establishment of a statutory advisory committee that it should not sit muzzled in the background. The Secretary of State should refer any proposed regulations to the committee and the committee must make recommendations on them. If, after receiving the report of the committee, the Secretary of State lays before Parliament any regulations, he must accompany these with a copy of the committee's report and a statement showing the extent to which he has given effect to the committee's recommendations. If in any respect he has not given effect to its recommendations, he should give the reasons for his actions.
We did not get quite all of that, but the Minister assured us that the advice would be published and that he would say to what extent he had taken that advice. Well, yes, the advice was published—in a hard-to-find Department of Health website. Given that it would get out anyway, I do not see why it needed to be buried there. It is not adequate; it is not what we expected, and it is not what we expect in the future. I trust that the Minister can reassure us on the matter. His advice should be published in a more public form than simply on a Department of Health website, and should contain advice on what new regulations should he put forward and the reaction to government draft regulations, as well as to monitoring.
We also expect PIAG to meet with sufficient frequency to be able to give full consideration to applications and to form robust advice. Although the group has met only twice, it appears that it has managed to do that; however, we should like to know whether, having met only twice, the group felt that that was satisfactory.
We should like to know whether PIAG believes that the regulations are completely in keeping with its advice, and, if not, in what way.
I wish to be reassured that the expectation is that PIAG will continue to play a full and public part in this area. I am sympathetic to the idea that medical researchers need consistency, clarity and continuity if they are to undertake long-term projects. I ask that PIAG address that question to see if that too can be provided—within the need to evolve a more consensual approach.
I should like PIAG to report on how matters have operated when we come to review them next year, and to publish its findings to inform our debates.
Given that the regulations are meant to be temporary, until more permanent solutions are devised, I should like to know how the initial experience is to be evaluated and I urge that PIAG should have a key role to play here.
On some more general points, I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on how the regulations and the Information Commissioner's newly published guidance on the use and disclosure of medical data fit with each other. I should also like to know what steps the NHS is taking to anonymise data. These regulations relate to the control of information within the National Health Service. Does the Minister believe that the data protection rules adequately cover

737
information generated outside the health service? Will he also explain how co-ordination will be pursued with the authorities of Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Will the noble Lord comment on the status of Regulation 5 on the granting of generic dispensations by classes of research, given that such detail has been given to cancer registries and public health bodies? What will be the circumstances under which the Secretary of State approves research under this regulation? What advice does he take, and does PIAG come fully into play?
Regulation 6 seems to imply that the Secretary of State has discretion to make, or not to make, an entry in the register. Please will the Minister clarify that? In addition, will the nation-wide clearing service data flows be applying for Section 60 permission?
In conclusion, we do not support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The cancer registries and public health are covered in the regulations. We do not believe that the amendment can be justified, given the whole range of useful research that could be swept aside if it were to be passed. I point again to the fact that the Data Protection Act, the Health and Social Care Act and the Patient Information Advisory Group form part of a tightening, not a loosening, of procedures. There is no golden age to return to, except perhaps for researchers to pursue their researches unfettered, as they did previously—largely to the benefit of patients. We have to move forward and recognise the importance of research. We must not simply chuck out the baby with the bath-water as we seek to balance patients' rights and the public good.
For me, the Patient Information Advisory Group, approved by your Lordships last year and now in full operation, can help us through. The assurances that I seek from the Minister are mostly on the role that he anticipates it will play in the future.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said resonates strongly with me—especially her reference to babies! It seems that almost everyone agrees with the two propositions that important research has to be done and that patients' trust and confidentiality should be protected. But therein lies the difficulty. Section 60 recommendations are attacked on the one hand by those who believe that confidentiality will be betrayed, and on the other by those who, like me, believe that research will be inhibited.
I must declare a number of interests as chairman of the board of the Public Health Laboratory Service, as scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, and as vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences. So I am up to my neck in this area.
Getting the balance right has not been easy, but a balance has to be struck. I argued during the debate on the Bill last year that Section 60 procedures involved such a tortuous and prolonged process, with so many hurdles aimed at safeguarding patients' rights, that it
738
effectively inhibited the research that it was designed to allow. I still believe that it is heavy-handed and bureaucratic, but now, at long last, we have the opportunity to agree that at least the specific types of research described in the regulations can be allowed to continue.
These regulations have not suddenly been dreamt up by officials out of the blue. They come at the end of a long vetting process: first, the Patient Information Advisory Group (PIAG), which has heavy legal, ethical and patient group representation on it and which has a keen interest in protecting patients' interests, has thoroughly reviewed the classes of research put to it. I understand that it turned down several proposals but accepted two which it thought so carefully constructed and safe that it could allow them to go to the next step of public consultation. The proposals were submitted to a long list of bodies and individuals for a period of consultation and, having survived that process, were recommended to the Secretary of State, and now to Parliament. It has taken eight months to arrive at this point—eight months during which some research, of which I could give a number of examples, has been delayed and frustrated, and public health, I believe, placed in jeopardy.
We should place these regulations in perspective. They apply to a very limited set of circumstances. Despite much of what has appeared in the press about the lack of constraints on confidential information, the constraints are clear and considerable—some might argue, too considerable.
The regulations do not apply to the vast majority of research where consent can and indeed has to be obtained— there is no getting away from that—or where data cannot be attributed to any individuals; that is, the patients are anonymous. Indeed, among the many criteria which applications to the PIAG have to fulfil is a full explanation of why consent cannot be obtained or why the data cannot be made anonymous. Both have to be fully justified. That is the base-line from which all else follows. So we have a very limited but very important sub-set of research activities to which the regulations apply; namely, research where consent or anonymity cannot be obtained or guaranteed.
The other constraints apply to the question of who can do the research, and how, and who can handle the data—points to which I shall return. The particular classes of activity covered in the regulations are research depending on cancer registries and the work of the PHLS in tracing sources of outbreaks of infectious disease.
I shall give examples of the sort of work that would be covered by the regulations. The first relates to research on data derived from patients sometime in the past when it is no longer possible to locate those patients to seek their consent because they have moved or died. Even setting about finding those patients to obtain their consent is not possible because a researcher is not allowed access to names or addresses even to seek consent. The finding that cancer of the lung was associated with smoking would not have been

739
possible without Sir Richard Doll being able to refer back to patients with lung cancer to ask about their smoking habits.
If today researchers wanted to pursue the idea that patients with cancer of the colon ate certain foods that might have contributed to their cancer, they would only be able to do so if the regulations are passed. The researchers would also require the additional approval of a research ethics committee, as they have always had to do.
Another example is PHLS work, where workers have to trace the sources of outbreaks of infectious disease, where speed is of the essence. Laboratory staff detecting an infection should be able to alert the PHLS and consultants in communicable disease control immediately—not be constrained by having to seek the consent of patients, who may not be easily reachable. Hitherto, no one in their right mind objected to the sharing of that type of information among professionals with strict codes of confidentiality. While as an individual patient, I am keen to make sure that my confidences are protected, I am equally clear as an individual member of the public that I want to be protected from infectious disease and I want safe, rapid and effective systems to be in place.
In the important field of post-immunisation surveillance, it may be suspected that a rare or unusual disease is attributable to some vaccine or other. Gulf War syndrome or autism and M MR always rear their head. It has been possible to exclude a causal relationship between them. There are several other examples of surveillance which are not research but which are threatened unless we pass the regulations.
Much has been made of the powers of the Secretary of State. I can leave it to my noble friend the Minister to defend the Secretary of State. Confidential information about patients cannot be demanded by the Secretary of State. Confidential data can only be handled by professionals with a duty of confidentiality—and, in the context of research, only after research ethics committee approval. It seems unlikely that an ethics committee would give the Secretary of State approval. The thought of the Secretary of State demanding to see case notes beggars belief and would not be allowed under the regulations. Nor would any of his officials be permitted to see them.
Without the regulations, it would not even be possible to process information about patients so that they could no longer be identified—to anonymise the data. If the regulations are not passed, that would have the perverse effect of inhibiting the process by which patients' identities could be protected.
Many of us have been sent papers warning of the dangers to patients of passing the regulations. Can anyone point to a patient or a member of the public who has ever been harmed in any way by researchers using data from cancer registries or the work of the PHLS in its efforts to detect sources of outbreaks? I doubt it. Such activities will undoubtedly be threatened if we do not agree to the instrument.
740
Much as I dislike the bureaucratic path we had to take to reach this point, now that we are here it is vitally important to accept the proposals. I hope that we can make the process more workable. To reject the regulations would put a block on research by research ethics committees. Microbiology labs would be unwilling to report infections. The public would hardly be able to understand why we had compromised their safety.
The noble Earl's amendment would take us right back to where we were before debating Section 60 during the passage of the Bill. The amendment would immediately obviate the possibility of other epidemiological research on any data held in disease registries—all of which would, under the current circumstances provided for in the regulations, have to be vetted by PIAG set up specifically for the purpose of examining such cases thoroughly, using the strict criteria previously discussed.
The possibility of linking Rey's syndrome—a nasty and unusual disease in children—with aspirin ingestion would have been made impossible. The prospect of finding a possible but as yet unknown environmental or infectious cause for rare childhood illnesses such as leucodystrophy would be obviated. There are many other examples.
Although Section 60 is tedious for researchers, it is a thorough process. Coupled with the need for research ethics committee approval, it provides strong safeguards for patients. It is difficult to know what could take its place as a more thorough process if we are to allow any such research to be undertaken. It would be a sad, bad day for medical research and patients if we took the route proposed in the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has dealt most eloquently with the issues surrounding research, so I shall not revisit them. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, dealt with the Patient Information Advisory Group. I shall confine my remarks to cancer intelligence and surveillance units and medical ethics.
It is important to note that the cancer registries that appear to be the focus of some of the debate have been desperate for a statutory instrument to be introduced. The problem that these units have faced in recent years is that they have not been able to obtain complete data. I am most grateful to Dr John Steward for providing me with the confidentiality policy of The Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. I declare an interest, as Dr Steward is employed by the same NHS trust as me—which is the guardian of the cancer registry for Wales.
It is worth noting that no cancer registry has breached the confidentiality of the information entrusted to it. There is no history of irresponsible registries but of registries desperate to obtain data and validate them. In recent years, pathology laboratories became frightened of disclosing diagnostic data on specimens, fearing that they would be in breach of the

741
law. Consequently, 5 to 10 per cent of data were lost to registries. In addition, the ability to quality assure the data that were being notified was also lost. There is a need to cross-check clinical data against the histological diagnosis from pathology laboratories. That quality control makes sure that the data held by the registries are as accurate as they can be. Without that accuracy, the information that flows from the registries potentially becomes less meaningful. Some information might almost be meaningless. Registries strive hard to obtain complete sets of data that are as accurate as possible. They need information such as postcode data to identify and track clusters.
Registries have several key roles. They are not just repositories of descriptive statistics. Registries are able to inform commissioning by providing comparable data between different parts of the country and varying patterns of disease occurrence. They are able also to monitor outcomes. Registries have a major role in public protection and patient care, directly and indirectly.
We have heard a lot about the focus on research. It is important to remember that cancer registries provided vital information for the entire revision of cancer services under the Calman-Hine report. I declare an interest, as I had the honour of serving on that group.
The legal safeguards are very tight. The data are subject to all the safeguards of personal health information that apply to medical records, including the moral and ethical responsibilities of health professionals, contractual obligations and legal requirements. All registry staff cover all of this at induction and sign an undertaking in their contracts of employment to protect the privacy of the record and abide by the policy. Any visiting academic staff must sign an honorary contract as well. Their ordinary NHS contracts are not adequate. They have to re-declare their commitment to confidentiality. The director and the deputy are registered medical practitioners, and the director is the Caldicott guardian as well as data custodian. It would be serious professional misconduct if there were even a hint of a breach of individual confidentiality in relation to a registry.
A principle of implied consent has been used to obtain data for the registry. It takes a lot of time for a patient to consent to any procedure, and patients who are struggling to come to terms with their diagnosis find it very difficult to take additional information on hoard. However, I am unaware of any patient's information being disclosed against their will when they have said they do not want that information disclosed to a registry. In the case of the trust, patients are informed that there is a registry in Wales. Moreover, printouts from the registry are not secret but are in the public domain. Patients who want to see the cancer statistics can see the ones published by their local registry. The statistics available to the profession and the commissioners are also available to the public.
There are direct benefits to patients in cancer registration. These relate to assuring and improving the quality of care and treatment, monitoring and protecting public health, managing and planning
742
services as well as the matters that we have already heard about in academic research and teaching. The cancer registry itself is a closed office, always under lock and key. The computerised database is secure and subject to the same security policy. Encryption would be welcomed, but the NHS number or other code which could be encrypted as a universal identifier to track and cross-reference data without directly linking it to the patient's name and address is not widely available. However, everyone expects that that will be available eventually.
Finally, I turn to the issue of ethics which has been alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He is quite right to state that confidentiality and trust are paramount within the context of a consultation. However, trust does not relate only to the information disclosed by the patient to the doctor; it is based also on the patient's awareness that the doctor is working in the patient's best interests. Patients trust that they are receiving the best care available and in the competence of the professional they are seeing. They also trust that the professional will refer them to someone else if that person is better equipped or more competent to look after them.
There are five key principles within medical ethics, and confidentiality comes under the principle of autonomy. Other principles are beneficence and non-maleficence—to do good and not to do harm— which are joined and are self-explanatory. We should also consider the principle of justice, as there is a tension between justice in relation to the individual and the healthcare professional's duty to the whole population and to other patients and potential patients. The scope of a decision and its impact on others is another consideration.
These regulations are called for by those who are trying desperately to maintain registries. Evidence from across the United Kingdom has already made it clear that, without such provision, data quality will continue to decline rather than improve, and the general principles of justice and scope will not he fulfilled. I therefore cannot support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I rise reluctantly and briefly to support the regulations. I am reluctant to support the regulations because I have huge respect and admiration for the work and total integrity of my noble friend Lord Howe. Moreover, the debate has revealed the enormous professional knowledge of noble Lords who have spoken. I shall speak not so much as a rank outsider, but as someone who, like everyone else, is involved in health issues.
I believe that we are in danger of addressing this overall issue from the outlook of the 1950s and 1960s. Way back then, people were utterly reluctant even to mention the fact that they had TB in the family because it was regarded as a disease born of poverty, unsanitary conditions and had nutrition. Similarly, cancer was rarely mentioned in the 1970s; it was the big C. My own mother contracted cancer in 1970 and, to her dying day in 1977, never acknowledged the fact. However, the world has moved on a little. I know from personal experience that those suffering from diseases

743
such as TB, cancer and stroke wish more than anything to share information with others so that others may benefit from their experience and from potentially helpful research. They also want to help in the search for a remedy to the disease afflicting them.
Anecdotally, I am one of those who is in the very fortunate position of being the only family member not, so far, to have been struck by cancer. After having four primary cancers in five years, my sister rather wryly said, "Dena, perhaps you ought to go and be tested for the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome which obviously is genetic in our family". I asked what good that would do me. Would I commit hari kari and take my own life, or get into a total depression? I was struck by my sister saying that she wanted people to know about her situation. The more people who know about the effects of the disease the better.
Closer to home was my late husband who suffered a massive stroke about 13 years ago and who died last year. I know that had he been able to contribute to the knowledge—sadly, he could not as he was unable to speak since the stroke happened—he would have been in the forefront of allowing any data about his condition to be made known, so that research could benefit.
We have tried to develop our intellectual attitude from the time when my mother would not say the word "cancer" through to the rest of my family. As I said, my remarks are very personal and anecdotal.
This is not declaring an interest, but I am chairman of our local surgery support group, which has nothing to do with supporting patients, but which is intended to support doctors so that they can assess the facilities available to enable them to conduct their business. I have not consulted them on this because I have come to the debate with my eyes, ears and mind open. They would be at the forefront in saying that we must do whatever we can do to advance the knowledge of those diseases and how they affect people genetically, in clusters, because of lifestyle, or whatever, and that we must give that information to the research bodies.
I declare an interest that I have been involved with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which is now subsumed into the new organisation, Cancer Research UK, which is headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am willing that organisation and anyone involved in it to succeed. We are becoming much more open.
Those of us who are not suffering from cancer at the moment, although I know that there are Members of this House who have done so, would be much more open. We would say, "I don't mind my medical record being available, but I am not too sure that I want it named". That is the issue. We should keep names from the information. There was a question earlier about postcodes, which are unnecessary. If local GPs and consultants can verify that there is a certain number of cases of prostate cancer, strokes, TB, and so on, that will help the people doing the research in the relevant agencies.
744
I support the regulations and I am sorry to tell my noble friend that I cannot support his amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I believe that the regulations should be passed as they stand, benign though the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, appears to be, as always. Your Lordships will remember the debates that we had on what have became Sections 60 and 61 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 as the previous Parliament drew to a close.
The role of the of the Patient Information Advisory Group, or PIAG as it is now called, created by that Act is vital. Section 61 states that
"the Secretary of State shall seek and have regard to the views of the Advisory Group".
We have already heard that in three out of five cases, the Secretary of State has listened to its views and has not allowed certain projects to go ahead. Other noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, described the need for patient information for cancer registration and for monitoring and controlling infectious diseases. The amendment would allow data to be used for those purposes, but, if it were carried, all other use of patient information for research would become largely unobtainable, even if it had the approval of PIAG.
The United Kingdom has an outstanding pioneering record in epidemiology, which depends largely on having the kind of patient information that would be permitted by the regulations, but denied by the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the point of that part of the amendment is that patient consent should be sought if such research were in prospect. It is not to deny research; but patients should consent to personal and identifiable information being disclosed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Turnberg explained how much information cannot be obtained because the patient may have died or moved to an unobtainable or unknown address. Information about them may still be vital to the completion of research. Much of that research, for instance, is now available from the reports of the Registrar General and/or the Office for National Statistics. I refer to mortality and morbidity data which provide such details as place of residence—we have discussed whether that should be a house address or a postcode—social status and occupation at the time of death or of the episode of illness of the patient concerned. If the regulations are rejected, some data collected in general practice and in other specific surveys would become unlawful to collect and use.
Epidemiology started as a tool for identifying and controlling infectious disease. It is now a vital method of determining the association of the chronic noninfectious diseases, which cause the majority of deaths and the greatest burden of morbidity in the community—I am talking about heart disease, stroke, diabetes and hypertension—with other variables which may be important in their causation, for

745
instance, their relation to smoking, social class and other factors such as residence and type of housing or district. Such associations increase our understanding of the aetiology of those diseases and their prevention. If the regulations are rejected, the record linkage mechanism first set up by Professor Donald Acheson in Oxford (which is vital in this kind of research) will be endangered.
The professor of cardiovascular epidemiology at St George's, Peter Whincop, says (in a letter to me):
"Without satisfactory implementation of the regulation; most epidemiological research of the sort that has been so beneficial in the past will become increasingly difficult or impossible".
I understand that my college, the Royal College of General Practitioners, opposes the regulations. I can understand that because the college may feel that the role of the general practitioner is to be the guardian of individual patients' rights and confidentiality. However, I have the advantage, which I think that the chairman of council of the Royal College of General Practitioners does not have, of having worked both as an epidemiologist and as a GP. I submit that the gain to patients as a whole by continuing the research that the regulations will allow far outweighs any theoretical advantage which might be gained by individual patients by rejecting the regulations or by accepting the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think that I shall surprise the Minister if I say that the Patient Information Advisory Group is of considerable importance to these Benches. The idea was based on the model of the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is something which I do know something about.
There are several essential qualities about the Social Security Advisory Committee. The first is its professional integrity and independence. I think we all agree that the Patient Information Advisory Group has cleared that hurdle with flying colours, to the universal applause, I believe, of all those concerned.
The other conditions concern the way in which the Government handle that body. The important matters as regards the Social Security Advisory Committee are, first, that all proposed regulations in the area that its remit covers are laid before it for consideration and consultation before they are laid before the House. The second is that its comments are submitted to the Secretary of State and that the regulations, if they appear, are published with the Social Security Advisory Committee's report and the Secretary of State's reply to it so that when we go into the Printed Paper Office, when a social security regulation within the relevant area is to be considered, we can pick up in one handful the regulation, the advisory committee's comments and the Secretary of State's reply.
That is what we understand by publication. Publication means that you have to be able to get it in the PPO. Publication on a website is really not good enough, first, because certain noble Lords—I am perfectly proud to confess that I am one—are incapable of getting access to anything on a website,
746
and, secondly, when something is published on a website, so far as I know, there is no means of discovering that publication has taken place.
I shall listen to the Minister's reply on precisely those points very carefully. It was said when the bishops were turned out of this House that they that hated the bishops hated them worse than the devil and that they that loved them loved them not so well as their dinner. I am more interested in the Minister's reply than I am in my dinner.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, the hour is late and I do not want to say much. However, the statutory instrument reminds me of the countryman leaning on the gate when the city slicker in his smart car came by and asked the way to the farm and, after much reflection and some chewing on the grass, the countryman replied, "If I were you, I would not start from here".
We have here a statutory instrument which on the surface assigns great powers to the Secretary of State. I have listened with great care to this debate and have read the previous debate, and I can see that in many ways those powers are greatly circumscribed. I am also aware that in recent months many medical researchers have told me how uncertain they were about the data that they can use and transmit to others. I was, therefore, enormously tempted by the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is simple, and that is tremendously appealing. It makes confidentiality the primary, paramount principle.
I want to say why, nevertheless, it is not an acceptable direction in which to go. It is not because of the cancer registries or communicable diseases, which the amendment addresses. The most fundamental reason is that I doubt whether informed consent can he a feasible general principle in public health. It is the fundamental principle in clinical ethics, in the clinical encounter. It never has been the fundamental principle in public health, where we have always had to look to other principles of legitimation. We cannot ask each individual whether he or she approves the current standards for water monitoring and for many other facilities. So public health has to be taken in a different way. I fear that an attempt to reintroduce informed consent as the crucial principle at every stage in matters of public health is likely to lead us back to the rather formulaic and inadequate conceptions of informed consent, or merely pro forma conceptions, that used to obtain.
What I greatly regret about this statutory instrument is that nowhere would one guess what are the two major public concerns in this area. I anticipate that they centre round the issues of linkage and leakage. After all, the linking of different kinds of data is what this is all about. That, of course, is why we cannot simply use the principle of informed consent at every stage. If we are to anonymise data, someone first has to look at them before they can be anonymised in the way that is required for a particular study. Rut data linkage raises legitimate public concern. Bioinfomatics develops rapidly all around us. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that we shall hear

747
from the advisory group what view it takes of different forms of data linkage in the health field, because they are important.
I turn to data leakage, by which I mean data percolating to those who are not properly privy to it, who have perhaps not signed the requisite confidentiality agreement. We should not fool ourselves that this is completely absent when data take the form of hand-written records in old manila files on hospital trolleys. But it is rather easier when they are recorded electronically. I therefore hope that we shall hear a great deal more about the way in which the advisory group will deal with data linkage and data leakage.
That is where we are. We are at that gate. We are not on the high road into the town in which the regulation of the use of health information is a totally clear matter. With some regret, I support this statutory instrument.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the need to advance surveillance and the epidemiology of infectious disease, especially when that pertains to public health and the betterment of the individual within the public health framework. My concern derives from the experience of the House of Lords' Select Committee on resistance to antibiotics, which I had the honour to chair. First, the committee reported that we had had an alarming experience in that investigation; and, secondly, we identified a lacuna in the public health service as regards the level of surveillance and epidemiological studies, pertaining to antibiotic resistance.
As a general statement, we believed that surveillance of disease provides the information on which basic policies are made, and by which those policies are assessed on their effectiveness. On antibiotic resistance, the committee emphasised that much of the evidence was not available at the time; namely, three years ago. I would be particularly concerned should there be any compromise of the present surveillance mechanisms in the United Kingdom that are largely in the province of the Public Health Laboratory Service. In fact, we strongly recommended in our report that the PHLS be funded more for that very purpose—its surveillance capability—and, in particular, to support the study of the distribution of disease associated with antibiotic resistance.
As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, we have a series of notifiable diseases reportable under a variety of Acts; for example, the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988. Of course, we are not talking about that legislation tonight, but it means that reporting and surveillance is neither new nor unrealistic in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that anyone challenges that situation, or the fact that we need such measures. In all of these matters the PHLS works on a confidential and, I believe, an anonymised information basis. That is the way that it should be. To my mind, it would be a very serious compromise to the health control agencies in this
748
country if additional hurdles were placed in the way of public health management. It is right that such information should not serve to undermine a patient's right to confidentiality.
In the diagnosis of a patient's illness, we all realise that certain tests and laboratory diagnoses are necessary; indeed, they serve part of the patient's confidential clinical record. Either immediately—or, some time later, after the episode of illness—that information may prove valuable to certain areas of study. These often provide valuable input to the surveillance and control of various contagious diseases.
As has been mentioned, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to go back to each individual because that patient may have moved home, or may no longer exist. However, the study of information derived from that case could be particularly valuable. Indeed, there have been quite a number of instances where, had that been done, certain diseases that spread locally and then nationally could have been contained. I believe that much of this can be accomplished by what is known as "generic" permission from patients; namely, that, on clinical examination, his or her medical data could, under the normal conditions regarding a patient's right to confidentiality, be used to great effect. I believe that the vast majority of patients would willingly give their consent, based on the betterment of healthcare in general.
There is a point to be made about anonymity, although it can be over-stressed. It may be that complete anonymity may be detrimental to the acquisition of further knowledge. For example, anonymity with respect to territorial information may be detrimental to sorting out whether there is a local or general problem or to establishing whether an issue is associated with human behaviour, human location or human diet and so on. The issue of anonymity must be treated with care in view of the potential by which disease entities can be analysed and the intricacies of modern epidemiology laid forth. The issue becomes more complicated as we introduce molecular epidemiology, whereby samples that may have been gathered months or years previously may be brought into consideration to unravel the difficulties of understanding the relevant disease. The issue is somewhat complex and cannot be dealt with at the source of the original infection; namely, the patient who goes to his doctor or is in hospital. Informed consent is obviously important in relation to the use of information. However, a wider issue, such as that involving a generic agreement with the patient, is important.
Having said what I have said, it is with great regret that I cannot support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howe.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall not detain noble Lords for long. I want briefly to support the position adopted by my noble friend Lady Northover in relation to the regulations. It may be my connection

