Sitting of 23 May 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Educational Maintenance Allowances
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What assessment she has made of the impact of educational maintenance allowances. [56343]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): Independent evaluation of the educational maintenance allowances has been taking place since we introduced them in September 1999. The findings so far are encouraging and show significant increases in the rate of those staying on in full-time education among students from less well-off families. We plan to publish further evaluation reports soon.
    Dr. Iddon: According to Roy Whittle, who is the principal of Bolton sixth form college, EMAs have had a significant impact on attendance rates at his college, and therefore on retention rates. Will my hon. Friend take note of a second point that Mr. Whittle has made to me—that he believes that student participation rates would improve significantly if EMAs were paid directly to the students, and not, as at present, to the parents or guardians?
    John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and question. He is right. His own area, Bolton, is one of the original 15 pilots. There, we are testing payments to parents, but elsewhere we are testing payments direct to students. It is part of the purpose of the pilots to work out not just how well EMAs work, but which model works best and also what impact it has in the longer term on the decisions of young people. We are examining carefully
    368
    what is happening in Bolton, in particular at Bolton college, and in other EMA pilot areas and in control areas, where we do not yet have EMAs.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that it is not just education maintenance allowances, but the right courses and the right settings, that will attract people to and keep them in full-time or part-time education after 16? What plans does the Minister have to implement the Labour party manifesto commitment to increase significantly the number of sixth form colleges? What effect will that have on existing further education provision, particularly in the light of the dismissive comments from his hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning about the success of further education in general colleges?
    John Healey: I reject absolutely the suggestion that the ministerial team of the Department for Education and Skills is in any way dismissive of the importance of further education colleges. The hon. Gentleman is right that educational maintenance allowances are part of what we need to put in place to ensure that a range of options is available to young people. The EMAs have a particular purpose: to support the young people most likely to drop out of full-time education, and to encourage those from the most deprived areas to continue their education, partly in further education and sixth form colleges and partly in sixth forms at schools.
    Vera Baird: May I ask my hon. Friend to make haste with further assessment of the impact of EMAs? Will he take into account the problems caused when one authority has EMAs and the neighbouring one does not? My own Redcar and Cleveland authority does not have EMAs, but the neighbouring authority in Middlesbrough does. They are both very poor areas, and of course students from Redcar go to Middlesbrough, and vice versa. For a student who does not have the allowance, sitting next to someone who does have it can act as a deterrent to taking on courses and to continuing them. Can we hurry? If the benefits are good, can they be rolled out as soon as possible?
    John Healey: We plan to publish shortly the second year's evaluation of the EMAs. I have much sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend's point about Redcar. Rotherham is also an area without EMAs, so I am conscious that we cannot continue indefinitely with EMA haves and have-nots sitting side by side in the same classroom. The emerging findings of the evaluation of the EMA programme form part of the discussions going on in Government as part of the spending review process.
    Bob Spink: May I make a plea to the Minister for the pilot to be extended to Canvey Island in my constituency, where staying-on rates are particularly low compared with other areas in my constituency and in south Essex? That might help us to increase the participation rate and the retention of students in the local sixth form college.
    John Healey: I am delighted to welcome that support from the Opposition Benches for our Labour policy and I

    369
    shall pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as a spending review representation. I am sure that it will reinforce our arguments with the Treasury.
    Jeff Ennis: Given the undoubted success of EMAs in places such as Barnsley and Doncaster, is the Minister considering not only rolling out the programme throughout the rest of the country, but extending it to 19 to 24-year-olds? Might I even suggest that he consider extending the programme into higher education as well?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend is racing ahead of our current position. As he rightly says, the evaluation of EMAs and our knowledge of their impact in south Yorkshire suggests that they have a genuine role to play at the critical point at which so many of our young people, especially in poorer areas, drop out of full-time education. That is the principal policy purpose of EMAs and we are currently concentrating on evaluating it and testing its potential much more widely across the country.

    School Funding (Budget)
    Mr. James Gray: What proportion of the money announced for schools in the Budget was not previously allocated. [56344]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): As was made clear at the time of the Budget, £70 million of the resource for education was new money from the capital modernisation fund. Some of that money has already been allocated to fund more centres of vocational excellence in colleges of further education. The remaining £172 million for schools was made available from existing resources in the Department.
    Mr. Gray: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but she will understand my cynical presumption of new Labour double counting, which has now almost become an art form on the Labour Benches. Does she agree that merely spending more money on schools is not necessarily the answer to everything that is wrong with our schools today in places such as North Wiltshire? Does she recall what she said as a junior Minister in an Adjournment debate that I secured on the subject of the SSA? I asked why £2,701 was spent every year on a secondary child in Wiltshire, while in her constituency that figure is £3,031. In the constituency of the Minister for School Standards, the figure is £3,678 a year and in Tower Hamlets it is a staggering £4,237 a year. Why should children in Wiltshire live in the second worst funded county in England and why should her constituents deserve £1,000 a year more per child than mine?
    Estelle Morris: It is slightly inconsistent for somebody who began his question by saying that putting money into schools was not everything and would not do the job then to launch a tirade about why his constituency is the second worst funded LEA. However, as I am sure that I said in the Adjournment debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although it is right that children in different parts of the country are financed to support their need—I am sure that he agrees that children in some circumstances need extra resources to support additional needs—the existing SSA system, which was developed by his Government, is now out of date. There are many examples
    370
    of unfairness, as he has illustrated. As the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has said, we will announce this year the formula that will be available and will be used for the next financial year. The hon. Gentleman can celebrate the fact that the announcement that is made for this financial year will be the last to be made under the current SSA system.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Schools in my constituency greatly value the substantial extra resources that they have received since this Government came to power, but my right hon. Friend will know about the need to recruit teachers so that we can spend all the money that has been allocated. To encourage more students to take up teaching, will she consider in her review of student finance waiving part of their maintenance loans if they commit themselves to work in state schools for five years or so?
    Estelle Morris: I know that, as a former teacher, my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in education, so he will be delighted that in the legislation that is currently before the House of Lords, we have taken the power to write off a student loan over a 10-year period. If somebody stays in teaching for 10 years, the loan will be written off in tenths, so the policy both supports retention and is an acknowledgement of the importance of teaching today. We hope that, when the legislation takes effect, we will be able to introduce that policy from September this year. We will announce further details of how we will do so once the legislation has received Royal Assent.
    Mr. Damian Green: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how much money has been taken away from schools by the Chancellor's increases in national insurance rates in the Budget?
    Estelle Morris: Teachers in schools and those in local authorities will, like every employer, pay a share of the increased national insurance contributions. There are two points to make about that. Everyone in schools—pupils, teachers and everyone else—will benefit from the improvements in our national health service that that increase in national insurance contributions will bring about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that has been widely welcomed. I am absolutely confident that every school in this country has an increased budget this year, as they have under every single year of this Government, and that they will be able to find the additional resources to cover the cost of NIC increases.
    Mr. Green: I can understand why the right hon. Lady is too embarrassed to give a straight answer, because the figure is £150 million. Before she challenges that, I point out that it comes from a written answer from the Minister for School Standards. So what she has admitted in the past five minutes is that the Government gave education £70 million of new money in the Budget and took away £150 million. That £150 million will disappear year after year.
    Does she recognise that parents, teachers and governors have by now seen through her Department's constant habit of twisting the facts? Does not she see that fiddling the Budget figures does not work, and that boasting one day that exclusions are down, then announcing this morning that they are up, but that she is happy about it,

    371
    is simply not credible? Will she admit that her Department's obsession with managing headlines is now damaging its performance on policy, and that the real victims are children in schools, especially those in our most vulnerable inner city schools?
    Estelle Morris: That is rich coming from a Member whose party reduced funding for schools by £120 per pupil over the last five years of Tory Government. The increase in national insurance contributions actually amounts to about £15 per pupil in primary schools and £20 per pupil in secondary schools. The figure that he quoted has to be set against the £1.3 billion settlement that has gone into schools from this year. He is not comparing like with like. The money that has gone through the Budget in the standard spending assessment for this year relates to national insurance contributions that will be repaid not this year, but next year. It is the Government's settlement for education spending for schools next year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we will continue to invest. That record of investment and expenditure, bringing about reform and results, is one to be proud of.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I proceed to the next question, may I say, gently, that the question was too long and the answer was too long? I must get through the Order Paper.

    Classroom Assistants
    Tony Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the role of classroom assistants in schools. [56345]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): Teaching assistants play a very important role in individual support for pupils with special educational needs, in group support on literacy and numeracy needs and in specialist subject support—for example, in science and technology. We expect to consult later this year on proposals for enhancing the role that is played by teaching assistants in improving standards and reducing teacher work load.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently visited one of my local primary schools, Victoria infant school, and met the headmistress, Pauline Robertson. The school has eight teachers and nine classroom assistants. Four years ago the standard assessment tests—SATs—results were Cs and Ds; they are now A and A* grades. Much of that is due to the work of classroom assistants. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of classroom assistants, and will he reconsider their pay and conditions and job descriptions?
    Mr. Timms: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad to join him in his tribute. Since 1998, the number of teaching assistants in schools has risen by about 60 per cent., reflecting the scale of the investment that we are making in our schools and our commitment to raise standards. It is absolutely right that teaching assistants can play a very important part in raising pupil achievement and in reducing teacher work load, which is an important concern for us at the moment. We have been
    372
    investing heavily in training assistants and we are seeing the benefits of that. My hon. Friend is right that those improvements will have implications for the status and pay of teaching assistants, but that is of course a matter for local education authorities, which are the employers of assistants, not one that is directly for me.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: While we are on the subject of people in classrooms who are not fully qualified, will the Minister look into the case of my constituent, Mr. Christopher Read, who is sufficiently trusted by the nation to design electronic control systems for Trident nuclear submarines, but who cannot lawfully be given a secure employment contract to teach physics to 14-year-olds? Does the Minister agree that it should be possible for a school to provide secure employment that, while not obviating the requirement for the teacher to obtain fully qualified teacher status, would ensure that constituents such as Mr. Read are not put in the invidious position of having to apply for their own jobs?
    Mr. Timms: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who makes an important point. Many people in schools do not have qualified teacher status but play an important part in raising standards. They do an excellent job. We do not want to reduce the standards and quality thresholds that are necessary in our schools. Qualified teacher status is vital for teaching, but others play an important part in schools.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to address Dudley teaching assistants? The meeting is organised by my constituent, Maggie Stowe. Teaching assistants have done a fantastic job in my constituency to improve standards, but there are uncertainties about their role. Will my hon. Friend address them directly about their pay and conditions?
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful for that invitation, but I was in Dudley last week so it may be a little while before I can pay a return visit, although I would like to do that.
    Last November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out a new vision for the school work force. We are developing proposals based on that in consultation with all the teaching unions and the support staff and teaching assistants' unions. The proposals envisage a bigger role for assistants in class supervision, lunchtime administration, administering tests, providing individual support for pupils and covering for teacher absence. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will be encouraged by that and I look forward to putting the proposals directly to them if the opportunity arises.
    Mr. Mark Field: I join the hon. Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) in praising the valuable contribution of classroom assistants. Like me, the Minister represents a central London seat and he therefore knows that there is a great teacher recruitment crisis in London. Are classroom assistants intended to replace teachers in central London or does he hope that they will contribute to ensuring that vulnerable children in central London get a first-rate education?
    Mr. Timms: No, we do not intend classroom assistants to replace teachers. It is vital to continue our successful

    373
    efforts to recruit more teachers in London. We shall make some announcements about that shortly. Between 1979 and 1997, the number of teachers in England declined by 48,000. Since 1997, that figure has risen by more than 20,000. Indeed, it has increased by more than 9,000 in the past year. We are therefore making genuine progress.

    Racial Tension
    Paul Flynn: What proposals she has to reduce racial tension in schools. [56346]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): From September, as part of the national curriculum, pupils in secondary schools will, for the first time, be taught about the importance of mutual respect, tolerance and understanding between people of all ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.
    Paul Flynn: Racial tension is remarkable for its scarcity. Most schools, such as those in my constituency, are wonderful crucibles of racial harmony, where the children play, learn and pray together. It is a joy to see an assembly where children have their hands joined together in prayer—some in the Christian tradition, and others with their hands cupped in the Muslim tradition, but all saying the same prayer. Is not it desirable to create as far as possible balanced communities in schools of mixed religions and ethnicities to ensure that we avoid creating ghettos in 10 or 20 years?
    Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should celebrate and highlight the excellent race relations that characterise so many of our schools where pupils from different backgrounds, religions and cultures are actively encouraged to work together, respect each other and learn about each other's cultures and religions. However, we should not dump on faith schools responsibility for tensions in communities. I believe that faith schools play an important part in promoting better understanding and tolerance between people of different religions and backgrounds. We should celebrate achievement and the excellent relations in most of our schools. We shall continue to build on that.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: That was a very balanced response from the Minister. Does he agree that, where there are cases in schools of persistent racial tension, perhaps involving bullying by certain pupils, persistent offenders might have to be removed from the school? If so, does he also agree that it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the authority of a head teacher who was determined to stamp out racial tension or racial bullying in his school were to be overruled by an appeals panel reinstating someone whom the head teacher had thought fit to be removed? Will the Minister look again at this question?
    Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that being described by the hon. Gentleman as "balanced" will do me much good. On the serious point that he has made, we cannot tolerate racism—particularly racist bullying—in our schools. It is important that we support head teachers in making the decisions that are right for their school, taking account of
    374
    the circumstances. If a head teacher felt that racist bullying had taken place, it would be inappropriate for an appeals panel to overturn that decision.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister agree that, where racial conflict exists in schools, it often arises from competition between neighbouring schools rather than from within an individual school? Will he help to ensure that all schools have better relations with, and a better understanding of, people in other schools in their community, so that such tensions between schools does not become the kind of racial tension that inflicts problems on our communities?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of the disturbances in some of our towns during the summer months last year, we have made it clear that a fundamental part of tackling the very real issues in those communities involves schools coming together in a far more organised and systematic way, to bring together young people from different schools and communities to participate in sporting activities, for example, and involving the youth service. It is right that we should move away from an era of competition between schools, and that we should support co-operation and partnership.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Both sides of the House are united in wanting good race relations in our schools, and, as the Minister has accepted, the vast majority of schools already enjoy harmonious race relations. Is it really necessary, therefore, to require all schools, as of next week, to draft and publish a new race relations policy, and to require them to collect data and analyse pupil performance, admissions, discipline and exclusions by racial group? Is not the Minister concerned that, for good, harmonious, well-led schools, this will be yet another unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and yet another diversion from the central priority of raising education standards for all our children?
    Mr. Lewis: No, I do not accept that view. It is important to understand that we have let down far too many children for far too long, for a whole variety of reasons including background and ethnic origin, in terms of under-achievement and low aspirations. One of the fundamental reasons for maintaining those data is to measure our progress and ensure that no child in this country is left behind.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend realise that many of us, on both sides of the House, welcome the initiatives that he has introduced, and which the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has just criticised? Does my hon. Friend also understand, however, that many of us are concerned about some of the changes that have taken place in our communities since last summer, and since 11 September? Would he agree to meet a group of us from particular constituencies to talk about the serious concerns that we are picking up at constituency level about race relations between pupils?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I would be delighted to meet him and other colleagues who have similar concerns. It is important to stress that Members of Parliament have an important leadership role, as do local councillors, in tackling these issues and getting

    375
    to grips with them at an early stage—rather than avoiding or denying them—and being a force for good in their communities.

    University Entrants
    Tony Wright: What proposals she has to broaden the social class composition of university entrants. [56348]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): We are determined to encourage more young people from lower income backgrounds to enter higher education. We want to improve staying-on rates and to raise attainment levels in schools, but we have also committed more than £190 million to the excellence challenge programme, to raise the aspirations of young people in some of the most deprived areas of the country. The Higher Education Funding Council is also providing significant additional funding—about £180 million in 2002–03—for widening participation.
    Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer, but is not the difficulty that, although participation rates as a whole have increased, participation of the poorest economic groups has actually declined? That shows that we are getting something wrong—perhaps aspects of the student finance arrangements, as the Audit Commission has pointed out. Can the Minister assure us that, when the results of the student finance review are published, that issue in particular will be tackled? Can she also confirm that the review will not be determined simply by the needs of the Treasury?
    Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend raises a really important point that I have often alluded to in the House. Although we have increased the number of young people entering higher education, the gap between the number of entrants from higher and from lower income groups has not narrowed. If we are serious about social inclusion, we need to tackle that problem. My view has always been that there are three strands to this issue: achieving better attainment levels at school by encouraging people to stay on, getting young people to aim higher, and getting the student funding regime right. We are tackling all three strands to ensure that those from low-income families are not deterred from attending university because of debt, or the fear of debt.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I suggest to the hon. Lady that, regardless of the results of the review, the obvious answer is to reintroduce maintenance grants? That is the problem that is holding us back.
    Margaret Hodge: That might be the hon. Gentleman's view, but mine is that the issue is much more complicated than that. Raising attainment levels and aspiration levels are difficult matters. I again draw the House's attention to a survey that showed that 44 per cent. of young people in the three lowest socio-economic groups never think of university as an option during their school years. That means that they are not encouraging themselves to aim higher, and nor are their friends, families, teachers or career advisers.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must get the problem with the grant settled
    376
    soon? Does she also accept that, in impoverished areas such as mine, in which the pits have closed, it is very important that further education buildings are kept open? Is it not pathetic for the Tories to talk about those at the bottom of the scale, given that 10 out of the 11 members of the shadow Cabinet send their kids to public school, including the Leader of the Opposition, who, it is now revealed, sends his kid to Eton? That is not a good message, is it?
    Margaret Hodge: I certainly feel that the experience of sending one's own children to school adds hugely to one's understanding of the issue, and I must say that I would never have denied my four children the privilege of a state education. I also recognise the importance, as my hon. Friend says, of ensuring proper further education opportunities for our young people throughout the country. We will settle the issue of student funding as soon as a proper, sustainable system is in place. The issue must be seen in the context of all the things that we want to do in education—including in further education.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that many families have no history whatever of participation in further and higher education, and that as a result no member of such families is able to act as a role model and give advice? Does she agree that more universities could adopt schools in socially deprived areas? Through the links thereby developed, they would remove apprehension and encourage youngsters with potential to realise it in full by applying for a university place.
    Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important and pertinent point. It is important that universities move away from their traditional practice, which was simply to wait for applications to come to them. They must go out and engage with the community, and particularly with young people who have not considered university as an option and whose parents probably did not go to university. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that through the excellence challenge programme, we are seeing a sea change in the way in which universities are responding. Every time I visit a university, I am shown the links that they are establishing with young children at school. It is never too soon—we can start at the age of 11, 12 or 13—to raise the aspirations of talented young children in our schools.
    John Cryer: My hon. Friend will be aware that the number of students studying the sciences, particularly chemistry and physics, is woefully low. Is it not plain that the abolition of maintenance grants was a disincentive to youngsters from poorer backgrounds entering higher education in the first place? If they do enter higher education, they tend to do courses that lead to higher paid jobs—it is fairly widely recognised that doing science will not lead to highly remunerated jobs. Is not the reintroduction of grants the answer?
    Margaret Hodge: There is no evidence to suggest that young people from lower income backgrounds are choosing not to go to university because of the funding system. We are proactive in this matter because we want to reduce the participation gap. Furthermore, although there is a decline in the number of people going into

    377
    engineering, science and related studies, the causes are far more complicated. Following the Roberts review, we are beginning to see what policies we can implement in our schools and beyond, and across gender, to encourage more young people to take up sciences in schools and go on to study them at university. It is not a question of the money they earn afterwards; they can earn plenty of money, and there are good career opportunities for them in the science-related subjects, too.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Encouraging high aspirations on the part of poor children is laudable; no one would deny that. But is it not particularly tragic that Her Majesty's Government's education policies have militated against those children achieving their aspirations? Is it not true that abolishing the assisted places scheme and making it harder for good grammar schools to maintain selective systems have damaged the chances of poor children? Would it not be absolutely fatal if universities were to skew their admission standards from an impartial assessment of scholarship?
    Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman ought to look at the facts which reveal that not many young people from working class backgrounds took advantage of the assisted places schemes. I would be happy to share that information with the hon. Gentleman if he so wishes. Since the Government have been in office, attainment levels have risen among 11-year-olds and 16-year-olds through to 18-year-olds and entry to university. The Government want to ensure that our brightest and best kids get opportunities at all universities. We are asking the universities to ensure that they have sophisticated means to hunt out the best, and many are doing this of their own accord. We want an intellectual elite, not a social elite.

    Truancy
    Caroline Flint: What measures she is proposing to tackle the problem of truancy. [56349]
    Colin Burgon: What further plans she has for helping teachers to improve discipline in schools. [56351]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): It is vital that we tackle both truancy and bad behaviour in schools. In the past five years, we have invested more than £600 million to support teachers in dealing with bad behaviour and tackling truancy. Earlier this month, we allocated a further £66 million of funding to targeted local education authorities to pilot our long-term strategy on improving behaviour and attendance.
    Caroline Flint: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of pupil referral units, which give many children who have been excluded or are frequent truants the chance of an education. However, my right hon. Friend will know that parents are part of the problem. In the Banbury case, one of the excuses used over two years about why a daughter was not in school was that a dog ate her trainers. I heard of an excuse used by a local parent after a week's half-term holiday. When the education welfare officer called round, she was confronted with the
    378
    excuse that the school uniform had been nicked off the washing line. I did not realise that school uniform was such a desirable fashion item.
    As we have found in Doncaster when truancy sweeps are held, many of the truants are found in the company of a parent, with no valid excuse. When visits are made to homes, parents have no valid excuse for why their child is not in school. However, the truancy teams have no powers to return a child to school if he or she is in the company of a parent. Can we strengthen the law in that regard?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to tackle the problem of truancy, we have to demand that parents work with schools. We cannot ask everything of teachers, nor can we blame schools for all the ills of society. The schools that have been successful have worked carefully with parents, and my hon. Friend gave good examples. She may be interested to hear that in the past four weeks we have held truancy sweeps in more than 230 places, mainly in urban areas. We funded the police to work with education welfare officers and more than 600 children were returned directly to school. For the parents who were with the other children—a sizeable number—the message was clear: "This is not on. Get your child in school and give teachers and schools a chance."
    Colin Burgon: In Tuesday's debate on discipline in schools, I was able to raise the issue of Team Teach, which is a programme that attempts to equip teachers with the necessary verbal and physical skills to confront difficult situations. Will my right hon. Friend evaluate that scheme and, if she thinks that it is of value, will she ensure that it is rolled out to all the secondary schools to which it would be applicable?
    Estelle Morris: I am interested to hear about that scheme, because I do not know about it. I will certainly evaluate it. If it proved to be a good project, we would make it available to schools so that they could choose whether to implement it. The point that my hon. Friend makes about training teachers is important. For too long, teachers could train to be teachers without any guidance on how to enforce discipline in schools. Children cannot learn unless their classroom is well ordered. Therefore, my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that we will ensure that every teacher who completes training has had a sound grounding in how to maintain discipline in schools. Indeed, the project that he mentions could be used in initial teacher training as well for continuous professional development.
    Mr. John Baron: The latest Ofsted report has clearly stated that poor behaviour by a minority of pupils is the major reason for teachers leaving the profession, and in recent written answers the Government admitted that they do not know how many teachers and pupils are attacked by other pupils. When will the Government discover the scale of the problem so that they can deal effectively with it?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman calls for us to collect information, and earlier in the week during the Opposition day debate, a Conservative Front Bencher said that we should collect data on children's violence against

    379
    children. Normally, we hear from the Opposition about the need to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork. Indeed, only this Question Time, the Conservatives have said that they do not want to collect figures on achievement by ethnic minorities, because that is added bureaucracy. They should get their message straight.
    We collect reasons for exclusion, so if the hon. Gentleman wishes to find out how many exclusions are because of violence towards teachers, he can do so. Without checking—so I am a little cautious about the figures—the number of such incidents has fallen slightly in the past year. However, I make nothing of that and I do not claim it as any improvement. It is important to collect data, as we do on exclusions, but we do not want to demand of schools that they collect data and return them to a host of organisations after every incident of child violence. We would sooner spend our resources, time and effort on supporting teachers in trying to eradicate that behaviour. That is the key to raising standards.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Secretary of State look at the excellent initiative launched by Devon and Cornwall police with all the local authorities to stop truancy in the two counties? In so doing, will she hold discussions with the local authority in Devon and perhaps look at some of the work carried out in some Devon schools? Vyv Game, the deputy principal of Exmouth community college—the largest school in Devon—said:
    "If we can recognise the reasons for someone's behaviour we can try to do something about it. Prevention is better than cure."
    If the right hon. Lady agrees with that, will she tell us how depriving families of income helps in that understanding?
    Estelle Morris: My starting point is that it is crucial to get children in school and to keep them there to enable them to learn. One thing I can guarantee is that if a child from a financially deprived home truants from school, that child will not learn and attain. All that happens is that the cycle of deprivation passes into the next generation and we never, never break it.
    My starting point is that we should begin with support and cajoling; we should work with the parent and the child, try alternative forms of curriculum and as many innovative things as possible; but if, at the end of the day, the parent still does not accept their responsibility to send a child to school, we are faced with a decision. We must either turn our back, shrug and say, "There, let us condemn that child to a lifetime of poverty as well", or we take tough measures. Courts and others are right to take tough steps, but they are end of the road measures. In some recent cases, we have seen that they worked and that children are back in school and learning. At the end of the day, that is what we want.
    Mr. David Watts: May I inform my right hon. Friend that many schools in St. Helens face major discipline problems due to yobs trespassing on school premises? At present, that is not a criminal action. Will my right hon. Friend look into whether we can change the law to give our children more protection in school?
    Estelle Morris: I shall certainly look into that matter. I am not quite clear whether my hon. Friend is talking
    380
    about trespass during school time or out of school time. When one visits a school, one of the saddest things—although it is necessary—is to see how much has to be spent on securing buildings because of the behaviour of people in the community. The irony is that sometimes the school is the best-equipped place to serve the community, yet it is destroyed by the actions of an irresponsible few. I take my hon. Friend's point and although I am not sure what my conclusions will be, I am happy to look into it.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The Secretary of State has loyally given a following wind to the Prime Minister's latest headline grabbing gimmick—withdrawing benefits from parents of truants—and in the debate on Tuesday her hon. Friends talked about holding consultations to work out whether that would be practical, so why was I told, when I tabled a question to her Department on the subject, that any consultation would be undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions?
    Estelle Morris: Because child benefit is administered by the Department for Work and Pensions—the answer is quite simple. In the name of joined-up government—that is what we are—I am in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and when the consultation takes place, no doubt part of it will reflect the contributions made by my Department to that debate. The important thing is that we debate and consult—I do not care two hoots about which Department that emanates from.
    Kali Mountford: Is it not the case that the presence of drugs in schools is a major impediment to overall discipline, and that young people in school who are under the influence of drugs, taking drugs or dealing in drugs are not in a condition to learn? They affect their own learning and that of others. Do not schools need to work with the police, local authorities and social and health services to deal with that matter? What are my right hon. Friend and her Department doing to help local education services and schools to tackle that particular problem?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. We learn quickly that we cannot protect schools from what is going on in the wider community. Often, schools are havens—well ordered and disciplined places; sometimes they are the most disciplined place in a child's life. However, we cannot always protect children from the activities of the neighbourhood so, sadly, my hon. Friend is right: there are incidents of drug taking and inappropriate behaviour in schools. There is no easy solution. That is why the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has responsibility for young people and learning, held a seminar this week where we could gather together those people who are beginning to develop good practice and take it forward. Without going into that matter, my hon. Friend made one important point: this has to be about all the services coming together: police, social services, the health authorities and mentors as well as the education service. If we can get the expertise from all those professionals, we may stand a chance. On top of that, we may make progress with parental support. I do not underestimate the nature of the difficulties, but progress has to be made as the problem is a barrier to real social cohesion and advancement.

    Behavioural Special Needs
    Tim Loughton: What plans she has to improve provision for children with behavioural special needs. [56350]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Our new special educational needs code of practice provides sound advice on how best to meet the needs of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. We have also established a working group to look at the future role of special schools, including provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The group will be reporting to Ministers in the autumn.
    Tim Loughton: In autism awareness year, the incidence of reported autism among schoolchildren is at record levels and the National Autistic Society reported recently that one in 86 children have educational difficulties associated with autism or Asperger syndrome. Is the Minister aware of the Mental Health Foundation report that estimated the lifetime cost resulting from autism and associated learning disabilities at more than £2.9 million per person, of which 70 per cent. is made up of living costs and only 7 per cent. is spent on education? Is that not a false economy and should she not be doing more to redress that imbalance and to recruit specialist teachers to work in the classroom to identify the problems and intervene at an early stage to give children with autism a better chance of getting a better start as adults, thereby saving extra costs later in life?
    Margaret Hodge: I agree that we need to invest and get better at identifying children with special educational needs and those relating to autism as soon as we can. We have started the work on that. We are about to produce guidance on children from nought to two, which will ensure that we can work across departments—not only with the education services, but with social and health services—to identify children's needs earlier. We then have to ensure that we have the proper services in place to respond to those needs so that those children can develop their potential. We are at the start of developing those services. We have a lot more to do, but we are on the right track.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am pleased to hear the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but does she realise that although that is what she says in the House, what is happening out in the real world is different? Will she admit that many parents of children with special educational needs have long and tiring struggles to enforce the terms of their child's statement simply because of the vicious triangle between the three departments—health, education and social services—which do not work together at present? Will she undertake to work more closely with other Departments and encourage that approach right down the line to the local authorities and, in so doing, will she also find out how many children are autistic and have other behavioural problems? At present, the Government do not have that information. I am pleased to hear that they are beginning work on it. Will she give the House an undertaking that
    382
    she will accelerate that work? If we do not know how many children will need special education in the years to come, how can we possibly plan for it?
    Margaret Hodge: Our record in government is much better than that of the Conservatives when they were in office. One only needs to consider the fivefold increase in the standards fund, the £220 million access initiative, and the extra £760 that we are going to invest in every child during these two spending review periods to realise that we are putting our money where our mouth is. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is much more to do. We need to get better data and that is why we ran the pilot in July 2001 among 200 schools to get some idea of the broad range of special educational needs. We are considering implementing that throughout the country in 2004. I also agree with her that we need to get better at working across professions.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What assessment she has made of the results of the trials under which the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police decides on the charge against defendants. [56378]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): In his review of the criminal justice system, Sir Robin Auld proposed that the CPS should take over responsibility for charging suspects, which is currently done by the police. To identify the practical issues that would need to be addressed if that change were made, we have set up pilot schemes in five areas, and the results of those pilot schemes will be looked at this summer.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her answer, but may I tell her that a couple of my constituents, who have had experience of the CPS either refusing to press charges or downgrading charges against defendants, have been outraged by those decisions and the total lack of adequate explanations to them, as victims of crime, as to why the CPS took those decisions? May I ask her to ensure that, in considering the trial, communicating the decision to the victim is also considered and that, if the CPS takes the decision, it should communicate its reasons for doing so to the victim and not leave that to the police, who often disagree with the decision of the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. First, she talks about charges that have been made by the police subsequently being dropped and the disappointment that that causes the victim. It is also unfair on the defendants to have charges hanging over them. One of the charging pilot schemes' objectives is to ensure that a charge should never be made in cases that are going nowhere because of insufficient evidence and that therefore it is recognised from the outset that it is not a runner. That certainly appears to be happening in those pilots.

    383
    As for the explanation to the victim if charges have to be dropped or changed, we want to ensure that far fewer charges are in fact dropped or changed, but in the old days a charge could be dropped and sometimes the victim would not be told and only read about it in the newspapers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that that is quite wrong. That is why we have rolled out a national programme under which the CPS tells victims what is happening in a case and explains why it is happening.
    Norman Baker: Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is a further problem: sometimes the police second-guess the CPS and do not put evidence before it because they wrongly believe that the CPS will not prosecute, whereas it may well do so? Is that not a particular problem with sex offences, where the police perhaps conclude that, if there is no victim statement, they are unable to proceed with the case, whereas the CPS would be prepared to consider such cases on the basis of other evidence that might accrue?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is not just that cases are charged and then dropped, but that good cases are not taken to court because the police think that the CPS would not consider that there was enough evidence. The idea of the charging pilot schemes is that the CPS should work closely with the police at the outset, give advice about the nature of the evidence needed and assess the amount of available evidence, so that it can get the charge and the evidence right and the case can proceed swiftly to court.

    Youth Justice Inspectorate
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the progress made by the new inspectorate on youth justice issues; and if she will make a statement. [56379]
    The Solicitor-General: The inspectorates of the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts carried out a joint inspection into youth justice in February last year. Today, they have published the report of their follow-up inspection, and I have placed a copy of it in the Library. The target of halving the time from arrest to sentence has been achieved, but there are still some areas of the country where further progress needs to be made.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Youth crime is causing a great deal of concern among many of my constituents, including the elderly and vulnerable members of our community. Street crime and the theft of mobile phones are significant among the crimes committed by young people. I am interested in the work of the inspectorate and its proposals on how to crack down on youth crime. What are its proposals on the delivery of youth justice and the successful prosecution of criminals in the courts? What help is to be given to the victims of crime?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend asks about the inspectorate, which gives me the opportunity to thank warmly the inspectorates of the courts, the police and, in particular, the CPS, which led the inspection, for the work that they have done. The combined inspectorate has gone
    384
    through things with a fine-toothed comb, not looking just at the police, the courts or at the prosecution, but at how the entire system is working, and it is making proposals. It has been able to identify good practice, and encourage others to build on it, as well as to note those areas where more progress needs to be made. There has been progress on our pledge to halve the time that it takes to bring a youth to justice, which is a significant achievement on which the police, the courts and the CPS should be congratulated. We are making further efforts in relation to street crime, of which the House will no doubt be aware.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted that the Government have adopted what was effectively the content of my ten-minute Bill, albeit 10 years later, to reduce the time taken to bring young offenders to trial. Does the Solicitor-General share my concern that young offenders who are terrorising and vandalising towns such as Thirsk in the Vale of York are sometimes arrested two or three times in as many months but are simply not being prosecuted? What does she propose to do about that?
    The Solicitor-General: Our objective is to ensure that more offenders are brought to justice. The hon. Lady makes the point about youth offenders and thanks the Government for taking up her Bill. I wonder why the previous Government did not take up her Bill—[interruption.] They could easily have taken up the issue, but I shall move swiftly on.
    When we took office, the average time between the arrest and conviction of a young person was 142 days, which was too long. We are proud of the progress that has been made on that, but we are not complacent, and more needs to be done.

    Death in Custody
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What criteria are applied when deciding whether to prosecute where a death in police custody has occurred. [56380]
    The Solicitor-General: When deciding whether to prosecute, in all cases, including those in which there has been a death in a prison or a police station, the Crown Prosecution Service applies the code for Crown prosecutors. First, it considers whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and, secondly, whether the prosecution is in the public interest.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I am sure that she will be delighted, as I am, that the number of deaths in custody has fallen dramatically in the last few years; indeed, it has more than halved in the last four years, which is good news. Every time there is a death in custody, however, local communities' trust in the police is undermined. How can we make sure, in any consultation process that we undergo to change the system of setting criteria, that we increase public confidence in the system to deliver justice for everyone?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. People need to be absolutely confident that those who work in the criminal justice system, whether in the police or in prisons, are not above the law. The Attorney-General is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed about

    385
    prosecutions after deaths in custody. He has instigated a review and consulted and involved in that process not only the prisons, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts but the families of those who have died in custody. The state has a special responsibility for people in custody and we must make sure that the system for answering relatives' questions after someone has died in custody is open, fair and accountable.
    Mr. William Cash: Would the Solicitor-General comment on the remarks made by his honour Judge Gerald Butler in 1998, when reporting at the request of the then Director of Public Prosecutions on the quality of decision making by the CPS in relation to deaths in custody? He said:
    "There is a powerful public interest in the prosecution of police officers who have committed an offence of such gravity".
    Despite having the same burden of proof in both inquests and criminal trials—beyond reasonable doubt—why have verdicts of unlawful killing recorded at inquests when a person has died in police custody not led to more prosecutions of police? Would she comment on whether
    386
    there is a danger that, because the CPS is so closely linked to the police service, the self-interest of the police has led to the interests of justice being overridden?
    The Solicitor-General: It is very important that the Crown Prosecution Service maintain its independence, that that be recognised, and that it make independent decisions. It is also important, however, that investigations have a measure of independence so that they can command public confidence. His honour Judge Butler, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, has been involved in the review, which is focusing on prosecutions. He has looked at the paperwork in previous cases. The Attorney-General has gone wider and has not only looked at the different agencies involved but talked to the relatives concerned.
    One of the problems is that relatives often feel left in the dark. They do not know the difference between inquest issues, they do not know what points have to be proved in a criminal court and they are, generally speaking, not told what is going on. As well as tackling delay in the system, we also look to the review to ensure that victims' relatives are kept involved in, and informed of, the process.

Business of the House
12.35 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I am pleased to announce that we will have a busy week after the Whitsun recess. The business is as follows:
MONDAY 10 JUNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill.
FRIDAY 14 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill.
TUESDAY 18 JUNE—There will be a debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 19 JuNE—I should like to advise the House that subject to receiving a message from the other place, the day will consist of a half-day Opposition debate until 7 o'clock, followed by a motion to concur with their Lordships on the establishment of a Joint Committee on the House of Lords.
THURSDAY 20 JUNE—There will be a debate on Energy: Towards 2050, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 JUNE—Private Member's Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 18 June 2002, there will be a debate relating to authorisation of human and veterinary medicines in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 18 June 2002:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: 13361/01; 14591/01: Authorisation of human and veterinary medicines; 6240/02; Authorisation of traditional herbal medicinal products. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xii and HC 152-xxiii (2000–01)].
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us that statement. Given his legendary ability to read documents at high speed and digest every detail of their content, may I assume that he has thoroughly absorbed document HC 844, issued by the parliamentary ombudsman? Assuming that he has, I will not need to remind him of its contents. However, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give one quotation from the report—although I could give many. On page 16, paragraph 4.13, the ombudsman says:
"Throughout this part of my investigation I had received no direct communication from the Cabinet Office… they appeared to be withholding papers, which they readily acknowledged existed, from
388
my investigation. I was deeply concerned at this development. Such a refusal strikes at the very heart of my Office's function. Together with the lack of co-operation from the Home Office it made it impossible for me to corroborate the account contained in Sir Anthony's report with respect to the information sought by Mr. M. Given this attitude, which had effectively made my investigation unsustainable, I found myself in the position of being quite unable to confirm"—
and so on.
That goes to the heart of the Government's repeated claims that they are in favour of freedom of information, open government, transparency and clarity. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for an urgent debate to be held on the matter, because what the ombudsman says about the Government is very serious indeed? He is making serious allegations about the attitude of Ministers—and, I am sad to say, the officials under their control—to the whole process of investigation. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that the matter merits urgent attention by the House, because it also goes to the heart of the relationship between the House and the Government. I hope that we shall receive his assurances on that subject.
May I remind the Leader of the House of what the Prime Minister said yesterday in reply to a brief exchange? Asked whether he agreed
"with the former membership secretary in his own constituency that the Labour party has ceased to become a democratic movement and has become a centralised mail order business",
the Prime Minister replied, rather typically:
"I do not believe that he"—
that is, the former membership secretary of the Sedgefield constituency—
"would have said that at all."—[Official Report, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 291–92.]
Will the Leader of the House therefore tell us whether a journal called Renewal exists, or whether he is aware of it? If it does exist, can he confirm whether it said—this is allegedly a quote from Renewal—that the Labour party had been
"replaced by mail order politics, where everything was run from the centre"?
I raise that question because yesterday the Prime Minister stated that he did not believe the person concerned would have said that, but those words are apparently a direct quotation from that individual. In order to protect his Prime Minister, surely the Leader of the House has to make a statement as early as possible to clarify whether the Prime Minister knows about that, whether the individual said those words or whether the Prime Minister, regrettably, was unable to clarify the truth of the matter to the House.
On another matter, Lord Levy is described in a newspaper today as
"an invaluable one-man money-raising machine."
I would call Lord Levy Tony's No. 1 crony—but no matter how one characterises him, is the Leader of the House satisfied that it is credible that a committee of six people, which includes Lord Levy, can vet donations to the Labour party? That is directly connected with Ministers' oft-repeated boasts that the Labour party is clean and above board with regard to donations and financial contributions.
We need to know whether the poachers and gamekeepers are indistinguishable, and whether the Labour party is serious, as it claims, about vetting its

389
donations. Surely the Leader of the House, with his reputation for integrity, wants to clear that up. Can we have a brief statement from the Government about the relationship between donations to the Labour party, the committee that has been set up, and Lord Levy's role in that committee?
Mr. Cook: Yesterday I made a speech in which I suggested that if we want to restore the respect of the public for Parliament, we should try to rise above our tribal instincts. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes it terribly difficult for me rise above my tribal instincts, and I think that today I will fail miserably.
I have had an opportunity to study the ombudsman's report; I took it off the web this morning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has disdain for anything that smacks of the web or the internet, but I recommend it to him as an easy and convenient way of getting access to public documents. As he has quoted paragraph 4.13, I refer him to paragraph 4.20, where he will find that the ombudsman states that he found
"very little in the way of documentation"—
Mr. Forth: Exactly.
Mr. Cook: On the contrary, the ombudsman had access to all the documents in the Cabinet Office. I concede that there was a delay, for which the Cabinet Office apologised. However, he did gain access to the documents. He sets out in paragraph 4.19 and 4.18 that he saw all there was to see, and found that very little documentation had been delayed.
The ombudsman's conclusion was precisely the same as the conclusion reached by Sir Anthony Hammond. Indeed, he explicitly said that he reached the same conclusion. I see no point in wasting the time of the House in examining further a matter that has been exhaustively examined by Sir Anthony Hammond, and on which the ombudsman has reached the same conclusion. Had the conclusion been different, there might have been a point to the right hon. Gentleman's question, but as the conclusion is the same, there is no reason why the House should waste its effort and time on that.
As for the other matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I regret to say that I have not recently had an opportunity to hold discussions with the former membership secretary of the Prime Minister's constituency party. I am aware of Renewal. As the right hon. Gentleman is also aware of it, he may know that it recently carried a very interesting speech by myself, which it reprinted as an article.
Renewal is one of the many examples of vigorous, open, intellectual and democratic debate in the labour movement. I would have more respect for the right hon. Gentleman's concern about democracy in the Labour party if he did something about democracy in the Conservative party. For instance, perhaps he should respond to the demand of Conservative activists that they should elect officers within their party, as we elect officers in the Labour party.
I have told the House before that I believe that Lord Levy has played a valuable and useful role in British foreign policy. During my time as Foreign Secretary,
390
I found him very valuable in making sure that we had access in the middle east, and that we were able to get our message across. I regret very much the fact that his being engaged in trying to find a way forward in an area of great tension, where there is the potential for a great explosion, is constantly run down by the media and by the Conservative party.
As for the vetting of donations, I think it entirely healthy and proper that we should set up a committee—and be open about the membership of that committee—to consider the implications of any donation that we take. I wish that the Conservative party would now—finally—tell us from whom it took donations when the Conservatives were in office. The Conservatives can do it—I presume that they have not burnt the files, so they are somewhere in central office. The only donations they ever owned up to were those that they were obliged to disclose after we laid a legal requirement on them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ask the ombudsman.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I may be getting tribal again, but perhaps I should encourage the ombudsman to make an inquiry at central office and see just how long the delay is before the Conservatives finally tell us from what companies and what countries they took money when they were the Government of Great Britain.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I express my thanks to the Leader of the House for giving us a second day on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—time that we requested and others agreed was necessary? In the light of recent developments, it is extremely important that we discuss those issues, especially those that were not covered in Committee.
While I am in a grateful mood, may I also thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for giving added publicity to my question to the Prime Minister yesterday? I am very grateful.
I read with great interest and welcome the speech that the Leader of the House made to the Hansard Society last night, but does he agree that the House must find better ways to discuss urgent and topical issues more thoroughly? Let me give two examples. First, there is the funding of democracy and political parties, which has just been mentioned. The Prime Minister goes on television to talk about it, the chairman of the Labour party talks about it, two prominent Conservative MPs were talking about it yesterday—even the CBI is now talking about state funding of political parties. When will the Government give the House time to debate that issue properly?
Secondly, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the adjudication by the pensions appeal tribunal yesterday in the case of a gentleman who served this country well in the Gulf and now suffers from Gulf war syndrome. The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest as a long-time member of the Royal British Legion, which is concerned about the matter. Does he realise that the report in today's Daily Express, which I assume is now required Government reading, given that it is clearly their favourite newspaper, not only refers to the pay-out announced for Mr. Shaun Rusting, but states that his claim was adjusted—I think that is the best way to put it—by the Ministry of Defence so that it would not

391
refer specifically to Gulf war syndrome and so open the door for other applicants? May we have an urgent statement from the MOD, not only about that adjudication, but about the way in which the MOD appears to have fiddled it?
Mr. Cook: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the arrangements for the Report stage the week after the Whitsun recess. In the light of the representations that were made, it was right to ensure that there was adequate time for the remaining stages of that Bill. On a number of occasions since the general election the Government have listened to representations about remaining stages and provided the House with adequate time to explore important issues. We regard the Bill as a very important one, which deals with a serious issue.
I also appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about my speech yesterday. I fully agree with him about the importance of making sure that our proceedings are topical and deal with the public interest. I look forward to the forthcoming report from the Select Committee on Procedure, which I hope will enable us to shorten the period of notice for oral questions and thereby ensure greater topicality in those that come before the House.
I cannot promise a debate on party funding because, as the hon. Gentleman will have observed, we have a crowded schedule at this time of year. My impression is that there is a lively debate going on about party funding, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that no step can be taken in respect of party funding without a decision of the House, and therefore a debate in the House.
I am aware of the pensions appeal tribunal's judgment with regard to Gulf war syndrome. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very recent judgment, and it is right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider it carefully and respond to it in due course. However, the hon. Gentleman can take it as read that we take what has been said by the tribunal extremely seriously.
Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister is making an important speech today about science and research. He will know also that the spin-off from science and research in universities in the north-east will be crucial to the future prosperity of the north-east. Can we have a debate on this issue soon—although preferably not next week—so that we can explore the best ways of improving job creation by our universities?
Mr. Cook: I think that my right hon. Friend carried the House with him when he suggested that any debate that we may have should not take place next week. I very much welcome the Prime Minister's decision to give a major speech on science, research and technology. Sometimes, because of the press pressures on us and the agenda on the front pages, we overlook what are the fundamentally important and strategically significant issues in our nation, and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen to highlight one of those strategic questions. My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is a forthcoming debate in Westminster Hall on the report by the Committee on Science and Technology, when I am sure many of these points can be aired.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the Procedure Committee will not disappoint the Leader
392
of the House when it produces its report on parliamentary questions, but my question to him is somewhat different. Although I strongly regret the decision of the House 10 days ago to reject the Modernisation Committee's proposals for a Committee of Nomination for appointments to Select Committees, I believe that the House could well return to the matter at a later date, no doubt on the initiative of the Liaison Committee. However, the debate 10 days ago also concerned proposals for increased facilities and resources for Select Committees. Is the Leader of the House in a position yet to indicate when he may make a statement about those additional facilities and resources to enable Select Committees to do the vital job that they perform for the House of Commons?
Mr. Cook: I share the hon. Gentleman's regret. I must say that I was intrigued by the fact that 90 Conservative Members voted against the proposal, thereby reinforcing the existing powers of the Government Whips. No doubt they have their own reasons for having supported the Government Whips—and some day we may be able to fathom them. In the meantime, I repeat that although I regret the outcome, as Leader of the House I have to respect it. The House reached a conclusion. I am not going to concede that I was wrong—I still believe that I was right—but I do concede that the House has made a decision, and it would therefore take a very compelling argument for us to revisit the issue.
We should not lose sight of the fact that last week the House approved all the many other items from the Modernisation Committee report, and as the hon. Gentleman says, those included increased resources and staff for Select Committees. I am pleased to say to the House that, having got the approval of the House last week, we are making all progress on that, and I anticipate that those resources will be put in place over the next Session.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Leader of the House will be aware that at the moment President Bush is in Europe and, among other things, is seeking support for possible military action against Iraq. As President Bush has already consulted the Prime Minister on this matter, when will Parliament debate any possible action? When will the Government publish the dossier proving that Iraq has acquired weapons of mass destruction? Will we, as the Foreign Secretary said recently on the Frost programme, first seek a new mandate from the United Nations before we even consider President Bush's request?
Mr. Cook: As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, no decision on that matter has been taken, and a decision may never be taken. Plainly, should a decision be taken, the House would have to be consulted and there would have to be a full debate. With respect, I think that we have proved ourselves very willing to consult the House and debate these matters in the House, as witness the six full days of debate which we gave to the use of military force in Afghanistan. As for the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, it is clear that one of our strengths in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan was the

393
international coalition of support. Plainly, any action in Iraq must also look for similar international support, and the UN is a good place to build such support.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House give a progress report on his deliberations with the Lord Chancellor about amending the Data Protection Act 1998 so that Members of Parliament can once again represent their constituents' interests properly?
Mr. Cook: As the House will understand, I share Members' concern that when they are approached by constituents, they cannot take action on their behalf because it might breach the Data Protection Act. Plainly, that is not a suitable way in which to work; when our constituents approach us they expect us to do something—that is why they come to us. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are making progress on the proposal to introduce a statutory instrument to cater for the position of Members of Parliament and other elected people in public life; I hope that next month we will be able to clear the matter up.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the Government's intention to fund the nursing care of residents in care homes, so that they benefit financially. Is he also aware, however, that a significant number of care homes, including Highfield Holdings in my constituency, have raised their residential fees by the amount paid for nursing care? Highfield Holdings has raised fees by about £69 a week, which means that residents are paying exactly the same as they were before, and are not getting the financial benefit that the Government intended. That is unacceptable and morally reprehensible. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for that to be debated in the House so that Members can express their views on that disgraceful action?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to many Members who have been approached by constituents, and I fully understand and share his concern. The problem is known to the Department of Health, which has written to a number of homes that are raising their prices. Ultimately, they are private commercial institutions, and pricing is under their control, but the measure was introduced as public policy to relieve pressure on residents in those homes and their families. I very much hope that the people who run those homes will recognise that residents and their relatives should benefit most from that public money.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Can we have an early debate on the state of the food processing industry, with particular reference to the Albert Fisher group, which went into receivership today, jeopardising 3,000 jobs across the country? As the Leader of the House knows, Fisher Foods is the largest private sector employer in my constituency, with 700 jobs in its Fraserburgh and Peterhead factories, and this is an extremely anxious time for the workers and their families. What role does the Leader of the House envisage for Departments in securing
394
the customer base of those profitable operations and finding an alternative buyer so that we can retain those vital factories in the north-east of Scotland?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the impact of that development on his constituents. As I understand it, the operations will be run as a going commercial concern by the receiver for another six weeks; I hope that that will provide an interval in which an alternative buyer and operator can be found. The plants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have received substantial investment in the past decade, and I understand that they are profitable and have a number of high-value prestigious clients, such as Marks and Spencer and Safeway, which is a testimony to their products. In those circumstances, of course we want another buyer to come forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and the Scottish Executive will do anything that they can to help, but ultimately this is a commercial matter.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend that we will have a debate on energy on 20 June, and I thank him for his good offices in helping to bring that about. Does he agree that Members will have an opportunity to take part in an important debate on the nation's long-term requirements, and will have the chance to talk about things like the new generation clean-coal technology?
Mr. Cook: Given the number of times that my hon. Friend has raised that matter with me over the weeks, I would have been severely disappointed if he, at least, had not thanked me for arranging that debate. Its title implies that we will be looking at energy until 2050, which is a long perspective but a necessary one. Looking at the future of our energy needs and their impact on the environment, the issues to which my hon. Friend referred are plainly relevant and are important to our investment in an efficient, effective and reliable energy supply in Britain.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Will the Leader of the House please find time for an early debate on the way Ministers handle their correspondence? I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 11 April. It may seem to some people—not to me—reasonable to wait six weeks for an answer to a letter, but that letter was dated 11 April 2001. I have written time and again to ask for an answer and nothing seems to have happened. What has become of the ministerial targets for dealing with correspondence?
Mr. Cook rose—
Hon. Members: Write to him.
Mr. Cook: I am advised to write to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that there is any letter from April 2001 outstanding with me. I obviously cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman on the detail of his case, but I will happily take it up with the Department of Health. Plainly, I would like hon. Members to receive replies on time, and by and large Government Departments provide replies timeously. There will be the occasional bad case and I will certainly pursue it.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to bask in the

395
congratulations of hon. Members in many, if not all, parts of the House on his pioneering work on pre-legislative scrutiny? That started online this morning on the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people throughout the UK have taken the chance to look at the website and make contributions'? The website is at www.parliamentlive.tv and the e-mail address is edemocracy@lse.ac.uk. Many dozens of people have already contributed to the evidence-taking, and many hon. Members have made contributions to the debate this morning. As that has been such a success, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all future Bills go through pre-legislative scrutiny, so that not only Members of the House but every member of our electoral community can participate in our debates?
Mr. Cook: This seems a good opportunity for mutual appreciation and congratulations, so may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the indefatigable way in which he has pursued the case for online scrutiny of legislation? The system started today in respect of the draft Communications Bill, and I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that it is proving popular and receiving much public interest. The point of pre-legislative scrutiny is to allow the public and lobby groups to join in, so that legislation is not simply a matter for debate within Westminster. As to the future, as I have said before, my ambition is to secure an outcome in which pre-legislative scrutiny will become the norm, not the exception. Because of the capacity constraints, including in relation to the parliamentary draftsmen, it will take us some years to get there, but I am convinced that that is the right way to go. If Parliament seriously wants to shape the future of Government Bills, it must see them early and in draft.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House make time available for an early statement by the relevant Minister from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the figures for deaths at sea published recently by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? The right hon. Gentleman should know that the number of deaths at sea in Scotland last year rose to 84, as opposed to 54 the previous year. He will also be aware that that is a matter of great concern in my constituency, as last year saw the closure of Pentland coastguard station in my constituency and the Oban coastguard station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). There may or may not be a link between those facts, but may we have a statement so that the issue is given a proper airing?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, which I understand must be a matter of deep concern to his constituents and to other constituencies that have sea-going fleets and constituents. I believe that I am right in saying that the closure to which he refers took place following a public inquiry, and that a tug has been deployed full-time within the area. However, the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes are disturbing and we will look closely at the recent report to see whether there is any contribution that we can make to ensure that we bring down those figures in future years.
Mr. Alan Hurst: My right hon. Friend may have read the report in Monday's Daily Mirror
396
concerning the condition of the railway line from London to Colchester. That line runs through the heart of my constituency, and thousands, if not tens of thousands of people use it to commute into London every day. In the light of the serious allegations that have been raised, and the concerns that there will obviously be in the public mind, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate or statement on the condition of the nation's rail way tracks?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and I think that I am right in saying that the information was taken unofficially over a 10-mile stretch of rail. The DTLR and Railtrack are seeking to obtain more details on what the filming involved and what it shows, and they will study it with great care. In the meantime, I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions writes to him giving the Department's views on the study and the extent to which it may be valid.
Mr. Mark Hoban: This morning, yet another story emerged about the technical problems at the air traffic control centre in Swanwick in my constituency. The story follows reports that the Civil Aviation Authority has rejected the increase in fees proposed by National Air Traffic Services. Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the House returns from recess next month, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions comes to the Chamber to make a statement on the technical reliability and financial position of NATS?
Mr. Cook: First, with regard to this morning's claims about NATS operators misreading heights of planes and being unable to read their new displays, NATS completely rejects those allegations. It remains put out that the integrity and competence of its staff have been questioned in such a manner and it is confident that nothing has happened to put the safety of passengers at risk.
On the new displays, when a new system is installed, it is plainly right to monitor it closely to ensure that it can be improved. That is happening at the present time.
The financial integrity of NATS was fully considered by the regulator when deciding whether prices and charges should be increased; he concluded that the increase was not justified in full knowledge of the financial background.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the situation between India and Pakistan? I hope that he agrees that it threatens not only our nationals, as the Foreign Secretary's correct decision to downgrade staffing at our posts in Pakistan shows, but huge numbers of dual nationals. Does he agree that if any situation in the world is genuinely globally threatening it is that between India and Pakistan, which are both now nuclear powers? One of them at least has made no commitment on no first use of the weapons. The possibility of war on an horrendous scale between the two countries is a global tragedy, and the prospect of such conflict being a nuclear war can hardly be contemplated. What facilities exist in this moment of near crisis to allow Parliament to be kept in touch and to give us the opportunity to monitor the situation and have an input as it unwinds?
Mr. Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue, which is of grave concern. It must be

397
of especially acute concern to hon. Members whose constituencies contain large communities that have community and family ties with the Indian subcontinent. The Government deeply regret that we have had to curtail some of our diplomatic operations and services in Pakistan. The reason for that is the growing terrorist threat in Pakistan; the decision was taken solely in the light of the safety and future of our nationals who are working for the British Government inside the country. That must quite properly be one of our first concerns. We have, however, maintained our consular provision, so we can still maintain, although possibly on a reduced basis, contact with British nationals and citizens in Pakistan.
On the wider issue that my hon. Friend raises, I am sure that the whole House will share his apprehension about the possibility of armed conflict between the two countries, which cannot be in the interests of either of them. In the event of any such conflict, there would be no winner: both would be losers. That is why all of us who are friends of both Pakistan and India and wish them well must do all we can to try to avoid such an outcome, and why the Foreign Secretary will visit the region next week to try to achieve the understanding that the world outside and the international community want on the avoidance of armed conflict.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Can I take the Leader of the House back to the obstruction of the parliamentary ombudsman by the Cabinet Office to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred? Will he ensure that there is an early debate on the relationship between this Government and the ombudsman? I refer him to the ombudsman's fourth report of November last year, in which he said:
"This is the first occasion on which a Government Department has refused to accept the conclusions of the Ombudsman on a question of disclosure of information."
Is it not time, some seven months later, for the Government to give a response to that report and not continue to ignore it?
Mr. Cook: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government fully accept the conclusions of the ombudsman in today's report, which are entirely consistent with what we have said in the past. It is indeed regrettable that over a period of three months the ombudsman's request for access to files was not granted, and the Cabinet Office secretariat has apologised for that delay. I see no policy issue here, and I certainly see no reason to turn the matter into a party political dispute.
Mr. John Lyons: Several churches in my constituency have written to me about Malawi. My right hon. Friend will have heard Malawi mentioned in the House yesterday, and the subject is raised again today in early-day motion 1375:
[That this House notes the current plight of Malawi which faces its worst food crisis in nearly 20 years; acknowledges that the country is facing an immediate shortfall of thousands of tonnes of food; recognises that warnings of this crisis appeared three months ago; and calls on the international community to act with speed and generosity to avert disaster.]
398
Malawi is facing a desperate situation—probably the worst for 20 years—as regards food shortages. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to give the House some time to discuss how we can help Malawi?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw hon. Members' attention to the grave situation in Malawi, which is life-threatening to many of its residents. That is why in the course of this year we have provided additional support for humanitarian aid and for food assistance in Malawi. Indeed, only last month we announced another £1 million for that purpose. We are keen to work with the Government of Malawi to resolve this, and we hope that they will be able to work with us on acceptable terms of transparency to ensure that our assistance is getting through to the people whom we want to assist. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the crisis in Malawi, understand the British public's compassion and concern about it, and will do all that we can to be of assistance.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The greatest disappointment arising from last week's Divisions on the Select Committee motions was the House's failure to back a call to increase representation on Select Committees for the smaller minority parties such as the Ulster Unionist party. All right hon. and hon. Members have to respect decisions of the House, but can the Leader of the House assure me and my colleagues in the minority parties that this most important of issues will not simply be forgotten about?
Mr. Cook: I know most of those who voted, although I do not have the list entirely off by heart.
Mr. Forth: I bet you do.
Mr. Cook: Yes, and I have a long memory, too.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that the vote on the size of Committees fell owing to a technicality, because it referred to the Committee of Nomination after that proposal had been defeated in an earlier Division. If it is the will of the House, I am not averse to considering ways in which the House can have an opportunity to reach a decision on the matter, although I see no point in revisiting the prior decision.
Alan Simpson: I support the call for a debate in the House on the importance of science policy, not least because a document that has come into my hands, apparently produced by officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the behest of the biotech industry, would severely restrict the rights of scrutiny of genetically modified crop approvals. As the Leader of the House probably knows, it is currently possible to present in hearings scientific evidence about damage to soil ecology, the wider environmental impact, genetic contamination and the impact on the feed and food chain. Under the proposals circulating in DEFRA, all those grounds of scientific objection would be removed from the scrutiny process.
I am sure that hon. Members understand that the gap between sound science and soundbite science is filled by scrutiny and liability, and it would be disastrous if Government policy were seen to become a cash crop for private gain. Will the Leader of the House assure me that

399
we can have a full debate in which the House can assert the principle that the shaping of Government science policy will be driven by the precautionary, not the contributory, principle?
Mr. Cook: We apply the precautionary principle to all environmental issues. I am not familiar with the document that my hon. Friend cites, and I would like an opportunity of studying it before I comment on it. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we are undertaking a rigorous farm-scale evaluation of the trial of GM crops. The conclusions will appear in the next six to nine months, if I remember rightly. They will form part of an informed debate on the way forward for GM crops.
Mr. Michael Jack: We have just passed the first anniversary of the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Curry commission on the future of food and farming has reported; the European Union is formulating its proposals for a mid-term review of the common agricultural policy; throughout the countryside, there is increasing anxiety about bovine TB, and as we have heard, further concern about GM crops. Despite all that, there has been no debate on agriculture and food-related matters in Government time in the past 12 months. Will the Leader of the House review the matter and ascertain whether we can hold such a debate before the House rises for the summer recess?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman makes a splendid case for DEFRA, which was created to bring together all the issues that affect not only agriculture but the wider economy in the countryside, other rural issues and the environment. I am pleased to say that DEFRA has worked hard and successfully on that in its first year.
I am aware of the request for a debate on agriculture and wider countryside affairs, and I appreciate hon. Members' interest in the subject. I cannot promise a debate before the Whit recess, but I shall tuck the matter away for future reference.
Mr. James Wray: Will my right hon. Friend consider the World Health Organisation's statement that it is worried about the childhood asthma epidemic in Britain? There is an obstacle in the form of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 because although it covers children's medical needs, it does not allow for people who look after children in schools to minister to those needs.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the alarming increase in respiratory diseases, of which asthma is one. That is one of the reasons why the Government have placed greater emphasis on and given greater priority to public health issues. We must focus on prevention as well as the much greater resources that we have provided for more nurses, doctors and beds and the treatment of diseases. I was not aware of my hon. Friend's specific point, but I shall draw it to the attention of the Department of Health.

English National Stadium
1.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement on the progress of the national stadium project. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must wait and see. It fulfils my commitment to the House on 7 May to update hon. Members before the Whitsun recess.
I want to deal with four main points. First, I shall consider the extent and nature of Government responsibility for the Football Association project. Secondly, I shall deal with the allegations that arise from the James and Tropus reports into the early stages of the tendering process. Thirdly, I shall update hon. Members on progress since my last statement on 7 May—perhaps it was not technically a statement, because it was made in response to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Fourthly, I want to comment on the lessons learned and the changes made consequently.
Clearly, the project is primarily a matter for the FA. It wants a national stadium at Wembley and it is prepared to pay for it. However, it is a clear principle that big infrastructure projects require some Government engagement, whether financial or facilitating. Patrick Carter's report made that clear. Government support is plainly a factor in the market's assessment of such a project. The first Wembley proposal was over-ambitious and poorly managed. The tendering process was flawed and secure bank lending was not achieved. Costs escalated and the Government's role was ambiguous. It was these weaknesses that led to delays, to the request from the FA for extra public funds, and to the Government's decision to ask Patrick Carter to carry out a full review of the project's feasibility.
The Government can decide to support the Football Association or we can walk away. If we walk away, it will almost certainly stop the project in its tracks. We cannot, should not, and will not take over the direction of the project. That remains clearly with the FA. However, when public funds are committed to a project, the Government clearly have a responsibility to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to safeguard public investment, and to secure the improvements to the management and governance of the project necessary for success. That is what we are doing.
We are insisting on best-practice public sector standards—which are higher than those that apply in the commercial sector—to protect the taxpayer and the lottery player. That should also reassure the market that this is a worthy project to invest in. Once those measures are in place, it will be appropriate for us to meet some of the non-stadium infrastructure costs, and we have identified £20 million for that purpose. Of course, we also need to stay engaged with the project to protect the public interest in the £120 million lottery grant made by Sport England.
Hon. Members will have read much in recent days about the James and Tropus reports into the procurement of the stadium project. These reports investigated alleged irregularities in the tendering and procurement processes, and weaknesses in the corporate governance of the project. The allegations applied specifically to the period from 1999 to the summer of 2000, and they make

401
disturbing reading. That is why, when I saw the James report in December last year, I set clear conditions that this project had to be cleansed before any further commitment could be made by the Government. [Interruption.] We note the hoots of laughter from the Conservatives, for whom such matters of public finance are clearly irrelevant.
It is important that the allegations are now considered in the context of the progress made since my statement to the House on 19 December. The four conditions set as a result of the availability of David James's report were: a full value-for-money assessment of the construction agreement to be undertaken by an independent assessor; that Wembley National Stadium Ltd. supply a copy of the James report to the National Audit Office; that significant changes be made to corporate governance; and that legally binding agreements for the financing of the stadium, from whatever source, be concluded.
I should make it clear to the House that I do not believe that there have been any new disclosures which add to the concerns previously identified. It is important to note that David James's report did not find any evidence of criminal impropriety; nor did it recommend re-tendering the contract for rebuilding Wembley. The most important question to be answered, therefore, was whether the flaws identified by the James report in relation to procurement and tendering had irrevocably damaged the project, on grounds of cost, propriety or deliverability. The expert judgments suggest that they have not.
In December, I asked both the FA and WNSL to publish the James-Berwin Leighton Paisner report. For legal reasons, however, WNSL felt unable to do so. A publishable version has now, finally, seen the light of day. Much of what I have set out is history, but it is history from which we must learn. Changes have been made, particularly since December. I now wish to look to the future, because in many ways as much progress has been made on this project in the past five months as in the previous five years. I believe that the three conditions—assessment of value for money, consideration of the relevant papers by the National Audit Office, and the strengthening of project management and corporate governance—have broadly been met.
I will not repeat to the House what I said on these matters two weeks ago, except to say that a copy of the Sweett report—the independent value-for-money assessment—is available in the House of Commons Library for those who wish to read it in detail. It confirms that it is unlikely that re-tendering of the construction contracts would result in significant savings.
I do wish, however, to bring the House up to date on the question of the project's financing. On 7 May, I informed the House that the lead bank had agreed in outline to proceed. The FA has since said that it expects to sign a "heads of agreement" term sheet and an exclusive mandate with WestLB—the lead bank—in the next seven days, which will agree the project's overall financial structure. They have said that they expect to complete all the financial contracts at some point in the next 10 weeks. The bank is satisfied that it has access to all the information that it requires, including the James and Tropus reports. I should make it clear that I regard these time scales—which are not under my or the Government's
402
control, and which relate to the contract between the FA and the relevant banks—as indicative, rather than definitive.
The prospects are good and the progress is promising, but the outcome is not yet certain: this is not yet a done deal. Accordingly, I will not give final approval to the Government's contribution to the non-stadium infrastructure until a final report on the extent to which the four tests have been met has been produced by Patrick Carter, after proper banking arrangements have been concluded and assessed.
It is clear to me—as indeed it is to the FA—that the current negotiations represent the last chance for Wembley. Should a Wembley deal not prove possible, I would expect the FA to enter into discussions with Birmingham about its proposals, as I have maintained in December and since. The FA has repeated its assurances that if Wembley fails to proceed, it will look to other options, including Birmingham. That is what it said in December, and yesterday I confirmed the position with the FA's chief executive, who also issued a statement to that effect.
The Birmingham bid, which was and is credible, has been examined by Patrick Carter and by the FA in good faith. However, the Carter report supports the view that Wembley would deliver higher revenues, hence its status as the FA's declared preference. The Birmingham bid remains only embryonic; planning permission for what is a green belt site has not been given; the detailed design has not been completed; final costings for the stadium have yet to be made; the business plan has yet to be thoroughly tested, or backed by market research; and there remains a significant funding gap to be bridged. So moving the project to Birmingham is not a straightforward process with a guarantee of success. However, if Wembley fails, Birmingham deserves the chance to make its case.
In that context, I want to clear up one matter. Some people have mistakenly assumed that a secret agreement exists between the FA and Sport England to reopen the old Wembley stadium if the new project fails. That is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the staging agreement between Sport England and the FA. It is the security obtained by Sport England for the £120 million lottery grant. It could, in theory, allow Sport England to require the FA to stage events at Wembley for 20 years in the event of the project failing. In reality—let us focus on the reality—the stadium would be very expensive to reopen, and would be increasingly sub-standard as a venue. The Carter report indicates that it would cost around £40 million for a quick fix to open the doors: a solution that would require a second, major refurbishment only five years later, costing tens of millions of pounds more.
The FA made it clear in its statement yesterday that reopening the stadium is only one of the options that might be available m the event of a failure to proceed with the new stadium; given the cost, it is an unlikely option for the FA to choose. However, it is for Sport England and the FA to decide how and—in the event of the project failing—when the grant is repaid.
I come now to the last point. Hindsight shows what a high-risk project this was. However, lottery money is not about risk avoidance. It should be much more about risk management. I believe that more work needs to be done

403
with distributors on risk assessment in relation to large projects such as this. One solution that I intend to pursue is to involve the Office of Government Commerce in all high-risk lottery projects—the project has now been subjected to this process—to ensure full scrutiny of proposals before their approval. The OGC's report, in the light of the changes made and proposed, supports the stadium plans and recommends that the project should proceed to contractual close.
I intend to include this issue in the forthcoming consultation on the future of lottery distribution, which I have announced to the House and which I intend to bring before the House before the summer recess. It is important for the future of the lottery to get this issue right.
One year ago, the national stadium project was flawed, tainted and unsustainable. Since then, the efforts of the FA and other stakeholders, working with Patrick Carter and his team, have yielded results in governance, transparency and the potential to attract financial support to a much more credible project.
Because of that, the money sought from Government is still on the table. It forms part of the financial package and it will remain there while the present negotiations with the bank continue progress to a conclusion. There is some distance still to travel. If the four conditions that I have set out are met in full, the House can be assured that Government support will be given to a project that will have demonstrated that it deserves it; a project with the potential to benefit sport in England at all levels for generations.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Secretary of State for making the statement today, as she promised to do, and for an advance copy of it.
Here we are again: another day, another statement, another mess. We are told that the prospects are good and that progress is promising, but that the outcome is still not yet certain. We now have the deeply damaging contents of the Tropus report and the James report, in spite of which the Secretary of State says today that she believes that there have been no new disclosures that add to the concerns previously identified.
The House would like to know when the Secretary of State knew about the Tropus report. When did her Department have the report? Was it before 19 December 2001? Why were the FA and WNSL so slow to publish the James report? We have had sight of it only thanks to the vigilance of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, under the skilful chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
The Secretary of State plays down the contents of the two reports, taking comfort from the fact that the James report did not find any evidence of criminal impropriety and did not recommend retendering the contract for rebuilding Wembley. She focuses on whether flaws identified had irrevocably damaged the project on the grounds of cost, propriety or deliverability. It was yet another last chance for Wembley, and the possibility still existed that FA could enter into discussions with Birmingham on its proposal.
The statement gives rise to several questions. What matters remain for negotiation on Wembley? Are they matters of principle or of detail? How much longer is the Secretary of State prepared to give Wembley, and where does that leave Birmingham? What is Coventry's position?
404
Why did the Secretary of State tell the House earlier this month that
"the detail of that progress is shrouded in commercial confidentiality"?
Was she partly referring to the staging agreement? Did she know about the staging agreement giving a commitment that all football internationals and FA cup finals to be held until 2019 would be at Wembley? When precisely did she know that? Was that information made available to the other bidders?
On the position of athletics at Wembley, the Secretary of State has said that
"the Sport England report will be published shortly".—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 23–4.]
Where does the whole sorry saga leave Birmingham and Coventry? Would she support the reimbursement of the costs of the teams from those areas incurred in compiling their bids? What lessons are there for the lottery, and does she really think that this statement will reassure the market that the project is a worthy one to invest in? When can English sports fans expect to see a new national stadium opened? How many more drinks will Wembley enjoy in the last chance saloon?
Tessa Jowell: I do not wish to be disrespectful to the hon. Lady, but I am sure that she wishes that her senior colleague had been here, because her response to the statement that I made was pathetic.
I became aware of the James report in December last year. As the hon. Lady says, it was shrouded in commercial secrecy, because it was highly sensitive. It was made available, as I made clear to the House on 19 December, on grounds of legal privilege. That limited the number of people who saw the report and the use that could be made of it. However, it is because of that report and my insistence that it be passed to my Department and made available to the National Audit Office—and because the steps that I have reminded the House of today were followed—that the project is now in the state that it is in today, instead of the flawed, tainted, unbankable state that it was in a year ago. That is a matter of fact.
The question of whether the financial deal will now proceed to a commercial close is a matter for the FA and the banks concerned, but the indications are that the banks will be encouraged by the consistency of Government support for the project and the fact that a commercial project has been subjected to a degree of rigour and scrutiny equivalent to the standards expected in the public sector.
In my statement, I set out the position in relation to Birmingham: when the Football Association made it clear that Wembley was its preferred location, the Birmingham team agreed—rightly—that it would undertake no further work on the proposal for the time being. I have set out, as made clear by the Football Association, the further steps that would need to be taken if Wembley fails and Birmingham is then considered as an alternative.
The hon. Lady asks what I meant by "shortly" as regards publication of the athletics report. I suggest that when she gets back to her office she tell off her researcher, because the information has been in the Library, in response to a parliamentary question, for about two weeks. It is also available on the Sport England website.

405
Finally, I have made very clear the lessons for the lottery and the steps I intend to initiate in order to ensure that the lottery does not become risk averse, and that where lottery money is invested in risky projects, that is done on the best known understanding of the likely effect of those risks.
The project is now moving forward. The hon. Lady's contribution shows that none of that progress has been achieved with the help of the Opposition.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: What is pretty clear is that if a new Wembley stadium is built, it will be coated with high-gloss whitewash.
My right hon. Friend will understand that, as far as I am concerned, what matters is the House's custodianship of the expenditure of public money. Will she therefore make it absolutely clear that in no circumstances whatever will a penny above the £20 million to which she has previously referred be given by the Government for this project?
My right hon. Friend talked of the need to protect the taxpayer and the lottery payer. She will be aware that the David James report—which, like the other documents, was published only because the Select Committee forced their publication—identifies serious breaches of the lottery funding agreement and subsequently a complete failure by Sport England to do anything about it. There has been a serious dereliction of duty by Sport England, which flung £120 million at the project and did not lift a finger to monitor how the money was used.
Will my right hon. Friend hold Sport England to account? My view is that there should be sackings at Sport England—especially Mrs. Brigid Simmonds, who seems to take pride in the neglect of Sport England. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that never again, in any public project, will such negligence be allowed? Furthermore, will she ensure that my constituents' money, whether paid through lottery tickets or taxes, will be safeguarded and not used to provide a free gift of a stadium to the FA?
Tessa Jowell: If I may take my right hon. Friend's third point first, I have made it clear on the Floor of the House and before his Select Committee that there are lessons to be learned in relation to the stewardship of lottery grant. That point was also recognised in evidence to the Committee from David Moffett, now the chief executive of Sport England. I shall study carefully the Select Committee's conclusions on the specific points where it considered that Sport England had not offered proper stewardship.
Throughout this process, however, it is important to separate the allegations of negligence from the fact of negligence. Certainly, the lottery agreement has been altered and there were not proper and sufficiently close relationships between WNSL and Sport England, as evidenced by the fact that when the stadium was closed Sport England was not aware of that fact. I am entirely persuaded, therefore, of the need for some changes, but it is important to focus on fact rather than allegation.
On my right hon. Friend's second point, the House will be clear about the sources from which public money for investment in Wembley stadium will come: there will be £20 million for non-stadium infrastructure and £21 million
406
from the London development agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions recently announced the plans to upgrade Wembley Park tube station. I am clear that that is the proper limit of public investment in this project. Indeed, part of the financial deal on which Patrick Carter's advice has been taken is intended to ensure that the FA bears the risk for the project.
Finally, on my right hon. Friend's point about publication of the James report, the Tropus report to which he referred is a dossier of allegations. The James report has now been slightly amended and is in publishable form. At Christmas, I called for its publication. It has now seen the light of day and I welcome that.
Nick Harvey: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement today, but I regret that there is not a little more progress to report. I also commend her fortitude in riding out the embarrassment that the Government should feel about the entire Wembley saga. At this stage, she is right to see this bid through to an actual conclusion one way or the other. Will she confirm that the banking arrangement is 95 per cent. agreed and that it is a process of due diligence that is now under way? Is it not time that some due diligence was shown in this project?
As the Wembley bid is nearing a conclusion, one way or another, surely it would be perverse in the extreme to exaggerate the significance of a few weeks' delay now and to favour another bid that, for understandable reasons, is not even on the starting blocks in terms of planning, costing or funding.
Finally, should the new Wembley stadium project fail for one reason or another, I urge the right hon. Lady to keep a rather more open mind than seems apparent from her statement about the possibility of breathing some new life into the old Wernbley stadium. If a new stadium is to be in Birmingham, east London or anywhere else, it will take many years to deliver and some extended life for the old Wembley might well be a useful transitional phase.
Tessa Jowell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's practical and sensible approach to the financing of the project. I will not make any predictions about the probability, and so forth. This is a matter for negotiation between the FA and the lead bank. I have made it clear that the money that the Government have offered for non-stadium infrastructure is on the table and will remain there while the process of negotiating the deal to a close takes its course.
On the allegations, it is important to be clear that the allegations made by David James in his report became known to me and my Department in December, although there was certainly a belief before that that there had been some impropriety in the procurement of the contract—it had been known to Patrick Carter. Progress has been secured since that time. The focus on the allegations now should not cloud the progress that has been made in the intervening six months.
Finally—as I have said too many times to repeat, but I shall say it one more time—the decision on the location of the national football stadium is a matter for the FA.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in her future consideration of

407
this issue, she will not be swayed by the anti-London hysteria that is being whipped up by Conservative Members against the Wembley option? Will she also assure me that she recognises the fundamental importance of a rebuilt, modernised Wembley stadium to many businesses in my constituency and to the wider north-west London economy? When does she expect that we can have some confidence in the FA's ability not to be completely and utterly incompetent at building national stadiums again?
Tessa Jowell: Well, first, the Opposition's attitude is opportunist, rather than particularly anti anything at all. Secondly, yes, of course the national football stadium will be a very important source of regeneration in a part of north-west London that badly needs such investment and regeneration, and I welcome that fact. As for the time scale, I have made the position clear.
Mr. Mark Francois: Several years on, there is still no real plan or clear way ahead. Is not this whole saga a classic example of the syndrome of paralysis by analysis? Now, the Secretary of State's latest wheeze appears to involve four key tests. If those four key tests are met, can we have a referendum?
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman has worked hard on that one, hasn't he? [Interruption.] I suspect he has been practising all day. There are two worlds in all this: the world of the FA, the Government trying to make things work, the lead bank negotiating on due diligence and the other stakeholders making the project happen; and there is the world of the Opposition, who are increasingly irrelevant.
Glenda Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity of her statement and the seriousness with which she has approached this issue of national importance, in marked contrast to the official Opposition's absurd responses. I endorse her concerns with regard to regenerating a part of north-west London that needs it and, indeed, sustaining that economy in London for the future, but when she is being firm about there being no public money in addition to that already stated, will she consider the fact that there are serious concerns about how fans would travel to Birmingham if the plan were moved to the midlands, as it would be almost exclusively car based?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, the benefits if the national stadium proceeds at Wembley will be felt by her constituents as well. I have to say with the greatest respect that, at the moment, I am more focused on how fans will travel to a national stadium at Wembley than on any of the other options, which is why I welcome the announcement of investment by London Transport and the Mayor in upgrading Wembley Park tube station. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for his advocacy and determination in securing that improvement for his constituents.
Sir Sydney Chapman: To say that the attempt to provide a new national stadium at Wembley has been a sorry saga rather understates the case, but will the Secretary of State confirm that she said in her statement on 19 December that she had asked the FA to
408
deal with four points? Those four points, which she listed in her statement today, have all been dealt with and the heads of agreement between the banks have been confirmed. Although the detail has to be sorted out, surely the only choice now is to conclude those negotiations successfully and build a new stadium at Wembley, which will come sooner than any alternative, generate more income and, in fact, be cheaper. It is now absolutely essential, after the farce of Picketts Lock, that the decisions be taken and the infrastructure put in place so that north London's economy can be regenerated.
Tessa Jowell: I welcome that unexpectedly sensible intervention from the Opposition Benches. I am not wholly satisfied that all the conditions have yet been met. I have made clear the work in progress in relation to the financing of the project, and I wait to be assured that all the corporate governance changes necessary, as identified by the James report and others who have examined the project, are in place and are secure. I will ask Patrick Carter, who has had an independent and advisory role in relation to this matter, to advise me that the four conditions have been met and that the Government can have confidence, when investing the £20 million to which I have referred, in allowing the project to proceed. That is the proper and prudent way to approach the matter, and that is what I intend to do.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Wembley is—in my right hon. Friend's words—not yet a done deal. If the west midlands option can therefore be revived, will she confirm that the £20 million from the Government will still be on the table? What will happen to the £120 million from Sport England?
Tessa Jowell: I have, I hope, made the position absolutely clear in relation to the Birmingham bid—it is an option that the FA will consider if its preferred option of Wembley fails. I spell that out because I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about that. I made it clear in December, and it remains the case, that if the Wembley project fails I would ensure that the £20 million that would be made available for infrastructure there would be made available for the Birmingham project. I have also made it clear on several occasions that, in the event of failure in relation to Wembley, I would expect the lottery grant to be repaid. That would be a matter for further negotiation between Sport England and the Football Association, but that would be the clear expectation.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on not setting a deadline today? Is it a coincidence that she represents a London constituency, her predecessor represented a London constituency, two of the three people who have held the job of Minister for Sport represent London constituencies, and the present holder of the job represents a Sheffield constituency? Is that why Birmingham does not stand a chance? Why does she not say so?
Tessa Jowell: No.
Mr. Dennis Turner: In case the point gets lost in this debate, the majority of football supporters would welcome siting the national stadium in Birmingham. Equally, the majority of football

409
clubs would welcome siting it in Birmingham. Many Labour Members are very concerned about the way in which the FA has handled this situation, for many reasons. In particular, we do not want to find, at the end of this period, that our Government cause the opprobrium and embarrassment to rest with us and not the FA.
What is the Secretary of State's or her Department's judgment of when we shall get to the end of this saga of the FA and Wembley? The negotiations continue. What is her estimate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
I wonder when the hon. Gentleman might get to the end of his question. There are quite a number of other hon. Members to fit in.
Mr. Turner: What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the final outcome of these negotiations?
Tessa Jowell: I am well aware of the level of popular support and support from hon. Members on both sides—my hon. Friend made this clear—for the Birmingham option. However, as I have done on a number of occasions, I remind him that the decision about the location of the national stadium is a matter for the Football Association. It is not a matter for me.
In my opening remarks, I set out the indicative time scale that the FA has notified for the next stages in relation to banking. That is the best indication that we have. I have also made it clear to the House today that the Government's offer remains on the table while the negotiations proceed. However, I do not know by precisely what date they will conclude.
I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for his unfailing advocacy of the west midlands and its bid. I wish him well in his continued pursuit of his cause.
David Burnside: As a Tottenham supporter from Northern Ireland, I have not been to Wembley often enough. However, I first went to Wembley in 1966 for the match to determine third and fourth places and then to the World cup final when I supported England.
This is not a parochial issue, but it has become all about Birmingham and Coventry. As I said, I am a Tottenham supporter from Northern Ireland and, back home, there are United and Liverpool fans as well as a few Rangers and Celtic supporters. We want the national stadium to be at Wembley. We want to go to London, to go up Wembley way and to see the twin towers. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the national interest, she should stop passing the buck, show some leadership, support Wembley and rebuild it? That is where we went in the past and it is where we want to go in the future.
Tessa Jowell: I shall be delighted to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Football Association. I can be absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman about the practical steps that the Government have taken with the FA—I have set them out to the House—to enable the project to make progress.
Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed that an
410
option was agreed between the FA and Sport England in 1999 that the national stadium could remain at the current site in Wembley. However, she said that she thought that there had been a misunderstanding about the nature of that agreement. May I draw her attention to the fact that, on 4 July 2001, the chief executive of the FA wrote to the chief executive of Birmingham city council confirming that there were three—I repeat, three—options for the national stadium? The chief executive of the FA said that the options were:

"1. The current design proposal for a 90,000 stadium at Wembley,

2. A new 80,000/85,000 design for Wembley,

3. A new 80,000/85,000 design in Birmingham."

He said that he was being "completely open".
As there clearly was a further option—let us put it no stronger than that—it remains a fact that Birmingham and, I believe, the country have been misled. As a result of that, is not the FA obliged to do two things? First, if it has misled Birmingham, it should compensate Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands for the expenditure that they have already incurred. Secondly, even at this late stage, it should play fair and give Birmingham a fair deal and respond to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) correctly said was the choice of the fans—to bring the national stadium to Birmingham.
Tessa Jowell: I think that there was some misrepresentation of remarks made by the FA's company secretary to the Select Committee earlier this week. That led the chief executive of the FA to set out yesterday very clearly the nature of the FA's position on Birmingham and to confirm to me by telephone yesterday that nothing had changed in the FA's position on Birmingham between now and last Christmas, which is when the announcement that the FA would proceed with Wembley was made.
For my hon. Friend's information, let me quote the chief executive. He said:
"Nothing has changed since then and, as far as The F.A. is concerned, Birmingham would remain an option for the national stadium should the new Wembley not proceed. As has always been the case, this would of course be subject to discussions by all the stakeholders on how best to abort the current project and any agreements relating to it."
He finished by saying:
"I am very clear therefore that Birmingham have not been misled by either the Carter review team, government or The F. A."
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Following on from what the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) said, is the Secretary of State aware of the enormous pride in our greatest sporting triumph of 1966, which took place at Wembley stadium? Is not the present shambles regrettable in view of those memories? Has it not brought international shame on this country and on the greatest game in the world? How does she see the role of the Government, not only in the shambles, but from here on in? Is the national stadium the Government's responsibility, or is it not?
Tessa Jowell: I will not rehearse the arguments that I have already made. What I will do is send the good wishes

411
from every corner of the House to the England team. I hope that they repeat their magnificent achievement of 1966 in the next few weeks.
Peter Bradley: This is obviously a game of three halves. When the Secretary of State sends her greetings to the England team, will she tell them that we are going to extend the principle of the timeless test to football matches? If players find themselves 1–0 down at full-time, the referee will not only extend the game until they score two or three goals, but suspend the offside trap and probably go around chopping off the legs of the opposition as well. That is how sponsors and supporters of the west midlands bid feel, as other hon. Members have said.
Some 69 per cent. of fans throughout the country want the stadium to be in the west midlands, as do 55 of the league clubs. Anyone with any sense wants the stadium there. The deadline of 30 April set by the FA and the Government will be passed by several months because it will be the end of July by the end of the 10-week period. When, and under what circumstances, will the Government ensure that the FA honours its undertaking to Birmingham so that its bid can be considered properly and given a fair chance in line with the views of the fans, the clubs and the game in general?
Tessa Jowell: I will provide my hon. Friend with a copy of the letter sent by the chief executive of the Football Association, to whom his comments should be addressed.
Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady does herself no favours by blaming the previous Secretary of State and the Football Association. However, in response to the question asked by her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), she said that what was said on Tuesday had been misrepresented. The transcripts of that will be available, but let me tell her that Mr. Nick Coward, the company secretary of the FA, made it clear that Birmingham was never in the running. Mr. David Moffatt, the chief executive of Sport England, speaking of the deal to return the £120 million and the fact that Binningham was never in the running, said that Birmingham looks extremely remote because of that. There was no misrepresentation.
If the Football Association has changed its mind, I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that progress has been made on Wembley, and I hope that it goes ahead. However, if it does not, and in light of the Football Association's apparent change of mind, how will the £120 million be repaid?
Tessa Jowell: The position of the Football Association on the potential Birmingham bid was clarified yesterday by Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Football Association. I ask the House to accept that.
On the repayment of the £120 million, I am not going to speculate either on the circumstances or on the negotiations that would lead to its repayment, save to say that it is subject to a contract between the Football Association and Sport England. I think that every party to the deal understands that if Wembley fails, the money will be repaid.
Kevin Brennan: Is it not the case that, with £120 million of lottery money devoted to the scheme
412
plus the £20 million additional public money pledged by my right hon. Friend, more money than it cost to build the Millennium stadium in Cardiff has been put into this project, just to cover one fifth of the overall cost? Is there not a third way available? The stadium is not needed—it is not even wanted by many England fans, who are happy to see their team travel around the country. Should we not close the roof on the deal altogether, cut our losses, and make Cardiff the permanent home of the FA cup final and the play-offs?
Tessa Jowell: No doubt my hon. Friend will suggest that to the Football Association. He never loses an opportunity—nor should he—to praise the excellent Millennium stadium in Cardiff.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend as fed up as I am with the moaning voices who continue to try to derail Wembley by highlighting two-year-old management defects as though they were today's current news? Will she confirm that the Sweett report has concluded that the new stadium represents good value for money, and that the independent National Audit Office and the Office of Government Commerce have said that the project is now well managed and should proceed? Will she confirm that the new Wembley stadium will bring regeneration and an estimated 20,000 jobs to my part of north-west London? In the expectation that the FA concludes the deal in the next 10 weeks, does she look forward with me to the silencing of the moaning Mancunian, extinguished once again by the Wembley roar?
Tessa Jowell: Yes to the first point, yes to the second, and yes to the third, but I am not absolutely sure how many jobs will be created as a result of the stadium. As for the fourth point, I look forward to progress on the stadium. Everyone who has played a part in the scrutiny, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), deserves credit.
Mr. Terry Davis: When did my right hon. Friend and her Department become aware of what she has described as a theoretical commitment by the Football Association to continue to use Wembley even if the plan for a new stadium fell through?
Tessa Jowell: That was part of the staging agreement that formed part of the lottery agreement that settled the payment of the money from Sport England to WNSL. In January 2000, the Select Committee was informed by Sport England of the existence of the staging agreement.
Miss McIntosh: When did the Secretary of State know?
Tessa Jowell: I became aware of the staging agreement when I became Secretary of State and examined the terms under which the £120 million had been paid.
Ms Debra Shipley: I draw the attention of the House to those parts of the Secretary of State's statement that deal with the FA's comments to the Select Committee. It was in response to my questions in the Select Committee, especially those addressed to Mr. Coward, that it was revealed that, in the worst-case

413
scenario, the £120 million could be repaid only if the contractual agreement to FA events being held at Wembley were broken. Only if that agreement were broken could the project go to Birmingham, and the only way to get the £120 million is to honour that contractual agreement. There is therefore a conflict in the position that the FA is trying to promote. The FA is speaking with a forked tongue in suggesting simultaneously that Birmingham is in with a chance if everything else falls through, and that the money can be paid back. Both cannot happen because of the contractual agreements.
However, on a more positive note—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must hurry. Her question is becoming a statement.
Ms Shipley: How will the Secretary of State, as design champion for architecture and the built environment, ensure that, wherever the stadium is built, we will have excellence?
Tessa Jowell: That is a very good question. The Foster design has attracted both support and admiration. Ultimately, the choice of architect and design is a matter for the Football Association, and it wants to stick with the Foster design for the reasons referred to by my hon. Friend.
I hope that I have made clear to the House the position regarding the staging agreement. I believe that the chief executive of the FA clarified the position in his letter yesterday. The staging agreement between Sport England and WNSL would clearly have to be renegotiated, but we must add to the fact of its existence the fact that after the agreement was settled, the stadium was closed in October 2000, and as Patrick Carter's report makes clear, it would cost an estimated £40 million to reopen it. In those circumstances it would be fit probably for about five years, after which a further substantial sum would have to be paid. Those are the sorts of complexities that would have to be addressed in the event of the Wembley project failing and the money being due for return.
Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and I concur, probably for the first time in my life, with the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). As a Scot, I believe that Wembley is important to the whole of the UK, not just England. I also have a personal interest because for many years I have bored my family and friends with a video of me scoring a goal at Wembley, and when I start to bore my grandchildren, I want it to mean something to them.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the project is now making progress not because of the FA but in spite of it? Does she also agree that the Tropus and James reports confirmed that the FA acted in a cavalier and arrogant manner, and one of the lessons that we should learn from the whole experience is that lottery funding agreements must impose much more robust standards on the recipients of funds, and, even more importantly, that those standards must be enforced?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about lottery agreements. The terms of the
414
Government's continuing support—the four tests to which I have referred—were made clear to the FA as being non-negotiable. The FA accepted that, which means that we have been able to make the progress that has undoubtedly been achieved. I hope that shortly my hon. Friend will be able to go to Wembley for his encore.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there might be differences of opinion about Wembley and Birmingham, Coventry, which has been mentioned today, meets the criteria? It is a brownfield site, it has planning permission—unlike Birmingham—and it has been well costed, despite what the Secretary of State may think.
Tessa Jowell: As my hon. Friend knows, Patrick Carter, with the FA, considered the Coventry bid. The FA has decided to go to Wembley, and, as I have made clear, it is a matter for the FA. However, I know that that is a disappointment for my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State has conducted herself impeccably in the course of this difficult matter, and the fact that we are now closer to starting the construction of a new national stadium at Wembley is very much due to what she has done in the past 12 months.
Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that when people say that the Japanese, the South Koreans, the French, the Australians, the Spanish—
Kevin Brennan: The Welsh.
Mr. Banks: And indeed the Welsh—They have all managed to construct magnificent stadiums and to organise big international events, but it is mainly because their Governments were prepared to take over the projects and to run them. In this country we have the worst of all possible worlds for such projects: minimum Government financial contributions but maximum Government interference. On my right hon. Friend's part, of course, that has been highly constructive. It is about time that we looked at these projects and decided that the arm's length principle simply does not work. If we are going to run national projects, and the Government are going to start taking the blame for some of the things that go wrong, they should run them from the outset. I look forward to the point at which 'we can get on and stop nitpicking, so that my right hon. Friend can echo the famous words of Kenneth Wolstenholme in her next statement.
Tessa Jowell: I join my hon. Friend in saying that now, I hope, is the time to move forward. He is right that claims about the success of stadiums in other countries sometimes bear closer scrutiny. Stadiums funded by the commercial sector that fail become a burden on the taxpayer. I am determined that that will not be the case with this stadium.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on. I have programmed business to protect, and no doubt there will be opportunities for this matter to be aired again.

Points of Order
2.21 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Speaker had any indication from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that he wishes to come to the House to make a statement to correct previous statements to the House on the timing of his decision to put Railtrack into administration? The Secretary of State has made numerous references in the House to the fact that he made that decision on 5 October. For example, on 5 November last year, he said of the decision:
"It was taken on Friday 5 October. That is the 20th time I have told the House that and it is the truth of the situation."—[Official Report, 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 22.]
Yesterday and today, however, there have been reports that at a meeting with the Paddington Survivors Group on 12 September the Secretary of State referred to that decision. Pam Warren from the group said:
"He said Railtrack wouldn't be much trouble for much longer. He was to replace it with a not-for-profit company."
Another member of the group said:
"Mr. Byers said there would be an announcement around October 8 that would be very pleasing to us."
At the very least, that throws doubt on the timing of the Secretary of State's decision. Has he indicated to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Speaker that he wishes to come to the House to make a further statement? If not, could I ask for guidance on how we can ensure that he comes to the House so that Members may question him about the matter and make sure that the House has been told the truth?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The short answer to the hon. Lady is that Mr. Speaker has had no such indication of an impending statement. The Chair has no power to require a member of the Government to make a statement to the House. I am sure that the hon. Lady will find other ways of pursuing the matter, which she has now put on the record.
Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following yesterday's exchange during Prime Minister's Question Time about the allocation of responsibilities and the confusion about referendums, I want to draw to your attention to another confusion and ask for guidance on how to proceed.
416
When I asked how I should pursue a matter relating to a royal issue, the Table Office said that I should pose a question to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I duly did so on 15 April. On 19 April, the answer to my question on its duties in relation to royal issues came back—"None." I then asked the Prime Minister on 22 May which Department had lead responsibility for royal matters, and he answered:
"In England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor's Department has lead responsibility for these matters."-[Official Report, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 320W.],
Given that it is difficult to pursue that, as no Department is taking responsibility, will you tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how best to take the matter forward and who is responsible? Is it perhaps the Transport Secretary?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the content of ministerial answers is not a matter for the Chair. In this particular instance, however, the Chair would feel diffident about advising the hon. Gentleman how to pursue matters through parliamentary questions, as he has some form in that respect.
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a serious matter affecting my constituency? You may be aware that there was a report this morning of alleged safety breaches at the air traffic control centre in Swanwick. As one of the affected airports—Cardiff—is in my constituency, I have sought assurances. I am afraid that I have to report that there are serious inconsistencies in the information that I have received, with different views given by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, both of which bodies are the responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. In light of the fact that I was unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in business questions and that the House is going into recess tomorrow, I believe that that is a matter of great public concern. How can we now best get the Minister with responsibility for aviation to look at it and report to the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has stretched the definition of a point of order to get the matter on the record. I recognise that it is of obvious importance, but there are parliamentary means of pursuing such issues, even on an urgent basis, and I leave him to think about that, although he has now put his concern on the record.

Orders of the Day
  State Pension Credit Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  State Pension Credit Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      IMPUTATION OF YEARS OF HOME RESPONSIBILITY
      (1) On making an initial claim to state pension credit, all claimants shall be asked to list the date of birth of any natural children and any other children for whom they had primary caring responsibilities in any year prior to the introduction of Home Responsibilities Protection.
      (2) The definition of primary caring responsibilities shall be set out in regulations.
      (3) For the purposes of calculation of entitlement to the guarantee credit and the savings credit, any individual may substitute for his actual rate of retirement pension an amount equal to the rate of retirement pension that he would have received if he had been entitled to a year of Home Responsibilities Protection for each year in which he was the primary carer for a child up to the age of 16 prior to the introduction of Home Responsibilities Protection.'.—[Mr. Webb.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.25 pm
      Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In pensions, women have been second-class citizens for generations. Of today's elderly pensioners, women are the poorest, and make up the bulk of the group of people approaching pension age with poor pension entitlements. With increasing reliance on private sector pensions, there is a danger that in future women will be less likely to have private sector pensions or take out stakeholder pensions; once again, they will be the poor relations in pension provision.
      New clause 1 tries to correct a feature of the Bill which is prejudicial to the interests of a particular group of women. We touched on that issue in Committee, which was constructive and non-partisan; I hope that we can carry that over to today's deliberations, and it is certainly the spirit in which the new clause has been moved. We are seeking to deal with the danger that the values of the 1940s, when bringing up children was seen as women's work, will be carried over into the 21st century in the Bill. We cannot rewrite the system of the 1940s, but we can try to make sure that those values are not enshrined in new legislation and advanced for decades to come.
      There has been confusion about the categories of women affected. There has been discussion—I have raised the matter myself—about the position of women who pay the married women's stamp, but that is not my primary focus now. I wish to focus on women whose state pension entitlement has been substantially reduced because of years spent out of the labour market bringing up children. Leaving aside the millions of women who have already retired, I wish to talk about women who are coming up to state pension age with poor pension entitlements. Recently, I received a written answer that suggested that typically women reaching 60 have a basic state pension entitlement of £58 a week, excluding the state earnings-related pension scheme and so on, compared with the full basic pension of £75 a week. That is roughly 75 per cent. of the average figure.
      418
      Despite the growth in women's work and the introduction of home responsibilities protection in the late 1970s, women are still reaching pension age with poor basic state pension entitlements. We are not proposing to rewrite the history of the basic state pension entitlement, and are leaving alone the fact that women will typically retire with £58 a week. However, in new clause 1, we query the carry-through of that poor basic state pension entitlement into state pension credit entitlement. Society was right in the late 1970s to value the work of bringing up children, which was predominantly undertaken by women, in home responsibilities protection and similar measures that protected women's pension entitlements during the years when they were raising their family.
      2.30 pm
      The problem is that women now reaching 60 brought up their children, by and large, in the years before home responsibilities protection was introduced. To take a simple example, if a woman who is 60 this year—in other words, who was born in 1942—had her children in her 20s, which is common, or early 30s, most of the time that she spent bringing up those children was in the 1960s and early 1970s, before home responsibilities protection came in. That woman suffers the consequences in the form of a poor basic pension, and the state pension credit system doubles the penalty. It says to the woman who has managed to do some saving—which, let us face it, was doubly difficult because of all the years that she spent bringing up the children—"You don't get a reward for that saving until you have built up from the pension that you are getting to the full basic pension, and we reward private pensions or other saving only beyond that point." Of two women, one with a full basic pension and a little saving, and one with a partial basic pension and a little saving, one gets a reward for her saving and the other does not—the infamous double whammy. A poor basic pension is the penalty for having brought up children, and a reduced savings credit is the second penalty.
      The question is how we can best respond to that. We have considered various ways in which that might be done. In Committee we proposed that home responsibilities protection on the post-1977 model might be imputed for years before 1977. The Minister responding said that one of the problems with that is that the benefits that trigger entitlement to home responsibilities protection—child benefit, invalid care and so on—did not exist at all or did not exist in the same form before 1977, so there was no simple read-over from the post-1977 to the pre-1977 system. One could not apply the new rules to the old period.
      In the new clause we propose a different way of imputing a value to the caring that those women did, for the purposes of calculating their entitlement to the state pension credit, with particular reference to the savings credit. Nothing that we propose would affect their basic pension entitlement, but it would help them with their savings credit.
      We are proposing that when a woman fills in her state pension credit form, she is asked about the children that she has ever cared for. The new clause refers to natural children and others for whom she had caring responsibilities. We have left to regulations a specific decision about the definition of caring responsibilities. We are aiming at women who spent time out of the labour

      419
      market because they were looking after their own children. We would like to include adopted children, foster children and so on, but those cases are on the margins of the issue that we are raising. The key point is that women should not be penalised for caring.
      When the issue has been raised in the House in the past, the Government have conflated the position—not wilfully, I am sure—of women who paid the married women's stamp and therefore saved some money and therefore had a poor pension, with women who simply brought up their own children. I shall give one instance of that.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) intervened on the Secretary of State and pointed out that
      "the savings credit will cut in only once the full basic state pension has been reached, and that those with a lesser entitlement—often women—will lose the first bit of their savings in reaching that level."
      That is the point that I have been making. The Secretary of State said in response:
      "We believe that it is right that people should first use their money to pay contributions to the basic state pension."
      Now, the women in question did not have any money. They were at home bringing up the children, so they were not making pension contributions in their own right—not by choice, not because they had the money but were not putting it into a pension, but because they had no money coming in to put into a pension. The Secretary of State went on to say:
      "It would be curious if somebody who had chosen not to pay all such contributions then asked us to apply those they had paid to a pension credit, rather than in the first instance to the basic state pension."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 602.]
      But those women had not chosen not to pay contributions. The women under discussion are not the women on the married women's stamp—or rather, they may also be, but that is not the reason why, for the periods of home responsibility, they were messing up their pension record. It is because they were caring—bringing up a child. We recognise that we cannot rewrite their basic pension entitlement, but in a brand new Bill at the start of the 21st century the system should not penalise women a second time round for the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s society did not put a financial value on bringing up children.
      I shall be happy to hear the Minister's comments on the logistics of our specific recommendation. Clearly, there are issues to do with providing evidence about children who were born 20 or 30 years ago and whether or not the woman was their full-time carer. Inevitably, there will have to be some broad-brush response to those issues. Unless there are extraordinarily detailed regulations defining primary caring responsibility, there might be one or two women who would not be entitled to credits, but in general, if a mother could show that she was the natural mother of a child and if she stated on the form that she was responsible for that child—in the sense that the present child benefit system works, which is the trigger for home responsibilities protection—that should be enough. There might be the odd case where the husband challenged that, but the House would probably accept that the claim by a mother that she had cared for the children listed should be enough to trigger entitlement to the credits.
      420
      Speaking specifically about home responsibilities protection and about caring makes a distinction between women who did something that society now values, but did not value financially in the past—bringing up children—and women who had some financial benefit from paying the married women's stamp. That is not the issue that we are raising here. We are dealing not with women who saved some money by opting out, but with women who did not have money and whose work was not recognised then. It is time that the House valued such work.
      For too long women have been the poor relations in state pension provision. There is a danger that we carry over that relative poverty into the Bill. New clause 1 provides the House with the opportunity to make sure that we do not redouble that injustice.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) introduced his new clause with precision and moderation. He rightly said that the Committee stage had been conducted in that spirit. We even found ourselves in agreement on a number of issues, to which I may have occasion to refer this afternoon. I support the hon. Gentleman's attempt to probe the Government's intentions. There is no need to rehearse his arguments at length.
      On the technical side, it had occurred to me, and I am sure that Ministers will also say—anyone who has ever had ministerial responsibility is conscious of these things—that evidence is important. Even if Ministers wished to make a concession—we may hypothesise about that—I see the dilemma that they might face in deciding what the evidence should be. A proxy benefit that could be read back and then enhanced or treated as a credit for the present purpose would be much easier, but that is not the case.
      The hon. Member for Northavon emphasised that his new clause essentially related to the position of women, but he did not cover himself as fully as he might have done. The drafting is unisex. Indeed, at one point the legal term "he" is used, to include both men and women, but realistically, the majority of people who have an incomplete entitlement to a full state pension and therefore, by extension, under the new arrangements in the Bill, an incomplete entitlement to the state pension credit, because they have to fill up their pension first, are likely to be women. That in no sense detracts from the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. We share that view.
      I draw the attention of the House to the Select Committee report on the pension credit. Paragraph 29 points out that
      "17 per cent. of female pensioners (over one million women) will potentially have any private or occupational income unrewarded, compared to only 8 per cent. of male pensioners."
      There is a much greater shortfall among women. In Committee we analysed figures suggested by the Select Committee relating to
      "around 50,000 pensioner 'benefit units' who have private income for which they will see no benefit."
      The Select Committee report goes on:
      "Another 2–300,000 will be 'rewarded' for only some of their private savings."
      Those figures give the lie to the Government's assumption, which they have frequently asserted, that it always pays to save, and that the arrangements set out in

      421
      the Bill are uniquely favourable to women. There is still something of a black hole for a number of women. The category was rightly identified by the hon. Member for Northavon. Attempts to deal with the matter will be neither free of cost nor without difficulty. Of course, women who had home responsibility before the new arrangements were introduced in the late 1970s are not the only category of people for whom there is a shortfall.
      The Select Committee report indicated that there will always be some who have fallen short as some of their earnings were below the contribution level, while others may go abroad or break their service because of illness or whatever else. A number of people will miss out. The hon. Gentleman is not seeking to remedy all the ills of the pension system, but he is trying to tackle the problems and it is important that the Government make a substantive response.
      The position of guardians was also discussed in Committee. I am especially sorry in that respect—but not only in that respect—that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) cannot be present.
      The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): My hon. Friend wrote me a letter to apologise for his non-attendance, which is due to a commitment that he cannot get out of.
      Mr. Boswell: I entirely accept that; my remarks were genuine and not meant to be sarcastic. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made some serious points in Committee and it would be nice if he could be present. As he is not here, no doubt he will read what we have said. Indeed, he may want to return to some of the issues that we are discussing. It is a tribute to the respect that I have for him and his contributions in Committee that I wanted to say that he made a perfectly fair point about people who were caring for children as foster carers and so on, but were not in receipt of child benefit and could not be in receipt of home responsibility protection. Even if such people were looking after children full time and were unable to work, they would be racking up a potential shortfall in their future pension credit because they could not contribute.
      The Minister spoke entirely in accordance with the general flavour of the Committee proceedings by responding sympathetically to that issue and saying that he would think about it. The two categories that arise are older cases involving people who had children in their care before home responsibility protection cut in or those whose contribution had been severely impaired by it, and those who currently have children in their care but are not in receipt of child benefit and therefore cannot get home responsibility protection to add to their eventual pension. Of course, the Minister may wish also to refer to other categories.
      I do not want to make any mistake on the position of the Select Committee, but I am aware that it was concerned about some wider issues relating to shortfall on the pension credit. It summed up the passage from which I have already quoted by stating:
      "We recommend that the Government should inquire into the immediate and long-term costs, benefits and affordability of extending the Pension Credit in this way and make public the results."
      422
      I think that that is a reasonable request. Equally, I would understand if the Government were to say that those issues were not cost-free and that we cannot simply do everything that we want to do and must set priorities. For example, those who are currently caring for children may be a higher priority than those in some of the other categories that have been mentioned.
      2.45 pm
      It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how much the various difficulties exposed by the new clause would cost to remedy and explain the policy read-across, possibly including other benefits, and the administrability of any concessions. He would help the House by taking some of those matters forward. We understand that there are difficulties and that it is not always possible to rewrite the past, but as the hon. Member for Northavon said, as we move into the new century, we would like to secure a basis for the assessment of entitlement to pensions that is as principled, constructive and modern as possible.
      Andrew Selous: I express my wholehearted support for the new clause of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I am pleased that it has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) from the Opposition Front Bench.
      Women who choose to look after their children at home do not currently have a genuine choice in terms of the income that they forgo and the benefits to which they are entitled. Some of the Scandinavian countries such as Finland and Norway have excellent schemes in that regard. It would be easy for the Government to draw a line in the sand and say that the new clause seeks to rectify problems that arose a long time ago, that we should move on and that if we do anything it should be to rectify problems affecting women who currently have children. It would be enormously to their credit, however, if they were seriously to consider the new clause. That would send a powerful signal to the country that the value that the House and the Government place on women—and, indeed, on any parent who chooses to stay at home and look after their children—is the same as that which they place on parents who choose to go out to work.
      I commend the hon. Member for Northavon for tabling the new clause, I am delighted to see that it has the support of Her Majesty's official Opposition and I hope that the Minister's response will be favourable.
      Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for the way in which he spoke to his new clause and the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for their contributions.
      The hon. Member for Northavon said from the outset that he wanted our approach to be non-partisan, and the Committee proceedings were non-partisan in the sense that everyone put their view in a very fair and effective way. On occasions., the debate became very passionate, as there are significant differences, not least between the official Opposition and the hon. Member for Northavon, some of which may emerge in this debate. I shall be non-partisan to that extent, but it is important to be aware of all the issues. For example, the hon. Gentleman could have referred to his article in the Sunday Mirror, which we shall come to. That is what he was talking about;

      423
      his remarks contained little reference to the new clause and related more to his legitimate campaigning on other issues.
      The overriding issue for hon. Members in speaking to the new clause was fairness to women. We are attempting in the Bill to do a number of things. Some of them involve trying to right past wrongs and to do so effectively. The truth of the matter is that when the basic state pension was established, wonderful as it was, it had a number of flaws. Every pension system is a compromise, and one of the flaws was that the system undermined in a range of ways the position of a variety of different women in different circumstances, as the hon. Member for Northavon said.
      We are, therefore, dealing with a legacy as well as trying to establish the pension credit, the state second pension and the other changes that we are making to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not visited on women in future. There must be a balance and we must have regard to what is feasible and can practically be done in establishing arrangements for the future and designing a system that should be non-discriminatory in dealing with gender and access on retirement to income from the state.
      The hon. Member for Daventry—I am paraphrasing, so I apologise if I get anything wrong—suggested that the Bill did not extensively help women, but that is not the case.
      Mr. Boswell: We do not need to get into a silly semantic argument about it. I was merely implying, first, that some Ministers' claims that the measure helps all women went somewhat beyond what they were entitled to say and, secondly, that in a number of cases, which we sought to identify in explaining the new clause, women will not benefit at all.
      Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his volte face—I was not expecting a total U-turn. I have never said that every single woman who reaches retirement age will benefit from pension credit. We said from the outset that 5.1 million pensioners will benefit. Of those, 53 per cent. of single women and 31 per cent. of couples will benefit from pension credit, so 84 per cent. of women will experience a positive impact on their retirement income. It is nonsense to suggest that this is not a significant step forward for women—of course it is. It is not only about righting the wrongs of the past, but about being able to put in place for the future a system that is non-discriminatory towards women.
      I want to refer to the Sunday Mirror article that quoted the hon. Member for Northavon, which is entitled "The Unfairer Sex: Poverty trap for women pensioners". It is unfortunate that in a debate about the unfairer sex, as the article terms them, the only Members who have participated so far are grizzly middle-aged men. I think that we all agree, on a non-partisan basis, that we are sympathetic to the unfair way in which women have been treated in the past, but it is important to correct some of what was said in the Sunday Mirror article so that people are not misled either about a lack of entitlement to minimum income guarantee or the current level of the basic state pension.
      The hon. Member for Northavon may say that he was misquoted or that the article was edited to give average figures. I shall be kind and say that it must be the latter,
      424
      because the Sunday Mirror never misquotes anyone of substance. [Interruption.] I heard an hon. Member say, "That leaves the hon. Gentleman out." I was not intending to feed Labour Back Benchers; I shall not give them any red meat just yet. I want to clear this up. The last time the basic state pension was £58 was in 1984. The current basic state pension is £75.50 for single people and £120.70 for couples. More importantly, for the women to whom the hon. Member for Northavon referred the minimum income guarantee is £98.15. For couples it is £149.80. That is a significant improvement on the figures cited in last Sunday's article, and that should be acknowledged by all concerned.
      I turn to the debate in Standing Committee on 18 April this year. I want to give two short quotes that set the tone for what I am going to say next. The quotes come from columns 121 and 122 of the Official Report. That is not so much a reference for Hansard as for the Gallery writer from The Times, who unfortunately seems not to understand Glaswegian. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."' He wrote an article in which he did not spell anything right. He thought that I was asking for a pint of heavy, but I was talking about the pension credit. Just for the record, I shall say that it was the pension credit, not a pint of heavy—although at this moment I would prefer a pint of heavy.
      I said in Committee, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell):
      "We appreciate the work that foster carers do and sympathise with those who, having chosen to be full-time carers, receive poorer pensions as a result."
      I went on to say:
      "I do not wish to over-egg the pudding and suggest with nods and winks that a solution is just around the corner; I am telling him openly and honestly that this is another issue that I looked at when I first became a Minister, and I decided that something must be done. We are reviewing the matter. I cannot say any more, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that I recognise the problem and that it must be resolved in an effective way".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 April 2002; c. 121–122.]
      I repeat that now to re-emphasise that that is my position as Minister. It was not said to create discussion in Committee—it is a genuinely held position. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Northavon has returned to the matter—he has been trying to champion this lost cause, as he would call it, for some time—but I hope that he recognises the truth of what I said to my hon. Friend in Committee.
      New clause 1 would have the effect of deeming a notional amount of basic retirement pension, so that a group of pensioners—in this case, those caring for children before 1978—could make the most of the savings credit. It would increase the amount of basic state pension they have in the calculation of the savings credit, so that they have to use less of, or none of, their own savings to get their income up to the savings credit threshold of £77. It might help if I give an example. A single pensioner has a reduced basic state pension of, say, £50 because they have a deficient national insurance record. They have a second pension of £25 and no other income. Their total income of £75 would immediately be topped up to the guarantee credit of £100, but they would receive no reward for their saving because their income was below the savings threshold of £77. In other words, they would not receive any savings credit because their income was below the level of the full state pension. If they could take advantage of home responsibility protection, they might qualify for the savings credit.

      425
      The new clause as drafted would have two peculiar outcomes. First, it would require people to list any natural children they have ever had, regardless of whether they have ever had any caring responsibilities for them. I am not sure that the Department for Work and Pensions needs that information, nor that people would want to share it with us—nor, in some cases, with their current partners. That matters, because at this stage of parliamentary scrutiny there is no further opportunity to correct drafting.
      Mr. Webb: I do not quite understand what the Minister is saying. New clause 1 states that claimants would be
      "asked to list the date of birth of any natural children and any other children for whom they had primary caring responsibilities".
      The Minister said that they would have to list children irrespective of whether they had cared for them, but the new clause explicitly covers the matter.
      Mr. McCartney: My interpretation of the new clause is based on the advice on its wording that I have received from parliamentary counsel and our officers. It would be a legal minefield to go back for such a long period in relation to natural children who were cared for initially, but later not cared for after those looking after them had given up their caring responsibilities. It is also a potential minefield in terms of relationships with current partners.
      Secondly, the new clause would allow a person the option of replacing their actual rate of basic pension with a higher amount in the calculation of the guarantee credit. I am unclear whether this was intentional, but if a person did exercise that option, their income would decrease, not increase. That said, I think that what the new clause tries to achieve is an increase in basic state pension so that more people come nearer to the £77 threshold. It would do that in a notional way by imagining that this group of pensioners was entitled to the home responsibility protection in a time before it was invented. One cannot make law on that basis. One cannot dream up or invent a situation, then develop proposals on that basis which go back, not for two or three years or for one or two decades, but beyond even that.
      3 pm
      Home responsibility protection has been available since 1978. It covers two distinct groups of people. Those in the first group have been awarded child benefit for children under 16; those in the second have been regularly engaged for at least 35 hours a week in caring for someone who receives attendance allowance or the highest middle rates of disability living allowance for a minimum of 48 weeks a year. Entitlement to home responsibility protection depends on people undertaking the caring activities for complete tax years.
      The protection offers a reduction in the number of qualifying years for a full basic pension. For example, a woman needs 39 qualifying years of contributions or credits for a full pension. Every year of the protection reduces that number, and there is a maximum number of years that can count towards home responsibility protection: 19 for women and 24 for men. The different periods reflect the current arrangements whereby men need five more qualifying years to earn a full basic state pension.
      426
      The new clause tries to provide home responsibility protection as if it existed before 1978 to those who would have been entitled to child benefit if it had existed before then. The new clause would achieve that by asking all new claimants for the pension credit to list the dates of birth of their children if they cared for them before the introduction of home responsibility protection. The hon. Member for Northa von wisely does not try to apply the new clause to carers of the sick and disabled. The provision is confined to parents; he does not propose its extension because he knows that that would be unworkable. Trying to prove a caring relationship that fulfilled the criteria for home responsibility protection would be impossible after so many years. He nods, so I am right about his intentions.
      The new clause would be impossible to put into effect. We could be stretching back as far as the 1920s. That is at the heart of the problem, and why in practice and in principle, Governments cannot generally go back that far. We cannot replicate current provisions with ease or certainty. If we try to do that, we create a form of injustice for someone else. For those reasons, we must reject the new clause. However, I do not want hon. Members to be left with the impression that refusal to accept it means a significant gap in provision. It does not.
      Those who are disadvantaged because they do not have access to home responsibility protection are likely to be few. Many of them and the larger group of carers who are already covered by the protection will be married women. Most will have the benefit of a full married woman's pension. Any pension in excess of that, private or state, will be rewarded. Many of the women will now be widows. On widowhood, the combination of their national insurance contributions and those of their late husbands will have brought the income of most of them up to the basic state pension.
      Andrew Selous: Are not the Government correctly righting a wrong through considering the underpayment of women who worked in colliery canteens in the 1950s? I know from one of my constituents that that is happening. That is absolutely just, but does not that mean that the Government have already established the principle of righting past wrongs?
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is not technically correct. The issue not only involves the former National Coal Board, but applies to employers in the public and private sectors who took contributions for women but treated them in a discriminatory way within the rules of their pension funds. A European ruling has been made, and the tribunal system is now considering its implementation so that it can make good that discrimination. It is an entirely different proposition from new clause 1.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we are acknowledging that discrimination occurred by introducing the minimum income guarantee and modernising the pension credit through the Bill. We are already ensuring that women against whom the state system discriminated benefit significantly. We are therefore able to go back in an effective, honest and transparent way to establish incomes for those women. Without those arrangements, they would fall foul of their backgrounds and languish below the basic state pension line. The Bill will bring their incomes up to it, and in many cases, above it.

      427
      Those who are not in that position will continue to be entitled to the guaranteed credit. Our investment in MIG and other measures such as winter fuel payments mean that all MIG households are at least £20 a week or £1,000 a year better off than in 1997. That is a real terms increase in living standards of 23 per cent. Pensioners who have, until now, been the most disadvantaged can depend on a decent income in retirement.
      We do not know about the whereabouts of the hon. Member for Northavon since 1984. The Sunday Mirror article finishes by stating:
      "The Liberal Democrat plan is to raise pensions by targeting the money at those who need it most."
      I accept the hon. Gentleman's flattery; he is obviously trying to imitate what the Government are already doing in the Bill, which reflects our achievements with MIG. Since coming to power in 1997, we have gone out of our way to right the wrongs of the past and to ensure that those pensioners in poverty are taken out of it, not only now but in the future through the pension credit. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for their support for the principle of the new clause and disappointed with the Government's response. It was argued that there are drafting problems, and although I do not understand them, I would happily withdraw the new clause if the Government accepted its substance. We can argue about the drafting and if there is a problem, I am happy not to pursue the new clause as long as the Government accept the principle.
      The Minister rightly said that we have not tried to recreate the rules for people who care for the long-term sick and disabled. Trying to do that for 20 or 30 years ago would probably be unworkable. However, trying to establish whether someone had a child and would, under current rules, be entitled to something akin to child benefit is straightforward.
      I am sure that the Minister was not implying that those who apply for pension credit would wilfully mislead. There would be no penalty in those few cases in which people did not want to reveal that they had had a child. It is not like missing something off a benefit form, for which people are penalised; it is an option. If it is embarrassing for a woman to reveal that she has had a child because, for example, the husband does not know about it, there is no obligation to do that. However, most mothers would like the opportunity that the new clause would provide.
      The Minister said that we could be considering events in the 1920s. He also said that when husbands die, many women move on to the full basic pension through widows' pensions rules. However, most of the women whom we are considering have yet to retire or have recently retired. In most cases, their husbands have not reached 65 or died. Although I do not regard myself as gnarled or middle aged, the period that we are discussing—the 1960s and 1970s—is in living memory. It is not therefore implausible to ask people whether they were looking after children in the 1960s and 1970s. I believe that we could take their word for it. That is not an unreasonable basis on which to proceed.
      In the benefits system, we impute all sorts of things that are not so. If people blow all their money to reduce their income to get more benefit, the benefits system treats
      428
      them as though they still had the money. If people defer a pension and do not draw it when they are 65, the system means-tests them as if they had drawn it because they should not be rewarded for not drawing it. The benefits system uses the "as if" principle all the time. All we want is for people to be treated as if current values attached to bringing up children applied before 1977.
      The Minister kindly drew attention to the press coverage for our campaign for justice in women's pensions. Every time I open my mail, more women throughout the country are joining the campaign because of their sense of injustice about issues such as the subject of our debate. Nothing that the Minister said this afternoon implies that the Government will respond to that. He said that not many people were affected, but the £58 figure is a Government figure. It is the average for newly retired women. We are not considering 90-year-old women who lived and worked in a previous generation, but those who are approaching pension age. If they only have private savings on top of the £58, they do not get rewarded up to £75. We can argue about the number of people who are affected, but we support the principle that they should not be penalised a second time.
      We are not simply considering rules that will apply next year. When the system is up and running, it will apply to a 60-year-old woman for the rest of her life. In other words, we are talking about the rate that she will get not only next year but in 2020, and perhaps 2030. Would it not be extraordinary if, in 2030, we were still paying a lower rate to someone because of caring that they did in the 1960s? It seems extraordinary to perpetuate this discrimination against women.
      I have one more response to the points that the Minister made. If we were to use the imputation system for the guaranteed credit, there would be an issue about reducing entitlement, because we would be imputing a higher basic pension. A better version of new clause 1 might remove references to the guaranteed credit altogether. I take that point, because we are primarily concerned about the savings credit.
      For the avoidance of doubt on the drafting, and because new clause 1 is primarily concerned with the savings credit, as the Minister understood, while observing that I do not feel that the principle of this matter has been addressed by the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      REPORT ON INCENTIVES ETC.
      '( ) The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year 2004–05 and annually thereafter lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the effect of the savings credit on the propensity of individuals of working age to save for their retirement; and may invite the Social Security Advisory Committee to comment thereon and make recommendations for any change to structures or benefits which seem to them to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "credit", insert—
      'calculated in accordance with section 2'.
      No. 7, in page 1, line 9, leave out from "2" to end of line 10.
      No. 8, in page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out "and (3) are" and insert "is".
      No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out "a guarantee" and insert "state pension".
      No. 11, in page 2, line 11, leave out "guarantee" and insert "state pension".
      No. 12, in page 2, line 13, leave out "guarantee" and insert "state pension".
      No. 4, in page 2, line 36, at end insert—
      '(8A) For the purposes of this section, where the client has attained the age of 65 or is a member of a married or unmarried couple the other member of which has attained that age, there shall be disregarded in the calculation of the claimant's income a prescribed percentage of the amount, if any, by which his qualifying income (after deducting such part of his income, if any, as lies between the standard minimum guarantee and the appropriate minimum guarantee) exceeds a prescribed amount (the savings disregard threshold).
      (8B) Regulations may make provision as to income which is, and income which is not, to be treated as qualifying income for the purposes of this section.'.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 40, leave out Clause 3.
      No. 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, leave out "age of 65" and insert "qualifying age".
      No. 2, in page 3, line 26, at end insert—
      '(6A) In the case of men aged under 65, such regulations shall provide that the calculation of qualifying income shall include an amount equal to the amount of retirement pension that the claimant is forecast by the Secretary of State to be entitled to at the age of 65. This forecast shall be revised on each anniversary of the initial claim until the claimant reaches the age of 65.'.
      Mr. Clappison: New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the effect of the savings credit on savings behaviour, and to invite the Social Security Advisory Committee to comment on that report and to consider recommending change. We have been over this ground before, but I make no apologies for coming back to it, because the effect of the pension credit on the incentive to save, and the amounts actually saved, are matters of real concern, and have been identified as such by many experts and organisations that have looked at the Bill, including those who looked at it when it was being considered by the Select Committee. Their concerns about the effects of the Bill on incentives to save are reflected in their many submissions to the Committee.
      We are holding this debate on new clause 5 against the background of the salutary fact that, as a nation, we are simply not saving enough. The savings ratio is now at its lowest for 40 years, and we hear tell in the media and elsewhere of estimates of a £27 billion savings gap. Against that background, it is important that people should save more, particularly those on modest incomes, and we need to consider the effect of the pension credit on this problem.
      430
      Will the credit make matters better or worse? The new clause would go some way towards enabling us to find out, because it would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report. We need to remember, when considering this question, that the pension credit follows in the wake of the minimum income guarantee. One of the obvious features of the MIG that was much commented on is that it leaves pensioners on modest incomes with savings in no better position than those without. For those who could see 100 per cent. of the value of their savings coming from the benefits that they received, there would therefore be no incentive to save.
      3.15 pm
      We acknowledge that the Bill seeks to change matters through the introduction of the savings credit. That much is obvious, but what effect will that, and the way in which it is being introduced, have on incentives? Will there be an incentive to save, when what is saved now will, in effect, be subject to a 40p in the pound tax on retirement? That is what this measure will mean for those involved.
      The views of the expert authorities submitted to the Select Committee were decidedly mixed. Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, when questioned by the Select Committee on incentives to save, said that the Government were on "a difficult wicket". Difficult wickets invite spin—I am sure that you know that as well as anyone, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and no doubt we shall be told in due course that the savings credit is an innovative and imaginative way of rewarding saving, as the Secretary of State suggested on Second Reading, when he said:
      "The important point is that the pension credit removes for the first time-this has been widely recognised-the disincentive in the present system whereby someone with moderate savings can find that they are no better off than somebody who has made no effort whatsoever."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 600.]
      That raises the question of who introduced the minimum income guarantee and linked it to earnings in such a way that it would be likely to bring more and more people into its ambit, but there we are.
      What will be the effect of these measures? Under the Bill, pensioners will, in one sense, derive benefit from having saved, and no doubt the Minister will take us back to that point. By the time people become pensioners, they will be better off through having saved, compared with those who have not, because they will have the benefit of 60p in the pound for every pound of their savings.
      That, however, is not the question. The question that Ministers must address, and have so far failed to address, is: will it be worth while for workers to save earlier in their lives, when their savings will be subject to an effective 40 per cent. rate of tax later on? What will be the effect on their incentive to save, and on their savings behaviour, at that point in their lives?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reasoned amendment that he tabled on Second Reading would have left the minimum income guarantee as it is, with a cliff edge, a 100 per cent. marginal withdrawal rate?
      Mr. Clappison: We set out what we proposed to do. I do not accept the hon. Lady's analysis, but she cannot get away from the question of the incentive to save, which is rather a different matter.
      Mr. McCartney: Middle stump!
      Mr. Clappison: I think that I am dealing with the spin rather well.
      Mr. McCartney: Out!
      Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Out". I might say that his judgment is as good as some other recent umpiring decisions—but we shall not go into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is absolutely wrong. Neither he nor the hon. Lady will face up to the question of what the effect of this measure will be on the incentive to save. That is the question that I put to them. When one is referred back to other subjects by Ministers, one knows that one is getting somewhere with one's bowling, so let us take this a bit further.
      Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. May I give him a bit of fast bowling from Age Concern on that wicket? A briefing dated today, on just this subject, says:
      "we believe that the pension credit will fail to provide sufficient incentive for younger people to save for their retirement."
      Mr. Clappison: That is very much to the point and very accurate, as fast bowling often is.
      Mr. McCartney: It's wide!
      Mr. Clappison: I hear the Minister saying that the ball was a wide. Perhaps he will try this—
      Mr. McCartney: No ball!
      Mr. Clappison: Before the Minister says "No ball", I must point out that I have not even got as far as the crease. That says much about the quality of his umpiring. Perhaps he will do me the courtesy of allowing me to get that far before he proclaims a no ball.
      Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will umpire the views of the Association of British Insurers, which has sought to measure the economic benefit of saving. It has found that under these proposals, someone saving £50 a month would have to save for 10 years before they would see any economic benefit from having saved. The association believes that for W years, there would be a negative implied rate of return from saving £50 a month. Less value will be received in increased retirement income than will be paid in through contributions. Perhaps we will get an honest stroke from Ministers in response to that.
      What is Ministers' reaction to the views of the Institute for Public Policy Research—on which the Government look favourably in other circumstances—on this matter? Further to the opinion of Age Concern cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the IPPR, of all things, says:
      "It would be very hard to argue that the Pension Credit has been designed to generate incentives for current workers to save."
      432
      What do Ministers say to the National Pensioners Convention, which states:
      "People of working age, deciding how much to save for their retirement will need to take into account the very real possibility—for some a strong probability—of any additional retirement income being taxed at 40 per cent."?
      Ministers may argue—as some of their colleagues have argued in other forums—that people simply will not understand what may happen with the pension credit. They may argue that there will be no disincentive to save, because people will not look into the future and make those calculations, and even that if they do, they will not understand the pension credit. That is one view, but it was disposed of by, among others, Andrew Dilnot, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in his comments to the Select Committee. Ministers may not agree with him, but if so they would do well to heed the following warning from the National Pensioners Convention:
      "It is tempting to assume that only a small minority of financially well-informed people will be aware of these facts and that the disincentive effect on saving will therefore be small. It seems to us, however, that financial advisers and providers of pension schemes will have a duty to inform people about such a major factor affecting the outcome of their investment decisions. Even if that were not so, it would be difficult to justify a policy which rested on the assumption that most of those affected by it would be deliberately kept in ignorance of its implication for their future well-being."
      We do not want people to be in ignorance of what these important decisions mean for their future well-being. Ministers need to come clean, and to answer now the question of whether the provision amounts to a disincentive to save. The new clause simply asks that Ministers provide information for a report in due course. If they maintain that there is no disincentive to save, perhaps they could be brave and allow the report to state as much.
      Mr. Graham Brady: I am concerned by the nature of the defence that Ministers appear to be deploying. Is it not true that the perception that the whole savings environment is very complex, off-putting and difficult to engage with already acts as a major disincentive to younger people making proper provision for their retirement? We need a simple approach to promoting saving, not added complexity.
      Mr. Clappison: With the best will in the world, it is not entirely self-evident that the provisions of the pension credit will simplify future pension provision.
      Amendments Nos. 4 to 12 attempt to achieve the simplicity to which my hon. Friend refers. [Interruption.] Ministers may laugh, but that is no easy task. They are drafting amendments designed to make the Bill more straightforward, and to achieve the Bill's original effect, rather than to alter it. You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not take the House through their precise nature, although the Minister may well choose to do so. If they do not find favour, I do not intend to press them to a vote, given that the simplicity of this issue is not entirely self-evident.
      New clause 5 could not be more straightforward. Let us have an open debate about incentives to save, and access to all the relevant information. I hope that Ministers will respond positively, because I cannot imagine that there is anything they want to keep covered up. Let us be transparent, and bring everything out into the open.
      Mr. Webb: I have a lot of sympathy with where the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is coming

      433
      from on this issue. I have been advised not to remark on his reputation for googlies, so I shall not do so at this juncture.
      The hon. Gentleman's point about the effect of the provision is critical. Beneath the rhetoric, the state pension credit is actually the minimum income guarantee, plus a boost for those who have saved. If we did not have the additional savings credit the Bill would not be necessary, because the MIG already exists. In essence, the Bill merely adds the new savings credit and tidies up the link between it and the MIG.
      Under new clause 5, I would want any report to consider the effect on people's propensity to save not of the savings credit, but of the whole of Government policy on income in old age. The savings credit might arguably be regarded as the cavalry: it comes along when the Government have completely messed up the incentive to save, and restores it. The Government and the Minister for Pensions are fond of saying that they are the first Government to reward people for saving, but in fact they are the first to have completely trashed the incentive to save. In a sense, they are penitent sinners on this point, but only partially.
      When the Government came to power in 1997, the gap between the basic pension and the MIG—or income support, as it was then known—was about £7 a week. For anyone who could save more than £7 a week, it therefore paid to save. Those who saved £8 a week got the first £7 at the 100 per cent. marginal rate, so they were better off by the extra £1. [Interruption.] Ministers may disagree, but those are the facts. The eighth, ninth or tenth extra pounds all constituted a complete benefit, beyond the scope of the means-tested benefit system. In other words, it paid to save anything more than seven quid.
      When the MIG and the other provisions are introduced next year, the pension will be £77 and the MIG £100, so taking the MIG into account, it will not pay to save £23. When the Government took office, someone who saved £23 a week was £16 a week better off for having done so, but under the proposed rates, such a person will be no better off. The Government merely say, "Whoops"—
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that alleviating pensioner poverty today is providing such a disincentive to save for the pensioners of tomorrow that it should not be done.
      Mr. Webb: As the hon. Lady knows, there are two ways to target pensioner poverty. One is using complicated means-tested mechanisms such as that in the Bill and—dare I say it—in amendments Nos. 4 to 12. The other is using age as a proxy for poverty, because the basic state pension is a guaranteed way of getting money to poor pensioners. Given that the majority of poor pensioners—particularly the poorest in the land, who are entitled to means-tested benefits but do not get them—are older pensioners, pensioner poverty can be targeted by raising their pension, rather than by using complex means-tested benefits. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the former Minister with responsibility for welfare reform, the hon. Member for Hertsmere and I all agree with that view.
      David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman says that there are two separate approaches to
      434
      alleviating pensioner poverty: complex means testing, with which he disagrees, and targeting by means of age, which he advocates. He will accept that even if we focus on age, in certain circumstances pensioners aged between 65 and 70 will not benefit, even though their incomes are low. For such people a means-tested element would still be necessary, even under his proposal to target by age. The difference is that he is proposing means-testing for the poor only, which increases its stigma.
      Mr. Webb: I was with the hon. Gentleman until his final sentence, which I am not sure that I understood.
      Our view is that—to echo a new Labour phrase—means-testing should be for the few, not the many. That is the distinction. Under our proposal, "the few" would be those under the age of 75 who are residually poor. On average, the majority of those under that age tend to be better off, whereas the majority over that age tend to be poorer. One helps the poor in a universal way by helping the old. It is true that some better-off people would benefit, but it is predominantly poorer people who would benefit. If such people are sufficiently well-off to pay tax on the benefit, they would do so. The Government use the language of guarantees, but the MIG is guaranteed to no one unless they claim it. Some 500,000 pensioners—predominantly older pensioners—do not claim it, but they all claim the basic state pension.
      3.30 pm
      David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman will deliver eloquent diatribes against means-testing in debates on the amendments and on Third Reading. However, for the pensioners who are interested in this debate, will he clarify the fact that under his policy, means-testing will still exist, primarily for pensioners between 65 and 70 who are poor, which increases the stigma of means-testing?
      Mr. Webb: For the avoidance of doubt, the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. The question is whether we means-test half or two thirds of the pensioner population, which is the Government's strategy, or whether we have a residual safety net—
      David Cairns: For the poor.
      Mr. Webb: Absolutely. We want the vast majority of people in old age to have a guaranteed income that lifts them clear of the need for top-ups. What the hon. Gentleman and I will want in our old age is a decent pension—whether from this place, the state or anywhere else—so that we do not have to claim a top-up every year. Our strategy would reduce the number of pensioners who need to claim top-ups at all to a relatively low level.
      Mr. Boswell: As the hon. Gentleman will know from our earlier debates, I am very much on his side on such matters. Is not the logic of the position of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde that the only way to make means-testing acceptable is to put so many people into it that somehow the effect is diluted? The hon. Member for Northavon is arguing for a safety net for the few that is not spread across the whole pensioner population.
      Mr. Webb: That is right. In all such arrangements, we are dealing with a continuum and a trade-off. There is