749
with cancer charities over the years that makes me find the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, uncharacteristically disproportionate. His description of the enormity of the regulations was surprising.
The noble Earl said that it was bunk to assert that the regulations safeguarded personal information. I very strongly disagree with him in that respect. I believe that they are proportionate and that the PIAG got it right in terms of what should go forward. Much of what the noble Earl said proceeded on that false premise. He suggested that processing confidential information does not need to be done by a medical professional. I refer him to Regulation 7(2), which makes it clear that the qualification is designed entirely to give "equivalent" protection.
I hear the noble Earl's interpretation of the ultra vires nature of Regulation 2(1)(e)(ii), in relation to Section 60(5) of the principal Act. Anyone reading that Act, unless one was being mischievous, would find it very difficult to interpret it in the way that the opponents of the regulations have put forward. An enormous amount of folklore has sprung up around the regulations.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the word "mischievous" is not right. I have obviously not discussed the allegation with my noble friend Lord Howe—the noble Lord has only just made it—but he is not one to be mischievous. Even I, reading the regulations, find them slightly difficult to understand. I am sure that my noble friend did not find them difficult, but I know, from his integrity, that he would not have sought to be mischievous.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, of course I withdraw the word "mischievous" in those circumstances, and I understand the reason that the noble Baroness raised the issue. But, certainly, a plain reading of the regulations in relation to the Act does not produce the result that the noble Earl put forward in his opening speech.
A degree of folklore has surrounded this matter. I have found the debate extremely constructive. I believe that the contributions have been considerably more constructive than those in the debate in the other place. That debate was certainly not for the squeamish, as those who had the pleasure of reading Hansard will know.
Somehow the protection of personal information seems to have been set against the needs of medical research and public health, and so on. That seems to me to be an entirely false juxtaposition. The essence is to achieve a balance, and I believe that the regulations succeed in doing that.
My noble friend Lady Northover raised a number of issues for clarification by the Minister. I hope very much that he will give the assurances that have been sought. But the bottom line is that I do not consider that the regulations give what has been called "carte blanche" to the Minister.
As my noble friend pointed out, as the begetters of Section 60 of the principal Act in its current form, we start from the basis of Section 60 and the safeguards
750
that it provides. We have examined the regulations in detail and, subject to a number of key assurances which I hope the Minister will give, we are satisfied that the regulations are proportionate. We believe that the noble Earl's amendment will have a devastating effect on the regulations. Many uses of personal information other than for cancer disease registry purposes and communicable diseases are of crucial importance.
I am sure that, quite apart from hearing some of the wise words of well-qualified noble Lords during the course of the debate, many of your Lordships will have received the briefing from the MRC. People have worked through examples with me. For example, the Gulf War-related research and the research relating to leukaemia in the area of Sellafield could not have been carried out with purely anonymised data. There has also been recognition of new variant OD and its relation to the BSE epidemic.
There are many other aspects: for example, ways of reducing cot deaths; identification of adverse drug reactions; and, as the MRC says, identification of the healthcare needs of special groups in society, such as the elderly. A great number of areas would not be covered by the regulations if the amendment were carried. It is important that Regulation 5, which gives the Secretary of State powers, subject to considerable restriction, is agreed to.
I very much hope that the Minister will give the assurances that are sought, particularly in relation to the role of the PIAG and the publication of its report and decisions and the advice given, and so on.
I believe that the Minister needs to address what he believes "other risks to public health" are. With regard to the ordinary meaning of those words, it seems to me out of the question for mental health conditions to be covered by that wording. It is also important that the Minister clarifies the circumstances in which he will approve research under Regulation 5 and that he clarifies what type of advice he will take within the Department of Health, quite apart from the PIAG.
Apart from the medical profession, who else will be subject to the contractual duty of confidentiality? What type of contract does the Minister envisage will be entered into by, for example, civil servants and those who act with the various agencies which may process that information? What review process for the regulations will be followed by the Secretary of State in 12 months' time? Will it be an open and transparent process? Will there be an opportunity for debate?
There is also the very important issue of informing patients that their information has been processed. I believe that the Minister should spend some moments explaining how patients—or, at least, doctors—will be able to tag their medical notes in some shape or form so that it is clear that their information has been processed by researchers.
Finally, it is important that the Minister also gives an assurance about genetic information. It is important to know that there can be no question of genetic information being subject to the terms of these

751
regulations. Subject to those assurances, and to those sought by my noble friend Lady Northover, we on these Benches wholeheartedly support the regulations.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a high level debate and recalls the long hours during which we debated Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act in the previous parliamentary Session. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I agree with him. The relationship between the patient and the doctor is of critical importance. No one can be in doubt about the importance of patient confidentiality. Nor can anyone be in doubt that the NHS has a long way to go to get the matter absolutely right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, suggested that for many years the NHS had been run along somewhat paternalistic lines, in which managers and clinicians made decisions about what they thought was best for patients with little or no input from patients and their families. We have to change that culture. That is why we published a statutory instrument last December to reform the way in which the NHS uses patients' confidential information. The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, of linkage and leakage is important in taking forward that strategy. Equally, we have to acknowledge that with the best will in the world, it will take time to implement those changes.
We simply cannot stop medical research or clinical audit or abandon all the valuable work on cancer that is taking place. We cannot forget or abstain from our responsibilities to monitor and to sustain public health, while we take the time that will be necessary to build systems and to devise ways of working that meet the standards that we now know should apply. In that context the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made a persuasive point.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about cancer registration, which I believe was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. He made a most persuasive case as to why complete sets of data are needed. That is critically important to the work of registries and researchers.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned surveillance and epidemiological studies and the work that his Select Committee undertook into antibiotics. I acknowledge that vital work. It is clear from the evidence given by PHLS to the Patient Information Advisory Group that PHLS is making significant progress towards meeting the requirements of the Caldicott report, that it limits the use of patient identifiable data and that it uses pseudonymisation techniques wherever possible. It removes and destroys all patient identifiable information from its records after two to five years, with any departure from the norm justified in writing to the Caldicott guardian. I believe that it is right that we should acknowledge the progress being made by PHLS.
In his introductory remarks the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to some of his concerns about regulations and the way in which they were drafted.
752
Perhaps I can echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It seems to me that in focusing on the regulations he overlooked the overriding requirement of Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act.
Perhaps I may repeat myself. First, we are debating an affirmative order today. The Data Protection Act 1998 continues to apply. That activity has to be supported for a medical purpose. It must be to improve patient care or otherwise be in the public interest. Furthermore, there cannot be a reasonable practical alternative way of achieving the medical purpose. With that in mind there must be an annual review of any regulations laid. I believe that those are significant safeguards which need to be read alongside the regulations we are debating today.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of why the phrase "other public health risk" is used in the regulation. He implied that we needed a tighter definition. It is, as noble Lords have suggested, impossible to know in advance what may constitute a risk to public health. The risks that we may face in the future are often unknowable today. Those working to monitor and safeguard public health must be free to act quickly and effectively when a new risk is detected. The alternative is to provide a long list of possible risks that would inevitably fall behind what is needed.
Noble Lords know that I am not fond of lists. With regard to the issue of emergency powers, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested that because there were emergency powers one did not need that regulation. I think that he was referring to the notifiable disease regulations rather than emergency powers. In those regulations there is an out-of-date list of diseases. It suggests to me the problem always of lists. That is why the PH LS sought the flexibility to react to future risks.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also raised the question of whether counselling and support, as described in Regulation 2(1)(e)(ii) is consistent with Section 5 of the Act. I am advised that it is consistent. I am advised that both the Health and Social Care Act, and the Data Protection Act to which it closely relates, distinguish between a range of medical purposes, including diagnosis, preventive medicine and care and treatment. Analysis of risk for patients not yet diagnosed with a condition may support diagnosis and may lead to preventive medicine. Prior to a diagnosis being made, counselling and support are not the same as the care and treatment that may follow.
A person who has a number of relatives who have had cancer goes to see his doctor. As a result the doctor may contact the cancer registry. The registry may provide details of family history, normally after seeking consent but sometimes not when it is not practical. That person might receive counselling and support. But that would be before they had been possibly diagnosed and certainly before they had been treated. That is somewhat complicated. I should be happy to write in detail to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the matter.
So far as concerns genetics, of course I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He will know that the Human Genetics Commission

753
reported on a number of important matters on 21st May. It states that it intends to monitor the use of the Section 60 powers and seeks to work with the Patient Information Advisory Group (PIAG) in relation to any application for personal genetic information. We very much support those discussions and would encourage PIAG to respond positively to the request for discussions from the Human Genetics Commission.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked whether the power to fine people is in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am advised that it is not, because the Secretary of State must proceed through the courts. Those fined have an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Therefore, it is my advice that that matter satisfies the ECHR requirements.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, how patients would know whether their confidential information had been used—for instance, would it be recorded on their records? Of course, patients must in general terms be informed about the use of information and its disclosure to satisfy the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. I can assure both noble Lords that guidance will be provided on how best to satisfy the requirements in relation to Section 60. NHS bodies will be advised to keep records of disclosures.
Turning to the questions raised by the noble Baroness. Lady Northover, I can assure her that the regulations do not apply only to NHS data, but to all confidential patient information. The regulations do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, but we shall encourage officials to work with each other to encourage consistency of approach—consistent, as ever, with the principles of devolution, which I know that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches usually support to the full, except when it comes to teaching research in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, answered most effectively the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The noble Earl mentioned Regulation 3(3) relating to public health surveillance and whether the people allowed to process information would be engaged by government departments or other public bodies. Yes, the regulation does allow that, but the class of people who are allowed to process information is also limited by Regulation 7(2). That regulation ensures that confidential patient information can be processed only by those who are health professionals or under that a similar duty of confidentiality.
I acknowledge to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the compromises and agreements that we reached after our debates about the establishment of a statutory advisory group have been well founded. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke at every stage of the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 of the model of the Social Security Advisory Committee. He is right. The PIAG has shown professionalism and integrity. The Government have also shown their good faith by listening to the advice of the PIAG.
754
I accept that we could do better in terms of' ensuring that the work that they do and the advice that they give enters the public domain more effectively. I give an assurance to the House that I will discuss that with officials and the chair of the PIAG. It is in the interests of all those involved, whether they take the view that the regulations are draconian or that they are far too bureaucratic, that the advice of the PIAG is given the fullest publicity. I accept the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that not only must the papers be as accessible as possible, we must ensure that the PIAG annual report is full and readable. Again, I will ensure that that matter is discussed with the chair of the advisory group.
I know that my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, have made some telling points about the needs of the research community. I hope that they will be pleased about the certainty that the regulations will allow. I also understand that they feel that the time taken to approve the regulations has been too long and their worries about research blight. But I am convinced that the advisory group had to get it right. We took time to appoint the group, but we have appointed first-rate people as a result. Now that we have a proper framework and there is greater certainty, I hope that the research community will understand why it has taken so long to process the first applications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the overlap between the regulations and the Information Commissioner's guidance. Officials have worked closely with the commissioner on the guidance and on other projects, including the confidentiality code of practice for the NHS. The commissioner's guidance makes numerous references to the regulations, explaining how they fit in with data protection provisions. That issue is covered.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about how the Secretary of State would approve class support. I can reassure the House that the Secretary of State has asked the advisory group to determine the approval process for class support. The PIAG has agreed to an active role in establishing the criteria for determining whether support should be provided and, most importantly, has agreed to scrutinise directly, at least in the initial stages, applications for disclosure of information with class support. There may be other points to which I feel that I cannot respond. I shall follow them up by letter. Important matters of fact and principle have been raised.
I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If the amendment were accepted, it would leave researchers, epidemiologists and those needed to monitor and audit the quality of care without support. I acknowledge that the noble Earl accepts the importance of work on cancer and communicable diseases, and I have no argument with him about that. However, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, made a telling point about the amendment. It attempts to rewrite the primary legislation that provides for the regulations by seeking an undertaking that patient confidentiality should be paramount in all

755
circumstances other than in work on cancer and communicable diseases. The entire point of the legislation is to face up to the fact that much vital work cannot meet the standards of confidentiality that we know we must apply and about which we must do something. If the amendment were accepted, it would close the door on support of any other activity.
Section 60 provides a power to set aside the requirements of confidentiality in specific and controlled circumstances, replacing them with, essentially, a regulatory code. Undertaking in this context to treat patient confidentiality as paramount does not seem to me to be wise.
Anyone who takes the time to examine the regulations and to consider the work already undertaken by the advisory group will see the high standards and the commitment to improvement that are required when support is provided. I fear that if we were to accept the noble Earl's amendment, we would have confusion about the interpretation of common law, and those left out in the research community would be in a worse state than they are, even with a process that many of them consider to be rather complicated and bureaucratic.
I hope that in my response I have shown that I regard patient confidentiality as being of great importance and that the Government recognise, in the paper published in December, that the NHS must do more to ensure that it gets this right. In the mean time, we must allow work in important areas relating to cancer, public health and clinical audit to continue with the support and security that the regulations will allow, knowing that the work has been thoroughly vetted by an advisory group that has shown itself to be extremely robust, and which in its rejection of the majority of the applications that it has received, has shown itself to be no easy turnover. I often talk about balance. In relation to Section 60 and these regulations, I believe that we have achieved a balance that is sensible, workable and, above all, in the public interest.
10 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part and the Minister for his reply. I cannot claim that all my concerns have been allayed, but perhaps I may pick up one or two points.
I turn to the limits of confidentiality. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, took issue with my assertion that the regulations permit non-health professionals to gain access to patient information. He cited Regulation 7(2). A short anecdote might illustrate my concern. I know of someone who was employed as a temp for £5 per hour processing highly sensitive, fully identified patient records at a local firm. The relevant health authority employed him; I shall not say which one. There was no credible security or supervision over that individual. I ask whether such a situation is acceptable and what is in the regulations to prevent that happening again.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but such a situation cannot arise under the regulations. If it did, it would be a breach of the regulations under Regulation 7(2) and a breach of the Act. That is as plain as the writing on the paper.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we shall have to agree to differ. That is not my interpretation and not the legal advice I have received.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby referred persuasively to the monitoring of communicable disease. I listened carefully to his remarks. The existing communicable disease legislation requires named data so that the occurrence and clusters of disease can be identified, investigated and controlled. It overrides the doctor's duty of confidence. My contention to the Minister and the tenor of my reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was that that provision could be extended to conditions such as E.coli, MRSA and CJD, with any unforeseen additions made subsequently by order. I still do not see why that model is not possible.
The Minister referred to the PAIG. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, wants to give it teeth; the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, placed great emphasis on it as a safeguard. I have nothing but the highest respect for its members. It is interesting to note that one of its key recommendations in relation to this measure was that the department should establish a publicly available register of all activities approved under the class support arrangements, yet under Regulation 6(4) the Secretary of State has the option to decide not to make public entries in the register.
The Government are clearly capable of a pick-and-mix approach to the PAIG's advice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may place on the record that it is the Secretary of State's intention to publish all such approved applications in the register.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that, but I do not understand why there is a provision in the regulations appearing to provide for exceptions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. My understanding is that the flexibility in the regulations is more about the amount of information which can be provided rather than the relevant information as regards the entries. The entries will be in the register, but the discretion relates to the amount of detail that is provided.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister. That comment is extremely helpful and reassuring.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the subject of cancer registries that the range of purposes for disclosure, detailed at Regulation 2(1), is very wide. It goes well beyond activities for which cancer registries may require information and covers practically every use which might be made of patient information. The effect of such widely drawn

757
provision is to remove patient rights in relation to storage and use of information about them in any NHS or similar data base. I believe that that is of concern.
I spoke of the wide scope of the regulations. The phrase "other risk to public health" is without constraint. There is a carte blanche element elsewhere. Section 4(a) coupled with Regulation 5(b) provides a general purpose for linking data from different sources identifiably for its own sake. I do not fully understand why that has been permitted.
Every so often there is a defining moment in the life of this House when it is right to stand up for basic principles. This is one such instance. I am proposing that we challenge the Government to abide by the precepts which their own Ministers repeatedly articulate. However, I have listened carefully to noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, my noble friend Lord Soulsby and all noble Lords who have spoken. I note with due seriousness what the Minister said about the wording of my amendment and in particular the last part of it.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the amendment. As it stands, it is not fatal to the regulations. It was not designed to be fatal. In tabling the amendment in such a form, my main hope was that it might commend itself to noble Lords generally and to the Government and that the Minister might feel able to give me the undertakings that I seek. As he will know, those matters are of immense importance to many people outside the House. It is no part of my purpose to frustrate the operation of the regulations. I am well aware of the immediate damage that would be done to cancer registries and to disease monitoring if the regulations were to be overturned.
It would be possible for us to go through the lobbies and vote on my amendment. However, I would rather reach a consensus with the Government. The Minister appeared to indicate that as regards the first part of my amendment he would have no difficulty about giving me the undertaking I am seeking. His difficulty lies in the second part of the amendment. I therefore have a proposal to put to him. If he will consent to give me an undertaking that the Government will protect the continuing work of cancer registries and protect the public from communicable diseases with the minimum infringement of patient confidentiality, and if furthermore he will undertake that in the early part of
758
the next Session of Parliament he will take a suitable opportunity to report back to the House on the operation of the regulations, on the progress that the Government are making on their plans to minimise the need for unconsented disclosure in all areas of activity covered by the order, and on the whole issue of safeguarding patient confidentiality, I in turn undertake that I will not press my amendment to a vote.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Before responding to his invitation, perhaps I may say that the issue that he has raised makes a persuasive case for the regulations. They establish a clear framework in which the use of such information is very clearly set out.
We discussed the issue of civil proceedings. But the point of the regulations lies not only in the fact that they allow the use of such information under certain circumstances; they also lay down a clear set of rules under which such information can be used, and they go on to list an enforcement procedure under which proceedings can be taken against those who abuse their position and do not follow the rules.
The consultation paper that we produced in December on implementing the confidentiality strategy provides the right framework to take the NHS forward into a situation where we deal better with the issue of patient confidentiality. We are developing a code of practice for the NHS which it is our intention to publish during the summer. I am sure that all of us are united in wanting to make sure that 'the NHS conducts itself properly in these areas.
As regards the noble Earl's request that I report back to noble Lords on the operation of the regulations and on the progress being made in the area of patient consent, I am happy to agree. It would be extremely useful if, late this year and early in the next Session, we have a further debate on these issues. I am very happy to agree to that suggestion.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that brings our debate to a very satisfactory conclusion. I thank the Minister very much indeed for agreeing to my suggestion. There is nothing more for me to do other than to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Tax Credits Bill

    The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I remind your Lordships of what was read to you on the first day. We will go through the Bill clause by clause. Noble Lords will speak standing. It has been agreed that there will be no Divisions in Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes as soon as the bell starts.
    Clause 3 [Claims]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
    Page 2, line 35, after "credit" insert "for the whole or part of a tax year"
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. These amendments to Clause 3 are part of a larger package of technical amendments designed to clarify and rationalise the distinction between "award" of tax credits and "entitlement" to tax credits.
    The new tax credits introduced by the Bill are designed to target support according to the current circumstances of claimants within the context of a system that bases entitlement to tax credits on annual income and can respond by adjusting support for claimants who experience a change in their level of income.
    Because the credits are designed to ensure that support is delivered to claimants during the year, the Bill enables the Inland Revenue to make awards, and payments under those awards, during the year, and to adjust those awards and payments as claimants' circumstances change. But because the credits will also respond to changes in income, entitlement cannot finally be determined until after the end of the year, when current year income is known. In short, awards—and any payments under those awards—are simply the vehicle for delivering support during the year.
    Entitlement is different. It depends on the underlying facts, some of which—income—cannot be determined until after the end of the year. But this distinction is not clearly drawn by the Bill as it stands, and this gives rise to a number of technical problems.
    Most obviously, as drafted, the provisions in the Bill that ought to deal with the finalisation of entitlement after the end of the year—in particular Clauses 17, 18 and 19—focus on the finalisation of awards. So Clause 17 currently deals with decisions about the correctness
    CWH 56
    of an award; Clause 18 deals with inquiries into awards; and Clause 19 deals with discoveries about awards. We shall discuss these provisions, and government amendments intended to clarify them, in more detail later.
    However, the straightforward point is simply that some people may have more than one award in any given tax year—for example, if they stop working and so stop receiving the working tax credit for a period before returning to work later in the year. At the moment, the end of year provisions I have mentioned would apply to each award separately. This means that the Inland Revenue could have separately to require information from claimants in respect of each award in the year, rather than being able to ask a claimant once for a single set of information and to finalise their entitlement for the whole year on the basis or that information.
    In addition, there is a contradiction between Clause 5 and the decision-making provisions in Clauses 14 to 16. Clause 5(3) and (5) are actually aimed at making provision about claimants' entitlement. When a person ceases to meet the basic requirements necessary to qualify for one of the credits, it is sensible that their entitlement to that credit should stop. This is what Clause 5(5) is aimed at. And because couples will be jointly entitled to the new credits, it is axiomatic that the entitlement of a couple, as a couple, will stop if the partners break up. Similarly, the entitlement of a single person as an individual will stop if that person takes on a new partner. This is what Clause 5(3) is aimed at.
    However, these provisions in Clause 5 are currently cast in terms of the effect on awards rather than entitlement. They therefore imply that awards will or will not end in particular circumstances. However, Clauses 14 to 16 make clear that the existence of awards is dependent on decisions made by the board. Thus, there is a conflict, and the Bill as it stands leaves unresolved the question of what should happen in a case where, under Clause 5, an award ought to end but no decision to bring it to an end has been made by the board under Clause 16, or vice versa.
    I could go on. A number of technical amendments are required to straighten this out. It will be made clear in Clause 5 that awards run until the end of the tax year, and end during the year only if they are terminated by a decision of the board. These amendments make the first such necessary changes to the Bill.
    Amendment No. 24 makes clear that a claim to a tax credit is needed each year. The amendment is needed because once a proper distinction between awards and entitlement is drawn, the requirement for a new claim each year will no longer be implied by Clause 5(1) and (2), which provides that an award on a claim ends at the end of each tax year.
    Amendment No. 25 inserts a new subsection (1A) into Clause 3 to make clear that, where the board decides not to make an award or to terminate an award, any subsequent entitlement is dependent on the

    CWH 57
    making of a new claim. This makes clear that the position for second and subsequent claims is the same as that for new claims.
    Finally, I have already mentioned that Clause 5(3), which is intended to provide that entitlement ends when a couple splits up or a new couple forms, incorrectly refers to the effect of such a change on an award. It will be stripped out of Clause 5, re-cast in terms of entitlement and moved to Clause 3, where it more properly belongs, by Amendment No. 27.
    With that technical explanation of the re-drafting for clarification of the distinction between reward and entitlement, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to endorse these amendments. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness on a record for the course. It is almost impossible for anyone taking it at that speed to comprehend what was being said.
    This is an extremely complicated matter. It is also the case that we are talking here of Clause 3, but the Minister referred to numerous other clauses at the same time. One could not possibly have switched back and forth from one clause to another to get any real sense. When we come to the later clauses, we will need to come back to the points which the noble Baroness has made at that stage.
    I am not quite clear whether these amendments are what one might call part of the general restructuring of the Bill, about which we complained at the beginning of our proceedings last time, or whether they are normal amendments which might anyway have been necessary on reflection. In any event, these are matters which presumably could have been dealt with in another place. It would be helpful to know on what date the Government became aware that it would be necessary to make these particular changes because, increasingly, we seem to be getting into a situation where these matters are not scrutinised in the House of Commons and the House of Lords is then given the function of sorting out the matters after the Bill has been through the House of Commons.
    Having said that, I wish to concentrate on Clause 3. No doubt we shall come in due course to the matters which arise on Clause 5 and later clauses. In essence, the Minister has said that it is important to make the distinction between awards and entitlements. However, I understand that part of the problem is that the entitlement may change during the year. No doubt the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong about that. If there is a fall in income during the year, then that is taken into account during the course of the year. I presume that is what she meant when she referred to entitlement. On the other hand, if the income rises by less than £2,500, then no adjustment is made. If it rises by more than £2,500, then an adjustment is made. I am not sure whether the whole of the increase of £2,500 and above is taken into account, or only the marginal amount over £2,500. Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify that point.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I am happy to give that clarification. It is only the marginal amount above £2,500.
    Lord Higgins: This seems to be a very strange arrangement because it is not the kind of allowance—if that is the right word—which would be made by the Inland Revenue. If one's income suddenly rises by, say, £2,700, it is not normally the practice of the Inland Revenue to say that they will only make a charge on the £200. Since this whole matter is being transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Inland Revenue, it is important that some degree of consistency is achieved between one taxpayer/ beneficiary and another. The Bill appears to create a situation where that is not the case. Taxpayers, who are nothing to do with the benefit system, are being treated somewhat more harshly than those on a tax credit. This is not very desirable. So much for entitlement.
    I turn now to the issue of awards, which the noble Baroness has said needs to be kept distinct from entitlement. Presumably, the award is finalised only after the end of the year rather than during the course of the year. Again, if that is not so, perhaps the Minister could clarify that point. Or does the board make decisions on the award in the course of the year; at the beginning of it; on expectations about what is likely to happen about the individual circumstances; or at the end of the year when the information is available?
    Of course, there are some comparisons here with the tax system and the whole issue of self-assessment although I presume I am right in saying that, as far as the award is concerned, there is not anything comparable to self-assessment in the income tax system. So this is far from being a simple arrangement for those involved in it—either for those who pay tax and get deductions or for those who are merely having a straight benefit paid by the state. We will no doubt give further consideration to this issue in due course.
    Again, I am not clear whether the situation we mentioned with regard to changes in a person's circumstances apply equally whether they are receiving a benefit or receiving a tax deduction. So, as an initial run on the points the Minister has made, it would be helpful if the issue could at least be clarified to that extent.
    Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for letting us have her speaking notes. As I had already read them several times and found them extremely clear, I am perfectly happy to overlook the speed with which the Minister delivered her speech. It was fairly familiar material. The Minister has, I am sure, read the CAB report by Janet Albeson entitled Benefits and Work. There is a whole chapter in that report which is devoted to the fact that the social security system rests on the premise that people are either in work or out of work. That premise is now very firmly and clearly out of date. Janet Albeson came to the bleak conclusion that there is no solution to that problem, like Hilaire Belloc's doctors who are called to attend Henry King.