      435
      no perfect solution. The Government's mass means-testing solution leaves hundreds of thousands—on the Government's own figures—not getting a penny of what they are entitled to and living below the poverty line. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde may frown, but the Government estimate that roughly 500,000 pensioners do not claim the minimum income guarantee to which they are entitled. Therefore they are below the poverty line. That is a simple statement of fact, based on the Government's own figures. Paying the money through the pension would mean that everyone in the age category was guaranteed to get it.
      Mr. McCartney: The determinant for older people is not age but income; that is the case whether they are 60, 85 or 90. Significantly, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Liberal Democrats' proposals for pensions—far from helping the very women for whom he says he is campaigning—will result in the vast majority of those now coming up to pension age getting no benefit whatever. Indeed, they would have to stay on the old-fashioned minimum income guarantee with no commitment that they would be made up to the basic state pension. That is not a small group of women, or of pensioners. It is almost equivalent to the current number of pensioners whom we have taken out of poverty in the first four years of the Labour Government—and kept out of poverty.
      Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, nearly 2 million people would be left on an old-fashioned minimum income guarantee, an old-fashioned means test. He argues that his proposals are about getting rid of poverty, but he would be making sure that poverty remained not just for this generation, but for every generation thereafter. He is talking economic nonsense.
      Mr. Webb: The Minister is talking complete nonsense himself. The group coming up to pension age have many historic problems in their accumulated pension rights, including the married woman's stamp. We have a range of proposals in our campaign for justice in women's pensions that will address those points to ensure that as few of them as possible have to depend on a means-tested top-up when they reach old age.
      To come back to the perfectly reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, there will be some residual role for means-testing. There are aspects of the pension credit that make the minimum income guarantee more humane, and I am entirely in favour of those. For example, sending people a claim form when they apply for a pension is eminently sensible. It is not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; there are administrative aspects of the Bill that I heartily endorse. But the strategy of mass means-testing is not one of them.
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman just said that his schemes would leave a residual role for means-testing. How many people would remain on the means test under his proposals?
      Mr. Webb: That would depend on exactly how much we could increase the basic state pension by. I do not have an exact figure. The Minister will know that before the means-tested benefits system kicks in, the majority of poor pensioners are women and older pensioners.
      436
      By loading the increases for older people on to pensioners, we will do the most to get people off the means test altogether.
      The majority of the newly retired are couples, and couples tend on average—partly because one of them is a man—to have higher incomes, so the incidence of means-testing among that age group is much smaller. We are focusing the money where the means-testing is most intense and on the group that is, on average, substantially poorer, and we are guaranteeing take-up with no savings disincentive. That is a powerful combination.
      Annabelle Ewing: On the extension of mass means-testing, can I remind the hon. Gentleman that in new Labour's 1997 election manifesto, there was a pledge to reduce means-testing for pensioners? Perhaps the comments made by Labour Members should be viewed in the context of that pledge.
      Mr. Webb: I do not recall the exact wording of the manifesto, but we all recall the Chancellor talking about an end to means-testing for our pensioners. The semantic hoops through which Labour Members jump to try to get out of that, result in their saying that what is proposed is not means-testing—but I suspect that to the recipients, it will feel very much like it.
      Mr. Clappison: With the benefit of some extra spin, we now know that what the Chancellor really meant was an end to "old-fashioned" means-testing.
      Mr. Webb: I am sure that that is right.
      To return to the amendments, we are interested in the effect of the Government's strategy on the incentive to save, and a report such as that proposed in new clause 5 would have the potential to add something. I have suggested that the scope of the report should be broader than just the effects of the savings credit; it ought to look at the whole strategy. The savings credit is applied to a system in which the 100 per cent. tax rate has been vastly extended in scope and gives a bit back.
      Even the Financial Services Authority produced a report—only last week—which said on page 24, paragraph 4.33:
      "the implied 40 per cent. deduction rate will inevitably be a disincentive to save for some now at work."
      That is the FSA, not some extreme organisation opposed to Government policy. The FSA is, almost certainly, run by the Government.
      Everybody seems to agree that the overall strategy is undermining the incentive to save. That is the beauty of targeting by age; we give people more money in their old age for being old and their savings are theirs to keep on top of that, because they are clear of the means test. The more people we can get clear of the means test, the less we will need complicated savings credits, because they will get to keep the money anyway.
      The gist of what we are saying is that the Government are trying to claim credit for solving a problem that they have made themselves. That is why an assessment of the effect on the incentive to save, as proposed in new clause 5, would be welcome.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere said that amendments Nos. 4 to 12 were so complicated he would not take us through them in detail, but that they were not complicated

      437
      compared with the Government's complicated scheme. I wrestled with the amendments for several minutes and they are indicative of the problem of trying to write any such schemes down; they are inherently complex. A simple system with a good basic pension—particularly for older pensioners—and a savings incentive so that they get to keep their own money, is the simplest and neatest of the lot.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to remove yet another respect in which the Bill discriminates against a group of women. The House may feel that I am warming to a theme this afternoon, but there are various ways in which the Bill penalises particular groups of women. There will be women up and down the land who hang on to every word that the Secretary of State says. They will have heard him say, "It will pay to save" and that "pensioners"—the term is unqualified—"will for the first time be rewarded for their savings."
      What the Secretary of State has not said is that women aged 60 to 64 do not count; they do not qualify. He did not qualify any of his statements to that effect. I challenge Ministers to give me any instance of an occasion when the Secretary of State, having made those sweeping statements, has qualified them by saying explicitly that women aged 60 to 64 will be excluded. I would be happy to take an intervention to hear about a time when he has done that. The Secretary of State has failed to point that out. Obviously, those who read Bills and follow the small print will know it, but women aged 60 to 64 are missing out.
      Those women may feel that they are pensioners who have saved. Why can they not be rewarded? The Government's answer concerns equalisation; they have to equalise somewhere because of equal opportunities requirements. However, they have equalised at 60 for the guaranteed credit element of the pension credit. Within the Bill, we have equalisation at 60. When the Government have been forced to equalise, whether on winter fuel payments or concessionary travel for older people, they have equalised at 60, not 65, even though that brings in men aged 60 to 64, who are not state retirement pensioners. Therefore, the precedents exist. There is even a precedent in the Bill for equalising at 60.
      When we raised the issue in Committee and came up with a proposal for achieving our aims, the Minister said that it would not work because men of, say, 63 had not had the opportunity of living to 65 to receive a full pension and being assessed on that basis. It was, the Minister argued, discriminatory to assess men at 63 on the basis of the pension that they had accrued up to that point.
      Amendment No. 2 therefore proposes an alternative strategy. Instead of assessing those people on the basis of the pension accrued to that point, they would be assessed on the pension that the Department forecast that they would receive at 65. Each year, as men approached 65, the calculation would be done afresh. Such calculations are done all the time by the Government, and we have all seen pension forecast statements. It would not be complicated to provide such forecasts for men aged 60 to 64.
      Amendment No. 2 would be non-discriminatory, because the message for women over 60 would be, "You have had your full working life to build up a pension, and
      438
      we will assess on the basis of that pension." The message to men would be, "We will assess you on the basis of the pension that we expect you to get at the end of your full working life." That deals with the point about discrimination, which was the Minister's principal objection, and it would bring into the scheme women aged 60 to 64, who are another group of second-class citizens under the Bill.
      The issue of incentives to save is important. I welcome the spirit of new clause 5, if not the detailed string of amendments that go with it. In our view, a related aspect is that women aged 60 to 64 who have saved should not be excluded. If they were included, the Government would have to agree that the new clause would provide an additional incentive for women to save. Therefore, the Government should welcome our amendments.
      Bob Spink: The encouragement of saving is a key area in which the Bill falls seriously short. The pension credit might even depress the savings ratio, which is already dangerously low. New clause 5 is an important addition because it would focus attention on the Bill's impact on the encouragement of young people to save for their retirement. The Bill should not discourage people from saving for their retirement, but it may have that impact.
      The Bill should provide an incentive for younger people to change their behaviour. It should encourage them to save more for their retirement and to consider more carefully their post-retirement income and lifestyles. In short, it should encourage them to be prudent. New clause 5 would facilitate the measurement of the Bill's success in achieving that increase in prudence, although we believe that the Bill may discourage prudence. New clause 5 is, therefore, an essential part of the necessary control mechanism for the Bill, without which it would be less effective.
      The Government should have no problem accepting new clause 5 as a simple, common-sense feedback mechanism that would illuminate the performance of the savings credit measure and enable the legislators to make any necessary changes in that light. The only reason for the Government to resist this common-sense addition to the Bill is if they lack confidence in the potential effectiveness of their savings credit measure and would be embarrassed to have light thrown on its performance.
      David Cairns: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a narrow argument about new clause 5 merely adding the requirement to submit a report. However, he has made several comments about the need to encourage prudence. Can he outline exactly what his party's policy is on encouraging prudence and getting people to save for their old age?
      Bob Spink: I should be delighted to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I am sure that if I did so, you would immediately call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are debating new clause 5. What do the Government have to be afraid of if more light is shed on the matter, which is all that new clause 5 seeks to do?
      We should all be concerned about today's pensioners, because they have had a raw deal from the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They certainly have. The proportion of national income taken by pensioners today is lower than it was under John Major's Government

      439
      in 1997, and that is disgraceful. We should also be concerned for the well-being of tomorrow's pensioners. Only around half of people below state retirement age are currently saving for their retirement. That is a chilling and frightening statistic that we should do something to correct. We should increase the number of people who save for their pensions, but the Bill will not do that. The new clause would illuminate that point and I therefore commend my Opposition colleagues for tabling it. I urge the House to accept it because it would enable us to monitor what is happening to savings and to change the operation of benefits to encourage greater prudence.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Paul Goodman: I, too, wish to speak in support of new clause 5. It is important to lay out clearly exactly what the new clause says. It falls into two parts. The first would invite the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament annually
      "an assessment of the effect of the savings credit on the propensity of individuals of working age to save for their retirement".
      The second would allow the Secretary of State to invite the Social Security Advisory Committee—a neutral and fair-minded body—to comment on the report and
      "make recommendations for any change to structures or benefits which seem to them to be appropriate."
      I serve with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on the Work and Pensions Committee, and in the course of our inquiry into the pension credit we heard much evidence about what expert individuals and bodies believed would be its effect on future saving. The Norwich Union, for example, declared that the incentive to save is "insufficient". The Institute of Actuaries said that it would become
      "impossible to provide savings advice to those on low to medium incomes".
      The IPPR—a body associated not with the Conservative party, but with the Labour party—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) says, "Not yet." We shall see. The IPPR said that the credit was
      "a highly opaque means of generating the right incentives: it is extremely difficult for individuals to know what to expect from it".
      Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that in connection with the incentive to save, the Government were
      "on a much more difficult wicket."
      That has given rise to the various cricket metaphors that have been thrown around the Chamber.
      Kali Mountford: I applaud the hon. Gentleman for returning the attention of the House to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, but is he not ably demonstrating that the Committee had no trouble at all in taking evidence from the Social Security Advisory Committee? From his work on the Work and Pensions Committee, is he not aware of the annual report of the Department to the House that already exists? Would not the new clause simply duplicate matters?
      Mr. Goodman: In a sense the hon. Lady is making my case for me, although I am sure that she will not agree. I see no reason why the Committee would not be able to supplement its work with a report of the kind envisaged by my Front-Bench colleagues. I shall cap the evidence
      440
      to the Committee that I have quoted with what Age Concern has said about the pension credit, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. It said, baldly and clearly, that it believes
      "that the pension credit will fail to provide sufficient incentive to younger people to save for their retirement."
      David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman cites many esteemed experts to support his case, but of course he omits the comments made by Lord Fowler in the other place. Lord Fowler, while welcoming the measure, said that his only regret was that his Government had not introduced it when they had the chance.
      Mr. Goodman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the comments of Lord Fowler, because if there was an annual report of the type to which my hon. Friends have referred, we should be able to see whether all those who gave evidence to the Select Committee—and indeed Lord Fowler—were right or wrong. The hon. Gentleman, too, is helping my case.
      Finally, I quote from the conclusion of the Select Committee itself. The Committee is made up of many more Labour than Conservative Members, but it is a fair-minded Committee. On incentives to save, the Committee stated:
      "We have concluded that, whilst the Pension Credit will enable today's pensioners to see a reward for saving"—
      I include that phrase because I want to be sure that I quote from the Committee's report in a way that is fair to the Government—
      "there is no clear evidence that it will actually increase younger individuals' savings."
      I return to my starting point. In essence, the new clause seeks only to test the claims that have been made by the Labour Members who intervened during my contribution: it would make an independent assessment of whether the Government are right or wrong to say that the pension credit will increase incentives to save.
      All the expert advice of which I am aware is that the pension credit will decrease the incentive to save. The Government believe the opposite. If they believe that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and I are wrong, they need only produce a report, as the new clause proposes, and let a fair-minded and independent body comment and arbitrate on it. I urge the House to accept the new clause.
      Annabelle Ewing: I rise to support the basic premise of new clause 5. I do not understand why the Government are afraid of having to produce a report. They maintain that, inter alia, the Bill will act as an incentive to save. If that is their objective and if they are keen to ensure that the Bill is indeed an incentive to save, they should be willing to do everything that they can to achieve that objective. The preparation of a report—supplementary to other reports produced by the Department for Work and Pensions—would be a reasonable way of assisting the Government in securing their stated objective.
      As we have already heard, various third-party bodies have expressed concern as to whether the measure will really act as an incentive to save. I do not want to go over the same ground by repeating those concerns. The key question is: how will the Bill act as an incentive to save when individuals do not have sufficient financial information early in their life to assess, or predict,

      441
      the likely value of their savings many decades down the line? That is an important issue that could be discussed in a report. It should certainly be given further consideration.
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Lady has made a good point. One of the best ways to ensure that people save more for their retirement is to give them information about what their retirement income would look like in the light of their current provision. In that respect, the Government are promoting joint pension forecasts, so that individuals receive a document annually that shows what they would be likely to receive from their private and state pensions. Does the hon. Lady not agree that such information would be much more useful than a general report to Parliament?
      Annabelle Ewing: The two are not mutually exclusive. It is helpful to learn that there will be some Government-assisted prediction of the likely pension.
      Mr. Clappison: May I interject a bipartisan, consensual note? Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be useful if those pension forecasts included details of how much the Government will take from people's pensions through the pensions tax that the Chancellor introduced in 1997?
      Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I do not want to go down that road today; to do so might be to detain the House much longer than anticipated.
      Let me return to the Minister's point. The prediction would be very general because the financial information would not be accurate enough; for example, we would not know the value of the guaranteed income 20 years down the line. It would thus be difficult to make a meaningful prediction of the value of someone's savings. In any event, the two elements are not mutually exclusive and I do not understand what it is the Government are so afraid of.
      The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) felt that the amendment was too restrictive and that we should consider the overall effect of the Government's policy on savings. I agree with him. I share many of his concerns about the situation faced by pensioners at present. I wonder whether the Bill will really make much difference as regards lifting pensioners out of poverty.
      In Scotland, we face a disgraceful situation: one in four pensioners live in poverty. That is unacceptable and I am not convinced that the Bill would do much more than tinker at the edges. If it helped even one pensioner, I would certainly support it, but it represents a missed opportunity to deal with pensioner poverty.
      I turn briefly to the amendments. I confess that I was a bit puzzled about amendments Nos. 6 to 12, especially Nos. 4 and 5. Could we have some further elucidation of them?
      I support the position of the hon. Member for Northavon on amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As he said earlier, there is discrimination against women and the Government are doing nothing to end it. The amendments are a reasonable way of tackling that unacceptable discrimination. The point that there is a contradiction in the Bill was well made: although the Government accept
      442
      that the problem can be dealt with vis-à-vis the income guarantee element, they seem to take a different view on the savings credit element. Perhaps that will be clarified. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
      Andrew Selous: I, too, speak as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. Sadly, I note that only Conservative members of the Committee are in the Chamber for the debate.
      The Committee's excellent Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), frequently reminds us that, as Committee members, we are simple seekers after truth. That splendid phrase encapsulates the intention of new clause 5, which would cost the Government nothing; the expense for the Department for Work and Pensions would be negligible.
      It is excellent that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), has confirmed that there will be annual statements for pensioners of future provision from both their private and public pensions. I very much welcome that; the information will be extremely useful for individual pensioners. However, when, as a nation, we are looking at a £27 billion savings gap, we need aggregate information, covering the whole country, to guide experts in the field and to advise the Government as to what should be done.
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) asked why the Select Committee could not examine the matter annually and provide the information. I must point out to the hon. Lady that the scope of the Committee's inquiries is extremely wide. Only yesterday, we considered the Child Support Agency. We also look into the whole field of work. It is not always possible or practical to expect a Select Committee annually to provide information, as she suggests, given the range of the Department's activities—the Department spends £110 billion a year.
      I commend the new clause to the House. It will cost the Government nothing and it could shed some useful light on this extremely pressing matter.
      4 pm
      Mr. Brady: I shall be brief. I have listened with interest to the comments of my hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties.
      On amendments Nos. 1 and 2, about which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke, I was interested to hear that the Government's response has entirely concerned the discrimination that they believe would result in favour of women aged 60 to 64. Will the hon. Gentleman or the Minister comment on the viability of such an argument, given that the transitional arrangement is in itself clearly discriminatory? Ministers have accepted that that arrangement is appropriate. I cannot therefore see why they should not also accept some other measures that try to incorporate greater fairness.
      On new clause 5, we must take into account the context in which we are trying to deal with the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) described the massive damage that the Government have already done to the savings ratio. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are acutely aware of the difficulties that so many pension schemes are facing—whether those

      443
      are the problems of Equitable Life or of the increasing number of people who will no longer be covered by final salary pension schemes. We are very much aware of the damage that has been done to pension funds by the Chancellor's £5 billion tax on those funds.
      Against that backdrop and given that young people are not saving sufficiently, the new clause is a modest but important attempt to improve the situation. Young people are deterred from saving because they feel that the system is too complicated, is not worth it, does not apply to them and is not relevant and, tragically, by the knowledge that they will not benefit fully if they take responsible action and try to provide for themselves.
      The Minister must reflect on one crucial question. We would not be here today dealing with this new clause and the amendments, or indeed with the Bill that will introduce the pension credit and the savings credit, had the Government got it right in the first place and had they not created a problem with the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. Had that guarantee been accompanied by such a requirement to produce an annual report on the savings behaviour of the nation, the Government would have understood the crisis sooner and the seriousness—
      Maria Eagle: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that the minimum income guarantee is a problem? It is a poverty alleviation measure of which the Government are proud.
      Mr. Brady: I think that the Minister can do better than that. We all accept that there are problems—even the Government clearly accept it—with people's willingness to save and to make proper pension provision for themselves. Frankly, the hon. Lady's point was rather facile given that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that something needs to be done.
      Mr. Goodman: Did the Minister for Pensions not refer earlier in the debate to some of the problems caused by what he called the "old-fashioned MIG", making it clear that he thought that the pension credit was needed to alleviate some of those problems, which is what my hon. Friend was referring to?
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Mr. Brady: I think that the Minister wishes to intervene immediately.
      Mr. McCartney: We are talking about old-fashioned income support. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to offer an apology for encouraging young people to come out of their pension schemes and go for personal pensions, which led to millions of such pensions being mis-sold. The Labour Government have had to clear up that mess.
      Mr. Brady: Ministers are now competing with each other to make silly and irrelevant points, which they are doing rather well. I am sure that I heard the Minister refer to the "old-fashioned MIG". In some of his more red flag-waving moments I think he thought of something else as being an old-fashioned MIG not so long ago. He was
      444
      referring to the minimum income guarantee and not income support. Perhaps the record will now be hastily corrected, but that was indeed what he said. He referred to the minimum income guarantee as the "old-fashioned MIG". Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, but it was a clear acceptance that the Government have created problems.
      If the Government had been prepared to incorporate a proper review procedure such as the one that we seek today, they might have arrived sooner at the conclusion that they now appear to have reached that something needs to be done to "fine-tune", the Minister may say, but certainly to ameliorate the situation.
      If the Minister is going to be open minded and try to do the best job he can with the legislation before us, he should accept new clause 5 without any reservation.
      Maria Eagle: The debate on this group has been very lively. I hope to be able to answer as many questions as I can get through without testing the patience of the House too much. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just been talking about the minimum income guarantee. We know that the Conservative party dislikes it and thinks that it is a problem. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said in March 1999, when we were discussing the MIG in the House:
      "That is a huge rise in spending…I can think of nothing to recommend it."—[Official Report, 15 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 740.]
      The Conservatives have never liked the minimum income guarantee because they do not like alleviating the poverty that they caused pensioners.
      Mr. Brady: If the Minister likes the MIG so much, why is she legislating to remove it?
      Maria Eagle: That is a wide long hop, to return to the cricket analogies that we were using earlier. The minimum income guarantee is based on income support rules. The fastest way we could introduce the scheme to alleviate poverty was to use the existing rules. We are now changing those rules to make them much simpler and to make the scheme better, so I have no problem in dispatching that comment to the boundary. The hon. Gentleman will have to try harder, although I probably should not have reintroduced cricket. I get the feeling that I may regret it at some point this afternoon.
      Annabelle Ewing: Retaining the nice humour that we seem to be enjoying in this interlude in hostilities, could the Minister give me a glossary of terms, as I am getting a little lost with all these cricket analogies?
      Maria Eagle: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady is not as familiar as some hon. Members with cricketing terminology, because Scotland has rather a good cricket team. I would have expected her to have watched their games occasionally. I cannot promise to give her a glossary at this moment as I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker would bring me to order straight away, but I can point her to the section in the Library that contains "Wisden". She will no doubt find a good glossary of cricketing terms there. However, I must get on if I am to have any chance of dealing with the meat of the debate on this group, which has been very interesting.

      445
      New clause 5 was moved by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) at some length and supported by most if not all Conservative Members present and also by some hon. Members from other parties here present. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that an annual parliamentary reporting mechanism is in place on the effect of the pension credit on an individual's incentive to save for retirement. I do not think that anyone would object to the House and the Government, or anyone who is considering these matters, having as much information as possible about the effect of policies on people's behaviour. Information is a good thing. The Government try to base their policies on evidence, and I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that that was a good thing.
      The new clause would, however, require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament setting out the effect of the pension credit on the individual's incentive to save, and would give the Secretary of State the authority to invite the Social Security Advisory Committee to comment on that report and make recommendations for changes to the structure of benefits that seemed to it to be important.
      The new clause is not necessary because the Secretary of State already has the power to ask the Social Security Advisory Committee for advice on any social security matter. In fact, if Opposition Members look at paragraph 20 of schedule 2, they will see that it will amend section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, so that the Bill, when enacted, will become a relevant enactment, which will bring pension credit into the existing SSAC framework. The SSAC may give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under those enactments, which will include the Bill. Of course, under section 170(3) of the 1992 Act, he may refer to the committee for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of any relevant enactment as he thinks fit. In that sense, the power already exists in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make references to the SSAC if he wishes to do so. So the new clause is not necessary; nor would it add anything to the existing powers.
      Of course Ministers are accountable to the House for the introduction and monitoring of any new policy. That is how things should be done. I am sure that Opposition Members will continue to seek Adjournment debates and ask parliamentary questions to discover how the Bill is working if it is enacted. That is the right way to deal with things, and new clause 5 would add nothing.
      It is technically very difficult to produce a report that specifically separates the effects of pension credit from other impacts and policies designed to promote incentives to save for retirement. It would be particularly difficult to produce a report that isolated whatever the incentive, or disincentive, effect of the Bill may be on the propensity to save, as the new clause puts it, so there could be rather more confusion.
      I hope that I shall not be unfair to the hon. Member for Hertsmere if I say that he probably tabled the new clause to promote a debate about incentives to save. It would probably be fair to say, having listened to the debate, that he certainly managed to have such a debate.
      446
      [Interruption.] He is chuntering away, and I hope that I can hear what he is saying. I am talking about new clause 5 and trying to deal with the points that he made.
      Mr. Clappison: There is no mystery about new clause 5, because it refers to
      "the effect of the savings credit on the propensity of individuals of working age to save for their retirement".
      That is precisely what the phrase "incentives to save" means.
      Maria Eagle: The point that I am trying to make, although obviously not clearly enough for the hon. Gentleman, is that it is quite difficult to disentangle the incentive of one policy from all the other incentives or disincentives that are flying around. That is the problem with the new clause.
      The hon. Gentleman was trying to promote a debate about incentives to save, and in that respect I want to answer some of the points that he made. He rightly said that many people of working age are not saving enough for their retirement. No one would disagree with that. Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that people are not saving enough. He also referred to the alleged £27 billion savings gap, as did some of his colleagues. He made the point that, if the Bill were implemented in that way, it would act as a disincentive to save for people of working age, rather than rewarding savings, which is what we think it would do.
      A tension inevitably exists between the need to ensure that there is a floor below which pensioner incomes do not fall and the need to ensure that today's workers have a clear incentive to save. The Bill provides a mechanism for doing both, by ensuring that we can tackle poverty among today's pensioners. May I say gently to Conservative Members that, after their 18 years in power, our priority when we came to power in 1997 had to be to do something, as part of a decent pensions policy, to alleviate the pensioner poverty with which they left us?
      Things have not got worse. The claims made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) were complete nonsense, and I do not recognise any of the points that he made as being based on any kind of fact whatever. If he could point out his source for the claims that he made, I should be very interested to see it.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Goodman: Will the Minister not acknowledge that even the pension credit's supporters recognise that the difficulty with the Government's approach is the extensive reliance on means-testing, that up to roughly a fifth of those entitled to the MIG do not take it up, and that there is no evidence at all to show that take-up will increase under the pension credit?
      Maria Eagle: I shall come to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes later. Take-up is obviously important. We want to promote take-up to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits take them up. One of the ways in which pension credit represents an improvement in that regard is that the so-called means test—the information that people will have to provide us with—is much simpler and much more straightforward. The weekly means test that currently exists for income support and the MIG will disappear, and people will

      447
      normally only have to make a claim once every five years. That will lead to a considerable improvement in take-up, which is what we aim to achieve.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested that the Bill will involve a disincentive to save, but the pension credit is about fairness; it will reward thrift instead of penalising it. For the first time, those who have saved a modest amount for their retirement will be rewarded for doing so by receiving the savings credit. That has not been the case in the past. So the Bill will remove a disincentive to save for people who were likely to qualify for the MIG. Instead of losing benefit pound for pound, as happens under the old income support and the MIG systems, they will receive a 60p a week reward for every pound saved in the target income band. That is not a disincentive to save; it is a reward for saving.
      No hon. Member has so far mentioned that the capital rule changes that we are making in pension credit are very beneficial. We shall treat capital five times more generously than it is treated under the old income support and MIG-type rules. We have designed pension credit to promote saving in respect of the capital rules. We will abolish the current rule that excludes pensioners with £12,000 or more in savings from any help at all.
      Income from savings below £6,000 will be ignored. For savings above £6,000, a notional rate of income, set at half the current MIG rate, will be assumed. Those improvements ought to encourage people and those who have been excluded in the past because of their capital to benefit from the savings reward. All those things are an incentive to save, rather than a disincentive, because they will explicitly provide a reward for savings. That is one of the Bill's main aims, and I contend that that is exactly what the Bill will do.
      Of course Opposition Members needed to support their assertions. In doing so, they read out comments made to the Select Committee during the evidence that it took, as well as other sources—briefings and so on—that have been circulated while we have been considering the Bill. However, they did not read out all the quotes from all the organisations—not that I am shocked about that—and there are some other quotes from respectable organisations in the pensions world that agree with the Government that the pension credit will provide an incentive save.
      For example, the Association of British Insurers said:
      "The ABI welcomes the Government's proposals for a Pension Credit as an important step in addressing the issues which may currently discourage those on moderate incomes from saving for their retirement."
      The National Association of Pension Funds said:
      "The NAPF welcomes the concept of the Pension Credit and believes that it will go some way to rewarding low income pensioners for their thrift during their working lifetime. It will also assist in creating the right environment for today's workers on low or modest incomes to be able to justify making a commitment to a long term pension saving vehicle."
      Legal and General said:
      "Legal and General is confident that the pension credit has the potential to be a powerful encouragement to save for low or middle income groups."
      I could read out many more. Obviously, Opposition Members read out the quotes that supported them and they will not be surprised that I have read out some of the quotes that support the Government's position, but Opposition
      448
      Members ought at least to accept the fact that the professional view is not all one way. Many professionals in the industry believe, as do the Government, that pension credit will provide an incentive to save. I would not therefore accept the Conservative party's claim that our proposals are disincentives to save.
      Mr. Goodman: The hon. Lady is being very fair. Rightly, she says that Conservative Members have a propensity to quote those organisations that believe that the pension credit does not provide an incentive to save. She has just read out quotes from bodies that say that it is an incentive to save. Why will she not therefore support the new clause, which would allow a neutral body to make the judgment?
      Maria Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman were to be fair, he would accept that I have said that the powers already exist to enable the Government to do as the new clause suggests. Therefore—
      Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
      Maria Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance to finish, I might consider giving way to him, as long as he does not throw a cricketing analogy at me.
      The Government already have the power and authority to do as the new clause suggests. I have made it clear that we believe in evidence-based policy making and that the House has the power and the duty to hold the Government to account, as I am sure it will.
      Mr. Brady: I promise no cricketing analogies. The Minister says that the new clause is not necessary because the Government already have the power that it would provide. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is eminently reasonable, and if she were to give an undertaking that the Government would use those powers and commission a report on an annual basis, we might be persuaded to consider withdrawing the new clause.
      Mr. Boswell: Tempting.
      Maria Eagle: It might be tempting to give such short answers, as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) suggests, but it is usually foolish for Ministers to give in to that temptation. We are committed to evidence-based policy and we have the power to find out and do all the research that we need to do to evaluate our policies, and we shall do so. There are some technical problems in respect of isolating propensity to save in relation to one policy, as opposed to everything else that is going on. The point that I am trying to get across is that I am not hostile to the idea of evaluating policy—we are in favour of that but the new clause is a flawed way of doing it.
      David Cairns: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reason why we are having so much debate and so many speeches by Conservatives Members on the issue of reporting is that, when it comes to substantial policies for making the lives of Britain's pensioners better, they have absolutely no alternatives?
      Andrew Selous: At the moment.
      Maria Eagle: The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is a very honest man. My hon. Friend has received his reply.

      449
      I do not want to try the patience of the House. I hope that I have dealt with the issues in relation to new clause 5 in detail and that Conservative Members, although they may not like what I have said, will accept that I have at least attempted to answer their points.
      Interestingly, when the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to amendments Nos. 4 to 12—he did not technically move them, of course—he mumbled something about them reducing complexity. He went on to say that they were so complex that he could not and would not deal with explaining to the House what they meant. I was hoping that he would do so, because, on giving them a close look after they had been tabled, I hoped that I would receive a little guidance in his opening remarks.
      Mr. Clappison: I am tempted.
      Maria Eagle: Oh, the hon. Gentleman is feeling tempted now. I shall not tempt him too much. Given that he did not set out clearly precisely what the amendments were about and what he was about—one wonders how they got written, given that nobody is quite sure what they are about—I must crave the indulgence of the House and deal with them in relation to my interpretation of them rather than the interpretation of the Members who tabled them.
      Mr. Boswell: Perhaps I can assist the Minister, as my name is also attached to these amendments, although, for technical reasons, I did not move them. Indeed, it would take a long time to explain them. They are, as it were, derivatives of amendments moved in another place by the late and sincerely lamented Baroness Castle. They are intended to be entirely neutral in effect. The reason they are more complex than the amendments moved by her and Baroness Turner in the other place is that they have been upgraded to take account of at least two of the objections made by the Minister's colleague Baroness Hollis, and we felt that her third objection could have been dealt with in another way. They therefore have a degree of commonality of pedigree, even if the Minister is not prepared to accept them.
      Mr. Brady: Middle stump.
      Maria Eagle: We are back to cricket again. I agree that, given that explanation, the amendments have a degree of pedigree behind them. On reading them, it was apparent that there was a great deal of ingenuity behind them—I have even written "ingenuity" on my notes. Even though I thought that they were tabled by the Conservative party, I was about to concede that they were ingenious, which they are. If we accept the new clause and amendments at face value as an attempt to improve the Bill, I have some points to make about their faults.
      Clearly, clause 3 is a complex piece of work, and it was recognised in Committee that it was not the clearest drafting that we have ever seen. When one tries to set out a mathematical calculation in words, one is already at a disadvantage—that is why we have mathematics—but that is what the parliamentary draftsman who produced clause 3 had to do. The calculation of the pension credit
      450
      in the Bill has two parts. First, a single pensioner who has an income below £100 will receive 60p a week for every £1 of savings that they have over £77, building to a maximum of £3.80 a week for someone whose weekly income from pensions and savings is £100. Secondly, if a single pensioner's income is above £100, the weekly maximum savings credit of £13.80 starts to reduce by 40p for every £1 of original income. That is the basic calculation.
      To achieve the same end, the new clause and amendments introduce an income disregard. The way they work is quite clever, because it seems that the calculation that they introduce works across the entire income range to produce the same figures as the calculation in the Bill. That is why I use the word "ingenious"; they are ingenious. I am not absolutely sure, however, that the calculation is any more transparent than the one in the Bill. In addition, there is a flaw. The current Bill distinguishes between the two components of the pension credit—the guarantee credit and the savings credit—whereas, effectively, the new clause and amendments do the calculation in a different way, which brings everybody's income below the guarantee level using disregards. That was put forward as more simple because, I presume, there is one element instead of two. I hope that I am getting it right.
      Mr. Boswell: You are.
      Maria Eagle: Good. The problem with that is that the guarantee credit is a poverty alleviation measure and a passport to other benefits, receipt of which is dependent on receipt of guarantee credit. Without guarantee credit, below which everybody's income is reduced before being topped up, there is a difficulty in how to identify those who might be eligible, by passporting to other elements of income support—for example, severe disability premium and carers premium. That is one set of problems with the proposals.
      Another defect is that the new clause would exclude pensioners with a downrated guarantee credit, because they were in hospital for more than 13 weeks, from benefiting from the savings credit. As the House knows, or at least, as Members on the Committee know, savings credit should not be downrated. Were we to adopt the proposed formulation and calculation, we would be prevented from being able to differentiate those who had guarantee credit and savings credit, and which one should be downrated.
      Mr. Boswell: I had, in a sense, already trailed the Minister's objection to one point about the passporting of benefits. If we had gone on at length about the approach that we would have taken, we would have said that only people with incomes not exceeding the appropriate minimum guarantee would be passported. Although I have not considered the point in detail, I think that it would equally have been possible to have maintained the savings credit about which she has also expressed concerns.
      4.30 pm
      Maria Eagle: That is interesting, but it still prompts the question: why bother doing the calculation in a different way if it means taking a different route to exactly

      451
      the same place? What is the benefit of doing that? We need two elements of the pension credit, because they are essential to enable us both to support the income of pensioners by way of the guaranteed credit and to make transparent—this is a main policy aim of the Bill—the fact that there will be a reward for saving. The hon. Gentleman's approach would remove that clarity, because it would not be clear that a specific element of the pension credit would be a reward for savings. That would have an impact on incentives. I know that Opposition Members do not always accept our point of view, but we believe that their approach would be bad in that regard.
      I hope that I have dealt with the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, so I shall move on to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). I intervened in his speech when he appeared to complain about our proposals for the alleviation of poverty. He suggested that, by increasing the amount of the minimum income guarantee—soon to be guaranteed credit—we would create a problem. However, I believe that we are helping to alleviate poverty. I would have thought that Liberal Democrats were in favour of that—they used to be.
      Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is moving a bit closer to the main Opposition party in saying that he is not really in favour of alleviating poverty even though we inherited from the Conservative party, when it left office after 18 years, a far wider income disparity than existed when they came to office. We were very keen to do something about that.
      Mr. Webb: I am never entirely sure whether the Minister is wilfully misrepresenting my position. I made it absolutely clear that we believe that there are two strategies for tackling pensioner poverty: the mass means-testing route or targeting by age. Each has strengths and weaknesses and each involves trade-offs. I made it perfectly clear that we did not oppose attacking poverty but that we thought that the Government's approach had damaged savings, and missed the people who do not claim under the complicated schemes. We think that there are better ways of alleviating poverty, and that is clearly what I said. We do not disagree about the fact that there should be a strategy for dealing with poverty.
      Maria Eagle: The approach that the Liberal Democrats have chosen would not achieve that aim, whereas our policies will.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not in the business of wilfully misrepresenting him. Perhaps he is in the business of not being quite as clear as he might be. I listened to him carefully and he basically said that targeting could be achieved without any form of means-testing—[Interruption]—without a form of mass means-testing is the phrase I think he used. He referred to using age as a proxy for poverty and signed up to the reasoned amendment on Second Reading that made that point. That is why I see a lessening gap between the policy of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
      Both parties have referred to age additions as targeting without means-testing. The hon. Gentleman said that the biggest income gaps could be proxied by age, and therefore that age additions were a way of dealing with
      452
      the problem without resorting to mass mean-testing, as he put it. However, the family resources survey shows that the biggest income gaps are between people in the same age groups, not between people in different age groups. So his point is simply not true.
      The hon. Gentleman proposes to give extra money to people such as Baroness Thatcher. Whatever one thinks of her, she is a wealthy woman and has been rewarded for her work. He would give extra money to Baroness Thatcher because she is over 75 but not to a poor pensioner who is 60. If he really is suggesting that that is a way of targeting poverty, he has got it very wrong.
      The hon. Member for Northavon suggests that we should pay the £2 billion that the pension credit will cost to the over-75s, but that would still leave three quarters of that group short of the current MIG level. When I asked him for his calculations for those who would be still on the MIG under his scheme, he was not able to provide them and he did not give his figures for what he might raise the pension to. However, if we were to raise the basic state pension to the current MIG level, which is probably higher than he would suggest, that would cost £9.7 billion net and it would not target the poorest pensioners. In fact, the poorest pensioners would have their benefit reduced pound for pound because of the income support rules and the 100 per cent. marginal rate of deduction. That would still leave 1.6 million pensioners entitled to the MIG. His policy would not even achieve his aims or deal with the problems with which the pension credit deals.
      On amendments Nos. 1 and 2, points were made about those aged between 60 and 64. As we discovered in Committee, it is a difficult issue. The hon. Member for Northavon has also been fairly ingenious in coming up with a different way of achieving what the amendments he tabled in Committee tried to achieve. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to rectify the anomaly, as he sees it, of restricting the savings credit for men and women over 65 by making it available to both men and women from the same age as for the guaranteed credit, which is currently 60.
      The amendments would set the minimum age for the savings credit at the qualifying age rather than the age of 65. The hon. Gentleman has used that device, and the qualifying age would apply to the guaranteed credit and to the savings credit. Under the Bill, the qualifying age is different for the guaranteed credit and the savings credit.
      The problem with the hon. Gentleman's approach is that we still do not have equality in pension provision. I tried to make the point to him in Committee that his proposal would not work because we will not have equality in the basic state pension and pension provision by the state until 2020. The House will recall that the Pensions Act 1995 tackled the issue of gender inequality in pensions, but it recognised that the problems could not be dealt with overnight because pension saving does not operate in that way. Therefore, a provision was made that, between 2010 and 2020, the basic state pension age for women would rise over that time until it is equal to that for men. Until that happens, we will not be able to apply the Bill's provisions in a way that can avoid anomalies. That is the basic problem.
      The amendments are slightly different from the ones that the hon. Gentleman tabled in Committee, but they still create the same problems. That is why I ask the House to reject them. They would still leave inequalities

      453
      between men and women at different ages even though they are in identical circumstances. Despite his ingenuity, the effects are the same. The Government cannot accept them because they would produce anomalous results such as the one that I referred to in Committee. Under his amendments, men between 60 and 64 might receive the pension credit but, once they hit 65, they would have it taken off them. We do not want our policy to create such anomalies.
      I give the hon. Gentleman every credit for his ingenuity, but the basic problem is the current inequality in state pension provision. We cannot overcome the problem until we have the equality that will take time to achieve. Try as he might and try as we did, we cannot do any better than to have the savings credit come into effect at age 65. It is regrettable that some people will lose out because of that, but there is nothing that we can do to put matters right unless we bring forward the age of equality between the genders. And we cannot do that.
      I realise that I have been speaking for some time. I do not want to try the patience of the House too much, and I hope that I have dealt with the points raised. I also hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere is not falling asleep as a result of my droning on, and that having heard my argument, he will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Clappison: I would not be so ungallant as to accuse the hon. Lady of droning on. Indeed, I listened to her carefully considered arguments with great interest. However, I am not as convinced as I should like to be to withdraw the motion.
      I am grateful for the support given to the new clause by my hon. Friends and from other quarters, reflecting the widespread concern about the crisis in saving and the lack of saving for the future. I remind the hon. Lady, as my hon. Friends did, that this modest amendment only requires the Government to prepare a report. The case for the new clause, which was already strong, now looks even stronger.
      The hon. Lady was brave enough to argue that the new clause is unnecessary because the Secretary of State already has the power to require a report. However, when pressed on that, she gave no hint that the Secretary of State has contemplated such a step. That is unsatisfactory. The subject is important and we want the fullest possible information on it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 220.

      Division No. 253]

      [4.41 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Amess, David

      Burnside, David

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Burstow, Paul

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baron, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Cash, William

      Beggs, Roy

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Bercow, John

      Clappison, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Conway, Derek

      Brady, Graham

      Cotter, Brian

      454

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Evans, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Price, Adam

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Rendel, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Francois, Mark

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Ruffley, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Selous, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gray, James

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

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Bob

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Steen, Anthony

      Harvey, Nick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Swire, Hugo

      Hendry, Charles

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hoban, Mark

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Holmes, Paul

      Tredinnick, David

      Horam, John

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Webb, Steve

      Weir, Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Whittingdale, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Wiggin, Bill

      Lamb, Norman

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Laws, David

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Luff, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wishart, Pete

      Maples, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Mates, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Mr. Julian Brazier and

      Oaten, Mark

      Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coaker, vernon

      Barnes, Harry

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Coleman, Iain

      Bayley, Hugh

      Colman, Tony

      Beard, Nigel

      Connarty, Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Berry, Roger

      Cooper, Yvette

      Best, Harold

      Corston, Jean

      Betts, Clive

      Cousins, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Cranston, Ross

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

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

      Browne, Desmond

      Bryant, Chris

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burden, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Doran, Frank

      Cairns, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Caplin, Ivor

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      455

      Edwards, Huw

      Marris, Rob

      Efford, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Etherington, Bill

      Martlew, Eric

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Flynn, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Follett, Barbara

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Galloway, George

      Moran, Margaret

      Gapes, Mike

      Morgan, Julie

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mountford, Kali

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Grogan, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Norris, Dan

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Healey, John

      Olner, Bill

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Heppell, John

      Organ, Diana

      Heyes, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hill, Keith

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoey, Kate

      Perham, Linda

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hope, Phil

      Pike, Peter

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Plaskitt, James

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pond, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Rammell, Bill

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jamieson, David

      Roy, Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Ryan, Joan

      Jones. Kevan (N Durham)

      Salter, Martin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Joyce, Eric

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Kelly, Ruth

      Simon, Siôn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Skinner, Dennis

      Khabra, Piara S

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Kidney, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Soley, Clive

      Lammy, David

      Squire, Rachel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Stevenson, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Lloyd, Tony

      Stringer, Graham

      Love, Andrew

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Lucas, Ian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Luke, Iain

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Lyons, John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Trickett, Jon

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Truswell, Paul

      MacDonald, Calum

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      McDonnell, John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      McFall, John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Wareing, Robert N

      McIsaac, Shona

      White, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Wicks, Malcolm

      McWalter, Tony

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wills, Michael

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Winnick, David

      Mann, John

      Wood, Mike

      456

      Woolas, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Nick Ainger.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 9

      DURATION OF ASSESSED INCOME PERIOD
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 28, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State may provide by regulation for the assessed income period to be continued for a period not exceeding five years notwithstanding that the payment of benefit during that period has been terminated under regulations made under section 1(5) or section 2(6) of this Act, and may make provision for the restoration of benefit on the same basis of assessment as has previously applied when the conditions giving rise to the termination of that benefit no longer apply.'.
      Even those of us who do not habitually indulge in immoderate language or high political grandstanding are entitled to do so from time to time. I seem to remember on one occasion during consideration of the Bill that became the Learning and Skills Act 2000 becoming extremely excited with the Secretary of State and threatening at about midnight to divide the House. Although I make no such threat at this point, which might be a comfort to some hon. Members, who knows what will happen? As ever, it depends on the Minister's response. There is a serious and important point that needs to be dealt with. We discussed it at some length in Committee, but I do not feel that it has been satisfactorily answered yet, although I realise that it might be resolved at a later stage through appropriate regulations.
      The whole business arises from the Government's shift to an assessed income period of a maximum of five years, compared with what might be regarded as a traditional measure of weekly income for means-tested benefits, or annual income for tax. My argument is not that that shift should not have happened. We all know that for practical reasons the purity of the doctrine of the weekly basis for the payment of means-tested benefits has become somewhat attenuated in recent years—for example, in the qualifications for jobseeker's allowance and the linking rules that apply to people who are returning to work—but the House would not forgive us were we to dilate on those issues today. However, we face an extraordinary and unprecedented position in which, at up to five years, the assessment period for a means-tested benefit—the savings credit—is to extend for considerably longer than the annual period of assessment for tax or the period used in respect of any other benefit.
      We are not arguing in the amendment that that concept should be removed from the legislation—there are immensely important practical reasons why it should stand. However, unlike some pensioners' organisations, the Government do not appear to have fully grasped the dramatic administrative implications of trying to run a means-tested benefit for approximately 5.5 million pensioners—half the total number. It is clearly sensible to make the assessment period as long as reasonably practicable, but the implications of doing so must be addressed.
      There are basic inequities that will be difficult to eliminate in applying assessment over a long period. When we asked Ministers about that in Committee,

      457
      their reply was, in effect, that if something happens to a pensioner's income and it falls, they can apply for reassessment, or they will receive an annual reminder and then apply for reassessment. In short, the matter can be picked up, and they can be reassessed and their credits adjusted appropriately. That appears wholly reasonable. However, there will be other cases in which a pensioner's income will rise for some reason—for example, they might come into some money. That might make them no longer eligible for benefit if they are new claimants; conversely, if they have had an assessment, which lasts for five years, they will not be required to report their windfall or to have their means-tested benefit reduced. There could be inequity between people with the same level of income, or assumed income, according to whether or not they were assessed for five years. That also applies to circumstances in which there may have been a discontinuity in their benefit, and those are addressed in the amendment.
      5 pm
      In Committee, when we asked Ministers about such circumstances, they said that if it would be better for pensioners to reapply, they could reapply. However, we pointed out that if continuity for pension credit had been broken and a new assessment was required, pensioners would need to reapply but would receive a lower benefit than someone in exactly the same circumstances who had maintained their benefit for five years.
      We need to discuss the circumstances in which that problem might arise. I should make it clear to the House that we are not talking here about what might be termed genuine changes in circumstances arising, largely, from voluntary decisions. If a pensioner chooses to marry or has a child, clearly there is a material change in their circumstances, but those factors have always been recognised in the benefits system. We are concerned here with what I might call contingent changes of circumstance whereby pensioners go through a hoop and then have to reapply on a new basis, as a consequence of which they may lose out, as against pensioners with exactly the same income circumstances who can maintain their vested rights to an assessment for five years.
      The circumstances that may arise range, if I may put it this way, in order of diminishing acceptability, from the entirely reasonable to the more questionable. First, a pensioner may spend time abroad. It is envisaged in the explanatory notes to the Bill that, on the analogy of jobseeker's allowance, a pensioner who goes abroad for four weeks will be able to maintain their benefit, and after that it will cease. That period will be extended to eight weeks, as I understand it, in cases where a pensioner has to go abroad to support a child who is receiving medical treatment. No one wishes to cavil at that. If it is necessary to have a distinction, that seems to be an acceptable one.
      We need to consider the situation of pensioners who normally go abroad for longer than four weeks. For example, they might want to go abroad to receive medical treatment. It could even be that they had been referred by the NHS to a hospital in another country, paid for by the British taxpayer. If they could not get the operation that they needed in the UK, they might be sent abroad for it, and they might need to be away for more than four weeks,
      458
      although medicine now tends to achieve quicker turnaround times. In that circumstance, which arises from a deficiency in NHS provision, they might say, " I accept that I must have treatment abroad, and I am going at the public expense, although I don't object to that." However, they might come back to find that their pension credit entitlement had ceased. In that case, they would have to make a new application, and they might get less.
      That would be the extreme case, and Ministers understand that not everything can be tailored to the needs of the hard case, but there is a point of much wider application, for example, to anybody who wanted to go away to the Costa Brava for a winter holiday. Unless I have completely misunderstood the Bill, after four weeks, the assessment that they had previously enjoyed would be lost, and on coming back they would have to reapply and be assessed on a new basis, which might be less favourable than the original.
      I leave aside, because it will complicate the issue, concerns about the administrative arrangements for reactivating the benefit, although those will clearly be important. I leave aside also concerns about cases in which the pensioner had, in good faith, nipped off for a holiday, perhaps at short notice, and forgotten to inform the Pension Service. By doing so they would have committed a technical offence or perhaps even a substantive one.
      Pensioners with an entitlement to benefit which is fixed for five years—it is not reassessed weekly—who take a holiday in another state of the European Union or beyond and are penalised may feel that they are harshly treated as against those who take their holiday in the UK and are not penalised. That may well attract the attention of European jurisprudence in due course. I mentioned that in Committee, and I do so again because there is a barrier to the free movement of persons if some disadvantage arises out of a contingent movement to another EU state. Anyway, in the real world, it is perfectly reasonable for a pensioner to say, "I want to take six weeks' holiday in the Costa Brava this year. I feel that I've earned it. Why am I being messed about on my benefit?"
      As the Minister will remember, other cases may arise. I hope that when he replies he will not caricature such cases. One, which we did not talk through enough in Committee, is that of hospital downrating. That issue is separate from whether or not persons are sent abroad for treatment that is paid for by the NHS. It would be appropriate to ask whether, if a person was sent abroad by the NHS, and the period of treatment or hospitalisation exceeded 13 weeks, they would be subject to downrating on their basic pension as well. It would be useful to get that on the record.
      There is also the question of the entitlement to savings credit. The Under-Secretary, who responded to the previous debate, confirmed that savings credit will not be lost even if hospital downrating takes place. It would be useful to get that back on the record. I am concerned about the re-entry into benefit when hospitalisation finishes, and I should like ministerial confirmation that the assessed income period that already applies will be maintained—that is, unless and until it is more favourable for the claimant to be assessed on a different period.
      The final issues that I wish to raise are the perhaps less worthy ones that we debated and kicked around in Committee. They concern people who enter religious

      459
      orders, some of whom are represented in the Chamber this afternoon. I do not imagine that people would do so for a short period, so my query is hypothetical, but it also concerns individuals detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. I have said that there is a problem with double provision. Clearly it is wrong to pay someone pension credit while they are inside and being maintained at Her Majesty's expense—and very expensive that is, as we all know. On the other hand, should they lose satisfactory pension credit arrangements?
      The intention and effect of the amendment is to suspend the assessment period, then reactivate it later. There should be no question about paying benefit while someone is abroad and perhaps, if we want to complete the provision, in the subsidiary example in which someone is in prison or some other state of disqualification from benefit. Rather than just simply having a mechanism that enables the system to regenerate a claim and get someone back on benefit, it would be more sensible to have a system in which the benefit is deemed to be suspended, then reactivated when those circumstances no longer apply. We have tried to draft the amendment in that way.
      I urge the Minister to accept that I tabled the amendment with good will. The issue is difficult. The problem may not be as extensive as I have stated but, if I were him, I would make provision for it—if not now, then perhaps in the regulations that will no doubt flow from the Bill—so that, if necessary, benefit can be reassessed and looked at afresh. In addition, in certain cases it may be administratively easier and fairer for the benefit to be suspended, then reinstated when certain conditions no longer apply. Our amendment is tailored to do that.
      Mr. McCartney: I hope that we can dispose of this item reasonably quickly, as we debated it for a considerable time in Committee. The next group of amendments, dare I say, contain more meat and are of a higher quality. At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), his amendment has no merit, but I shall come to that in a moment.
      The hon. Gentleman first raised these issues in Committee, when he said that convicted prisoners should continue to get the benefit of pension credit. We therefore nicknamed his amendment the Ronnie Biggs amendment. Such was the embarrassment of the Conservative party that it quickly dropped that argument and had to find another reason for tabling such an amendment. It has now found one, and has introduced the Costa del Sol amendment, which I shall deal with quickly.
      In Committee, the hon. Gentleman gave me an A for the clarity of my explanation of why the amendment was not only unnecessary, but worked against pensioners, but I only got a C for its acceptability. Having listened to his contribution today, I have to give him a triple X for acceptability, as I am even less persuaded by it than I was by his argument in Committee.
      The main effect of the amendment would be to allow a person who went abroad for more than four weeks and had his claim for pension credit closed to pick up where he left off. Any remaining assessed income period from his previous claim would be restored upon reclaiming, so changes in his circumstances would be ignored. The amendment would have the same result when someone lost entitlement to pension credit on going to prison or, in certain circumstances, as a consequence of hospital downrating.
      460
      The hon. Gentleman perceives an unfairness in our proposals because he believes that pensioners who can travel abroad may be inhibited from doing so. To use one of his examples, a person may receive a windfall, perhaps after the death of an elderly relative, which makes them much richer. They may continue to live in the United Kingdom and benefit from both pension credit and the windfall gain for up to five years. He contrasted that with someone who goes to another country and, upon their return, finds that they are no longer entitled to pension credit.
      Opposition Members have tunnel vision, and need to look at the bigger picture. We are not ignoring lottery wins and other windfalls during the assessed income period because we think people in such a position need pension credit. We are doing so because we want to reduce intrusiveness for all recipients of pension credit. We can live with ignoring individuals' good fortune for the sake of simplifying the system for the overwhelming majority of pensioners, but we should not extend that generous treatment to people who reclaim pension credit because their previous claim rightly ended, whether as a result of going abroad or for some other reason. We must ask questions anyway, if only to be sure that the claimant is who they say they are, rather than an imposter taking advantage of someone's absence.
      5.15 pm
      I know what the answer would be if one asked a typical pensioner in the street whether he would like to retain the weekly means test, in order to avoid some perceived hardship to a handful of pensioners who had had a windfall and who could afford to travel abroad for months or even years at a time. The answer from the vast majority of pensioners would be a resounding no.
      In any case, it is more likely that a person who has been abroad for some time will have a lower income stream, having used up savings, rather than a higher income from, say, winning the lottery. That is where the hon. Gentleman's case falls down. When people go on holiday, they are using their capital, so it is more than likely that they will come back with less income. Having paid for their holiday and taken their spending money with them, they are eating up their capital all the time that they are away. They have, presumably, not gone to Spain or any other country to work, but to enjoy themselves. It is therefore in the pensioner's interest that a reassessment is carried out.
      As I said in Committee, it may be in the claimant's interest for a full assessment to be carried out on his return from a protracted absence, as people are more likely to win than to lose out. People who have been abroad for some time are more likely to have a lower income stream because they have used up part of their savings than they are to have won the lottery in Spain. I do not know what the odds are for winning—
      Mr. Boswell: Fourteen million to one.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has obviously played the lottery in Spain; I have never been able to, although I understand that one can now play it in the United Kingdom. That is being advertised.

      461
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Daventry, referring to me, said:
      "He says—he may be right; I do not contest that—that many people who return from protracted absences abroad may have spent themselves out, and might be better off with a new assessment"— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 April 2002; c. 185.]
      At that point, I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have sat down and forgotten about the matter, but he is back again.
      The hon. Gentleman did not dispute my assertion that people who have been abroad for some time are more likely to gain from a full assessment than to lose out. The only people who stand to gain from the amendment are those who have some unforeseen increase in their finances, such as a lottery win or some other windfall, since their pension credit award and who go abroad for more than four weeks. It is not clear why this group so concerns Conservative Members.
      As I explained in Committee, we intend to limit strictly the number of changes in circumstance that will require reassessment of income, but we believe that protracted absence abroad is one such instance. We also think it right that where a pension credit claim closes, it closes. It is entirely consistent to undertake a full assessment on a new, fresh claim.
      It must be right that while simplifying the system for the benefit of pensioners, wherever possible we simplify administration too. I do not see how one can reconcile this important factor with holding closed claims in some kind of suspended animation, to be re-awakened at some unspecified future time, which may or may not occur.
      The same arguments apply with regard to loss of entitlement to pension credit as a consequence of hospital downrating. I remind the House that it was the present Government who increased from six weeks to 13 weeks the period for which a person may be in hospital before having his benefit downrated. People in receipt of the pension credit will be able to retain entitlement to up to eight weeks on temporary absence abroad, as the hon. Gentleman said, for children's treatment.
      People who travel abroad to receive national health service treatment will be considered still to be in Great Britain for the duration of that medical care. Ministers recently agreed that people who receive pension credit, income support and jobseeker's allowance who travel abroad for NHS-funded medical treatment will not be subject to the time restrictions on temporary absence from Great Britain. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman and will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance at the end, which represents some progress. I was disappointed by some of his earlier remarks. When he started attributing to me the title of the amendment—the "Ronnie Biggs amendment"—which he himself had used to ridicule it, I knew that we were in for trouble and some lack of understanding.
      In arguing for the amendment, I was making the point that there is an inherent inequity between a person who travels abroad and receives a windfall and is then reassessed for pension credit or disqualified, and somebody who remains in the UK, receives the same or even a larger windfall and is untroubled. The Minister explained why that is the case, but the inequity remains.
      462
      I am even more troubled by the possibility that a person may feel inhibited, or there may be accusations that a person feels inhibited, from travelling round the European Union by the structure of the benefits system and the disqualification from certain benefits. That does not fully honour the spirit of mutuality of benefits that is beginning to be introduced in Europe.
      However, these are complex issues and the Minister has tossed me a very small bone in relation to downrating, which is helpful. I do not want to be churlish and I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15

      INCOME AND CAPITAL
      Paul Holmes: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 7, after "earnings", insert—
      ', except that that part of a claimant's hourly earnings that is equal to the rate of the National Minimum Wage shall be disregarded'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 9, line 18, at end insert—
      'but shall in no circumstances include income derived from or calculated as income implied by any compensation fund (whether or not written in trust) administered for the benefit of any claimant for state pension credit in connection with a settlement of a claim on behalf of that person arising from industrial injuries or medical negligence.'.
      No. 15, in page 9, line 22, at end insert—
      'but shall exclude any income derived from PEPs, TESSAs or ISAs.'.
      No. 16, in page 9, line 24, at end insert—
      'but subject to the restriction that the income implied by any capital holding shall not exceed the current Bank of England minimum lending rate plus two percentage points, to be averaged over a twelve month period prescribed in the regulations.'.
      Paul Holmes: I want to discuss the apparent contradiction in Government policy in relation to encouraging people to continue in some degree of employment after reaching the legal age of retirement—a contradiction that has already been discussed in the Select and Standing Committees.
      The Cabinet Office report "Winning the Generation Game" stated that older workers should be encouraged to stay in work and that more flexibility should be available in terms of retirement. The Government have often said that they are keen to maintain and even improve the ratio of workers to pensioners, but their pension credit proposals have been widely criticised as effectively discouraging people from doing part-time work after retirement.
      It is widely accepted that encouraging older people to continue in at least part-time work if they wish to do so is a desirable aim. With an increasing proportion of elderly people in the population at large, it makes economic sense for the nation to retain for longer the work contribution, skills and expertise that are based on the years of expertise that older people have. It also makes financial and personal sense for many individuals to continue working for at least part of the week after

      463
      reaching legal retirement age. Many older people would value the potential benefit of extra financial income on top of an inadequate basic state pension, but they would also value very much the opportunity to maintain a lively and active personal contribution to and involvement in society through the opportunities, experiences and interests that work can offer.
      Despite the widespread agreement on those views in all quarters and the Government's stated intention of encouraging more pensioners to continue in work, Government policy on pension credits seems designed to achieve precisely the opposite effect. The Select Committee made that point clearly in its second report of 2001–02, which pointed out that the Government's proposals on pension credits disregard only the first £5 of earnings. After that, the equivalent of 40p in the pound is clawed back, effectively imposing a top rate of income tax on pensioners' part-time earnings. The Committee made this observation:
      "Many of those who submitted to evidence to our inquiry were highly critical of this aspect of the Credit's calculation. They argue that it offers little, if any, incentive for pensioners to continue working or to seek new employment opportunities. Part-time work is one of the few, simple, methods for a pensioner to increase their retirement income".
      As the National Pensioners Convention stressed in its evidence to the Committee,
      "part-time earnings could have a significant impact on pensioner poverty."
      The Industrial Society made this comment in its evidence:
      "B y discouraging part-time work after retirement, the Government seem to be giving us an example of un-joined-up Government at its worst."
      David Cairns: I have been listening with genuine interest to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. For those of us who are weighing up the merits of his amendment, will he explain what assessment and research was done into how much more cost would be incurred if, for example, 10 per cent. of pensioners were to carry on working? Can he give us some figures?
      Paul Holmes: If more pensioners were to continue working, the Government would benefit in the long run in terms of their poverty strategy. I shall deal with cost later in my speech.
      The Select Committee also pointed out in its summary of the evidence that the three charities representing pensioners which gave oral evidence to the inquiry agreed that
      "a disregard of around £40 of earnings would be a very productive measure."
      Sally West of Age Concern suggested that that would allow the equivalent of
      "a day's work without it disrupting the administration of the system".
      She said that it would encourage people
      "to keep active in work if that is what they wish to do."
      In the light of that, the Committee reported:
      "We agree with this view and were disappointed that the Secretary of State could hold out 'no hope' of a change in the rules."
      It went on to say:
      "We urge the Government to reconsider its policy on the Credit's treatment of earnings".
      464
      In the face of those united views from the Select Committee, Age Concern, the National Pensioners Convention, the Industrial Society and many others, the Government's response was simply to make no change at all through its contradictory and self-defeating pension credit proposals. Various groups suggested alternatives designed to remedy the disincentive to work that is contained in the Bill. For example, the Select Committee and Age Concern suggested a fixed level disregard of around £30 to £40 a week, compared with the very low £5 disregard contained in the Bill.
      Our amendment offers a simple and clear method of meeting those aims by disregarding those parts of a claimant's hourly earnings that are equivalent to the rate of the national minimum wage. That would achieve two things. First, it would encourage flexible retirement instead of discouraging it, as does the Bill. Secondly, it would provide a real cash incentive to people who wish to continue working after reaching state pension age. As those are supposed to be the stated aims of Government policy, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. Or are the Government telling pensioners that they are not prepared to allow them to earn even at the level of the national minimum wage without seeking to impose on them the equivalent of the higher rate of income tax?
      Mr. Clappison: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, which deal with three different issues arising out of the definition of income and capital in clause 15.
      The first of those is the treatment of compensation funds in cases of industrial injury or medical negligence. How will the Bill deal with income from such funds as regards the pension credit? It is fair to say that this subject generated considerable interest in Committee, not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), but from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who drew our attention to the cases of several of his constituents who would be very interested in these provisions. Those cases are deserving of consideration by the House. It is important to revisit the issue, and we await the Minister's response with interest.
      Amendment No. 15 deals with income derived from PEPs, TESSAs or ISAs, which is another matter that we raised in Committee. Hon. Members may have heard sufficient of my views on the generality of savings, but this issue falls within that generality. How will those important savings vehicles be dealt with? We are conscious of their general position within the policies of this and previous Governments.
      Amendment No. 16 covers the treatment of income from capital. In respect of savings above £6,000, a notional rate of income will be set at around 10 per cent. after that disregard of £6,000. There has been a development since we considered the matter in Committee. The Government had said that well over 80 per cent. of pensioners have savings that fall below the £6,000 disregard. Indeed, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee:
      "What we are doing is we are disregarding the first £6000 worth of savings and that covers 84z per cent. of pensioners. Now, 84 per cent. of pensioners today do not have £6000."
      Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) received a written reply from the Minister, saying that 60 per cent. of pensioners have less than

      465
      £6,000 in savings. Obviously, 40 per cent. therefore have more than £6,000. The matter is more extensive than we were led to believe.
      Against that background, we believe that matters now have a different complexion. We need to hear more about it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said in Committee, one would be struggling nowadays to find something that produced a 10 per cent. return on capital. Indeed, a substantial number of pensioners have savings of more than £12,000. The Government's proposals for the treatment of savings assume that they earn between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. on their savings. We want to hear more ministerial comments on that and I am sure that savers want to hear more from the Minister about the treatment of their income from capital under the Bill.
      5.30 pm
      John Mann: I reiterate briefly comments made in Committee about industrial injuries. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for adding medical negligence to that in Committee.
      Industrial injuries are disproportionately important in the coalfields. The recent judgment and the roll-out of compensation in the next year or so mean that many retired miners will receive compensation for bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger. In the majority of cases, the compensation will exceed the capital limit of £6,000.
      David Cairns: I ask my hon. Friend to take account of constituents who are suffering from asbestosis and asbestos-related illnesses. Thanks to the excellent decision in another place, many of my constituents will receive the compensation that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is extremely important for shipbuilding constituencies such as mine and former mining constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend. We want the Minister's reassurance about that.
      John Mann: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Indeed, I was about to mention asbestosis and the landmark judgment, which has an impact on my constituency and many others throughout the country. Sadly, compensation for mesothelioma comes too late for many of my constituents. However, the principle is important, and it is vital for the families.
      Although there is a disproportionate impact on some communities, the benefit should be perceived as a good thing. The money is owed and is due. It is due to negligence for various reasons, which include bad employer practice and lack of medical understanding of the issues in the past. Whatever the reasons, the money is due to those people and it would be grossly unfair if they lost any pension credit for receiving money that is long overdue.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is highly knowledgeable about such issues and I trust that he will give us some good news.
      Mr. McCartney: The amendments would affect clause 15, which deals with the treatment of income and capital through credit income assessment. The details will be set out in regulations, which will be laid before the House in due course.
      466
      In Committee I provided much detail about the treatment of income. I do not therefore want to go through that again, but I shall repeat some of it. The debate offers an opportunity to be even more explicit about some of our proposals. As Baroness Hollis said in another place last December, we propose to ignore completely compensation received for personal injury. No income from that, whether actual income or assumed income from the capital sum, will be taken into account.
      A pensioner who is attacked and seriously injured need not fear that we will stop her pension credit when she receives compensation, as happens with income support at the moment. Nor will we withdraw pension credit from, say, a miner because he receives compensation for damage done to his health. I will come back to that in a moment. Our proposals go significantly further than the amendment does. That is not a criticism; this gives us an opportunity to open up the debate.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) mentioned my answer to a parliamentary question. I do not have the question here, but if I remember rightly it was in two parts, and said that 60 per cent. of all pensioners have less than £6,000 capital. Some of them have second pensions and other income. In fact, 85 per cent. of pensioners are entitled to the pension credit because they have less than £6,000. I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's question on that basis. There is, therefore, not a chink of light between me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; nor am I saying one thing and my right hon. Friend another.
      All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that that was a nice try, but in cricketing terms, it was a bit of a no ball. I promise my hon. Friends not to make any more cricket jokes. I was just trying to make the point that as a Scot, I know just as much about cricket as the English do. It is just a pity about the football team at the moment.
      Amendment No. 3 relates to the earnings disregard. No one would disagree with the general sentiments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). This country depends on older workers, and with demographic changes, that dependency will grow. Fifty per cent. of men and 25 per cent. of women aged 60 to 64 work. A further 800,000 people aged 65 and over are at work. This is not just about ensuring a steady flow of human resources. It is about experience, handing on skills, and promoting intergenerational understanding. For many pensioners, work is a key part of active ageing and social inclusion. We want to promote opportunities for older workers and allow them to be rewarded for earning.
      Amendment No. 3 would disregard earnings by linking the disregard to the level of the national minimum wage. The hon. Member for Northavon wants to do this for everybody over the age of 60. A pensioner working one day a week could therefore expect a disregard of about £35, and an older worker or pensioner working a full week could expect a disregard of about £175. This would represent an added cost of £1 billion on the pension credit. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman committed something like £9.7 billion for another proposal. When we asked him how he was going to pay for that, we discovered that far from being a little short on detail, he refused to provide us with any at all. Now he has now clocked up a total of £10.7 billion.
      In the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget proposals they have further targeted arrangements for people over 75, which would cost an extra £1.2 billion.

      467
      Those provisions, however, would end up giving the poorest pensioners an average increase of only £2 a week. Under their proposals, money is not being targeted or given directly to poor pensioners.
      Mr. Webb: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McCartney: I hope that if I give way to the hon. Gentleman, he will not try to give us the third way of explaining his pension policy. On at least two occasions during the debate, he changed both the policy and the track that he was taking, and never gave us an answer about how any of his proposals were to be funded. Nor did he acknowledge the very important point that his party will not accept the overwhelming evidence that poverty relates to income, not to whether someone is 60, 70, 75, 80 or 85. That is the major flaw in his proposals. I hope that when he talks to women who are approaching pension age, he does not tell them that he is going to do something for them, because they would have to wait until they were 75 to get even an extra penny out of the Liberals.
      Mr. Webb: Will the Minister confirm that the figures that he has just quoted on the effects of our proposals are based on the assumption that 100 per cent. of those who are entitled to claim means-tested benefits will do so? Will he also confirm that that is a false assumption, and therefore a false assessment?
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman's argument is dead and buried. The assumption is not wrong—he merely wants to change it. I have costed his proposals for him. He refuses to do so not because he is incapable, but because he does not want the British people to know what he is up to. He wants to travel around Britain parading his conscience to pensioners, saying to every woman, "I am on your side, I am your saviour." However, the reality is that to get a penny off him, they would have to survive in poverty until the age of 75. It does not matter how we add it up: the people who will qualify under our proposals would get nothing under those of the Liberal Democrats, which would be a bitter pill and a bitter blow.
      Having exposed such opportunism, I want to point out something else. In speaking to his amendments, the hon. Gentleman showed how clever he is. He is clever because he has done a lot of reading recently. He is both a campaigner and well and truly in opposition, and he has read the Liberal Democrat document entitled, "How to be an effective opposition: a guide for campaigners". It offers the following advice: to
      "act shamelessly, stir endlessly, and embarrass the administration…don't be afraid to exaggerate."
      [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] It continues:
      "why court the unpopularity that goes with the responsibility of power?"
      Liberal Democrats have to act shamelessly and exaggerate in all circumstances. If they are talking to a Conservative voter, they are told to be anti-Labour, but if they are talking to a Labour voter, they should be anti-Tory.
      There we have it. I have never read a better explanation of Liberal Democrat pension policy. It has been set out in the document, and in the hon. Gentleman's comments, so we shall not take him seriously—for the moment. I make those points because he is trying to con poor pensioners into believing that he is on their side. That is what we are taking seriously.
      468
      It is unclear how the hon. Gentleman would fund his proposals, and he is not prepared to tell us. We believe that the working tax credit, the abolition from the pension credit of the rule excluding people from working more than 16 hours a week, the disregards, and the savings credit for those over 65, are the best way to promote active ageing and reward earnings. I shall give the hon. Gentleman just two examples of how that will work in practice, and illustrate the real gains.
      Let us consider a single pensioner—"John", aged 67—who works one day a week at a local DIY store, receiving a minimum wage of £35. He has a full basic retirement pension of £77 and no other income. After taking into account the disregard, his relevant earnings are £30. John's combined income of £77 and £30 takes him above the guarantee credit level of £100. However, John is entitled to a savings credit, as his earnings count as qualifying income. His savings credit is £11. Under these proposals, John is therefore better off by £572 a year. That is not pie in the sky and invented figures; it is the reality of this Government's policies for such older people.
      Let us consider the second example of a couple aged 68 and 65 respectively. The woman—"Sylvia"—works two days a week as a cleaner at the minimum wage, earning £65. They receive the full rate retirement pension of £123 and have no other income. They are entitled to a £10 disregard on Sylvia's earnings, so the sum of £55 is relevant to the pension credit assessment. Their combined income of £123 basic pension and £55 earnings takes them above the guarantee level of £154. However, they are entitled to a savings credit of £9, as Sylvia's earnings count as qualifying income. That additional £9 shows how we are providing basic benefits for couples, as well as individuals. These are not exaggerated figures; they are the combined effect of the Government's proposals.
      Looking at amendment No. 14, I am encouraged that Opposition Members have found a new cause, but it intrigues me that it has come so late in the day. I can think of campaigns in which we have been involved over the years—not just in mining communities, but throughout the country—over the inequities that can occur when people, quite rightly, are compensated for injuries. They have to fight to get compensation in the first place; sometimes courts take it from them or affect their ability to claim compensation. I will not go into the recent House of Lords ruling that at least reversed a terrible decision that was made in the past. All Labour Members have been closely monitoring these issues, but I am pleased that the Opposition recognise that there is potential for doing something about the matter.
      5.45 pm
      On 18 December, on Second Reading in the other place, Baroness Hollis, when asked about such compensation, said:
      "any personal injury payments, which are taken into account in various ways at present, will be ignored"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 188.]
      In social policy terms, the outcome of a person's misfortune is more relevant than the event that caused the misfortune. For instance, let us compare a motorist who is paralysed after an accident while driving to work with someone who happened to be driving while working. Under the amendment, the driver in the second case would gain from the disregard, but the driver in the first case

      469
      would gain nothing. A person who receives compensation following a terrible medical accident would gain, but an old lady who receives compensation after being the victim of a savage assault would not.
      We have consistently put the case that the pension credit is an entitlement; we do not want to dig into people's lives, and we do not want to record every possible circumstance in which people find themselves. We want to get rid of as many of the old exclusions as we can. The proposals that I announced today will mean that, from October 2003, any pensioner who has received financial compensation for personal injures will be told that we will ignore this income. Whether it is actual or assumed, it will not be taken into account. This will be welcome across Britain, and in particular, across many of the communities of the former British coalfields.
      I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Friends individually and collectively, as well as to trade union groups, mining groups and others who have maintained solidarity over the issue for a long time. I was pleased to make the announcement today. I did so with the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I wish to record his tremendous support for the change.
      The current arrangements are complex; mainly because of the different ways in which compensation can be paid and invested. I will write to hon. Members to give further information and place the letter in the Library.
      As for amendment 15, I am almost astonished at the uncharacteristic bravery involved in making such a significant commitment, in both expenditure and strategy terms. The amendment would cost perhaps £1 billion in the long term. Is this part of the strategy of the hon. Member for Hertsmere to prove that his party looks after the poor? That is a bit rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, given some of the policies he supported in previous Parliaments.
      The same amendments were tabled in Committee and on Third Reading in another place. We believed that those earlier versions were probing. Now it seems that the Opposition are serious in their proposals, although I cannot understand why, because of the potential costs. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertsmere will explain how his party leader will pay for the proposal, particularly when the right hon. Gentleman is totally opposed to the introduction of pension credit.
      Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McCartney: If I must.
      Bob Spink: The Minister is a delightful character and I am delighted that he has given way. He takes a narrow view of the costs. Will he comment on the wider impact that improving savings and the savings ratio will have on our economy? Surely that would not be a net cost, but a net saving to the economy, and would provide a great benefit.
      Mr. McCartney: I do not take a narrow view of pension credit. The hon. Gentleman's party does not just take a narrow view, it is totally opposed to pension credit. But the Conservatives are not prepared to say, either in Committee or today, whether they are prepared to repeal
      470
      the measure. I do not know whether they will vote against the Bill today. Perhaps they will let us know. Would they repeal it?
      I am getting old and I must be getting deaf, because I hear no reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is smiling at me and perhaps he is telling me that the Conservatives have gone silent. I could ask the Liberal Democrats, and they would be just as silent.
      Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for some time and he will remember the long period in opposition that his party experienced. I certainly remember the long period after the 1997 election when Labour Minister after Labour Minister recanted what they had said in opposition. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a long list of specific examples to peruse at his leisure. So we take no lessons from the Labour party, on this or anything else.
      Mr. McCartney: We always get one who will get up when he has no argument to make at all. That was not an argument, it was a whinge. I could give the hon. Gentleman pages of commitments given by shadow spokespersons from the Dispatch Box, including on the minimum wage, tackling pensioner poverty and doing something about Tory mis-selling of pensions.
      Mr. Goodman rose—
      Mr. McCartney: We have another one. I shall give way.
      Mr. Goodman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the pledge made by the Chancellor, when he was in opposition, to abolish means-testing for our elderly people?
      Mr. McCartney: I remember that the Labour party and the Chancellor made it clear—as we have continued to do—that tackling pensioner poverty would be our No. 1 priority. Unlike the Tory party, we have not introduced means-testing to stop people having access to income. Our proposals are inclusive. We are providing people with a chance to obtain additional access to income. We are not targeting pensioners, we are targeting poverty that the Conservatives created in the first place.
      Conservative Members have tried to distract me from the amendments and the nonsense that they contain, but I shall return to the notes that have kindly been provided for me by the machine. I shall repeat some of the points that the Minister made in the other place, because she was giving a direct response to similar amendments.
      Clause 15 will abolish the rules that exclude pensioners with £12,000 or more of savings from any help, so for the first time there will be no automatic cut-off. Instead we will apply a notional rate of return of 10 per cent.—half the present rate—on any capital sum over the first £6,000, which we will disregard. That figure will be £10,000 for people in residential care and nursing homes. That means that 95 per cent. of pensioners entitled to pension credit will have any income they receive from their savings ignored entirely. Ignoring the first £6,000 of savings helps all pensioners, including the better-off. For example, only pensioners with capital above £12,000 will face effective assumed rates of return greater than 5 per cent.

      471
      Amendment No. 15 seems to discount the fact that the Government's proposals take no account of actual income from PEPs, TESSAs and ISAs. Instead, we intend to apply the same notional rate of £1 in £500 that will be applied to any other capital holding. If we were not to do that, it would influence people to save more in ISAs—PEPs and TESSAs are no longer available for new savers—than in any other forms of savings, including pensions products. The immediate costs would be £400 million.
      The ultimate effect on pension saving could be startling. It could increase the cost of pension credit by £1 billion a year in the long run, but the money would not reach those with little or no savings. The redistribution would go to those higher up the income scale. People who chose to put all their money into, say, an ISA would get full pension credit no matter how much they had saved.
      That would skew the savings market towards such methods of saving and, as people moved their savings, eligibility for pension credit would expand further up the income distribution. So the reach of pension credit and the cost to the state would expand while private pension saving would fall. Let us remember that the amendment comes from a party that has spent this afternoon criticising the Government for not giving people incentives to save in the private sector.
      A person who has already saved in a PEP, TESSA or ISA has already been advantaged because they have benefited from tax relief. Treating PEPs, TESSAs and ISAs differently would doubly advantage them, for no apparent good reason and at the expense of the taxpayer. I could go on and give a range of examples, but I shall write to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and put some practical examples of my remarks in the Library, if that would be helpful.
      I am surprised that amendment No. 16 was tabled. The treatment of capital was discussed throughout the Bill's passage in both Houses. The amendment would restrict the assumed income from capital to a rate that is more or less what people would get from their savings. That would be achieved by applying the base rate plus 2 per cent. to pensioners' capital.
      Opposition Members did not listen to our arguments. Our decision was reached only after the most careful consideration of the representations made to us on the issue. In our original consultation document we proposed taking actual income into account. However, Age Concern, among others, told us of its real anxiety that that would make the treatment of capital in pension credit more complicated than in income support.
      Examples were cited of the difficulties pensioners would experience in recording information about actual income. We listened to those real concerns. It was clear that the tariff-type regime in income support offered the most straightforward way of calculating income from capital. We actually did what older people asked us to do: we held consultations and we listened. The Opposition have consulted nobody and listened to nobody.
      Once we had the method of calculation we turned to the other element in the treatment of capital: how much to factor into the calculation. There are two parts to that: the disregard and the rate of return. Setting the right level of disregard—the lower capital limit—was critical. We had to consider costs. We also had to consider how to reduce the intrusion into pensioners' lives that inquiries
      472
      into their capital represent. The level of disregard that we have set— £6,000—means that 85 per cent. of pensioners entitled to the credit have no need to tell us about their capital at all.
      The second consideration was the rate of return. Looking at the rates of return available in the High street was not appropriate: what investment would return nothing on the first £6,000 and something on top of that? That is why the amendment, with its bogus resonance with the commercial world, is so badly focused.
      A further element had also to be considered. We received representations from the Financial Services Authority and the Association of British Insurers. Their concern was that if we failed to get the balance right between the disregard and the rate of return we would alter the balance between saving to build capital and saving to build a pension.
      The view of the Financial Services Authority was that a rate of return of 10 per cent., after taking account of the £6,000 disregard, was the right balance to strike in considering the two methods of investing for retirement. Again, we listened to the expert advice and took it. The Opposition proposals completely ignore the fact that there is no rate of return on the first £6,000 of capital. That would cost an additional £350 million.
      I hope that I have explained why we cannot accept the amendments. I have also tried to explain the difference between our policies, the policies of the Conservative party and those of the Liberal party—all three of them. I ask the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) to withdraw the amendment.
      Paul Holmes: I am sure that other hon. Members, like me, welcome the statement by the Minister for Pensions about disregarding compensation for industrial injuries. Many industrial workers in my constituency come to me with problems such as vibration white finger and asbestosis, so I am especially aware of the importance of that statement.
      On amendment No. 3, however, I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to listen to the almost universal advice of those whom he has consulted and from whom he has received comments. In particular, I note that he says that what the Labour-dominated Select Committee told him was completely wrong. I also note that Ministers cite the comments of Age Concern when it suits them—as they did twice today—but ignore its comments when they do not suit them.
      All the advice received by the Government is that the measure will act as a disincentive to pensioners seeking work after retirement age. That is a serious issue, and I hope that they will come back to it with new proposals. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17

      OTHER INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS
      Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 12, line 6, leave out from "means" to end of line 8 and insert—
      'two people, who are not married, (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship,

      473
      not including two people one of whom is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle, and where references to these relationships—

      (a) are to relationships of the full blood or half blood or, in the case of an adopted person, such of those relationships as would exist but for the adoption, and

      (b) include the relationship of a child with his adoptive, or former adoptive, parents,

      but do not include any other adoptive relationships.'.
      The Bill does not allow the provision to apply to unmarried couples who are not heterosexual, which creates four problems. First, it is unequal. Secondly, it costs the taxpayer money, which is a concern to the Minister for Pensions. Thirdly, it is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 to discriminate in that way against heterosexual couples, who will lose out on extra money that same-sex couples would get, because they are treated separately. Indeed, the House recently passed legislation that recognised the right to equality—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Order [25 March].
      Dr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to put amendment No. 17 to the vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. If the Question has not been proposed from the Chair, there cannot be a vote.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6 pm
      Mr. McCartney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), will send the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) a detailed reply on his amendment No. 17, if that will help him.
      During the passage of this Bill we have heard much from Opposition Members about it extending means-testing. Obviously, they have not had first-hand, or sometimes even second-hand, experience of reliance on means-tested benefits. If they had, they would know that what we are proposing in the Bill is light years removed from the means-testing applied under the Poor Law and the assistance Acts before the war, and the National Assistance Act 1948 after it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) reminded us so clearly on Second Reading when he recalled his childhood, means-testing was used in the 1930s to exclude people from income to ensure that they stayed poor. The purpose of the pension credit claim process is the exact opposite. It is about inclusion, to ensure that people qualify for the income to which they are entitled.
      We will ask pensioners only for the information that we need to know to work out their combined income. For example, we will only need to know about their savings if they are over £6,000. Let us compare that to claiming assistance in the 1930s, when every penny had to be disclosed and, as a consequence, many households did not receive the support that they needed for food, household expenses and children and whole areas of the country were in abject poverty.
      474
      This is a landmark piece of social security legislation that will end centuries of unfairness, going back to the Poor Laws of 1598 and 1601. It will remove once and for all the disincentive to save for retirement. When it is introduced in October 2003, people with modest savings will see a reward for their efforts.
      The Bill also marks another, although less obvious, break with the past. We are abolishing the criminal offence that could mean pensioners being punished for "wilful neglect" to maintain themselves. The origins of that provision go back centuries to the Vagrancy Acts and further. Those Acts enabled the courts to imprison a person who failed by his own neglect to maintain himself, or anyone he was liable to maintain, with a resulting charge to public funds. That offence dates back to 1713.
      The 1948 Act repealed the Poor Laws. However, the interdepartmental committee that reported on the break-up of the Poor Laws in 1946 considered it necessary to retain the offence of failure to maintain. Although the Conservative party had two chances to repeal it—with the Social Security Acts 1986 and 1992—it remains to this day, albeit seldom used, in the shape of section 105 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
      That offence will not be carried forward in the Bill. Along with the ending of the weekly means test, it sends out an important message to pensioners, to this effect: "pension credit is not a benefit of last resort or public charity; it is your income entitlement."
      The Bill is an essential part of our pensions reforms—it will ensure that it will pay to have saved. Our ambition is for all pensioners to share in the nation's rising prosperity. We set out our plans for pensions reform in the 1998 Green Paper, which established a new framework for reforming both state and private pensions. The first stage was tackling pensioner poverty by introducing the minimum income guarantee to ensure that pensioners could enjoy a decent income in retirement. There are 1.1 million fewer pensioners below 60 per cent. median income than in 1996–97 and there are encouraging signs that we are reversing the trend of numbers of pensioners with relatively low incomes.
      However, too many pensioners have not had the opportunity to build up a second pension, so our second stage concentrated on reform of the basic structure of pensions to make it possible for more people to save. For those who could not save, we introduced the state second pension. The state earnings-related pension scheme did not provide enough support for people on low earnings or for people with broken records. For those who could save, we have improved and extended the options for doing so through stakeholder pensions.
      The third stage is to ensure that even those with modest savings will be able to see a reward for their thrift and effort through the pension credit. We are now beginning a fourth stage to deal with the complexity in private pensions, and we shall be consulting on those matters in the autumn. As I said, the third stage will make further inroads towards our objective of tackling pensioner poverty. Through pension credit, we can correct a fundamental flaw in the pension system that leaves people with modest savings no better off than those who have no savings.
      The savings credit element of the Bill will ensure that, from the age of 65, pensioners will no longer lose a pound in their income for every pound of pensions or other

      475
      savings that they have built up. The Bill will give people a guaranteed income from the age of 60, so that they need not live on less than £100 a week at the commencement of pension credit. More than 5 million pensioners will be eligible. On average, they stand to gain about £400 a year.
      We know that Opposition Members have other ideas about spending the £2 billion that we have set aside for pension credit. Some have argued that all pensioners really want is an increase in their basic state pension. The basic state pension will remain a key building block of state pension provision. Restoring the link with earnings or diverting the money that we have set aside for the pension credit would not achieve our objective of helping all those pensioners who lost out because of the flaws in the current system, and those flaws would continue.
      The simple truth is that the poorest pensioners would lose out if we took any of the routes proposed by Opposition Members, while pensioners with higher incomes would receive the greatest gains. We have decided to redistribute in favour of the poor and those pensioners with modest income or savings. Who said that socialism was dead on the Labour Benches?
      Mr. Goodman: The Prime Minister.
      Mr. McCartney: Oh, no. I hope that that will appear in Hansard.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions put this question plainly on Second Reading and I will do so again now: will Opposition Members oppose the Bill? Would they repeal this legislation? Hansard cannot record silences, so if I say the words "total silence" people will get the meaning.
      I should like to remind hon. Members of the comments made on Second Reading in another place. Lord Fowler was one of those responsible for the fact that pensioners were left poverty-stricken under the Conservative Government, but he has repented: he has been on the road to Damascus and stopped off in search of victuals at the House of Lords. While he was there he said:
      "To be frank, I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit. I have no intention of jumping overboard just because that proposal comes from … the current Government."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 165.]
      So even those who were responsible for the poverty left to the Labour Government recognise that these proposals are a significant step forward.
      The alternative route that we are taking is more difficult, but we believe it is the right one. It will target more help on those who need it, and we are doing that in a fairer, simpler way that does not intrude on pensioners' lives and encourages people to take up what they are entitled to.
      Other hon. Members want contribute to the debate, so I shall soon end my speech, but it is important for the benefit of every pensioner in Britain that we put on record the truth about the proposals. Under pension credit, we will not need to ask pensioners reams of intrusive questions and we will not require them to notify us constantly if their income fluctuates. Of course, if their income goes down, they will be entitled to claim an increase.
      When was a system ever devised in which people were invited to come along to ask for an increase if they thought that their income had gone down? That is the
      476
      beauty of this system. It is not intrusive and it will give pensioners the opportunity to approach us for a recalculation if their life circumstances change on the basis that they are entitled to more income, not less.
      Means-testing is about stopping people getting access. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) refuses to accept that fundamental difference. We are not proposing an old-fashioned means test, although the Liberal Democrats continue to parrot on about that. The hon. Gentleman is the one who wants to continue the old-fashioned means test because he cannot provide for poor pensioners under 75.
      The Pension Service, however, will deliver services to pensioners in a totally new way: dedicated and sensitive to their needs, and putting more dignity into the way in which pensioners are treated. Better than that, our staff will be trained to be advocates on behalf of older people—no longer doorkeepers who prevent them having access to income services but trained to watch over and befriend older people and to be responsible for managing them through the process. That is a radically different way in which civil and public servants work with citizens—on this occasion, pensioners.
      Some detail will be in regulations that I hope we will debate in the near future. I promise to share that detail with Members before that debate. Although, in Committee, Members usefully probed the Government's intentions, there have been no significant or even minor changes to a Bill that allows us greatly to improve the situation for pensioners. It will be simpler—for example, 85 per cent. of pensioners will not need to report their level of capital because of the disregard and the lack of an upper limit. Most pensioners over 65 will only have to report changes in their savings and pension income once every five years. We will fully protect those on housing benefit and council tax benefit—another very important innovation—by increasing the guaranteed elements of those benefits by £13.80, or £18.60 for couples. That will ensure that those pensioners maintain their current entitlement as well as benefiting from more generous income and savings rules, as in pension credit.
      That is so important, How many pensioners currently get no access to council tax benefit or housing benefit because they are 1p over the limit? We do not intend, through the introduction of pension credit, to give with one hand and take away with the other. These changes are therefore vital. Because we have also changed the income and savings rules, a further 700,000 pensioner households which will not receive pension credit itself will gain from the changes to the treatment of capital and will access housing benefit and council tax benefit for the first time. We are not just protecting those on pension credit—we recognise that there will always be people who are just above the line, whatever it is, and they should not lose out either. A substantial number of people-700,000 households—who do not currently get access to housing benefit and council tax benefit will gain from these measures.
      On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I think we know who he was talking about—said:
      "When someone claims to have a simple solution to pensions, people should watch their wallet."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 607.]
      That has been shown in spades today. The problem is that, in truth and in practice—I shall keep repeating this, as people need to know—the Liberals are not interested in

      477
      poor people from the age of 60 onwards. Their proposals are so flawed that, despite what they are saying, large numbers of people—1.7 million plus—will have to rely on a traditional means test. How can the hon. Member for Northavon say that his proposals compare in any way with the Government's? I expect nothing from the Conservatives, but at least we know where we stand with them, and we know where they are coming from. We know that they are opposed to all these measures. Despite what they are saying about a campaign, we know that they do not mean it, that they cannot sustain it, and that the public do not believe a word they say.
      The hon. Member for Northavon is different. He parades himself as the human shield for Britain's pensioners. That shield is not only dented: it does not exist. As I heard it said from the Benches behind me, when it comes to looking after the interests of pensioners, he is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
      A simplification of the income process is vital. We are reducing the complexity inherent in the current system. It will be a straightforward process—a single gateway access to all state retirement income. People approaching retirement will be contacted by the Pension Service to give them information about their basic state pension, based on the contributions that they made during their working lives. At the same time, we will inform pensioners that they may be entitled to extra help through pension credit. The complexity of the current claims process is at the heart of pensioners' uneasiness in dealing with the state. The new service will transform that relationship, and pension credit is the foundation for that change.
      In the past, the system has been intrusive and bureaucratic and, crucially, pensioners do not like it. We are tackling that. Our proposals will significantly reduce the intrusion and complexity, marking a radical change from the current system. Quite simply, people with weekly incomes up to about £135 to £200 for pensioner couples—can get extra income through pension credit. Or looking at it another way, if capital was the only source of income over and above the basic state pension, a single person would need at least £35,000 of capital and a couple would need at least £44,500 before they failed to be entitled to pension credit. The figures show just how radical our policy is. Pension credit is a complementary source of income alongside the basic state pension, and it is like the tax allowances that not one of us would refuse.
      To conclude, I wish to return to the point made so effectively on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South. With pension credit, we are finally leaving behind the detested historical images of the means tests that stripped people of their dignity and robbed them of their pride. Yet even though we have moved on from the dole queues of the 1920s and the unemployment assistance boards of the 1930s, our collective memory does not dwindle. It has lived on through the generations, and it continued to live on through the Tories' Social Security Act 1986. It is currently dragged up each time someone talks about pension credit using the language of pre-war social policies.
      Pension credit is not about old-fashioned means-testing. Means-testing was about excluding people from income to keep them poor. Pension credit is about inclusion,
      478
      taking people out of poverty and making sure that they do not slip into poverty in the first place. We will make sure that, for the first time, people who have worked hard and managed to put modest amounts away for their retirement get the income they are entitled to and see a real reward for their efforts.
      The passage of this Bill will ensure that the old images of means-testing will not live on in pension credit. As with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, I am deeply proud not only to have introduced the Bill to the House but to be the Minister who will ensure that it reaches the statute book.
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Boswell: I wish to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). His wise advice and acuity immensely impressed me and other members of the Committee that considered the Bill.
      We are used to fireworks from the Minister for Pensions. Although we have also had some measured contemplation and a helpful announcement today, I wish to refer to the fireworks. I was fascinated by his distinction between the means-testing of old and what is being introduced now. There are two characteristics of the Minister's proposal for means-testing. It is apparently all right if it is introduced by new Labour and if it is inclusive and means that nearly every pensioner will be involved. That argument will not wash, because there are serious problems with the proposal.
      The Minister is impetuous and determined to get decisions out of us, but it is rather unreasonable to ask us to judge the effects of the Bill—they will be apparent not too far off, but in a year or two—before it is even passed. With regard to our decision on Third Reading, we will listen to the rest of the debate before coming to a conclusion. However, the House will not have to wait too long for that.
      Our concerns remain those that were set out in the reasoned amendment to Second Reading. I have underlined our five cardinal points and they relate to mass means-testing, the complexity of the system—despite what the Minister said—the fact that many pensioners will miss out on their entitlements, the erosion of incentives and our belief, which the Liberal Democrats have been consistent in supporting, that expenditure would have been better directed towards the basic state pension, in particular for older pensioners. The argument is not about whether we should help pensioners, but about whether any additional money is being spent to best effect.
      As the Minister conceded, the Bill is essentially unchanged. However, it would be churlish and inappropriate not to acknowledge the two substantial changes that Ministers made. It is often the case that if there is a consensus of opinion across the House, it acts as a good catalyst for change. In fairness, we managed to make one change in each House. First, the Government made a significant concession on hospital downrating, and we should remain grateful for that. Secondly, the Minister made a statement today on compensation payments, which will be thoroughly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He also repeated his concerns about foster carers for children, so we can anticipate how we might benefit their position. Those are all welcome concessions and reflect the way in which we should make progress when we discuss Bills.

      479
      I also hope that Ministers and their officials picked up from the Committee some detailed points for consideration as we get close to making regulations. They may also have spotted some pitfalls relating to the equity of, and the ability to administer, the legislation, which will stand or fall on the regulations and the way in which they are administered.
      Frankly, Conservative Members remain worried about extending means-tested benefits to 5 million pensioners. Age Concern is also worried about that. In its general briefing for the debate, it refers specifically to the difficulties of securing take-up of means-tested benefits and the large number—about 5 million—of possible claimants. It goes on to say:
      "we believe that the most important issue will be the level of take-up."
      That is the cardinal test of whether the Minister's wishes are fulfilled. Whatever else happens, means-testing will put a great premium on the performance of the Pension Service, which for technical reasons we have not been able to discuss in detail today.
      We remain concerned about excessive reliance on 26 call centres and a telephone system. We believe, as I think do other hon. Members, that people still need access to a local service within a reasonable time. More generally, the Select Committee said:
      "The Department for Work and Pensions must ensure that the Pension Service has the necessary resources and expertise to deal with the challenges that the Pension Credit poses."
      Those remain serious challenges. Whatever the Minister may wish to happen, he and his colleagues have still to ensure that it does happen.
      We need to reflect on how the Bill came about. The Minister is occasionally long on rhetoric, but the plain fact is that in trying to solve the poverty problem, the Government have widened the gap between the state basic pension and the minimum income guarantee. They are now having to bridge that gap, but the gap is of their making. That was well set out in the written answer that I received from the Minister on 7 May. He gave a detailed response to my request to give the historic levels of the minimum income guarantee and its precursors, supplementary benefit and income support, and of the basic state pension for the past 30 years. I also asked him to give the ratio between them.
      It is interesting that for a long period the differences between the two were small, not generally exceeding 5 per cent. In some cases, they were negative. However, the levels began to climb slightly and in the latter years of the Conservative Government, the income support level was roughly 10 per cent. above the basic state pension. However, since the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, the figures have sharply diverged, and they now show a 30 per cent. disparity. We remain concerned about filling that gap and about the pensions and savings implications to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere.
      We will not resolve those issues today. The Minister and his colleagues have produced what I am sure they want to describe as good news for pensioners, and we do not want to challenge benefits to pensioners. However, we will ask whether the money is being used to best effect, whether it could have been better spent, and whether there will be consequences in the long run.
      480
      We are genuinely concerned that the long-term disincentives to save that are built into the system will have a depressing effect on the savings of young people.
      Ministers say, and they have done so again today, that they want to produce an annual pension statement that includes both state benefits and private sector benefits, so that people know where they stand. May I float the suggestion at this late stage that what they need to do is get hold of people like my youngest daughter, who is in her early 20s and just starting her career? It should be made clear to young people where they will stand if they do not get down to saving, and what will be provided by their company pension scheme if—like my daughter—they are still fortunate enough to have one. They should be asked to think seriously about the issue, and made to realise that they are part of the £27 billion savings gap.
      Will the pension credit act as a disincentive because its long-term effects and benefits will be unclear?
      Mr. McCartney: I am more than happy to help the hon. Gentleman's daughter, who I believe is a solicitor or a barrister. Small practices and chambers rarely provide in-work benefits such as defined benefit schemes or even defined contribution schemes. That is why we introduced stakeholders. His daughter can start now to save for her retirement through a stakeholder scheme, and as she succeeds and moves from one practice or chamber to another in what I am sure will be an upward career trajectory, she can take her pension with her and suffer no loss. We have made the preparations; all the hon. Gentleman need do is persuade his daughter that she should get involved.
      Mr. Boswell: The Minister is, if I may put it this way, very seductive, but unfortunately he has identified the wrong target. I have more than one daughter. One is employed by the civil service to look into the sorts of problems posed by person such as myself, or those who decide to litigate against Government Departments. The daughter in question has transferred from a personal pension into a company savings scheme.
      To the Minister I say in all fairness and friendliness that the current take-up of stakeholder pensions is worrying, if not to him, then to many people in the sector.
      Mr. McCartney: That is propaganda. Stakeholder schemes are very important. In the year after their introduction, 800,000 people who previously had no access or any chance of access to a savings product for their pension got one, and about 85 per cent. of companies that had not provided access registered to do so. That is a significant step forward. The hon. Gentleman is right, in that there is a lot more to do, but let us be clear: we are all in favour of people saving earlier in their lives, so it is in all our interests not to belittle stakeholder schemes, but instead to encourage people to take one out.
      Mr. Boswell: I have absolutely no intention of belittling stakeholder pensions, but I should in all fairness point out that they are currently striking only 2 per cent. of the target group. Of the 800,000 already taken out, a significant number—174,000, if memory serves—have been through the transfer of the construction industry pension scheme. The position is generally regarded as not being as promising as the Minister and I would hope for.

      481
      It would be inappropriate to widen a Third Reading debate to cover such issues, but it is relevant to the debate and to the provisions we debated and voted on earlier this afternoon to point out that the price of success in pensions policy is eternal vigilance. We need to keep revisiting the subject to see whether the proposals are working. We have reservations about stakeholder pensions, and we still have serious reservations about the long-term effect of the pension credit on the incentive to save and, if there is no long-term private saving, about the future affordability of the pension credit programme. That rolls on a long way ahead.
      This is not just a matter of today's pensioners, important as they are; it is a matter of tomorrow's pensioners and the arrangements that we need to set down now to meet their needs in the future. I have a feeling that when we have finished debating this Bill and when we are no longer around to be drawing our own pensions, today's young people may be paying the price for some of the decisions that we are about to take.
      6.30 pm
      David Cairns: At the outset of his remarks the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that he would listen to the rest of the debate before deciding whether to oppose Third Reading. As I think I am the only Member on the Government Benches seeking to speak, I will assume that if he does not divide the House, it will be entirely due to the persuasive force of my argument. Of course, if he changes his mind and decides to divide the House, I will take it equally personally.
      I had hoped that after the brilliant speech by the Minister we would hear no more of the scaremongering nonsense about mass means-testing. Alas, the hon. Member for Daventry continued, as if he had heard nothing of what my right hon. Friend said, to perpetuate that nonsense, and although I do not want to prejudge the contribution of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I suspect that he will do the same. I assume, however, that if the hon. Member for Daventry does not divide the House, it will he a principled decision and not the result of incompetence such as we saw a few minutes ago on the last group of amendments.
      I want briefly to address a couple of canards from the debate. The first is the extraordinary allegation that the Bill has been introduced to clear up a mess made by the minimum income guarantee. It is quite ludicrous to assert that the Government should or could achieve all their social policy on pensioners in one Bill, and that one cannot begin, as we did, by focusing on alleviating the appalling legacy left to the poorest pensioners in this country.
      Not only did we have to spend considerable sums alleviating the dire poverty of the poorest pensioners, but we had to ensure that significant sums and a great deal of parliamentary time were taken up sorting out the scandal of pension mis-selling which we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. We make no apology for focusing first and foremost on the poorest pensioners, as we did with the minimum income guarantee. We also ensured, through the winter fuel payment and other universal benefits such as free eye tests, that all pensioners who had lost out were receiving additional benefits. We were right to do all that.
      482
      What we are doing now is not an academic exercise. The remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Northavon, when he said that giving an extra pound to someone with savings of £6 was better than giving that person £23 through the minimum income guarantee but nothing extra for savings, were like something that Alice might have found through the looking glass. The Government are being extraordinarily generous to our poorest pensioners, and rightly so, because they deserve nothing less.
      We are addressing a pressing need that every single Member has heard expressed on the doorstep time after time. People say, "What about me? I have a small second pension and a few savings, and I'm no better off than the person down the road who smoked and drank all his life and didn't bother." The Government are addressing that real need in the Bill, so I hope, although I am not optimistic, that we will hear no more nonsense about the Bill clearing up a mess. We have laid excellent foundations, and the Bill builds on them, and I am very proud of that.
      Let us keep our eye on the bigger picture when considering what the measure is seeking to achieve. Pensioners will be more than £400 a year better off on average, and in constituencies like mine and those of my hon. Friends, where people are poorer because their incomes are below the national average, they will be even better off. That goes a long way towards righting an historic wrong; people should not be penalised for thrift and prudence.
      The other theme running through our four hours of debate has been the scaremongering about means-testing. After Second Reading, I decided that I wanted to look into the subject in depth, so I turned to what the Library told me was the definitive history of the means test, "Reserved for the Poor: The Means Test in British Social Policy" by Deacon and Bradshaw, which I am sure the hon. Member for Northavon has lectured on. Referring to the 1950s, Deacon and Bradshaw say:
      "Sometimes insurance was increased by more than assistance—at which point the Government claimed that it was reducing the role of means testing and the opposition claimed that help was not going to those who needed it most. On other occasions assistance was increased more, and then exactly the same debate was had in reverse, with the Government extolling the virtues of selectivity and the opposition complaining about the means test".
      A sterile debate has been taking place since the inception of the welfare state, but the Bill takes us past that. The Government are prepared to go beyond the sterile debate about mass means-testing, but the Opposition want to drag us back to it.
      Deacon and Bradshaw also write about the reality of the means test under the National Assistance Board in the 1940s and 50s. They say that it was
      "one thing for a claimant to have to tell the Board that he or she needed extra money for clothes or bedding when friends and neighbours were in a similar position and when the cause of need was so obviously beyond the control of any one person. It was quite another to have to show worn clothing to a visiting officer when everyone else had 'never had it so good'".
      That was the reality of the means test, which my right hon. Friend the Minister said was designed not to lift people out of poverty but to ensure that they were given just enough to keep them in poverty. Heaven forbid that the Governments of the 1950s would give people enough money to lift them out of poverty and float them beyond range of the means test.

      483
      The Bill is quantitatively and qualitatively different. We are not talking about weekly assessments or people from the National Assistance Board coming round demanding to see people's sheets, clothing and ornaments that might have been pawned. We abhor such means-testing. We are talking about one phone call every five years, with a request for the bare minimum of information so that claimants get what they deserve to lift them out of poverty. It is an extraordinary perversion to equate the means-testing of the National Assistance Board with the income assessment in the Bill. The hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches—and they are all hon. Gentlemen—know full well that those are completely dissimilar beasts, yet they are willing to perpetuate that myth for one reason alone: scaremongering.
      My right hon. Friend has said on more than one occasion that, as soon as the legislation allows, he intends to publicise and promote the credit; every Labour Member will make sure that every pensioner knows about it. We will hold the Minister responsible for ensuring that the Pension Service is as proactive as he promised. I guarantee to my right hon. Friend that if I suspect that the Pension Service is not proactive and does not provide a localised service I will, to coin a Scottish phrase, be in his face. He knows that, and he knows that every Labour Member feels exactly the same way.
      Our approach is completely different from the scaremongering of Opposition Members, who have only one aim in mind—to depress take-up. They will prevent people applying for the credit by telling elderly and poor pensioners, "It's the old means test. It's the humiliation and embarrassment that your parents had to endure." It is no such thing. A glimmer of recognition on the part of the Opposition that the Bill is entirely different from that sort of means-testing would be very welcome.
      I commend the Government for introducing the measure. It addresses a real need, it is generous and it is clear. The complexity will be dealt with by the civil servants, not the claimants. All the claimants need to know is whether they have £135 a week coming in. If they can answer yes or no to that question, the system will do the rest. The Bill is a good measure. It is positive, redistributive and progressive, and I warmly support it.
      6.40 pm
      Mr. Webb: The contributions of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) are passionate and well researched. They are fundamentally misconceived, but none the less entertaining for that.
      As a parent—I am sure that there are many parents in the House—if I come home and discover that my child has made a mess of the kitchen floor but has begun to clean it up, I would applaud them for the fact that they had started to clean it up, but I might ever so gently suggest to them that they should not have made the mess in the first place: That is how we view the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde mentioned the familiar cry of the person who finds that their neighbour has the same living standards as they have, even though they have saved. That very problem has been made worse by the Government over the past four or five years. A person with £20 a week of savings this year is no better off than their next-door neighbour, whereas in 1997 a person with £20 of savings would have been better off than their neighbour. In terms of dealing with the resentment felt by people who have saved, the Government have made the matter worse and are only partially remedying it through the Bill.
      484
      The hon. Gentleman says that what is proposed is not the same as the means-testing of the 1930s. I agree; however, I am not contrasting what is proposed with the 1930s but with the means-testing of the 1990s—the system from which the Bill takes over. The non-take-up rate, not under the system where claimants have to show that their sheets are worn through, but under the system operated now in modern-day Britain, is one in three. Forget about the national assistance board in the 1930s—the means-testing that does not work is the means-testing that is done now.
      The hon. Gentleman's noble Friend Baroness Hollis, told Members in another place that the non-take-up rate for the shiny new-fangled benefit credit would be one in three. He can check—it is on the record. The non-take-up rate for the new pension credit would be one in three. Baroness Hollis hopes that that will build up as time goes by, but what I want to know—
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Mr. Webb: No. I will not give way. I did not intervene.—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Webb: Baroness Hollis said that when the new system came in, one person in three who were entitled to it would fail to take up their entitlement. If the system is so good, so different and so simple, and if it requires just one phone call, why will one person in three not take it up?
      Maria Eagle rose—
      Mr. Webb: No. I will not give way. I did not intervene on the Minister.
      We were told in Committee that the Government would allow a year from October 2003 for people to claim their entitlement and backdate it to 2003. That is entirely welcome, but why must they leave a year for people to claim it? The Minister said that the Government had done away with complexity. The Government must leave a year for people to claim the pension credit because it is so complicated they do not believe that they can get the money to people. The system is not simple; it is still extremely complicated, as the Bill clearly shows.
      In his earlier remarks, the Minister said that pensioners would no longer lose, pound for pound, as though he had not been listening to what we have been saying this afternoon. Which pensioners will no longer lose, pound for pound? Women aged 60 to 64 will lose, pound for pound. Women with poor contribution records will lose, pound for pound. In the propaganda that we got on Third Reading, that is all brushed under the carpet.
      The prejudice against women in aspects of the Bill explains why our campaign for justice in women's pensions is sorely needed. The fact that the Government sweep all these things under the carpet and deal in generalisations does a disservice to people's understanding of how the system will work. It is fiendishly complicated. That is why the Government assume that one in three will not take up their entitlement.
      The Minister of State rightly says that the Bill is historic. It is. It will be seen as an historic turning point at which Government policy was set in the direction of

      485
      mass—I am not to call it means-testing, apparently—targeting and mass attempts to identify the poorer half or the poorer two thirds. In our old age, we will not want to have to report our changes in circumstances or know—or, more to the point, care—about tapers, thresholds and credits. We will want to know that we have state pension and some sort of second pension, and that we can budget on the basis of that income for the rest of our lives. That is what we will want in our old age. None of us would prefer to depend on a pension credit, but that is what we will have imposed on two thirds of our fellow citizens by the time people of my age reach pension age.
      It is correct to say that when the Government came to power, they could not achieve all their social policy objectives in one go and it was important to tackle pensioner poverty, but who were the poorest pensioners in the land when they took office? It was not the people getting income support and so on who were poorest, but those who were entitled to that support but not receiving it. The Government's figures tell us that there were 500,000 such people. I have a feeling that the Labour party manifesto referred to a much bigger number; it may even have said that there were 1 million such people. None the less, the Government's figures tell us that 500,000 pensioners were not getting income support, and they did not get a penny from the MIG.
      Labour Members who talk about their compassion for the poorest pensioners should be aware that the statistics that Ministers cite are based on simulation models from the Department that assume that everybody gets their money—but they do not. As long as the Government continue arguing about the effects of their policies on the assumption that everyone gets their money, they will continue to give a misleading impression, as one of the fatal flaws of their strategy is that a lot of people do not get it. The trade-off is not between a system that gives money only to the poor—let us call it targeting for shorthand—and our proposal of giving to the old, some of whom are not poor; it is between giving to some of the poor and completely ignoring the poorest, although most of the poorest, such as the elderly who miss out on their benefits, get their income through the basic pension.
      The Government did have an alternative. The Bill could be called the culmination of their failure to think laterally. Some of the policies mentioned by the Minister, such as relaxation of the capital rules, are not dealt with in the Bill. We did not need the Bill to relax the capital rules. The suggestion that the pension credit is the only way in which such proposals could have been implemented is therefore wrong. It could have been done on day one or at any time.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Mr. Webb: I shall not give way, as other hon. Members still want to contribute in the short time that remains.
      All that work could have been done without the Bill. The only thing that the Bill adds, while introducing some streamlining of the means-testing process, with which I have no problem, is the savings credit, which partly undoes the saving disincentive that the Government have created. If we are to applaud them for partly undoing the damage that they have done, the applause will be pretty limited.
      486
      I think that our goal should be bigger. The Minister tried to sound visionary and put some passion into his contribution, but my vision is much bigger than that of ensuring that two thirds of pensioners have to report their circumstances and receive top-ups. My vision is to ensure that as many people as possible are independent of the state. That is the sort of goal for which we should be striving and it is a bigger vision than that contained in the Bill.
      6.48 pm
      Bob Spink: British pensioners are right to feel betrayed by this Labour Government. They do not want yet more gimmicks or means-testing, whether it is old-fashioned means-testing or the new fangled type that Labour is currently trying to spin. They simply want a decent, universal and honest basic state pension so that they can live with the dignity that they deserve. They want decent Members of Parliament who can stand up in this House and represent their interests.
      I should like to give the House a quote:
      "The concept of the Pensions Credit is … far too complex and over-elaborate … It inevitably draws more pensioners into means testing, which many will resent … We need a system which is simple, understandable, and which accords a proper dignity to pensioners."
      Those are not my words, but those of Mervyn Köhler, head of public affairs at Help the Aged, in his press notice of 9 November last year. We would do well to listen to Help the Aged, and the proof of his words is clearly evident. Of the 2.5 million pensioners who qualify for the MIG, only 1.7 million take it up. That take-up is pitifully low because of the complexity of the MIG and the stigma of means-testing. Yet the measure before us tonight is if anything more complex than MIG and extends the scope of pensioner means-testing, notwithstanding the fact that the Labour manifesto pledged to end it—yet another broken Labour promise. As a result, take-up may fall even below the miserable level of MIG take-up, but I doubt whether that worries the Government, because they do not care about pensioners.
      I will give the Bill some credit. The Government claim that it will help more than 5 million pensioners, which is greatly to be welcomed, and it is right to target the poorest pensioners. But I challenge their estimate that the Bill will increase benefit expenditure by £2 billion in a full year of operation, because if take-up is only 70 per cent. or 75 per cent.—around the same level as MIG take-up—there would be little or no increase in overall expenditure. That is why I say that low take-up owing to high complexity will not worry the Government.
      Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Bob Spink: No, I will not. Other Members wish to speak, and the right hon. Gentleman has spent an inordinate length of time at the Dispatch Box today.
      The 1997 manifesto on which the Government were elected, "New Labour because Britain deserves better", said:
      "We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation … Everyone is entitled to dignity in retirement."
      Those are fine words, and we can all agree with them. However, under this Government the proportion of national wealth that goes to pensioners has fallen, even

      487
      after fully accounting for all the gimmicks such as free television licences for over-75s, the winter fuel payment and other concessions.
      Quite simply, the Government have failed pensioners. As always, the Prime Minister was long on aspiration and warm words and short on delivery. Pensioners made this country what it is. They created its wealth and established its infrastructure and enterprise base. They gave their blood, sweat and tears—some gave their lives—so that we could be a free nation enjoying prosperity and improved standards of living, yet they are denied a fair share of the very prosperity that they created through their efforts.
      Let me be perfectly balanced and fair in what I say. On balance, during the 1980s and 1990s, Conservative Governments improved the lot of pensioners—although, to be honest, we did not do enough—but under this Labour Administration many pensioners have become worse off. Just as they are worse off under Labour as regards health, transport and street crime, they are worse off financially. So what is the Government's response to current levels of pensioner poverty? First, to introduce more, not less, complexity; secondly, to introduce more, not less, means-testing; and, thirdly, to create a long-term disincentive to saving. That will lead to lower pensioner take-up of their hard-earned entitlements and more, not less, pensioner poverty. In short, Labour has failed pensioners, and the Bill may compound the Government's failure by leading to an increased dependency culture. As the Minister said, socialism still lives on those Benches.
      6.53 pm
      Mr. Goodman: It was interesting that the Minister devoted so much of his summing up to means-testing. It was no accident that, of all the various elements in the Bill, he chose to concentrate on that one, because it is at the heart of new Labour thinking on this matter. Old Tory means-testing is apparently bad, but new Labour means-testing is apparently good.
      At this point, hon. Members should remember who is, as it were, the "onlie begetter" of the Bill. It is not the Minister, nor even the Secretary of State, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is absolutely confident that, by extending these credits both through his Department and—I hope that the Minister will not be embarrassed by this—his proxies in the Department for Work and Pensions he will be able to raise the living standards of poorer pensioners. I believe that it is widely acknowledged in and outside the House that the Minister is an admirer of the Chancellor. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, who is sitting next to the Minister, will not mind my putting that on the record.
      There is a difficulty with the Chancellor's approach. According to the Government's figures, 2.5 million pensioners are entitled to the MIG, but only 1.7 million have taken it up. Some of us find it hard to distinguish between old and apparently wicked Tory means-testing and new, wonderfully effective Labour means-testing. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) ably pointed out, between a fifth and a third—the latter was his figure—do not get a penny of the MIG.
      The Government have presented no evidence that the take-up for the pension credit will be higher. I acknowledge that the Government hope that it will be higher, but they cannot reassure any hon. Member about that. The fundamental flaw in the Government's approach,
      488
      which the Chancellor masterminded, is becoming clearer as time goes on. The Minister placed great stress on means-testing in his summing up because he is so worried about the failure of new, apparently effective Labour means-testing that he wants to meet the point head on. However, he cannot guarantee that the take-up will be higher. He is naturally unwilling to listen to criticism from the wicked Tories, but perhaps he should take account of the concluding paragraph of the report by the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Work and Pensions. It states
      "Most importantly, it"—
      that is, the Government—
      "will need to ensure that the levels of take-up for the Credit increase dramatically from those currently seen with the MIG, and that the poorest pensioners benefit in full from its provisions."
      That acknowledges that the poorest pensioners do not benefit in large numbers from the MIG and that they may not benefit from the provisions of the pension credit.
      In short, we know that those who take up the pension credit will be better off, but the system is gradually becoming increasingly complex. It is not so easy for my elderly constituents, especially those who are of an ethnic minority, to pick up the telephone, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) suggested, and get their benefit, as Tommy Cooper would have said, just like that. The Select Committee believes that, in practice, it is enormously difficult for many pensioners to cope with the complexity of the forms and take up the benefit as the Government want.
      The Select Committee report concluded:
      "the Pension Credit unquestionably adds further complexity to an already byzantine system of retirement provision, which is causing confusion for pensioners, pension providers and those saving for their old age. In particular, the Credit throws the role, and indeed future, of the State Second Pension into serious question."
      By placing so much stress on means-testing, the Government introduce a fundamental weakness into their plans that affects the country's poorest pensioners. I believe that they will pay dearly for it in the long run.
      6.58 pm
      Mr. McCartney: I simply want to place on record my thanks to my Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues who have taken the Bill through its stages. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and his colleagues and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). They have battled and put their cases with rigour. I hope that, at the end of our debates, the Bill is stronger and that many pensioners will receive a clear signal that, for the first time in their lives, they have a Government on their side, who will represent their interests. On income, social care, health care, transport or any public service, the Government are on the pensioners' side.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

      OTHER INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS

        EUROPEAN SCRUTINY
        Ordered,
        That Mr. Laurence Robertson be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Angela Watkinson be added to the Committee. [Mrs. McGuire.]

        STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
        Ordered,
        That Mr. Jonathan Djanogly be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Andrew Rosindell be added. [Mrs. McGuire.]

  PETITION

    Woodley town centre
    7 pm
    Jane Griffiths: I would like to present a petition from 4,356 concerned residents of Woodley in the Reading, East constituency. The petition states that
    they are concerned at the levels of crime and nuisance experienced in Woodley shopping centre, and believe that the installation of CCTV in Woodley town centre would lead to a reduction of these levels.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons inform the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take note of the concerns of the people of Woodley and to ensure that appropriate resources are made available to enable the installation of CCTV in Woodley Town Centre;
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Throckmorton Asylum Centre
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Speaker for this opportunity to raise a matter that is of extreme importance to my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) wish to associate themselves with many of my remarks, but constituency engagements prevent them from being here tonight. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) for informing me in advance of their interest in this debate and for their presence here this evening.
  I should also like to express my gratitude to the Home Secretary, who recently wrote me a very generous letter congratulating me—and, implicitly, the local residents around the Throckmorton site proposed for the asylum accommodation centre—on the anti-racist nature of our campaign. I admire the way in which the local community has organised itself against this proposal, and those who have organised the protest group Protest at Asylum Centre at Throckmorton—PACT—also deserve to be congratulated on the splendid way in, for example, which Sunday's mass rally of 1,000 local residents was organised.
  We need to acknowledge that asylum and economic migration issues are becoming some of the most pressing and difficult problems facing the world today. It is a challenge for any Government to help the vulnerable, to deal fairly with economic migrants, and to be tough on crime and terrorism, which are often the unattractive side-effects of the issues with which we are dealing here. I have great respect for the Minister who will be replying to this debate, and for her noble Friend Lord Rooker, and I am grateful for the way in which they have kept me informed about developments; they have been very unwelcome developments, but the Ministers have kept me informed none the less.
  The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said in Standing Committee on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill on 7 May:
  "All decent and reasonable politicians must try to calm people's fears rather than make them worse. We must ensure that reason rather than blind emotion is the order of the day."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 2002; c. 83.]
  I certainly want to associate myself with those remarks.
  So why are we having this debate? First, I am seeking specific assurances on aspects of the way in which the Government are approaching issues as diverse as police resources and compensation for those living nearest to the proposed site. More importantly, I just hope that I might be able to persuade the Minister, even now, that she is wrong, and that the Government's policy is wrong. As Oliver Cromwell famously said to the general assembly of the Kirk of Scotland in August 1650:
  "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
  To put that more prosaically, "If you're in a hole, stop digging." Those of us who are looking at these developments from the outside think that Government policy on asylum looks like a dangerous mix of back-of-the-envelope calculations and panic.

  491
  There are three key arguments against the proposed asylum accommodation centre. First, it is unfair on the asylum seekers themselves to place them there; secondly, it is unfair on the local community to ask them to bear even more burdens for the sake of the rest of us; and, thirdly, it is contrary to planning policy. I ask the Minister to take one urgent action: please will she do more to help the residents whose lives have been blighted, at least until the public inquiry that will flow from this application by the Government issues its report?
  I understand that the Minister will not be able to deal with all my questions tonight, and I shall welcome letters from her subsequently.
  My first question concerns the worrying rumours that contractors have been told that the site will open in March. It is our understanding that the public inquiry is unlikely to report until about March, so which is right—what has been said to the contractors, or what we understand from the planning process? Importantly, will Wychavon district council have 16 weeks to respond to the planning notification submission, as Home Office officials and consultants solemnly promised at a private meeting in Wychavon, or will it have eight weeks, as last week's notification letter states?
  Throckmorton is a remote rural community, consisting of about 150 people and the additional nearby small hamlets of Tilesford and Hill. There are no appreciable services or facilities. The four neighbouring parishes have a combined population of little more than 2,000. The airfield is about 8 miles from Worcester and 6 miles from Evesham. Pershore is about 3 miles to the south, with Bredon Hill beyond that. During the second world war, the base was an important facility for training and the so-called 1,000 bomber raids. In the 1960s, the runway was extended to enable Valiants from Strike Command to be based there on permanent standby. The airfield is now home to QinetiQ—formerly known as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—other research and training activities, and, of course, 130,000 animal carcases from last year's foot and mouth disease outbreak.
  I shall deal with the three central points in turn. The first concerns the unfairness on asylum seekers. All refugee organisations, charities and Churches agree that the policy of locating 750-bed asylum centres in remote rural areas is wrong. Nick Hardwick, chief executive of the Refugee Council said:
  "We are very concerned about the proposed accommodation centres. The experience of similar centres on the continent, which are away from urban centres and where everything is provided on site is that the asylum seekers become very isolated and institutionalised and those who are allowed to stay have huge problems properly integrating."
  The Immigration Advisory Service said many things in response to the White Paper, but in essence it took the same view. It considers that,
  "in line with the experience of reception centres in other European Union countries, a size of no more than 200–300 residents is desirable. Such smaller centres than those proposed could also be sited more easily and less obtrusively in urban areas with greater community facilities."
  The Refugee Children's Consortium—consisting of Barnardos, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the National Children's Bureau, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
  492
  Children, the Refugee Council, Save the Children, and UNICEF—is opposed to the inclusion of children and their families in the piloting of accommodation centres. I urge the Minister to reflect on the wisdom of including families in a population that is 80 per cent. single and economically active. That is an error of judgment that the Minister should seriously reconsider.
  The diocese of Worcester has also echoed such concern. Last week, the Bishop of Dudley, the Right Reverend David Walker, said:
  "The churches have a fundamental role to play in welcoming asylum seekers and befriending them during their stay in the UK. The Church of England has a specific responsibility to recognise and respond to the spiritual needs of all who dwell in our parishes."
  The bishop expressed opposition, however, to the principles that the Government propose, and to the chosen site. He was particularly disappointed that such remoteness will mean that Churches cannot play their part in making asylum seekers feel welcome in our community.
  Perhaps most tellingly of all, Gurbux Singh, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality said last week:
  "Placing asylum seekers in principally rural environments again removed from our mainstream communities is not a terribly sensible way of ensuring that newcomers are integrated into the society."
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend argues his case with great conviction, but is he aware that those who object to the great size and rural location of such centres include several Labour Back Benchers, such as the much respected hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)?
  Mr. Luff: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) is one of many individuals whom I intended to quote, had time permitted. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
  The simple truth is that these large accommodation centres are a recipe for tension, and a trial that is doomed to fail. The larger the centre, the harder it is to manage. Located in remote rural areas, such centres are like prisons without walls.
  Serious practical problems also arise, such as the proximity of the foot and mouth disease burial site. Wychavon district council feels that it has insufficient information on the health consequences of that particular location. Proposing to dump asylum seekers 350 yards from such a burial site sends an odd signal to the wider world about our attitude to them. Given the use to which the airfield was previously put, serious environmental issues also need to be addressed. In undertaking their environmental impact assessment, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what Wychavon district council has to say about the scope of that assessment. The question of what might be lurking on that airfield is a serious one.
  Wychavon district council's planning officer, Jack Hegarty, told me:
  "We have significant concerns about placing residential uses close to the burial site. In simple terms we would ask ourselves whether we would contemplate allocating the site for residential use and I doubt very much that we would, purely in terms of residential amenity."
  In other words, it is not good enough for British citizens, but it is good enough for asylum seekers.

  493
  There are also serious recruitment issues. The Government say that the project will create 300 jobs, but these are all in shortage areas. We cannot find teachers or social workers; it is an area, I am happy to say, of full employment. Quite how the Government will find people to work here, I do not know, and I worry about that.
  Dumping asylum seekers miles from any of the nearest towns means that they will be locked in. The noble Lord Rooker said that residents would be given "pocket money" for bus fares, but there are no buses; there is nowhere they can go.
  The proposal is very unfair on the local community. Lord Rooker suggested that it was time for rural England to take its share of the responsibility. This corner of rural England has already done more than most and should be left in peace. The area's major landfill site—actually a land rise site—is massive. Its hills look rather like a lunar landscape, or the scene after a nuclear attack, with hundreds of seagulls wheeling overhead. Local roads already take 500 lorry movements a day to service this huge rubbish tip. Also, there is a foot and mouth disease burial site.
  Throckmorton accepted its responsibility willingly last year, despite the devastating impact that it had on local residents' lives. A decent Government would say that enough was enough and promise never to impose another burden on these people, who are not Nimbys; the truth is that their backyard is full. There are also serious implications for police, fire, health, education and social services.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Can I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an answer that I received from the Department of Health, which said that no assessment had been made in respect of any additional health or social care needs? Does that not show, first, that there will be such additional needs and, secondly, that the Government do not have a clue how much they will cost?
  Mr. Luff: I share my hon. Friend's concerns and I am grateful for the close way in which he has worked with me on this important issue.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
  "We have made it clear that we intend to provide accommodation centres in non-urban areas because of the pressure that has built up on local services in urban areas."
  I find it difficult to reconcile these comments with the Government's assurances that these will be free-standing centres making no demand whatsoever on local services.
  There have been meetings with the local health authority and the local police service, and they anticipate demands on these services. Worcestershire is at the bottom of every funding table there is. Where are the resources to come from to meet these additional demands? The only police presence in the community at present is PC Charlie Cavendish. We will certainly need a lot more than him to cope with the implications of the centre.
  Is it true that some police authorities have declined to police these centres, or to provide the protection necessary? Who will be liable if there is a fire, such as that at Yarl's Wood? Who will insure this centre in the
  494
  event of a similar disturbance? Is it not time to re-examine the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which I think puts the responsibility for damage on the police?
  Serious criminals were moved from prison to Yarl's Wood; what reassurances do we have that there will be no such people at this centre? How will we know exactly who is there? Will the local police be better informed by the Home Office than Bedfordshire police clearly were? How will the Government assess the risk of the individuals put there? Will the emergency services be fully involved in the planning and design of the centre? They certainly should be; failing to plan is planning to fail.
  The proposal is contrary to planning policy. No one could get away with trying to build a residential development on this site except the Government. At the examination in public into the structure plan in 2000, the panel said of a proposed new village that
  "in our view a site would need to be on the edge of an urban area and well served by public transport in order to be considered for housing development."
  The panel went on to say that growth on any scale on that site would be likely to be unsustainable, would impact on the surrounding settlements and could not be said to satisfy Government policy.
  The Government have gone through a bizarre site selection process, in which proximity to an airport was one of the criteria; I suppose one cannot get much closer than a disused airfield.
  I do not want to play pass the parcel, but why is Defence Estates advertising a major site in the Liverpool area in this week's Estates Gazette? Was this site—Deysbrook barracks—ever considered? Somehow I doubt it. A team that did not know that one of the sites that they had chosen had been built on already—it is a car factory—and that another was adjacent to an oil refinery would not know about 33 acres of land, described by Defence Estates as "an outstanding development opportunity", which has outline planning approval for mixed-use development.
  Many local people say that it is no coincidence that the three sites put forward by the Government are all in Conservative constituencies. I have dismissed those concerns, because the fourth site is likely to be in a Labour or Liberal Democrat seat. However, I would like the Minister to give an absolute assurance on that point now, because many people do not believe that the location is not motivated by party politics.
  Can the Minister also assure us that the Home Office's money, which will boost the value of QinetiQ's site on the old airfield, is not being used to boost the value of QinetiQ before its privatisation? Home Office money will be used to build the road up to the site and that could give QinetiQ a direct cash boost. It is a bit strange that the privatisation of QinetiQ is imminent.
  The property market in Throckmorton has been decimated by the decision. Houses in the village can no longer be sold. At the rally on Sunday, I met a woman in tears because her house sale had fallen through. People cannot sell their houses for one simple reason: the Government have taken the decision to locate two sites there—a foot and mouth disease burial site and an asylum centre. That is the Government's fault and no one else's. I accept that it is not the Home Office's fault or DEFRA's fault alone. Liability does not fall strictly to either of those two Departments, but it does fall to the Government.

  495
  That is why I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday urging him to intervene and buy the houses of those people who want to move. He will be able to sell them again when the property market recovers, as it will, but at the moment people's lives are being ruined by the blight that the Government have put on their houses.
  Where is the consultation that we were promised on this issue? We have had three public meetings, with the Home Office nowhere in sight. The Minister said in Committee that
  "public meetings will be held notifications are submitted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 2002; c. 83–88.]
  I hope that that will happen soon. I have written to Lord Rooker, inviting him to a public meeting in my constituency.
  This matter is very serious. People's lives are being ruined and any asylum seeker placed in a centre in Throckmorton would also be seriously jeopardised and prejudiced by that location. The more I think about the policy, the more worried I become, not just for Throckmorton and Worcestershire, but for any community unfortunate enough to be near an asylum centre, and for any asylum seeker sent to one. I urge the Minister to reconsider the whole policy.
  7.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing this debate and also on the way in which he has put his case. I thank him for citing the debate that I am having in Committee with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is in his place, in which I talked about the duty of national and local politicians to deal responsibly with issues that are, by their essence, emotive. I hope that we can continue in that vein, but that does not mean that the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire do not have important views on, or emotional reactions to, something that affects them as much as he has explained tonight.
  I wish to take this opportunity to dispel some of the myths about the Home Office's intentions on planning procedures. Accommodation centres are supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although we disagree with Conservative Front Benchers about the size and location of the centres. The proposals in the White Paper were welcomed as an effort to secure a more effective and faster procedure for obtaining final decisions than we manage at the moment with the dispersal policy and the current arrangements for asylum applications. It is important that we put that on record, because if we are to pilot such sites, they have to be located somewhere. Different people have different opinions on where they should be, but it is important to put on record the general agreement on both sides of the House that the proposals are worth pursuing.
  I do not accept that we will be "dumping" asylum seekers, and that is a pejorative word to use. Asylum seekers need a better, more supportive environment while we proceed with their asylum claims. Instead of being left in dispersal areas, often in strange places with no real support services—which is the experience of many asylum seekers now—they would be placed in a cluster centre, where we could have training, language tuition,
  496
  other education, access to primary health services and legal services available. We could then pursue the claims more effectively and efficiently while guaranteeing asylum seekers a safe environment in which to wait. That is a beneficial approach, and we all think so. So I do not accept that we will dump asylum seekers, but I do accept that the parties disagree about the size and location of the centres.
  It is argued that the burden will fall unfairly on certain areas, and the party political point is made that all the current sites are in Conservative seats. That is purely a coincidence. We are searching for sites and shall continue to do so. Those sites will be anywhere that we think appropriate. Clearly, Throckmorton is on the radar at present, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I thank him for welcoming the fact that we have kept him and other hon. Members informed.
  Currently, just over 40,000 asylum seekers are in cluster areas—the vast majority in urban areas and in cities where political representation is overwhelmingly Labour or Liberal Democrat. We need to put that point on record. I understand that people might think that the sites should not be in their area. Those concerns can be dealt with through the planning system.
  It is highly optimistic to think that the site—or any site—will open in March. The first accommodation centre will probably open towards the middle of next year. I should not like people to think that the process will be sudden.
  The hon. Gentleman asks how long there will be for replies. I can confirm that there were discussions between Wychavon district council and Home Office officials about the environmental impact assessment, under which 16 weeks are allowed. There were some disingenuous comments from the local authority to the effect that the Government never intended to use the normal planning processes; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because we are the Government we cannot use the normal planning processes—we have to use circular 18/84. However, we are following the eight-week process—not the speeded-up one provided for in the circular. We are allowing additional time for the environmental impact assessment, so there will be 16 weeks. In effect, we are mirroring the ordinary planning process in the only way that we can. As it is a Government application, there are special circumstances.
  Mr. Luff: We are grateful to the Minister for dropping the original idea of using the special urgency provisions. Wychavon district council was concerned about that. Is the hon. Lady saying that the period will definitely be 16 weeks? Last week, a letter to the council from her Department stated that it would be only eight weeks.
  Angela Eagle: It is my understanding that the local authority and Home Office officials have agreed to include the environmental impact assessment in the process, so that implies 16 weeks.
  We never intended to use the fast-track process. That is a myth. Many such myths have grown up in all the areas where there may be detention sites or accommodation sites—but they are only myths. We want to pursue the planning process as closely as we would if this were not a Government issue.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about policing. I confirm that we are holding discussions with the West Mercia police, but we have not yet submitted the planning

  497
  application. It will be with the council shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be given warning of its dispatch. He should understand that our discussions are at an extremely early stage. However, we shall hold consultations with all those who may be affected by the proposals so that we can make a proper assessment of the implications.
  Mr. Luff: May I draw the Minister's attention to the answer that she gave me on 13 February? She stated that:
  "The Home Office does intend to apply the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18184."—[Official Report, 13 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 460W.]
  I am grateful that the hon. Lady has backed down, but it was not a myth—it was the Government's policy.
  Angela Eagle: It was a policy that we considered because it is allowed by the circular. However, we have tried to be open with hon. Members who represent areas where we may build detention or accommodation centres. We are trying to mirror the ordinary planning application process.
  The Government have to balance many things. Many people are urging us to deal with asylum matters—not least Conservative Front-Bench Members. At one turn, we are asked to get on with things quickly; at another, we are asked to slow things down. Clearly, there is a tension there, but the important thing is to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those of Labour Members who represent neighbouring constituencies that this is a process that is transparent, open and above board and that will involve ordinary planning issues.
  On health and assessments, discussions are taking place on the effect of having an accommodation centre in the area. The intention is that accommodation centres will have as many services as possible on site and available—certainly, access to primary health care, education for the children, training, language training and legal advice. We are considering whether adjudicators could be based at the centres to speed up the process for people who have lost a first-stage appeal and wish to continue their appeals.
  That is the intention behind the accommodation-centre model and providing such services on site would minimise the effects on local services. Clearly, if someone had complex health needs that could not be dealt with on site, there might be an implication for acute services outside. We will, however, consult and work with local authorities in the areas concerned to ensure that the implications will be manageable for services in the area.
  It is not true that some police services are refusing to police areas where accommodation centres may be based. Clearly, the police have a duty to ensure that any policing needs are met. We will be discussing—as we are with the West Mercia police—the implications of such a development.
  Yarl's Wood is a detention centre where people were moved prior to removal from the country, because we did not know their identity, or because they were thought
  498
  likely to abscond. If an asylum seeker is in the country and has a serious criminal background, we may well not know about it. It is not envisaged that accommodation centres will be used as prisons. They will be open. People will not be locked up or detained in them. Indeed, we will ensure that if they need to go off site to have access in the first stages to appeal hearings before we co-locate, that will be arranged. They will not be waiting for local buses. Services will be made available to facilitate that process.
  On serious criminals, it would be wrong and alarmist for people to make the connection between asylum seekers and criminality that is anything out of the ordinary compared with what one might find in the local population. Certainly, the centres will not be used as proxies for detention centres, which are a different issue.
  On planning and whether the centres are against local planning rules, clearly that will be a matter for the planning process. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to express any opinion on that tonight.
  I understand how difficult these issues are for the hon. Members concerned. Organisational issues are involved in dealing with asylum seekers and their needs, whether in a cluster area or in an accommodation centre. I am pleased that we have consensus across the House that piloting accommodation centres is a way forward that we ought to consider. I understand that there is a difference of opinion about size and location, which we will no doubt discuss at greater length when we consider the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
  We will keep the hon. Gentleman in touch with developments. The planning process will be a proper one and, in terms of what we are intending for Throckmorton, there is no intention of suddenly doing something underhand that will circumvent the due process. I hope that with those reassurances—
  Mr. Luff: What about property?
  Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will know that in an answer to a parliamentary question, I said that compensation would not be appropriate in these circumstances. Again, the hon. Gentleman will understand the implications for all sorts of things that the Government might wish to do if such offers were made.
  Finally, when the hon. Gentleman was not quoting Cromwell—I suspect that we share an interest there—he mentioned that the site was a former RAF base. At peak capacity in 1976, 1,500 people were based there, so there is evidence to show that that number of people can be absorbed into the local area and accommodated there. We are only expecting 1,000 people if it is a site of 750 people plus the 250 in local jobs. I simply leave the hon. Gentleman with that thought, and I look forward to having a continuing dialogue on those important issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
SIR MICHAEL LORD[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

United Nations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I cannot think of a more appropriate time to discuss the role of the United Nations: we have only to think of the conflicts around the world and the UN's achievements during the 50-plus years since its founding.
The debate was initiated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Secretary feels strongly that parliamentary time should be given to such important foreign affairs matters. It was requested also by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) who, with other hon. Members, visited the United Nations last year; she has been involved in many interesting discussions on the subject, and I look forward to hearing their contributions to the debate. I promise that copies of the debate will be forwarded to our excellent diplomatic mission in New York and the UN's other missions around the world, so that they will know what British Members of Parliament think of it.
History has been made this week. My fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has just returned from East Timor, where he attended the independence celebrations earlier this week. As soon as East Timor became independent, it immediately announced that it wanted to be the next member of the United Nations. With Switzerland voting to join only a few months ago, the UN will soon have 191 members. East Timor chose to join as soon as it became an independent state, but Switzerland spent more than 50 years thinking about it. Switzerland saw a remarkable campaign of public diplomacy. A distinguished former ambassador to Britain, Mr. Francois Nordman, made an important contribution; his speeches and writing on the subject helped to persuade the Swiss to break with their tradition of non-involvement in the UN and other international organisations. The UN continues to be central to the identity of those two countries.
East Timor owes its existence to the UN. Without the commitment of UN peacekeepers and administrators over the past two and a half years, there would be no East Timor. The UN has helped to build a nation out of nothing. The UN will stay in East Timor in order to help it develop. It is not simply a matter of sending troops to monitor security, important though that is; it is an exercise to bring together international expertise and resources to create a new administration, a new judiciary and a new police force. That is the sort of challenge that faces the UN; too many countries have for too long been the victims of neglect and conflict.
Angus Robertson: I am pleased that the Government share the view of the Scottish National
140WH
party and Plaid Cymru that countries small and large should take their place in the international community as normal, independent member states. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government will be taking to help the newest member of the United Nations over the months and years to come?
Mr. MacShane: This debate is broadly on the United Nations, not East Timor. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will list in encyclopaedic detail the contribution that Britain has made, is making and will make to East Timor.
A huge challenge is posed by Afghanistan, where the UN is at the centre of efforts to rebuild the country. Under the Bonn agreement, the UN is working with the interim Administration on an immediate transitional assistance programme for the Afghan people. The programme contains UN and non-governmental organisation projects focused on urgent humanitarian needs, immediate recovery projects and longer-term reconstruction and governance support.
Let us segue to Kosovo, where the UN has effectively provided the key functions of government since 1999. It is responsible for police, justice and civil administration, as well as other major services. We want the Kosovan people—the Albanians and the Serbs—to take responsibility for their own nation, but in the interim the UN is doing a good job.
Sierra Leone is a similar example. Only two years ago, the rebel forces appeared to be closing in on Freetown, and everyone was appalled at their brutal behaviour. However, last week, for the first time since 1996, Sierra Leone held free elections in which its people could vote without fear. That would not have been possible without the UN and the decisive military support of the United Kingdom. In partnership, the UK and the UN played a key role in creating a secure environment in which elections could take place peacefully. The UN's work in peacekeeping and rebuilding states, and in restoring and maintaining international peace and security is crucial, but that focus tells only part of the UN story.
The UN is also concerned with improving the lives of people wherever they live. We should not ignore the work of UN specialised agencies such as the International Labour Organisation, which enables trade unions, employers and Governments to meet and discuss the key improvements that the ILO makes to international labour standards. The World Health Organisation set a target of eradicating smallpox and polio. It has made giant strides with regard to smallpox and is on the way to eradicating polio. The work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation is important as well. As we fly around the globe, it is vital to know that a UN agency links the civil aviation organisations from different countries and ensures that air safety is maintained throughout the world.
The General Assembly carries on its work each September in New York and plays an important role in setting standards for social and economic policy worldwide. One example is the adoption of the millennium development goals at the millennium summit. I would like those goals to be put up in every school classroom. They include halving poverty by 2015, achieving universal primary education and reducing by two thirds the mortality rate for children under five.