    CWH 59
    Professionally, the Minister cannot of course take that view. I admire the imagination and the ingenuity with which the Minister attempted to tackle this issue. Whether we have the final answer I take leave to doubt. I am sure that the Minister shares those doubts and will be on the alert for any way in which we may not have done quite as much as anybody else. These are minor and technical amendments which are designed to make addressing that problem easier.
    When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, speak about the treatment of an increase in income, I am again reminded that he was not in this House (luring the Parliament of 1992–97, when we discussed the effects of poverty traps on the incentives to work. The Minister has an imaginative and practical— and I very much hope successful—way of tackling that. I have enough hope in it to be very willing indeed to give it a fair wind.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise for the speed at which I spoke. I had thought that my remarks were covered by the speech notes that I had sent in advance. There could be nothing more boring for the Committee than to hear me recite, very slowly, a speech about technical amendments, a copy or a version of which it already had in its hands. I was trying to save the Committee undesirable hardship. Perhaps in future I should expose the noble Lord to the full rigours of a very slow explanation of very technical amendments.
    The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are correct: these are all part of the group of technical amendments separating out award and entitlement. Broadly speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right about the distinction between award and entitlement. Awards are what you get on an almost pay-as-you-go basis. Entitlement is the end of the year balancing of the accounts to see whether the sums are properly paid to you. Entitlement cannot therefore be settled until after the end of the year, but awards can be, and may need to be, adjusted during the year to reflect changes that claimants expect or receive in their annual income, both up and down. It is worth perhaps emphasising that, for the most part, awards would start off being based on the previous year's income—hence the P60. Thus they go into the current year based on a previous year's income but, of course, if their income falls by any amount or, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly identified, rises by more than £2500, we would expect them to want to adjust their awards as they go rather than to wait for an end-of-year entitlement.
    The second area that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins pressed me on was the asymmetry of the losses and rises in incomes. There are some very good reasons for that. It is clear that of the 5.5 million families to be helped through the new tax credits system, approximately 1.3 million increase their incomes by up to £2000 in the course of a year, while a further 1.3 to 1.5 million will increase their incomes up to the £2,500. Only about 0.7 million will reduce their incomes by a similar amount. Therefore a substantial proportion of people in receipt of tax credits will expect to see an increase in their incomes.
    CWH 60
    What we have done, and I believe this is wise, is to have a headspace so that we do not seek to claw back the adjustment at the end of the year. However, if the increase in income is substantial—namely; more than £2.500, perhaps because there has been a change of job or a second earner in the family has moved into the labour market—then at the end of that year we will seek to adjust it and use the new income in total, including the increases below £2,500 and increases over £2,500, as the basis of the assessment for the forthcoming year.
    I believe the asymmetry is extremely decent, generous and proper. It ensures that if the incomes or hours of work of, for example, a vulnerable man who may have problems with poor health or a lone parent whose childcare arrangements may collapse, suddenly decrease, we can pick them up and offer support without those people feeling the need to drop out of work altogether and go onto benefits in order to get a secure income. Equally, the asymmetry says to people, "If you are able to increase your income in the course of the year, we are not going to be interested in the small sums; we are delighted that you can, and we will use this current year's income in total as the basis for next year. Only if in this year you earn more than £2,500 above your award will we seek to take it into account—and we can do that at the end of the year". In my opinion, it is both decent and generous. It reflects the reality of the amount of income and job churning that goes on for people on low incomes, who very often are in part-time work, full-time work, or no work, according to the circumstances of the labour market.
    If I have missed any points then I shall be happy to write in more detail. With that explanation, I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will agree with me that behind the technical amendments is something really important to which we are giving all the support we can. We recognise that this is a grey area. People are not just in work or out of work for tidy periods of the year. They revolve and rotate in the labour market. We 'want to give them the support and financial security they need to encourage them to stay in the labour market. I believe that the asymmetry of these arrangements does precisely that.
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord Northbrook: I appreciate what the Minister has said. What extra costs might he incurred in terms of Inland Revenue manpower in adjusting PAYE codes to take into account changes in circumstances during the year? There could be some extra work involved.
    Lord Higgins: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for her further explanation. Our objective on both sides of the Committee is to improve the legislation. To that end I have repeatedly thanked the Minister, and indeed do so again, for the help which she has given as far as that is concerned. It was helpful to be given some indication by way of the speaking notes. However, the speaking notes to which the noble Earl referred had only a few lines on this particular set of amendments;

    CWH 61
    the rest of them were related to later clauses. Of course I accept that there is also a relationship between the two.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise to the noble Lord. Before the Committee meets on Thursday, if it would help our proceedings, I shall circulate my speaking notes on the remainder of the technical amendments so that noble Lords can follow them as I speak.
    Lord Higgins: That is an interesting innovation and in some ways helpful. At the same time, however, it is important to put on the record all the various relevant arguments for the benefit of those who may subsequently read our proceedings.
    Perhaps I may pursue one or two points. First, I am still not clear on what date it became apparent that these amendments were necessary. One of the reasons why I did not refer to her speaking notes was that, in some which she has circulated—but did not read out today—the views expressed on the original drafting of the clauses were perhaps a little critical.
    On the substance of the matter, the noble Baroness refers to the proposals relating to increases and decreases in income of the individuals affected as "generous". Of course, that generosity is paid for by other taxpayers, so one needs to keep a balance on that. If we could all spend vast extra sums on people who are in relatively poor circumstances, that would be fine, but one has to take into account the fact that someone will have to pay for that generosity. One cannot simply say that this is something about which we can all he happy and generous.
    I am not quite clear about the adjustments. The noble Baroness says that if there is a change in income it will be taken into account at the end of the year. I presume that does not mean it will be clawed back at that point. I presume there will be an adjustment for the next year, but if someone has gained from an increase of, say, £1,800 in the year, that will remain as a gain for them.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: For that one year, the £2,500 headspace will not be clawed back. In other words, it is headspace. Only money that someone earns over and beyond that £2,500 will be clawed back the following year. However, the next year's income basement on which the award is made will include both the £2,500 that has not been clawed back and any money beyond that.
    Lord Higgins: I understand that, but if someone continually, year after year, gets an increase of £1,800, then each year they get the benefit of that. That is, no doubt, a highly desirable situation for them, but it is not the situation for income tax. We are treating people in receipt of tax credits in a quite different way.
    I am also still not clear as to whether this generosity, as the noble Baroness called it, applies to those for whom the tax credit is a deduction against tax or simply to those who are receiving benefit. We now know that 90 per cent of the total spending will
    CWH 62
    effectively be benefits and only 10 per cent will be deductions against tax. Do the proposals affect both groups: those who are genuinely in receipt of a tax deduction or tax credit, and those who are in receipt not of a tax credit, but of a benefit payment? No doubt, as we go through these successive clauses, the situation will become a little clearer. We need to know at what stage the Government changed their mind on these proposals.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the substantive policy point, there will be a number of people who are on benefit or who stay in the same job with the same income and same hours, whose previous year's income and current year's income remain the same. Therefore, their award and their entitlement will not change. Those will be people on benefit or people with steady work—perhaps a lone parent working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage. Their income and award entitlement will not change.
    Secondly, there will be a group who will be in work and whose income will increase. We have gone through those figures. Up to £2,500 will not be affected and money over £2,500 will be clawed back. When they go on to the following year, they will start on their full income base of the previous year as the basis of the new assessment.
    The third group are those who have run out of the working tax credit and the children's tax credit, who will get just the family premium, which at the moment we call the children's tax credit. That kicks in, according to family circumstances, between £15,000 and £20,000, depending on size of families, and will go up to about £50,000, at which point it starts tapering out to £58,000, when one is left with child benefit. Between that figure of about £20,000 and about £50,000, it does not matter what happens to a person's income, they still receive the same amount of money, because they get the children's tax credit—now, of course, the family element—as well as the child benefit. So we have people whose award and whose previous year and current year does not change; we have people whose award does not change, although their income has changed; and people whose incomes have changed substantially and therefore attract further changes. Finally, we have those at the upper end of the income scale who will be receiving the children's element and who, whatever happens to their income between the range of £20,000 and £50,000, it will not affect the award and therefore the entitlement that they will receive from the Government. I hope that that is acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
    It will depend on which of the awards one is receiving—working tax credit and children's tax credit, or only the family element—as to how much headspace there is and how much movement up and down the income there can be without it affecting one's award and entitlement.
    The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, then asked me about the implications for staffing where payments are administered by the tax credit office. Claimants will be able to telephone the Inland Revenue and changes can

    CWH 63
    be put into effect. The Inland Revenue will be expanding the network of advice and contact centres to deal with any changes of circumstances in tax credits. However, I cannot tell the noble Lord how many extra staff are to be employed. I will write to him with that information if I obtain it.
    Finally, the noble Lord pressed me on when we found out that we needed to change these amendments. It became clear that some amendments would be needed to correct technical problems with the end-of-year provision after the Bill had finished its passage through another place. The noble Lord— who, I think I am right in saying, may be the only Member on the Front Bench who has spent time in the other place—is thus uniquely positioned to criticise the other place for its possible lack of scrutiny to that effect. The rest of us have no such authority to comment.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is the noble Lord, Lord Freeman.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise to the noble Lord. He has had a very distinguished Front Bench career. However, the amendments required to resolve this problem were complex and all of a piece. Because they hinged on changes to Clause 17, it took some time to prepare them. The amendments are inter-related and had to be worked on as a whole. There has been no change of mind here, merely that these were complex amendments. I have apologised for their late arrival but, if it would be of help to give Members of the Committee my speaking notes—as re-cast, now that we have re-grouped these amendments—I shall be very happy to do so. It is important that the Bill is as transparent, accurate and clean in its drafting as Members of the Committee can help it to become.
    Earl Russell: I should like to make a very small point. Am I right in saying that criticising another place is not open even to those of us who have been Members there, or Members of Front Benches in another place? When there is a quarrel between the Houses, no authority can adjudicate upon it since both Houses are sovereign over their own procedure.
    Finally, am I summarising the Minister's underlying premise correctly if I say that she is arguing that incentives matter to the poor as well as to the rich?
    Lord Higgins: There has been a slight misunderstanding on the issue of the relationship with the House of Commons. In no way did I seek to criticise the House of Commons, but it appears that the Government have raised this matter only at a very late stage. I sought merely to establish the Government's position, not what happened in the House of Commons. That is a legitimate point to make.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For the benefit of good order, there is no objection whatever to criticising the House of Commons in this House. Adverse personal criticism of an individual is undesirable, but anything else is fair game.
    4 p.m.
    Lord Higgins: That will worry the noble Earl, Lord Russell, more than it worries me.
    I should like to raise two points. First, so far as concerns the relief—that may be the best way of putting it—for increases below £2,500, am I right in thinking that, if children are left totally on one side, this may benefit those with incomes up to a very substantial level; that is, over £50,000? The noble Baroness will tell me if I am wrong.
    Secondly, she mentioned it will be possible to telephone the Inland Revenue for a very rapid adjustment. I am concerned throughout these deliberations about the fairness between a person receiving a tax credit and a taxpayer not in receipt of a tax credit. If one fills in a self-assessment form and one's income changes during the year, can one telephone the Revenue and say, "I am sorry, my self-assessment was wrong. Can you make an immediate adjustment to my payslip next week?". That appears to possible with a tax credit. However, I do not think that that is the case with regard to income tax.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry that I have failed to make clear the position with regard to the bands of income. As this goes to the core of the Bill, it is important that we share the information now.
    The £2,500 applies to those people who are getting the new tax credits, but clearly—given that only those getting working tax credit and children's tax credit normally will be getting high value tax credits—that is where the benefit of the £2,500 incentive comes into play. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was absolutely right to use that phrase. It applies to all claimants, but those on higher incomes are likely only to be receiving the family element of child tax credit, so in practice they are unlikely to benefit because that demerit is the relatively modest one.
    It most helps those who are on the taper with working tax credit and children's tax credit. Thereafter, it tapers and then flattens for those receiving only the children's element—from £20,000 to £50,000. Then a smaller, final, gentle taper of about seven pence in the pound is available for those coming off the family element before they come on to child benefit. The main groups of people who will benefit from the asymmetry are those on modest incomes, those who may be going up from £10,000 to £12,000, or from £12,000 to £14,000. Over that three or four year period, if they receive regular increases of that kind, they will in any event move out of that taper and be on the family element alone.
    If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would like me to write him a more detailed explanation of how these bands are to work, he might find that helpful before we return to this issue at Report stage. I shall be happy to copy that letter to the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment shall be agreed to?
    Lord Higgins: Can I seek clarification? I thought we were withdrawing all amendments in the course of this, not moving them and accepting them.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Obviously I will defer to the Chairman. I understand that, provided that there is no dissent, government amendments can be accepted by the Committee and incorporated into the Bill. If there is dissent, that does not happen and we would revisit the issue on Report.
    Lord Higgins: This circumstance did not arise at our sitting the other day. I think I am right in saying that we went through the entire sitting with all the amendments being withdrawn. Given the scale of government amendments to the Bill, I do not think I would wish to agree them. We may well wish to return to the matter on Report.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There must be some misunderstanding. Historically, Grand Committees have always been used for the specific purpose of carrying government amendments. We once had a Grand Committee which did nothing else but consider government amendments in order that the Bill could be produced, as it came out of Committee, in the form in which it was intended it should go forward for Report. It would be very undesirable indeed if we were to start opposing government amendments in Grand Committee because we would end up with a Report stage which was unduly delayed and based on a false impression of the Government's intentions.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again on Report when, if necessary, Divisions may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not say that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins is not within his rights to oppose the amendment. However, I do say that this is not the understanding between the usual channels about Grand Committees. We have found it helpful for government amendments to be carried so that the Bill can be considered better on Report.
    Lord Higgins: I am inexperienced in these matters, as indeed is the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is of course very experienced in these matters and it is helpful to have his views.
    However, this amendment raises matters of considerable complexity which we shall wish to debate on Report. That is true of a great many of the amendments for reasons we well know; namely, that so many amendments have turned up at the last minute and have not been discussed by the Commons at all. If we were to agree to it, it would then become part of the Bill, and if we wanted to raise the matter again on Report, we would have to table an amendment to change that.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Certainly.
    Lord Higgins: In that situation we would end up with a huge list of Opposition amendments. Clearly our sole objective—there is no partisan point in any of this—is to improve the structure of the Bill. However, if we go along with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests is normal practice—we are in a somewhat unusual situation on this Bill because of the vast mass of government amendments—then we would end up with the onus of moving amendments on the Opposition side rather than on the Government side, though in fact the Bill is being amended by the Government.
    A real problem arises here. The circumstances are not entirely normal but, in any case, unless there is general assent to the amendments—and those we have just been discussing raise considerable questions with regard to equity between those people receiving tax credits and those not receiving tax credits—we need to consider how best to proceed. If, however, the Government are proposing that this whole wodge of amendments, which have not been considered at all by the Commons and which we are now having put before us, should simply go into the Bill leaving the Opposition to table an equally long stream of amendments to knock them out, that is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding in the scrutiny of the Bill.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can make a substantive point and then leave the process point to the noble Lord. It is simply this: some government amendments arise later which are based on shared care. They were propelled into the domain absolutely rightly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and do have a policy implication. I can understand the noble Lord having reservations; a lot of amendments were indeed tabled late. But in practice it is now seven or eight days after those amendments were tabled and, had we been on the Floor of the House, I would have been amazed had there been any suggestion that government amendments of a technical and drafting sort—even if they were quite numerous because they were repetitive—should be resisted by the Opposition. All that does is make a distinction between awards and entitlements.
    This is not a policy point; it is a drafting point. Naturally I expect Members to come back on Report to push me on whether £2,500 is the appropriate cap or £1,500, or whether asymmetry was a proper principle to pursue. Unless we have the Bill in a shape to which those amendments can be added, we shall have a double problem on Report. On the one hand I am moving technical amendments while on the other the noble Lord is trying to move amendments to my technical amendments which address the policy substance. I should have thought it would have been for the greater convenience of the Committee if we got the technical drafting out of the way. That would allow us to revisit on Report the policy issues over asymmetry in rises and falls in income.
    Earl Russell: As the Minister knows, these amendments cause no trouble to these Benches. I agree with the Minister's assessment of the convenience of

    CWH 67
    the Committee, but if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, does not consent to these amendments he is within his rights. I suggest therefore that, rather than consuming more time on this matter, we proceed to the next business. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, only that the exercise of one's rights is something which is capable of becoming addictive.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I can help.
    Lord Higgins: The noble Lord is being extremely helpful. Can I be clear about this? Our objectives are all the same. It is merely a question of procedure. The House of Commons has not considered these amendments at all. They have all been tabled after the Bill has arrived here. If we go along with the procedure that the noble Baroness is suggesting and put them in the Bill, will the House of Commons consider those amendments when the Bill goes back there?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
    Lord Higgins: As amendments?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
    Lord Higgins: Rather than simply being part of the Bill?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The House of Commons has to agree any changes to the Bill made by your Lordships, whether from the Government or the Opposition.
    Lord Higgins: Thank you.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wanted to confirm that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. Unless an amendment achieves universal consent, it cannot be made in Grand Committee. However, from the beginning, one of the purposes of Grand Committee has been explicitly that government amendments can be made, and when the Bill goes from Grand Committee to the whole House on Report, noble Lords can see the Bill as the Government wish it to be presented on Report.
    On one occasion——perhaps the Clerks will remind me; it may have been the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill—there were so many government amendments that a whole session of Grand Committee was devoted entirely to doing nothing else but passing government amendments. Government amendments have been agreed to on virtually every Bill that has gone before a Grand Committee since the procedure was adopted.
    The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right. This is not a partisan point at all. It has been found to be helpful if the House on Report can consider the Bill as the Government would wish it to be presented. There is still the opportunity for the Opposition or anybody else to propose amendments to those matters which have been inserted into the Bill in Grand Committee. My noble friend Lady Hollis is right in saying that any amendment, whether it is made in Grand Committee or on Report, goes back to the House of Commons
    CWH 68
    and has to be considered. There is no difference whatsoever; it is simply a matter of the convenience of the House that this convention has been established.
    Lord Northbrook: Are there any unofficial rules on whether the lateness of the tabling of amendments affects how they are treated in Grand Committee?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That matter has been raised. It was debated at our last meeting. As my noble friend Lady Hollis says, it is seven or eight days since the amendments were tabled. They have not been seen by the House of Commons, and it is clearly undesirable that government amendments should be considered less than seven days after they are tabled. However, they are being considered more than seven days after they have been tabled and additional support has been provided in the form of the speaking notes. That cannot be considered an objection. However, we are on the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
    The Earl of Northesk: I defer, of course, to the greater experience of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I had always understood that one of the pillars on which scrutiny in Grand Committee was based was a lack of controversy on the Bill. The fact that, inadvertently, we have ended up with some controversy bubbling up because of the late tabling of amendments makes it much more difficult for us to deal with these issues than might have otherwise been the case.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, cannot have been at the Employment Bill Grand Committee. Controversy is of the essence of consideration of legislation, whether in Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House. Nobody is trying to avoid controversy; we are trying to avoid the time of the House being taken up in repetitive consideration.
    The Earl of Northesk: I should have said "non-contentious".
    Earl Russell: Speaking of time being taken up, may I ask that we proceed to the next group of amendments?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before we do so, does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, recognise, on reflection, that the amendments simply make a distinction, which nobody has criticised, between awards and entitlement? That is all that they do. On Report, everybody, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will be able to see the Government's intent. As a result, they will be able to move any substantive amendments of policy then. Given that, I wonder whether the noble Lord is happy to see these amendments put into the Bill.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It happened under the last Government as well.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Higgins: The Front Bench on this side of the House finds itself having to make instant decisions on a matter that they had not previously contemplated. I still have some cause for concern, because noble Baroness' explanation gives rise a number of genuine points of principle, in particular the relationship between taxpayers on the one hand and people in receipt of tax credits on the other.
    We will wish to table an amendment on Report. The procedure merely changes the onus of proof one way rather than the other. Since it is clear that we will need to table such amendments, we will do so, but it seems to put an undue burden on the Opposition, rather than letting the Government move their own amendments and defend them on the Floor of the House. Having said that, I would not wish to dissent further on this group.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord has not challenged the need to distinguish between awards and entitlement, which is the point of the amendments. I am sure we will wish to revisit the substance on Report, as he has said. I thank him for his helpful response.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 25:
    Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
    "(1A) Where the Board—

    (a) decide under section 14 not to make an award of a tax credit on a claim, or

    (b) decide under section 16 to terminate an award of a tax credit made on a claim,

    (subject to any appeal) any entitlement, or subsequent entitlement, to the tax credit for any part of the same tax year is dependent on the making of a new claim."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 27:
    Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
    "(2A) Entitlement to a tax credit pursuant to a claim ceases—

    (a) in the case of a joint claim, if the persons by whom it was made could no longer jointly make a joint claim, and

    (b) in the case of a single claim, if the person by whom it was made could no longer make a single claim."

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 28:
    Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
    The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to gain clarification from the Government on how they intend to know whether the separation between a couple is permanent. The Bill currently says that a married couple would not be considered to be married if they were,
    "separated in circumstances in which the separation is likely to be permanent".
    CWH 70
    We would be grateful if the noble Baroness would give us a little more information on how the Government would know the likelihood of the permanence of separation. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I may need the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi to help me a little more. When people are separated is well established in social security law. The judgment of that is that they maintain separate households, although it is possible to have separation within the same household. The normal tests would be whether there is a separate household, whether there is a sexual relationship, whether there are children, whether the relationship is stable and whether there is a financial sharing of resource. Those are the tests of whether two people are operating as a heterosexual couple for social security purposes. Separation is normally where people have separate households, although it is possible to be separated within a house if those tests of a sexual relationship, a financial relationship and the stable relationship are not in play. I do not know if there is anything further I can tell the noble Lord.
    Obviously there is a lot of debate sometimes from lone parents as to whether a boyfriend is a cohabitee. We are not establishing any new principle from that already in place in social security. The Inland Revenue already has experience of that with the existing tax credits. If we do not have such a rule, a cohabiting couple will be treated more favourably than a married couple. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would wish to advocate such a position.
    Earl Russell: If it is any help, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who used to be President of the Family Division of the High Court, once rehearsed the answer to precisely this question. His answer was identical to the Minister's. This, like weather forecasting, is an uncertain art, but nobody, so far as I know, proposes that either of them should stop.
    Lord Saatchi: I am most grateful for that description. It prompts me to ask how the characteristics of the separated couple, or the couple deemed to be permanently separated, are elicited from them. How do they answer those questions about the nature of the relationship and so on?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There is a very simple answer to that—if it is not the one the noble Lord is seeking, perhaps he will press me further—which is that the working tax credit and child tax credit forms are jointly signed. Therefore, if they are jointly signed, the presumption is that those two are acting as a couple. If it is not jointly signed, then we are possibly dealing with a lone parent and a non-resident parent or maybe a child in two separate households. The fact that it is a joint claim should overcome the noble Lord's concerns.
    Lord Saatchi: I am grateful for that response. However, notwithstanding what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, with 50 per cent of marriages now ending in divorce the transition period between the first stage

    CWH 71
    of separation and divorce must be a long and complicated one, affecting a great many people. I am slightly puzzled, therefore, as to how the Government extract the information that they require. However, I shall not press the point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 29:
    Page 3, line 5, after "prescribed" insert "by reference to the time absent from the United Kingdom"
    The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 30 is grouped with Amendment No. 29, so for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to that.
    Amendment No. 29 is based on the premise that individuals in receipt of British non-contributory benefits or tax credits should ordinarily be physically in the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Higgins observed, the benefits and supports so conserved are a direct product of the generosity of the British taxpayer. It is therefore unreasonable that persons in receipt of such payments should be overseas except on one ground only: that is, limited periods of absence from our shores.
    Accordingly, Amendment No. 29 is designed to limit the exceptions. Excuses of having to deal with family affairs overseas will in many cases be plausible but would be impossible to police. Logically, therefore, the only fair and practical rule is to exclude any exception, save for reasons defined by short periods of absence. The amendment leaves it open to the Government to prescribe the period but, by limiting the grounds of exception to a period only, it prevents the construction in regulations of complex arrangements which make exceptions for all manner of reasons. That would replicate the horrifically complicated and almost impossible-to-regulate provisions of Regulation 4 of the Income Support General Regulations 1987 as amended. Bluntly, is it too churlish to suggest that the system of tax credits is already complicated enough without adding to its complexity?
    I have one final thought in this context. The Minister, during our debates last week, defined the tax credit system as a structural reorganisation and moved away from separate chimneys to a horizontal arrangement. Fair enough. But as my noble friend Lord Higgins intimated, it will take some time for us to assimilate the full implications of this. Within this reorganisation there has to be an explicit aspiration that over time and in order to deliver the Government's policy of encouraging people into employment, more and more people will be in work. That, together with poverty reduction, is the primary thrust of the Government's policy. The Minister emphasised that point again today. In such circumstances, there is every reason to assume that they should ordinarily be in the United Kingdom.
    Amendment No. 30 merely seeks to probe whether the provision in subsection (5) is intended to apply equally to couples, whether or not married, submitting claims for tax credits as to individual claimants. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: I think this is the appropriate place to raise what is a fairly major question, of which I have given the Minister notice; that is, whether this Bill is in accord with the provisions of European law. Within the terms of this Bill, nationals of other European Union countries working in this country are eligible for the tax credit but British subjects working elsewhere in the European Union are not eligible for the tax credit. The Minister will I hope, before we go further, confirm that that is the correct understanding of what the Bill does.
    I understand why the Government may have wished to do it in this way. The question is whether the Treaty of Rome actually permits it to be so done. I have been looking first at Article 7 of the Treaty, which states:
    "Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited".
    One may say that this is a discrimination on grounds of location and not on those of nationality.
    I looked then at the section on freedom of movement. At Article 48.2 of the Treaty it states:
    "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment. remuneration and other conditions of work and employment".
    So, if I have read that correctly, it means that it is not legal to pay the tax credit to EU nationals working here and not to British subjects working elsewhere.
    Article 51 of the Treaty also bears on this point. It states:
    "The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, adopt such measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of movement for workers; to this end, it shall make arrangements to secure for migrant workers and their dependants:
    "(a) aggregation, for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit and of calculating the amount of benefit, of all periods taken into account under the laws of the several countries;
    "(b) payment of benefits to persons resident in the territories of Member States".
    Article 51(b), in particular, seems to bear very directly and explicitly on the provisions in the Bill to ensure the payment of benefits to persons resident in the territories of Member States.
    When one thinks about the constitution of the labour market within the EU at the moment, it is very difficult to divide it according to the old traditional national categories. Most people in today's labour market are not merely neither regularly in work nor regularly out of work; they are also neither regularly working in one country nor regularly working in another.
    Consider, for example, someone who is employed by one of the holiday tour firms. They may be regarded as resident in this country if they come home for the winter, but every now and then these tour firms need

    CWH 73
    someone to stay over the winter in the holiday place abroad to oversee building work, repair work, furnishing work and so on. If such a period of absence should be over 12 months, as it may well be, then some difficult questions may arise under the Bill.
    If one considers the Tower of Babel that was the rebuilding of Berlin, which gave rise to a great many cases under the habitual residence test—which members of the department may well remember—there again, saying that someone was a national of one country and therefore working in that country tended to lead one very much astray.
    One only needs to look at those who are working in the Gatwick Airport Hotel, to take an example that comes into my mind at random, to realise that globalisation has, to a very large extent, come to the labour force as well as to capital. In fact, looking at the situation, I am beginning to wonder whether the national state is as out of date as the forum for fixing laws on these matters—and, indeed, for the management of economic policy—as the parish now is for the operation of poor relief. It may indeed have been out of date by 1601, but the Minister and I can keep that to discuss in private.
    I like the Bill. This is a serious question and I should like to see it answered. But I do not at present see, other than by agreeing to pay the tax credit to British subjects working elsewhere in the EU, how it could be answered to the satisfaction of the European Court of Justice.
    4.30 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether I would be answering the question of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, first if I were to say that it will; that Clause 3 provides that to claim tax credits a person must be in the UK—in other words, ordinarily resident. That is the first point.
    The second point was about couples. The situation depends whether we are talking about someone under immigration control. A partner who is not subject to immigration control can make a claim, but no second adult element is available in respect of the partner. However, income from both partners is taken into account. I hope that addresses the two specific points that the noble Lord raised. If not, I shall come back on that.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to give me notice of his concerns relating to the Treaty of Rome. I am not sure that I am using the appropriate Home Office language—I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me if I am not—but we are talking about three categories of person: British nationals resident in this country; EU nationals working in this country; and people who are subject to immigration control who are working in this country. Those are our three starting categories.
    A claimant, of whatever nationality, who is an EU national and is resident and working in the United Kingdom will be eligible for child tax credits at the moment, on the grounds that it is a family benefit
    CWH 74
    under EC Regulation 1408/721. That is what we presume, although it is still being consulted on and my comments should have a lot of health warnings attached. Working tax credit is outside the scope of Regulation 1408/721, but we believe that it may be within the scope of Regulation 1612/68, which protects the rights of migrant workers. Our regulation will coexist with these rules. I do not know whether that is helpful to the noble Earl.
    Insofar as there is a family benefit involved, EU nationals are treated in exactly the same way as British nationals. Equally, if someone is subject to immigration control at the moment and working in this country, there is no expectation. They may he seeking asylum or they may be from a country such as Australia and be working here with a work permit and have come here on the grounds that they will not have any recourse to public funds. At the moment they are not eligible to WFTC or DPTC. I expect that situation to continue. I do not know whether that addresses the points raised by the noble Earls, Lord Russell and Lord Northesk, but I shall come back on that if necessary.
    Lord Northbrook: Would there be any advantage in using the words "resident" or "ordinarily resident" in the United Kingdom, which I understand to be income tax jargon? Would that be of any help?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That would be different. This system uses the phrase "habitually resident", and the tax system, I understand, uses "ordinarily resident". Although in practice the two are virtually the same, habitual residence assumes that someone was here at the point at which the investigation was made. "Ordinarily resident" might cover some of the examples that the noble Earl, Lord Russell gave—that, at that point of inquiry, they might not have been habitually resident for the previous six weeks, but there is no doubt that this is their ordinary home.
    Earl Russell: The Minister has taken us a little further forward, but the odd man out in the Minister's three categories is the British subject working in other EU countries. That person's freedom of movement within the EU is undoubtedly being discouraged by the fact that he will lose the tax credit on going abroad. The Minister cannot very well deny that if she regards the tax credit as an incentive to work within this country, which is, after all, the basic purpose of the Bill.
    Time has not permitted me to follow the Treaty of Rome down into the provisions of the Single European Act. This is the examining season as well as the Bill season. However, I have no doubt that, were Ito look at the Single European Act, I would find a whole range of material intended to discourage people from discouraging people from working as migrant workers within the EU. One must not discourage the free movement of labour within the Community.
    Because this Bill is currently very likely indeed to have the effect of discouraging the free movement of labour within the Community, I hope the Government

    CWH 75
    will take the maximum possible amount of advice on European law before letting the Bill go ahead. I wish the Bill to succeed and I do not want it to crash down in flames in the European Court of Justice.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have taken quite considerable advice on this. The test for what I call the high value benefit—child tax credit—is residence in the UK, not nationality within the EU. That is why we avoid discrimination; we are treating like for like. So an EL national working in the UK is treated in the same way as a UK citizen. If a UK citizen is abroad for more than a temporary period—obviously that has to be determined following consultation and guidance; we are not trying to get at somebody who is away for a matter of a few weeks—we would treat them as a national of another country working in their own home. That is the basis. It is residence and not nationality.
    I am advised that that is what the Treaty of Rome provides for; that a worker moving abroad will be entitled to support from the host state on the same basis as a national of that host state. It is residence and not nationality that counts.
    Earl Russell: If the Minister has avoided Scylla, has she not charged straight into Charybdis? If she avoids discrimination, is she not therefore, by the very act which avoids discrimination, taking herself straight into the face of the charge that she is discouraging freedom of movement of workers within the EU? Those are both legitimate objectives in European law.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I suspect—though I may well be wrong—that the logic of the noble Earl's position is that if tax credits were to follow a British citizen to a long-term placement in Germany or France, we would have no grounds to stop us paying to German and French citizens the same tax credits, otherwise we would be distinguishing in favour of British citizens working in Germany. I do not think the noble Earl wants to take us down that route.
    Earl Russell: I hope that the Minister will take further advice on this. I cannot see that the present position will stand up to legal scrutiny. I should like to see the Bill drafted in a way that does. I am not capable of doing that entirely on my own; I doubt if the Minister is either. I hope we will discuss this matter further. Meanwhile, I have taken it as far as I can at present, and I am content to leave it there.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall write to the noble Earl.
    The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for the two specific answers given by the Minister. Perhaps I can press her a little further on one specific point. Is it the intention that the circumstances in subsection (5) are to be horrendously complicated or relatively simple? Perhaps she would clarify that point.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure the intention is that they should be relatively simple. The noble Earl would not expect me to give any other answer. This is
    CWH 76
    being carried by regulations. The regulations are obviously in the process of consultation with the relevant bodies. This is rather technical and I should like to follow it up by writing to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Again, if he feels that my answer is not full enough, or if he feels that there are still obscurities, I invite him to probe it on Report.
    The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 [Claims: supplementary]:
    The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 31:
    Page 3, line 12, after "manner" insert ", whether or not before an official of the Board who is satisfied that all facts necessary to establish the claim have been made out,"
    The noble Earl said: I should begin by acknowledging that Amendment No. 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Freeman in this grouping achieves my intended purpose far more effectively and elegantly than Amendment No. 31. Nonetheless, there are issues here of underlying principle that I hope the Minister will comment upon in due course.
    Self-evidently, the purpose of the amendment is to make allowance for a claimant, or someone acting for him, to meet an official to provide necessary information to establish a claim. It would, of course, be inappropriate to commit officials to having to conduct face-to-face interviews in all cases. Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons why it is important that the lines of communication between claimants and officials need to be buttressed.
    I start with Clause 3(1) of the Bill, which states:
    "Entitlement to a tax credit is dependent on the making of a claim for it."
    The logical inference of this is that, notwithstanding the increased use of means testing, the Government could be said to be moving towards a system of self-assessment of benefit entitlement. The responsibility and onus of proving a right to and obtaining a tax credit is, in the main, imposed on the individual claimant. No doubt the Inland Revenue will be proactive in offering assistance to those seeking to submit their claims. Indeed, the assurances offered in this respect by the Paymaster General and the Financial Secretary in another place afford some comfort. It is a source of anxiety, however, that there is little enough on the face of the Bill to this effect. Here we should not lose sight of the Government's stated determination to instil a greater focus on customer service and satisfaction, as delineated in the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, Reforming the Public Services: Principles into Practice, which states on page 11 that:
    "The starting point must be that the public has a right … to income support, and that it is the duty of the Government to secure these rights on their behalf".

    CWH 77
    Taken at face value, therefore, the Revenue has a "duty" to do as much as it can to facilitate the delivery of tax credits to those who qualify—a duty that is magnified by the Government's proposal to integrate benefits and tax. The Revenue will, in effect, be delivering an essential public service that, according to the Government's thinking, needs to be focused towards customer satisfaction.
    Of course, the logic of face-to-face interviews is underpinned by the two important issues of take-up and fraud. The system of tax credits introduced by the Bill is undeniably complex, especially for the client groups at whom it is aimed. Of itself, this argues in favour of proactive involvement by the Revenue to enhance take-up. Here the significance of the Government's proposition to integrate benefits with the tax system should not be under-estimated. It opens up the possibility of deploying the supposed boon of data matching and the myriad other analytical tools that are now possible, provided of course that the relevant software is programmed and written properly. In passing, I merely make the point that at the same time it introduces the potential bane of infringement of rights to privacy. It is intriguing that the Government feel able to cite figures on the take-up of tax credits with relative precision, however they may be calculated. Indeed, as the Minister observed last week:
    "We know already who many of the recipients will be. They are families who are currently claiming WFTC, DPTC and the child tax credit. Those families will be sent a form directly later this year. We also know, obviously, the families on IS and JSA who will be eligible. So there is a lot of automaticity in the process". [Official Report, 16/5/02; col. CWH51]
    In other words, it could be inferred that one of the potential rewards of integration is that it opens up the Orwellian possibility of the Government being able, via data matching techniques and so on, to identify claimants almost on an individual basis. That being so, the Revenue could and perhaps should be more actively involved in enlightening potential claimants of their entitlement, thereby improving levels of take-up. Equally, the Revenue could—and again, perhaps should—be using the data available to it to identify instances where claims are likely to be on the cusp of entitlement or potentially fraudulent. Insofar as this analysis is accurate, it is all the more extraordinary that the Government have been so reticent in providing information about the levels of fraud that have been identified in the working families' tax credit—a matter to which I alluded last week. After all, despite indicating that their investigation into a benchmarking exercise on this would be available in September 2001, here we are eight months later still faced with an uneasy silence.
    Be that as it may, there is legitimacy in the argument that against this background, face-to-face interviews would work to the benefit of both claimants and the Revenue. It would empower claimants who are uncertain or confused as to their eligibility and would afford the Revenue a valuable filter to establish the legitimacy of claims. I beg to move.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Freeman: I shall speak to Amendment No. 237, standing in my name. As this is the first amendment that I am speaking to, I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests already registered, although none is pertinent to this debate. What is relevant is the fact that I salute and march alongside in sympathy with the views of the low incomes tax relief group, from which I have sought guidance and advice on this Bill and, as the Minister will recall, on the working families' tax credit Bill two years ago.
    I very much agree with what my noble friend has said about Amendment No. 31. My amendment deals in part only with what my noble friend said, but it is a matter of principle, not procedure. It may look like procedure but underlying it is an important point.
    The background to the point is that a great number of additional claimants—and this is most welcome—are being drawn into the right to claim these tax credits. An even larger number of claimants will need their rights re-assessed because they are already claiming one of the predecessor tax credits.
    We are dealing with a large number of people and a matter that is quite complex, as the proceedings of the Committee have already borne out. Where one has a large number of people—and therefore a lot of money and complication—there lies the seeds not only of misdirection by the claimants but of inequity.
    I raised a number of issues prior to and during Second Reading and the Minister kindly wrote to me on 8th May. In her letter the Minister referred specifically to the subject matter of the amendment. She stated:
    "As well as the comprehensive guidance notes that will be supplied with the form, help in filling, it in will he available over the phone or on-line""—
    I assume that means by reference to the website—
    "Claimants will also be able to get help at their local Inland Revenue Office".
    That is not enough with legislation of this complexity. It is directly at odds with the system that prevails in the social security offices that I have to deal with for my former constituents where there is, de facto, a right of audience with an official. Indeed, those who served in another place will remember going with constituents to help them in their discussions—and, indeed, negotiations—with officials.
    That is not the case with Inland Revenue offices. I refer to an earlier answer given by the Minister to my noble friend Lord Northbrook. She said that there will be an extension of the network of local Inland Revenue offices, but I wonder whether we are doing the claimants proper justice by not giving them an absolute right to a face-to-face interview to answer some or all of the points that I have put in my amendment. There is a big difference between the procedure which we are now abandoning and the system to be administered by the Inland Revenue.
    I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will help me. I cannot conclude my brief contribution without seeking to emulate him, very badly, with a quote. I suggest that we should move from the situation —I

    CWH 79
    believe that I am referring to the American revolution—of no taxation without representation to the one which I believe should apply now—that is, no completed claim without explanation. That would protect both the claimant and the Government.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I can give a full reply, but I wonder whether we are making somewhat heavy weather of this. Most of those coming over to the new benefits will either be existing recipients of benefits, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, identified when he talked about automaticity, or will be currently claiming WFTC or DPTC, and therefore we will be able to help them. We will also know of course the case load for children's tax credit. Given that, we will be able to send claims forms to all of those households. The number of new and additional families which are currently unknown by the system will be relatively modest. If I can help your Lordships with the scats on that, I will do so.
    Alongside that, we will also be running a publicity campaign. Once that is in place, people will be able to make their claims on line, over the phone or, at their request, in an interview at either a DWP job centre office or an Inland Revenue office. It does not seem sensible to impose an interview on people who do not want it. What is important is that anyone who wants it has access to it. When they fill in their forms—particularly if they make inquiries over the telephone—if it is clear that they would find a face-to-face interview helpful, then that will be made available to them.
    Do I need to go on much beyond that? If I do, I shall happily come back to it. I am thinking about the procedures of the House and trying to expedite matters if I can.
    Lord Freeman: I am grateful to the Minister. There is a difference between what the Minister explained, which is that there is a panoply of ways in which the rights of a claimant can be explained, and Amendment No. 237 which says that every claimant who wishes it has the right to a face-to-face interview with officials from the Inland Revenue. That is different.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Anybody who wishes an interview—either with the Inland Revenue or, if it is more appropriate, at the job centre club—will be encouraged to have an interview. I do not see that there is a problem here. It is not the sort of thing we put on the face of a Bill but whether it takes place with the DWP or with the Inland Revenue depends where they are coming from.
    Going back to the automaticity, it is indeed as I suspected. The only two groups for whom we will not have some information already are those who are newly eligible for child tax credit, because they are single earners over about f41,000—there are not many of those—or indeed those receiving just WFTC, the single adults or the childless couples, of whom there are some 300,000. Given that we can get information to well over 5 million or so of the 5.7 million who will he eligible for child tax credits automatically; given that we have an extensive publicity campaign; given
    CWH 80
    that people can fill in their forms online, over the telephone or in an interview; and given that there will be a helpline that people can call which will certainly make it clear that they can come in for an interview, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that there is abundant information and help for potential claimants.
    Lord Freeman: I am sorry to labour the point. If the Minister is saying that every claimant does have the right to a face-to-face interview with an official from the Inland Revenue, that takes us a long way forward.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The proviso I made there was DWP. Many people will currently be receiving benefits and their natural home will he the Job Centre Plus rather than the Inland Revenue. Without exception, anyone who seeks an interview will, I am assured, be offered one.
    Lord Higgins: With whichever department they prefer?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With whichever one is appropriate. If somebody is on benefit and will be receiving the child tax credit because they are on income support, and they are not a taxpayer and have no dealings with the Inland Revenue, it would not be particularly sensible to suggest that they went along to the local tax office. Their natural point of contact would be DWP. However, if there were some peculiar circumstances in which they felt it was more appropriate, I do not see why that would be a problem.
    The Earl of Northesk: I thank the Minister for that reply. That assurance is extremely useful. The substantive point I was trying to tease out with my amendment is that my perception of the structure of the Bill is that it is weighted very much in favour of the Revenue, rather than understanding that the Revenue sits there with a duty of care, almost, to claimants. That was the substantive point I was trying to get at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawan.
    Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 32:
    Page 3, line 13, at end insert ", provided that no tax credit claim form shall exceed a single page of A4 paper"
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 236. These amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 32, lie at the heart of our concerns about the Bill I shall give a moment's background to the amendments if I may.
    Amendment No. 32 obviously seeks to replace the present formidably complex claims systems with something simpler. Amendment No. 33 seeks the Minister's thoughts on the fact that BUPA and many other insurers have abandoned the old-style claim form approach and replaced it with making claims by speaking to an operator with a computer, who asks them the necessary questions and inputs only the necessary answers. The modern approach of large insurers involves having someone of experience and

    CWH 81
    knowledge asking only the relevant questions and directly putting the answers onto the computer system. The Government could do this by providing either an interview with an official, as my noble friend suggested in a previous amendment, by telephone or by e-mail. Ultimately the savings to the Government could be great if they can make their computer systems live up to their promise.
    Our main point, also made by my noble friend on the previous amendment, is that this procedure would help the applicant. Amendment No. 33 seeks a response from the Government and asks what is the stumbling block to the introduction of such a system for tax credit.
    I would like to dwell for a moment on Amendment No. 32 in order to put it into context. Although the amendment concerns simplicity, I am afraid I shall have to speak to it at some length. I am embarrassed about that. My only comment in defence of the length of what I am going to say is to repeat a line Winston Churchill liked to quote from Mark Twain's letter to a friend:
    "I wanted to write a short letter, but I didn't have time".
    Perhaps I may try to put Amendment No. 32 into context. Most people believe that the tax system now takes around 39 per cent of GDP, but that is just the end result of the system. The total system collects a staggering total of 53 per cent of GDP. The citizen is then obliged to claim back 14 per cent of GDP, around £143 billion, by navigating a mass of over 250 complex tax allowances, reliefs, exemptions, credits—the subject of the Bill—tapers, indexations, disregards and so forth. I have details of some of the means by which the citizen makes those claims. I have here a pile of the claim forms used by the Department for Work and Pensions, amounting to a total of 1,158 pages.
    The charm of such a complicated tax system, from the point of view of the Government, is the scope it allows for hidden tax increases via reduced allowances or, in the case of the Bill, the reduced value of tax credits. Under this structure the Chancellor can increase the tax burden without ever announcing a tax rise. People simply wake up and find they are in a higher tax bracket, with the result that tax as a percentage of national income creeps up invisibly.
    Economists call this "fiscal drag", and it is part of the reason why, over the past three years, the Government's tax revenues have risen three times faster than average earnings. The basic tax allowance of £4,365 should now be £10,000 to keep pace with earnings growth. We have to remember that this is no longer a problem affecting only a small minority of people. As my noble friend Lord Freeman said a moment ago, it affects a very large number of people and concerns a very large sum of money.
    The Bill will ensure that around 40 per cent of all families in this country will be on means-tested benefits of some kind. Tax credits will go to 56 per cent of those in retirement. The introduction of the pension credit will further extend means testing amongst pensioners. By 2025 it will increase the proportion of people being
    CWH 82
    means tested to approximately 65 per cent of single pensioners and 51 per cent of couples. In fact, 90 per cent of all households in the country are now eligible for a credit or benefit of some kind.
    Let us consider pensioners for a moment. In response to the Government's pension credit proposals, this is what Age Concern had to say:
    "The good intentions behind the pensioner credit could yet be thwarted by its complexity…Older people already feel lost in the means-tested maze, resulting in up to three-quarters of a million families failing to claim their income support. Unless people feel encouraged to claim it will simply not reach those it is designed to help. It is far too complex and over-elaborate. We need a system which is simple, understandable and which accords a proper dignity to pensioners".
    The difficulty that Age Concern describes about its pensioners is not an aberration, and it is not a condition which applies only to the pensioner credit. The problems that it describes are central to the system with which the Bill deals. That is because the requirements for income tax have never reached so far down the income scale. So today people suffer not just because their incomes are too low, but because even people on low incomes have their already low income further reduced by tax.
    Under the present system, the Government first taxes people on their income; then it means tests their income; then it offers them a 40-page application form to claim credits or benefits. Yet every year billions of pounds—that is the point of this amendment—of budgeted expenditure on tax credits go unclaimed by millions of citizens who cannot fathom out how to claim them.
    We should remember that the working families' tax credit had a take-up of 62 per cent. Only 72 per cent of entitled families with children had claimed the children's tax credit by December 2001. This year it is estimated that £2.6 billion of budgeted expenditure on tax credits will go unclaimed.
    That is why we believe it is incumbent on us here in Parliament to simplify the procedure wherever we can. We all know about stealth tax. That is a tax charge which is unknown or incomprehensible to its victim. I put it to the Committee that without Amendment No. 32 or something like it, the Bill is in danger of introducing us to a new and even more insidious form of tax raising; that is, the non-payment of a tax relief or tax credit. One might call it a stealth credit or tax relief which, by accident or design, are unknown or incomprehensible to their beneficiaries.
    There is one crucial difference between a stealth tax and a stealth credit which I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee. The stealth tax is unerring in its reach. It achieves 100 per cent "take-up". The stealth credit, on the other hand, reaches only 60 per cent of its beneficiaries.
    The table on page 154 of the Red Book illustrates to the Committee the importance of this point. This table shows, very helpfully, the impact of Budget changes. It shows a £4.6 billion tax rise—namely, national insurance contribution increases and personal tax rises—and a £4.6 billion tax reduction in the form of tax credit. The problem is that, unless the take-up of