141WH
Once announced and declared at the conference, those goals must be put into practice. Each year, the UN secretariat must produce a snapshot of where we are and how much further there is to go. I hope that those millennium development goals will be at the heart of international policy making until 2015.
More than 50 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights as a bulwark against oppression and discrimination. That declaration was a landmark achievement. It represented the first international recognition that human rights and fundamental freedoms applied to every person. I worked in South Africa and communist Poland and Czechoslovakia, and I remember how much that declaration meant to people there struggling for their freedom. In many parts of the world, we would still find that it counted as the standard by which Governments should be judged on the organisation of the governance of their people.
Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend has made that point, does he agree that the recent decision by the Israeli Government to refuse admission to a UN-sponsored commission of inquiry into allegations of human rights abuses in Jenin has fundamentally undermined the authority of the Secretary-General of the UN and the institution itself?
Mr. MacShane: No, because Governments do not weaken the UN or the Secretary-General every time they refuse to comply with a UN resolution. In the eyes of the international community, such a refusal simply diminishes the right of a Government to claim that they are speaking and acting according to the highest international standards. However, I shall develop some further points on Jenin later, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) will be patient.
I move from political rights, enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, to material rights. A person with an empty stomach does not have the time to worry about the finer points of constitutional democracy. The recent UN conference on financing for development was an important landmark and generated an additional £12 billion a year in development aid from 2006. Ministers are working hard to ensure that the forthcoming world summit on sustainable development agrees to an action plan for the productive use of these funds through tackling the millennium development goals.
Achieving our objectives is not easy. In an organisation that now consists of 191 members it is inevitable that we will not reach consensus. Often after weeks of late night negotiations, the outcome does not match our ambitions.
Mr. Andrew Love: Some people believe that the UN work to which the Minister refers is often duplicated by organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Do the Government have a view on that?
Mr. MacShane: Organisationitis is not unknown to this Government and this country. There are times when
142WH
duplication means reinforcement and times when it means making two speeches when one will do. Discussion and analysis of the international financial architecture are on the international agenda.
With 191 members, it is difficult to reach agreement on every issue. The recent UN General Assembly special session on children was an important opportunity to address the rights and needs of the world's children and adolescents. Its objectives were to review the progress made since the world summit on children in 1990 and to make a renewed commitment and pledge to specific actions for the coming decade by developing a plan of action. I pay tribute to the United Kingdom negotiators, politicians and diplomats who fought hard to secure positive language on child rights, child labour, reproductive health and the death penalty.
We worked with key non-governmental organisations and sponsored two young people to attend the session as part of a United Kingdom delegation. However, the negotiations were difficult. There were bitter fights, particularly over reproductive health and the death penalty. The language agreed was satisfactory, but not what we would have liked ideally. However, negotiation involves compromise, which should not be considered as a defeat. Getting 191 countries to the same point is no mean achievement, and on that basis we can take the argument forward.
The other criticism sometimes levelled at the UN, which has been mentioned already in the debate, is that it is powerless. The United Nations does not consist of a group of Harry Potters taking on one single Lord Voldemort. It does not have a magic wand, but that does not mean that it has failed. These issues were brought into focus when we examined the UN's role in the middle east. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley suggested, the Israeli refusal to accept a UN fact-finding mission to investigate what happened in Jenin seemed to underline the organisation's irrelevance. The Government have made their position clear, and hon. Members have heard the Foreign Secretary's statements in the House. We share the serious humanitarian concerns about Israeli actions and about allegations of violations of international law. We have confidence in Kofi Annan, and believe that a fact-finding mission would have been balanced and could have provided the answers. We look forward to the Secretary-General producing a thorough and balanced report in due course from the available evidence. We hope that the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority will cooperate with him, and we will press them to do so.
The Jenin incident does not mean that the UN is irrelevant to the conflict. After all, the essential framework for a settlement in the middle east is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions, which express the clear will of the international community for a two-state solution. That vision was recently reaffirmed in three important resolutions, all of which were, crucially, adopted with United States support. How many of us, over the years, have seen vetoes from one side or another prevent resolutions from being adopted? Today's resolutions speak of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in secure and recognised borders. They also call for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities, and for a ceasefire. That will remain the framework for future attempts to resolve the conflict.

143WH
As we look with concern at the conflict that is looming on the horizon in Kashmir, where two nuclear-armed powers are facing off against each other, the need for a body such as the United Nations becomes ever clearer. I am sure that the whole House wishes my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary all the best as he goes to New Delhi and Islamabad. Even if, as I expect, the UN has to become involved in finding a solution to the Kashmir conflict, we should not forget the words that Dag Hammarskjold wrote more than 40 years ago:
"The legislative process of the United Nations is not a substitute for diplomacy. It serves its purpose only when it helps diplomacy to arrive at agreements between the national states concerned."
Diplomacy, not speeches or votes, will continue to have the last word in peacemaking. I hope that the diplomatic efforts of our Foreign Secretary, as well as those of American and European officials, can help the Governments of India and Pakistan to find a solution to their dispute before it is too late.
I want briefly to look to the UN's future. What more would we like it to do? We want a modern UN, and a Security Council that reflects the contemporary world. We want a structure that provides an efficient service that is appropriate to its important tasks. In short, we want modernisation, reform and a new UN. Many have said as much, but few have delivered, and there is now an opportunity to do so. For a start, Kofi Annan is committed to reform. As a former UN budget director, he is more aware than most of the need for reform, and his reform programme, which has been in place since 1997, has taken the UN a long way.
One problem, however, is that we keep asking the UN to do more; we must therefore focus on rationalising our priorities. The UN is at last engaged in a major reform initiative in that regard. The aim is to make the most of the funds at its disposal by cutting waste and duplication, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned. We are contributing to that exercise, along with our EU partners, because it provides an excellent opportunity to ensure the longterm viability of the UN and the achievement of the objectives that the international community has set it. We must, however, go further. We must link resources and objectives. The UN must ask itself why it needs a printing press in Manhattan. Why are the specialised agencies in Geneva incapable of pooling their administrative burdens? Why is each a little empire unto itself?
We have pushed hard for reform in the areas of peacekeeping, with good results. The Brahimi report, which was issued in August 2000, has been a catalyst for a range of peacekeeping reforms, which the Government and the Prime Minister in particular have played an active part in driving forward. We want focused and realistic mandates for peacekeeping missions, we want to improve the capacity of the UN to deal with the administration, management and strategy on current and future peacekeeping operations, and we want more consistent standards for the training and equipping of countries that contribute troops.
We also need to consider the reform of the Security Council to make it more representative of the modern world and to ensure that it reflects today's world, not that of 1945.
Norman Lamb rose—
Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
Mr. MacShane: I give way to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb).
Norman Lamb: The Minister referred to the importance of reforming the Security Council, which has been talked about for a long time. Clear commitments were made to reform in 2000, but nothing has actually happened. What confidence does the Minister have that reform will actually take place to make the council more representative of the modern world?
Mr. MacShane: May I respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) as well? I was going to cover that matter later in my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North Norfolk jumped in on top of me just as I was about to open my mouth.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The Minister cannot presume to know what the next intervention will be, so I suggest that he take them one at a time.
Mr. Duncan: Perhaps as the Minister reaches the appropriate point in his remarks he will tell the House whether he ever envisages a reformed Security Council including representation for the EU as a bloc.
Mr. MacShane: That is not on the agenda in this country or, to my knowledge, anywhere else in the world. There might be some obscure broom cupboard in Brussels where those matters are considered to be highly important.
We believe that a small increase in the size of the Security Council would be an acceptable price to pay for the big increase in its credibility that would result from a more representative membership. In the industrialised world, Germany and Japan make increasingly valuable contributions to maintaining international peace and security. They have proved themselves eligible, and worthy of permanent seats. However, to be truly representative of the modern world, developing countries must have better representation on the Security Council, too. We would like there to be new permanent seats for Africa, Asia and Latin America.
To answer the intervention of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, there is no agreement among the UN membership on the size and shape of a reformed Security Council. Regional rivalries and the legitimate claims of different large countries to be the automatic candidate have made it difficult to make progress. That is no reason to give up trying, and Britain will continue to be at the forefront of that important debate.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am a little disappointed that the Minister's only reference to sustainable development and the environment so far has been a tangential reference to the world summit in Johannesburg. Does he accept that encouraging sustainable development is a new task that the UN has

145WH
taken on board during the past 10 years, although it is not referred to in article 1 of the UN's constitution? The UN has huge influence in moving the world towards sustainable development. In that context, does the Minister agree that international co-operation is essential, and that the decision of the United States Government not to involve themselves in the Kyoto protocol in particular is undermining the UN's work in that respect?
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to the part of my speech in which I referred to the millennium development goals, which are the best benchmarking process for sustainable development, the movement towards which he rightly identified as an important task for the UN.
The Kyoto protocol is not a UN process as such. The Government have clearly and repeatedly stated that they would have preferred the United States to embrace the protocol and sign up for the International Criminal Court and the whole panoply of international law that has been gently put in place. At some stage in the future, the United States, a country based on rule of law, not rule of men, will come to understand that the rule of law must apply internationally, as well as within national borders. Looking to the future, Savimbi's death in Angola presents an important opportunity. The UN Secretary-General has visited Angola to assess the situation, and we want to see if the UN can finally bring a definitive peace to that troubled part of Africa.
Last week on Iraq, a new UN Security Council resolution was adopted, based on a British initiative, which significantly changes the arrangements for UN sanctions in Iraq. It maintains a tight control on military goods but lifts controls on civilian-only humanitarian goods. It removes Saddam's spurious excuses for the suffering that he inflicts on the Iraqi people and puts more pressure on the regime. It will also bring a significant reduction in UN bureaucracy to allow swifter delivery of goods to Iraq under the Oil for Food programme, and it will underline, once again, that the Security Council has only ever had a problem with the Iraqi regime, not the Iraqi people. We remain under no illusions that Iraq continues to pose a threat to the international community. The goods review list will maintain strict controls on items that might be used in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme or other military programmes.
On terrorism, one of the UN Security Council's recent achievements was the adoption of a resolution obliging all members to take measures to stop the financing of terrorist groups and to deny safe haven to terrorists. The actions that states are taking to fulfil their obligations are being closely scrutinised by the Security Council's counter-terrorism committee, chaired by our ambassador there, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and I pay tribute to his leadership and the work of our mission and diplomatic team in New York.
Norman Lamb: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: One last time, because many colleagues want to speak.
Norman Lamb: On the work of that committee, the UN website indicates that about 45 countries still have not responded to the initiatives to counter terrorism, although they were supposed to have done so by the end of December. Is that a concern, and what steps are being taken to address it?
Mr. MacShane: Of course it is a concern. Whenever visit countries that are part of my portfolio and have not signed up, I make it clear to Heads of Government and my opposite numbers that the whole point of the measures is to protect their citizens from the scourge of terrorism.
Last year, Kofi Annan was awarded the Nobel peace prize, a magnificent tribute to the man and his organisation's achievements. There are many other unsung achievements. The international atomic energy inspections have reduced the risk of nuclear war. The UN has led international efforts to clear land mines worldwide, and the World Metereological Organisation's early-warning system has spared millions from the calamitous effects of natural disasters. The International Telecommunication Union has co-ordinated the use of the radio spectrum and the positioning of stationary satellites and has set standards for international communications so that there is an unfettered flow of information around the globe.
We live in an interdependent world. Issues such as development, the environment, HIV/AIDS and smallpox can only be tackled together. There will be issues on which we have differences, and issues of peace and security on which we need to work together. There will be continued pressure for us to move together, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, to set new standards of decent behaviour. For all those aims, although it is not Tennyson's parliament of the world and it is not perfect, the UN still remains our best hope on earth.
2.58 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: Hon Members will be grateful to the Minister for calling this debate today. We should not forget the importance of organisations such as the UN in our ever more interconnected world, where dialogue and discussion between countries are vital if we are to achieve stability and peaceful relations in the 21st century. It is right that we should debate the changing role of the UN in a fast-changing world.
Since its foundation in 1945, in the aftermath of world turmoil, the UN has proved to be an important forum for dialogue, communication and, most importantly, for international consensus and conflict resolution. The tragic events of 11 September proved a wake-up call to the world. Gone were the old, cold war certainties of two super-powers and attendant blocs balancing one another. Instead, we are faced with a new fluidity; threats come not from established states in an age-old pattern but from ruthless terrorists, from rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, from poverty, disease and a lack of education in some countries and—perhaps most importantly—from a lack of understanding and tolerance between nations and people.

147WH
The UN charter encompasses in its aspirations the wish to tackle those ills. It aspires to save people from the scourge of war, to establish conditions under which justice, human rights and respect for international obligations can be maintained, to
"promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom",
and to encourage people to practise tolerance and to live together as good neighbours.
Those are worthy objectives. They are still worthy today, over 50 years after they were written. We must ensure that they are effectively translated into modern action and international consensus in the decades ahead. Britain, with its permanent seat on the Security Council and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, has a responsibility and a central role to play in defining the UN's role in the coming decades and ensuring that it is effective in fulfilling it. It is important for us to be active in that role, recognising that, with our permanence on the Security Council—which we see no reason to alter—we must take a long-term view of what the UN needs in order to function better.
In any consideration of the UN's role, we must be clear that it and other international organisations can never replace the sovereign nation state as the main building block of international affairs and governance. However, the UN has an important role as a scrutineer and arbiter of actions and international disputes.
The UN is seen by many, on a moral level, as above the day-to-day diplomatic wrangles of states, and its humanitarian work justifiably enjoys the respect and support of millions across the globe. Figures such as Mary Robinson and Kofi Annan rightly enjoy the respect of the world as people untainted by national self-interest. However, despite this record of success, there are also failures. As with any organisation, there is much room for improvement and adaptation to changing circumstances.
I would like to highlight some areas in which the UN functions effectively and others that could, perhaps, benefit from reforms. A consistent picture will emerge. When the UN has full international backing, as in Afghanistan, it can be a most effective organisation. When it is ignored, undermined or sidestepped by key international players, its ability to do what those who formed it intended is dramatically reduced. In short, the UN can operate only by the consent of its member countries; its success and legitimacy rest on that international consent and recognition.
In Afghanistan, we have seen the centripetal role that the UN can play in ensuring peace and security in the most difficult circumstances. Not only has the UN given international credibility to the international coalition in the war on terrorism, it has proved instrumental in providing a road map for future security in the region, and in helping to co-ordinate the vital life-saving, humanitarian aid effort since the fall of the Taliban. We have seen the UN working at its best, forging international consensus, helping to deliver aid and to rebuild a smashed country, and, with Mr. Brahimi's work in Bonn, helping to forge agreements for the interim Government, and taking a lead on future conflict prevention.
148WH
Similarly, the UN has played a strong role in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Angola, and should be commended in an unqualified way for that. That work can prevent future costly and bloody conflicts.
Peacekeeping is another of the most visible aspects of the UN's role. There is an increasingly important debate about where the line should be drawn between peacekeeping and peacemaking. It is not an easy question to tackle. The recent report by Lakhdar Brahimi addresses the peacekeeping aspect of the UN's role, and makes important recommendations with the intention of improving the UN's ability to fulfil its peacekeeping obligations effectively.
I am not suggesting that we address today all the points made by Mr. Brahimi, or that we should accept them without further consideration. However, I want to make a few observations on some of the points raised by the report, which the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. He makes the important point that there is a growing need for more closely defined mandates in UN operations, with clear statements of what is required within a realistic time scale. Another suggestion is that there should be a far shorter delay between the authorisation of UN operations at a political level and implementation at a military level, at least on the ground. Such delays allow situations to deteriorate and further complicate any mission that is defined.
Money, staffing and organisational capacity are always central to UN operations. I am pleased that the United States paid its contribution to the UN, importantly before 11 September. Member states must always bear in mind the fact that the success of the UN depends on the political and financial support of the United States. I hope that the British Government will note these recommendations in the report, and give it their most serious consideration.
I welcome the report's justified praise of the UN for its peacekeeping work, and the staff involved. We should be prepared to examine the recommendations in detail. However, I want to sound a brief note of caution. When we consider the Brahimi report and peacekeeping in general, we must always be wary of the worrying precedent of nation building that some people have advanced. It is important that we help nations to rebuild themselves rather than impose models, which is where the UN can successfully prevent conflict. It can assist and guide nations in taking the necessary steps to rebuild themselves, rather than imposing a one-size-fitsall model or some western template that we believe is better but may not suit them.
Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concern about the nation state. The Secretary-General suggested that the UN should be able to intervene if there have been massive human rights violations, such as in Rwanda. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Duncan: That is happening already. The UN is bound to be drawn into messy conflicts in the dispute between Rwanda and Burundi. There is no hard and fast rule. The golden rule in foreign policy and international relations is that situations are never easy to define: there is no black and white or right and wrong. There is always a difficult moral choice between different shades of grey, and that is true of countries that are abusing

149WH
human rights and where there are conflicts over boundaries and competing areas. We must be careful not to be simplistic when we draw up rules about how we should behave. Every case deserves analysis on its own merits.
I touched on the UN's role in the war on terrorism. That role is far from over. In conflicts that have been widely cited as central to that war—for example, in the middle east and Iraq—UN resolutions set an important yardstick against which we can judge the conduct of nations. I recently went to Jenin, as did the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who beat me to it and saw what is happening there a week before I did. She provided graphic reports of what she witnessed, which I subsequently saw, and it will be interesting to hear her analysis. What I saw was more of a mess and an impending humanitarian crisis than a massacre. As the Minister said, it is a shame that international UN observers could not enter promptly. Much idle and unhelpful speculation could have been avoided if the facts had been ascertained earlier. That was damaging to the UN's role. If democratic nations show such hostility to its work, it sets a precedent that damages the ability of the international community to make national Governments accountable. Empty commitments to United Nations' resolutions add to that damage. In the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, undermining the United Nations has serious consequences for peace. The Palestinian Authority's failure to clamp down on violence and Israel's continued development of settlements and unacceptable interlinking of highways directly contravene commitments given under UN resolutions 242 and 338 which, if only they could see it, hold a road map to peace.
Elsewhere in the globe, the recent increase in tension and violence in Kashmir is deeply worrying. I do not presume to offer a detailed prescription to end the dispute to the satisfaction of all—any such solution must emerge from talks between the two parties—but the UN can play an important facilitating role in helping to bring the two sides together. Once again, there must be a commitment to the acceptance of any UN resolutions, and in return the UN must be careful to craft resolutions in such a way as to make them credible and realistic, so that they have an optimum chance of effective implementation.
The more that countries turn a blind eye to UN resolutions, the less chance there is of a bright future for the people caught up in these conflicts. It is the job of the international community to make both sides realise that, and to press for a political settlement. That goes to the crux of the issue.
UN resolutions rest on consensus and on the will of the international community, but to be effective they must be abided by, and the flouting of UN resolutions can be seen all too clearly in Iraq. UN resolutions gave legitimacy to the action of the international community against the repression of the Kurds and the invasion of Kuwait. Later, in resolution 687, the international community ordered that Iraqi weapons of mass
150WH
destruction should be inspected and destroyed. Those weapons of mass destruction are still a threat, yet on 4 May The New York Times reported:
"The United Nations and Iraq ended three days of talks on disarmament with an agreement to meet again, but no breakthrough on the return of weapons inspectors to Baghdad".
No date has yet been set for the next round, which is very worrying. Furthermore, any concession by Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq amounts to little if it merely pays lip service to the will of the international community and is unmatched by a genuine desire to abide by the resolutions, rather than to qualify them subsequently or to wriggle out of them. That highlights once more the problem of unmet UN resolutions, and how to enforce them. We have yet to develop an effective solution to that problem.
Although the UN has a major role to play in securing stability in regions of the world, it has an equally important role in promoting human rights and in its humanitarian work, which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and I and many others in the Chamber have seen.
It is timely and appropriate to mention the work of the UN in Burma. Credit for the manner and timing of Aung San Suu Kyi's release goes squarely to Razali Ismail, the UN special envoy to Burma. I pay enormous tribute to him, and to so many other UN staff, who have done such useful broking and negotiating work. It is no coincidence that America and the European Union have robust policy positions on Burma and are starving the regime of the hard currency that it needs. The combination of Mr. Ismail's UN role, his Malaysian nationality and his regional links make him a highly effective interlocutor. It seems that when the UN has widespread backing from national Governments, it can play a much more effective role than it could ever play on its own. Sadly, when countries try to manipulate its processes, the UN can be constrained and its ability to scrutinise human rights severely reduced. The recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights suggested that if the UN is to remain an effective body in this area it may need to undergo some structural and procedural reform, and that Governments must engage constructively, actively and promptly in that process.
The US and the major European players must be involved if the commission is to hold to account countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma, which must show a real commitment to human rights. The process has not been helped by the fact that the Government have apparently contracted out large elements of their human rights policy to the EU. I invite the Minister to defend his position. On Zimbabwe, we watched and pressed to no avail as the Foreign Secretary talked of one EU initiative after another. In reality, he did nothing to stop human rights abuses by Mugabe and his henchmen.
Humanitarian aid, health programmes and the building of effective education systems are all vital if we are to tackle the long-term causes of poverty and conflict. Dealing with humanitarian crises when they occur, helping refugees and feeding a starving people are all deeply important aspects of the UN's work, but it goes deeper than that to a longer-term commitment to improving social conditions and tackling root causes.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am disappointed with his comments on Zimbabwe. Does he not recognise that, given the possibility of Britain being accused of acting like a former colonial power, it was important to get the broadest possible international agreement to put pressure on Mugabe?
Mr. Duncan: I would argue that, none the less, the Government were too quiet in their condemnation of what was happening in Zimbabwe. The EU did a lot, but the Americans were far ahead of us, and many actions could have been taken. Sadly, I saw no evidence of work going on behind the scenes to persuade others to take the action that we were urging. The absence of that has done intolerable harm to the people of Zimbabwe who, while the world's press is looking elsewhere, are suffering miserably from the consequences of Mugabe's supposed re-election as president.
When I went to Jenin, I saw at first hand the UN's work with refugees. While I was there, I met by chance the long-time aid worker Larry Hollingsworth. He is an unmistakably recognisable figure, and with his generosity of spirit, his dedication to helping people and his refusal to take sides, he is symbolic of all that is best about the UN: its people. The UN employs many like him in some of the most difficult parts of the world. From its aid workers at the sharp end through to statesmen such as Kofi Annan, these people refuse to give up or despair about the situations that they face. They keep working for peace and to help people who are vulnerable and suffering. I pay tribute to those people, and I am sure other Members will join me in praising the work, especially the humanitarian work, carried out under the auspices of the UN.
It is a pity that time constrains what we can say today. There are so many facets to the UN's work that we can but touch on them. They include its peacekeeping role, conflict resolution work, the implications of the Brahimi report and its human rights and humanitarian work. Each of those could fill a debate on its own. However, the UN needs international support and consensus if it is to be effective. As the Minister said, that may require changes, including reform of the structure and procedures of the Commission on Human Rights. I do not presume to be able to come up with a detailed programme of reform in the short time that we have today, but it is vital that the question is addressed.
If countries such as those in Africa are committed to development, or are showing a commitment in that direction in initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, they must be committed to good governance. The best way to express and further that is by active partnership with the UN and other member countries. Similarly, if we want effective security mechanisms through the UN, Security Council resolutions must be abided by no matter how large or small the nation in question. Turning a blind eye, applying unequal standards or attempting to suggest that resolutions do not apply to certain countries will only further stir disenchantment and make peace and international stability an even more distant objective.
There are those who would seek to devise ever more complex mechanisms to coerce and cajole countries into obeying UN resolutions. In this world of sovereign nation states, consensus and good will remain the
152WH
bedrocks of the UN, and I do not see that changing. I hope that the 21st century will see a renewed era—of which we had a foretaste after 11 September—of co-operation, good will and dialogue, and I see no better forum for achieving such an end than the United Nations. It forges consensus without forcing unthinking conformity or a loss of national independence, and strives for peace, not conflict, and for prosperity in defiance of poverty. I applaud it for all its work.
3.20 pm
Glenda Jackson: If memory serves me, there is a plaque on the Methodist central hall, just across Parliament square in Westminster, commemorating the first meeting of the United Nations, which took place in that building. The fact of that meeting always causes my spirits to rise, given the world situation that prevailed immediately after the second world war. Even then, in the face of the most terrible destruction, there was a clear commitment to a better way for the nations of the world to settle their differences and to a future for all the people of the world based on a statement of defined human rights.
I pay tribute to the United Nations and to all the nations that have kept faith with its founding principles. I also pay tribute to the even larger group of individuals, to whom we have not yet referred, including many in my constituency, who firmly believe in the basic principle that the United Nations demonstrates in all its activities that there is a better way for nation states to solve their differences other than by going to war. That principle has spread into care and concern for the education of children, tackling the problem of the lack of health care, the creation of proper education systems, concern for the future, and the examination of such questions as whether science is a benefit or a bane—I could go on listing the areas in which the UN has interested itself over the past 50 years. The UN could not have dedicated itself to all those activities if only nation states were responsible for them; the overwhelming approval of the citizens of those nation states for those activities has ensured the progress of the UN over the past 50 years.
I say "progress" advisedly. In Westminster Hall there is a fascinating exhibition of the cartoons of Low, one of the greatest 20th-century cartoonists. When I went round that exhibition, it came as a shock to see how pertinent and contemporary—indeed, up-to-the-minute—so many of his cartoons are. What Low lampooned still exists: there are still dictatorships, ferocious differences based on race, religion and perceived imbalances of power, and gross inequities in the distribution of the world's goods and benefits. However, I do not say that to criticise the United Nations. I say it simply to highlight the fact that the world's needs are constantly changing, and that the UN principles to which nation states are committed have by no means outlived their sell-by date. They are as vital to the world today as they were when that group of dedicated and innovative people sat down to draft the beginnings of the United Nations.
However, it is of concern to me—I do not exclude the Government from the criticism—that, although nation states have of late been willing to use the UN and its resolutions and mandates when it has served their interests to do so, when they are in a difficult position or do not believe that their interests are endorsed by UN

153WH
principles, they use the UN in the worst of all ways. That is brought most clearly to mind by the continuing pronouncements from the Government about the perceived danger from the axis of evil nations defined by the President of the United States.
Obviously, the most pertinent nation in this instance is Iraq. I hold no brief whatever for the regime in Iraq. Indeed, I entirely support what the UN has imposed on that state, and I agree that the way forward is for it to allow in weapons inspectors. I am somewhat concerned, however, that the flouting of UN resolutions is being used as a reason for one nation state or a combination of nation states to enter into what could be an extremely dangerous war without first obtaining a mandate from the UN. The UN cannot be used at our particular national behest, however worthy the desired outcome.
Iraq is not the only example. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) referred to the flouting of UN resolutions with regard to Israel and Palestine. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to what she perceived as an insult to the UN—I paraphrase—of Israel's refusal to allow in UN observers to check whether there has been excessive use of military power. I agree with the Minister that that in no way demeans the UN. However, it causes the nation state that chooses to ignore resolutions to lose value—I put it no higher than that—in the eyes of the international community.
That concerns me a great deal with regard to the British Government's pronouncements on possible military action against Iraq. Without the most cogent and close examination, and genuine validation of any such action—not a rubber stamp from the UN—the standing of this nation and the US would diminish in the eyes of the world.
I pay tribute to the remarkable history of ambassadors to the UN from this country and their secretariats, who have been extraordinarily gifted and capable people. We have been extremely fortunate with many of our ambassadors, and the world, too, has benefited from their undoubted commitment to the basic principles of the UN and their knowledge of the changes that had to take place within the UN.
In my view, further changes will have to take place. I firmly believe that we should examine in detail the constituent parts of the Security Council. I have also argued for a considerable time that, given the changes in the world, the UN should consider whether there could be sub-stations of the UN in various parts of the globe.
The value that every emerging nation state places on membership of the UN speaks volumes not only for the work that the UN has done, but for the work that remains to be done. However, that work will be invalidated and will have no purpose if it is not acknowledged that balances of power throughout the world are shifting and that those shifts will continue. We hope that the balance of power will be more equitable than it has been in the past, but no one can rest on their laurels.
I keep talking about the UN as if it were something separate and private unto itself, but we all know that tackling the world's problems, halting conflict and advancing the principles of basic human rights depend
154WH
on the commitment of the world's nation states to supporting the UN. I am not talking about exclusively financial support, although that has been a great stumbling block to the UN achieving much that the world has wished it to achieve. There must also be a clear political and moral commitment to what the UN represents and, indeed, can achieve.
I do not for one moment pretend that that is easy. If it were easy we would be living in an entirely different world. There are always national interests and fundamental and often deeply held differences between nation states, and there may be deeply held, truthfully held, differences within those nation states, but the UN is our last, best hope as an international forum for tackling those curses that have lain upon the world for centuries. The UN has never been totally successful, but it has achieved more than any other attempt by the world to bring all those nation states together to sit around a table and discuss.
I pay tribute to everyone who brought the United Nations into being, who have maintained it over the past 50 years and who will ensure that it continues. I strongly endorse the view that the failure to maintain UN resolutions does not damage the United Nations, but it damages the countries that flout them. Our Government should give precise and deep consideration to that before they enter into any pre-emptive strike against any nation.
3.31 pm
Norman Lamb: I, too, congratulate the Government, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary on making this debate possible. The extent of consensus across the parties about the vital role of the United Nations in the past and, I hope, in the future has been encouraging. The UN charter begins:
"We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind."
It was drafted in 1945 in the aftermath of the second world war and signed initially by 51 nations. Even if, in the intervening years, the world community has failed to live up to the challenge of that ambition, it is as relevant and important today as it was then.
As we debate the role of the UN today, the world seems to be a more dangerous and unstable place than it has been for a long time, as shown by the horror of 11 September, the threat posed by terrorism, the tinderbox of the middle east and the frightening heightened tension between India and Pakistan, not to mention the continuing conflicts that blight so much of Africa. That instability cries out for an effective UN. To be effective and relevant it must achieve reform, but the progress so far has been depressingly slow. Fine words and aspirations from the lead nations have not yet turned sufficiently into action.
Reform is so important because in the 57 years since the UN's creation the world has self-evidently changed dramatically, yet the institution remains essentially as it was in 1945. If it is to have a central role in this new century it must be able to respond to new challenges. The nature of conflict has shifted significantly in those years. Just in the last 10 years, 5 million people were killed in intrastate conflicts. The threat of terrorism has increased, as has the impact that terrorists can have with the weapons that may now be at their disposal.

155WH
The Secretary-General, in his report "We the peoples" to the millennium summit back in 2000, referred to the threats and challenges of the new globalised world. He referred in particular to crime, narcotics, terrorism, pollution, disease, weapons, refugees and migrants. Those all present enormous challenges. Added to them, as has already been mentioned, is the imperative to tackle sustainable development and the environmental crisis that faces the globe. That also provides a central role for the United Nations.
I should like to deal specifically with the UN's peacekeeping role. Although not mentioned in the charter, that role became a central thrust of the organisation. For the first four and a half decades, the blue berets of the UN's peacekeeping forces became synonymous with everything positive about the UN. Yet in the last decade of the 20th century, the UN's reputation for peacekeeping became badly tarnished.
The report commissioned by the Secretary-General and produced by the panel headed by Mr. Brahimi gave impressive recognition of how badly things had gone wrong with peacekeeping. It referred to the challenge of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war, but acknowledged:
"The U.N. has repeatedly failed to meet this challenge—and it can do no better today. Without renewed commitment on the part of Member States, significant institutional change and increased financial support, the U.N. will not be capable of executing the critical peacekeeping and peacebuilding tasks that the Member States assign to it."
Those who support the UN having a central role in the future must face up to the criticisms of its performance and find ways of improving matters.
The UN's failures in the 1990s were particularly stark—in Rwanda, Bosnia and Somalia. Brahimi referred to the consequences for those countries of the failure to distinguish between victim and aggressor, treating both equally. The result was at best ineffectiveness, but in the worst case
"may amount to complicity in evil."
That clearly was the case in Rwanda and it inevitably had a devastating effect on the credibility and the standing of UN peacekeeping.
Reports in 2000 also highlighted the appalling corruption in the UN peacekeeping forces deployed in Sierra Leone. We have heard about the UN's positive role there, but the Nigerian contingent was guilty of involvement in illegal trading of diamonds, drug smuggling and other serious criminal activities.
Brahimi's report was deeply critical of much of the culture of the UN. It referred to wide disparities in staff quality. We heard earlier about the many people who devoted their lives to the UN, but Brahimi averred that that was not always the case, and he pleaded for the UN to become a genuine meritocracy. Excellence had to be rewarded but incompetence had to be rooted out. He warned that, unless that happened, additional resources would be wasted and lasting reform would become impossible.
That was the picture back in 2000. As we entered the new millennium, there seemed to be widespread recognition of the need for reform and the organisation's acceptance of past failures. What
156WH
remains depressing is that decisive change has failed to take place. The danger is that without reform the UN will fail to meet the substantial challenges ahead.
Ms Meg Munn: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. On a recent visit to the UN, I spent some time talking about how its role in peacekeeping had developed. The change in leadership to Kofi Annan and change in approach to peacekeeping were seen as the important element of reform rather than reform of the institutions. There was a general feeling that spending a lot of time in reforming institutions would mean taking the UN's eye off the real problems of the world. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Norman Lamb: I can see the risk of deflecting attention away from how best to cope with each challenge. However, the real concern is that, as presently constructed, the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, does not properly reflect the modern world. It can no longer be sustained with countries that were essentially the victors of the second world war playing the prominent, central roles. That must change, as many people recognise.
On the eve of the millennium summit in September 2000, the Liberal Democrats and the Government published a joint paper on the case for reform. It was an impressive document, the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the then Foreign Secretary. Much of it is as valid now as it was then.
Mr. Love: When the joint paper was published, there was some criticism from the Liberal Democrats because they supported the idea of regional lists of people or countries that should be on the Security Council. What is the policy of the Liberal Democrats?
Norman Lamb: We signed up to the paper and supported it. There will be debate in any party about certain aspects of official policy, but the paper clearly stated our position and I stand by that. It made the powerful point that the UN remains the only truly global institution, with universal membership and universal norms that bestow on it a unique legitimacy. As Kofi Annan put it, the UN's influence derives not from power but from what it represents—its role in helping to set and sustain global norms, its ability to stimulate global concern and action and the trust inspired by its practical work through so many of its agencies to improve people's lives.
The millennium targets that were set in 2000 to be achieved by 2015 are an excellent example of the UN taking a lead. They are based on some core values that the world community is asked to follow; that is why it is so important to rebuild confidence and credibility. If the UN is to have a central role in the future, structural reform must be achieved. I have already mentioned the need for reform of the Security Council. There is a powerful case for Germany and Japan to have a place on it and there must be additional places for Latin America, Africa and Asia if the UN is properly to reflect the modern world.

157WH
It is also important to address the use of the veto. Although it has not often been used since the inception of the UN, the threat of its use can be destructive. The Security Council must be more capable of responding effectively and without delay to the threats and challenges ahead. There also needs to be an audit of outstanding Security Council resolutions. Too often, they are fine words that gather dust without being translated into action.
I want to discuss when intervention in other countries is appropriate. In April 1999, the Prime Minister initiated a debate on the circumstances in which we should get involved in "other people's conflicts", as he put it. Kofi Annan joined the debate by stating:
"No legal principle—not even sovereignty—can shield crimes against humanity."
There needs to be a framework for intervention, the criteria and principles to be followed in determining when and if it is appropriate.
What has happened since the millennium summit in September 2000, and since Brahimi's analysis of the UN's peacekeeping role? Policy continues to be developed, and in December 2001 the Secretary-General reported on progress in the implementation of the recommendations of Brahimi's panel. Things are happening slowly, but the UN peacekeeping and peacebuilding role is at least temporarily diminished.
Events since 11 September do not necessarily paint too gloomy a picture of the UN's central role of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. After all, it was the Secretary-General's special representative for Afghanistan, Mr. Brahimi, who instigated consultations on the future governance of Afghanistan, which led to the Bonn talks under the auspices of the UN. The outcome of those talks was widely acknowledged as a triumph, and the UN is continuing to play a central role in the creation of a new constitution and stable governance for that troubled country. When it came to establishing a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, it was again Brahimi who advised against a UN force; instead, learning from the lessons of the previous decade, the international security and assistance force was under the auspices the UN but was not a UN force.
The trend increasingly seems to be for peacekeeping forces to be provided by coalitions of willing nations. Indeed, the United Kingdom performed an admirable and impressive role in Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. A new model may be emerging, with the UN doing what it does best and individual countries providing peacekeeping forces because of their expertise, yet still being accountable to the UN. If what seems to be emerging is the shape of things to come, the cost of those operations must be properly shared.
I turn to the role of the United Nations in the so-called war on terrorism. Resolution 1373, passed on 28 September 2001, set out a range of legally binding measures to be taken against terrorism. As we heard, a counter-terrorism committee was established to pursue that agenda, chaired by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who said that its task was to upgrade the world's capability for tackling terrorism and establish a network for information sharing and co-operative executive action. I have already said that all member states were supposed to have provided details of what measures they were
158WH
taking by the end of December but that 45 countries failed to respond. I would be interested to know what is being done to encourage those recalcitrant countries to respond.
There is no doubt that a globalised world needs a strong United Nations; it also needs many of the UN agencies, which are engaged in vital work. I have recently seen the work of the United Nations population fund in China, which is addressing the massive challenge of population growth in that country. I am also aware of the work of the United Nations mine action service in trying to clear mines. However, many UN agencies need to be challenged on their use of funds and on the effectiveness of their work. I was appalled to hear that UNMAS spends about 30 per cent. of its budget on central costs in New York. That must be challenged so that the money is used effectively on the ground.
It is clear that the will is strong to ensure that the United Nations again becomes an effective, central player in a dangerous and unstable world, but the fine rhetoric must be translated into action to ensure that we achieve not only structural reform but reform of the way in which it carries out its work. We need to make certain that it is effective.
3.48 pm
Harry Cohen: Reform of the United Nations is necessary, because membership of the Security Council encourages nuclear proliferation. If a country has nuclear weapons it gets a seat at the top table; the likelihood of a seat for India is the latest example of that. The problem must be addressed. It is a perverse incentive.
Mr. Savidge: As the Liberal spokesman said, countries were on the Security Council because they happened to win world war 2, not because they had nuclear weapons. It is important to stress that, because some people think that countries can get on to the Security Council by that means.
Harry Cohen: I note my hon. Friend's comments, but I think that there is still a perverse incentive, which must be dealt with.
Mr. Love: As a member of an association of friends of India, I should say that there are many reasons why we should consider sympathetically India's claim to a place on the Security Council, not least because there are more than 1 billion people in the country, and its population is growing rapidly.
Harry Cohen: I hear that point, and I am not unsympathetic to such reasons, but India's case started to be taken seriously only when it got nuclear weapons. That provides a perverse incentive, which must be dealt with.
It may not be popular to say so here, but it would also make obvious sense to convert the Security Council seats of the United Kingdom and France into a European Union seat. There is an obvious case for doing that, and it will come about in due course. If it does not, the Security Council will become unwieldy. Indeed, it will end up becoming the General Assembly if

159WH
the reforms that have been mentioned come about. We should consider an EU seat as part of any reform process.
Reform should also encompass paying dues on time. The United States position has been a scandal, and its dues were paid only recently—by Ted Turner of CNN, not by the Administration. Paying up should be a necessary prerequisite for a country's nationals to hold positions in the UN.
I want to talk about an aspect of the UN charter. Whenever the House debates the arms trade, the Government—whichever party is in power—response is that all countries have the right of self-defence, which is enshrined in article 51. That has become the basic justification for arms sales, but the charter did not intend that. It simply stated the obvious fact that a nation's sovereignty should not be attacked by others, but arms buyers and sellers now use that to justify their arms dealing.
I would like the charter to be amended. Why should countries with appalling human rights records be allowed to use it to legitimise a dubious right to import arms? It should be made explicit that the right to import arms exists only in countries that recognise the responsibilities of good governance.
There is an irony in the present situation, in that the UN imposes arms embargoes in contradiction of its own charter. The European Union, NATO, the UK and others similarly impose embargoes in contradiction of the charter and of the right to self-defence. It could be argued that Iraq has the right of self-defence under the charter, whatever the policies of its regime. I suspect that other countries would argue the same for themselves, and I think that they would win their case if it ever came to trial under international law. The charter should therefore be made more specific, and the authorisation for arms deals should be qualified.
Ms Julia Drown: Is there not an even wider issue? It is undoubtedly true that the mere presence of arms fuels conflict in many areas, and that is as valid for small arms as it is for larger ones. Is there not a role for the UN in trying to get countries such as Britain to be serious about defence diversification and about using their talented engineers and scientists in more productive employment, thus decreasing the availability of arms in the world?
Harry Cohen: I agree with both those points. I have argued for much more effective defence diversification for many years. There should be control on small arms, and I am deeply disappointed that the USA put a stop to a progressive proposal that was backed by the Government. I praise the Government for their support. It is a shame that the Bush Administration have put a block on an important proposal that would have stopped much of the killing around the world.
The UN charter should not be used to authorise unjustified arms sales, which result in turmoil. The Government should raise the issue in all relevant discussions, internationally and in the UN. I admit that such an amendment is unlikely to be passed, as there are too many regimes that want the right to buy arms without accepting proper democratic and human rights standards. However, such a move from the Government might provoke a debate about which countries should be prevented from or restricted in importing arms.
160WH
Human rights abuses bring untold misery to countries, but there are more serious international implications. A country that is willing to inflict pain and suffering on its own population is less likely to feel morally restricted about killing people outside its borders. If a dictator is aggressive towards his own people, he may well be aggressive against his neighbours. I do not like the UN charter being used as a cover for aggression, and I urge that the matter be debated at the UN and that reform be considered.
3.56 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the debate, as the House does not consider frequently enough the work and role of the UN.
I have two points. First, we must consider how the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the near east, which is one of the UN's oldest agencies, can be wound up while offering a secure future to Palestinian refugees. Secondly, I wish to promote the introduction of a parliamentary dimension into the work of the UN.
During the debate on the middle east that took place on 16 April on the Floor of the House, I said in response to the moving comments made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that the devastation of the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin should encourage the international community to consider how the work of UNRWA can be brought to an end. Whatever the justification for what Israel did at Jenin in pursuit of Palestinian terrorists, it must be clear that such camps are and will continue to be a prime source of terrorism against Israel and the international community for as long as they remain.
There are 49 refugee camps, located in the host countries of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, as well as in Gaza and the partially reoccupied west bank. Today they house nearly 1.25 million of the 3.5 million refugees who are registered with the UN. They originated from the 1948 independence war for Israel and were added to by those who were further displaced in the 1967 war. The camps are overcrowded and squalid and offer the most rudimentary facilities. Their occupants are stateless and homeless, living in increasing poverty and their hopes for a secured and settled future are dashed as every peace process fails. It is no wonder that they are a breeding ground for young terrorists influenced by Islamic fundamentalism.
Despite those conditions, UNRWA continues to produce miracles in providing basic services. Many of its schools are organised on a double shift system, so that they are, in effect, two schools in one. The teachers produce outstanding results despite those conditions, as do the medical staff in the health centres and hospitals, not least in treating patients traumatised by the violence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was right to pay tribute to the work of United Nations staff in such situations. However, UNRWA's ability to provide such services has deteriorated dramatically in the past decade, with a 30 per cent. reduction in spending per registered refugee as donations have been reduced and the registered refugee population has increased by more than 30 per cent. There can be no doubt that the most recent interventions in the camps in Gaza and the west bank by Israeli forces will have damaged still further UNRWA's ability to deliver those services.

161WH
In response to the situation, the international community, through the United Nations, should now consider how those 3.5 million registered Palestinian refugees can be provided with a permanent settlement and offered a secure future after 50 years. Such a plan, including the funding for it, should be clear for all to see in preparation for the moment when, eventually and inevitably, the refugee final status issue is addressed by the two parties to the negotiations. Its aim should be to enable the camps to be ended and the work of UNRWA to be seamlessly transferred to the Ministries concerned.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe endorsed a carefully worked-out plan in its resolution 1156, which was the subject of my Adjournment debate in the House on 28 April 1998. It accepts the reality, as do a growing number of Palestinians and Arab states, that there can be no right of return to Israel, even though Israel will be expected, and has offered, to accept some refugees in order to reunify families. The options include citizenship in the host country, resettlement and citizenship in other donor countries or citizenship in a viable state of Palestine. The Assembly also proposed the establishment of a new UN Palestine refugee and displaced persons final status fund to finance the permanent settlement of the refugees. That funding would represent the compensation that is promised in UN resolutions 198 and 242 as the implied alternative to the right of return.
It is now in the interests of all of us to press for such a plan. Spain, currently the holder of the EU presidency, and the country that launched the Oslo accords in 1990, should be encouraged to take such an initiative. The United Kingdom, which is the largest donor to UNRWA, considered such a plan when it last held the EU presidency in 1998. At that time it co-sponsored the Warwick conference on Palestine refugees, which was addressed by the late Derek Fatchett, then the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for middle east affairs. Without such a plan, I do not have any hope for the refugees or for an end to the terrorism that each new generation is tempted to pursue.
I shall conclude my remarks by making the case for the introduction of a parliamentary dimension into the work of the United Nations. Many Members serve or have served in the four Parliamentary Assemblies where we are represented by a national delegation—the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I am sure that all who share that experience will vouch for the fact that, as practical parliamentarians regularly seeking re-election to continue to do our work here, we can and have proposed solutions to problems that have eluded Governments.
During its existence for more than half a century, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has contributed to almost 200 conventions, which in countless ways based on common standards and best practices today influence the lives of the citizens of its 44 member states. We have also proposed solutions to long-standing disputes and conflicts by dialogue with fellow parliamentarians when diplomacy and Governments have failed.
162WH
It was the introduction of such a parliamentary dimension in the work of the UN, based on the undoubted success of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, that the millennium conference of presiding officers of national Parliaments—Speakers, in effect—called for in its final declaration at the UN headquarters in New York on 1 September 2000. That idea has been promoted for several years by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which continues to encourage parliamentarians to be included in the national delegations to the annual UN General Assembly. It was a great privilege for me to address the General Assembly on behalf of the British delegation in October 2000. I was told that that was the first time that a British Back-Bench Member of Parliament had done so. I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who approved that when he was Foreign Secretary.
For parliamentarians to be included in national delegations to the UN General Assembly is no substitute for the UN having its own parliamentary assembly, such as that of the Council of Europe. Although it is for the IPU to pursue its proposal for such an assembly, I hope that the Government will endorse the concept and in so doing encourage those of us who believe that it would make a valuable contribution to the work and success of the UN in future.
4.6 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I am grateful to have an opportunity to contribute, and would like to spend most of my time discussing the role of UN development. Before I do so, I want to register my huge concern, and that of my constituents, about the situation between India and Pakistan, and about the treatment of Palestinians in Israel. Those matters have to be priorities for the UN, as they affect everyone.
When the Minister opened the debate, he referred, rightly, to the millennium development goals. In September 2000, the UN declaration on them suggested that by 2015 we should halve the proportion of the world's population who live on less than a dollar a day, suffer from hunger or are unable to reach or afford fresh drinking water.
The next goals were to ensure primary education for all, promote gender equality and reduce maternal and child mortality. UNICEF is doing some excellent work on the last issue. It hopes that by 2005 we will be able to eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus, which currently kills 30,000 women and 200,000 babies each year, for the want of an incredibly cheap vaccine and some basic hygiene methods. I hope that the Government will continue to support that important programme.
The other three millennium development goals were to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases, to ensure environmental sustainability, and to develop a global partnership for development, based on open trading and a financial system with clear rules that is committed to good governance and poverty reduction.
I hope that everyone in the House supports the UN goals, as the real challenge is to achieve them. It is not impossible. Korea, Malaysia and Morocco halved the proportion of their people who lived in poverty in less

163WH
than a generation, as did the Indian states of Haryana, Kerala and the Punjab. Another dozen countries, including Botswana and Mauritius, reduced poverty by a quarter or more in a generation. Other countries can learn much from those well documented lessons. If such work has been done before, we can do it again.
The UN, having drawn up the goals, now has a duty to oversee their implementation. The millennium declaration states
"we will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities".
Delivering on the goals involves aid and major changes in trade organisation. Also, a key part in their delivery must be to oversee a swift and fair cancellation of third-world debt.
The world's poorest countries currently owe the richest an estimated $213 billion and pay us £21.5 billion a year. In return, they receive £49.5 billion in official development assistance. More than half the assistance is given straight back, which is ridiculous when we consider the wide discrepancy in power and poverty between the richest and poorest countries.
The UN is producing a lot of fine words, but the measures that are currently in place to deal with poor countries' debts are insufficient. The heavily indebted poor countries process, known as HIPC, managed and run by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, is not living up to the UN's worthy principles. The UN states that
"global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice".
However, it is not socially just or equitable that Zambia, for example, spends 13 per cent. of its GDP on debt servicing and only 3.6 per cent. on health and 2.2 per cent. on education, when 85 per cent. of the population live below the poverty line and 45 per cent. are undernourished. Nor is there an equal say for debtor and creditor countries in the HIPC process. There should be a fair arbitration procedure for all poor countries that want bad loans to be assessed. Such a procedure should include investigating whether the lending countries were knowingly giving a bad loan or a loan to a corrupt dictator, Government, politician or official, and if so, the loan should be written off accordingly. All debts should be assessed to see whether they are consistent with the millennium development goals, which will only halve the number of people who live in poverty, not get rid of poverty altogether.
If we are to lift millions of people out of poverty, it will be crucial to speed up debt relief and expand help to those countries not even currently considered in the HIPC process. The UN could play a key role in setting up such an arbitration process, which already has some firm foundations. The Jubilee research organisation has undertaken several thorough studies of the HIPC initiative and found it to be seriously wanting. It suggests an arbitration system for overseeing and implementing debt relief, based on chapter 9 of the United States legal code. Jubilee proposes that the Secretary-General of the United Nations should oversee the appointment of panels to carry out the arbitration. In addition, the IMF has recently been considering the idea of arbitration panels for middle-income countries. We are not giving debtor countries the means to shake
164WH
off any responsibility for their debts, but the UN can play a central role in the process to ensure that both sides are fairly heard.
As with most issues of debt relief, the details are complex and technical, but it seems an obvious role for the UN to fulfil. It is time for joined-up thinking on development. With the two big summits this year, which will highlight the links between development and international financing, the environment and the urgent need for poverty reduction, the central problem of debt in relation to the millennium development goals must be tackled seriously so that poor countries can be made sustainable, both in economic and environmental terms.
The United Kingdom is well ahead of other countries in advocating and implementing joined up pro-poor policies in development and debt relief.
Norman Lamb: Does the hon. Lady agree that the sale of the £28 million air traffic control system to Tanzania shows an absolutely hopeless failure to deliver joined-up government, as the Department for International Development opposed the project, but the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister supported it?
Ms Drown: There are serious questions surrounding that. There is an obvious defence that the decision is up to the Government of Tanzania and we should not interfere, but given the extreme poverty in Tanzania, there are serious questions about how much it is reasonable to spend on such a system when there are cheaper and better alternatives.
More needs to be done on debt relief, both by this country and others. The UN can play a central role in getting other developed countries to follow Britain's lead and genuinely address the needs of developing countries. The Zedillo report for the Monterrey financing for development summit estimated that an extra $50 billion of aid a year would be needed to meet those development goals. After debt relief, at its current level, the world's poorest countries will still need $30 billion a year just to achieve the first goal. To achieve all seven will require an awful lot more.
Mr. Love: While accepting almost everything that my hon. Friend says, does she not accord more importance to the role of trade? For example, in China and India, two countries with large numbers of very poor people, trade has been a salvation. It has brought many people out of poverty, yet she does not see it. Does she also accept that if the European Union could be opened up to third-world countries, it would do more than almost anything else to raise the people in those countries out of poverty?
Ms Drown: I accept those points and I have mentioned trade at least twice already. It is a central issue, part of the seventh millennium development goal, but we are not doing nearly enough. Developing countries have to cross barriers the size of mountains to send goods to us and in return we require them to reduce the barriers to our goods. Trade, debt relief and aid support need to be joined up.
I call on the Government to work with the United Nations on a co-ordinated approach to development, to speed up debt relief, to tackle the trade issues and to

165WH
ensure that enough action is taken not only to achieve the millennium development goals but to reach even higher.
4.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Since the cold war ended, especially in the post-11 September world, there has been an urgent need to re-examine those international organisations that exist to uphold the peace and to maintain global stability. The foremost and principal organisation in that effort is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Equally, however, there is no doubt that the United Nations has enormous international significance, and I am pleased that we can debate its modern role today.
I applaud the UN's many achievements and welcome many of the comments made by the Minister and other hon. Members. I would welcome new members such as East Timor and Switzerland joining the United Nations, but its culture needs to change a little. There should be less consensus and more expansion of liberty. The UN must become a more democratic and open organisation, with serious reforms cutting out the institutional waste and bureaucracy that have characterised it in recent years.
The first step to shaping the sort of United Nations that can actually be of use to its members must be an acceptance that it needs a clearly defined role, distinct from other organisations such as NATO, and one that it can deliver in an effective and meaningful manner. As the sixth largest contributor to the United Nations, it is in the United Kingdom's interest to ensure that the direction of the UN is focused and serves a useful purpose in all its initiatives. There is no excuse for spending taxpayers' money on an organisation that fails to deliver and seems only to perpetuate bureaucracy while standing on the toes of other organisations and nations. NATO, for example, has a specific security focus, yet the United Nations currently tries to be all-encompassing, acting as a focal point for all attempts to co-ordinate international action on global issues, be it peacekeeping, humanitarian aid or in attempting to lay the foundations for stability in Afghanistan.
Let us take, for example, the somewhat excessive level of discussions, documents, treaties and proposed actions that regularly come out of the United Nations. They are all based on the perceived rights of people around the world to everything from clean water to education. Yet declaring these rights—
Mr. Paul Marsden: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there should be no right for a human being to have clean water, a roof over their head and enough food in their belly, especially bearing in mind that today 30,000 children will die in the developing nations, as they do every day? What is the hon. Gentleman's solution to those deaths?
Mr. Rosindell: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. What I am saying is that we need to achieve these things, but not to perpetuate a bureaucracy in which there is talk about achieving such laudable aims, but a
166WH
failure to do so. In a recent document produced by the US Heritage Foundation, Brett Schaefer wrote that the UN
"has not purified any water or educated any children, and UN target dates for accomplishing its goals are rarely, if ever, met."
I cannot believe that any hon. Member would want to defend an organisation that fails in such crucial areas of policy.
Ms Munn: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that no progress is being made. Does he not accept that 63 countries over the past 12 years achieved the world summit's 1990 goal by reducing the death rate of children under five by a third, while more than 100 countries reduced the death rate by a fifth? Of course, that is not enough, but is it not an achievement for all those children who would not have been alive if fewer countries had come together under the UN's auspices?
Mr. Rosindell: Yes, that is a magnificent achievement, and I seek to ensure that the UN and other international organisations improve on that work and the progress that they have made. It is a question not of criticising achievements, but of building on them.
Mr. Savidge: I attended a Heritage Foundation seminar at which representatives said that it was terrible that they were being accused of being unilateralist because of their opposition to arms control treaties and the UN. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is using the most reliable source to build his definition of caring Conservatism.
Mr. Rosindell: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion and to consult and take briefings from whichever organisation he chooses. I also have that right. I believe that the Heritage Foundation produces some excellent material, which I am pleased to use today.
What the UN will achieve is a debasement of the definition of rights, the expansion of the authority of international law, and the use of organisations and administrators to impose arbitrary rights as obligations on sovereign Governments. It also hosts periodic large-scale conferences that attempt to go well beyond what they could ever achieve, and cost an excessive sum of money.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rosindell: Not at the moment.
The social summit in the mid-1990s proclaimed an ability to develop a global strategy on creating jobs and building solidarity. That is quite a feat for a one-time gathering of national and international bureaucrats. Surely, the cornerstone of Britain's approach to international organisations, especially the UN and, for that matter, the European Union, should be based on a policy of creating an international system that is based on, and accountable to, sovereign nations, and is realistic about what it can achieve. It should not attempt

167WH
to encroach on areas that are rightly the business of its own member nation states. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love).
Mr. Love: We have missed the point.
Mr. Rosindell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that I have missed the point, or that he has.
Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way belatedly. I am talking about his point on international conferences. Whenever I read anything in the media about the UN and international conferences, the words that always attach to them are "lobster" and "champagne". Such superficial criticism of the UN does not take us forward. If we did not have a UN, we would need to invent one. The sooner the Heritage Foundation and those Conservative Back Benchers realise that, the better off this Parliament will be.
Mr. Rosindell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think that the Conservative party or any Opposition Members are suggesting that the United Nations should not exist. The UN has a crucial role to play in today's world, and no one is saying otherwise. I am arguing for a more efficient way of spending money and a United Nations that achieves the goals that we want it to achieve. We want less lobster and champagne and more achievements for the people and nations of the world that need the most help.
Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us about what he thinks the UN should be aiming to do?
Mr. Rosindell: I am trying to do that throughout my speech. I have already made it clear that the UN appears to be all-encompassing on a range of subjects, rather than focusing on clearly defined roles. Today's debate is to assess the importance of the United Nations while trying to ensure that it, and Governments who are represented in it, push for it to act effectively and cost-efficiently. We all want it to be a worthwhile organisation that we can support.
In its current form, the UN seems to strive for some sort of international consensus. However, I challenge where that can lead us. I appeal to the common sense of hon. Members to accept that such a concept, while idealistic, is floating somewhere significantly north of cloud cuckoo land. There are many things on which nations can agree, but always trying to reach international consensus on all issues is simply unrealistic.
Ms Munn: I remain somewhat puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My understanding is that the United Nations is exactly the organisation that he described. It is an organisation of nation states, which means that there are few things on which the General Assembly can achieve a consensus, and there is a lot of negotiation about those issues. It is unlike the European Union, at which we sometimes have to argue about the subjects on which we give up a veto, and precisely like the organisation that he wants.
Mr. Rosindell: I do not entirely agree. The United Nations, like many international organisations, strives
168WH
for what it sees as a consensus. The problem with the idea of consensus is that it leaves us always veering towards the common ground rather than necessarily towards what is right. As I said at the beginning, I would prefer the UN to fight for the expansion of liberty and freedom rather than continuously seek a consensus.
For example, where will an international consensus be found in a territorial dispute such as Gibraltar? Britain and Spain are both members of the UN. Both countries can agree on many topics, but so long as our Government do not betray the British people of Gibraltar, the two countries will never agree, whatever the United Nations chooses to do. Indeed, Gibraltar illustrates one key area in which the UN attempts good work, but fails. The 1960 UN resolution on the independence of colonial countries and peoples gives the people of such territories the right to remain as they are or integrate with their motherland. However, bilateral talks between Britain and Spain have taken place on Gibraltar, ignoring the declaration and rendering good intentions useless.
Equally, where will a consensus-seeking organisation place itself on the situation in the middle east? That has been mentioned by hon. Members already this afternoon. Some international input can be helpful in both matters, but action is conducted often on a bilateral, rather than multilateral basis. That is why the role of the UN should not be so prescriptive. It should more flexible and responsive to bilateral relationships between nation states. We should not have a UN where the bureaucracy runs wild, obsessed with countless conferences, documents and treaties attempting to be the world government. We should have a UN where nations can come together when need be just as the coalition against terror was formed last September.
One of the most prominent activities of the UN over the past decade has been that of an ever expanding peacekeeping role, at an unsurprisingly significant cost. That is especially the case when we consider the recent missions in Kosovo, East Timor and Sierra Leone, all of which took the budget for peacekeeping operations as a whole from $800 million in 1998–99 to $1.8 billion in 2000–01, without even mentioning the possible expenditure in connection with the war on terrorism.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the UN at such peacekeeping can legitimately be called into question when consideration is given to the correlation between the immense cost and the failures such as Somalia and Bosnia. Therefore, certain questions must be asked. Does the UN have the necessary military knowledge to conduct such actions? Does it carry the authority and respect that a NATO or a national taskforce would carry? Is the real purpose of many deployments peacekeeping or peace-enforcing? The period after the cold war has brought many more wars of ethnicity and nationalism, bringing a greater need for peace enforcement rather than simple peacekeeping.
The question we must now ask is whether the UN is equipped to deal with such scenarios, or whether other, more tactical and security focused forces would be better. Perhaps the UN is better used for properly co-ordinated humanitarian relief efforts, leaving military action to specific military organisations. Any decision that is made on the future role of the UN must be made on the basis that the world still exists as a body of independent nation states. The answers will not be

169WH
found in Westminster Hall this afternoon, but a thorough investigation must be made of the effectiveness of what the UN does now, how it can do it better and what it is based on. Some of the ideas that I have outlined today may seem to many to be anti-UN, but that is not the case. The UN has done a great deal of good work on a humanitarian and peacekeeping level over many years. The world has changed, however, and the bureaucracy needs to be challenged and its role needs to be defined. That is the real challenge.
4.33 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Last March I had the privilege of speaking at an inter-parliamentary conference in New Delhi in the Parliament buildings on United Nations Brahimi peacekeeping operations. I started my comments by saying that 11 September had brought home to us that horrors we had previously thought might be purely in the realm of fiction could happen in dreadful reality. I then read out the following passage:
"The magnificent architectural buildings of Indian democracy were destroyed within seconds of the blast; India Gate, the Parliament Building, the national Archives, the Supreme Court, then further out with temperatures still almost a million degrees, the path of destruction hitting Connaught Place, Janpath and other landmarks of Indian heritage…then, like in Bombay, the firestorms reached the flimsier structures, the more densely crowded parts of the city where people died in their tens of thousands."
I said that whether one believed that scenario from "Dragon Fire", a carefully researched novel by BBC Asia correspondent Humphrey Hawksley, was credible, the possibility of conflict between India and Pakistan ending in nuclear war was all too terribly and dreadfully believable. That is even more true today. I am pleased to say that Sonia Gandhi, who was leader of the Indian opposition at the time, raised the same points in her message to the conference.
I said at that conference that I was not trying to be patronising or colonial—asserting that some countries could be trusted with nuclear weapons but others could not. I thought that I could defend myself against that accusation because I said that just two days earlier it had been revealed that Nixon had discussed with Kissinger the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. I will also never forget Cuba. In 1993, I was at a big dinner at the Mansion house in honour of Mikhail Gorbachev. It was attended by several politicians—mostly senior Conservatives, including Margaret Thatcher. One of the speakers was David Mellor, who said that he believed Gorbachev had removed the threat of nuclear conflict. He spoke movingly about how, as a child, he had left his mother to go to school in the morning, wondering whether he would come home because we were in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis. As Kennedy said—he must have known—the possibility of nuclear disaster rose to somewhere between one in three and one in five because America had lost control of the situation.
Speaking in Westminster Hall at the start of the millennium, I said that I feared that we had missed many of the opportunities afforded by the ending of the cold war for reducing the terrible risks posed by weapons of
170WH
mass destruction. I suspect that all hon. Members present would feel that the way in which events have gone since the beginning of the millennium has, if anything, increased the fears that something terrible could go wrong.
The comment made by President Truman in 1945 on the signing of the UN charter applies more than ever. He said:
"We did much more than draft an international agreement among 50 nations. We set down on paper the only principles that will enable civilised human life to continue to survive on this globe."
The UN is not just our best hope of survival. It is an essential component of a safer world. The UN has many faults and legitimate complaints can be made about its bureaucracy and other problems, although I do not echo the comments of the Member for north cloud cuckoo land. As the hon. Gentleman's speech showed, attacks on the UN have often been grossly unjust. One thinks, for example, of the occasions on which NATO operates on UN command; if things go wrong, the failure is blamed on the UN and if things go right, NATO is credited with the success. The UN is often blamed in situations where the real fault has been member nations blocking an initiative.
One also thinks of how often the fact that the cold war never became a nuclear or a world war is credited to various factors, such as nuclear deterrence, and how rarely the contribution made by the UN is acknowledged. Hon. Members have referred to various UN activities: its success with decolonisation, refugees, famine relief, health, education, the environment, peacemaking, peacekeeping, conflict resolution, as well as the vital role it plays in combating terrorism and, of course, in arms control and disarmament. The UN is the fundamental basis of creating a peaceful, just and stable world.
I wish to concentrate on the UN's crucial role of opposing war and its causes. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) said, it will have an increasing role in halting civil wars. To be effective, it must be properly resourced and the forces must be properly integrated. The European rapid reaction force could provide a useful model. We must also work on policing and the sort of nation-building exercises that we have seen in Afghanistan.
I want to focus specifically on the three main world problem areas. The first is India and Pakistan, to which the Minister and others referred, where the risk of a conflict going nuclear is serious and the fatalities could run into millions. Even if no other countries were involved—heaven help us if China joins in—the consequences could be horrific. If just India and Pakistan became entangled in nuclear conflict, the fatalities would spread way beyond their borders as a result of the radiation, and even if a nuclear winter did not break out, climate change could occur in countries where many of the inhabitants are already living on subsistence levels.
The Prime Minister's judicious response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) yesterday has the overwhelming support of both sides of the House. My own early-day motion 633, urging the Government to seek a peaceful resolution and reduce the risks of nuclear

171WH
conflict has already found the support of 315 Back Benchers from across the political and religious spectrum, including the most prominent supporters of both countries. Unanimity exists not just in Parliament, but throughout the country, in support of the Foreign Secretary's peace mission next week. The UN has a vital role to play in resolving the problem.
Iraq is another major problem. Of course we must deal with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, although I am somewhat wary of that phrase, which diminishes the difference between nuclear weapons on the one hand and biological and chemical weapons on the other.
4.41 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.56 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Savidge: I begin with an apology. I referred to the Member for north cloud cuckoo land when I should have said the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). My knowledge of Essex geography is a little limited; is that some way beyond Barking?
I was speaking about Iraq. Obviously, the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction must be dealt with, but inspections and sanctions must be decided under the United Nations. Any consideration of any other type of action against Iraq or any other state that is of concern must also take place under the UN. I reject the phrase "rogue state", because it is simplistic and I do not see why we should accept the language of the extreme right in the United States.
To quote the impressive speech made earlier by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), if the UN is "ignored, undermined or sidestepped" in this respect, as in any other, it will be diminished, and the possibility of other countries feeling that they have a right to take unilateral action will be increased. I also associate myself completely with the excellent and impressive speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
On Israel and Palestine, I take it as read that Israel has a right to exist within its borders in security, but I also take it as read that Palestine has a right to exist within its borders in security. I have grave fears about the implications if the Sharon Government continue to resist a proper inquiry into events in Jenin, to occupy territories where they have no right to be and to assume a licence to kill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to Sir David Low's exhibition in Westminster Hall, which includes two very telling cartoons. One is about Japan and Manchuria, and the other relates to Italy and Abyssinia. He was forecasting that the failure of the League of Nations to take suitable action in those respects would lead to disaster, and we all know that it led eventually to world war.
I shall draw another historical parallel, which David Low also illustrated amply. I am pleased that there is discussion of peace talks this summer involving the United States, the European Union, Russia and the UN.
172WH
It is important that a number of parties that are not seen to be partisan towards Israel should be part of those talks, but I have one fear at the back of my mind. We must not allow the situation to be like that involving Czechoslovakia in 1938, with the settlements being treated like those of the Sudeten Germans, and the weaker side—Palestine—being humiliated, as Czechoslovakia was, and forced to accept Bantustan status. That would be a recipe for disaster.
One of the crucial things in the failure of the League of Nations was its relationship with the United States. The United States played a wonderful role in setting up the League in the first place, but then unfortunately the isolationists took over. There are concerns in the rest of the world about the relationship of the United States to the United Nations. There are concerns about the sort of extremists to whom I have referred already, who treat the United Nations with hostility. I find it worrying that a popular film could be made that suggested that there could be a war between the United States as the goodies and the United Nations as the baddies.
Apart from those sorts of extremists, the Heritage Foundation and other isolationists, there are other concerns. There is concern felt in a number of parts of the world that some countries use the United Nations when it is convenient, and ignore it when it is not. There is another concern that I have heard expressed in several countries that the United Nations is dominated by the Security Council, the Security Council is dominated by the permanent five and the permanent five are dominated by the United States. To be fair, there is a concern in the United States that I think should be recognised by the rest of the world. The United States feels that we are happy to use its dollars and military resources when it suits us, but to blame it when it does not. I think that the balance of both concerns is covered very well in something that was said by John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1961:
"We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient—that we are only 6 per cent. of the population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 per cent. of mankind—that we cannot right every wrong or reverse every adversity—and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every problem."
Clearly, part of the resolution of the difficulties between the United States and the United Nations, and other difficulties related to the UN, must lie in reform of the organisation. The General Assembly quite rightly represents countries, but that is without any relation to their size. The Security Council is supposed to balance that, but as we have said, the permanent five are there largely as a result of history. Of course, the role that we played in the second world war deserves to be recognised, but we have to recognise also that it would be unacceptable for our role during the first world war or the Napoleonic wars to give us a right to a permanent place on the Security Council. We will have to recognise that, at some point in the future, Britain will not necessarily be one of just five privileged states.
I would look for further reform. Ultimately, there needs to be an elected Parliament as part of the organisation. Until that time, one could look at whether there should be more involvement of parliamentarians. I think that the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) were warmly applauded by everyone. I would hope that there will be