    CWH 83
    the tax credit is as high as the take-up of the tax payment, the £4.6 billion of tax rise in the last Budget from NICs will be paid to the Government. However, our fear is that the £4.6 billion of tax reductions from tax credits will not be paid by the Government. That is unfair, and this amendment will help to correct that injustice.
    Perhaps I may continue for a moment on what we believe to be the crucial nature of the direction of this amendment. The Government, I am sure, do not wish to be accused of taking advantage of the poorest and neediest people in our society and there is no need for them to put themselves in that position. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said—I am sure the noble Baroness has said this also—that child and pensioner poverty is an obscenity in the 21st century, especially in a country like ours with the fourth largest economy in the world. I do not need to labour the point.
    The Government are right to put poverty at the centre of their social and fiscal policies and I can see that tax credit legislation like this can be an important tool to achieve that end. However, if the Government are sincere in that wish, they should heed perhaps not the words of the Opposition Front Bench on this amendment, but their own Members in another place. For example, the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, Glenda Jackson, said in another place:
    "There is a gap in people's understanding of the working families' tax credit, how they can apply for it and the benefits that it can bring."—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/02; col. 31WH.]
    Diane Abbott, the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, the constituency with the highest number of single parents in the country, commented in another place that as an Inner London MP she found that the working families' tax credit had not had the impact on her constituents that she would have liked. She went on to draw attention to the disparity between what the Government had said about the new schemes and the experience of her poorest constituents:
    "There was a mismatch between the bulging files of press releases announcing new Government initiatives in my office and people's perception of what was being delivered".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/02; col. 34WH.]
    I know the Minister will say that she and the Government are looking at the problem of take-up, that they are very conscious of it and are consulting various stakeholders. I gather that the Government are carrying out a wide-ranging evaluation programme on the problem of take-up. Perhaps she will confirm that point. No doubt her officials will continue their dialogue with key groups which can help. I hope that she will tell us about the status of that work so that we can learn from the results. We would very much like to know the views of the Minister on how to tackle the problem of take-up, if not via this amendment, then something like it.
    In closing, I offer an area that she might want to address in her response. Many Members of another place said that in their constituencies, when they spoke to people about tax credits, they found that there was profound ignorance, for example, of the WFTC. People simply did not know whether they were eligible
    CWH 84
    for it. The quality of advice given in employment offices was often variable, and not many people went to the Employment Service or other agencies to receive better assessments. They simply did not have the figures to show them whether they would be better off with the credits.
    This point was underlined by the publication of the latest Government statistics on benefit take-up. As other noble Lords have done in our debates, it drew attention to the root problem of complexity. For example, the report entitled Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-up in 1999/2000 showed that the take-up of income support was lowest for pensioners at between 64 per cent and 78 per cent by caseload, and between 74 per cent and 86 per cent by expenditure. There was also evidence that the percentage of entitled pensioners taking up income support fell between 1999 and 2000.
    The report also showed that last year, 500,000 eligible pensioners were not receiving income support; this year, the figure has risen to 580,000. Last year, 150,000 eligible pensioners were not receiving housing benefit; this year, that figure has grown to 210,000. Last year, there were 1,070,000 eligible pensioners not receiving council tax benefit; this year the figure is 1,215,000.
    I apologise again for the length of this introduction to the amendment. Our starting point for Amendment No. 32 is a tax system of "paralysing complexity" according to the editor of the Financial Times. "A monstrous thing" says the editor of the Economist. In our opinion, simplicity, such as the simplicity we seek in a claim form, is the outcome of technical subtlety. It is the goal, not the starting point. It requires what I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell's father called,
    "the painful necessity of thought"
    to make it simple. The Government like to say that the Bill is a simplifying measure. We would very much like them to prove it by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Freeman: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 236, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 32 and with which I am in full agreement. I shall take up the point made by my noble friend about the degree to which individual citizens with rights properly claim them and take them up. I suspect I might be pushing at an open door here, but I invite the noble Baroness to look through the other end of the telescope at the semantics used by the claimant, the individual.
    There is a difference between an "application",—a word used in the draft forms from the Inland Revenue, which I am sure she has read and on which her officials will have briefed her—referring to an application form, which implies discretion, and a claim, which is on the face of the Bill, which implies not a discretionary matter, but an absolute right.
    It seems to me that all the literature that will emanate from this legislation when it becomes an Act—as I hope it will after proper reform of the Bill—will refer to the "right" to a claim and not to an

    CWH 85
    "application". Perhaps I should remind the Members of the Committee that when you draft—or when your accountant drafts—your tax refund form, you are not making an application but an absolute claim. I believe that that is the word we should use.
    Earl Russell: In tabling Amendment No. 32, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has been too trusting. It reminds me of a Bill which was tabled in another place in 1606. Clerks then used to be paid by the line. Some of them attempted, unilaterally and arbitrarily, to increase the rate per line at which they were paid. A Member tabled a Bill to restrict them to a specific number of pence per line. Another Back-Bencher got up and said,
    "Watch out. If you pass this Bill, all they'll do is have fewer words in each line?"!
    If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is agreed to, all we will get is very much smaller print—which I, for one, will find very difficult to read. The Bill was withdrawn; I hope that the amendment will be also.
    Lord Higgins: My experience on other Bills suggests the contrary. We will get a one page sheet to fill in and a 200-page explanatory memorandum.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All of these propositions are tempting. Again I shall be very brief. I am sure that the Committee will understand if I stay with the amendment that is on the Marshalled List rather than be tempted into the broader issues of the fiscal drag and so on raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, which he argued very eloquently at Second Reading.
    If there is a particular concern about take-up it might be valuable if the noble Lord could bring forward an appropriate amendment to open-up this issue at Report stage, when I will come back very specifically on take-up. If I can give him any particular information in regard to our assumptions on take-up and how we seek to overcome any problems, I will be happy to do so.
    Taking the amendments back to front, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is probably right in regard to Amendment No. 236. However, given that the words "application form" and so on have been used by the Inland Revenue, I should like to ask the officials to discuss this with the appropriate voluntary groups with whom we are consulting in order to discover what terminology is preferred by their clients. I will then come back to the noble Lord on the outcome of those discussions. He may well be right, but let us look to see what we end up with in terms of consistency with existing tax practices as opposed to the outcome of consultations with the group.
    The first two amendments—I have dealt with the third, I hope—would restrict the length of any claim form to one page of A4. They would provide that a claim may be made by means of an interview, conducted in person, over the phone or by electronic means. The noble Lord did not say very much about that.
    CWH 86
    As to the point about the one page, I have here a draft, a mock-up of what the claim form may look like, which consists of some 12 pages of print. Even with my poor eyesight, it is big enough to read. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is quite right: a one page A4 form would allow you to list, in fairly small font, your name, your partner's name, address, nationality and phone number. If you had only one child he or she would be included on page one, but any more would be left off altogether, I suspect.
    It would have to exclude all reference to disability, hours, wages and employer; it would have to exclude all questions about any other income and savings; it would have to exclude all reference to preferred method of payment; and it would have to exclude all reference to childcare. There is no conceivable way that that could be put on such a form.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will help me, but I think it was the Victorians who used to be rather good at producing a Bible on rice paper measuring about an inch and a half by an inch and giving a magnifying glass with which to read it. On the substance of the amendment, I hope the noble Earl will realise we cannot do as he asks.
    Having said that, just as the MIG forms were rightly reduced from 40 or 50 pages—with questions on subjects from pregnancy to pensions—to 10 or 12 pages, partly as a result of pressure from your Lordship's House, so this form is a model of clarity and simplicity. I would be happy to circulate draft copies to your Lordships.
    We have taken up the point about interviews being available if people want them, but it is sensible that people start by filling in a claim form—unless they expressly do not wish to do so—and then follow that by going through to a help line and an interview on any parts that they may find difficult. If we say that all claim forms have to be filled in at an interview, we can be sure as little kittens that the applicant's capacious shopping bags—or my capacious shopping bag or the capacious shopping bag of the noble Earl, Lord Russell—will not have all the papers and other things that they need for the interview. A simple form such as this—which is simpler than the housing benefit form that most pensioners fill in, infinitely simpler than the JSA form introduced by a previous administration and about as simple as the new MIG forms that underpin pension credit—is the way forward, with the further option of either a helpline or interview for those parts that people need further help on, such as what counts as income or what level of savings should be taken into account.
    I hope that your Lordships agree that we are going the right way on this. It is a very simple form with plenty of back-up and plenty of publicity. I would be very disappointed if the amendments were not withdrawn. These benefits are remarkable in terms of their decency and their problem-solving ability in helping those who are poor without reducing the incentive to go into the labour market. We have come up with some extraordinarily effective solutions, such

    CWH 87
    as looking at gross rather than net income. If I can help by sending out further information to your Lordships, I would be happy to do so.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Freeman: I am grateful to the Minister. Circulation of the latest draft of the claim form to Members of the Committee and to those who spoke at Second Reading and have not been able to join the Committee today will be much appreciated.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The draft will come with a health warning, because obviously the final draft is determined in consultation with user groups and voluntary organisations, but if it would be helpful to your Lordships, I will do my best to get it circulated.
    Lord Freeman: I thank the Minister for that, and for regarding noble Lords also as a user group.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would be amazed if any of your Lordships qualified, apart from for child benefit, which is not dealt with under this clause. None the less, I regard this as a consultative body.
    Lord Saatchi: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As my noble friend Lord Freeman said, it would be helpful to see that draft. Perhaps it meets some of the objections.
    I am surprised by the Minister's response. I have been most deeply impressed by her radiant sincerity about the merits of the Bill and her passionate belief in what it is trying to do. However, I am surprised that she does not find it completely unacceptable that 40 per cent of the people who have a right to these credits do not receive them on the grounds of complexity.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is getting his stats from. It is certainly true that the original survey, conducted about nine months after WFTC had been introduced, showed that there was a 62 per cent take-up. The latest figures we have, which I gave on Second Reading, show a further 14 to 16 per cent increase on those figures. That is why I am baffled by the noble Lord's stance. We are talking about a cash take-up of over 80 per cent and a case take-up of something like 76 per cent. From our research, we also know that those people not claiming are those who are due very small sums, perhaps £1 or £2.
    I also said that approximately 25 per cent of those who were entitled to family credit but did not claim it went on to claim WFTC.
    I also argue that it takes time to build up but we expect 85 per cent plus take-up at the very least of the new tax credits for those who will be claiming both working tax credit and children's tax credit. What we cannot give is a figure for the 300,000 who will be eligible only for the working tax credit simply because we do not have any experience of targeting this benefit at that group. If, however, we fail to reach those figures, then the noble Lord is absolutely right and I shall certainly be one of the most disappointed and distressed parliamentarians in your Lordships'
    CWH 88
    Chamber. However, I have no reason to think—from the degree of automaticity and the fact that almost all of those who will come within reach are already within either the tax revenue system or the DWP system— that we will not meet those figures and, I hope, overtake them.
    Lord Saatchi: I am grateful to be brought up to date on the figures. Would the Minister be able to bring me up to date on the latest view of the amount of money involved in tax credits not taken up? In my remarks I used what I believed to be the current figure, which is that the Government will save £2.6 billion by not paying tax credits to those who are eligible to receive them. Could the Minister confirm that figure?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot confirm that figure because I do not have it in the form I have been talking about. What is put in the accounts is not actually a statement of the cost of 100 per cent take-up; it is based on the previous year's estimate with possibly a little head space to manage the expected expenditure pattern. We would have to do some work on that. If I can obtain that figure, I shall certainly give it to the noble Lord.
    Lord Saatchi: Will the Minister say what is the take-up assumption behind the £4.6 billion cost of tax credits in the Red Book?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry, I thought I had given the noble Lord that just now. We were expecting to see 85 per cent take-up of tax credit. The figure is not higher than that because there are 300,000 people who live in childless families—either single adults or couples—who currently are not eligible for any financial support. We do not know how many of those we shall be able to reach.
    Lord Saatchi: Were there to be a shortfall on the 85 per cent figure, can the Minister say whether there is a mechanism by which those who are eligible and have the right to those tax credits, but who have not taken them up and therefore are not part of the 85 per cent, could receive them?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall come later to an amendment about back-dating—the noble Lord will understand the provisions of back-dating the Bill—and we can discuss it then. At the moment our intention is that back-dating applies for about three months for those who have failed to claim. For those who have over-claimed, it would go back to the point at which the claim was started.
    Lord Saatchi: The reason for my disappointment with the Minister's response is that I believe that the Prime Minister likes to say that we all have rights and responsibilities. As my learned friend said, it has been determined that the citizens, the people, have the right to these tax credits. The responsibility falls on the Government to make sure that they receive them. I did not have the impression from the Minister's remarks that she really takes the point that the claim forms are

    CWH 89
    a deterrent to 100 per cent take-up. Nevertheless, I am happy to leave the point there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
    The Deputy Chairman (Baroness Nicol): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 35.
    The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 34:
    Page 3, line 24, leave out paragraph (f).
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 34 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. These are probing amendments. Amendment No. 34 leaves out paragraph (f) of Clause 4(1). I simply ask whether the Minister could, for the record, give examples of situations in which the Government believe that one person may act for another in making a claim for a tax credit.
    Amendment No. 35 seeks to ensure that the Revenue satisfies itself as to the identity of a person making a claim on behalf of another, and that that person is acting genuinely in that capacity. In other words, this is a belt and braces approach to limiting opportunities for fraudulent claims. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: Believe it or not, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 100 in this grouping. It is an amendment in my own name. It is the first time this has happened in the course of the Bill. It also deals with the question of joint action, but this one comes from much further on, page 17, dealing with the giving of notices by the board. The cause I want to take up states that,
    "Regulations may—
    provide that, in prescribed circumstances, one person may act for another".
    What interests me is the extent of this part of the Bill. As drafted, it is of pretty unlimited potential application. The amendment I have tabled—I assure Members of the Committee that I would have no intention of pressing it, even if we were not in Grand Committee—is that,
    "when the claimant is tit and of sound mind, no such circumstance may be prescribed without the consent of the claimant".
    The question is, of course, how far anybody has the right to refuse to allow another person to act for them. I can think of circumstances dealing with couples who have separated perhaps during the tax year and perhaps under highly contentious circumstances, or even under potentially dangerous circumstances, where they would not in the least wish to have anyone else acting for them. Because of the use of the word "may" about communicating information, I need not ask for any further amendment of the Bill.
    I merely want to ask the Minister, first, what is actually intended with this power. Secondly, is there any way in which it could be drafted it to make the vires a little less unlimited in their extent, to restrict their intention, which I am sure is a good one, to something a little closer to the words of the Bill so that it does not
    CWH 90
    authorise a whole mass of actions which it does not really want to authorise? I await the Minister's reply with interest and with a certain degree of optimism.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked about the nature and scale of the issue. It may be helpful if I can give him some information. Currently, working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit claims may be made on behalf of a person unable to act by themselves by an "appointee". An appointee is someone appointed as a receiver by the Court of Protection or as a guardian, tutor or curator by another court of law, or someone who has been specifically appointed by a Secretary of State or Board of Inland Revenue to act on behalf of that person for the purposes of claims for benefits or tax credits. Regulation 33 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 sets this out in detail. The provision is of particular benefit to those with severe disabilities or learning difficulties who may not be able physically to complete a claim form, but who may be eligible.
    At this point I may be able to give the noble Earl some further information. My understanding is that around 1,000 DPTCs—disability awards—are currently made in cases where an appointee acts on the claimant's behalf. That is quite a small proportion, only about 3 per cent of the total, with three-quarters of those being appointee cases made by the Secretary of State or Board of the Inland Revenue. The rest are court order appointments. Around 20 per cent, 200 of those cases, are spouses appointed on their partners' behalf, but those cases are all investigations considered to be cases where the claimant is genuinely unable to act.
    I have checked and none of the staff in our unit can recall a case where a spouse was appointed when the other spouse could have acted on their own behalf. We have no evidence at all, therefore, to suggest that the issue of appointment and appointees has at any stage been abused. The numbers are so small and the procedure so rigorous that that has not occurred.
    If the noble Earl has any evidence to the contrary, then he should let me know. However, I have pursued the matter in some detail because it seemed very important. I was concerned about undue pressure, given that these are high value benefits. Given the procedure, we have no evidence that this has occurred under the existing benefit claims, except entirely to the advantage of the claimant. I hope he will agree that we do not need to elaborate on the procedures we already have, because they seem to be working. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asks us to introduce a safeguard into the provisions. In this case it is where an appointee is responding to an end-of-year notice under Clause 17. I stress that no appointee would be appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue if it is not in the best interests of the claimant to do so.
    Amendment No. 100 would not allow appointees to act on a person's behalf in response to a Clause 17 notice if the person was fit and of sound mind, unless the person consented. I do not think that provision is necessary, because it is already the case. I shall check

    CWH 91
    with my advisers and see whether, either through wording on the face of the Bill, or through regulations, we need to allay the noble Earl's fears by greater clarity of wording.
    5.30 p.m.
    Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that reply. Greater clarity of wording would give me everything for which I can legitimately ask.
    The Earl of Northesk: I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
    Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 37:
    Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
    "() The Secretary of State shall have discretion to extend such times as are prescribed under subsection (1)(a) owing to illness or other circumstances of the claimant not under his control, or to delays by other parties over whom the claimant has no control."
    The noble Earl said: It is addictive, it has happened a second time: I am actually moving another amendment. This deals with the time in which claims for tax credits can be made. They are to be made in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed time.
    Some of your Lordships may remember a Bill that was drafted by the Law Commission and raised at Question Time in the Chamber and discussed in various other ways about a year or so ago. It was a Bill to repeal the clause in the Statute of Gloucester of 1278, which said that a case cannot be counted as murder if death should happen more than a year and a day after the original injury was inflicted. Life support machines have made that out of date.
    That serves to remind us that even the most carefully and generously thought-out time limit may occasionally turn out to be irrelevant to the facts of the case. There may be cases in which people do not make a claim because they are on a life support machine and are not capable of reasoning, hearing or working out anything for themselves. Mental illness can also create such a condition. It is unfair that such serious disadvantages should also prevent those who suffer from them putting in a claim for a tax credit to which they might be entitled.
    I put down an amendment along roughly these lines to the Child Support Act 1991. I did not move it because it would have come up at 2 a.m. I found to my intense surprise that for the next stage of the Bill the amendment was down in the name of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I was not quite as fortunate in 1995. On the other hand, the principle was accepted in the regulations that we discussed last Tuesday, which were, happily, passed. As a general principle it has been accepted twice by government. Doing the hat-trick is rather nice. I hope it might happen this time. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I appreciate the noble Earl's concerns, which will give the Secretary of State discretion to extend the time limit for claims in
    CWH 92
    particular circumstances, such as the claimant having been ill or other circumstances outside the claimant's control. Of course, the Secretary of State does not have authority over tax credits, which will be under the care and management of the Board of Inland Revenue. Nevertheless, the principle of the amendment is clear.
    I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is pressing me on the issue of time limits or whether he envisages other categories of need that are not covered by the existing wording of Clause 4., which provides,
    "that a claim for a tax credit is to he treated as made by a person or persons in such other circumstances as may be prescribed."
    That prescription includes physical or mental illness.
    I wonder to what extent the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is seeking to push me on time limits, or whether he is seeking to push me on circumstances that he thinks would not be covered by mental or physical illness. Perhaps he can help me on this.
    Earl Russell: I was thinking of circumstances that might not be covered. One of the commonest delayed claims that I have to put in is failure of my P60 to appear when it should, and that sort of thing may delay a claim for reasons which are in no way the fault of the person who is making the claim. Is it possible to give any consideration to that type of case?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. I have a comment on the life-support machine. It would be difficult to conceive of circumstances in which that would come into play. That individual would not be responsible for a child and would not be working, and therefore would not be eligible for tax credits in that particular situation. They may be one of a couple, and in those circumstances the other partner would claim on behalf of both of them; in other words, we get back to the "appointee" discussion we have just had.
    The noble Earl was concerned about forms which go astray. At present, for the most part, under the general rules for income support, JSA, and so on, claims take effect the day they are made, and they can, in very limited circumstances, be back-dated for up to three months for severe illnesses. Currently, in other limited circumstances the claim may be hack-dated for one month; for example, in cases of transport or postal difficulties.
    These provisions introduce three-months backdating, which is considerably more generous. It is also the case that if, for example, claimants find their entitlement curtailed, despite the fact that they have done their best to comply with the rules—perhaps for technical reasons because one benefit hinged on —another—we would treat the claim as made on the date earlier than the date on which it was actually made in order to prevent claimants losing out on a technicality. For example, eligibility for WPTC depends on a qualifying benefit, and if that was delayed someone might lose out on the timing of their eligibility for WPTC. We now handle that.
    It is very hard to envisage postal and such delays going on beyond three-months. I am floundering slightly because I cannot think of a circumstance that the noble Earl's case would cover. The life-support