173WH
a possibility when China becomes a democracy—as I hope it may—of moving towards a further democratisation of the United Nations.
Personally, I look to the ambition of a world Government, continental Governments and national Governments, with power devolved to the lowest levels, right down to community councils. I realise that that might be a distant vision, but I think that Churchill's oft quoted dictum that
"democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms of government that have been tried from time to time"
bears a lot of repetition.
Humanity has devised the means of encompassing its own destruction before it has evolved a system for avoiding conflict and war. That is the greatest challenge facing us all, and the United Nations must be vital to our hopes of meeting that challenge.
5.4 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I wish to declare an interest. I am member of the United Nations Association and I would urge all hon. Members who have not already done so to join that worthwhile organisation, which campaigns educates and raises funds to help turn the ideals of the United Nations into reality.
Much fun was had at the expense of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) earlier, but I have to admire him for having the courage of his convictions, and the fact that he genuinely believed what he said. He probably spoke for much of the Conservative party when he talked about wanting to reduce some of the bureaucracy and making the UN a better organisation. I agree with him on those subjects, but he simply did not get the whole point of the United Nations. I should like to put on record part of the preamble to the UN charter. It states:
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small".
As someone said, if we did not have a UN, with all its faults, we would have to invent it.
I agree with the Minister's ideas and suggestions for reforming some of the structures of the UN, and for creating extra permanent places for other worthy nations. However, I disagree with his utter complacency, which he expressed by not demonstrating how we will solve some of the most horrendous problems that face the globe.
The UN has carried out an awful lot of important and successful work. Just to remind those hon. Members who do not think that it has been successful, I shall run through one or two examples. United Nations' peacekeeping is a vital instrument for peace. It currently has some 37,500 military and civilian personnel, provided by 89 countries engaged in 15 operations around the world. The UN environmental conventions have helped to reduce acid rain, cut marine pollution and phase out harmful gases that are destroying the earth's ozone layer.
174WH
The World Food Programme provides about one third of the world's total food aid a year. Through the UN, smallpox has been eradicated from the world; polio has been eliminated from the Americas and is on course to being eradicated globally. UN agencies are hoping to aid and protect more than 25 million refugees and displaced persons throughout the world. However, the UN has never enjoyed the full, unequivocal backing of the US Government and other rich western countries, including Britain, that it needs and deserves in order to fulfil its charter. As a result, it has had to make financial ends meet. It has had to fudge and compromise and kneel to the world's superpowers.
When I visited Pakistan on the Afghan border in November I saw for myself the enormous struggle, ingenuity and determination of UN aid agency workers as they helped to provide food, shelter and medical supplies to those fleeing the bombing in Afghanistan. I salute each and every one of them for what they are trying to do. However, I also saw a huge bureaucracy in operation, in which those workers were caught up, between the UN and Governments, and internally between a multitude of UN departments.
There has been an attempt to draw a UN family tree. The result is 22 funding programmes, 17 offices of the secretariat, 15 commissions, 14 specialised agencies and an absolute plethora of committees, entities, institutes, ad hoc bodies and tribunals. I truly think that there is a better way to fulfil the UN charter than the current mish-mash.
When I visited the Chaman border in south-west Pakistan I saw how the operations worked in practice. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees was putting up the tents; the World Food Programme was trying to distribute the food and the United Nations Children's Fund was trying to care for the children together with various other non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Islamic Relief. There were, apparently, strict demarcation lines, and one body could not cross over to the other. The result was that, although the people were fed and shelters were set up, it was incredibly inefficient and caused all sorts of friction.
That brought home to me the human level of the problem. We can talk about the people who are dying and the children who are starving, but I remember walking around that refugee camp. It was designed to accommodate 250 families, but at that time it contained 650 families. In recent weeks that figure has risen to 3,000 families—although some of them are now returning home.
I was shown around the camp by the UN and the tribal elders. We came across a group of children who were laughing, joking, and playing peek-a-boo behind the tents while watching all the strangers who were walking around. They seemed to be happy. They were not too badly off; they had some clothes. However, I will always remember one image. There was a little girl with beautiful brown eyes and dark matted hair who was covered in dust from head to foot. She had been fed that day, and she was playing with the other children, but her feet were cut to ribbons because she was running around on the sharp razor stones on the desert floor. Yet she did not care.
It is for the sake of that little girl that I am making this speech, and for the sake of all the other similar children around the world. As I mentioned to the hon. Member

175WH
for Romford—30,000 children will die tonight, as they will tomorrow, and next week. Every single day we lose those children.
I echo what has been said about the words of President Kennedy. If the people of the United States make up 6 per cent. of the world's population, Britain has only 1 per cent. However, a third of the people on this planet live in poverty, and a sixth—over one billion—live in abject poverty that takes countless lives. Annually, around £35 billion of aid is donated, and international aid agencies in Britain have said that that needs to double if there is to be any chance of meeting the millennium pledges to halve that extreme poverty by 2015.
When it is put in context, the US Government's recent U-turn about pledging extra aid pales into insignificance. The US Government and other military powers spend about $800 billion every year on military equipment and arms. The UN helps to control a budget of $6 billion for spending on the world's poor. The increase in the US defence budget for next year is roughly equivalent to the total aid donated across the entire globe. It is utter madness, and a criminal act, that we allow so much money to be spent on creating arms that might be used to kill—or may never be used—while we allow those people to die.
It would cost about £17 billion to save 2.9 million people who die annually from vaccine-preventable diseases. That is a lot of money. This country is rightly engrossed in discussions about how we will deliver the public services that we need. We rightly want better hospitals and schools, more police, a more integrated transport system, and so on, and we can make those services world class. However, 3 million people are dying simply because they cannot get a jab in the arm. We do not appreciate how lucky and wealthy we are in this country.
After five years, the Labour Government are barely halfway to achieving the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income. I welcome the efforts of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development. They have shown a genuine commitment to raising more money, reducing debts, and so on. However, so far, they have been unable to do what I think they should have been able to do.
The Liberal Democrats have demanded that we reach that 0.7 per cent. target by 2010. I think that we can achieve it before then. People are dying out there. Many people have a miserable existence, and we should be able to find the money.
Every day, 30,000 innocent children are dying of starvation, TB, cholera and diarrhoea, and all the while we have a UN that is dedicated to deliver them to salvation. About a year ago, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, wrote:
"The world has fallen short of achieving most of the goals of the World Summit for Children, not because they were too ambitious or technically beyond reach…It has fallen short largely because of insufficient investment".
The Secretary-General's report, "We The Children", contains alarming statistics. Out of every 100 children born today, the births of 40 will not be registered—who knows what will happen to them? Twenty-six will not be immunised against any disease and 19 will have no access to clean drinking water. One in three will suffer from malnutrition during their first five years and 17 will never go to school.
176WH
There can be no doubt in any rational mind that from within the ranks of the 1.2 billion people who live on less than 60p a day, terrorists will find fertile and receptive ground for new recruits, training camps and hiding places. The President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Mr. Han Seung-Soo, said:
"In the wake of 11 September, we will forcefully demand that development, peace and security are inseparable".
He described the poorest regions as
"a breeding ground for violence and despair".
Kofi Annan has noted that
"in an increasingly globalised world, rich nations depend on the stability of poor ones more than ever…We live in one world, not two…No one in this world can feel comfortable, or safe, while so many are suffering and deprived."
Even the World Trade Organisation director general, Mike Moore, has called poverty
"a time bomb lodged against the heart of liberty".
How true.
King Abdullah of Jordan, who is a friend of America, has called poor nations
"breeding grounds for conflict"
between
"Western haves and worldwide have-nots."
He said that the weapons for a victory over terror must include increased financial aid from rich nations.
The United Nations recently had to agree to £47 million cuts from its General Assembly budget. At the same time—post-11 September—there is a great outpouring about how we must begin to address the massive inequality that exists. Although the UN could provide solutions, it must incur cuts. That is partly because it must provide £36 million for increased security. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said that the United States has paid off its UN arrears, but it has not. The House of Commons Library confirmed today that, despite the uproar over the arrears, there is a still $290 million outstanding, which has accumulated over the years. The effect of the arrears contributes to the cuts.
Poverty is endemic throughout our world, and the UN agencies, which I salute, are heavily involved in trying to help people throughout the world. In the past few weeks, the United Nations website has shown the problems that people face: drought in Kenya; problems faced by refugees in Liberia and Guinea; floods in Ecuador; the earthquake in the Philippines; the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel and, obviously, the conflict in Kashmir.
There is a shortage of funding in Afghanistan. The internal displacement programme to return people to where they came from has faced massive problems. The International Organisation for Migration warned last week that it needed an extra $10 million to continue its operations. Unless that additional funding is pledged, the IOM will be obliged to suspend all internal transportation network operations in Afghanistan within the next fortnight for financial reasons.
The question is not whether the money will be found but how we reached that situation. Chairman Karzei is constantly reassured that the money will be found after the Tokyo conference. That demonstrates the ineptness,

177WH
unfairness and total complacency of the Governments of rich western nations, including the US Government and this Government.
People in southern Africa face a terrible drought. In Malawi, 45,000 children are starving. More than 600 have died in the latest cholera outbreaks. In Angola, which has seen a constant series of wars, 60 per cent. of children cannot even attend school. The World Health Organisation has estimated that 50 million children born last year have iodine deficiencies. The list goes on, but the question is what do we do.
We need a radical plan and, above all else, a reaffirmation of countries to the UN charter and its principles. There must be a greater focus on world interests, not just national interests, and an emphasis on proactive deployment. That does not mean that there will be carte blanche to start bombing Iraq. It will mean the opposite: using the rule of law and going through the UN General Assembly and Security Council, which must be reformed, to ensure that the international will prevails. A new commitment is required to find peaceful and diplomatic solutions to conflicts, and aid budgets should be trebled and increased in line with rich nations' average gross national income each year. There must be a continuation of strong, visionary and dynamic leadership. I salute Kofi Annan in all that he has tried to do, but he seems to be working with his arms tied behind his back. For that reason, contrary again to what the Conservatives maintain, I believe that the UN's own budget is small. Having £1.3 billion to run a worldwide set-up is small beer compared with the budgets of similar organisations.
There must be a genuine commitment to international law by member states. The UK and US Governments simply threw it out of the window over Afghanistan, but they should follow clear protocols for international criminal tribunals.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the UN Security Council approved the action taken in Afghanistan in response to the attacks on 11 September as pursuant to its resolutions? Therefore, are not the British Government and forces in Afghanistan acting within international law?
Mr. Marsden: The hon. Gentleman was right to point out the failure of how the Security Council works, but I would like him to show me where resolutions 1368 and 1372 say that we can start bombing Afghanistan. If I can, I shall go on to say how I believe that the Security Council should be reformed. There are vested interests and the permanent members of the UN Security Council have too a strong influence over the other member states in deciding what to do. With their automatic veto over anything that criticises them, they will not pass anything that condemns their actions. We should end the Security Council's permanent members' vetoes. One member should be elected by free vote among member states from each continent—north America, south America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australasia. They should serve for five years, with another 12 members elected to serve for one year on a rota.
We must ensure that all future military operations are conducted under article 47 of the UN charter, which would mean the establishment of a military staff
178WH
committee. That would then mean that forces required to take military action do so under the auspices of the UN, not through the unilateral military action that continues to prevail, whether it is by the United States, Britain or any other state. We must establish a rapid reaction force with a remit that includes peacekeeping, peacemaking, peacebuilding, the enforcement of human rights, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and collective security enforcement led by the blue berets and their administrative support. They must have a greater freedom to operate.
We should be enforcing UN resolutions by all diplomatic, military and financial means, which we do not do now. We must improve the flexible interdepartmental working in the UN, to which I alluded before, and the evaluation and feedback processes so that we can assess whether we are getting value for money and whether we can improve projects on the ground through best practice. We must establish a people's assembly, which includes the nongovernmental organisations, religious groups and interested political groups to work alongside the General Assembly. We need a closer working relationship with the international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, and trade organisations such as the WTO. We should aim to cancel all unsustainable debts, and to bring the arms trade under control. We must also have fair trade to allow the third world access. We must build peace and save lives. I ask the Minister where the urgency is to start saving those poor people. At the moment it is simply not there. My United Nations Association membership card states:
"The more voices we have, the more we are heard. Be angry, be sad, be passionate, but don't be silent."
5.25 pm
Ms Meg Munn: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) was not here for most of that speech, because he asked for less consensus, which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) provided.
I thank the Minister for having requested this three-hour debate. Last November, I was privileged to be part of a group of Members of different parties who visited the UN in New York. The delegation, ably led by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), went to find out more about the UN. Like many people in this country, I had a general awareness of the UN and its work, but had no great appreciation of its history or development, or of the range and complexity of the issues that it tries to tackle. Some of those issues have a higher profile than others. It is perhaps no surprise that we have heard largely about the more high profile issues. We need to appreciate that the UN does many other things: the fact that we can get on airplanes reasonably safely and fly around the sky makes our increasingly complex world work.
The construction of the UN is imperfect. An organisation that started off with a little more than 50 member countries will shortly have 191. It is bound to be different and not work as it would if we set out to design it that way. We were not told on our visit that there was no case for reform. There is certainly a case for reform of the Security Council, and a consensus may be developing on how it might look. However, the people

179WH
who work at the level below Kofi Annan told us that there is a real danger that if we enter into long discussions about how the UN can be reformed, the difficulties facing the world will not be tackled. As a result, more people will die, and more will continue to live in poverty. There has to be a balance between reform and allowing the UN to get on and do the task it needs to do.
I want to concentrate on one aspect of the UN, as it is impossible to cover its whole range of activities. I want to talk about children, whose voices we rarely hear. The UN is making a real difference to children's lives. I can inform the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham that people in New York constantly told us that the work that is being done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development is excellent. They are leading the way in improving aid and support for children.
I also want to pay tribute to the work of three organisations—there are many more—who are involved in that work. UNICEF, Save the Children and World Vision International have provided me with information. They have done a great deal of work over the years.
The 1990 world summit for children was, at that time, the largest gathering of world leaders in history. It declared that there could be no task nobler than giving every child a better future. Those leaders signed up to a far-reaching principle that children should have first call on all resources. Those proposals and agreements have been systematically followed up and monitored. We have heard a one-sided view of that. It was a catalyst for political commitment to the convention on the rights of the child, which had been agreed the year before and which is the world's most widely embraced human rights instrument. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said:
"There is no task more important than building a world in which all of our children can grow up to realise their full potential in health, peace and dignity."
A mixed picture of the past 12 years emerges, but real and significant progress has been made in a number of areas. There have been more gains against child poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. As I said earlier, many children are no longer dying, because countries have achieved the goal of reducing the deaths of children under five. The high levels of child immunisation reached in the late 1980s in most regions of the world have been sustained. The life-sustaining practice of breast-feeding increased during the 1990s.
Worldwide, there are more children in school than ever before. Non-governmental organisations and the media are increasingly drawing attention to protection issues such as child labour, trafficking, sexual abuse, the exploitation of children and the impact of armed conflict. The United Nations General Assembly has addressed children's issues, and the Security Council has formally acknowledged the centrality of rights and the well-being of children and women in the pursuit of international peace and security.
However, there are also unfulfilled commitments. Almost 11 million children still die every year before their fifth birthday, often from readily preventable causes. There are an estimated 150 million malnourished children in the world. Almost 120 million children are still out of school, 53 per cent. of whom are girls.
180WH
New obstacles have appeared over the past decade, which prevent countries from progressing as fast as they need to. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has reached catastrophic proportions. Millions of children have been orphaned and the disease is killing teachers, health workers and other professionals who maintain and operate the vital infrastructure of society. Chronic poverty remains the greatest obstacle to fulfilling children's rights. When humanity has more resources at its disposal than ever before, some 3 billion people subsist on less than $2 a day, with 1.2 billion, half of them children, suffering absolute poverty and struggling to survive on less than $1 a day.
However, there are grounds for cautious optimism. There is now the opportunity to reach the remaining world summit goals, and to mobilise the global alliance that will achieve a breakthrough in human development based on actions for children. Compared with what the world spends on armaments and luxury consumer items, the resources needed to provide the basic needs of children are modest. The cost of universal access to health, education, water and sanitation was estimated by the United Nations and the World Bank at 1995 prices to be between $70 billion and $80 billion a year. To secure that future, political will is necessary to bring about a decisive shift to make investment in the well-being of children our overarching goal.
Two weeks ago, I was privileged to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting that took place at the United Nations General Assembly special session on children. It was very interesting because, as well as bringing parliamentarians together, it gave children and young people a voice.
A 14-year-old girl from Gambia seemed to have none of the usual nerves when addressing the large room full of parliamentarians from more than 100 countries—she had a clear message to deliver. She was chosen by the young people attending the special session to read out the children's forum message. A group of young people from all over the world had met and had put together their views in a presentation to parliamentarians. Among their demands were respect for the rights of the child, an end to exploitation, abuse and violence, an end to war, the provision of health care and education and the eradication of HIV/AIDS. They want the environment to be protected and an end to the vicious cycle of poverty. Speaking clearly to an attentive room, she told us that children are not the source of problems in the world.
A young man from Guatemala said:
"Think about us, listen to us, let us participate in the politics of our country."
A young woman from Albania told us that children in that country are part of the children's rights commission, but that time and effort are needed to help young people to get involved. A young man from Kenya spoke forcefully, stating that promises had not been kept, age should not be an issue and young people should be respected.
The special session ultimately produced an outcome document entitled "A World Fit for Children", signed by Governments at the end of the session. Governments accepted their primary responsibility for ensuring the rights of children and agreed to do more to protect children. The outcome document goals are steps

181WH
towards protecting children around the world, but they need to be developed into action. The United Kingdom Government can do much to get us towards those goals. As parliamentarians, we could ask for more emphasis on children and young people. For example, we should perhaps have a Select Committee on children's issues, ask for child impact reports on all new legislation or have an annual debate on young people and children's issues.
I have focused heavily on children and young people's issues and the UN role in improving children's lives, but I could have discussed many other areas. The UN is now a backdrop to all our lives, and with proper commitment from Governments and parliamentarians together we could achieve so much more.
The voices of the children and young people at the United Nations General Assembly special session will stay with me for a long time. Their natural frustration with broken promises, excuses and delays rang loud and clear. I urge everyone to read their message in full. Loud and clear, they told us:
"We are not expenses; we are investments. We are not just young people; we are people and citizens of this world."
As the young girl from Gambia said,
"a world fit for children is a world fit for all of us."
5.36 pm
Ian Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Amess, for affording me the time to contribute to the debate, if only briefly. I shall make only one point, which has not been raised in the debate, about the public perception of the UN.
Most people think of the UN as a force for good, which may be reflected in the debate, but most closely identify it with its high-profile peacekeeping roles, some of which have been successful and some less successful. When I went to New York last November as part of the delegation with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), that was my primary view of the UN, but I discovered that the truth was far more interesting. The Afghanistan crisis dominated the political agenda, but people in the UN were following a parallel agenda, considering world poverty, AIDS, climate change and globalisation.
I was hugely impressed by the officials from the UN whom I met and with whom I discussed those issues. What struck me was that they used the same language about issues such as globalisation as those who write to me in my constituency, who feel that they are disengaged from politics. It seemed ironic that the UN, which was created by Governments, contains people who are committed to addressing and attacking world poverty and issues of globalization—the very issues that people who are disengaged from politics say Governments are not addressing. We, as parliamentarians, should recognise that we have a responsibility, because the public do not regard the UN as addressing those issues.
I was a political animal before I visited the UN, and thought that I had a clear understanding of what it did. I confess that I did not really know what it did, and young people in particular lack a clear conception of what a tremendous vehicle for progress the UN is. UN
182WH
organisations seem to contain idealists who look back to the time when the organisation was founded, and are strongly committed to the organisation and the ideals that set it up.
With one or two exceptions, there has been great consensus today. In the new century, we as parliamentarians need to make our constituents much more aware of what a force for good the UN is in a difficult time. We must tell them that it addresses their concerns. If we develop that message with our constituents, the UN will attract more support from them. We will be recognised as individuals who try to address the issues that the Churches, young people and non-governmental organisations put so much pressure on us to tackle, and that the UN now tackles.
5.40 pm
Mr. MacShane: This has been one of the most enjoyable debates that I have had the pleasure of listening to and participating in since I became a Member of Parliament. The best of nations are the most internationalist of nations. When Britain engages in great international issues and causes, that always shows the country at its best. I warmly endorse the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) for the leadership that Britain showed in 1944 and 1945 in the creation of the United Nations.
We have a permanent seat on the Security Council as a result not of an historic anomaly, but of 50 years of taking the institution extremely seriously. It might be more a duty and responsibility to hold one of those seats than a privilege. That is why we want to extend the permanent membership of the Security Council in a practical way, to reflect the new realities of the modern economy.
There must be a debate on the global pattern of countries, but in Britain's view we need a stronger UN, because we set high ambitions and high hopes for it. The organisation has delivered on many of them, as hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) listed some of its achievements, and I welcomed her reflections. It is right that the UN not only tries to handle the problems of international security, but reflects on the causes of terrorism and poverty. The UN has to debate the great economic and social questions that concern us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) talked of the importance of debt relief. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) made some disobliging remarks, but the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been welcomed and recognised around the world. I am proud that, until a few months ago, we were the only major G7 or European Union country to increase its share of gross domestic product spent on overseas aid by as much as 45 per cent. That is not far enough or fast enough, but—if I may be party political—my goodness it was good to be a Labour MP in those five years. How sad is the carping criticism from those who have left the Labour cause, and others in opposition.

183WH
We discussed the need to wind up certain UN institutions. I would like sunset clauses to be built into UN activities, and have asked officials to consider that. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made the sensible suggestion of a UN parliamentary assembly, which I welcome. However, if 191 member states each sent 20 or 30 MPs to such an assembly, a big football stadium would be needed to hold them all. On behalf of the Foreign Office, I guarantee that it will continue to work with hon. Members from all parties, and to ask them to attend and participate in UN work.
184WH
I will finish by making a plea. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), referred to the League of Nations, which was very weak. Other hon. Members willed the establishment of democracy and the end of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but baulked at the means. The UN is a mirror. If we hold it up and do not like what we see, we should not blame the mirror. It is for us to make it better.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Six o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Asthma
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will require local education authorities to implement an asthma policy; and if she will remind them of her Department's 1996 guidelines for supporting children with medical needs in schools. [56353]

  Mr. Timms
  We encourage all local education authorities and schools in England to have policies for supporting pupils' medical conditions, including asthma. We reminded them in the spring of the importance of following our guidelines.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how standard spending assessments for education take into account the impact of large movements of pupils with differing needs across local authority boundaries. [56355]

  Mr. Timms
  The current system allocates extra funding for additional needs on the basis of where pupils are educated, rather than where they live. We are currently working on a new funding system for introduction in 2003–04. Our aim is for the new system to be fairer and clearer, and justified by the educational needs of children. We want it to be child and school based, taking into account cross-LEA boundary migration.

  National Insurance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact the increased national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will have on special needs schools. [56358]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The cost to all special schools in England will be around £6 million a year from 2003–04. This cost will be considered along side other priorities and pressures in the 2002 spending review.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 571W, how much the increases in national insurance announced in the Budget will cost the average (a) primary and (b) secondary school, expressed on a cost per pupil basis. [56352]

  Mr. Timms
  On average, the changes will cost about £15 per primary school pupil and about £20 per secondary school pupil in England from 2003–04. These costs will be considered as part of this year's Spending Review alongside other priorities and pressures.

  Youth Service
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to improve the quality of and resources for the Youth Service. [56359]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Under the Government's "Transforming Youth Work" agenda we will publish later this year our view of an adequate and sufficient' Youth Service. In the longer term this will be supported by the introduction of National Quality Standards, National Performance Measures, a Common Planning Framework, a new National Management Training Programme, and a Workforce Development Strategy. In addition we have provided £49 million to Youth Services over the next two years to support this agenda.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to provide more financial support for medical students in higher education, with particular regard to graduate entrants. [56360]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are special arrangements for both undergraduate and graduate medical students. Students on undergraduate courses pay no tuition fees in year five and later years and become eligible for means-tested NHS bursaries and reduced-rate income contingent student loans made on generous terms. Students undertaking the four year graduate entry programme have the same enhanced support in years two to four. In the other years medical students are eligible for DfES student support on the same basis as other students.

  School Discipline
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what policies are in place to tackle poor behaviour and promote discipline in schools. [56361]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have provided extensive support to schools including funding for over 1,050 Learning Support Units for disruptive pupils, guidance on discipline and exclusion policies, and guidance on developing effective anti-bullying strategies.

  In addition, the £66 million made available through this year's Budget will fund a programme of focused support for schools in the 34 LEAs facing the toughest challenges of behaviour and criminality.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to increase student funding. [56362]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our review of student finance is still under way. We shall make an announcement on the outcome of the review when it is complete.

  School Funding
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of money provided to schools by her Department is allocated to specific purposes and activities. [56363]
  455W
  Mr. Timms
  Recurrent funding for schools is channelled through local education authorities and is made up of Education Standard Spending, the Standards Fund, the Schools Standards Grant and other special grants.

  Education Standard Spending is the amount the Government consider appropriate for local authorities to spend on education from their total budgets and is not ring-fenced for specific purposes or activities. In addition, the School Standards Grant is paid to schools to be used by them as they wish to raise standards.

  LEAs and schools receive Standards Fund Grant for particular specific purposes and activities such as the literacy and numeracy strategies. Other special grants are paid to schools to support payments to teachers passing the threshold and performance pay for teachers. Schools also receive funding via education action zones for particular purposes. Taken together these account for 11.7 per cent. of recurrent education funding for LEAs and schools. Of this, around half is devolved to schools from the Standards Fund for them to spend on their own priorities within the broad objectives of the Standards Fund programme.

  Capital funding for schools is provided through a combination of credit approvals, Government grant, and through the Private Finance Initiative. Around 45 per cent. of capital funding is allocated for specific purposes or activities.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what extra funding she has made available to schools with classes of 8, 9 and 10-year-olds containing more than 30 children in the last 12 months. [56376]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001–02 we made up to £73 million available to local education authorities to make progress on class sizes at Key Stage 2. We estimate that this has paid for around 500 additional teachers and 500 new classrooms.

  Mathematics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the measures that she has taken to increase the number of young people taking AS and A-level mathematics. [56364]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Because post-16 education is not compulsory, the Government is not able to promote an individual subject at the expense of others. But we are keen to see that students take on a broader range of subjects, mixing science and art subjects, including mathematics. To encourage this, we have made available additional funding to schools and colleges.

  Centres of Vocational Excellence
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the new centres of vocational excellence. [56365]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  On 29 April we announced new money to fund an extra 100 centres of vocational excellence. Centres of vocational excellence will develop new, and enhance existing, excellent vocational provision which is focused on meeting the skills needs of employers, nationally, regionally and locally.
  456W
  An additional £57 million is being invested into extending the centres of vocational excellence programme beyond our existing commitment to create centres of vocational excellence in half of all general further education colleges by 2004. The money, £40 million of which is new resource from the Capital Modernisation Fund announced in the Budget, will fund an extra 50 centres in colleges and an additional 50 centres of vocational excellence based in organisations beyond the further education sector, such as private or voluntary training providers.

  For the first time, we are inviting training providers outside the further education sector to become involved in the programme. These new centres will help us harness the valuable experience that many in the private and voluntary training sectors possess and is a direct response to the positive feedback we received for this proposal in our consultation.

  We have made excellent progress to date. The first 16 centres are up and running and beginning to deliver excellent results across a range of industries. A further 70 have just been established and the first non-college centres of vocational excellence come on stream later this month. By March 2004 there will be 250 centres of vocational excellence making a vital contribution to increasing the nation's vocational skills and productivity.

  Further Education
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the results from the inspections of further education colleges in the last 12 months. [56366]

  Margaret Hodge
  Of the 93 college inspections carried out to date under the new regime, results have been published for 44 colleges. There have been some good results, but there is still some way to go to achieve consistent quality.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received about funding and other support for further education colleges. [56375]

  John Healey
  Ministers have received extensive recent representations about funding and other support for further education. In particular, the Association of Colleges, NATFHE, the NUS and others organised a lobby of Parliament on 23 April on the issues of further education funding, pay and support. We are listening carefully to the views of those in the further education sector and will take these into account in determining how best to use the 2002 spending review settlement.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on funding for further education. [56356]

  John Healey
  The Government are steadily increasing investment in further education. By next year funding for further education will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997. The Learning and Skills Council's funding rates for programmes delivered by further education colleges are increasing by 2.5 per cent. above current rate of inflation for the 2002–03 academic year.
  457W
  Beyond this we are looking to the current spending review to deliver the resources needed to meet the Government's ambitions for further education.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on progress in the establishment of sector skills councils. [56367]

  John Healey
  Five Trailblazer sector skills councils were announced in December 2001 covering audio visual industries, land-based industries, apparel, footwear and textiles, oil and gas extraction, chemicals manufacturing and petroleum industries and the retail sector. Four Trailblazer sector skills councils have received two-year licences, the fifth should follow shortly. The Sector Skills Development Agency is expected to call for formal expressions of interest to establish new sector skills councils in the next few weeks.

  University Entrants
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage university applications from pupils from lower socio-economic groups. [56368]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright).

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the number of university applications for the coming year. [56369]

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the number of university applications for the next academic year. [56374]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest data published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show that the number of applications is 1.5 per cent. higher than last year. This very welcome and indicates the strength of demand for British higher education. The 4.6 per cent. rise in applications from mature entrants is particularly welcome since we have introduced generous additional support for student parents, including a child care grant and a travel and equipment grant.

  Reception Classes
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines she issues on ensuring that parents do not come under inappropriate pressure to enrol their children in reception classes before they are ready. [56370]

  Mr. Timms
  The code of practice on school admissions says that admission authorities can offer places in reception classes to parents before their children are of compulsory school age (e.g. five), but also that parents accepting the offer can ask to defer their child's entry until he or she is of compulsory school age, provided the place is taken up within the same academic year.

  Teachers
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the reasons teachers leave the profession. [56371]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has commissioned Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson, from the university of Liverpool, Centre for Education and Employment Research to undertake research into this issue. The study is gathering information from a nationally representative survey of teachers leaving the profession about the factors affecting their decisions to leave teaching. The research commenced in December 2001 and we expect the report to be published in March 2003.

  Higher Education Funding Review
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to announce the findings of the Government's review of higher education funding. [56372]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's plans for higher education funding in England will be announced later in the year, when the present spending review is concluded.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support her Department gives to local education authorities seeking to raise standards in meeting special educational needs. [56373]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Officials in the Department's Special Educational Needs Division support local education authorities in raising standards in meeting special educational needs through offering guidance, drawing on expertise provided by educational advisers, building consultants, members of the Office for Standards in Education, officials in other Government Departments and voluntary organisations. Education standard spending assessment support for local education authorities for 2002–03 totalled £23.68 billion, an increase of nearly £1.2 billion compared with 2001–02. By 2003–04 average recurrent funding per pupil will have increased by over £760 in real terms since 1997–98. In addition £91 million was available from the Department's Standards Fund for special educational needs for 2002–03. This represents more than a fivefold increase compared with the £17 million available in 1997–98.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children per 1,000 are issued with a statement of special needs in(a) Boston and Skegness, (b) Lincolnshire and (c) England. [56146]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs1 January 2001

  Total pupils

  Pupils with statements of SEN2

  Number of pupils per 1,000 with a statement of SEN

  Boston and Skegness parliamentary constituency3

  13,005

  296

  22.8

  Lincolnshire local education authority3

  100,666

  3,218

  32.0

  England

  7,733,640

  249,300

  32.2

  459W
  1 Includes maintained primary and secondary schools and maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 Estimates have been made at national level for January 2001 because the data for SEN are known to be incomplete. Figures given for Boston and skegness parliamentary constituency and Lincolnshire LEA are as reported by schools in the Boston and Skegness parliamentary constituency and Lincolnshire LEA areas.

  3 Pupils attending schools within Boston and Skegness parliamentary constituency and Lincolnshire local education authority.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision for special educational needs statementing will be in place for children in accommodation centres(a) on arrival at the accommodation centre and (b) before entering mainstream schools. [57623]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We expect the needs of most children with special educational needs to be met by the provision in the accommodation centres in the same way as in schools. Where asked by an accommodation centre to carry out a statutory assessment of a child's needs, the local education authority will consider the request in the same way as for other children and, where appropriate, will draw up a statement of special educational needs.

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects that the funding for students at sixth form colleges will be raised to the same level as for students in school sixth forms. [56377]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government have set no timetable for achieving equivalent funding between further education and sixth form colleges and school sixth forms. We have made it clear that bringing the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms can be done only as resources allow and it would be unwise to commit ourselves beyond the resources we secure. We are looking to the current spending review to provide the resources needed to deliver the Government's ambitious agenda for further education.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total income was from student tuition fees in(a) 1996–97 and (b) each of the subsequent five financial years. [50981]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is shown in the following table. Data for 2001–02 will be available in April 2003.

  Total income from student tuition fees1: UK higher education institutions

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Tuition Fee Income

  1996–97

  2,347

  1997–98

  2,469

  1998–99

  2,675

  1999–2000

  2,814

  2000–01

  2,997

  1 Covers tuition fee income from all students (home, EU and other overseas) on full-time and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate courses, and students on non-credit-bearing courses.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of claims made by learning providers, following the closure of the Individual Learning Account scheme, have been paid; when the rest will be paid; and what factors underlie the delay in completing payments. [55981]

  John Healey
  At the end of April, 93 per cent. of claims made by registered learning providers following the closure of the Individual Learning Account programme on 23 November 2001 had been paid.

  Payments are only withheld pending follow up and investigation where serious complaints from trainees have been received by the Department or where there are serious concerns about the provider's operation of the programme.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether she has been notified of closures of small firms providing learning or training following the closure of the Individual Learning Account Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [55982]

  John Healey
  The Department has been notified of the closure of four small firms providing learning or training following the closure of the Individual Learning Account (ILA) programme. We have no information to suggest that these were directly related to the closure of the Individual Learning Account (ILA) programme.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [56485]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: An average of 7.7 days sick leave were taken by employees in the former Department for Education and Employment in 2000, the latest year for which this information is available. Information is not held for the other questions and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, no compensation has been paid to employees specifically for work related stress.

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

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the mandate of the Socrates Committee (and Erasmus and Comenius Subcommittees) 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. [56717]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The purpose of the Socrates Committee is set out in the Council Decision 253/2000/EC of 24 January 2000, which established the
  461W
  second phase of the Socrates programme. The Socrates Committee has met formally three times over the last 12 months, with an additional informal meeting in May 2002. The sub-committees for schools and higher education have met twice each. Two officials from the UK attend the Socrates Committee meetings, and one official usually attends the sub-committee meetings. Travel expenses were met from Commission resources. The subsistence and travelling costs incurred by this Department was about £8,485.00, for the committee and sub-committee meetings over the past twelve months, of which about £4,860 was reimbursed by the Commission.

  The next Socrates Committee meeting will consider approval of the selection of projects for 2002–03, a discussion of the programme budget, the monitoring and evaluation of the programme, and EC and general educational initiatives impacting on the programme. The Schools sub-committee will consider the allocation of funds to the Comenius action for schools. The next meeting of the higher education sub-committee is expected to be in the autumn. An agenda will not be available until nearer the time, but it is likely to cover various aspects of Erasmus, the higher education part of the Socrates programme, and EC and general initiatives impacting on higher education.

  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.

  Applied Science and Technology
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the percentage increase in funding per year per student studying applied science and technology subjects was, using 1997 as a base of 100, in each year since 1997, awarded to(a) further education colleges, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) schools with a sixth form in each year since 1997. [56168]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The specific information requested is not available. The table shows the overall unit of funding each year in general further education colleges and sixth form colleges as a percentage of the 1997–98 overall funding rate for general further education colleges. The year on year changes are the same for all subject areas. Information on a similar basis is not available for schools.

  General further education colleges

  Sixth form colleges

  1997–98

  100

  108.2

  1998–99

  101.8

  104.9

  1999–2000

  104.3

  105.4

  2000–01

  105.0

  105.4

  2001–02

  106.4

  106.4

  2002–03

  109.0

  109.0

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities designated with legislation there are within the responsibility of her Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57127]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: None.

  Juvenile Sex Abusers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures her Department takes to address the needs of children and young people who sexually abuse; and if she will make a statement. [57195]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Dealing with children and young people who sexually abuse requires contributions from different agencies—covering youth justice, child welfare, education and health, including child and adolescent mental health services. The response to these children and young people should take place within the framework of guidance set out in "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued in December 1999 by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Employment.

  The Department for Education and Skills has made available to schools on request a guidance pack entitled "Bullying: don't suffer in silence" which is intended to help Headteachers in fulfilling their duty to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. The pack refers to bullying which is sexual in nature and it sets out some suggested strategies to deal with such behaviour. It also mentions that a proven sexual assault is likely to lead to the exclusion from the school of the perpetrator. However, we recognise that excluded pupils often need further help in managing their behaviour from personnel such as Education Welfare Officers or Educational Psychologists.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms are in place for information-sharing between social services and schools regarding children and young people who sexually abuse. [58039]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued jointly by the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health in December 1999, sets out the role of statutory agencies in responding to young abusers.

  In addition to collaborative working at the individual case level, there is also ongoing contact between schools, social services and criminal justice agencies at the strategic level, through local Area Child Protection Committees.

  All schools should be aware of local child protection policies, (as required by DfEE Circular 10–95) and should designate a member of staff to be responsible for child protection issues—including children who sexually abuse other young people. In cases of suspected abuse, the designated staff member should inform social services.

  To ensure that all information sharing arrangements between schools and social services complies with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Circular includes a checklist provided by the then Data Protection Registrar (now the Information Commissioner).

  Deaf Young People (Education)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of young people who are profoundly deaf went into further and higher education in each of the last three years. [56491]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Figures for people entering further or higher education who are profoundly deaf are not available, although we can provide those recorded as having a hearing impairment.

  The number of people in England registered as deaf or hard of hearing with their local authority, at 31 March 2001, is 194,840. However the true number of people in England with mild, moderate, severe or profound deafness is likely to be much more and was estimated by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People in 1996 to be 7,243,000.

  The number of people in Further Education recorded as having a hearing impairment is not available before 2000–01. Figures for 2000–01 are as follows:

  Numbers in Further Education (FE) in England

  Numbers in England recorded as having a hearing impairment as their main disability1

  All ages

  3,537,620

  9,291

  Aged 16–18 inclusive2

  621,542

  1,217

  1 Based upon the students' own self-assessments

  2 Age as at 31 August

  Source:

  Individualised Student Records collected by the Lerning and Skills Council on 31 July 2001

  The numbers of people in English domiciles, at UK Higher Education Institutions, recorded as deaf/having a hearing impairment are as follows:

  Number starting Higher Education (HE)1

  Number starting HE recorded as "deaf/have a hearing impairment"2

  1998–99

  All ages

  555,300

  1,320

  Aged 16–18 inclusive3

  120,200

  190

  1999–2000

  All ages

  554,400

  1,340

  Aged 16–18 inclusive3

  118,200

  220

  2000–01

  All ages

  567,300

  1,530

  Aged 16–18 inclusive3

  117,300

  250

  1 A census count of England domiciled students on the first year of higher education courses in UK HE institutions, as at 1 December, rounded to nearest 100.

  2 Based upon the students' own self-assessments, rounded to nearest 10.

  3 Age as at 31 August.

  Source:

  July Student Records collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in her Department in the last year for 464W
  which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost to the Department was. [56056]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: An average of 7.7 days sick leave were taken by employees in the former Department for Education and Employment in 2000, the latest year for which this information is available. Information is not held for sick absences due to work-related illness or injury and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  During the period April 2001 to March 2002 three cases for work related illness reached final settlement at a cost of £20,318 including solicitors' fees. During the same period the Department received £3,280 back from a previous case where a claimant lost an appeal.

  My Department is committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence as published in our Service Delivery Agreement.

  Truancy
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many recorded truants have missed more than 33 per cent. school days in the past year, broken down by local education authority. [57953]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This level of detail is not available. Information on the number of pupils missing due to unauthorised absence is collected at school level. The number of days missed by individual pupils cannot be identified from this data.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to make use of courses run by the dyslexia treatment centres; and what assessment she has made of the research carried out by DDAT on inner ear balance disorder and its relationship with dyslexia. [57564]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit (DDAT) treatment is one of a number of commercially available programmes of help designed to support children with specific learning difficulties. It is for parents, individual schools and local education authorities to decide whether a given technique has something to offer an individual child in the light of his or her particular needs. The Department has no plans to commission research into this particular technique but it is one of number of approaches assessed by Dr. Angela Fawcett of Sheffield university in her third review of dyslexia research. This may be consulted on the Department's special educational needs website.

  School Exclusions
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school exclusions of one term or more there have been in the past year, broken down by local education authority. [57954]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available information covering permanent exclusions is shown in the table.

  Information on the duration of fixed period (temporary) exclusions is not collected centrally.
  465W

  Number of permanent exclusions1 1999–2000 by local education authority area, by Government Office region in England

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  England

  8,323

  0.11

  North-east

  482

  0.11

  Darlington

  27

  0.17

  Durham

  114

  0.14

  Gateshead

  14

  0.05

  Hartlepool

  15

  0.09

  Middlesbrough

  3

  0.01

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  73

  0.19

  North Tyneside

  50

  0.16

  Northumberland

  42

  0.08

  Redcar and Cleveland

  37

  0.14

  South Tyneside

  36

  0.14

  Stockton-on-Tees

  27

  0.08

  Sunderland

  44

  0.09

  North-west

  1,314

  0.12

  Blackburn with Darwen

  40

  0.16

  Blackpool

  21

  0.10

  Bolton

  50

  0.11

  Bury

  39

  0.13

  Cheshire

  119

  0.11

  Cumbria

  39

  0.05

  Halton

  35

  0.16

  Knowsley

  6

  0.02

  Lancashire

  167

  0.09

  Liverpool

  175

  0.22

  Manchester

  114

  0.17

  Oldham

  51

  0.12

  Rochdale

  43

  0.12

  Salford

  77

  0.22

  Sefton

  56

  0.12

  St. Helens

  28

  0.09

  Stockport

  51

  0.12

  Tameside

  41

  0.11

  Trafford

  30

  0.08

  Warrington

  32

  0.10

  Wigan

  53

  0.10

  Wirral

  47

  0.08

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  819

  0.10

  Barnsley

  43

  0.12

  Bradford

  116

  0.13

  Calderdale

  11

  0.03

  Doncaster

  121

  0.23

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  20

  0.04

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  30

  0.07

  Kirklees

  72

  0.11

  Leeds

  71

  0.06

  North-east Lincolnshire

  38

  0.13

  North Lincolnshire

  39

  0.15

  North Yorkshire

  40

  0.05

  Rotherham

  32

  0.07

  Sheffield

  111

  0.15

  Wakefield

  59

  0.11

  York

  16

  0.06

  East Midlands

  696

  0.10

  Derby

  47

  0.12

  Derbyshire

  91

  0.08

  Leicester

  107

  0.22

  Leicestershire

  80

  0.08

  Lincolnshire

  107

  0.11

  Northamptonshire

  105

  0.10

  Nottingham

  55

  0.13

  Nottinghamshire

  102

  0.08

  Rutland

  2

  0.04

  466W

  Number of permanent exclusions1 1999–2000 by local education authority area, by Government Office region in England

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  West Midlands

  1,104

  0.12

  Birmingham

  274

  0.15

  Coventry

  95

  0.19

  Dudley

  39

  0.08

  Herefordshire

  27

  0.11

  Sandwell

  132

  0.25

  Shropshire

  23

  0.06

  Solihull

  37

  0.10

  Staffordshire

  99

  0.07

  Stoke-on-Trent

  60

  0.16

  Telford and Wrekin

  50

  0.19

  Walsall

  51

  0.10

  Warwickshire

  82

  0.11

  Wolverhampton

  26

  0.06

  Worcestershire

  109

  0.13

  East of England

  735

  0.09

  Bedfordshire

  56

  0.09

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  0.03

  Essex

  182

  0.09

  Hertfordshire

  175

  0.10

  Luton

  15

  0.05

  Norfolk

  84

  0.07

  Peterborough

  38

  0.13

  Southend-on-Sea

  29

  0.11

  Suffolk

  100

  0.10

  Thurrock

  36

  0.16

  London

  1,289

  0.12

  Inner London

  516

  0.14

  Camden

  22

  0.10

  City of London

  1

  0.45

  Hackney

  31

  0.12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  21

  0.12

  Haringey

  25

  0.07

  Islington

  20

  0.08

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24

  0.23

  Lambeth

  31

  0.11

  Lewisham

  75

  0.21

  Newham

  33

  0.07

  Southwark

  69

  0.20

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  0.09

  Wandsworth

  94

  0.33

  Westminster

  39

  0.22

  Outer London

  773

  0.11

  Barking and Dagenham

  31

  0.11

  Barnet

  57

  0.12

  Bexley

  33

  0.08

  Brent

  57

  0.15

  Bromley

  28

  0.06

  Croydon

  87

  0.18

  Ealing

  27

  0.06

  Enfield

  73

  0.15

  Greenwich

  43

  0.12

  Harrow

  39

  0.13

  Havering

  34

  0.09

  Hillingdon

  47

  0.12

  Hounslow

  52

  0.14

  Kingston upon Thames

  16

  0.08

  Merton

  23

  0.10

  Redbridge

  29

  0.07

  Richmond upon Thames

  25

  0.13

  Sutton

  19

  0.07

  Waltham Forest

  53

  0.15

  467W

  Number of permanent exclusions1 1999–2000 by local education authority area, by Government Office region in England

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population

  South-east

  1,251

  0.11

  Bracknell Forest

  29

  0.19

  Brighton and Hove

  45

  0.15

  Buckinghamshire

  63

  0.08

  East Sussex

  72

  0.11

  Hampshire

  181

  0.10

  Isle of Wight

  11

  0.06

  Kent

  253

  0.12

  Medway

  75

  0.17

  Milton Keynes

  35

  0.10

  Oxfordshire

  76

  0.09

  Portsmouth

  27

  0.10

  Reading

  35

  0.20

  Slough

  10

  0.05

  Southampton

  15

  0.05

  Surrey

  133

  0.10

  West Berkshire

  16

  0.07

  West Sussex

  131

  0.12

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  25

  0.13

  Wokingham

  19

  0.08

  South-west

  633

  0.09

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  26

  0.10

  Bournemouth

  7

  0.03

  Bristol, City of

  104

  0.21

  Cornwall

  58

  0.08

  Devon

  79

  0.08

  Dorset

  35

  0.06

  Gloucestershire

  91

  0.11

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.00

  North Somerset

  41

  0.15

  Plymouth

  23

  0.06

  Poole

  5

  0.03

  Somerset

  62

  0.09

  South Gloucestershire

  23

  0.06

  Swindon

  20

  0.07

  Torbay

  18

  0.09

  Wiltshire

  41

  0.06

  1 Maintained primary and secondary schools and maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (head count) of pupils in primary, secondary and special schools, excluding dually registered pupils in special schools in January 2000.

  Source:

  Annual schools' census.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the numbers of pupils excluded from schools. [56347]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Only statistics on permanent exclusions from school are collected centrally. The statistical first release on exclusions published this morning shows that there were 9,210 permanent exclusions from school in England in the 2000–01 school year. Our priority now is to provide suitable full time education for permanently excluded pupils and we have a public service agreement target to ensure that all local education authorities offer this by September 2002.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will discuss with software companies whether they would be prepared to waive 468W
  rights and let licences be passed from one user to another when personal computers are reconditioned or similarly second-hand and the recipients are schools and educational facilities. [57691]

  John Healey
  My Department has regular meetings with major software suppliers and these discussions include issues related to the particular rights on licences. Our aim is to ensure that education institutions obtain best value for money, and usually the cost of licences for education is considerably lower than other market areas. It is important that schools are properly licensed, and most suppliers will offer substantial discounts to schools. This applies both to new, second hand or reconditioned computers.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 129W, 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". [57033]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The Secretary of State has appointed Sir Cyril Taylor as her unpaid adviser for the specialist schools programme, and on sponsorship for education action zones.

  I apologise to the right hon. Member. Sir Cyril Taylor's name should have been included in my reply to him of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 129W, but was omitted in error.

  Breakfast Clubs
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evaluation she has made of the value of breakfast clubs in enhancing the attendance and achievement of school pupils. [56354]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Evidence shows that out-of-school-hours study support, including breakfast clubs, can make a real difference to children's attitudes to school, attendance and attainment. Specific evaluation of breakfast clubs also points to benefits such as improved punctuality, concentration, social skills, and relationships with staff.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact of the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council on the funding arrangements for school sixth forms. [56357]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council began funding LEAs for their school sixth form provision in April. Funding allocations were notified to LEAs and schools in early March. All LEAs have received their first tranche payments from the LSC.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will examine ways of achieving more effective representation by the CPS in handling breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. [56381]

  The Solicitor-General
  A breach of an antisocial behaviour order is a criminal offence and the CPS will prosecute when the police send them a file.

  Last year there were 85 prosecutions for breaches of ASBOs of which 69 resulted in a conviction.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action she has taken to introduce anti-discrimination policies within the Crown Prosecution Service. [56382]

  The Solicitor-General
  Anti-discrimination measures already implemented include:

  (1) training over 6,000 members of staff in equality and diversity, all staff have diversity objectives measured through the performance appraisal system,

  (2) the appointment of 11 regional officers,

  (3) campaigns on "dignity at work"

  (4) a raft of community engagement initiatives across the country,

  (5) all personnel procedures have been reviewed to ensure they are not discriminatory,

  (6) a new complaints procedure has been written, and there is a review of 15,000 cases to see whether there are indicators of discrimination in any part of the prosecution process.

  All these measures are already paying dividends: the CPS now has a representative workforce—11.6 per cent. of staff are from minority ethnic groups, this is higher than the percentage in the population. In London the figure is 30 per cent. This compares very well with other Government Departments.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what arrangements she has made for the Crown Prosecution Service to support the Government's aim of reducing street crime. [56384]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is committed fully to playing its part in the street crime initiative. With police it developed the Premium Service. This is designed to deliver a premium service of best practice in investigation and prosecution.

  The premium service targets particular crime areas and will ensure that offenders are investigated and prosecuted with skill and determination. Experienced lawyers and detectives will handle cases and they will work closely together. An extra £6 million is being allocated to the CPS to free up experienced lawyers to concentrate on this work.

  Key features of the Premium Service include:
  early CPS advice to get the charge right first time;
  working closely with the police throughout the preparation of the case and the court hearing;
  470W
  speeding up the criminal justice process by using measures such as Narey courts, telephone advice, urgent conferences and simple, unbureaucratic procedures;
  more careful consideration given to discontinuing prosecutions;
  extra care for victims and witnesses;
  use of videos in court to show the court the full picture of a robbery;
  opposing bail when appropriate and being robust about appealing against decisions to grant bail;
  presenting full evidence of previous convictions.

  In addition, Premium Service arrangements have been made in relation to the care of victims and witnesses.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has also been at the forefront in developing area protocols in partnership with criminal justice agencies at a local level. These protocols are designed to ensure that there is engagement all the way through the criminal justice system and with the local community.

  The CPS has engaged fully with its criminal justice partners, meeting regularly at local levels and nationally at strategic levels. It has taken national areas of concern, such as those surrounding bail, and worked towards solutions that benefit the whole of the criminal justice system.

  Both the Attorney-General and I are being briefed regularly by the CPS about progress on this initiative. The Attorney-General attends the ministerial meetings, which the Prime Minister chairs, together with the DPP and the chief executive.

  Witness Intimidation
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to identify cases of witness intimidation. [56383]

  The Solicitor-General
  The police have the primary responsibility to identify that a case involves an intimidated witness.

  The Crown Prosecution Service will, as part of its case review, be alert to the possibility that the case may involve an intimidated or vulnerable witness and will take the appropriate action to protect witnesses, which could include an application for the remand of the defendant in custody or for special measures to protect an intimidated witness such as the video evidence screens or clearing the public gallery.

  Death in Custody
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to seek the involvement of the CPS in giving advice immediately following a death in custody. [56385]

  The Solicitor-General
  In many cases the police already seek early legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service during the investigation of a death in custody. The practice of the CPS giving early advice in these cases is one of the issues raised for consultation by the Attorney General in his review of the role and practices of the Crown Prosecution Service in cases arising from deaths in custody.

  Crime Statistics (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on levels of(a) reported crimes and (b) successful prosecutions brought in North Yorkshire since 1996–97. [56387]

  The Solicitor-General
  The level of reported crime in North Yorkshire stood at 50,924 cases for the year 1996–97.

  The figures for 2001–02, show 59,149 cases being reported in that year.

  Over the last two years there has been a drop in the number of convictions with 10,801 in 2001–02.

PRIME MINISTER

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what opinion polling has been carried out into the public's attitude to the euro since June 2001; what the cost has been of such polling; if he will publish the results; and if he will make a statement. [58611]

  The Prime Minister
  The FCO announced on 5 December 2001 the results of its opinion poll on attitudes towards the European Union and put the results in the Library of the House. The poll, carried out by ICM on behalf of the FCO, cost £28,317.50.

  Constituency Data
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Members who have requested statistical data, since 1 May 1997, on the effects of the Government's policies pertaining to their own constituency; what has been the average length of response to such parliamentary questions; what his policy is on length of response to parliamentary questions in general; what measures are taken to ensure political impartiality in such responses; and if he will make a statement. [58776]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have consistently made it clear, in response to reports of the Public Administration Select Committee, and previous questions from Members of the House, that they are committed to providing prompt and accurate answers to PQs. This remains the position.

  Details of Members who have requested information on the effect of Government policy on their respective constituencies can be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Information on the response time to this sort of question is not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  With regard to maintaining political impartiality in answers to PQs, the general principles which civil servants must follow are set out in the Civil Service Code, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Weston Park Agreement
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Northern Ireland political parties endorsed the Weston Park Agreement. [45969]

  Mr. Browne
  The Weston Park discussions did not result in immediate agreement between the Northern Ireland parties. Following intensive discussions there, the British and Irish Governments put a package of measures, covering all outstanding issues, to the parties on 1 August.

  Organised Crime Task Force
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the work of the Organised Crime Task Force during the last 12 months. [59800]

  Jane Kennedy
  The creation of the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force is the manifestation of the Government's commitment to help make Northern Ireland a stable and peaceful society. A year on from the publication of the task force's first Threat Assessment and Strategy, we have seen some truly remarkable successes against organised criminals in Northern Ireland. Concerted law enforcement activity has clearly played a vital role in disrupting and fragmenting the illegal acts of the criminals.

  I have today arranged for copies of the publication to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Kinetic Energy Projectiles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been undertaken on(a) the energy attenuation features for future kinetic energy projectiles in order to reduce the severity of head injuries, (b) post-ricochet injuries and energy of baton rounds and steps that could be taken to reduce risk to non-targeted personnel from ricochets and (c) the features of a kinetic energy based system that are intrinsic to its use as a deterrent, in order to provide the analysis tools for maintaining the required performance but at a reduced risk of life-threatening injury. [17761]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply as these issues relate to recommendations following an independent medical assessment of the safety of the L21A1 baton round undertaken by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) to my request.

  The assessment was completed prior to work on alternatives to the L21A1 being undertaken under the leadership of the Northern Ireland Office. This work seeks to address recommendations 69 and 70 of the Patten report. Phases 1 and 11 have been completed and publicly reported. This programme is currently assessing systems that offer potentially energy attenuating features and that will have different ricochet characteristics to L21A1. In support of this assessment the Government are undertaking a programme of trials and model development as well as recording information from L21A1 in service. These programmes therefore address energy attenuation features for kinetic energy projectiles and systems that will reduce risk from ricochet.
  473W
  In addition the Ministry of Defence has conducted a separate research programme into the characteristics of kinetic energy projectiles intrinsic to their use as a deterrent.

  Provisional IRA Ceasefire
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present status of the provisional IRA ceasefire in relation to the theft of intelligence information from PSNI Special Branch at Castlereagh police station. [48766]

  Dr. John Reid
  In relation to the break in at Castlereagh, the criminal investigation is continuing and the Acting Chief Constable has advised me that the PSNI are actively pursuing lines of inquiry. It would be wrong for me to make any comment which anticipated the outcome of the investigation.

  In relation to the status of the IRA's ceasefire, I do not believe that it is under threat.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Personnel (Deaths on Military Premises)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members or employees of Her Majesty's armed forces have died by self-inflicted injuries in and around military premises in each of the past eight years, indicating(a) the date of death of each person, (b) their gender, age and ethnic origin, (c) the military premises on which the fatal incident occurred and (d) the location, date and verdict of the inquest. [56697]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 1 January 1993 and 14 May 2002 there have been 156 suicides among serving members of the regular armed forces. To ensure that service personnel confidentiality is not compromised, it has been necessary to group the data by year, location and age group in the following tables. Of the 156 suicides only three were female. In respect of breakdown by ethnic origin, information is only available from May 1996–64 suicides were recorded as "White" and 10 were recorded as "Unspecified".

  It is not possible to provide information on self inflicted deaths as the definitions used for these deaths are currently under review. They are being checked for consistency against those used in the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

  Information on suicides can however be provided for this period, as these are well defined.

  Suicides in serving regular armed forces personnel by geographic location: 1 January 1993 to 14 May 2002

  Location

  Year of death

  Great Britain (4)

  Northern Ireland

  Germany (BAOR)

  Other

  Grand Total

  1 January

  1993

  20

  2

  5

  1

  28

  1994

  19

  3

  6

  2

  30

  1995

  9

  7

  4

  0

  20

  1996

  16

  3

  2

  3

  24

  1997

  19

  0

  2

  0

  21

  1998

  9

  0

  2

  0

  11

  474W

  Suicides in serving regular armed forces personnel by geographic location: 1 January 1993 to 14 May 2002

  Location

  Year of death

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Germany (BAOR)

  Other

  Grand Total

  1999

  9

  0

  0

  0

  9

  2000

  8

  0

  1

  1

  10

  2001

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Grand total

  111

  15

  23

  7

  156

  Suicides in serving regular armed forces personnel by age group: 1 January 1993 to 14 May 2002

  Age group

  Year of death

  Under 30

  30–39

  40 and over

  Grand total

  1 January

  1993

  18

  8

  2

  28

  1994

  24

  5

  1

  30

  1995

  13

  6

  1

  20

  1996

  15

  8

  1

  24

  1997

  11

  8

  2

  21

  1998

  6

  3

  2

  11

  1999

  4

  4

  1

  9

  2000

  4

  5

  1

  10

  2001

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Grand total

  97

  48

  11

  156

  Notes:

  1. There were no reported suicides for 2002 as at the 14 May 2002.

  2. Figures for suicides are subject to revision as further coroner's verdicts are reported to DASA.

  3. Census Survey categories, based on the 1991 Census Survey categories. Records of ethnic category for service personnel was not recorded prior to May 1996.

  4. Great Britain included UK Waters and North Atlantic.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many violent incidents involving(a) injury and (b) death of Her Majesty's forces personnel stationed or present at the Deepcut barracks have been (i) reported in the past eight years to the army medical services and (ii) sent on for treatment at a local hospital; and if he will make a statement. [56698]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been four deaths at Deepcut resulting from gunshot wounds over the last eight years. It is not possible to provide details of the number of injuries as, due to differing reporting criteria for sickness and injuries in the past, these data are unreliable. This shortcoming is being addressed.

  Since 1 January 1995, 28 personnel from 25 Training Support Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps, Deepcut, have appeared before court-martial as a result of violent incidents. In addition, a further 41 soldiers have been dealt with summarily as a result of their involvement in such incidents since October 2000, the date from which central recording of summary dealing statistics began. It is not readily possible, however, to determine whether these incidents resulted in injury and/or death and, consequently, whether the Army medical services or local hospitals were involved in providing any treatment.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the privatisation of QinetiQ. [57336]
  475W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 314W, about the route and timing for the sale of QinetiQ. The selection process for a strategic partner for QinetiQ is now well under way with initial bids from interested parties due by 20 May. The timetable is on track to identify the preferred bidder by summer 2002 and complete the process later this year.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the information memorandum sent to potential bidders for QinetiQ; and if he will make a statement. [57796]

  Mr. Ingram
  The QinetiQ information memorandum contains details about QinetiQ's business, including future commercial plans, and is therefore commercial-in-confidence. It was prepared solely for the use of bidders to aid them in the preparation of their indicative bids for a share of the business. In accordance with normal practice, these parties were required to sign confidentiality agreements before the information memorandum was sent to them. Publishing the document more widely would not be in the interests of a successful QinetiQ transaction and would risk damaging value for the taxpayer. I am, therefore, withholding the information requested under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the outcome of the study into the future of RAF Lyneham, Brize Norton and St. Mawgan. [57241]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The exact timing of the announcement of the outcome of the Strategic Review of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St. Mawgan is not yet known but expected to be later this year.

  Service Personnel
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people there were in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1995 and (v) 2000. [58572]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the UK Defence Statistics 2001, table 2.8, which lists these figures. A copy of this annual publication is held in the Library of the House.

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made regarding the ratification of the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and what plans the Government have for the deployment of under-18s after its ratification. [58022]

  Mr. Ingram
  Officials in both the Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office are working actively towards ratification of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and we expect to be in a position to ratify soon. This work includes finalising guidelines for the armed forces which are designed to 476W
  ensure adherence to the protocol's requirement that all feasible measures be taken to avoid direct involvement in hostilities by those under 18 years of age while reflecting the practical position set out in the United Kingdom's declaration on signing, thus maintaining operational effectiveness. As part of the ratification process, an Explanatory Memorandum will be laid before Parliament to explain the significance of the optional protocol and will cover the steps being taken to enable ratification.

  Air Services (RAF)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to consult local interests before agreeing to the operation of scheduled services by commercial airlines from RAF Leuchars; [57729]

  (2) what proposals have been made and by which airline companies for the operation of scheduled service from RAF Leuchars; [57728]

  (3) what his policy is towards the use of front line RAF stations by commercial airlines operating scheduled services; and if he will make a statement; [57727]

  (4) on how many occasions Ministers or members of his Department have met representatives of commercial airline companies to discuss the operation of scheduled services from RAF Leuchars; [57726]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to take amenity considerations into account when responding to proposals for the operation of scheduled air services from RAF stations. [57725]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the Government's Wider Markets Initiative, RAF Strike Command is considering the feasibility for the exploitation of irreducible spare capacity on its airfields, which may include use by scheduled service operators. The primacy of military operations will not be diluted as a result of commercial activity. No formal proposals have been put forward by airline companies for the operation of scheduled services from RAF Leuchars. No Ministry of Defence Minister or official has met representatives of commercial airline companies to discuss the operation of scheduled services from RAF Leuchars, however, consultants advising the RAF have sought the views of the airline operator community. It is Ministry of Defence policy to consult fully and openly with representatives from relevant local and regional councils when examining the feasibility of any regular commercial airline activity at RAF bases.

  Meteorological Office
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Meteorological Office for financial year 2002–03. [59660]

  Mr. Ingram
  The chief executive of the Met Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, Government, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and general public. The Met Office also undertakes research to meteorology and climate. This year, the Met Office will be set the following challenging targets.
  477W
  Key Target 1

  To achieve a value for the Numerical Weather Prediction Index of at least 109.5 on 31 March 2003, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 2000.

  Key Target 2

  To achieve a value for the Service Quality Index of at least 115.4 on 31 March 2003, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997, in line with customer requirements.

  Key Target 3

  A three-year target to achieve a value for the Efficiency Index of at least 111.6 by 31 March 2003 was announced last year, but has been passed ahead of schedule. A revised target is therefore set which is: To achieve a value for the Efficiency Index of at least 120.5 on 31 March 2003, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 2000.

  Key Target 4

  To ensure a positive Return On Capital Employed in 2002–03, while returning an operating profit of at least £13.3 million before strategic investments.

  Key Target 5

  To achieve strategic investment in 2002–03 or £19.4 million ±£1.5 million.

  Key Target 6

  To achieve a total contribution from commercial activities in 2002–03 of at least £3.8 million.

  Key Target 7

  To achieve a value for the Staff Skills Index of at least 107.5 by 31 March 2004, from a baseline of 100.0 as at 31 March 2001.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Eurofighter is expected to enter service with the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement. [59801]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I made clear on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1139W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) the June 2002 In-Service-Date for Eurofighter was becoming increasingly challenging to achieve. Although good progress has been made by industry, with the first three instrumented production aircraft achieving successful first flights in early April, delays in bringing the detailed design to full maturity in some areas prevented the flight test programme from starting on time. Following a thorough review of the programme involving the partner nations, the NATO agency responsible for undertaking the procurement, and industry, we have jointly concluded that acceptance of the first aircraft into service should be delayed, to take place by the end of this year, and we shall plan on that basis. We shall now be working hard with industry to recover lost time and achieve the planned Operational Employment Date in the second half of the decade, thus avoiding any gap in front-line capability or extra costs to the Ministry of Defence. The delays are disappointing but reflect the complexity of the project and the major advance in technology it represents. Initial flights of the instrumented production aircraft have been impressive and the Government remain fully committed to this contribution to the United Kingdom's military capability.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the legal costs to his Department of opposing claims by ex-service men for pensions claimed as a result of ill health stemming from their service on Christmas Island or other nuclear test sites in each of the last five years. [57214]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Veterans Agency does not employ legal services in the consideration of claims for war disablement pension, or in the appeals process.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to his Department of claims by ex-service men for pensions claimed as a result of ill health stemming from their service on Christmas Island and other nuclear test sites in each of the last five years. [57212]

  Mr. Ingram
  The exact information requested is not available. The estimated annual cost to the Veterans Agency of pensions awarded to ex-service men who served in the south Pacific and at other nuclear test sites amounts to £300,000.

  Parliamentary Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department. [56984]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the dispute between Greece and Turkey concerning the relations between ESDP and NATO has been resolved; and if he will make a statement. [57635]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  Contacts continue between the EU and NATO, and between their members, to finalise the arrangements linking the two organisations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the application of the regulation authorising voluntary participation by undertakings in the industrial sector in eco-Community the co-management and audit scheme (EMAS) 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. [56725]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulation (EEC) No. 1836/93, allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), was revised by Regulation (EC) No. 761/2001, with the

  479W
  effect that participation in EMAS is now open to organisations in all economic sectors. The aim of the scheme is to promote the continual improvement of environmental performance in organisations through them establishing an environmental management system and publishing an environmental report, both of which have to be independently verified. Registered organisations are entitled to use the EMAS logo to advertise their participation in the scheme. A committee composed of representatives of member states and chaired by the commission has been established to assist the commission in the implementation and operation of the scheme.

  The Committee has met three times in the last 12 months. The UK is formally represented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The cost of attending the committee over the last 12 months was approximately £4,000. The main issues currently under consideration by the committee are the relationship of EMAS with the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation; the development of marketing and promotional initiatives to increase participation in the scheme; the use of EMAS in other Community policies and instruments; and the potential for wider use of the EMAS logo in applications like product information.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will answer the letters dated 14 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Canterbury regarding Pipeflex Limited-funding. [57784]

  Mr. Wilson
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 23 May 2002.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what her policy is towards the offer of export credits for the support of offset in defence deals arrangements; [57519]

  (2) what her policy is towards the offer of credits and the apportionment of liabilities to support projects and exports which form part of multi-national defence export offset deals in which other European Union export credit agencies are involved. [57520]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answers 21 May 2002]: Offset related to UK defence exports would normally take the form of investments in, or arranging exports from, the buyer's country.

  ECGD support would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and is most likely to take the form of political risk insurance to UK companies seeking to make overseas investments in connection with offset arrangements. Limited support might also be available for goods exported from a buyer's country, but the rules are complex and it is not possible to generalise.

  Post Offices
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to improve the management of the post office network. [59804]
  480W
  Ms Hewitt
  A new chairman will be recruited to lead the board of Post Office Ltd. (the Consignia subsidiary which operates the network) and to work with the recently appointed chief executive, David Mills, in the development and implementation of a new vision and strategy for the business.

  Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Rights
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to consult on draft regulations in respect of new maternity, paternity and adoption rights. [59803]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department is today publishing a consultation document on these new rights, highlighting a limited number of outstanding issues on which we are seeking comments. We are also making draft regulations available on the internet. The consultation document and regulations are available at www.dti.gov.uk/er/review/htm, and comments are sought by 19 July 2002. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of regional development agency boards are made up by(a) business representatives, (b) councillors, (c) trade union members, (d) voluntary organisation representatives and (e) others. [58387]

  Alan Johnson
  The regional development agency (RDA) boards currently have the following backgrounds:(a) business 49 per cent., (b) local authority 26 per cent.,(c) trade unions 7 per cent., (d) voluntary/community sectors 6 per cent. and (e) others 12 per cent. There are two vacant posts. These figures have been derived based on the primary experience of each board member. Many board members have expertise in more than one area of relevance to the work of the RDAs. These figures do not include London Development Agency (LDA) board members, as the LDA is the responsibility of the Greater London Authority.

  Redundant Oil Installations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements are in place to ensure that redundant oil installations from the North sea are properly disposed of onshore. [58346]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Oslo and Paris convention of 1992 (OSPAR) provides for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. Under the convention the UK has adopted OSPAR Decision 98/3 which provides a regime for the decommissioning of oil and gas installations and effectively prohibits sea disposal. There is a presumption that installations on the UK continental shelf will be brought back to shore for reuse, recycling or final disposal on land. However, the OSPAR Decision recognises that there may be difficulty in removing the "footings" of large steel jackets weighing more than 10,000 tonnes and in removing concrete installations. As a result derogations may be granted in these cases if the internationally agreed assessment and consultation process shows that leaving such installations wholly or partly in place is justifiable. If a derogation is granted, the permit will specify who will be liable for the
  481W
  remains and require suitable monitoring and management measures to prevent or mitigate any adverse consequences to both the environment and other users of the sea.

  In the UK, to ensure the orderly decommissioning of all installations, including those subject to derogation from the OSPAR decision, the decommissioning of each installation is addressed within a decommissioning programme. The programme assesses the potential decommissioning solutions and determines the most appropriate disposal option by balancing safety, the environment, impact on other users of the sea, technical feasibility and economics. The programme must be approved by the Secretary of State under the Petroleum Act 1998.

  Coal Industry Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost is of the Government's guarantees associated with the report of the asset liability study carried out by the Mineworkers Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme as a percentage of the surpluses over the next 30 years for each scheme. [57824]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The findings of the asset liability studies commissioned by the trustees of the two former British Coal pension schemes remain confidential to the trustees and the Government.

  On 17 January the Government and the scheme' trustees made a joint statement agreeing a review of the arrangements for the Government's guarantee of basic retirement benefits for the members of the schemes. It was agreed that the review should explore how changes in circumstances since 1994, when British Coal was privatised, might best be reflected in revisions to the guarantee arrangements which would benefit members. In doing so, the trustees and the Government recognised that any revisions will need to be based on an equitable sharing of risk and reward between the schemes and the Exchequer, and will need to be sufficiently robust to operate satisfactorily in a wide range of conditions.

  BCCI SA
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total retained interest earned on the moneys held by the ISA since 5 July 2001 is. [55009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for part months could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the total fees levied by the ISA were in the English liquidation of BCCI SA from 5 July 1991 to date; [55007]

  (2) what moneys are held on deposit with the ISA in relation to BCCI SA; [55011]

  (3) what (a) the total amount of interest paid to the liquidation estate by the ISA on moneys held and (b) the various rates of interest paid during the liquidation of BCCI SA were. [55008]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These are matters for the liquidators.

  Telecommunications Report
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has yet received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for 2000, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [59805]

  Ms Hewitt
  Yes. The eighteenth report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 2001. This includes initiatives to develop the structures for the new communications regulator Ofcom and other initiatives to promote the interests of consumers and a competitive telecoms market. Copies of the report have been laid before the House of Parliament.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many press releases were issued by her Department in each month between May and December 1997. [59492]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of DTI press releases issued each month were:

  DTI press releases May to December 1997

  Month

  Number

  May

  35

  June

  63

  July

  75

  August

  38

  September

  53

  October

  66

  November

  78

  December

  72

  These monthly statistics include number of statutory announcements (merger clearances, power station consents and company winding up petitions) that the Department is required to issue when individual decisions are made.

  Cefn Croes Windfarm
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will take her decision on the application to build a windfarm at Cefn Croes, Ceredigion. [59159]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have today decided to grant consent under section 36 and section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Renewable Development Company's applications to build a 58.5 MW windfarm and associated overhead electric line at Cefn Croes, Ceredigion.

  My decisions were only taken after extensive and thorough consideration of the representations received both for and against consent being granted.

  The Secretary of State has not used her discretionary power to call a public inquiry because all parties have already taken the opportunity to inform her of their concerns. I am confident that Ministers have all the necessary information on which to take the decisions on the applications.
  483W
  The decisions also took into account the fact that the local planning authority, Ceredigion county council did not object to the applications subject to conditions being attached to the planning permissions and the company entering into an obligation to pay the costs of a land management scheme and decommissioning.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Edmonton Power Station
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce her decision on London Waste Ltd.'s application to extend the Edmonton energy-from-waste power station. [59158]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have today decided that consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to London Waste Ltd.'s application cannot be given. The extension would have an annual throughput of waste of around 285,000 tonnes over and above the existing station's capacity of 550,000 tonnes per annum.

  In deciding not to grant consent I have taken into account the hierarchy for the treatment of waste set out in the Government's Waste Strategy 2000. Our policy is that waste should be minimised and recycling and composting undertaken before energy from waste is considered. I have considered all the information placed before me, both for and against the extension, and have concluded that the existing station is large enough to deal with the North London Waste Authority's (NLWA) residual waste after recycling. To grant consent for the extension would result in a station with an overall capacity capable of handling all of NLWA's municipal waste and could mean that the NLWA had little incentive to do more recycling over and above the minimum required by statute. Also should the NLWA meet or better its recycling targets then this would lead to a shortfall in the waste stream for the extended station and could lead to waste being imported from other areas which would be contrary to the Proximity Principal whereby waste should be treated as near to its origin as possible.

  I have also considered the measures the applicant has undertaken to incorporate at the Edmonton site to encourage recycling, composting and using heat for local district heating schemes. While these measures are to be welcomed I am aware that previous ones of a similar type in the site have been closed or not utilised. I am of the opinion they are not sufficient to justify granting consent to the extension. Indeed should such measures prove successful then there would appear to me to be less justification for the need for the extension.

  In refusing consent I should make it clear that the Government are not against energy-from-waste stations where they are clearly required and properly sized. The requirement of our policy is that statutory recycling targets must be met and that no incineration proposal shall be permitted which will pre-empt recycling or reduce the option for recycling for the future.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Carlton House Terrace
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what organisations are located in Carlton House Terrace and have the rent paid by the Government. [55987]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no organisations in Carlton House Terrace that have rent paid by the Government.

  Websites
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the budget is for the website www.ukonline.gov.uk in respect of(a) site development and maintenance, (b) marketing, (c) other and (d) in total for the financial year (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04; [51518]

  (2) how much has been spent on the website www.ukonline.gov.uk for (a) design and build prior to launch, (b) development and maintenance since launch, (c) marketing, (d) other and (e) the project in total in each of the financial years and accumulatively to date since the inception of the project. [51515]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  ukonline.gov.uk supports the Government's aim to enable the citizen to interact electronically with government by 2005. ukonline.gov.uk will be a key driver in transforming the way in which public services are organised and delivered, and in leading the way to better integration of government services and in putting all relevant government information and services online.

  The system was originally launched as a pilot in February 2001 and re-launched in January 2002. The redesign followed extensive research and reflected best practice both within government and the private sector. The views of users were also an important consideration within the development process.

  The figures below reflect the amount spent in the financial year ending 31 March 1902. Since ukonline.gov.uk relaunched in January 2002, these figures are representative of both pre and post launch.

  (a) and (b) (combined for reasons above) £3,195,619

  (c) £633,711 has been spent on marketing since the launch of ukonline in February 2001

  (d) Usability/accessibility audit £2,320

  (e) Year ending 31 March 2001—£8,055,781

  Year ending 31 March 2002—£8,894,981

  The budget for site development and maintenance for 2002–3 is £8,358,000. the figure for 2003–04 is not available as Cabinet Office is still finalising its budget.

  In the period since the site was re-launched usage has increased by 200 per cent. The site has also been subjected to external benchmarking and was recently assessed by the Bertelsmann Foundation as the best government website in Europe.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rio Earth Summit (Implementation)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to energy issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44341]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK is one of the few OECD countries to have met, and gone beyond, the target agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to return its emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. It is estimated that UK emissions were more than 13 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2000.

  The UK published its climate change programme in November 2000. This sets out how the UK will deliver its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12, and move towards its domestic goal to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  The programme contains a substantial, integrated package of policies and measures. It will improve business use of energy, stimulate new, more efficient sources of power generation, including renewables, cut emissions from the transport sector, promote better energy efficiency in the residential sector, and ensure that the public sector takes a leading role.

  Following publication of the PIU Energy Review 14 February 2002, the Government plan to publish a White Paper later this year which, with full consultation, will consider the future of Government policy on sustainable energy.

  The Government have introduced a wide range of measures, including market incentives, financial assistance, legal obligations, and guidance and information, to promote energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy. These include:
  the energy efficiency commitment (EEC) on domestic energy supplies, from 2002 to 2005;
  the climate change levy and climate change agreements;
  the UK emissions trading scheme;
  revised building regulations which require high energy efficiency standards;
  the market transformation programme;
  a wide range of measures to support combined heat and power (CHP);
  substantial Government funding of the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust to promote and support energy efficiency in the domestic, public, industry and business sectors.

  Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many projects British oil and gas companies have initiated under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism; what the location and nature of each project is; and what involvement the Government have had in this process. [51956]
  486W
  Mr. Meacher
  At present there are no CDM projects as the detailed procedures to validate and register CDM projects are still under discussion by the CDM executive board, the body established at international level to operationalise the CDM.

  In the interim, the Government have established the Climate Change Projects Office (CCPO) to advise UK business of the opportunities arising from CDM and joint implementation (JI) projects. I understand from that office that many companies, including oil and gas companies, are currently exploring the possibility of undertaking pilot projects worldwide in anticipation of finalised rules and procedures.

  Country Land and Business Association
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she(a) last met and (b) will next meet representatives of the Country Land and Business Association to discuss issues relating to the future viability of agriculture and the rural economy. [54494]

  Alun Michael
  Representatives of the Countryside Landowners and Business Association are included in a variety of meetings to help DEFRA promote the future of agriculture and the rural economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, last met representatives of the CLA formally when she attended a reception which they hosted for Young Farmers at the Royal Cornwall Show on 15 September last year. She also attended a summer reception hosted by Anthony Bosanquet, President of the CLA on 3 July.

  All DEFRA Ministers meet CLA representatives in a variety of settings, I do on both a formal and informal basis, often several times in a week. For instance the President of the CLA is a member of the Rural Affairs Forum which meets regularly, and which I chair. He and his predecessor were members of the Rural Task Force and he has taken a leading role in the "Your Countryside, You're Welcome" campaign to boost tourism in the rural economy. On 15 May I spoke at a reception hosted jointly by the CLA, the Thoroughbred Breeders Association and the East of England Development Agency. I am meeting the President for a wide ranging discussion today (21 May).

  My officials are also in frequent contact with the CLA to discuss matters relating to agriculture and the rural economy.

  Waste Composting
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the proportion of household waste which(a) could potentially be composted and (b) is composted; and if she will make a statement; [54601]

  (2) what percentage of municipal waste was composted in the years (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001; and if he will make a statement; [54583]

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the scope for increasing composting capacity in the UK as a means of meeting EU Landfill Directive targets; and if she will make a statement. [54600]
  487W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Landfill Directive, requires significant reductions in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75 per cent. of that produced in 1995 by 2006, 50 per cent. by 2009 and 35 per cent. by 2016 (although countries such as the UK may use, if they wish, a derogation of up to four years for meeting each of these targets). To help achieve this, "Waste Strategy 2000" set targets for recycling and composting of household waste. In 2001 the Government set statutory performance standards for each local authority in England, which require them to double the overall recycling and composting rate by 2003–04 and treble it by 2005–06 over 1998–99 levels.

  The Government strongly support composting as a way of disposing of biodegradable waste, and believes it has an important role to play. We are actively encouraging the composting of green waste at home, at municipal civic amenity sites and when separately collected by local authorities.

  Potentially, all biodegradable waste can be composted, although some may be unsuitable for animal health reasons or because non-compostable wastes are present in the mix. Also, some wastes suitable for the composting process are better reused, recycled or recovered in other ways. "Waste Strategy 2000" (Part 2) indicates that 21 per cent. of household waste may be putrescible, while some 62 per cent. in total may be biodegradable. These proportions may vary seasonally (depending on green waste for example) and according to the amount of waste separated for recycling and home composting.

  Figures from the DEFRA Municipal Waste Management Survey show there have been substantial increases in the amount of household waste collected for composting by local authorities in England and Wales—from 461,000 tonnes in 1998–99 to 670,000 tonnes in 1999–2000.

  Data on the percentage of waste composted are available for household waste only. Household waste amounts to approximately 90 per cent. of all municipal waste. The latest results taken from the Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey are as follows:

  Household waste composted1 in England and Wales

  Percentage

  1996–97

  1.2

  1997–98

  1.6

  1998–99

  1.9

  1999–2000

  2.6

  1 Includes organic materials (kitchen and garden waste) collected for centralised composting schemes from households via kerbside schemes or taken by householders to civic amenity sites. Home composting is not included.

  Note:

  The equivalent figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department is taking to introduce best practice guidelines and safety regulations for the composting of household waste; [54550]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the scope for encouraging composting initiatives within the retail sector; [54586]

  (3) what steps her Department is taking to encourage home composting of domestic waste; [54584]
  488W
  (4) what steps her Department is taking to promote community waste composting initiatives; and if she will make a statement; [54587]

  (5) what steps her Department is taking to promote composting as a central part of the UK's waste management strategy; and if she will make a statement. [54551]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government strongly support composting as a way of treating biodegradable waste, improving soil quality and replacing non-renewable products such as peat. We are actively encouraging the composting of green waste—at home, at municipal civic amenity and community composting sites and when separately collected by local authorities. Guidance on composting, including on safety issues, is produced by the Environment Agency.

  To support composting activity, the 2000 spending review allocated £220 million Private Finance Initiative funding for waste management that can be used to deliver increased recycling/composting rates. It also established a new £140 million household waste and recycling fund to help local authorities meet their statutory performance standards for recycling and composting.

  Although animal health legislation currently prohibits the land spreading of composted kitchen/catering waste which might contain meat, we have commissioned a risk assessment to assess the risks to public, animal and plant health from such compost. In the light of that assessment, we will review the legislation.

  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) are currently working with the Composting Association to develop the existing industry standard for compost, to achieve British Standards Institute (BSI) accreditation. The delivery of these accredited industry standards for compost will help to create markets for organic waste derived products. The creation of these new markets will be relevant to the retail sector when considering whether composting has a part to play in its waste management strategy (bearing in mind the present legal requirements).

  "Waste Strategy 2000" places composting high in the hierarchy of preferred waste management options, and set targets for England and Wales to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. This national target is backed up by statutory targets for each local authority in England for 2003–04 and 200573x2013;06, and the 2000 spending review identified substantial additional resources to help deliver the statutory performance standards on recycling and composting.

  Illegal Timber Imports
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions her Department is taking to ensure that no illegally logged timber enters the United Kingdom. [55294]

  Mr. Meacher
  The actions that the Department and the Department for International Development are taking to combat illegal logging are:

  (a) ensuring that the import of endangered timber species is in compliance with CITES, the convention on trade in endangered species;

  (b) implementing the government timber procurement policy that seeks to procure forest products only from legal and sustainable sources;

  489W

  (c) working with a number of timber exporting countries to help them improve governance and strengthen forest law enforcement;

  (d) working to develop capacity for the implementation of timber certification schemes in some producing countries;

  (e) promoting bilateral arrangements between the UK and timber producing countries whereby countries work together to tackle illegal logging and associated trade;

  (f) showing leadership within the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process that will see the European Commission draft a FLEGT action plan by the end of 2002. The EU FLEGT action plan will include consideration of new EU legislative requirements to enforce the control of access to the EU market of illegally logged timber and timber products

  (g) sponsoring, among other, research that shows the negative economic impact of illegal logging for the development of certain producing countries with a view to help them manage their natural resources in a more sustainable manner.

  With regard to (e) the Governments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Indonesia signed on 18 April 2002 a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation to improve Forest Law Enforcement and Governance and to combat illegal logging and the international trade in illegally logged timber and timber products. Copies of the Memorandum have been placed in the Library of both Houses. We are discussing the content of the memorandum with a number of both timber producing and timber consuming countries, including United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Malaysia as a possible model for taking forward actions on combating illegal logging on a bilateral, regional and multilateral basis.

  With regard to (a), (c), (d) and (g), it is important to remember that combating illegal logging and associated trade requires effort from both timber producing and consuming countries. Timber producing countries are responsible for defining and enforcing the national legislative and regulatory frameworks that define legality. We are helping them to do so effectively.

  Marine Environment
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what extra resources her Department will provide to meet the objectives of the Government's Marine Stewardship report. [55767]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Marine Stewardship report contains a range of initiatives for the conservation and sustainable development of the marine environment. Sustainable development is an overarching theme for the 2002 Spending Review. The review is due to conclude in the summer.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether spatial planning of the marine environment will take account of the review of regulations affecting development in coastal waters. [56046]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: We will certainly want to take account of the findings of the review in developing the role of spatial planning for the marine environment.

  Hinkley Point A
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of nuclear waste will be created as a result of Hinkley Point A power station in Somerset; and what plans she has to dispose of this waste. [56028]

  Mr. Meacher
  While it was operational the station gave rise to intermediate and low-level wastes and spent fuel which was sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. The station is in the defuelling stage which will give rise to further spent fuel and intermediate-level wastes. In due course the station will be decommissioned and this will give rise to further intermediate and low-level waste. Intermediate-level waste is stored on the Hinkley Point A site. Low-level waste is disposed of at the Drigg facility in Cumbria.

  The Department and the devolved Administrations issued a consultation paper in September 2001 on "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" as part of a process for developing policy on the future long-term management of radioactive waste. The responses to that consultation exercise are currently being considered.

  Pollution
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department plans to take to tackle diffuse pollution from(a) agricultural sources and (b) other sources. [56551]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA is currently considering how best to tackle diffuse pollution of water, caused by agriculture, transport and urban development. We are carrying out a cross-cutting review of agricultural diffuse pollution, and expect an interim outcome from this process to inform our forthcoming sustainable agriculture strategy. The review is taking an evidence-based approach to the problem assessing the nature of the problem, including the impact of major pollutants such as phosphates, nitrates and microbial contamination, learning from wider international experience. We are also considering what additional measures, such as regulation, economic instruments, voluntary measures and awareness-raising, may be required in the future to tackle both agricultural and urban diffuse pollution, in order to implement the water framework directive.

  Landfill Sites
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when her Department will publish interim and final results from studies on possible health effects associated with landfill sites; [56850]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the implications for landfill sites in UK of the Eurohazcon study on landfill sites throughout Europe; [56851]

  (3) what studies her Department is sponsoring to investigate possible health effects associated with landfill sites. [56849]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following a European study (the first Eurohazcon study) published in 1998 that reported a 33 per cent. higher rate of non-chromosomal anomalies among people living near hazardous waste sites, the Government commissioned a programme of work on
  491W
  health effects of landfill sites including a much more extensive national study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU); this was published in the summer 2001.

  The SAHSU study found that 80 per cent. of the population lives within 2 kilometres of a landfill site (operational or closed). The SAHSU study looked at the rates of all birth defects (chromosomal and non-chromosomal) and found only a slightly higher rate (1 per cent.) in populations living near landfill sites and a 7 per cent. higher rate near hazardous waste sites. The Government's expert advisory committee, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, noted that this excess risk was small and could be accounted for by factors other than the landfill sites. The study has not shown, nor indeed could it show, a causal link between landfill sites and birth defects.

  Earlier this year a second Eurohazcon study was published. The study investigated the rates of certain birth defects (chromosomal anomalies) around 23 European hazardous waste landfill sites, including 12 sites in Great Britain. It found a 41 per cent. higher rate of chromosomal anomalies close to sites (0 to 3km) compared to further away (3 to 7km).

  The major difference between the two studies is the scale. The Eurohazcon study looked at populations around 23 landfills spread right across Europe, whereas the SAHSU study looked at populations within 2km of 9,565 sites (80 per cent. of the British population) of which 774 were known to take hazardous waste. The SAHSU study was therefore much more comprehensive. As such the results are less likely to be skewed by the pattern of birth defects surrounding any individual landfill site.

  Both the SAHSU and Eurohazcon reports have recommended further work and DEFRA, the Department of Health and the Environment Agency have a considerable amount of work planned or under way. A great deal is already known about the general make-up of gases that are emitted from landfill sites. However, better information is needed on the substances present in very low concentrations in landfill emissions and the levels of exposure experienced by people living near to landfills. To obtain this information, research is currently under way to analyse over 12 months the emissions from municipal landfills. This monitoring study will provide information on which to make a more informed assessment of the likelihood of landfill sites posing a risk to health. The work will be completed next summer and published as soon as possible thereafter.

  This Department hosted a seminar on 15 May 2002 to consider where there are gaps in the research on health impacts of all waste management options and to help prioritise future research. There are no risk-free options but conducting such research will allow local authorities and others to make more informed choices about the range, type and location of facility they wish to operate.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (habitat) is; how many times 492W
  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. [56804]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Habitats Committee is established by Article 20 of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) to assist the European Commission in measures to implement the directive.

  Two meetings of the Habitats Committee have taken place in the last twelve months. UK representation usually consists of an official from my Department and a scientific adviser from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Officials from the devolved Administrations have also occasionally attended in the past.

  The items currently under consideration by the committee are:
  adoption and protection of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs);
  selection of projects to be funded under LIFE (Nature), Council Regulation 1655/2000;
  needs and opportunities for co-funding of site management measures (article 8);
  species protection measures (article 12);
  monitoring of conservation status;
  raising awareness of the Natura 2000 network;
  application of the directive in the marine zone, including the directive's extension by member states beyond their territorial waters;
  forestry;
  implications of enlargement, including discussions with candidate countries on proposed modification of the annexes of the directive in light of future enlargement of EU, and the participation of accession countries in the Committee.

  The European Commission meets the travel and subsistence costs of one UK representative at each Habitats Committee meeting. However, it would be of disproportionate cost to identify the cost to public funds of the Habitats Committee's work, as in addition to travel costs of any further UK representatives, this includes the cost of policy, scientific and practical conservation work undertaken by my Department, the devolved Administrations and the statutory conservation agencies, contributing to the UK's implementation of the EC habitats 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 conservation of wild birds (ORNIS) 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. [56803]

  Mr. Meacher
  The ORNIS Committee assists the European Commission in an advisory capacity on a wide range of issues concerning implementation of the EC Wild Birds Directive and has a regulatory role under article 16 of the Directive considering adaptations of the Annexes to the Directive.
  493W
  One meeting of the ORNIS Committee has taken place in the last twelve months, on 15 June 2001. UK representation usually consists of an official from my Department and a scientific adviser from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Officials from the devolved administrations have also occasionally attended in the past.

  The European Commission meets the travel and subsistence costs of one UK representative at each ORNIS Committee meeting but, in addition to travel costs of any further UK representatives, the cost to public funds of the Committee's work includes policy, scientific and practical conservation work undertaken by my Department, the devolved administrations and the statutory conservation agencies, contributing to the UK's implementation of the EC Wild Birds Directive. It would therefore be of disproportionate cost to try to separately identify the cost to public funds of the ORNIS Committee's work.

  Recent issues which have been considered by the Committee include:
  definition and overview of pre-nuptial and reproduction periods of huntable species
  progress and perspective for classification of Special Protection Areas
  progress in discussions with candidate countries on proposed modification of the Annexes of the Directive in light of future enlargement of EU
  sustainable hunting initiative
  action plans for endangered species listed in Annex I of the Directive
  list of bird species covered by Article 1 of the directive
  use of lead shot.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on implementation of the Directive establishing a Community policy regarding water 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. [56840]

  Mr. Meacher
  This committee, established by article 21 of the Directive, has never met. Therefore the question of UK representation has not been addressed, no items are under consideration and it has not drawn on public funds. The role of the Committee, when it meets, will be to assist the Commission, mainly with technical matters relating to the Directive.

  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 on the incineration of hazardous waste 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. [56726]

  Mr. Meacher
  Article 15 of Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste provides for a committee to assist the European Commission with the adaptation to technical progress of the provisions of Article 10 to 12 494W
  and Annexes I to III of that Directive. There have been no meetings of this committee in the last 12 months and there are no items currently under its consideration.

  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 concerning integrated pollution prevention and 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 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. [56727]

  Mr. Meacher
  Article 19 of Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control ("IPPC") provides for a committee to assist with the establishment and maintenance by the European Commission of an inventory of the principal emissions and sources responsible from among the member states' industrial installations covered by that Directive.

  The Committee is currently considering the technical requirements for the establishment of the inventory, which will be known as the European Pollutant Emissions Register ("EPER"). It has met once in the last 12 months. The UK is represented by one official from my Department, assisted by another from the Environment Agency. Travel costs for the official are met by the European Commission. Subsistence costs amount to about £100 per meeting. Work in preparation for the meetings forms part of the general work of the Department on IPPC and cannot readily be separated and costed.

  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 procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry 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. [56825]

  Mr. Meacher
  The role of the Committee is to decide on amendments to parameters listed in the annexes to the Directive. There have been no meetings of the Committee over the 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 and the implementation of the Directive on the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations 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;
  495W
  if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [56815]

  Mr. Meacher
  The role of the Committee is to decide on amendments to technical measures described in the annexes to the Directive. There have been no meetings of the Committee over the 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 and scientific progress and implementation of the directive on urban waste-water treatment 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. [56800]

  Mr. Meacher
  The mandate of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Regulatory Committee is to assist the European Commission's work relating to implementation of the directive and to its adaptation to technical progress.

  The Committee has generally met once a year with the last meeting held on 20 February 2001.

  Four representatives are permitted from each member state. DEFRA is the lead Department for the United Kingdom with devolved authority representatives involved as appropriate. DEFRA will field two officials and the Scottish Executive one official for the next meeting. 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 for discussion at the next meeting, to be held on 3 June next month, will include: progress with the provision of information for the third Commission report on member state progress with implementation of the directive; discussion of the second such report published in November 2001; discussion of provision of required treatment standards for small to medium-sized sewage works by the directive deadline of 2005; discussion of infringement procedures being taken against member states and guidelines for extensive treatment systems.

  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 methods of measurement of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the member states is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if 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. [56796]
  496W
  Mr. Meacher
  This Committee has not met over the last 12 months. The question of current UK representation has not been addressed, no items are under consideration and it has not drawn on public funds. The role of the Committee, if it should meet, is set out in Article 9 of the directive. Its purpose is to take account in particular of alterations in the levels of the parameters specified in the 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 progress of the decision establishing a common procedure for the exchange of information on the quality of surface fresh water in the Community 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. [56799]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Committee has not met for more than five years. Therefore the question of current UK representation has not been addressed, no items are under consideration and it has not drawn on public funds in the last five years. The role of the Committee, if it should meet, is set out in Article 8 of the decision (Council decision 77/795/EEC, OJ L334, 24.12.1977, p29). It is to give its opinion on any measures proposed by the Commission which are necessary to adapt the decision's provisions to technical progress.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee on application of the directive on the standardisation and rationalisation of reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment 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. [56802]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Committee has not met for more than five years. Therefore the question of current UK representation has not been addressed, no items are under consideration and it has not drawn on public funds in the last five years. The role of the Committee, if it should meet, is set out in Article 6 of the Council directive 91/692/EEC (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p 48). It is to give its opinion on any measures proposed by the Commission which are necessary to adapt the directive's provisions to technical or scientific progress.

  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 limitation of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations 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. [56817]
  497W
  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 reviewing the progress of member states 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. That meeting considered the format of reports required under the directive; there are no 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee for the control and production of substances that deplete the ozone layer (SAO) 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. [56730]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Management Committee was established under Article 18 of EC Regulation 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The regulation that enforces the European Union's obligations under the Montreal Protocol. The committee's mandate is to assist the European Commission with implementation of the various controls in the regulation. It was established by Council Decision 1999/468/EC.

  The committee has met twice in the last 12 months. The UK is usually represented by two officials from my Department and one from the Department of Trade and Industry, although officials from other Government Departments and agencies, including the Ministry of Defence and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, have also attended meetings when items pertinent to their responsibilities were under discussion. The costs incurred by my Department in contributing to the committee's work are largely travel and subsistence costs of about £930 per meeting, incurred in attending the two-day meetings in Brussels, and staff costs of about £480 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 due to be considered by the committee at its next meeting include proposed changes to the critical uses of halon listed in annexe VII of the regulation, a mechanism for setting import quotas of HCFCs from 1 January 2003, and information on critical use procedures for methyl bromide.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade 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. [56805]
  498W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Scientific Review Group was set up under the terms of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 to examine scientific questions relating to the application of these regulations. These questions may be raised by the chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of the members of the group, or by members of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora. It is composed of representatives from each member state and the UK is represented on the committee by scientific advisers from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (fauna) and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (flora).

  The group has met three times over the last 12 months. The annual cost of its work is relatively small, although detailed figures cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. The items currently under consideration by the committee include:

  Application of Articles 4.1(a)(i) and 4.2(a) of the Regulation—opinions of the SRG on:
  procedure for making and transmitting SRG opinions
  imports form Madagascar
  "Psittacus erithacus"/Nigeria
  replies to consultations with third countries on "Phelsuma comorensis"
  review of annexe B animals subject to import restrictions
  "Amazona aestiva"/Argentina
  "Geochelone carbonaria"/Suriname

  Export quotas 2002

  Private husbandry or reptiles

  Coral mariculture and fossil corals

  18th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee

  12th meeting of the CITES Plants Committee

  Preparations for the 12th Conference of CITES Parties

  Mortality in transport

  Negative effects of captive breeding/artificial propagation operations.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Scientific review group for the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade 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. [56806]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora was set up under the terms of Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338–97 to assist the Commission in carrying out the functions set out at Article 19 of the Regulation, relating to the implementation within the Community of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It is composed of representatives from each member state and the UK is represented on the Committee by DEFRA officials.

  The Committee has met three times over the last 12 months. The annual cost of its work is relatively small, although detailed figures cannot be provided without

  499W
  incurring disproportionate costs. The items currently under consideration by the Committee include:

  Preparations for the l2th Conference of CITES Parties

  Imports of mahogany from Brazil

  Treatment of vagrant species listed in the European Birds directive

  Regulation of trade in primates, rhinos, tigers and bears and parts or derivatives thereof

  Status and transmission of SRG opinions

  Treatment of ecological threat species

  Marking of specimens in trade

  Use of transponders

  Import of hunting trophies

  Annual and biennial reports

  Outcome of CITES Committee meetings

  Imports of reptiles from Madagascar.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Group of experts appointed by the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee to address basic standards (Article 31) 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. [56826]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  This expert Group is mandated directly by article 31 of the Euratom treaty. Three experts in radiation protection matters attend from the UK. The Group has met twice 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 task of the Group is to advise the Commission on the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiations. Experts are appointed in a personal capacity and therefore do not serve a representative function.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Euratom Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (CST) 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. [56732]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Euratom Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee is mandated directly by article 134 of the Euratom Treaty. Five scientific experts attend from the UK. Meetings are held two or three times a year. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The main task of the Committee is to advise the Commission on the nuclear component of the Community's work, in particular the fission and fusion content of its ongoing research programmes. Experts on the Committee are appointed in a personal capacity and
  500W
  therefore do not serve a representative function. The Treaty specifically states that they are not to be bound by mandatory instructions.

  Farm Films Recovery Scheme
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assistance her Department gives to support recycling of used silage films; [57254]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the Farm Films Recovery Scheme. [57253]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm Film Producers Group operated on a voluntary basis between 1994 and 1997 to collect farm plastics for recycling. A small number of voluntary local collection schemes still exist.

  We will be addressing the question of how to deal with waste non-packaging farm plastics in the forthcoming consultation document on the application of the Waste Framework Directive to agricultural waste. We will consider whether a statutory scheme should be introduced in the light of responses to this consultation exercise.

  Village Pub Diversification
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many requests have been made for information on village pub diversification, broken down by region. [57457]

  Alun Michael
  The "Pub is the Hub" good practice guide is issued by Business in the Community, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Countryside Agency. There are no central records held on requests for information on village pub diversification.

  The Countryside Agency has funded eight projects located in public houses in the past year through their Community Services Grant. These are broken down by region as follows:

  Region

  North East

  0

  North West

  0

  Yorkshire & Humber

  1

  East Midlands

  1

  West Midlands

  0

  Eastern

  2

  South East

  4

  South West

  0

  Rural Funding
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on(a) parish plans, (b) community service grants and (c) parish transport grants, broken down by initiative, in 2001–02. [57461]

  Alun Michael
  The total outturn for expenditure on the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages Grant schemes until 31 March 2002 is:(a) Parish Plans Fund £399,000; (b) Community Services Grant £1.7 million; and (c) Parish Transport Fund £354,000.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 will be completed. [57650]

  Mr. Meacher
  The review will be conducted in accordance with standard Cabinet Office guidelines for such reviews. This will involve discussions within Government (which are already under way), a pre-consultation process with the main stakeholder organisations, and a full formal public consultation exercise (which normally takes three months, to allow sufficient time for a considered response). How long the review will take will depend on the outcome of those consultations.

  Bali Pre-conference
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) first class, (b) club class and (c) economy tickets have been booked for (i) Ministers, (ii) officials and (iii) special advisers attending the WSD conference in Bali. [57835]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: One Minister, two officials and one special adviser have booked first class tickets. Thirty officials have booked club class tickets.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's budget is for the Bali pre-conference. [57839]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Department's budget for the Bali preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development is approximately £86,000.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total budget is for the UK delegation to the Bali pre-conference. [57842]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The total budget for the UK Delegation for the fourth preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Bali will be approximately £180,000. This comprises air fares, hotel rooms, subsistence and office accommodation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people will accompany her at public expense on her forthcoming trip to Bali; and what the total cost of the visit will be. [57654]

  Mr. Meacher
  There will be 28 people accompanying the Secretary of State during her forthcoming trip to Bali for the fourth preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. This will include representatives from DEFRA. DFID, DTI, FCO and the Cabinet Office; the total cost of the visit will be approximately £180,000. This comprises air fares, hotel rooms, subsistence and office accommodation.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the 502W
  Government will publish their response to the Environmental Audit Committee's First report of Session 2001–02, Departmental Responsibilities for Sustainable Development. [59802]

  Margaret Beckett
  I am pleased to announce that I have today, laid copies of the Government's response to the Environment Audit Committee's first report of the 2001–02 session, Departmental Responsibilities for Sustainable Development, in the Library of the House.

  The Government's response sets out progress on sustainable development following the general election in 2001. We strongly believe that the creation of DEFRA has produced a department which is better equipped to champion sustainable development and ensure that sustainable development continues to be a priority for the Government.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department since 1997. [56307]

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

  Parish Councillors (Data Protection)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Register of Parish Councillors' interests are covered by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. [56617]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 apply to the maintenance of the register of parish councillors' interests, subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, including the requirement that the register should be made available for inspection by members of the public.

  Statutory Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statutory law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities there are within the responsibility of his Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57101]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The following divisions of the Department, its agencies, or bodies for which the Secretary of State for Transport,

  503W
  Local Government and the Regions is accountable to Parliament, may act as prosecuting authorities in relation to the matters for which they have responsibility:

  British Transport Police

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Health and Safety Executive

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Radioactive Materials Transport Division

  Transport Security Division

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate.

  All of the authorities listed have procedures in place for the handling of complaints. Complaints about any of these authorities may, in the first instance, be directed to the authority in question.

  Additionally, all of the authorities listed are within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, with the exception of the British Transport Police. Complaints against the British Transport Police may be referred to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Local authorities are also within the responsibility of the Department and operate their own complaints procedures. Complaints against local authorities can also be made in appropriate circumstances to the Local Government Ombudsman; in addition complaints against Councillors can be made to the Standards Board for England.

  Train Protection and Warning System
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated cost is of the implementation of the new train protection warning system on Scotland's rail network; and what percentage this cost represents of the total costs of the implementation of the Strategic Rail Authority's plan in Scotland. [58093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information provided by Railtrack indicates the estimated cost of installing the train protection and warning system on Scotland's rail network is in the region of £50 million. The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan does not allocate costs by region.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the backlog of disrepair of(a) local authority, (b) RSL, (c) private rented and (d) owner occupied housing in (i) Greater London and (ii) Enfield. [57922]

  Ms Keeble
  Through the 2001 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix, London authorities have reported the following numbers of unfit dwellings on 1 April 2001:

  All London

  Total stock

  Unfit dwellings

  Local authority

  526,739

  29,490

  RSL

  284,240

  9,038

  Other public sector

  13,917

  870

  Owner occupied

  1,741,428

  95,602

  Other private sector

  560,034

  84,769

  504W
  Enfield have not given a full breakdown of their unfit stock, but the figures available are as follows:

  Enfield

  Total stock

  Unfit dwellings

  Local authority

  13,183

  166

  RSL

  5,778

  —

  Other public sector

  521

  —

  Total private sector

  94,619

  4,506

  We do not have up to date information on expenditure required across tenures in London and Enfield. All London local authorities say they need to spend £5,380 million on capital investment at 1 April 2001 on their own stock. Enfield estimates that its current backlog of repairs on its own stock is about £50 million, of which about £8 million is required to bring its housing up to the Decent Homes standard. (All figures are from the 2001 Business Plan Statistical Appendix).

  All local authorities are working towards providing numbers of non-decent homes within their own stock in July in their 2002 Housing Revenue Account Business Plans.

  Commercial Aircraft
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the criteria are for determining the lowest permissible altitude of commercial aircraft operations around international airports; and which authority is responsible for them. [57543]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Provisions relating to the lowest height at which aircraft may fly are contained in the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1393). These are made under the Air Navigation Order and reflect internationally agreed safety standards and recommended practices. The Rules apply to all flights.

  Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations is the low flying rule, and aircraft flying under Instrument Flight Rules must also comply with Rule 29 (minimum height).

  The responsible authority for the rules of the air is the Civil Aviation Authority, the Government's safety regulator.

  In addition some airports apply their own local restrictions within the immediate vicinity of the airport (normally within the local traffic circuit) for noise abatement purposes. These restrictions require aircraft to fly at heights greater than those specified in the low flying rules.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 85W, 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". [57034]
  505W
  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: As my answer of 10 April 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.

  "The New Humber Pilotage Service"
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions from which sources his Department derived its information in preparing the document "The New Humber Pilotage Service". [58350]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The sources are given in the document.

  Potters Bar Derailment
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the report from the formal investigation into the Potters Bar rail derailment by the Health and Safety Executive. [58655]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) will publish their formal report once the British Transport Police (BTP) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have completed their investigations.

  Safety lessons learnt from the BTP/HSE investigations will be transmitted without delay to industry dutyholders.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the major orders(a) won and (b) lost this year by the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh; what arrangements he is making for consultation on proposed changes to the Framework Document; and what the timescale is. [58735]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 22 May 2002, Official Report, column 341W.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent research the Government have commissioned under the Pathfinder studies into fire brigades; what the conclusions were; and what action the Government proposes to take to meet the recommendations. [58713]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Some 50 separate studies have been commissioned the Fire Cover Task Group of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council (CFBAC). The scope of the studies is too wide to summarise here. However, copies of the reports of all (48) currently completed studies can be found on my Department's website at "http://www.safety.dtlr.gov.uk/fire/fepd/fcr/fcrhome.htm".

  It is the responsibility of the Task Group to make recommendations to the CFBAC on the research they have commissioned and the overall outcome of the Pathfinder trials. Their report is expected in the late summer.

  When this is available it will be considered initially by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, following which I expect to consult widely, since I expect the review to provide the fundamental basis of planning delivery of service by fire brigades in the future.
  506W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what investigations he has commissioned in the current year into aspects of the(a) financial and (b) other forms of management of the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh; and what consequent reports he has received. [58733]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 May 2002, Official Report, columns 341–42W.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to support and facilitate the expansion of regional airports. [58581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A New Deal for Transport (1998) said that the Government would"encourage the growth of regional airports to meet local demand for air travel where consistent with sustainable development principles"
  in order to
  "maximise the contribution they make to national and regional economies; relieve pressure on congested airports in the south east of England; and reduce the need for long surface journeys (particularly by road) to south east airports."

  Before the summer recess, we aim to publish a series of regional consultation documents on airports and air services that will set out alternative options for how these aims might be achieved. Responses to the consultation will be used to inform the publication of an air transport White Paper, planned for late this year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what importance he attaches to the needs of tourism in his plans to improve England's road network. [58579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Individual road improvement schemes are subject to the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA), introduced in 1998. NATA takes account of the expected impact of a proposed scheme on the environment, safety, the economy, accessibility and integration. The assessment includes an appraisal of the extent to which a proposed scheme may help the regeneration of an area. The time savings and reductions in vehicle operating costs for tourists (including coaches) are included in the overall appraisal of the benefits of a proposed road scheme.

  Rural Population
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 16 May 2002, Official Report, column 798W, on the rural population, if he will estimate (a) the number of population increase and (b) the number of households projected in (i) deep rural and (ii) mixed rural areas by 2016. [58779]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest sub-national population projections for England to 2016 are the 1996-based projections prepared by the Office for National Statistics. Between 1996 and 2016 the population in those local authorities categorised by my Department as "deep rural"
  507W
  is projected to rise by 0.26 million and the number of households by 0.21 million. Over the same period, the population in those local authorities categorised by my Department as "mixed rural" is projected to rise by 0.77 million and the number of households by 0.67 million.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 16 May 2002, Official Report, column 799W, on the starter home initiative, how many key workers will receive financial support in small rural settlements with a population of(a) 3000 or less, (b) 3001–5000 and (c) 5001–10,000. [58778]

  Ms Keeble
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Starter home initiative funding has been allocated to schemes which propose to help around 360 key workers in rural settlements with a population of 10,000 or less. This is a correction to the answers I gave on 9 May 2002, Official Report, column 278W and 16 May 2002, Official Report, column 799W.

  PFI Housing Schemes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice he provides to local authorities on developing their outline business case for submission in bidding rounds for PFI housing schemes. [57928]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department offers advice to local authorities at each stage of the housing private finance initiative (PFI) process. At the bidding stage the Department sends a letter to all authorities inviting them to submit expressions of interest. That letter is accompanied by guidance on issues to cover in submissions. The guidance is available on the Department's housing website.

  Following the expression of interest stage, the Department assesses the bids. The successful authorities are invited to develop their outline business case (OBC), and my officials offer advice to authorities on an individual basis during this stage. In addition, guidance is available from the Public Private Partnerships Programme (the 4Ps), with whom the Department is working closely in developing PFI for social housing. The OBC has to be endorsed by the inter-departmental Project Review Group (PRG) which is chaired by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) who also provide general guidance on PFI procurement.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria are used by the inter-departmental Project Review Group in assessing bids from local authorities for PFI housing schemes. [57927]

  Ms Keeble
  The assessment of bids for private finance initiative (PFI) housing schemes is carried out by my Department, with the help of the Government Offices for the Regions. In our recent bidding round schemes were assessed on the following criteria:

  value for money and whether an options appraisal had been carried out;

  evidence of housing demand and fitting in with the council's wider strategy;

  508W

  risk transfer;

  stakeholder and council consultation;

  meeting the general PFI criteria (e.g. innovation, sustainability and design quality);

  management and timetable.

  In order for a scheme to proceed, it also has to be endorsed at a later stage by the Project Review Group (PRG), who ensure that the projects which local authorities take into procurement are deliverable. PRG's assessment of all PFI schemes is based on the following criteria:

  affordability;

  output specification;

  bankability of the scheme;

  key terms and conditions;

  use of appropriate comparators;

  suitability of proposed advisers;

  indicative timetable;

  project team;

  commitment of the sponsors;

  statutory process.

  Construction Industry
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what further self-certification schemes are being planned for the construction industry; and whether they will be subject to public consultation. [59188]

  Dr. Whitehead
  A number of organisations have contacted my Department with proposals for self-certification schemes. Each of these schemes will be reviewed on their merits. As there have been two public consultations on self-certification, we do not intend to issue a further public consultation before recognising schemes for work already controlled by the Building Regulations. Individual trade and professional bodies may undertake some consultation, depending on the nature of the schemes they are developing.

  The hon. Member may wish to note that my Department issued a consultation document on 20 May entitled "Proposals for new safety requirements for electrical installation work in dwellings", which makes reference to self-certification by competent persons as a means of alleviating some of the financial and administrative burdens the proposed extension of the Building Regulations might create.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost of maintaining the Millennium Dome, including security costs, has been(a) since its closure and (b) in each of the last three months for which figures are available. [58605]

  Ms Keeble
  Since 31 December 2000, when the Millennium Experience ended, the cost of management, maintenance and security of the Dome has been £3.9 million, of which £1.9 million was incurred by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and £2 million by English Partnerships (EP). This includes the final figures for expenditure in December 2001, January and February 2002, which are £266,000, £251,000
  509W
  and £287,000 respectively. However, the January and February figures exclude telecommunications costs, which await final confirmation due to on-going delays by the service provider particularly in transferring accounts formerly held by NMEC to EP.

  Costs incurred by NMEC have been paid from the grant already approved by the Millennium Commission. EP costs are from their normal budget and will be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

  English Regions
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy that regional tourist boards should remain independent of regional assemblies created under proposals outlined in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions. [58602]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Regional tourist boards will remain separate bodies from elected regional assemblies, but the assemblies will allocate funding from their block grants for the regional tourist boards and will provide direction on how this should be used.

  Groundwork
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in establishing a Lancashire-wide groundwork. [57607]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department is currently considering the proposal from Groundwork for a Lancashire-wide trust. A final decision is yet to be taken.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to commission research into the dangers posed by the use of hands-free mobile phones while driving. [58202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 20 March 2002, Official Report, column 362W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson).

  In-flight Air Quality
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to meet the airlines to discuss the quality of cabin air in domestic and international flights. [58206]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The issue of cabin air quality was comprehensively addressed by the House of Lords inquiry into air travel and health. Since publication of the House of Lords findings, discussions between Government and the airline industry have been pursued through meetings of the Aviation Health Working Group. The Aviation Health Working Group was established to advise Ministers on all issues relating to aviation health.

  Permanent members of the group are the Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions (chair), the Department of Health, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. Representatives from the airlines, as well as consumer groups and other interested parties such as medical specialists, are regularly
  510W
  invited to participate in selected meetings. At present we have no plans to meet airlines to discuss the quality of cabin air in domestic and international flights, but European Union funded research into cabin air quality is currently under way and my Department will continue to monitor this work closely.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 14 May 2002. Official Report, column 520W, on road works injuries, what safety guidelines are issued to contractors working on the road; and what plans the Government have to introduce further safety measures for contractors working on the roads. [57930]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Following is a list of documents which provide safety guidelines for contractors working on the road:The Traffic Signs Manual, chapter 8 on Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations 1991 (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions)
  Planning for Safety—Guidance notes for the health and safety of workers at in-service motorway roadwork sites (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions)
  The Mobile Lane Closure Technique—TD49/97 (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions)
  Notes for Guidance on Safety at Roadwork—County Surveyors Society and Department Transport (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions)
  Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions)
  Crossing high-speed roads on foot during temporary traffic-management works—CIS 53 (Health and safety Executive).
  The Highways Agency established a steering group last year, consisting of representatives from public bodies and from across industry to look at safe practice in temporary traffic management operations on high speed roads. It has prepared an action plan consisting of short, medium and long term aims and is reviewing current guidance and practice.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned into the prevention of rail failures and accidents. [58207]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive and the Office of the Rail Regulator jointly funded research into the causation and treatment of gauge corner cracking by Arup and Partners International Ltd., and the Transportation Technology Centre Incorporated. Additional research is currently planned into track integrity and the effect on rolling stock.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what alterations were made to Railtrack plc's safety case following the appointment of an administrator. [58019]

  Mr. Byers
  On 8 October 2001, following Railtrack plc's entry into railway administration and consequent changes to the organisation, the HSE directed Railtrack plc to prepare and submit a revision to its safety case. Railtrack plc complied with the direction and HSE
  511W
  accepted this revised safety case, covering minor administrative and organisational changes, on 14 November 2001.

  In compliance with the requirements of the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Railtrack plc submitted a new thoroughly revised safety case to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 28 June 2001. The HSE process of assessment was completed and the safety case was accepted on I May 2002.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received over the past six months about the condition of the railway track between Colchester and London Liverpool Street from(a) Railtrack, (b) train operating companies, (c) rail unions and (d) others; and if he will make a statement. [58615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Terrorist Activity (Railways)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many incidents of(a) terrorist activity and (b) suspected terrorist activity have been recorded by (i) the British Transport Police and (ii) other organisations relating to the railways in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [58192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: After consultation with the British Transport Police, I can confirm that since 1997 the following numbers of incidents have been recorded in relation to security of the UK's rail network:

  1997: 562 threats, three viable devices or explosions, 33 hoax bomb items

  1998: 280 threats, 0 viable devices or explosions, 30 hoax bomb items

  1999: 323 threats, 0 viable devices or explosions, 20 hoax bomb items

  2000: 253 threats, two viable devices or explosions, 10 hoax bomb items

  2001: 347 threats, three viable devices or explosions, 18 hoax bomb items (plus 94 hoax biological items, eg white powder)

  2002: 58 threats, 0 viable devices or explosions, 9 hoax bomb items.

  In this instance "threat" means the number of times that railway infrastructure has specifically been indicated as a possible target in each given year, and "hoax bomb items" constitutes the number of items that have deliberately been assembled to resemble an explosive device.

  Railway Vandalism
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to combat acts of vandalism on railway lines; and if he will make a statement on the implementation of anti-vandalism programmes on the railways. [58200]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The problem of vandalism on the railways is taken very seriously by the Government, the Health and Safety Executive, Railtrack, the British Transport police and the railway industry.
  512W
  Current initiatives to reduce vandalism on the rail network include:
  "Leave Sites Safe and Secure"—a Railtrack campaign to clear lineside debris which could be used in acts of vandalism. The overall aim of the campaign is to remove or safely secure all lineside materials by October 2002. The railway industry is working closely with HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) to achieve this objective;
  "National Route Crime Week" 17–25 June sponsored by the National Co-ordinating Group for Trespass and Vandalism (an SRA/Railway Safety body). There will be a number of activities including an open debate at the Health and Safety Commission's (HSC) Rail Industry Advisory Committee meeting on 25 June;
  Industry programmes for reducing vandalism, including a range of targeted engineering measures such as improved railway fencing and caging bridges at vulnerable locations. HMRI monitor these programmes and take action if necessary.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) incidents of and (b) prosecutions there were for (i) vandalism, (ii) informed vandalism and (iii) trespass on rail lines in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [58196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Information held by the British Transport police on reported vandalism offences (there is no defined difference between informed and non-informed vandalism) in each of the last five years is contained in the following table:

  Number of offences

  1997–98

  13,751

  1998–99

  12,855

  1999–2000

  13,743

  2000–01

  13,349

  2001–02

  15,075

  Information held by the British Transport police on adults/juveniles charged or summonsed to court for vandalism from 1998–99 onwards is contained in the following table (due to archiving issues the BTP are unable to supply data prior to this data):

  Number

  1998–99

  2,262

  1999–2000

  1,928

  2000–01

  1,963

  2001–02

  2,200

  Note:

  Those persons charged or summonsed to court may or may not have been convicted and the data do not include cautions.

  Information held by the British Transport police on reported trespass offences in each of the last five years is contained in the following table:

  Number of reported trespass offences

  1997–98

  17,451

  1998–99

  16,535

  1999–2000

  13,896

  2000–01

  14,964

  2001–02

  15,395

  Information held by the British Transport police on adults/juveniles charged or summonsed to court for

  513W
  trespassing from 1998–99 onwards is contained in the following table (due to archiving issues the BTP are unable to supply data prior to this data):

  Number

  1998–99

  1,170

  1999–2000

  973

  2000–01

  1,215

  2001–02

  903

  Note:

  Those persons charged or summonsed to court may or may not have been convicted and the data do not include cautions.

  Mass Decontamination
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those groups and individuals from which he has taken advice in preparing the UK's strategy for mass decontamination in the event of(a) chemical and (b) biological attack. [50857]

  Mr. Hutton
  In preparing the United Kingdom's response, advice has been taken from the following sources:

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)

  Ambulance Services Association

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

  The nuclear industry, including Nuclear Emergency Planning Liaison Group, National Radiological Protection Board, and Atomic Weapons Establishment

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Environment Agency

  Civil Contingency Secretariat

  Health and Safety Executive

  Defence and Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Centre

  London Resilience Committee

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association

  Local Government Association.

  The Department of Health and DTLR continue to research the approaches of other countries, including Japan and the United States of America.

WALES

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by his Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in his Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53374]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 446W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58724]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, a departmental special adviser accompanied me to Brussels on one occasion. It is not practicable separately to identify the cost of this visit, but the journey was judged to comply with the Civil Service Code.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [56488]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The number of days of sick leave taken in my Department last year was 232 days. This averages to 6.1 days per staff year. Sickness records are not broken down by (a) stress (other than work-related) or (b) other mental health.

  The civil service is committed to reducing sickness absence by 20 per cent. by 2010 (to 8.3 days per staff year). Wales Office average of sick leave for last year is already below this target.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Visitor Tours
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what further consideration the Commission has given to visitor tours. [59659]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Hon. Members were informed on 19 March of the Commission's wish to improve the arrangements to provide high quality tours for constituents and other visitors to the Palace, and its view that there should be a single official tours organisation supporting both the permanent Summer Opening and tours at other times. The Commission felt that this was an important part of its strategic aim to increase public understanding and knowledge of the House and its work.

  At its meeting on 20 May the Commission considered the advice of the Administration Committee and the Board of Management on the way forward. We also took into account the views of a number of right hon. and hon. Members, their staff and staff of the House who have helpfully contributed to the process.

  The House of Lords has an equal interest in visitor tours. We have sought the views of the authorities of that House on the improvements we would like to see, and will be working closely with them on the details.
  515W
  We think it is important that Members should have the same freedom and flexibility to arrange tours for their constituents as is now the case, but we believe that there is scope for improvement. We decided that:
  for the convenience of Members and their staff, the tours office should be a "one-stop shop", making bookings, issuing permits and allocating guides, and that funds should be provided for this in the current financial year. We thought that the separate, well-understood system for allocating Gallery tickets should remain unchanged, and that the separately organised Summer Opening primarily for tourists should not be affected;
  informal visits of six people or fewer accompanied by Members, Peers, or Officers of either House, or four people accompanied by other permanent passholders, should continue as at present. The ability of Members, their staff, and staff of the House to guide their own larger parties should they wish would be unaffected;
  in the interests of fairness, unguided and unaccompanied visits should be discontinued;
  guides should be drawn primarily from staff of the House, who have given excellent service over a number of years; and that staff from all House Departments should be given the opportunity to contribute. We supported the idea of a guiding qualification that would help maintain high standards and encourage House staff to take part;
  tours should emphasise the role and work of the House just as much as the history and the heritage of the building.

  We thought that the new arrangements should begin to operate from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, although some aspects (for example the guiding qualification) will need to be phased in over a longer period of time. We were also conscious of the restrictions that possible changes in sitting times of this House might impose on access. In order not to reduce the total number of visitors who are able to come to the House, Saturday opening may be an option.

  We had well in mind the need to ensure that the costs to visitors are kept as low as possible, especially in the interests of groups such as school parties and old age pensioners. We have asked the Finance and Services Committee to look at possible cost structures and to report to us for our next meeting. We have also asked the Board of Management now to develop a detailed implementation plan.

  The views of Members, their staff and staff of the House will be a welcome contribution to the development of the new arrangements. They should be sent to the Serjeant at Arms as the member of the Board of Management responsible for this project.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Wales
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the basis was for the reference in her advertisement for the post of National Governor (Wales) of the BBC to a substantial proportion of the output of BBC Wales being in Welsh. [57208]

  Dr. Howells
  BBC Wales provides S4C with 10 hours per week of Welsh language programming, as part of its commitment under the 1996 Broadcasting Act. It also produces 18 hours a day of radio in Welsh on Radio Cymru and provides an extensive Welsh language online service, Cymru'r Byd.

  Listed. Buildings (London)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) Grade I and (b) Grade II listed buildings there are in (i) Greater London and (ii) the London Borough of Enfield; what public funds including Lottery funds have been spent on them in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [57920]

  Dr. Howells
  The numbers of list entries as at 17 May, 2002 for listed buildings in Greater London are 576 at Grade I, 1,243 at Grade II* and 16,157 at Grade II; in Enfield as at the same date there are three list entries for buildings graded at Grade I, 13 at Grade II* and 256 at Grade II.

  English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are the main distributors of public funds for listed buildings. The public funds spent on listed buildings by English Heritage in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Public funds for listed buildings—1997 to 2002

  £

  Year 1 April to 31 March

  Enfield

  Greater London1

  1997–98

  2,285

  2,599,000

  1998–99

  74,754

  2,196,000

  1999–2000

  24,023

  2,672,000

  2000–01

  Nil

  2,083,000

  2001–02

  1,618

  2,187,000

  1 Rounded figures

  It is not possible to ascertain the public funds spent through the Heritage lottery fund, but only the amounts awarded for funding listed buildings each year; these are therefore estimated and projected figures as follows:

  Enfield (£)

  Greater London (£)

  Number of buildings funded

  1997

  365,048

  19,272,448

  38

  1998

  264,236

  15,098,893

  51

  1999

  Nil

  5,273,321

  24

  2000

  Nil

  13,230,900

  42

  2001

  Nil

  29,912,614

  37

  Gaelic Programmes
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport how many hours of Gaelic programmes per year are required of(a) the BBC, (b) Grampian Television and (c) Scottish Television under the Multiplex Licence (Broadcasting of Programmes in Gaelic) Order 1996; and how many hours have been provided by each of the above broadcasters in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000, (v) 2001 and (vi) 2002. [57891]

  Dr. Howells
  The Multiplex Licence (Broadcasting of Programmes in Gaelic) Order 1996 requires the holder of the multiplex licence under which Channel 5 and S4C Digital are broadcast (SDN) to broadcast at least 30 minutes of Gaelic programming every day in Scotland during peak evening viewing time. In complying with this requirement SDN must broadcast at least 30 hours of Gaelic programmes per year supplied by each of the BBC, Scottish Television and Grampian Television. Under section 32(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1996, the BBC, Scottish Television
  517W
  and Grampian Television are required to provide SDN, free of charge, with such programmes in Gaelic as have been broadcast by the supplier as the holder may request.

  In practice, programmes from the BBC, Scottish Television and Grampian Television are provided to SDN indirectly via the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee (CCG). I understand that, of the programmes supplied to SDN by the CCG, the following hours had previously been broadcast on the BBC, Scottish Television and Grampian Television (the Gaelic service (TeleG) on SDN did not begin broadcasting until 31 October 1999):

  Hours

  BBC

  STV

  GTV

  1999

  14.5

  19.5

  6.0

  2000

  38

  120.5

  56

  2001

  31.5

  161

  41.5

  20021

  13.5

  37.5

  20.5

  1 To 30 April 2002.

  Communication Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Ministers have met representatives of(a) the BBC, (b) ITV, (c) Channel 4 and (d) Channel 5 to discuss Government communication policy since October 2001. [57847]

  Dr. Howells
  Since October 2001 my ministerial colleagues and I have met representatives from all four broadcasters, both informally and in the course of our ministerial duties, on a wide range of issues including the development of communication policy. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the advice that her Department gives people in receipt of Lottery funds on conflicts of interest. [58108]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The financial directions issued to Lottery distributing bodies require them to devise and abide by a procedure for handling potential conflicts of interest which may arise in the evaluation of applications by the body or individual members of that body. The directions also deal with the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts when bodies solicit Lottery applications; and with conflicts which might arise in connection with applications from companies or persons which the distributing body owns, controls or is able materially to influence.

  In preparing their annual accounts, Lottery distributing bodies are required to comply with UK Accounting Standard FRS8 Related Party Transactions. The objective is to ensure that financial statements contain the disclosures necessary to draw attention to the possibility that the reported financial position and results may have been affected by the existence of related parties and transactions between them.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by her Department since August 1997. [58201]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: No new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned since August 1997. However, the following data have been commissioned which can potentially be separated by gender, ethnicity and age. Data on disability are not available from these sources.

  Museums and Galleries
  Aspects of age and ethnicity are available from a series, commissioned by DCMS in February 2000, to be collected annually from its sponsored museums and galleries.

  Digital television
  Data on age, gender, and ethnicity are available from DCMS commissioned MORI research into consumer attitudes to digital television. This research was published in June 2001 and has been re-commissioned for publication in June 2002.

  DCMS sectors
  Data on ethnicity, gender and age is available from two surveys co-funded by DCMS and managed by the Office For National Statistics. Funding to the General Household Survey has been on-going since its reinstatement in 2000–01, and has also been provided for the first run of the Time Use Survey, published in 2002.

  Wage Costs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 919W, what her latest assessment is of the wage costs of museums, galleries and arts organisations. [58660]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest estimate of the total wage costs of museums, galleries and arts organisations sponsored by DCMS is £175 million. This covers the national museums and galleries and The Arts Council of England.

  The total is drawn from information supplied by the sponsored bodies on their pay bill during the 2001–02 financial year.

  Television Licence Fee
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will abolish the television licence fee; and if she will make a statement. [58551]

  Dr. Howells
  No. The Government believe that, at present, the television licence fee retains distinct advantages over the possible alternative methods for funding the BBC. We have therefore made clear that the licence fee will remain the main source of BBC funding at least until the expiry of the BBC's current royal charter at the end of 2006. Future funding arrangements will need to be considered as part of the charter review process, which will commence in 2004.

  Sports Facilities
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many publicly owned playing fields have been sold in each of the last 15 years. [58780]
  519W
  Mr. Caborn
  Data on the number of playing fields sold is not collected. Sport England do however, monitor the number of planning applications concerning playing fields in their role as statutory consultee. The Government will shortly be publishing combined figures for(a) applications from schools submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the disposal or change of use of school playing fields (which are already published monthly), and (b) figures from Sport England giving details of planning applications affecting playing fields which have been referred to them as statutory consultee (which are already published quarterly), along with (c) relevant data from the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by local authorities on sport facilities in each of the last 15 years. [58667]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of the expenditure by local authorities on the construction, conversion and renovation of sports facilities are shown in the following table. Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not available. (For the purposes of this question the figures relate to built facilities and do not include running costs (eg staffing costs, other overheads)):

  £ million

  Year

  Indoor sports and Leisure centres

  Swimming pools

  1987–88

  71.6

  45.5

  1988–89

  88.6

  49.6

  1989–90

  173.4

  80.6

  1990–91

  145.3

  69.0

  1991–92

  107.8

  50.6

  1992–93

  52.7

  35.1

  1993–94

  56.9

  27.4

  1994–95

  73.4

  30.3

  1995–96

  74.3

  35.9

  1996–97

  78.9

  35.8

  £ million

  Year

  Sports facilities

  1997–98

  167.6

  1998–99

  191.0

  1999–2000

  190.7

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish her response to the recent report of the Tourism Alliance commissioned by her. [58661]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have not responded point by point to the Tourism Alliance document "Tourism Spending Priorities", which was published in April. However, the document's recommendations will be taken on board in developing the modernisation programme for the tourism and hospitality industry, including marketing, quality, skills, modernised communication and structural reform. The document identifies a number of key strategic spending issues which we will be considering in the coming months.
  520W
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what funding will be allocated to the regional development agencies in support of the tourism industry in the year 2002–03 by(a) her Department and (b) other Government agencies; [58603]

  (2) what plans she has to ensure the continuing independence of the regional tourist boards; [58599]

  (3) what offers of financial support she has received for the proposed public-private coalition for the marketing of English tourism; [58600]

  (4) when she expects a campaign to market English tourism to be launched; [58598]

  (5) what funding her Department intends to allocate to the proposed public-private coalition responsible for the marketing of English tourism. [58601]

  Dr. Howells
  The announcement on 13 May about the structural reform of English tourism represents a radical change and yesterday I held the first meeting of the Steering Group to start considering the detail of how to take our proposals forward. We aim to report the Group's findings this summer.

  No decision on the level of funding for marketing has yet been taken—an announcement about resources for tourism will be made at the appropriate time but not in advance of the spending round decisions. We have not sought, nor yet received offers of financial support, but I am sure that the industry will respond well, as it did for the Million Visitor campaign earlier in the year.

  Depending on the details of transition to the new structures, we hope to be in a position to start marketing domestically in 2003–04. The precise decisions on dates will of course be for the public-private coalition to decide upon.

  Regional development agencies will in future play a stronger part in the strategic leadership of tourism. However, no decisions on funding have yet been taken and the level of that funding will depend on the precise allocation of new responsibilities. We will continue to encourage RDAs to take account of the huge importance of tourism to their regions, both its direct and indirect impacts, when they take decisions about allocating their single pot.

  Regional tourist boards are private companies limited by guarantee (one is a trust) and so are independent by nature. They are the natural partners for RDAs, with much tourism expertise, and we hope they will all forge effective working relationships with the RDAs.

  Prize Competitions
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government are taking in respect of its commitment in paragraph 4.53 of "A Safe Bet for Success" to carry out a separate review of prize competitions and similar quasi-gambling products. [59721]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are issuing a consultation paper today, which is also available on our website www.culture.gov.uk. The Government does not want to affect companies' ability to run genuine and harmless
  521W
  sales promotions. But it is important that operators should not be able to circumvent the principle that lotteries should not be run for commercial gain.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme concerning co-operation policy in the youth field, including European voluntary service and youth exchanges within the Community and with third countries (YOUTH) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom 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. [57493]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The purpose of the Youth Programme Committee is set out in the Council Decision 1031/2000/EC of 13 April 2000, which established the "Youth" Community action programme. The Youth Programme Committee has met twice over the last 12 months. One official and one expert
  522W
  attend the Committee meetings. Travel expenses are met from Commission resources. The travel and subsistence costs to public funds amount to approximately £1,100 over the last 12 months, of which approximately £800 was reimbursed by the Commission.

  The date of the next meeting has yet to be announced by the Commission and an agenda has not been published. However, the previous meeting in December 2001 considered the Commission's White Paper on Youth, adopted the 2002 Youth Programme Work Plan and approved the 2002 Budget.

  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 (Corn (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.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Middle East
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to his answer of 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 616W, on Israel, what the final cost of the damage to projects in the area administered by the Palestinian Authority that have been funded by the UK on a bilateral basis is; and what plans he has to call for financial compensation. [58520]

  Clare Short
  The final cost of damage to UK-funded projects has still to be confirmed. We have also recently learned of damage to fourteen vehicles the UK provided to the Palestinian police force in 1995. The replacement cost would be about £280,000. In common with European Union partners we reserve the right to seek compensation from the Israeli authorities.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to his answer of 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 616W, on Israel, what the outcome was of the meeting between the Task Force and Minister Eliezer. [58519]

  Clare Short
  No formal response was given by Minister Ben Eliezer. Subsequent discussions with the Israeli authorities reveal plans for a tightening of travel restrictions affecting the movement of people and goods. This has serious implications for the Palestinian economy, Palestinian society and the viability of the future Palestinian state. In common with the European Union, and other partners, we are considering how we should address this unwelcome development.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with other countries about co-operating in paying for the damage caused to Palestinian areas during the recent Israeli incursions with special reference to Jenin. [58020]

  Clare Short
  A World bank led team has recently completed a damage assessment. We have been fully involved in that process, including discussions about potential funding opportunities. Initial indications are that at least $150 million—out of an estimated total cost of $360 million—will be readily available for urgent priority repairs. We are currently discussing with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees the provision of long term technical assistance to support the rebuilding of the Jenin refugee camp.

  Sustainable Development
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards the implementation of national strategies for sustainable development for developing countries; and what involvement she has had with the development of the United Nations policy guidance. [58570]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been working within the OECD's Development Assistance Committee and the United Nations to reach international agreement on the characteristics of national strategies for sustainable development. In April 2001 the high level meeting of the Development Assistance Committee agreed guidelines on principles of planning for sustainable development. These principles were discussed at an international forum on 524W
  national sustainable development strategies, held in Ghana in November 2001. This forum was organised by the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs with support from my Department.

  An important outcome of this work has been the conclusion that good poverty reduction strategies contain the elements necessary for strategic planning for sustainable development and fulfil the role of national strategies for sustainable development. My Department is providing support in over 30 of the 41 countries which have produced interim or full PRSPs.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Côte d'Ivoire) 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. [58507]

  Clare Short
  My officials are unaware of any meetings of a Joint Committee (EEC-Côte d'Ivoire). In response to our inquiries, the European Commission was also unable to recall such a committee ever having met or what its mandate might have been.

  Parliamentary Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve her Department. [56979]

  Clare Short
  Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  HIV
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether there will be an open call from the European Commission for non-Governmental organisations to present proposals targeting HIV prevention in youth under budget line B7–6211. [58136]

  Clare Short
  The Commission will prioritise interventions targeting HIV prevention in youth under budget line B7–6211. An open call for proposals will be made in July 2002.

  Reproductive Health
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the European Commission is planning to issue calls for projects in 2002 for budget line B7–6312 Aid for Population and Reproduction Health in Developing Countries funding. [58135]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission plans to issue calls for proposals to budget line B7–6312 in July 2002.