    CWH 93
    machine was dealt with; postal delays would surely be caught by the three-months limit. If a benefit depends on another benefit and is delayed due to that, then the regulations would cover that situation as they do now. Can the noble Earl, Lord Russell, give me some other help that physical or mental disabilities would not cover?
    Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. On the matter of post I can quote the case of three envelopes which were posted to me at the Huntington library and reached me three years later. I take the point that the person on the life-support machine is not going to be caring for a child at the time, but they might have tax credits due to them at the time when they went onto the life-support machine.
    Basically the Minister is relying here on Humpty Dumpty, who has ridden gallantly to the Minister's rescue. I wonder whether she might rely on that Humpty Dumpty case about treating a claim as being made at a time other than when it was actually made. I am sure she has very much enjoyed making me admit the virtue of the Humpty Dumpty clause. If so, she is entitled to. I believe she has given me about as much as I am entitled to ask for, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Freeman Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 38:
    Page 3, line 40, at end insert ", including any information about benefits and services provided by government departments to which the claimant or claimants have access by virtue of their entitlement to tax credits"
    The noble Lord said: I live in hope and expectation that the Minister will accept this amendment for two reasons. First, it is not mandatory. It is an empowerment for the Inland Revenue to offer advice on passported benefits that are linked to the claim for tax credits.
    Secondly, it is very much in line with the present Government's thinking about joined-up government. We have a situation where the Inland Revenue offices, using modern IT, have to link both to local government and to the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions, in order not only properly to assess any claim but, through the means of this amendment, to provide information about other benefits.
    I am grateful to the Minister for her response sent on 8th May to my question about the IT systems to be used by the Inland Revenue. Perhaps I may read for the record the two relevant sentences:
    "You also expressed concern about the Inland Revenue's ability to deliver such a demanding IT project on time."
    This is the project to prepare for the revision in the method of delivering tax credits:
    "I can assure you that the Revenue is aware that delivering this policy places a huge requirement on that department to deliver an IT system that is both intricate, containing a number of cross government interactions, and capable of dealing with the large number of customers entitled to tax credits."
    CWH 94
    It is the reference to the number of cross-government interactions that this amendment seeks to probe. I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has so clearly explained, the amendment would require the Inland Revenue to provide claimants with details of other benefits they may become entitled to by reason of their entitlement to tax credits. By that I mean entitlement to the so-called passported benefits. I believe that those are what the noble Lord has primarily in mind.
    I would suggest to the noble Lord that the amendment is not necessary. That may be good news, but the bad news may be that the amendment would not do what he hopes. Let me begin by seeking to assure Members of the Committee that the Revenue will be doing what it can to help people with the issue of the passported benefits. The aim is to provide basic advice on them through the tax credit helpline, and to direct claimants to where they can obtain more information. The Inland Revenue, however, cannot advise claimants on whether they will be entitled to passported benefits.
    As the noble Lord knows very well, passported benefits are the responsibility of a variety of government departments or organisations, each of which sets its own entitlement criteria. Using entitlement to certain benefits and tax credits as a trigger is merely a way of cutting down on administration by using a ready-made income test to target those benefits, such as free school meals or free prescriptions. But they also include benefits not provided by government departments, such as reduced charges for utility services.
    Because this is a complex area, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have been discussing their needs for information from the tax credit system with the departments and organisations responsible. Claimants need to be able to access advice about passported benefits, but that advice must be the best and most reliable advice available. In that case, it must come mostly from the department or organisation directly responsible for the benefit. To support that, the Revenue will be looking to see how it can facilitate wider access to advice for claimants and how it can support the departments responsible for the benefits with the information they need to target those who are eligible.
    I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we are taking what steps we can within the constraints of what is practicable. We cannot expressly provide entitlement to passported benefits in this Bill because it is not for us to determine entitlement to them. However, we are doing all we can to facilitate access to information about the benefits and to work with other departments to provide the relevant information. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will think that we are at least at one with the push of his amendment, if not with the wording.
    Lord Higgins: I am slightly surprised by that reply. The amendment refers not to entitlement, but whether

    CWH 95
    people may have access to particular benefits. It refers specifically to government departments and not to benefits outside government departments, to which the Minister appeared to refer. One cannot help but feel that the Revenue, perhaps unlike the Department for Work and Pensions, is not enthusiastic about the broader aspects of giving information on passported benefits to those individuals who may be entitled to them.
    Lord Northbrook: This amendment is worthwhile because, according to the Office for National Statistics, the take-up of means-tested benefit has been declining. Looking at the figures produced between 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the total of unclaimed means-tested benefits was £2.5 billion. As I understand it, that has increased to £3 billion. The amendment would help people's understanding of the system and encourage them to take up benefits of which they may currently not be aware.
    5.45 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We cannot turn the Inland Revenue into a welfare rights organisation taking legal responsibility for the advice that it gives when those benefits—free school dinners and so on—are run and handled by other departments. That seems inadvisable. Providing power to disclose information on passported benefits adds nothing to what is already in the Bill. I have made it clear that the Revenue is working with other departments on the mechanics of passporting. It will also provide basic information and direct people to the source of more detailed information. It would not be reasonable to expect the Inland Revenue to express a view on entitlement to passported benefits. That is a matter for the departments responsible for them.
    Lord Higgins: The amendment does not say "entitlement".
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment states:
    "any other information which is relevant to any entitlement to tax credits pursuant to the claim."
    Lord Higgins: I am sorry. I misunderstood.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Am I not right?
    Lord Higgins: Yes. I am sorry.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Thank you. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, will accept that the Inland Revenue cannot take responsibility for determining or giving information about an entitlement to a benefit which is run by another department. It can try to make sure that people have the relevant information through an advice line and a referral-on, where appropriate, and obviously this will be backed by relevant literature, but, ultimately, it is a question of functional responsibility.
    Lord Freeman: I am disappointed but not surprised by the response, which is more in keeping with the
    CWH 96
    language and attitude of the Inland Revenue than of the Minister's distinguished self, and perhaps even of the Department for Work and Pensions.
    My noble friend Lord Higgins put his finger on the point. This is not about the determination of entitlement or even the payment of other benefits. The amendment seeks to provide that the board may distribute information about other passported benefits. A mere telephone number—which I think the Minister suggested might be available—does not seem to be in the spirit of joined-up government.
    This relates to an amendment to which I spoke earlier. I did not move it because it was not in sequence. I will have an opportunity to move it later in the proceedings. That amendment concerned better-off calculations, which is the obverse of what I am suggesting here because you may lose some passported benefits and certain other payments through being entitled to claim, and receiving, tax credits.
    It is a very modest amendment. I hope that we will return to it, although not necessarily in this form.
    Lord Saatchi: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, the Minister said earlier that she did not have to hand the figure for none take-up of tax credits. Can the Minister confirm that the correct figures for none take-up of income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and jobseeker's allowance are as shown in the ONS document—in other words, that the correct figure for the money saved by the none take-up of those four benefits is £3.015 billion in 2000.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not want to be unhelpful but I do not think that it is appropriate to go back and revisit an amendment that has already been disposed of. I am very happy to respond in writing to any queries the noble Lord may have, but we have moved on from that group of amendments to the current one, which is about passported benefits and the Inland Revenue.
    Lord Northbrook: The noble Baroness said that the amendment placed a legal obligation on the Inland Revenue, but it did not seem to me to be couched in such direct terms. It was about passing on information, but not creating legal obligations.
    Lord Freeman: Technically, it is my duty to ask leave to withdraw, bearing in mind that I would like to return to the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No, 39:
    Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
    "(3) Notwithstanding the generality of subsection (2), the Board may supply to a person in receipt of a tax credit (whether or not jointly with another)—

    (a) any information relating to the claim, to an award made on the claim or to any change of circumstances relevant to the claim or such an award,

    (b) any communication made or received relating to such an award or any such change of circumstances, and

    CWH 97

    (c) any other information which is relevant to any entitlement to tax credits pursuant to the claim or any such change of circumstances,

    in the form of an annual statement to the relevant claimant at the end of each tax year."
    The noble Earl said: I hope that the purpose of the amendment is straightforward. It would empower the Revenue to issue annual statements of tax credit entitlement, changes of circumstance and payment to individual claimants, if it so wished. Of course, this returns us to territory covered in previous amendments, in particular the duty of the Revenue to secure people's rights to benefits and tax credits.
    I begin with what I hope is an obvious point. It is likely that a number of individuals who operate under self-assessment of their tax liability could also be entitled to tax credits. The Revenue already issues annual statements to these individuals. It should follow that their annual statements will include, whenever relevant, the effect of tax credits. This is an inevitable consequence of the integration of the benefit and tax systems. To this extent, it is reasonable to suppose that the purpose of the amendment would be achieved quite naturally within the system.
    However, there are more telling reasons as to why the issuing of annual tax credit statements would be useful. Once again, this relates to issues of take-up, fraud and the complexity of the system.
    The Paymaster General commented on Third Reading in another place:
    "The annual nature of the credits will simplify the income assessment process".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/02; col. 1115]
    Would that it were that easy. There is a contrary view, expressed by, among others, Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who has said that yearend adjustment
    "reduces certainty and increases complexity for all".
    It may make it somewhat easier administratively for the Revenue, but particularly insofar as we may be moving towards a system of self-assessment for tax credit entitlement, there are serious doubts that it will make life easier for claimants. There are a host of potential problems here. As my honourable friend Howard Flight observed,
    "at the heart of the issues are our concerns about the complexities of the arrangements and our anxiety that the need for claimants to keep detailed records and monitor the number of hours worked, the amount of income earned and child care costs will lead to a much-increased risk of non-compliance".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/02; col. 1119.]
    That leaves aside Liberal Democrat concerns—and our own—in respect of over-payment problems. In other words, it is reasonable to suppose that the end of any given tax year is likely to prove a particular sticking-point, even in a period of anxiety and worry, for many claimants.
    Surely it makes sense to use the occasion to inform claimants of the immediate history of their entitlement and those sets of circumstances that may impact on the levels of their entitlement. Based on the dual assumptions that the system of reporting envisaged in the Bill works and that the Revenue is intending to use
    CWH 98
    data analysis tools actively, it should be possible to target specific categories of claimant. In turn, this should make it possible, via the expedient of selective use of annual statements, to impact beneficially on the accuracy of claims in the interests of claimants and the Revenue. Claimants would be in a position to assess whether their past entitlement had been accurate and what their likely entitlement would be for the coming year, as well as, if necessary, volunteering information about over-payment or changes in circumstances that might have had an effect on their previous entitlement. They would also be able to assess what sort of future changes in their circumstances would have an effect.
    The Revenue for its part would be assured that all claimants in the client group had received a statement of account—a baseline from which the legitimacy of claims could be measured and against which future claims could be error-checked. Moreover, insofar as the Revenue would be able to use them to demonstrate detailed knowledge of the entitlement of individual claimants, such annual statements could potentially have a deterrent effect on those seeking to defraud the system.
    There is also the issue of record-keeping. As a generality, for reasons of which we are all painfully aware, those in receipt of tax credits will tend not to be too focused on the management of their finances. Accordingly, the service the revenue could provide by issuing annual statements should not be underestimated. It would afford claimants a simple and straightforward means of having access to some measure of financial record of their circumstances. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: I want to raise one point which is perhaps oblique to this amendment but which I think comes within its purposes. The amendment concerns itself with the supply of information. What concerns me is that information should not be distributed where it is to the detriment of a woman who is in danger of facing domestic violence. That is a situation probably a good deal more common than most of us know and certainly serious enough when it happens. I have not felt the need to table any separate amendment because of the presence of the word "may", which occurs, first, in the opening section of Clause 4(2), page 3, line 32 and, secondly, at the beginning of the noble Earl's own amendment.
    To do what I am asking the Government to do probably does not require any changes in the wording of the Bill. I am simply asking for assurances that information about the whereabouts of the woman who is or has been in danger will not be communicated in ways in which it may reach the man from whom the danger arises. Such ways are more numerous and often more devious than many of us allow for. I have known it passed quite unwittingly and in all innocence through friends and relations of the man concerned in the local police station. They had no idea they were being accomplices to any such thing, and the cunning which goes into pursuit when exercised by men of property with their minds on the job can be quite fiercesome.

    CWH 99
    Clearly there is a vast apparatus here for the communication of information. The problem we have is that it is a need recognised by all people of goodwill but that a big cultural change is needed to make most of us think of it at the top of our minds at the moment when it is needed. I know that the Minister and I have been over this on a great many occasions. She probably understands the problem as well as anybody in the country does and certainly as well as anyone in politics does. All I am really asking is for her to try to communicate that awareness, probably in the form of guidance, to those who will be working on this Bill on the provision of information to make sure that they stop to ask the question. I await the answer with optimism.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that I shall be able to make the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, happy tonight, even if I cannot make other members of his Front Bench team happy. What we are proposing under Clause 17 does almost exactly what he is proposing. In other words, his amendment is similar to the annual notice that we will be providing for every case under Clause 17. It may be worth stating what that does and then, if the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, feels that it does not do enough we can come back to it.
    Under Clause 17, the Inland Revenue must send a notice to each claimant, and in a joint claim to both claimants, at the end of the tax year. That notice will specify the circumstances upon which the award was based and the income upon which it was based. When circumstances have changed, the notice shall cover all the relevant circumstances that have applied over the course of the award—this is covered in Clause 17 itself. The claimant must then confirm the details in the notice or amend them if they are incorrect—this is his point about fraud—as the award is finalised. This is also treated as the basis of the claim for the subsequent year. Clearly, the notice will also state how much tax credit has been paid over the year.
    Thus the process ensures that claimants will get a clear statement of the basis of their award at the end of the year. It also further simplifies things for the claimant because their claim for the following year does not start from scratch; the revenue produces or re-uses the notice with all the information it contains on the claimant. I hope the noble Earl will agree that we have covered the points he raised. He was concerned about tile other side of this matter, when there are possibilities of domestic violence and the way that, by going back to a couple, information may be given to a violent or former partner that could be used to endanger his former partner.
    While Clause 4(2) allows information on a claim to be given to either partner, there is no question of supplying new information to a former partner. When a couple split up, the entitlement of that couple as a couple ceases. From that point on, anything that happens to one partner is irrelevant to the other and there is no question of supplying information to a former partner which goes beyond information relating to the claim made by the couple when they were living together as a couple. For example,
    CWH 100
    information on the working hours of one partner at the time when they were a couple may be relevant, but employment details since the couple split up are not relevant.
    What would happen if one partner is in a refuge, for example? What protection would she receive in those circumstances? Clearly, she would need to tell the Inland Revenue or DWP her new address in order that she could continue to be eligible. The Inland Revenue will want to help her to put a new claim in place, but information about her whereabouts will not be disclosed. There will be separate communications.
    I am very happy to look at the noble Earl's suggestion to ensure that our guidance about the handling of such information takes into account the concerns he has raised today. If I am not satisfied, I will seek to ensure that it covers the points he has raised.
    Earl Russell: I am not at all surprised to find that the Minister has already thought through the problem. I am extremely grateful to her for her answers. I have confidence in the Minister's ability to carry them forward and I would like to thank her for what she has said.
    The Earl of Northesk: I, too, am extremely grateful for the Minister's response. I shall re-read the provisions in the Bill to see precisely what Clause 17 does.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord will wait until after our deliberations.
    Lord Northesk: Absolutely. I make no apology for being confused by the complexity of the Bill. For the moment, however, I am quite happy and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    6 p.m.
    Clause 5 [Periods of awards]:
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 40:
    Page 4, line 4, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
    "(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to any decision by the Board under section 16 to terminate an award."
    The noble Baroness said: Amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite seek to remove subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 5. As I mentioned when we considered the government amendment to Clause 3, the Government have reached a similar conclusion. As part of the package of technical changes needed properly to distinguish between entitlement and award, government Amendment No. 40 removes those subsections. It would also remove subsection (3).
    As I explained when we were considering Clause 3, we do not want claimants to have to make a new claim whenever their circumstances change. That would defeat one of the main purposes of moving to an annual system. That is why Clause 5(4) states that awards do not end when there is a change which may affect the rate of entitlement. On the other hand, when a person ceases to fulfil the basic qualifying conditions for the credits—where a person claiming working tax credits stops working, for example—it is sensible that their entitlement should stop. That is why Clause 5(5) currently states that an award ends if entitlement ceases because of a change of circumstances.
    I have already explained the fact that these provisions refer incorrectly to awards and are inconsistent with the provisions later in the Bill about decision-making. They are therefore removed. Subsection (3) is moved to Clause 3 and subsections (4) and (5) are replaced by the provision which makes clear that an award is brought to an end during the year only by a decision made by the Board to end it, subject to a right of appeal. Thus, by virtue of this amendment, Clause 5 will be properly confined to making provision about the period for which awards last. It would no longer trespass onto entitlement, nor would it any longer be inconsistent with Clauses 14 to 16.
    I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that Amendment No. 40 makes a technical but important change that will improve the Bill, and will feel able to support it. If that is the case, then Opposition Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, with which we otherwise would have sympathy, become unnecessary.
    Finally, Amendment No. 43 deals with the making of notifications of changes in circumstances in advance of the changes actually occurring. Subsection (2)(c) provides for regulations to be made allowing for advance notifications in prescribed circumstances. This amendment would prevent advance notification from being allowed. It may be helpful if I gave an example to make sense of this.
    The regulations will follow the approach taken by the regulations made under Clause 4(1)(d), which deals with advance claims. We intend, for example, to allow someone taking up a new job to make a claim for working tax credit up to seven days in advance of starting that job. The claim would take effect from the date the job was taken up and would, of course, be contingent on that job being taken up. This provision is to ensure that those who do take up a new job see the full benefit of that job—that is, the wage plus the top-up from the working tax credit—straight away.
    Regulations under subsection (2)(c) of Clause 6 will follow that approach for changes of circumstances that are related to taking up a new job or increasing hours where the claimants are already eligible for working tax credit by working the requisite minimum number of hours.
    The specific circumstances that these regulations will relate to are, for example, where one person in a couple is already working, and therefore an increase in hours to 30 or more per week means that they receive a higher rate of WTC. Or where, for example, a second earner starts to work at least 16 hours per week, which may entitle the couple to the 30-hour element if they add their hours together, or it may entitle them to the childcare element of WTC. Or, again, for a single person, an increase in hours to at least 30 hours per week would mean that they were eligible for the 30-hour element.
    All of those changes may be related to a person starting a new job, and it is right that the person can see the benefit of taking that job from the outset. Therefore the regulations will allow notification of those changes to be made up to seven days in advance but will be subject to the change actually taking place. The change would have effect from the date it actually happened rather than the date of notification. We want to encourage people to tell us about changes as soon as practicable so that they can get the right amount of support when they need it.
    I hope with that explanation your Lordships will be happy to accept the Government's amendment. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: I shall say something later on about the very helpful attitude the noble Baroness has adopted as far as regulations are concerned. Of course it is right, as she said, that a number of the points which arise on these amendments have already been discussed in considerable detail on earlier amendments and I certainly do not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily.
    Having said that, these are not technical or drafting amendments in the normal sense. They are fundamentally restructuring the Bill. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, as the Bill stands at the moment there are contradictions between Clause 5 and some of the later provisions of the Bill; for example, Clauses 14 and 16. It is quite extraordinary that what is fairly apparent if one looks at the Bill did not become apparent earlier. I must ask the noble Baroness again at what stage it was apparent to the draftsman that the way in which the Bill had been structured involved a clear internal contradiction. We have been over the ground quite a bit already, but it is not a satisfactory situation and, as I suggested earlier, we obviously need to have a clearer investigation as to what happened.
    I make one additional point. I am not clear—alas, I do not have the relevant document to my hands at the moment—to what extent, when the Bill returns to the Commons, it will be time-constrained. The Commons now has a passion for programming measures, and some of that programming involves the amount of time which may be spent on your Lordship's amendments. Can the noble Baroness give us absolute assurance, in the light of all that has happened on the various government amendments, that restraints will

    CWH 103
    not be put on the amount of time which the House of Commons may spend on considering government amendments?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I again defer to people who have more experience of the House of Commons than I have, but it seems to me that the timetabling of these matters is organised through the usual channels and it would be quite impertinent if the House of Lords tried to determine how much time the House of Commons should take to discuss their Lordships' amendments. I have every confidence that the House of Commons will decide for itself an appropriate amount of time for consideration of Lords amendments, given the number that I hope the Bill will receive.
    Lord Higgins: Have any restraints already been imposed on the amount of time that the Commons will spend on the amendments?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. At this stage I am not certain. We have an understanding between the usual channels about when the two Report days will be. I certainly have no knowledge of when a Third Reading may take place. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has the say on the timetabling of these things. He may be able to tell me when the Third Reading of the Bill is going to take place. Therefore, I do not know when it is going to another place. I am sure that the business managers cannot possibly have done any timetabling on how long the discussions may take. My understanding is that these things are arranged through the usual channels and I cannot be more helpful to the noble Lord than that.
    Lord Higgins: Alas, that is no longer so. It used to be so, but, with their huge majority, the Government now impose programme Motions in another place, which curtail the amount of time available for discussing Lords amendments. That happens, not infrequently, against the will of the Opposition, against the usual channels' normal decisions and on a Vote. The noble Baroness can assure us in due course what the Government's policy is on these matters. Given how much time is inevitably going to be taken up in discussing the government amendments, it is important that there should be adequate time in another place in due course for the amendments to be discussed.
    I am desperately concerned about the way in which, over the past few years, the programme and so-called modernisation process has resulted in the amount of time that the Opposition have to debate these matters being constrained. This is not an unimportant matter. It is beginning to result in legislation not being considered in the way it ought to be.
    Having said that, the other two amendments in my name, as the Minister rightly points out, were probing amendments. I would certainly not wish to argue strongly in favour of them, but the way in which
    CWH 104
    matters are developing definitely ought to give concern to anyone interested in the proper consideration of legislation.
    Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is quite right about the danger that he spies. On the other hand, the Minister would be extremely imprudent to attempt to give any answer, because this is simply not a matter within the Minister's responsibilities.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Or this House.
    Earl Russell: I agree, it is not within the responsibility of any of us in this House. If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins wishes to pursue it, the press is an appropriate place to do so. I would join him in doing that, as long as he would be prepared to make clear that our complaint is of government and not of government of any one particular party. Meanwhile, it is not our business here and we might for the time being leave it where it is, but with recognition of its due seriousness.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
    Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 [Notifications of changes of circumstances]:
    [Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 44:
    Page 4, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
    The noble Baroness said: I shall be exceedingly brief. This is a drafting amendment, needed in consequence of the changes to Clauses 3 and 5 made by government amendments that we discussed earlier. Clause 6(3)(a) refers to Clause 5(3), which says that an award ends when a couple breaks up or a new couple forms. It allows regulations to be made requiring that such a change be notified to the Inland Revenue. The provision made by Clause 5(3) is to be moved to Clause 3 and recast in terms of entitlement. Because the equivalent provision in Clause 3 will refer to entitlement rather than to the ending of an award, it will be covered by the power to make regulations covered by Clause 6(3)(b). Paragraph (a) is therefore redundant and is removed by this amendment. I hope that the Committee will be happy to accept it. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
    6.15 p.m.
    Clause 7 [Income Test]:
    Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 45:
    Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 45 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Saatchi. Clause 7 is concerned with the so-called income test, and subsection (2), which this amendment seeks to discuss, is concerned with the way in which income is

    CWH 105
    determined in relation to people who are entitled to any social security benefit which is prescribed for the purpose of this subsection.
    Effectively, as I understand it, the purpose of this subsection is that in calculating income account should be taken of other social security benefits. What I am not clear about as the Bill now stands is the extent to which it is intended that these benefits shall be taken into account and which benefits should not be taken into account. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain this to us.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best. This amendment would remove the provision for regulations to effectively suspend the tax credits income test for families in receipt of income support or income-based JSA.
    Let me explain how the regulations will work. Clause 7 establishes the important principle that tax credits are based on the income of a tax year. This provides a fairer measure of income and is less prone to manipulation and fluctuation than the existing one for WFTC, which is every six months. It is also more closely aligned with income tax, enabling people to use the information which they already get or provide for tax purposes to be used for their tax credits claims.
    For most families this provides the straightforward way of assessing entitlement to tax credits and targeting support according to need. However, we recognise that for the poorest families there needs to be a safety net. Currently that safety net is provided by IS or income-based JSA and both benefits include elements for children in the household.
    From 2004, when existing IS and JSA claimants with children will be transferred to the child tax credit, the child-related elements of those benefits will cease. Families on IS and JSA will be brought into the single seamless system of support provided by the child tax credit.
    However, the Government want to ensure that those families continue to receive at least the same levels of overall support as they do now. If these families were subjected to a test of their annual income while claiming IS or JSA, it is possible, although unlikely, that they would not receive the maximum CTC due to their income across the whole year, including periods when they may not have been claiming IS or JSA, being more than the £5060 income threshold announced in the Budget.
    Therefore, regulations under subsection (2), in conjunction with Clause 13(1), will make clear that for any period of entitlement to income support or income-based JSA, entitlement to tax credits will be at the maximum rate and shall not be subject to a test of annual income. This will ensure that the poorest families continue to receive the appropriate safety net support on a weekly basis. For any other period in the same tax year where the family is not claiming IS or JSA, entitlement to tax credits will be based on annual income as usual.
    CWH 106
    This is what the regulations to be made under subsection (2) shall achieve. I am sure the Committee can appreciate the importance of this provision in ensuring that weekly support for the poorest families continues to be provided at the right level. I should point out that the subsection does not itself specify IS and income-based JSA because flexibility is needed for the regulations to include any other safety net benefits. For example, the safety net for pensioners is provided by the minimum income guarantee. In future that same purpose will be served by the pension credit but it is not listed as a possible renaming.
    I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will not press the amendment further.
    Lord Higgins: I fear that we are—at least I am—again suffering a little from the speed of delivery of the Minister. I am not at all sure that I now understand this particular section. That may be compounded by the constant use of initials rather than referring to the individual benefits involved.
    I am particularly puzzled—I look with increasing suspicion at the drafting of this Bill—as where the regulations referred to in this section appear in the Bill. The Minister has been extremely generous in providing us with regulations on a number of other aspects of the Bill and I pay tribute to her for that. I cannot recall any previous occasion where a Government Minister has provided regulations in such a way. It will be of great help not only to us, but also to those in another place when they come to look at how the Bill has been drafted. It is remarkable that the noble Baroness has been so helpful in this. She attempted to do so on previous Bills, but she has never actually succeeded in providing us with the regulations before the Bill had completed its passage through this House. Nevertheless, she has succeeded in this case.
    Despite that, however, I still do not understand where the regulations which govern Clause 7 appear. In the subsection we seek to amend it states that persons,
    "entitled to any social security benefit prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".
    However, I am not clear where the power to prescribe arises in the Bill or, more particularly, in this clause. It is of course true that in the previous clause endless regulations may be used either for this purpose or another, but this clause does not seem to include regulation-making powers. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that and then I shall come back to the point of substance, which concerns what is to be prescribed.
    Earl Russell: Before we go any further, perhaps I may associate myself with the thanks that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has offered the noble Baroness for making these regulations available. It is very welcome indeed. I must confess that I have not yet finished reading them but, on the progress that I have made so far, I am encouraged and grateful for the content as well as for their availability. In either case, it is a very welcome precedent indeed.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure whether I can respond precisely to the noble Lord. I turn to Clause 60, entitled "Regulations, orders and schemes", in Part 3. Subsection (1) states that:
    "Any power to make regulations under sections 3, 7 to 13, 38 and 39, and any power to make regulations under this Act prescribing a rate of interest, is exercisable by the Treasury".
    That is where the power to make regulations comes from. In Clause 62, on page 34, line 5 states,
    'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations".
    Those two provisions are put together and brought to bear on Clause 7(6), (7) and (8).
    Lord Higgins: I still do not understand what the draftsman is playing at. In Clause 6, for example, it states that, "Regulations may provide" and so forth, but when we come to Clause 7, it is buried in Clause 60, stating that powers,
    "to make regulations under sections 3, 7 to 13, 38 and 39",
    may be this, that or the other. Why is a totally different drafting technique applied in the case of Clause 6 as against Clause 7?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have not taken advice on this, but my immediate response would almost certainly be that, at the moment, we are moving from DWP to Inland Revenue and the powers therefore need to be exercised by the Treasury. At the moment, the Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions has powers to make regulations affecting social security benefits and we would not need to change that, whereas if we were making those the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, we would. Thus power to make the regulations the noble Lord is inquiring about is informed by Clause 7(2) itself because it says,
    "prescribed for the purposes of the subsection".
    Thus the power resides with the Treasury in Clause 60(2), and it affects Clause 7(2) which states:
    "prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".
    It then goes on to say what it does. I am not sure what the noble Lord is worried about.
    Lord Higgins: It is a simple point. The way in which regulations are introduced into the Bill is quite different in Clause 6 than it is in Clause 7. The department which makes the regulations simply says, "regulations may provide", and so on. Then, when we come to Clause 7, it is covered by Clause 60. I do not understand why that is so. We shall need to give some further thought to it.
    Having said that, let me come back to the point of substance. Subsection (2), which we are now discussing, says that,
    "Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the entitlement of a person or persons to a tax credit for so long as the person, or either of the persons, is entitled to any social security benefit prescribed".
    CWH 108
    The noble Baroness has not provided us with those regulations. We do not know what social security benefits are going to be prescribed for this section.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I provided them in my reply to the noble Lord.
    Lord Higgins: I am not clear why these particular benefits are prescribed. Perhaps I can deal with this on a simple basis. Are we saying that the entitlement of persons of any description to a tax credit is dependent on the relevant income? But are we also saying that none of the social security benefits to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, referred are relevant income? Is that what we are saying?
    Earl Russell: There are moments when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reminds me of the literal Vicar of Hurst, who said that,
    "St Luke says the last shall be first.
    I've therefore a mind
    to linger behind
    to be first to be last to be first".
    Lord Higgins: What social security benefits are going to continue to be paid even though someone is getting a tax credit?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The purpose of the subsection is to ensure that those who are in receipt of one of those weekly means-tested benefits—at the moment the ones we are contemplating are income support and income-based JSA, but those could be re-labelled in some future Utopia—continue to receive support. That is why they are not listed as such on the face of the Bill.
    The importance of the subsection is to ensure that those in receipt of one of those benefits continue to receive maximum support for their children. Suspending the income test, which is what the amendment would do, while the claimant is entitled to IS or JSAIB, means that the claimant can get maximum CTC for that period regardless of their annual income. If the annual income was relied on at all times, it may be possible for a person on IS or JSAIB to receive less than the full CTC due to the amount of annual income they had, possibly because they earned extra money in a different period. It is to try to ensure that when they fall back on to IS or JSA, the fact that they have so far had income possibly in work or through other forms of saving does not destroy their capacity to obtain support for their children while on the basic benefit.
    We suspend the income tax as a key feature as an adult on income support or JSA automatically gets full CTC for their children without a further income test.
    I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord any further. It seems fairly straightforward.
    Lord Higgins: I will study what the noble Baroness has said when it is apparent in writing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
    6.30 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 47:
    Page 5, line 29, at beginning insert "In this Part"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are needed as a consequence of government amendments to later clauses, in particular to Clause 17 and the arrangements for finalising claimants' entitlements to tax credits after the end of the year when details of current year incomes will be known. I do not want to go too deeply now into an explanation of Clause 17 and I shall write to the Committee on that because I recognise that it is not easy receiving quite detailed, technical information at some speed. However, I hope that you will allow me to look forward to that clause for a moment.
    Clause 17 provides for the Inland Revenue to issue a statement of information to claimants at the end of the year, setting out the basis on which an award was (or awards were) made during the year. Claimants will either then confirm that their circumstances and income were as set out by the board on that notice or correct that information. They will also provide details of the income for the year just ended. The Inland Revenue will use that information to finalise their entitlement for that year on the correct basis and make any necessary adjustments. It will also use that information to establish the correct amount of their award for the coming year.
    At the moment, Clause 17 requires the board to ask claimants—
    Lord Higgins: Why are we discussing Clause 17? I am not clear.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Because Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 have implications or are a consequence of the changes in Clause 17. They are part of the refining of the notion of relevant income and splitting it between current year income and previous year income, which has a meaning beyond Clause 7, to which they are currently confined.
    Lord Higgins: I am under the impression—I may be quite wrong—that we are actually discussing Clause 7,
    "Page 5, line 29, at beginning insert 'In this Part'",
    and I am not the least bit clear what that has to do with Clause 17.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Originally, in this part, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, were a large group of government amendments which I understand were degrouped presumably in part as a result of discussions. There was a large group of government amendments so they were ungrouped. The current year income and previous year income are defined in Clause 7 but currently they are defined only for the purposes of that clause. The proposed changes to Clause 17 mean that those terms will also now be used in Clause 17. For this reason, Amendments Nos. 47
    CWH 110
    and 48 make clear that the definition of those terms is applied for the purposes of Part 1, rather than being confined to Clause 7. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: Clause 7 is in this part.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. At the moment Clause 17 relates to relevant income. Relevant income is confusing because, for the claimant, it could mean either the current year income or the previous year income. We are disentangling the two. Therefore we have to make consequential adjustments and this is part of those adjustments. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: So in other parts, does "current income" mean something else?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I am trying to refine the words "relevant income" as opposed to "current year income". At the moment, relevant income can be used in situations where it can appear to imply both current year and previous year.
    Let us step back a little. Each year there will be an assumption that the previous year's income will be the base as notified for the forthcoming year—that is, the current year that people are going into—although there will obviously be a few weeks of overlap time. Therefore, the words "relevant income" appear to cover both those sets of information: a person's previous year's income, on which they expect to claim in the future year, and their expectation of what their current year's income may be. Separating that out makes it easier for the claimant.
    The terms "current year income" and "previous year income" need to be defined for the purposes of Part 1 because of the changes to Clause 17. Hence, in this part, as inserted, at the moment these terms are defined only in Clause 7. We need to be able to extend it to Clause 17. The reason is to split the words "relevant income" and make it clearer so that people understand whether we are talking about current year or previous year's income. At the moment we use "relevant income" to cover both those, which can be confusing for the claimant.
    Lord Higgins: The amendment would insert "In this Part" at the beginning of line 29 on page 5. Subsection (4) would then read:
    "In this Part the "current year income" means—
    (a) in relation to persons",
    and so on. I repeat, if that is the definition in this part, is there a corresponding and different definition in another part of the Bill?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, there is not. Part 1 is bigger than Clause 7. Without "In this Part" the definitions refer only to Clause 7. By saying "In this Part", we refer to Part 1 of the Bill. In answer to the noble Lord's query, there is not.
    Lord Higgins: I begin to understand what the draftsman is seeking to do. He is seeking to say that this definition will apply in the whole of Part 1 and there is no corresponding definition in Part 2.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, not quite. To go back a step, we are seeking to insert two main drafting amendments, with the consent of your Lordships. The first, which we discussed earlier, makes a distinction between awards and entitlements. The second disaggregates the concept of relevant income into current year and previous year's income. That is required by the changes in Clause 17. At the moment we have that distinction in Clause 7, but it does not apply to the rest of Part 1. Inserting "In this Part" ensures that the definitions in Clause 7 apply to the whole of Part 1. That is needed in order to make sense of the amendments to Clause 17.
    Lord Higgins: We will have to return to this on Report. I hesitate to think how we are going to try and sort the matter out on the Floor of the House. Having said that, I suppose we must go along with what the Government propose. We will try and work it out when we can read it.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think I understand what is going on here, but if my explanations are not sufficiently clear and if any further information is needed, I shall be very happy to write an extended letter explaining the implications of Clause 17. I thought that sending out speaking notes might be helpful, but I warned your Lordships that this was devilish, with complicated technical cross-readings going on. This is one such that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has picked up.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 48:
    Page 5, line 35, at beginning insert "In this Part"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 49:
    Page 5, line 41, leave out "Circumstances may be prescribed in which" and insert "Regulations may provide that, for the purposes of this Part,"
    The noble Baroness said: We are still on the same theme. Clause 7 is an important part of the Bill. It provides that entitlement to tax credits will depend on the income of the claimant or claimants. In particular, entitlement will be based on the income of a tax year. This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 and Amendment No. 158, which concerns Clause 24—is concerned with Clause 7(6), (7) and (8), and relates to the computation of income: the period in which income is taken into account, what counts as income and when the Inland Revenue can treat a person as having income or not, as the case may be.
    Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are short technical amendments which are intended to clarify the scope of the Inland Revenue's regulation-making powers under
    CWH 112
    Clause 7(6) and (7). These subsections allow regulations to be made about how income is to be allocated between particular tax years. The regulations may provide that income of a particular type from the last year but one is to be treated as previous year income of that type instead of actual income of that description for that year.
    Subsections (6) and (7) both refer to "prescribed circumstances". However, regulations under these provisions are more likely to be concerned with the calculation of income and an allocation between years. As such, the references to "prescribed circumstances" are inappropriate and should be removed. This is achieved by these amendments, which I commend to the Committee.
    Amendment No. 52 has not yet been moved. Perhaps I should stay for the moment with Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 and allow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to move his amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: This group includes Amendment No. 158, which stands in my name. That amendment provides that for the purposes of the Bill student loans should not be counted as income. The case for that is perfectly simple—they are not. You have to pay them back again. When Tennyson was once introduced to the Fellows of King's Cambridge, he was introduced to Oscar Browning, who came forward and said, "I'm Browning". Tennyson, knowing another Browning, looked at him and said, "You're not". That is the case for that amendment. It is a simple one.
    I would rather not be led into a discussion of student finance as a whole. It is a subject on which I find it increasingly difficult to express myself with that moderation appropriate to parliamentary debate and I would rather not spoil the atmosphere of the day. I shall therefore let the case stand as it is, in isolation.
    Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness invites me to move Amendment No. 52. I am happy to speak to it but I may or may not move it at a later stage.
    Amendment No. 52 suggests that we should leave out subsection (8). Any views I may have had on the draftsmen up to now are not greatly improved by subsection (8), which states:
    "For the purposes of this Part income is to be calculated in a prescribed manner"—
    and we now know that the powers to prescribe appear in Clause 60—
    "and circumstances may be prescribed in which a person is to be treated—

    "(a) as having income which he does not in fact have, or

    "(b) as not having income which he does in fact have".

    I see that this has caused some amusement. I am not sure that it is all that funny a matter. I increasingly have the view that whoever drafted this was a very strange person indeed. What on earth is this supposed to mean? Given the width of powers of this

    CWH 113
    prescription, can the Government prescribe almost anything so far as concerns the income relevant to these clauses?
    Lord Freeman: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 54 in the anticipation that it will not take out of sequence the thoughts in the Minister's mind.
    Perhaps I may follow on directly from my noble friend Lord Higgins who essentially has dealt with the point. Amendment No. 54 rests on the principle that income for tax credits should be calculated in the same way as income for revenue purposes, or, perhaps more accurately, the other way round. Again this is an example of moving responsibility for administration, assessment and payment from the organs of social security to the Inland Revenue.
    I have one specific concern on subsection (8) in Clause 7. It is drafted in too broad a fashion. My amendment would ensure that the regulations, when issued and passed, would be based on Inland Revenue rules. I shall give noble Lords one practical example of subsection (8)(a); that is to say, making sure that the assessment for the purposes of income tax—income which he does not in fact have—could relate to benefits in kind.
    The principle behind the amendment is to ensure that we do not allow the regulations to be drafted too generally. I would welcome the comments of the Minister on this. It may be that in subsequent parts of the Bill there is delineation and therefore I might be prepared to accept that argument. However, this clause looks too broad and we ought to ensure that Inland Revenue rules are used to calculate the basis for payment of tax credit in the same way as income.
    6.45 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. Let me start with Amendment No. 158, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I understand the thrust of his argument. At the moment it is the case, as he stated, that under the current WFTC and DPTC schemes, student support in the form of loans and grants is taken into account as income with limited disregard for the cost of books, equipment and travel, on the basis that primarily the education system, not the social security system, helps students. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, refrained from going down that path, and I believe that I should do likewise.
    The consultation paper issued on tax credits last summer invited views on whether to continue this approach. We have considered the issue and taken account of the views of colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills. As a result of part of a wider alignment of tax credits with the income tax system, we have decided that, in principle, student support such as loans, grants paid to meet the cost of tuition fees and income-related bursaries should be disregarded from income for new tax credits. This was set out in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the draft regulations on income which we published recently.
    CWH 114
    The draft regulations will be amended to reflect this decision, which I am sure will he greatly welcomed by the noble Earl.
    I should also highlight the fact that student nurses will in principle be able to claim the child tax credit. The Inland Revenue will be in touch with the Department of Health shortly to determine the extent to which bursaries received by student nurses should be taken into account as income for new tax credits. This will also apply to other students in similar situations; namely, those who are in work but with children. Having the disregard of student support in secondary rather than primary legislation will give the Inland Revenue flexibility to respond quickly to any changes in student support. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
    Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 52. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for explaining his purpose here. Basically, in all such Bills, one needs what we call Humpty Dumpty clauses: when income should be deemed to be capital, capital deemed to be income, or income that should be treated as not being income when under other circumstances it may be. We have made it clear that the definition of income will be based broadly on annual income, taking into account income tax and therefore including earnings from employment or self-employment, certain social security benefits and pensions, and any other income from savings, property, trusts and overseas sources.
    If accepted, the amendment would do much to weaken the Inland Revenue's paths not only to find income in connection with claims to tax credits, but to counter potential attempts by some claimants to manipulate that definition to their advantage. Perhaps I may develop that point. Sub-paragraph (a) is an anti-avoidance provision, which also appears in the rules for WFTC and DPTC—in fact I remember us debating those—and before that it was also in the rules for family credit and disability working allowance, as introduced by the previous Conservative government. Sub-paragraph (a) provides for the regulations defining income to identify when a claimant may be deemed to have income which at first sight he or she may not possess—those Humpty Dumpty clauses. They come into play if the Inland Revenue finds that a claimant has deliberately deprived himself or herself of income in order to claim or increase their entitlement to an award, for example, by transferring an interest-bearing savings account to a child or to someone outside their household when the claimant is still treated as receiving that income. There are equivalent provisions for tax to prevent people diverting their income through trusts or settlement to someone who pays income tax at a lower rate.
    Alternatively, if a claimant fails to apply for income to which he or she is entitled, then apart from certain exceptions, he or she is treated as having received that income from the date on which he or she could have obtained it.
    Sub-paragraph (b) serves a different purpose. As under the current rules, it will allow the regulations defining income to accept certain types of income,

    CWH 115
    either in whole or in part, when assessing awards of tax credit. This is subject to continuing discussion with the interested parties, following publication of the draft regulations. However, in order to align the definition of income for tax credits as closely as possible with the tax system, we propose, for example, to provide that claimants in receipt of some tax exempt social security benefits, such as war widows' pensions or most payments of income support, will not have to report such income on their claim forms. Similarly, as the government announced at the time of the Pre-Budget Report last November, we shall disregard child maintenance payments in the hands of recipients, as we currently do in WFTC to help single parents going back into work. To avoid cutting across our efforts to encourage savings on pension credit by those on lower incomes, the draft regulations provide that income from special tax-free savings vehicles such as ISAs need not be mentioned in tax credit claims. That was of interest in previous debates.
    I hope the Committee will agree that I have sought to clarify the purpose of the powers in subsection (8) and that they are certainly not unprecedented. They have a track history going hack to family credit. I hope that as a result noble Lords will agree to withdraw the amendment.
    I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for his explanation of his Amendment No. 54. I entirely agree with the emphasis he placed on the need to align the definition of "income" for new tax credits as closely as possible with the income tax rules and to counter the possibility that a small minority of claimants may try to manipulate their income in order to claim or increase their entitlement to tax credits. However, the amendment is unnecessary. As the noble Lord is aware, the Government are bringing forward a technical amendment that will clarify the scope of the Inland Revenue's powers to define income for new tax credits.
    In addition, the draft regulations that we published last week for consultation and to inform our debate contained detailed provisions to address the noble Lord's concerns. The Explanatory Notes pick up cases about how capital is treated, including companies' stock dividend and the like. It may be that rather than take up the Committee's time, it would make sense if I write to the noble Lord, but he will find that information there.
    Amendment No. 53 is a technical amendment designed to clarify the scope of the Inland Revenue's power to define income for new tax credits by way of regulations. I have probably covered that already, but to make sure I am moving Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 53, which I hope noble Lords will feel able to accept.
    Earl Russell: I am delighted by what the Minister had to say about student loans and I thank her very warmly indeed. I will not be moving Amendment No. 158 in its place in the Marshalled List or bringing it forward on Report. Perhaps I might say a brief word about Amendment No. 54.
    CWH 116
    The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has heard the Minister, as it were, impale me on the lance of Humpty Dumpty earlier this afternoon, in the case of people on a life support machine. Humpty Dumpty has his uses. They are usually beneficent, but the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked whether the vires could be drafted in a slightly tighter manner. That is a very moderate request and one to which I hope the Minister in future may pay attention. It would narrow the gap between us on this subject considerably, but the overwhelming note on which I end my remarks is that of facts.
    Lord Northbrook: I am not sure if this is the time to raise the matter, but is the definition of "income" clearly enough defined for any self-employed person who is claiming the benefit?
    Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may say once again how immensely helpful it was to have the draft regulations which the noble Baroness provided. It enabled us, ahead of our discussions this afternoon, to be aware of the Government's intentions in relation to student income.
    The noble Baroness referred to the need to relate what is in the Bill to more normal Inland Revenue practice, and presumably tax law. I now notice, but I had not previously realised, that we are both agreed that subsection (8) as it stands is not satisfactory and the Government's Amendment No. 53 makes some changes to that. If it is indeed to be aligned with tax law more generally, can the noble Baroness give us any idea where in particular in the tax law we might find the corresponding provisions, and also whether there is some degree of case law which might limit the apparently unlimited ability of the Inland Revenue in this case to decide what is or is not income?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The scope of income definition has been discussed with key interest groups, including the Low Income Tax Reform Group, with whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has been in contact. We are aware that they have further points to discuss and officials will be taking those discussions further.
    On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, on the definition of self-employed, I can confirm that it will be clearly defined for the self-employed. Indeed, they will benefit from the alignment of the definition with tax, so that they will be able to use their tax accounts.
    Lord Freeman: I could not hear that.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The self-employed will be able to draw on and use their tax accounts for these purposes, and that is one of the great advantages of the new tax credit scheme.
    I do not know whether I can immediately give the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the exact reference in tax law that he sought. If I cannot do so this evening I shall certainly write to him.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 50:
    Page 5, line 43, leave out "circumstances may be prescribed in which" and insert "regulations may provide that"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): If Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 54.
    [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 53:
    Page 6, line1, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
    "(8) Regulations may for the purposes of this Part make provision—

    (a) as to what is, or is not, income, and

    (b) as to the calculation of income.

    (8A) Regulations may provide that, for the purposes of this Part, a person is to be treated—

    (a) as having income which he does not in fact have, or

    (b) as not having income which he does in fact have."

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 55 is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 56.
    Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 55:
    Page 6, line 6, leave out subsection (9).
    The noble Lord said: This provision gives the board power to estimate the amount of income of a person, or the aggregate income of persons, for any tax year for the purpose of making, amending or revoking an award of tax credit. I am not clear why it is necessary for the board to have that power, or indeed how it would set about such a task. In the latter part of the clause there is a limitation of that; that such an estimate does not affect the rate at which he or she, or they, are entitled to a tax credit, in which case I am not clear what the purpose of the estimation is. Perhaps the noble Baroness could enlighten us. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 7 establishes the principle that tax credits are based on the income of the tax year. As I sought to explain earlier, annual income may be either the income of the current or the previous year. However, current year income cannot be known until the end of the year and so the system would not really be responsive if adjustments to reflect current year income were only made at the year end. Those who need more help because their income has dropped would have to wait until the end of the year on a lump-sum payment, while those whose incomes have risen significantly would be overpaid and would then have to pay back much of that money at the end of the year. That would be a far from sensible way of targeting money on those who most need it.
    CWH 118
    I am not going to return to the old question about what is entitlement. I could do so, but I wonder whether I have already given the noble Lord sufficient information. Without it, we cannot adjust the awards in the process of the current year. If the noble Lord would like a more detailed explanation, I shall be happy to give it to him.
    Lord Higgins: I understand the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 56:
    Page 6, line 8, leave out "revoking" and insert "terminating"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 56 is a drafting amendment which forms part of the package of changes distinguishing between entitlement and awards. At this point I have to remember to refer for a moment to Clause 16, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will be cross with me. However, it is necessary for me to do so in order to explain the reason for the amendment.
    Currently, Clause 16 provides that the Board may decide to amend or revoke an award where it has reasonable grounds for believing that the award is incorrect or that the person to whom it has been made,
    "has, or they have ceased to be, or never been, entitled to the tax credit".
    In the light of the necessary changes to the Bill in relation to awards and entitlement, which we have already discussed when considering Clauses 3 and 5, it has become apparent that it is inappropriate for the Bill to use the words "revocation of awards". As I explained earlier, awards and any payments under those awards are the vehicle for delivering support during the year, prior to entitlement being finalised at the end of the year when all the relevant facts are known. Viewed in that light, it is clear that once it has been made, an award cannot simply disappear, which is what the reference to the revoking of awards might be taken to imply. Using the word "terminating" seems a more accurate description of what is going on. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 [Entitlement]:
    7 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 57:
    Page 6, line 16, leave out "this Part" and insert "child tax credit"
    The noble Baroness said: Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill provide the framework for entitlement to child tax credit. Members of the Committee will be aware that we have made available—I am grateful to noble Lords for their appreciation of this—the draft child tax credit regulations to indicate the detailed provision that will sit within that framework.
    I could go into some detail as to why we are doing this, but we have discussed the matter fairly thoroughly in terms of seeking to offer support for

    CWH 119
    children independent of support for adults. In particular, we are making payment for the support of children go to the primary carer, since they usually bear the everyday responsibility for a child and meet his or her everyday expenditure. It is vital, especially for families of low income, that enough support is directed to that family to lift or keep the child out of poverty.
    I refer now to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Second Reading. There is increasing recognition that many more families now share responsibility for children than was previously the case. This occurs in particular where families have split up and where there is encouragement from the Child Support Agency, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the like, that even though partners may split up, parenting continues. We seek to encourage the ability of children to retain contact with both of their natural parents as much as possible.
    The increase in shared responsibility between families therefore raises the question of whether, in the future, directing support solely to the family mainly caring for a child will continue to be the right approach when more than one family has responsibility for that child.
    We are taking a reserve power. We do not want to move too quickly on this. It has major read-acrosses for other benefits, such as housing benefit, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell understands. It would require extensive consultation with the relevant groups, who might otherwise be apprehensive about some of its implications. It also involves expensive IT changes.
    None the less, in response to the legitimate and proper issues raised on Second Reading, it seemed right to make some protective changes to the Bill at this stage to equip us to deal appropriately with shared care cases if in the future it seems right and proper that we take a different approach. I could go into detail about the individual clauses if that would be helpful, but they allow us to take that power. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for this. As she says, it recognises the shift in the direction of government policy on family law, which is all towards encouraging contact with both parents and encouraging the sharing of responsibility wherever possible. It is not, of course, the right treatment for every child in every broken marriage. There is no such thing as the right treatment in every case. However, where a choice exists it is clearly to be encouraged and where care is shared, often on nearly an equal basis, clearly the financial rewards should also be shared as far as possible.
    I entirely understand the case for flexibility that the noble Baroness has made. It is a stronger case in this Bill than in most others. We are in a rapidly moving landscape. The future of the CSA is in question, as is the future of much of the Family Law Act 1996 and a great deal else, including housing benefit. Were the noble Baroness to attempt to lay anything down in
    CWH 120
    tablets of stone, she might find that stone is a rather more fragile material than we sometimes think, as most quarrymen know.
    I understand why the noble Baroness wants flexibility. It is the right way to go about it. I hope she will keep in touch with her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his department on this, and I look forward to any future developments on this front.
    Finally, the assumption that there is such a thing as the primary carer is not necessarily valid in all cases. I remember one cheerful group of people in which the parents had swapped partners. They spent the summer together in a very large farmhouse. The primary carer was whoever happened to arrive first when a child fell over and cut their knee. It is not always as simple as that, but the assumption that there is a primary carer in all cases should not be made lightly.
    I thank the Minister very warmly for what she has done and look forward to developments with a great deal of interest.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 [Maximum rate]:
    Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 58:
    Page 6, line 35, after "credit" insert "up to a maximum of £545 in any tax year"
    The noble Lord said: We come to a series of extremely arithmetical but none the less important amendments. We have sought to write on the face of the Bill the proposals made by the Chancellor in his Budget. We may or may not have been successful in that attempt. No doubt the noble Baroness will tell us whether that is so. The key to the argument is on the face of the Government's own documentation, in Table 3.4 on page 16 in Child and Working Tax Credits—Modernisation of British Tax and Benefits System which was published in April 2002. It is apparent from that table that there is to be a massive increase in the extent of means-testing.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Could the noble Lord repeat the citation?
    Lord Higgins: I refer to page 16, table 3.4, of the document Child and Working Tax Credits - Modernisation of the British Tax and Benefits System, which gives marginal rates. I said "means testing"; I should have said a massive increase in the numbers of people affected by high marginal rates. It looks as though there will now be a marginal deduction rate of more than 60 per cent and that the number of people subject to that will increase from 94,000 to 1,450,000, which is certainly a startling achievement. The increase in numbers facing the marginal deduction rate of more than 60 per cent is evidently largely due to the extension of in-work support for those without children through the working tax credit.
    Overall, if one looked at the Budget, the increase in expenditure on this overall exercise was something like £2.7 billion. It is a rather strange aspect of the Budget. If one looks at the changes that the Chancellor made, effectively the impositions on business would pay for

    CWH 121
    the increase in National Health Service expenditure. The other increases in taxation are effectively all going towards the proposals made in the Bill. In terms of the orders of magnitude—although not necessarily the allocation between raising and spending tax revenues—broadly speaking, that is the situation.
    We see here a massive increase not only in the number of people subject to high rates of marginal taxation—or, alternatively, benefit withdrawal—but we see also a very big increase in the extension of means testing. I know that the Minister does not like the expression "means testing" and would prefer to use the expression "targeting". None the less, the effect of the Bill is fairly apparent so far as concerns what is really happening.
    There is a huge redistribution of income here. We have gone from new Labour to old Labour. A rather curious feature of it—perhaps the Minister can give the Committee some explanation—is that this applies only to people over the age of 25. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the effect of this redistribution of income does not apply to those under 25. We are not quite clear why this arbitrary line has been drawn at that particular level.
    The overall effect of the proposals is clearly very radical indeed, extremely expensive, and it has the undesirable side effects that I have mentioned. It is also the case that the tapers run right the way up the income scale to £58,000. Is it £58,000?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It can be before the tables finally taper out.
    Lord Higgins: To £58,000. So we get this huge extension of the taper into those who have previously been beyond the scope of this kind of Government action.
    On Second Reading I said that the gap between those who were not involved with the Inland Revenue at all because they did not complete tax returns—but who were going to be in the benevolent scope of the Department for Work and Pensions—and, at the other end of the scale, those who were subject to the Inland Revenue because they paid tax, seems to have disappeared altogether. Perhaps it has not disappeared altogether, but could the Minister give some idea of what percentage of the population at the moment is not involved with the Inland Revenue at all, and what percentage of the population will no longer be involved with the Inland Revenue if these proposals are adopted? The gap appears to be growing smaller and smaller.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would need an abacus to work that out.
    Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness does not need an abacus or a computer—hand-held or otherwise. It is not a laughing matter. It means that the amount of form-filling intervention and so forth which is going on is vastly increased. We have grave doubts about the way in which the Government's proposals are working. More and more people are being drawn into
    CWH 122
    the clutches of the Inland Revenue. That is perhaps a rather pejorative way of putting it, but it is the case that the extent of government intervention in people's day-to-day lives—or more exactly the extension of the number of people with whose everyday lives the Government are directly concerned—is increasing very rapidly indeed.
    Having said that, we have sought to write it onto the face of the Bill. No doubt the noble Baroness will say one ought not to do that; one can do it all by regulation and so forth. But it is important to bring home to people exactly how far the Government are now going in extending the scope of their activities. I beg to move.
    7.15 p.m.
    Earl Russell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the Bill does have a redistributive effect. I would regard that as neither Old Labour nor undesirable. We on these Benches are not raving egalitarians. On the other hand, we have noted that over the past 20 years inequality has increased faster in this country than anywhere else in the developed world except New Zealand. We think the pendulum has swung too far and that it is time it swung the other way. The fact that the Bill does have a redistributive effect is one of the reasons why on these Benches we are prepared to welcome it.
    I take the point that it must involve an extension of means-testing in the use of these very long tapers. But we have already been through the fact that we cannot avoid poverty traps except by the use of very long tapers. We worked that out in Labour and in vain in the Parliament of 1992–97. The conclusions we reached then appear to be sound.
    There is also a major tactical disadvantage in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, if he should think at any future stage to press it. He is writing the amounts of these credits into primary legislation. If he has any means of uprating them I have not seen it, and if I failed to spot it. I make my apology. Incidentally, the matter of uprating is one that I hope we may address in a future amendment. As things stand, these sums could only be uprated by primary legislation, and if I were a Member of the Legislative Committee of the Cabinet—which, thank God, I am not—I would not welcome such a proposal because I would expect to be bombarded with more requests than I could comfortably accede to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has made the substantive point in response to this amendment, which is that it is daft putting figures on the face of a Bill because we are going to need primary legislation to keep amending it—unless the noble Lord thinks he seeks to end redistribution by freezing the amount in perpetuity until Parliament can find more time.
    Perhaps I can reassure him, however. Under Amendment No. 214 tabled in my name, to which we will come in due course, he will see that the Government are effectively committing themselves to an annual uprating assessment of these awards. He will also know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made

    CWH 123
    it clear that the child tax credit, which is the high value benefit in all of this, will for the life of this Parliament be uprated in line with earnings. I hope that he will take on board the serious point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is never desirable to put figures that properly need to be regularly amended and updated on the face of a Bill because of the method of seeking to overcome them.
    The noble Lord also asked why we were excluding the under 25 year-olds. He is right; that is exactly what we are doing. That is because, first, there is a well established precedent in social security law that we make a distinction between those under and those over 25 years of age.
    What we know is that while the under 25 year-olds may be poor but for the most part their poverty is not created by difficulties of access to the labour market. In those aged over 25, however, twice as many proportionately are in the bottom quintile of income compared to the under 25 year-olds. They are poorer because, in part and for various reasons, they find access to the labour market more difficult. They may suffer a mild disability or they may be under-skilled. The under 25 year-olds, however, are both less poor and have easier access to the labour market. In practical terms they are more likely to be living at home and receiving parental support. That is the reason why, when making this major expansion for the first time to make work pay for single and couple families without children, it is being introduced for those aged over 25.
    Secondly, the noble Lord asked me how many families would now be subject to means-testing, as he referred to it, by the Inland Revenue. Leaving aside that I regard paying tax as means-testing by the Inland Revenue, though I am not sure that the noble Lord would embrace that, if we are dealing with some 25 or 30 million or so households—units of assessment—in this country, then 5.75 million come within the framework of this Bill. Many others are pensioners who come within the framework of pension credits, but that is not a relationship handled by Inland Revenue, but by the Department for Work and Pensions.
    I wonder whether those remarks have met all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I do not want to move on to debate about marginal deduction rates. I shall happy to do so if the noble Lord wishes, but given the hour, it may not be wise. He rightly identified that the main increase in the greater numbers was both the increased generosity of the tax credits and their extension to those who are single and without children. That accounts for the much greater number coming within it.
    That may relate to a subsequent amendment tabled by the noble Lord confining those recipients of tax credits to no more than 25 per cent of the population, which in a way it would have been sensible to have grouped with this because that would have the equally perverse effect of limiting the redistributative push of these tax credits. I have to say that the noble Lord and I have very different views on this.
    CWH 124
    I am proud of the fact that not only are we tackling child poverty, but we are making work pay for families for whom life is always precarious and whose lives are always churning out of work and into work. They worry whether they can cope. It is magnificent that we are able to achieve both objectives in a way that simplifies and streamlines the amount of support we will give to families in need. I hope that any amendments pursued by the Opposition benches will not seek to reduce the element of bringing support to children in poverty and helping and encouraging their parents both to move into work and to stay in work. Only in that way will those children have a chance of a decent future.
    Lord Higgins: If this were all cost free, that would of course be a highly desirable situation, but one cannot overlook the fact that this has to be paid for by someone. One needs to look at both sides of the coin.
    Perhaps I may pursue one final point with the Minister. Until now, a large group of people has not been involved with the Inland Revenue at all. They do not fill in tax returns and consequently they are excluded from the system. How many people does the Revenue estimate it will now be dealing with compared with the number it was dealing with before the passage of this Bill?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure whether my response will answer precisely the noble Lord's question. At the moment, of the 5.7 million families with children expected to be in receipt of new tax credits, some 1.7 million currently are not liable for tax or NICs.
    Lord Higgins: No doubt we will wish to return to some aspects of this later on, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 60 is agreed, then I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 61 and 62.
    Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 60:
    Page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
    The noble Lord said: At this stage, I shall not move this amendment.
    [Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
    Lord Freeman Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 62:
    Page 6, line 42, at end insert ", with a view to ensuring that the amount of credit paid to all claimants supplements their household income to a broadly equivalent degree having regard to the different income levels and personal and domestic circumstances of different households"
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 62, which stands in my name, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72 which is a mirror image of Amendment No. 62. Mindful of the hour, it might be helpful to the Committee—because this is something of a technical amendment in that it deals with the equivalency rules and relates to the anomaly between

    CWH 125
    assessing individuals for income tax, but for social security purposes, households—I ask the Minister simply to put on record comments that the Government might have on this amendment. That may enable us to proceed fairly quickly and allow me, subsequent to the Minister's contribution, to return to this matter at a later stage, if the Minister is willing. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I need more help than that. Given that this is a wonderful Bill and set of proposals, I cannot possibly think what objections the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, may have to it, and therefore what additional clarification he may seek. I guess, but I could be wrong, that he feels there is an inequity of treatment between different types of family, for example, in which case it would be helpful if he spelt out for me where he thinks that inequity may lie.
    Lord Freeman: I am grateful for the Minister's comment. In the circumstances I shall return to this matter at greater length perhaps at another time. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 63:
    Page 7, line 8, after "person" insert "or according to any such other factors as may be prescribed"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 64:
    Page 7, line 16, at end insert—
    "(7) If, in accordance with regulations under section 8(2), more than one claimant may be entitled to child tax credit in respect of the same child or qualifying young person, the prescribed manner of determination may include provision for the amount of any element of child tax credit included in the case of any one or more of them to be less than it would be if only one claimant were so entitled.
    (8) "Claimant" means—

    (a) in the case of a single claim, the person who makes the claim, and

    (b) in the case of a joint claim, the persons who make the claim."

    The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: Have we had any explanation of this amendment?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It has already been debated with Amendment No. 57. It is grouped with Amendment No. 57.
    Lord Higgins: I realise that; I just wondered whether we had had any explanation of it.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I spoke to it, and no Member of the Committee queried it at the time. What is the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concerned about?
    Lord Higgins: I cannot understand it, and I cannot recall us having discussed it.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: At the time, the only person who spoke to it apart from myself was the noble
    CWH 126
    Earl, Lord Russell, who responded warmly. I am sorry if it passed the noble Lord by. Where there was more than one claim received for a particular child or children, Amendment No. 54 enables us to pay a reduced amount of any element payable in respect of any particular child. It is part of a bundle on shared care. As I tried to explain to the Committee at that time, it is part of the Government's taking a reserve power to address this issue as and when necessary. I reminded the Committee that, given the complexity and read-across to other benefits such as housing benefit; given the problems of IT and given other developments, what we needed at this stage was a reserve power rather than seeking to spell it out. This is part of that group.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
    7.30 p.m.
    Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 65:
    After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
    "PASSPORTING
    () A person shall be entitled to—

    (a) specified social security benefits;

    (b) the maximum rate of certain social security benefits; and

    (c) specified public services free of charge, as may be prescribed.

    () A person's entitlement under this section shall be subject to whether—

    (a) he is entitled to maximum child tax credit and is not in full time work as prescribed, or

    (b) his income is at or below a threshold as may be prescribed and he is in full time work."

    The noble Earl said: I had not expected us to reach this amendment tonight. I am afraid it is going to take a little longer than perhaps Members of the Committee would wish to spend on it, but I will try to be as brief as I can. The amendment is of quite considerable importance.
    The passported benefits between them, especially in the light of the continual and rather rapid increases in prescription charges, are a very important part of the value of social security to most claimants. It has been one of the weaknesses of the CSA that it did not carry passported benefits forward when people came off income support and came on to the CSA maintenance. That was a result of the failure of the House to carry an excellently drafted amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am sorry for his failure on the application, and I hope that he still remembers how good his arguments were.
    I was a little taken aback to hear the Minister say a moment ago that it was not within the Bill's authority to deal with this. I appreciate that the Treasury cannot deal with social security matters, but the Bill has been managed by both departments throughout, and the Minister can hardly be in a position to deny that the Department for Work and Pensions has been very deeply involved in the Bill from the beginning.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would not dream of denying that, and it is indeed the case that this is a joint

    CWH 127
    Bill, though led, obviously, by Inland Revenue and Treasury. The point I was making is that quite a lot of benefits were not for DWP or Inland Revenue, they were for other departments. The big value one, which is pre-school meals, is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills, and others are the responsibility of the Department of Health. The DWP connection was not the problem; it was the fact that other departments have to rethink what income flags and income eligibility they are going to attach to existing bids for these passported benefits, given the new financial structure for tax credits.
    Earl Russell: I was aware of the concession on preschool meals, which I welcome and which I was just about to come to. For the rest, since we do have a sovereign Parliament, which may do whatever it likes, one ought occasionally to take advantage of that fact. While we have got it, let us use it.
    Whether something is done about this will make a big difference to the success of the Bill in achieving the objectives that the Minister and I share. I appreciate the point that the Government have already made that because the tapers are so long, this will bring passported benefits to people far higher up the income scale than have normally received them, or than we would expect to have any reasonable, equitable claim to receive them. Some sort of clawback arrangement would have to be worked out.
    I can see that the problem is extremely technical. I am rather glad that I am not in charge of trying to work out the answer. One possibility, which I am sure has occurred to the Government, although I do not know what they think about it, is making any passported benefit that comes to people who are higher up the income scale a taxable benefit at the higher rate of income tax, but not at the lower rate. That would he one way of making sure that we were not using such a benefit simply to subsidise the more prosperous upper middle classes. However, if' it was not done for the people who are using the tax credit instead of income support, I think that the Bill, very sadly, would fail in its purpose. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: I certainly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this amendment raises very important issues. Two particular aspects give me cause for concern. One of them arises from the earlier debate we had on the extent to which individuals are notified of the whole range of benefits that are being provided by the Government.
    The second point that gives me some cause for concern is partly about the level of income at which these benefits become available given the length of the taper. A third point, which has just occurred to me, is that the noble Baroness referred to the fact that many of these benefits are the province not merely of one department, be it the Department for Work and Pensions or Inland Revenue, but of a number of other departments as well.
    In one sense, the Bill ought to adopt the same policy which Ministers in this House adopt; namely that they should speak for all departments. Presumably, we
    CWH 128
    cannot leave the issue in the air and at some stage, if adjustments are to be made to other benefits as a result of the Bill, then we are entitled to know what will be those adjustments. They may be extremely important.
    Because it is so important, perhaps we may return to the matter on Report. For the time being, I should like to ask her exactly which benefits does she think may have to be modified by the departments responsible for them as a result of the Bill? In what way are these changes to be made since, presumably, some of them may require primary legislation, or at least secondary legislation? If the Bill is going to have an effect on other benefits then clearly we shall need to know that, otherwise we will have a false understanding of the extent to which this legislation will affect individuals. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give us a brief list of which benefits will be affected by the introduction of the Tax Credits Bill.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It does not quite work like that. It is not that benefits will be affected by the Tax Credits Bill. At the moment, here is a system of financial support for out-of-work families, along with some for in-work families. Here too is a system of passported benefits, which I am happy to describe. There is a read-across between certain levels of benefit, entitling people to certain passported benefits which, for the most part—with only one or two exceptions—would not apply to in-work benefits.
    Because we are seeking this structural reform, child tax credit will brigade the out-of-work and the in-work benefits. Therefore, the links through to the passported benefits have be reconsidered. What it does not do, however, is alter the passported benefits as such. Those will remain the responsibility of the individual departments which provide them. For example, free school meals are provided by the Department for Education and Skills, while free prescriptions and dental treatment are provided by the Department of Health.
    Those are the big benefits, but some minor ones are provided by my department, including bereavement benefits, maternity allowances, funeral grants, social fund payments and so forth. Issues like that must be considered, but it is the big ones, about which noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are most concerned. Those must include free school dinners, because that is a high value benefit. Those benefits, and many more, use entitlement to current key social security benefits and tax credits as a peg for deciding who should have access to them. They flag up an entitlement. This is a way of cutting down on administration and targeting passported benefits on those whom the department wishes to help.
    Those passported benefits—the noble Lord, Lord Higgins is right in that we are revisiting an earlier discussion—remain the responsibility of the departments which administer them, not the Treasury or the Inland Revenue or, for the most part—except where specified—the Department for Work and Pensions. It is those other departments which set the rules for entitlement. They decide what level of income

    CWH 129
    brings a family into entitlement for support and it is therefore usual for the department in question to set down eligibility in its own legislation.
    The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is absolutely right to point out that this is obviously a Government matter, not simply one for the Inland Revenue or the Department for Work and Pensions. Officials from the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions have been in discussion with the departments responsible for passported benefits for some time. We are all aware that decisions need to be made and Members of the Committee will be told as soon as we have confirmation of the detailed proposals for entitlement. While I do not believe that it would be right for the Bill to determine entitlement to passported benefits, it does contain provisions to allow departments to make the administration of passported benefits run smoothly.
    Schedule 5 to the Bill includes provisions to allow the Revenue to share information with the Department of Health and the devolved administrations for health purposes, for obvious reasons. In addition, Schedule 3 ensures that, where entitlement to passported benefits is set out in primary legislation and the departments concerned have agreed, amendments to their primary legislation are made so as to replace the links currently in place with WFTC or DPTC with links to the new tax credits.
    I have already referred to funeral payments and maternity grants. I wonder whether my remarks have met the points raised.
    As I say, I cannot be more helpful at this stage as to what precisely the income level will be for people to achieve entitlement to what are currently passported benefits. That I cannot tell the Committee. We are still in discussions on that. As soon as I have that information, I shall bring it to the Committee. Ultimately, it is for those departments to determine because it is part of their budgets and part of their responsibilities.
    Lord Higgins: I understand that it is for those departments to take the lead on these matters. Am I right in understanding the noble Baroness to say that, following the consultations between the departments, if it does require changes in legislation, those changes will be incorporated in the Bill? I do not see where else it could be done.
    There is also the issue that if someone now becomes entitled to a tax credit then, dependent on the extent that that raises their income, they will either be entitled to a lower level of benefit if that benefit is income-related or, if it is a free benefit at the moment, they may find that they are excluded from it altogether. Again, I am not clear how, following the consultations, this is likely to take place in practice.
    The other point I am not clear about is whether the noble Baroness is saying that these consultations will be completed before Report stage and that we should
    CWH 130
    get various government amendments at that stage which implement the very important issues that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has rightly raised.
    Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his support on this issue. He is right that we need to know the answers to these questions before the Bill becomes law, otherwise we are simply incapable of judging what will be the effect of the Bill.
    I must apologise for keeping the Committee from its dinner, but if this matter is not settled a great many people will be kept from a great many dinners for a very long time.
    The case I had most in mind was free prescriptions. From going into my local chemist since the latest increase in prescription charges, I have noticed that it has become over the chemist's counter an extremely contentious subject, and the chemist shows signs of visible anxiety whenever the subject is mentioned. That indicates a real difficulty of which we ought to be aware.
    Can the Minister make a few slightly more precise comments? Can she first say that there will be an entitlement to passported benefits which will be connected with the Bill? Can she say that it will be settled before the Bill becomes law? Can she say that there will be a mechanism for a clawback so that the benefit does not go to people on incomes of £58,000 a year—which I believe we all agree it should not. If the Minster can say "yes" to all these questions, then we could rest in peace and go and have our dinner. Can she?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No—because on the third of those questions there would be no intention, certainly on my understanding, of an eligibility for free school dinners, for example, which takes a family up to £50,000 being clawed back. I am reasonably confident that one way of proceeding would be, in some cases, to use existing benefit levels—for example, the adult IS or JSA level might be one such trigger—otherwise one will have to go for a defined income figure at which the benefit cuts off. That would be one approach. That was the noble Earl's third question.
    As to his other two questions, there certainly will be passporting. My dilemma is that I cannot tell the extent of the income scale to which passporting will go, whether it will be the same for all benefits or whether there will be a symmetry, partly to act as a form of taper, if I can put it that way. So one could go up the income scale for one benefit rather than another. How far up that income scale it will go, and whether it will simply replicate the existing income cut-off, that I cannot yet tell the noble Earl. That decision is awaiting further confirmation from the other departments.
    Lord Higgins: Are we to know before Report Stage?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know when I shall know.
    Lord Higgins: We cannot let the Bill go through without knowing.
    Earl Russell: I agree. We cannot let the Bill go through without knowing, but I do not think that we are going to know tonight.
    Earl Russell: We cannot let the Bill go through without knowing, but we will not know tonight. We will hear more of this on Report because it is a major issue. If any private conversation between us could narrow the area of disagreement between us, if any, then I would welcome it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    CWH 132
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday 23rd May at 4 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Cabinet Meetings
  Cabinet Meetings
  Drug Smuggling: Police Costs of Prevention
  Drug Smuggling: Police Costs of Prevention
  Public Guardianship Office
  Public Guardianship Office
  Reserve Forces: Medical Officers
  Reserve Forces: Medical Officers
  London International Freight Exchange
  London International Freight Exchange
  Freight: Road Costs
  Freight: Road Costs
  Ipswich Railway Tunnel: Cost of Upgrading
  Ipswich Railway Tunnel: Cost of Upgrading
  Regional Assemblies
  Regional Assemblies
  Vehicular Weight Restrictions: Enforcement
  Vehicular Weight Restrictions: Enforcement
  Bishopsgate Goodsyard
  Bishopsgate Goodsyard
  Railtrack
  Railtrack
  Northern Ireland: Customs and Excise Staff
  Northern Ireland: Customs and Excise Staff
  VAT on Digitally Delivered Products
  VAT on Digitally Delivered Products
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Taxation
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Taxation
  Business Taxation: EU Code of Conduct
  Business Taxation: EU Code of Conduct
  Filipino Nurses
  Filipino Nurses
  French Poultry Meat
  French Poultry Meat
  Lymphoma Association
  Lymphoma Association
  Food Supplements: Draft European Directive
  Food Supplements: Draft European Directive
  Children and Young People who Sexually Abuse: Departmental Responsibilities
  Children and Young People who Sexually Abuse: Departmental Responsibilities
  NHS: Information Management and Technology
  NHS: Information Management and Technology
  English Heritage: Quinquennial Review
  English Heritage: Quinquennial Review
  Government Procurement Policy
  Government Procurement Policy