  Somalian Refugees
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Somalian refugees are believed to be camped in(a) Kenya and (b) Ethiopia. [58100]
  525W
  Clare Short
  The latest figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees indicate there are(a) 129,800 Somalian refugees in Kenya and (b) 50,906 Somalian refugees in Ethiopia. The Kenya figure does not include approximately 10.000 people who have crossed the border into Kenya at Mandera this month.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to assist the Government of Kenya to deal with Somalian refugees from the town of Bula Hawa. [58101]

  Clare Short
  None. The Government of Kenya have not asked us for any assistance, and we understand that many of the refugees have already returned to Bula Hawa. Several UN agencies and NGOs are working with the Kenyan authorities and the refugees who have not yet returned, to ensure the latter receive the assistance they need, though we understand that food distribution is proving difficult as a result of the security situation. British officials in Nairobi continue to monitor the situation closely.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations the Government have made to the Government of Kenya for Somalian refugees from the town of Bula Hawa to be allowed to remain around Mandera until the fighting in their home areas subsides. [58099]

  Clare Short
  None. UNHCR is discussing with the Government of Kenya how best to look after the interests of the refugees in around Mandera. We understand that some have agreed to go to the established refugee camp in Dadaab rather than stay near to Mandera. British officials in Nairobi are in close touch with UNCHR and other concerned agencies, and are monitoring the situation as it evolves.

  Peru
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance the Government will be offering Peru following the announcement by President Alejandro Toledo diverting military spending to basic social services for children. [57678]

  Clare Short
  We are pleased that President Toledo has reaffirmed the commitment that he made on assuming government in Peru last year to reduce military expenditures and to divert the funds to social expenditures. In support of this and other pro-poor policies, we have provided additional support to Peru in the last year, and we will continue to work closely with the Government and civil society in Peru to support improved access to basic services, for the poorest and most excluded people, including children.

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions in the last six months members of her Department have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56885]
  526W
  Clare Short
  Members of my Department meet their counterparts from other countries on a regular basis. It is not possible without disproportionate effort to provide details of all meetings that have taken place between staff of my Department and their Italian counterparts.

  Burma
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People regarding the provision of humanitarian aid to internally displaced people in Burma. [57660]

  Clare Short
  The UK contributes to the costs of providing safe refuge and assistance for both Karen refugees in Thailand and internally displaced people in Burma. This includes funding through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Burmese Border Consortium and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Officials from my Department have met the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People, and we are aware of its work through our more regular contacts with the Burmese Border Consortium.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to get(a) food and (b) medical supplies to internally displaced Karen, Kaenni and Shan people in Burma. [57661]

  Clare Short
  The situation for internally displaced people in Burma remains extremely vulnerable. Many of these people have taken refuge in remote, inaccessible and politically sensitive areas, making it difficult to conduct any detailed humanitarian assessment of their situation. In 2001–02 we provided humanitarian assistance amounting to over £2 million for both refugees and internally displaced people within Burma. This included funding through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Burmese Border Consortium and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards creating a Government of National Unity in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [58096]

  Clare Short
  The Inter-Congolese Dialogue reached agreement on a wide range of issues and passed 37 resolutions. But it did not reach agreement on the crucial issue of a transitional leadership. An agreement was signed outside the ICD between President Kabila and the Chairman of the MLC, Jean-Pierre Bemba, which a number of political parties and members of civil society also signed. The RCD-Goma and some political parties including UPDS of Tshishekedi did not. Intensive efforts continue to find an inclusive agreement acceptable to all Congolese elements of the ICD as envisaged by the Lusaka Agreement.

  UN Aid Pledge
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent steps her Department has taken to meet the UN pledge of wealthy countries to spend 0.7 per cent. of national income on international aid. [58213]
  527W
  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have made clear their commitment to the United Nations' 0.7 per cent. oda/GNI target and to reversing the decline in UK development assistance. In 1997 the UK's oda/GNI ratio was 0.26 per cent. By 2003–04 it will have risen to 0.33 per cent. This represents an increase in the UK's development assistance budget of 45 per cent. in real terms.

  The Chancellor confirmed in his November 2001 pre-Budget report that in the next Spending Review, for the years 2003–04 to 2005–06, the Government will not only raise significantly the amounts of our own overseas development aid but also raise its share in national income. Further details of the review will be published later this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mongolia
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote trade with, and United Kingdom investment in, Mongolia; and if he will make a statement. [39948]

  Mr. MacShane
  Mongolia is a specialised market and British exporters often need help in establishing themselves. Trade Partners UK maintains a market information service on Mongolia for potential exporters. Trade Promotion is also a high priority of the British embassy in Ulaanbaatar. Her Majesty's ambassador and his team are fully equipped to help British exporters pursue business in the country.

  Grenade Licence Application
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) legal and (b) human rights factors were taken into account before 1998 when his Department considered export licence applications for the (i) E100 series integrated grenade system and (ii) fragmentation grenade E105 incorporated into the trip wire mechanism manufactured by PW Defence. [57169]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Such items would have been considered under the criteria applicable to all items on the Military List. From July 1997 onwards those were the UK's national export licensing criteria set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 28 July 1997,Official Report, HC26–29. Under those criteria we were obliged to comply with the UK's commitment not to export all forms of anti-personnel land mines and their component parts. The criteria also made clear that we would not issue licences where there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression, aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim.

  The legal basis for controls of integrated grenade systems and fragmentation grenades is entry ML4 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Control (Goods) Order 1994 as amended.

  Foreign and Defence Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed at European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers' meeting at Brussels on 13 and 14 May; what conclusions were reached; what was agreed for the agenda for European Council's meeting at Seville; and if he will make a statement. [57259]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 13 May. Conclusions were agreed by consensus and no formal votes were taken. Preparation for the Seville European Council was not included in the final agenda.

  Preparation of the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development

  The Council noted progress made in preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which will take place in Johannesburg on 26 August to 4 September 2002. The Council instructed relevant Council bodies to prepare a substantive contribution on the EU's role in the 'WSSD process, to be approved at the GAC on 17 June and endorsed at the Seville European Council.

  Annual Policy Strategy 2003

  The Council endorsed the Commission's three main priorities for 2003: achieving enlargement successfully, continuing to ensure security for EU citizens, and developing a sustainable and inclusive economy. The Council agreed that the Commission's suggested budgetary allocations would be studied in the framework of the Preliminary Draft Budget examination for 2003. The Council recommended that future versions of the Annual Policy Strategy should be presented as early in the year as possible to improve the coherence of the budgetary process.

  Effectiveness of the Union's external action

  The Council noted work in hand and heard presentations on improving cross-pillar co-operation, strengthening the EU's role in international organisations, budgetary issues, development aid and the EU decision-making process. Commissioner Patten briefed Ministers on pilot studies aimed at improving the impact of EU external assistance and on the process of evolution of responsibilities to Commission delegations.

  Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries

  The Council welcomed the Commission's proposal for a mandate to negotiate EPAs with the ACP countries, recalling that the ultimate purpose of the negotiations was poverty eradication and integration of ACPs into the world economy. It also addressed questions of ACP market access and WTO compatibility. The discussion will continue in the Permanent Representatives' Committee, with a view to adopting the mandate at the June GAC.

  Renewal of mandates and financing of EU Special Representatives (EUSRs)

  Recalling the essential role played by EUSRs, the Council agreed to extend the functions and funding for FYROM and Afghanistan EUSRs and asked the relevant bodies to study financial formulae to make this possible.
  529W
  Middle East

  The Council discussed the possibility of convening an international conference and welcomed the end of the Church of the Nativity crisis in Bethlehem. It thanked the Cypriot Government for their assistance and thanked member states for provisionally offering the 13 Palestinians involved temporary residence on humanitarian grounds.

  European Security and Defence Policy

  The Council welcomed the participation of Defence Ministers, meeting as the GAC for the first time, and noted progress towards establishing the Capability Development Mechanism (CDM). It also acknowledged recent advances made in European military capabilities and discussed possible means of resolving current shortfalls with a view to meeting the Headline Goal.

  Western Balkans

  The Council conducted its annual review of the Stabilisation and Association Process for South Eastern Europe (SAP), which provides a route map to EU membership, tied to each country's progress on reform. The Council called on the SAP countries to devote adequate attention and resources to implementation of EU recommendations, with particular reference to strengthening the rule of law and judicial systems and visa and entry policies. The Council invited the Commission to assess progress made at its next annual review in March 2003. The Council also proposed to establish a new ministerial-level political forum, linking the EU with the SAP countries. It also highlighted the need for a greater EU public information effort to foster greater understanding of the SAP. Crisis management in the Balkans, including the future EU Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a possible mission in Macedonia, was also discussed.

  Iran

  The Council noted that broad agreement had been reached on substance and objectives for developing EU relations with Iran. In addition to commercial matters, it was felt important that this include dialogue on terrorism, proliferation and regional stability. It instructed officials to pursue discussion with a view to a decision at the next GAC on a negotiating mandate for a Trade and Co-operation Agreement with Iran.

  Angola

  The Council welcomed recent encouraging developments in Angola, including the signing of an MOU by the Angolan Armed and Unita forces culminating in a ceasefire. The Council, while expressing support for positive initiatives undertaken by the Angolan Government, called on the authorities to allocate the necessary resources to: reintegrating Unita and Angolan armed soldiers into the armed forces police and civil society; demining; and reconstruction of social and civil infrastructure. It also requested that the Angolan Government do their utmost to assist humanitarian needs.

  Bali Pre-conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from his Department will travel to Bali to participate in the mini-summit for discussion of environmental issues. [57656]
  530W
  Mr. MacShane
  There will be six officials travelling to Bali from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will be participating at the fourth preparatory committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  World Cup
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Football Association and (b) the England Supporters Club on the advice to be given to England football supporters travelling to Japan and South Korea for the World Cup finals. [58089]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have been working closely with the Football Association and "Englandfans" (the official England supporters club) to provide useful, relevant and up-to-date information for travelling supporters to the World Cup in Japan and Korea. As well as the travellers tips available on our website, an FCO pocket information guide and FCO/DCMS/Home Office leaflet are being distributed with World Cup match tickets by the FA and FIFA, and will also be available at UK airports and upon arrival in Japan and Korea.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Japanese Government on British prisoner transfer arrangements during the course of and following the World Cup finals. [58090]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK does not have a bilateral prisoner transfer agreement with Japan. We have been encouraging Japan to accede to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (CECTSP), but Japan must first enact the necessary domestic legislation. During discussions in April 2002, Japanese officials said that they hoped to have the necessary legislation in place by summer 2002, which will then enable Japan to apply for accession to the CECTSP. As applications to the Council of Europe Secretariat take some time, Japan will not have acceded to the Convention in time for the World Cup 2002. British consular staff will, however, continue to do everything possible to help British nationals who are arrested or detained in Japan.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions which have taken place between officials in his Department and those from Sweden on the timing of referenda on EMU membership. [57881]

  Peter Hain
  Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office conduct discussions on all aspects of EU policy, including economic issues, with all our European counterparts on a regular basis.

  Information Campaigns
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards projecting plurality of opinion on the future direction of the EU in his Department's information campaigns; what input he receives from representatives of external organisations in developing his material; and if he will make it his policy to expand contact lists to represent organisations critical of the EU. [57877]
  531W
  Peter Hain
  We are committed to consulting the public over the convention on the future of Europe, including by getting young people from all walks of life and political persuasion involved in the Youth convention. The Foreign Office, in conjunction with The Independent, is running a nationwide competition to select three young people to join the UK delegation.

  In developing EU public diplomacy material, we have received input from the Plain Language Commission.

  The FCO is open to the views of all organisations but is tasked with presenting the Government's policy on the EU.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on forced movement of ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh by the Azerbaijan authorities. [58048]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Approximately 60,000 Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians were displaced by the Azeris during the heaviest part of the fighting in 1991–92. 35,000 have since returned. The displaced Armenian population was largely from the Shahumian and Madakaert regions. During the same period, a large number (approximately 800,000) of Azeris were also displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh. We are not aware of any forced movement of population on either side of the line of control since the ceasefire in 1994.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the waiting time is for the spouse of a British national applying for a settlement visa in the UK from Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. [57974]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have a Public Service Agreement with the Treasury that we conduct 90 per cent. of settlement interviews within a target time of 12 weeks. However, in practice applicants who apply to our visa section in Kinshasa on a Monday morning are usually interviewed on Tuesday and Wednesday; those who apply on a Wednesday morning, when the visa section opens again, are interviewed on Thursday, or the following Monday. The section would therefore expect to interview the spouse of a British national applying for settlement within three working days. Normally, a decision on the application would immediately follow this interview.

  Hague Tribunal
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chief Prosecutor at the Hague Tribunal over funding of the Prosecutor's Office. [58052]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met with the Prosecutor, Mrs. Del Ponte, in London on 14 March 2002. They discussed the resource requirements of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, including the Office of the Prosecutor. Mrs. Del Ponte received assurances of our continued support.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the (i) level of risk posed by and (ii) stage of development reached by Iraq in the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. [58210]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not specifically commissioned any such research.

  We do, however, have regular access, including from intelligence sources, to information regarding the development of such weapons by Iraq.

  This information, coupled with the details of weapons and materials for which UN weapons inspectors were unable to account between 1991 and 1998 enables us to make periodic assessments of the risk posed by Iraq and of on-going development work.

  Since the withdrawal of UNSCOM and IAEA inspection teams in December 1998, we have had no independently-verifiable information of the stage of development reached in the Iraqi WMD programme.

  Libya
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Libyan authorities about the crash report on flight LAA1103. [57017]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our embassy in Tripoli have made regular requests to the Libyan authorities for a copy of the crash report. They will continue to do so. As a British citizen was killed in the crash, we believe that we have a right to this information. However, it is far from certain whether a crash report has or will be written, or, if one does exist, whether the Libyan authorities will hand a copy over to us.

  Burma
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with foreign Ministers in other countries about future strategies to be adopted in partnership aimed at encouraging peaceful democratic change in Burma. [58024]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Burma is a frequent topic of multilateral and bilateral discussion at ministerial and official level within the EU as well as key members of the international community. I took the opportunity to discuss Burma with ministerial colleagues in Singapore and Brunei during my visit to south east Asia. I impressed on them the importance of maintaining pressure on the Burmese regime to take meaningful progress on democratic reform.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to impose sanctions against Burma as a result of military action on behalf of the Burmese Army against Karen, Kaenni and Shan people. [57662]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In response to the overall political and human rights situation in Burma, the EU Common Position contains an arms embargo, a ban on high level visits, a ban on the export of items that may be used for
  533W
  torture, a ban on non-humanitarian assistance and an asset freeze and visa ban on senior members of the regime. The European Commission suspended Burma's trading privileges in 1997 in response to concerns over forced labour. In addition HMG discourages trade, investment and tourism with Burma.

  The EU Common Position was extended for a further period of six months in April 2002. It will only be relaxed when there is substantive progress towards national reconciliation in Burma.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to help bring democracy to Burma. [57659]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government have played a leading role in the EU and the UN in pressing for substantive political change in Burma. In April, the EU Common Position was renewed unchanged for a further period of six months and an EU-sponsored resolution on the human rights situation in Burma was adopted by consensus at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  The release from house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a welcome step forward. But it is only one of many needed. We will continue to press for national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the number of Karen, Kaenni and Shan people(a) internally displaced and (b) killed as a result of military action against them by the Burmese Army in the last 12 months. [57663]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Exact figures are not available as international access to many of the conflict areas is restricted or prevented by the military authorities. Recent UN estimates have indicated that up to 600,000 Burmese may be internally displaced.

  It is even more difficult to gauge the number of people who have been killed as a result of fighting with the military authorities. That human rights abuses continue in Burma is not in doubt. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a consensus resolution on Burma in April sponsored by the EU, which detailed the scale of the problem and expressed its continuing grave concern.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of military action taken by the Burmese Army against the Karen, Kaenni and Shan people following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. [57658]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The ethnic minorities in Burma suffer disproportionately due to the misrule of the Burmese authorities. The violence inflicted on the Karen, the Karenni and the Shan is on-going. The intensity of the fighting fluctuates, in part due to the climate of Burma, particularly the monsoon. We have consistently pressed the regime to move ahead on national reconciliation and urged all sides to resolve their differences through peaceful dialogue.
  534W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to(a) the Burmese Government and (b) other interested parties about the treatment of the Karen people by the Burmese army. [35792]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take every opportunity to impress upon the Burmese regime our deep concern about their treatment of the Karen and other ethnic minorities in Burma, including through our ambassador in Rangoon and visiting officials. The UK co-sponsored a United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Burma in April 2002 and, as part of the EU, we shall co-sponsor a similar resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in November. We have also drawn our concerns to the attention of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma and the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Burma.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the planned prime ministerial and ministerial meetings with the Spanish Prime Minister and Spanish Ministers in which it is expected that the future of Gibraltar will be discussed under the Brussels Process in the next month. [57551]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the Spanish Prime Minister on 20 May for discussions on a range of EU and foreign policy issues. They held talks on Gibraltar in a positive and constructive atmosphere. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Spanish counterpart on 15 May they agreed to convene a further formal Brussels Process meeting in late June or early July.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 830W, on appeals on what date (a) the appeal papers were despatched from Islamabad, (b) they were received by London and (c) they were sent to the IAA. [56128]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my hon. Friend has referred this case to the parliamentary ombudsman it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the issues he has raised at this stage of proceedings. My officials from Immigration and Nationality Directorate will shortly be responding to the matters raised by the ombudsman who will send you a reply in due course.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will call upon the Australian Government to ban President Mugabe and his Ministers from attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Brisbane; [38417]

  (2) if he will urge the Australian Government to ban President Mugabe and his Ministers from attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane and from entering Australia until 10 March; [39800]
  535W
  (3) what discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart on whether Australia should ban President Mugabe and his Ministers from travelling to or entering Australia ahead of the presidential election in Zimbabwe on 10 March during the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting on 1 March; [39788]

  (4) what discussions (a) he has had and (b) plans to have with Commonwealth partners on whether President Mugabe should attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting during the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting on 1 March. [39791]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: President Mugabe did not, in the event, attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Brisbane. Attendance at the meeting was a matter for the Australian Government.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will recommend his Commonwealth colleagues take regarding the present situation in Zimbabwe during the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting on 1 March. [39787]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: At the CMAG meeting on 1 March we urged our Commonwealth partners to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe was duly suspended from the Council of the Commonwealth on 19 March.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the European Union observers who have recently returned from Zimbabwe will publish a report on their findings. [38416]

  Mr. Straw
  The European Union observer team was withdrawn from Zimbabwe before the elections took place, as the Government of Zimbabwe prevented it from carrying out its mandate. The team did not publish a report.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to engage in dialogue or attend meetings with President Mugabe during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Brisbane. [38415]

  Mr. Straw
  I was unable to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Brisbane, at which President Mugabe was also not present. My noble Friend Baroness Amos attended plenary meetings at which Zimbabwe was represented, but did not engage in dialogue with representatives of the Zimbabwe Government.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of Council Common Position 2002/203/CFSP of 11 March, repealing 2001/83/CFSP, for the Zimbabwean military; and what steps he will take to ensure that EU aid is properly accounted for. [57876]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Council Common Position referred to supports the implementation of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions within the framework of the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A key element of the Lusaka agreement is the full withdrawal of all foreign troops, including Zimbabweans. This is also in accordance with the Security Council Resolutions.
  536W
  The European Commission now focuses its aid for Zimbabwe on humanitarian assistance and support for the health sector to combat HIV/AIDS. It has systems in place to closely monitor its assistance, and ensure that it is properly accounted for.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the European Community has banned exports of electronic jamming equipment designed to prevent the detonation by remote of improvised bombs to Zimbabwe under EC 310/2002 Annex II. [57869]

  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 that Regulation contains an agreed EC list of equipment subject to the embargo. This list was originally established in the context of EC Regulation 926/98 of 27 April 1998 which placed inter alia an embargo on the sale or supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism. "Electronic jamming equipment especially designed to prevent the detonation by radio remote control of improvised devices and specially designed components therefor" was included in the list annexed to Regulation 926/98 because of the potential for such equipment being used in countering anti-terrorism measures.

  This embargo is in addition to the full scope arms embargo imposed by the Council Common Position (2002/145/CFSP).

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish his consultative paper on the OFT report on the legal profession; and if he will make a statement. [57696]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As announced in the Budget statement in April, Government plans to issue a consultation paper on matters falling to it before the summer recess. The issues concern the extension of legal professional privilege and rights to do conveyancing and probate work; moves towards enabling the Law Society effectively to regulate the provision of legal services through alternative business structures; and the QC system.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the estimated waiting time is for an immigration appeal to be heard. [50591]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to her reply, 29 April 2002]: The average time to hearing for immigration cases received by the IAA between 1 May 2001 and 31 October 2001 was 5.2 weeks to first hearing and 14.1 weeks to substantive hearing at the adjudicator stage.

SCOTLAND

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 512W, on statutory instruments, what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of each of the statutory instruments listed. [50400]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs, and sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. RIAs are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51105]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [51106]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of the Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [51129]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (Conditions Attached to PSV Operators' Licence and Competition Tests for Exercise of Bus Functions) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [51103]

  Period April 2000 to March 2001

  Joiners

  Leavers

  Region

  Administrative Assistants

  Administrative Officers

  Administrative Assistants

  Administrative Officers

  London East

  360

  580

  187

  233

  London North

  390

  477

  253

  172

  London Central and South

  408

  580

  237

  285

  South-west

  332

  213

  226

  91

  East Midlands

  254

  174

  155

  157

  West Midlands

  264

  174

  122

  65

  Wales

  272

  195

  189

  77

  Merseyside

  258

  81

  167

  42

  Greater Manchester

  185

  136

  102

  70

  Yorkshire

  217

  79

  134

  46

  North-east

  258

  119

  155

  57

  West of Scotland

  322

  217

  196

  147

  East of Scotland

  305

  153

  194

  103

  Agency Central Services

  207

  123

  151

  119

  Period April 2001 to March 2002

  Joiners

  Leavers

  Region

  Administrative Assistants

  Administrative Officers

  Administrative Assistants

  Administrative Officers

  London East

  511

  640

  257

  159

  London North

  530

  620

  304

  179

  London Central and South

  667

  840

  372

  379

  South-west

  453

  403

  292

  149

  East Midlands

  397

  398

  221

  91

  West Midlands

  414

  488

  167

  92

  538W
  (5) what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement. [51104]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs, and sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. RIAs are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 1 March, Ref 39912 and 40038. [55434]

  Mrs. Liddell
  With apologies for the delay, I replied to the hon. Member's questions on 20 May.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the staff turnover in(a) administrative officer and (b) administrative assistant grades in the Benefits Agency was in each year since 1997; and if he will break down the turnover by region. [51051]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available for the period before April 2000. Such information as is available is in the following tables.
  539W

  Period April 2001 to March 2002

  Joiners

  Leavers

  Region

  Administrative Assistants

  Administrative Officers

  Administrative Assistants

  Administrative Officers

  Wales

  467

  392

  245

  180

  Merseyside

  506

  245

  260

  87

  Greater Manchester

  259

  234

  124

  56

  Yorkshire

  507

  376

  266

  68

  North-east

  298

  156

  148

  45

  West of Scotland

  334

  284

  160

  52

  East of Scotland

  384

  194

  211

  58

  Note:

  Agency Central Services became part of DSS Corporate Services Directorate on 1 April 2001.

  Head Injury Rehabilitation
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to assess the availability of vocational rehabilitation services for people who sustain a head injury; [56435]

  (2) what recent meetings have taken place within his Department on the provision of brain injury rehabilitation; and if he will make a statement. [56436]

  Maria Eagle
  Regular assessments are carried out of the availability of vocational rehabilitation services, including those for people who sustain head injuries. The services which are now in place, and delivered under contract through the Department's Work Preparation Programme, meet current and expected demand within the catchment area of individual providers.

  Ministers and officials have regular meetings with colleagues across Government to discuss rehabilitation, including services for people with acquired brain injury. A meeting was held with Ministerial colleagues from the Department of Health on 15 April to discuss a range of issues concerning health and rehabilitation. The Department is working jointly with a number of other Departments, including the Department of Health, to ensure that what is in place fully contributes towards our objective of helping as many as possible of those not working following injury or ill-health to make a prompt return to work.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Departmental report will be published. [58526]

  Mr. Darling
  The Work and Pensions Departmental Report, which sets out the Department's expenditure plans for 2002–03 to 2003–04, has been published today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons the letter from the hon. Member for Ilford, North on behalf of Mrs. C. A. Beadle of Tomswood Hill, Ilford dated 2 July 2001 took nine months to answer. [49020]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The delay in replying to my hon. Friend's letter is regretted. This was due to administrative error.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will amend the housing benefit regulations to take into account those individuals whose financial circumstances have changed between selling the property they continue to reside in, and making a claim for housing benefit; [52955]

  (2) what reason the amendment of regulation 7 of the Housing Benefit regulations, effective in January 1999, excluded from entitlement to benefit those who previously owned the home they now rent. [52956]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The intention of Housing Benefit regulation 7(1)(h) is to halt the abuse of the scheme where an owner-occupier transfers ownership of his or her home without money changing hands, or sells it for less than the market price, and then rents it back.

  Housing Benefit is still available to anyone who can demonstrate that he or she was forced to transfer or sell, for example because of impending repossession for mortgage arrears. A further amendment, from May 2001, allows a former owner to claim Housing Benefit provided five years have elapsed since he or she ceased to own the property.

  We keep all our policies under review but have no plans to make further amendments to this provision.

  Data Protection
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he 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. [53373]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since 1 January 1999 the Department has only had one version of internal guidance to assist staff to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. The guidance is contained in the Data Protection Manual, which is available in the Library.

  Medical Services
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on his plans to extend SchlumbergerSema's contract for the supply of medical services; and if he will list the service improvements that SchlumbergerSema will be expected to deliver as a result of a contract extension; [54037]
  541W
  (2) when he plans to publish the Department's report on Medical Services' performance against quality targets; [54038]

  (3) if he will list each performance target that his Department has set for SchlumbergerSema to deliver medical services and the levels of performance against those targets that have been achieved; [54039]

  (4) what measures he has taken to ensure that SchlumbergerSema has made improvements to its level of performance in delivering medical services. [54040]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 374–75W.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the staff employed undertaking specific work on counter fraud policy issues on 1 April had less than(a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) two years, (d) three years, (e) four years and (f) more than four years experience of working in this specific area. [54717]

  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 Fraud Strategy Unit (FSU) manages the setting and dissemination of fraud policy for the Department's Agencies and has a central role in undertaking specific work on counter-fraud policy issues. The information requested, in respect of FSU staff, is in the table.

  FSU staff's length of experience of working on counter-fraud policy issues as at 1 April 2002

  Less than 6 months

  6 to 12 months

  1 to 2 years

  2 to 3 years

  3 to 4 years

  More than 4 years

  19

  19

  12

  18

  8

  8

  The staff in Fraud Strategy Unit bring with them a wide range of skills and experience, notably in counter-fraud operational work, social security administration, legislation and programme/budget management. Many staff in the unit have had several years' experience in social security administration and dealing with customers, where countering fraud is the concern of all staff.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions for fraud involving housing or council tax benefit were undertaken by local authorities in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) between 1 January and 31 December 2001. [54725]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest information available on the number of prosecutions for fraud undertaken by local authorities is in the table.
  542W

  Local authority investigations

  Prosecutions

  Cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution

  Total

  1997–98

  700

  —

  700

  1998–99

  800

  —

  800

  1999–2000

  860

  390

  1,250

  2000–01

  1,100

  550

  1,650

  Notes:

  1. Figures are taken from local authority management information returns. It is possible that there could be some double counting with Benefits Agency data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.

  2. Information is not available for all 408 local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures for financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 have been rounded to two significant figures.

  3. Administrative penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, were introduced by the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act (1997) with effect from December 1998.

  Tax Credits
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the applicable amount for housing benefit and council tax benefit will be increased to take non-pensioner tax credits into account. [55030]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amounts included in respect of children in housing benefit and council tax benefit applicable amounts will equal the maximum help available for children through child tax credit and child benefit. Both child tax credit and working tax credit will be taken into account as income, in line with the current treatment of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on incentives in the field of employment 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. [55226]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Committee on Community incentive measures in the field of employment is provided for by a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, which the Council adopted on 6 May 2002, Article 129 of the Amsterdam Treaty. It runs until 31 December 2006.

  The programme of employment incentive measures will cover analysis, research and co-operation among the member states to support the European Employment Strategy and help achieve the strategic goals set by the Lisbon European Council. Activities, particularly through pilot projects, will include: the forward-looking evaluation of the Strategy; promoting the exchange of experience and good practice; and increasing information and general

  543W
  awareness of the social partners and relevant local and regional authorities. It also involves raising awareness of the Employment Strategy among European citizens

  The work programme for the committee, which will approved at the first meeting on 30 May, will include deciding and managing with the Commission the: general guidelines for the implementation of the activities; breakdown of funding between the activities; proposals for selection criteria for financial support; criteria for assessing activities receiving such support; and the procedure for disseminating and transferring the results. The committee will have an advisory role on the other aspects of the standard comitology decision.

  The committee is likely to meet two to three times a year and will be attended by one UK official. The annual cost to public funds of UK attendance is likely to be up to £1,650 of which the Commission will reimburse up to £1,230.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02).

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the mandate of the Committee of the European Social Fund 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. [55227]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The legal base of the European Social Fund (ESF) Committee is Article 147 of the treaty establishing the European Community. The committee's role is to assist the European Commission in administering the ESF. It delivers opinions on draft Commission proposals relating to the ESF including programming documents and implementing rules. It has met four times over the last 12 months.

  The committee is chaired by the Commission and is composed of representatives of member state Governments, trade unions and employers' organisations. The UK has six full members: two officials from the ESF Division of the Joint International Unit of the Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Education and Skills; two representatives from the Trades Union Congress (TUC); and two representatives from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). There are also three alternate members from the UK who are entitled to attend in the absence of a full member from their
  544W
  respective category: an official from the UK Permanent Representation to the EU and representatives from the TUC and CBI. The costs to public funds for the Government full members are limited to expenses of approximately £550 per person for a one day-meeting, less reimbursement provided by the Commission.

  At its last meeting on 22 March 2002, the committee considered the evaluation of the ESF, local employment initiatives, gender mainstreaming, preparation of national action plans for employment, complementarity with the Leonardo Da Vinci vocational training programme and lifelong learning.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has responsibility for ESF policy within the UK and is accountable to Parliament for the work of the UK Government members on the ESF committee. The Department for Work and Pensions prepares explanatory memoranda on EU documents on the ESF committee that are deposited in Parliament for scrutiny. These arrangements will continue.

  Disability Benefit
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his programme to enable people receiving disability benefit to take employment. [57112]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a wide range of programmes that have proved successful in helping people with disabilities secure work where they are ready and able to do so.

  Over 8,200 people have already been helped into work through the New Deal for Disabled People pilots. Building on that success we extended the New Deal for Disabled People and we now have a national network of job brokers from the public, private and voluntary sectors who work closely with employers, voluntary groups and health services to help people with health conditions and disabilities move into work. A further 2,304 people have been helped into work through the extension.

  Disability employment advisers continue to provide specialist support to disabled jobseekers, and disabled employees and their employers. The roll-out of integrated Jobcentre Plus offices will provide disabled people with work-focused meetings with a personal adviser to ensure they are aware of all the help and opportunities available to them.

  A range of other Government programmes are also available to help people with health conditions and disabilities find and keep employment, including Access to Work, Workstep and Work Preparation. All the programmes are subject to evaluation, and reports are published. They are available free of charge from the Department and are also accessible on the internet.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of single pensioners with gross weekly incomes of between (i) £78 and £134 and (ii) £122 and £134; and if he will estimate the (1) number and

  545W
  (2) percentage of pensioner couples with gross weekly incomes of between (A) £124 and £200 and (B) £188 and £200. [58030]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table.

  Gross weekly income (£)

  Number

  Percentage

  Single pensioners

  78–134

  1,730,000

  40

  122–134

  470,000

  11

  Pensioner couples

  124–200

  1,000,000

  25

  188–200

  170,000

  4

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are from the Family Resources Survey 1999–00 and are rounded to the nearest 10,000 or 1 per cent. As with data from any survey, these estimates should not be treated as exact as they are subject to sampling error. This is the latest year for which results are available and the survey covers Great Britain.

  2. The Family Resources Survey does not include information on pensioners living in residential care or nursing homes.

  3. Gross weekly income is at July 1999 prices.

  4. Single pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people aged 60 or over. Pensioner couples are defined as couples (married or co-habiting) where either partner is aged 60 or over. This differs from the definition used in the Pensioners' Incomes Series (singles over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples where the man is over state pension age).

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact on payment to pensioners and those in receipt of other benefits of Consignia's plans for urban sub-post offices. [58124]

  Mr. McCartney
  Access for customers will be a key feature of the Post Office's restructuring programme. Even after restructuring, it is expected that well over 95 per cent. of customers in urban areas will still live within a mile of a post office branch and the majority will live within half a mile. And the branches which make up the network should have a sounder commercial basis upon which to develop customer service.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) for each of the past five years, how many people were contracted out of SERPS; and what proportion of the workforce were contracted out; [58521]

  (2) how many people are contracted out of the additional pension; and what the equivalent number was in each of the last five years. [58522]

  (3) how many and what proportion of the workforce are contracted out of the additional pension, broken down by level of income. [58523]

  (4) for each (a) month and (b) quarter over the past four years, how many people were contracted out of SERPS; and what proportion of the workforce are contracted out. [58524]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out as follows:

  The number of people who were contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme in 1995–96, the latest year for which figures are available, is 14.8 million.
  546W
  The workforce for the same year was 28.7 million; the proportion of the workforce estimated to be contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme was 52 per cent.

  Note:
  Workforce means "economically active people" which is defined in the "Labour Force Survey" as being all those who are either in employment or unemployed.

  Source:
  "Second Tier Pension Provision 1995–96" and "Labour Force Survey"—Department for Work and Pensions' Analytical Services Division.

  Pension Service
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice and information will be provided by staff in the new pension centres to encourage(a) new and (b) existing pensioners to (i) claim the minimum income guarantee and (ii) receive payments directly from post offices. [58208]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Service will provide a modern, efficient and customer focused service for both today's and future pensioners. It will play a crucial role in our aim to tackle pensioner poverty. We are committed to encouraging pensioners to claim their full entitlements. We have already conducted a very successful minimum income guarantee (MIG) campaign which resulted in an extra 134,000 pensioners making successful claims to MIG receiving on average an extra £20 a week.

  We are continuing to look at more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim the MIG. Initiatives include:
  A MIG claim line on freephone 0800 028 1111. This is available to enable our customers to apply for MIG easily and simply.
  A new shortened claim form available on the internet at www.thepensionservice.gov.uk.
  Since April 2002, all customers contacting the Retirement Pension Teleclaims Centre are offered information on MIG and asked if they would like someone to call them back with more information and pursue a claim. Those customers who do not wish to claim MIG via the RP telecentre are sent a MIG information leaflet with their RP claim pack.

  Additionally, we will:
  Issue mailshots to pensioners who claimed RP and who may also be entitled to MIG, encouraging them to claim. Around 100,000 pensioners will receive a mailshot over the April-June period.
  Use "trigger" questions which identify customers who have a match with one or more predetermined 'key life events' that may indicate a potential entitlement to MIG, for example, when customers aged 60 and over receive a new award of one or more benefits, such as attendance allowance, industrial injuries benefit or housing benefit. A letter explaining the possible entitlement and inviting customers to claim MIG is sent to all customers identified in this way.

  Training material for Pension Service staff includes guidance on identifying potential entitlement to MIG. If, during the course of any inquiry, it becomes evident that the pensioner might be entitled to MIG they will be encouraged to claim.

  Also, the local service will work closely with local authorities, the voluntary sector and other service providers to give a proactive service and ensure that

  547W
  customers receive their full benefit entitlement. In time local service staff will be trained to provide a more joined-up service covering the broad range of services older people may need to access. The local service will include surgeries, a home visiting where there is a special need and joint benefit take-up campaigns.

  At the moment, pensioners can choose to be paid by order book or have their money paid directly into a bank or building society account. From April 2003, payments directly into accounts will become the normal method of payment. People will still be able to collect their money from the post office and will be provided with information to enable them to choose the most appropriate account.

  Final Salary Pension Schemes
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the company practice of dishonouring final salary pension schemes. [58051]

  Mr. McCartney
  There has been a long-term decline in the coverage of final salary pension schemes, which has accelerated as a result of increased longevity and the recent fall in the stock markets. Many companies have had to consider the financial impact on their business of continuing to run a final salary scheme for all employees.

  Employers should take a long-term view of pensions, rather than basing their decisions on short-term considerations. Where employers do change their pension schemes, we believe that they have a responsibility to make it absolutely clear what the implications are for employee pensions.

  The Sandler review of the long-term retail savings market and Pickering review of pension regulation will report in the summer. The Inland Revenue is also reviewing the taxation of occupational pension schemes. We will issue proposals in the autumn, aimed at making pension provision more attractive for individuals and pension providers. This will build on the reforms that have been introduced since 1998. Pension Credit will ensure that it always pays to save. State second pension will benefit 14 million low and moderate earners, and four million carers and disabled people who will get a second pension for the first time. We have introduced pension forecasts to provide individuals with the right information to make an informed decision about their retirement. And the introduction of stakeholder pensions means that everyone now has access to low-charge, flexible pension provision.

  E-Envoy (Contractors)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list by(a) date, (b) value and (c) contractor contracts for consultancy and research into (i) smart card and (ii) e-business which have been placed by or for the office of the E-Envoy by (A) competition or (B) single tender in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [56977]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.
  548W
  (i) Smart card technology

  The office of e-Envoy has had two studies over the past 12 months and the details are as follows:

  (1) (a) 31 August 2001 (b) £5,000 (c) Alco Partnership. This was by single tender action.

  (2) (b) 3 August 2001 (b) £69,000 (c) Logica. This was by competition.

  (ii) e-Business

  The office of e-Envoy has had five contracts for consultancy and research that cross over onto the e-Business sector that we have listed. Please note these are not solely e-Business as these studies cover other areas such as citizen and public sector.

  (1) (a) 14 July 2001 (b) £516,000 (c) Analysis. This was a study that was to take place over a three-year period looking at international and UK benchmarking (broadband). This was by competition.

  (2) (a) 24 July 2001 (b) £400,000 (c) Analysis\Booz Allen. Consultancy support to the broadband: demand and aggregation in the public sector. This was by competition.

  (3) (a) 23 August 2001 (b) £47,000 (c) Hall Aitken. This was research into internet use in the voluntary and community sectors. Single tender action.

  (4) (a) 11 September 20001 (b) £48,000 (c) De Montfort university. This study was looking at ISP (internet service provider) data to research the business and household internet take up. This was by single tender.

  (5) (a) 13 March 2002 (b) £310,000 (c) Booz Allen. This is research into international benchmarking of the e-Economy. This was by competition.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wrongfully Convicted Prisoners
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has concluded his consideration of the report of the working group on an advice service for wrongfully convicted prisoners; if he has made final decisions on the matter; and if he will make a statement. [59013]

  Beverley Hughes
  After careful consideration of the report and recommendations of the working group, I have announced today my decision to establish an advice service for such individuals. The service will operate as a pilot project for an initial period of 12 months and will be provided by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The project will be subject to rigorous monitoring and evaluation during this pilot phase. Decisions on future service provision will be made in the light of evidence from the evaluation. To inform the evaluation process I have also decided to establish a consultative group, whose members will be drawn from a range of organisations and individuals with an interest in this issue. Expressions of interest in membership of this group are now being invited.

  Juvenile Crime
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to apply electronic monitoring technology to juveniles released from the custodial part of the detention and training order. [59797]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 provides for the electronic monitoring of prisoners released on licence. By virtue of section 62(5)(a), this includes young people during the community element of a detention and training order (DTO).

  Electronic monitoring of those released from detention and training orders is already available in 84 youth offending team areas as part of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme overseen by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

  Section 102(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 empowers the Secretary of State to release an offender:
  in the case of an order of eight months or more but less than 18 months, one month before the half-way point; and
  in the case of an order of 18 months or more, one month or two months before that point.
  The availability of electronic monitoring enables me to consider how we can make further use of the powers in section 102(4) to provide a useful transitional phase in the reintegration of trainees from custody back into the community.

  I therefore propose to use electronic monitoring as a condition of the release of trainees serving a DTO of eight months or more for a period of one or two months prior to their current release at the half-way point. This form of release will be a normal feature of DTOs except in the case of trainees convicted of sex offences or serious violent offences. The possibility of release on electronic monitoring at this stage in the DTO will not be available to trainees who have exhibited violent or destructive behaviour to people or property within the secure facility; made exceptionally bad progress against the training plan as a result of consistent failure to co-operate or failure to take responsibility for their behaviour.

  Annie Millhouse
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to take a decision on the application for leave to remain on the basis of marriage of Annie Millhouse (Home Office ref: M718839). [56524]

  Angela Eagle
  A decision on this case was taken on 16 May 2002. Mrs. Millhouse will be notified of the result shortly.

  Alisa Masokha
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to issue a travel document to Alisa Masokha (Home Office ref: J1052415). [56525]

  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are not responsible for issuing foreign national travel documents.
  550W
  IND have no evidence of receiving Ms Masokha's national travel document in their offices. However, arrangements will shortly be made to issue Ms Masokha with a status letter which will enable her to obtain a replacement document from her national authorities.

  Naturalisation
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long people granted naturalisation on grounds of(a) residence and (b) marriage in April or the latest month for which figures are available had waited before receiving the decision; and how long persons who have applied for naturalisation on each ground in 2002 can expect to wait for a decision. [56544]

  Angela Eagle
  The information available relates to the average waiting time for citizenship (naturalisation and registrations). The most recent published data relate to March 2001, when the average waiting time was 11.6 months.

  I regret that information on waiting times for naturalisation applications only is not available.

  We aim to reduce the average time taken to grant citizenship to qualifying applicants to 4.5 months by March 2003. It is expected that performance on this target will be reported on in due course, after the end of the financial year.

  Drugs
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation and drugs treatment services have adopted oral fluid testing for drug abuse. [58514]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office recently issued a probation circular, (PC7/2002:Revision of National Standards of Supervision of Offenders in the Community) which notified probation areas that they were no longer required to obtain specific written authority from the Home Office to use oral fluid testing in respect of the Drug Treatment and Testing Order. Prior to this announcement, twenty-three Probation Areas had requested the use of oral fluid testing. Oral fluid testing is also currently being used in the three probation areas piloting the drug testing provisions contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

  Information regarding the practices of drug treatment services is not held centrally.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment or testing orders have been made which require the use of Naltrexone. [56542]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  This information is not held centrally and could not be determined except at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the economic cost of drug misuse in the last year for which figures are available. [56713]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The University of York Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology (Culyer A, Eaton G, Godfrey C et al, 2002) has recently completed a
  551W
  research report for the Home Office entitled "The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drugs Misuse in England and Wales, 2000". The report will be published as a Home Office Research Study (HORS) early to mid-summer, 2002.

  Key findings from the research have been released (Home Office News Release, 12 February 2002). Annual economic costs (mainly to health service, criminal justice system and state benefits) are estimated to be between £3.7 billion and £6.8 billion. Adding social costs (mainly victim costs of crime) increases figures to between £10.9 billion and £18.8 billion. Problematic drug users account for around 99 per cent. of these costs with annual economic costs at £11,000 each compared with less than £20 for a non-problematic user.

  Throckmorton
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the scope of the environmental impact assessment in relation to the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton. [57341]

  Angela Eagle
  An environmental impact assessment will be included with the planning notification to be submitted shortly in relation to the proposed accommodation centre at Throckmorton. We are currently in discussions with Wychavon District Council to establish its scope.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the timetable for the planning process in relation to the application for the asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton. [57236]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: We intend to submit a planning notification shortly. We will advise the hon. Member when the notification is submitted.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he estimates the first asylum accommodation centre will be open. [57343]

  Angela Eagle
  It is envisaged that the first centre will open in 2003.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of dependants of asylum seekers under 18-years-old who will be housed in pilot accommodation centres. [51135]

  Angela Eagle
  We have yet to make a final decision.

  Asylum Seekers
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deter applications for asylum from citizens of countries that have democratic benign Governments. [57262]

  Angela Eagle
  The White Paper 'Secure Borders, Safe Haven' and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill set out a range of measures to create an effective end-to-end system which will enable us to return swiftly those not in need of protection. There are also measures to 552W
  combat illegal entry and illegal working. These measures should deter those who attempt to pursue unfounded asylum applications in the United Kingdom.

  A key part of our strategy has been the use of the Oakington Reception Centre which allows us to process quickly those whose claims are determined to be manifestly unfounded.

  We have also operated pre-clearance operations in Prague and we have deployed a network of airline liaison officers to prevent improperly documented passengers travelling to the United Kingdom.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to establish an independent documentation centre to provide information about countries from which people have fled. [57999]

  Angela Eagle
  We have commissioned an evaluation of the content and accessibility of country information in the asylum process. This evaluation includes an assessment of whether the information provided by the Country Information Policy Unit, including the country assessments, meets the needs of its users. The finalised report will provide systematic, additional evidence on which to base decisions as to whether any further mechanisms might prove useful, and enable us to reach a decision on the need for an independent documentation centre.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will allow families with children who are seeking asylum to be detained at the beginning of the asylum process. [57998]

  Angela Eagle
  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill makes no change to the policy with regard to the detention of asylum seeking families. The policy for the detention of families is detailed in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" which makes it clear that families may, when appropriate, be detained while their identities and basis of claim are established, or because there is a reasonable belief they would abscond, or as part of the fast-track asylum process at Oakington Reception Centre, or to effect their removal.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research his Department is conducting on the return of dispersed asylum seekers to the Greater London area; [57634]

  (2) how many asylum seekers dispersed from the Greater London area returned to live in London between April 2001 and April 2002. [57633]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: There are no statistics on the number of asylum seekers who have returned to London following dispersal to another area of the country. Nor are statistics available on those accepted as refugees or granted exceptional leave to remain (ELR) who, in both cases, are free to live where ever they like. The National Asylum Support Services (NASS) cannot require asylum seekers to remain in the accommodation provided. If they choose to leave the accommodation they can seek to alter their support package from subsistence and accommodation to subsistence only. Generally speaking asylum seekers are not provided with accommodation in London. The Home Office is currently reviewing the extent of and reasons for

  553W
  asylum seekers leaving their dispersal accommodation. The results will be made available as soon as possible following the completion of the project.

  Ms Gracie Allen
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department will lodge an appeal about the adjudicator's decision over the visa application by Ms Gracie Allen (HO ref A1127781; Appeal No. THS 1272/2001); and if he will make a statement. [57559]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Home Office has decided not to apply for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the adjudicator's decision to grant Mrs. Allen entry clearance.

  European Security
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the initiative of Spain setting up a European network for the protection of public figures (2002/C42/08). [57864]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Working Party on Police Co-operation meeting held on 5 to 6 February 2002, proposed the setting up of a European network for the protection of public figures to be chaired by the member state holding the Presidency of the Council. Its remit was to standardise the package of support and protection afforded to visiting dignitaries against agreed criteria, as well as the exchange of resources and information.

  Negotiations are ongoing and it is expected that a decision on the implementation of the Network's proposals will be taken in June. However, the Government feel that the United Kingdom (UK) has much to offer in the exchange of best practice ideas and procedures in the area of public figure protection. One of the key issues that the Government have sought to maintain is the principle that it is the right of the host state to determine the appropriate package of support according to the specific threat to the individual visiting that country. The network will have no power to make legislative changes to UK law.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 17 April about Mrs. Roberta Parr and Miss Dominyka Gajauskite regarding their visa applications and the return of their Lithuanian passports for work purposes. [57507]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: My right hon. and noble Friend, Minister of State, Home Department (Lord Rooker), wrote to the hon. Member on 14 May 2002.

  Drugs Offences
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been serving prison sentences for drugs offences in each year since 1979; and what percentage of the prison population this represents in each reporting period. [56236]
  554W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Data on the number of people in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales broken down by type of offence on 30 June is published each year in Prison Statistics England and Wales' available in the Library.

  The Table shows the number of drug offenders received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in each year between 1992 (the earliest data available) and 2000 (the latest confirmed data available), and what percentage of the total sentenced receptions they represent in each year.

  %

  Number of drug offenders received

  Percentage of total sentenced receptions

  1992

  3,636

  5.2

  1993

  3,761

  5.2

  1994

  3,953

  4.7

  1995

  5,206

  5.8

  1996

  6,412

  7.7

  1997

  7,371

  8.5

  1998

  7,655

  8.4

  1999

  7,844

  8.3

  2000

  7,353

  7.8

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of animal experiments carried out in the last year for which figures are available were mandatory, pursuant to legislative requirements and where the use of non-animal alternatives would not have met those requirements. [57924]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Under the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animals can only be used in licensed scientific procedures when there is no alternative way to achieve the objective concerned, such as testing products using computer models, cell cultures and other in vitro methods. Animals are only used where fully justified and where the benefits outweigh the costs to the animals involved.

  The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2000, the last year for which figures are available, records that procedures for toxicological purposes—the category where legislative testing requirements usually apply—accounted for 17 per cent. of all procedures started in 2000. This proportion compares with 20 per cent. in 1999 and 25 per cent. in 1995.

  The majority of these toxicology/safety procedures (some 84 per cent.)—amounting to just over 14 per cent. of all procedures carried out in all categories—were performed to conform to legislative requirements. The procedures of this type carried out for non-legislative purposes include studies for refinement or replacement of live animal use in safety testing, as well as ecological studies.

  It may be additionally worth noting that pharmaceutical safety/efficacy evaluation purposes accounted for 60 per cent. of all procedures for toxicology, other safety and efficacy evaluations, and that no procedures were performed in 2000 for the purpose of evaluating the safety of either cosmetic products or ingredients.
  555W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require the numbers of animals bred for experimentation purposes but subsequently found to be unsuitable for such purposes or surplus to requirements to be included in the annual statistics on animal use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [57925]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The published annual statistics relate solely to animals used in scientific procedures regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This meets the requirement, in section 21 of the Act, to provide related information to Parliament.

  With the exception of the production of genetically modified animals—which is itself a regulated procedure—the number of animals bred but not eventually used for scientific purposes has not been considered appropriate for inclusion in these statistics. The Government have at present no plans to change that.

  The Animal Procedures Committee looked at the issue of the over-breeding of animals for use in scientific procedures as part of its 10-year review of the 1986 Act. It concluded that although some over-breeding was unavoidable, it can and should be minimised, and it recommended principles of best practice to help to achieve this.

  The committee also undertook to liaise with the Laboratory Animal Science Association, which has also been considering the issue of over-breeding and how it can be minimised, to refine these principles before finalising its advice. I expect to receive the Committee's report by the summer and will carefully consider the further advice it provides.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the mandate is of the Advisory Committee on the implementation of the Community Action Programme to combat social exclusion; 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. [55231]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Programme Committee set up pursuant to Decision No. 50/2002/EC of 7 December 2001, establishing a programme of Community action to encourage co-operation between member states to combat social exclusion, is mandated to assist the Commission in implementing that Decision. It has met three times (once on an informal basis as it predated the coming into legal force of the Decision) over the last 12 months. The UK was represented by either one or two officials from the Department for Work and Pensions at these meetings. Costs to UK public funds were limited to their expenses, approximately £2,650, less reimbursements provided by the Commission. There are no items currently under consideration by the Programme Committee.
  556W
  The first annual report by the Commission required by Council Decision 1999/468/EC on the working of committees was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Commission Document COM (2001) 783 Final). 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 Deputy Prime Minister what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the action programme to promote gender equality 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. [55238]

  Mrs. Roche
  The legal basis for the fifth action programme (2001–05) is Article 13 of the Treaty and Council Decision 2001/51/EC of 20 December 2000. The programme is one of the components of the overall Community strategy on gender equality (which embraces a range of Community policies and action aimed at achieving gender equality), including both mainstreaming gender into general policies and targeting specific actions towards women.

  The committee which implements the programme is composed of member states' representatives. The current UK nominee is the responsible official in the Cabinet Office's Women arid Equality Unit. It has met three times during the last 12 months. As per Article 6 of the Council Decision establishing the programme, the committee's agenda includes:
  the general guidelines for the implementation of the programme;
  the annual plan of work for the implementation of the programme's actions;
  the financial support to be supplied by the Community;
  the annual budget and the distribution of funding between the various actions of the programme;
  the procedures for selecting the actions to be supported by the Community and the draft list of actions to receive such support submitted by the Commission;
  the criteria for monitoring and evaluating the programme, in particular its costs-effectiveness, and the arrangements for the dissemination of results.

  The funds of the fifth action programme are made available by the commission to member states and to individual contractors. The programme has a financial reference amount for the period 2001–05 of 50 million euro, and a budget line of around 10 million euro/year.

  Travel costs for officials attending committee meetings are reimbursed by the European Commission; subsistence costs average less than £250 per year.

  The principles and conditions concerning public access to the committee's documents (Article 13 of the rules of procedure for the committee) are the same as those applying to commission documents. The European Scrutiny Committee receives Explanatory Memoranda about work undertaken under this programme.

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

  557W
  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 (Corn (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.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52432]

  Mr. Leslie
  The net additional staff recruited in the Cabinet Office including Government Car and Despatch Agency and Central Office of Information since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level arid (b) administrative level:

  Executive officer level

  Administrative level

  Month/Type of staff

  Headcount

  Full-time equivalent

  Headcount

  Full-time equivalent

  June 2001

  Permanent

  3

  3

  3

  2.11

  Casual

  1

  1

  -1

  -1

  Total

  4

  4

  1

  1.11

  July 2001

  Permanent

  0

  0

  0

  0.33

  Casual

  11

  10.28

  10

  10

  Total

  11

  10.28

  10

  9.67

  August 2001

  Permanent

  3

  3

  0

  0.39

  Casual

  -1

  -1

  -7

  -7

  Total

  2

  2

  -7

  -6.61

  September 2001

  Permanent

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Casual

  -1

  -1

  -8

  -8

  Total

  2

  2

  -6

  -6

  October2001

  Permanent

  5

  5

  4

  3.9

  Casual

  1

  0.8

  5

  4.67

  Total

  6

  5.8

  9

  8.57

  November 2001

  Permanent

  -1

  -0.61

  2

  0.13

  Casual

  2

  2

  0

  -0.24

  Total

  1

  1.39

  2

  -0.11

  December 2001

  Permanent

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Casual

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  2

  2

  2

  2

  January2002

  Permanent

  7

  7

  4

  4

  Casual

  2

  2

  6

  6

  Total

  9

  9

  10

  10

  558W

  Executive officer level

  Administrative level

  Month/Type of staff

  Headcount

  Full-time equivalent

  Headcount

  Full-time equivalent

  February 2002

  Permanent

  4

  3.67

  -5

  -5

  Casual

  1

  0.59

  1

  1.24

  Total

  5

  4.26

  -4

  -3.76

  March 2002

  Permanent

  3

  3

  -4

  -4.5

  Casual

  1

  1.72

  -2

  -1.4

  Total

  4

  4.72

  -6

  -5.9

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many job vacancies there were at(a) administrative assistant or equivalent, (b) administrative officer or equivalent, (c) administrative executive officer, (d) higher executive officer, (e) senior executive officer, (f) grade 7 principal and (g) all positions above grade 7 level in each Government. Department for jobs located in (i) London and (ii) the south-east in each year since 1995. [52093]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not held centrally for all Government Departments; the following is for the Cabinet Office only.

  Recruitment records have been held electronically and centrally since 1 April 2001; therefore the figures provided are for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 only. Figures prior to 1 April 2001 and divided between London and the south-east could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures on Government Office's senior civil service posts advertised could not be provided as Government offices do not collect this information centrally.

  Grade/payband

  Number of posts advertised

  Senior civil service

  38

  Band A (grade 6 and 7)

  159

  Band B2 (grade HEO and SEO)

  232

  Band B1 (grade EO)

  195

  Band C2 (grade AO)

  214

  Band C1 (grade AA)

  58

  Electronic Services
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is being done to increase the usage of Government Departments and agencies websites and the take-up of their electronic services. [55989]

  Mr. Leslie
  A survey published by the Office for National Statistics in April 2002 shows that 19 per cent. of UK internet users have used or accessed government/official services online.

  The UK online national media campaign is playing a key role in persuading more individuals to get online and enjoy the benefits of e-commerce and e-government services. In addition, the range and scope of take-up targets for e-services are being considered as part of the Spending Review.
  559W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made by each Government Department and agency towards the Prime Minister's target for electronically available services by 2005. [55984]

  Mr. Leslie
  The last survey of Department's progress in meeting the target showed that just over half of services (274) are available electronically. The following breakdown by Departments and agencies was included in the National Audit Office report, "Better Public Services through e-government", published on 4 April 2002:

  Number

  British Trade International

  1

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  4

  Department for Education and Skills

  36

  Department for International Development

  2

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  54

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  45

  Department for Work and Pensions

  5

  Department of Health

  14

  Department of Trade and Industry

  32

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  8

  HM Treasury

  6

  Home Office

  29

  Land Registry

  1

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  4

  Ministry of Defence

  14

  Office for National Statistics

  3

  Ordnance Survey

  7

  Public Record Office

  7

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken to encourage Government sector agencies to put in place management information to monitor usage of their websites and electronic services, and to play back this information to the content providers and divisions responsible for originating web materials and internet services. [56001]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since December 1999 Government webmasters have been tasked with collecting particular statistics on usage. This advice has been updated and revised in the "Guidelines for UK Government Websites: Framework for Senior Managers" published in November 2001.

  A much larger handbook for web management teams, that was widely consulted on within Government for a year and is scheduled for final publication in mid-May, recommends customer relationship management techniques and other means for ensuring evaluation of websites. The forthcoming "Quality Framework for UK Government Web Design" gives guidance in building in user testing in order to continually improve website content.

  A newly-developed central infrastructure being delivered by the Office of the e-Envoy will provide central server hosting and applications. A new statistical analysis solution will be part of the offering for Departments that use this service.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister of the central Government Departments and agencies required to meet the Prime Minister's target for electronically available services by 2005, how many hits the(a) most and (b) least used have received in the last year; and what steps are being taken to analyse user behaviour. [56000]
  560W
  Mr. Leslie
  The latest Office for National Statistics data shows that 3.84 million citizens use the internet to use or access Government services.

  Since 1999 all Government websites have been given guidance on the key statistics they should collect. The "Guidelines for UK Government Websites" specify that at a minimum:

  the number of users (visitors)

  number of visits (unique visits)

  and number of page impressions (page views)

  should be collected. Further performance and access statistics are recommended in addition to these minimum statistics.

  However, such information is not currently collated centrally. The Government are examining the nature and adequacy of the statistics available on Government websites as part of the process of considering its response to the NAO report, 'Government on the Web II'.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the role played by the development of electronic public services in making the UK a congenial location for e-business and e-commerce to develop. [55874]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government recognise the key role played by electronic service delivery on the development of the UK's e-commerce environment. The scale of Government interaction with business and the public, through its own supply and distribution chains, places it in a position to be a strong driver of e-commerce.

  A broad assessment was published in "e-commerce@its.best.uk" in 1999. Subsequently our strategy for leveraging e-Government as a key driver for growth of the wider e-economy has been set out in the UK online annual reports published by the e-Minister and the e-Envoy in 2000 and 2001.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he publishes about the development of central Government services on the web. [55988]

  Mr. Leslie
  The second UK online annual report was published by the e-Minister and e-Envoy in December 2001. The report sets out the progress that has been made in meeting the Government's objectives for being at the forefront of the knowledge economy.

  Among its five overarching themes is 'getting Government online'. The report also provides an updated UK online strategy, setting out the commitments made by the Government to further the e-Agenda.

  Each month, the e-Minister and e-Envoy provide a joint report to the Prime Minister. These reports set out the progress on the UK online strategy.

  There are also a number of development frameworks and guidance documents published. Among the key documents are:

  e-Government Interoperability Framework Version 4

  e-Government Metadata Standard

  Guidelines for UK Government Websites: Framework for Senior Managers

  Framework for e-Service Delivery.

  561W
  All these documents can be downloaded for the publication option on the office of the e-Envoy website www.e-envoy.gov.uk.

  Information on the Government Gateway is available from: http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/gateway—partnerlink/

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56460]

  Name of body

  Board members code of practice

  Code of practice for board members of advisory NDPBs

  Where available

  Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Yes

  Upon request from the secretary

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Under review

  Not yet available

  Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace for Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Yes

  Upon request from the secretary

  Better Regulation Taskforce

  Yes

  Upon request from the secretary

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Yes

  On request from the secretary

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Yes

  On internet at www.public-standards.gov.uk or on request from the secretary

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Yes

  Incorporated in the EOC corporate governance document—available from the EOC

  Honours Scrutiny Committee

  No code in place. (Interest declared on the House of Lords' Register)

  House of Lords Appointments Commission

  Yes

  On internet at www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk or on request from the secretary

  Security Commission

  Yes

  On request from the secretary

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Yes

  On request from the secretary

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Under review

  Not yet available

  Women's National Commission

  Yes

  On request from the Women's National Commission

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he 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 he 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 he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57355]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has responsibility for the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS)—the occupational pension arrangement for civil servants.

  The PCSPS is an unfunded public service scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. all payments of pension and related benefits to former members of the PCSPS or their dependants are made from the Civil Superannuation Vote, for which the Cabinet Office are accountable.

  Net expenditure on civil service pension and related benefits for the year 2001–02 was as follows:

  Expenditure—2001–02

  £ billion

  Gross

  2.8

  Net of employer and employee contributions

  1.4

  562W
  Mr. Leslie
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by my Department, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their NDPBs.

  The table lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and in each case indicates what the relevant Code of Practice is and where it is available.

  Estimated net expenditure in five years' time, 10 years' time, 20 years' time and 30 years' time is estimated by GAD as follows:

  Expenditure

  £ billion

  Gross

  Net of employer and employee contributions

  5 years

  3.0

  1.1

  10 years

  3.2

  1.2

  20 years

  3.6

  1.6

  30 years

  3.7

  1.6

  New pension arrangements for the civil service are being introduced from 1 October 2002. These will give existing staff the choice between remaining in the existing scheme or moving to a new defined benefit scheme; new entrants will have a choice between joining the new defined benefit scheme or a good quality defined contribution arrangement. It has been assumed, solely for the purpose of these projections, that:
  all existing staff will opt to remain in the existing scheme and continue to pay an employee contribution of 1.5 per cent. of pay; and
  all new entrants will opt to join the new defined benefit scheme with an employee contribution of 3.5 per cent. of pay.

  Options exercised by existing staff and new entrants are likely to differ from these assumptions but:
  in circumstances where the future pattern of options is not known; and
  the changes in pension arrangement are cost neutral for employers

  563W
  the projections provide a reasonable estimate of future expenditure.

  Constant earnings, as at 2001–02, have been assumed throughout.

  Temporary Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees under contract from temping agencies were working in his Department and how much was spent on temporary staff(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of the total staffing budget in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [58187]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of employees working in the Cabinet Office under contract from temping agencies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Estimated expenditure on temporary staff in the Cabinet Office is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  Percentage of total staffing budget

  1997–98

  1,135

  2.1

  1998–99

  1,589

  2.6

  1999–2000

  1,907

  2.7

  2000–01

  3,250

  4.0

  Final figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  The figures include the Central Office of Information which, although not part of the Cabinet Office, also reports to me.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering from(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56482]

  Mr. Leslie
  Cabinet Office publishes an analysis of sickness absence in the civil service each year. The most recently published figures (available on the Cabinet office website) are for calendar year 2000. Cabinet Office Departments (which included in that year GCDA and COI but not RCU) had an average of 4.6 working days absence per staff year.

  The report estimates the overall cost of sickness absence within the civil service but does not provide a breakdown by Department.

  Name and status of body

  Location of Code of Practice and register of members interests

  Statistics Commission1

  Published on Statistics Commission public website (address www.statscom.org.uk, in the "how we operate section"). Also available in that section is the register of Commissioners' interests

  Public Service Productivity Panel1

  The panel's Code of Conduct is available on application to the secretary of the panel, and will soon be available on the HM Treasury website (address http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Documents/Public Spending and Services/Public Services Productivity Panel/pss psp backgrd.cfm)

  The register of members interests is in the process of being updated and the new version will be available on the panel's web

  1 Advisory NDPB

  564W
  Cabinet Office's internal records show the following levels of absence for (a) stress related illness and (b) other mental health problems.

  2001

  Number

  Working days lost through:

  stress related illness and sickness

  1,321

  other mental health illness

  0

  Neither GCDA nor COI holds this information.

  A breakdown of the specific cost of these absences is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Cabinet Office is committed to improving levels of attendance. It is aware of its responsibilities as an employer to provide a safe and healthy working environment and is actively working to ensure that working days lost through work-related injury or illness are minimal.

TREASURY

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 246W, 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. [57043]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: There is nothing I can usefully add to my answer of 10 April.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56456]

  Ruth Kelly
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of members' interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their NDPBs.

  The following table lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and in each case indicates what the relevant Code of Practice is; where it is available and where information may be found on registers of members interests.

  National Insurance (Care Homes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the increased revenue from national insurance employees' contribution from the care home sector. [57180]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it would be possible to provide a reliable estimate only at disproportionate cost.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Committee on the mutual assistance in customs and agricultural markets, including operation of the CIS 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. [58436]

  Ruth Kelly
  The legal base for the Committee on mutual assistance on customs and agricultural matters is set out in Council Regulation (EC) No. 515/97. It has a mandate to examine all matters relating to the application of this regulation and the effectiveness of its operation.

  The Committee has met three times in the last 12 months.

  Representation is normally two officials from HM Customs and Excise. Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of the Information Commissioner also attend when necessary.

  Travel expenses for two officials are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).

  The main item under consideration at present is the development of the Customs Information System, an automated information system being set up to assist in preventing, investigating and prosecuting operations which are in breach of customs or agricultural legislation.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament are ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process: documents agreed by various Council (ECOFIN, JHA, etc.) are submitted to Parliament along with explanatory memorandums and are examined by the Scrutiny Committees.

  Mortgage Rates
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average mortgage rate was in each of the last 20 years. [58665]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 23 May 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the average mortgage rate in each of the last 20 years. (58665)
  566W
  The rates shown below are compiled by the Financial Services Authority. They are average rates for mortgages with Building Societies. Comparable figures prior to 1984 are not available.

  Average rates for mortgages with building societies, 1984–20011

  Average rate2

  Basic rates3

  1984

  12.19

  11.88

  1985

  13.01

  12.75

  1986

  12.32

  12.30

  1987

  10.34

  10.30

  1988

  12.75

  12.77

  1989

  14.44

  14.42

  1990

  14.34

  14.48

  1991

  11.39

  11.52

  1992

  8.98

  8.98

  1993

  7.94

  7.99

  1994

  7.84

  8.14

  1995

  7.48

  7.98

  1996

  6.51

  7.00

  1997

  7.58

  8.16

  1998

  7.29

  7.75

  1999

  6.49

  6.77

  2000

  6.65

  7.31

  2001

  5.17

  5.34

  1 The average rates are based on information provided by building societies. The figures reflect rates at the end of the year.

  2 These data represent the weighted average of individual reporters' own weighted average rates on their overall residential loan book.

  3 These data represent the weighted average of the individual reporters' standard variable (headline) rate applying to the majority of mortgage accounts at the end of reporting period.

  Unemployment
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will restore the 1979 methods of calculating the official level of unemployment; [58760]

  (2)if he will estimate the level of current unemployment using methods of counting claimants used in 1979; [58758]

  (3) what changes were made between 1979 and 1997 to the way in which the official level of unemployment was calculated. [58759]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Paul Holmes, dated 23 May 2002:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions; (a) if he will restore the 1979 methods of calculating the official level of unemployment, (b) if he will estimate the level of current unemployment using methods of claimants used in 1979 and (c) what changes were made between 1979 and 1997 to the way in which the official level of unemployment was calculated. (58758, 58759, 58760)

  The monthly measure of UK unemployment used in 1979 was the count of registrants at Jobcentres. This was based on an administrative system which no longer exists. Consequently it is not possible to restore the 1979 method of calculation nor to estimate the current level on the same basis.

  Since April 1998, monthly statistics of unemployment in the UK have been compiled and published, following the internationally standard definition, from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). This counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. The Labour Force Survey measure of

  567W
  unemployment has been compiled and published on the same definition—following the guidelines of the International Labour Organisation—since 1984.

  The ONS also publishes monthly statistics of the numbers of people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits, known as the claimant count. Details of changes which have affected the coverage or calculation of these monthly figures between 1979 and 1997 are detailed in articles in the November 1995 and April 1998 editions of Labour Market Trends.

  Tonnage Tax
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the tonnage tax. [59720]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tonnage tax was introduced in 2000 as part of a package of measures to revive the UK shipping industry. In accordance with commitments given at the time, I am asking the Inland Revenue to begin a review of the way the regime is operating. As the review develops, it will contribute to the Government's evaluation of the whole package of measures including the impact on employment and training. Details about how representations can be made to the review will be available on the Inland Revenue's website. www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/consult_new/tonnagetax.pdf

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the land that his Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59059]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury does not plan to sell any land over this period.

  European Council Decisions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards Recital 22 of Council Decision 2002/177/EC (0J L60, 1 Mar 02), on making visible a gender perspective across all pillars. [57905]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  Council Decision 2202/177/EC, dated 18 February 2002, is on the 'guidelines for member states employment policies for the year 2002'. Recital 22 states that member states should strengthen their efforts to include and make visible a gender perspective across all the pillars (of the Employment Guidelines). This Recital clarifies the intention of the Council, and reflects the wishes of the European Parliament, that gender equality should be a horizontal objective for member states when they take the Guidelines into account in their national employment policies.

  The UK Government fully supports the principle that a concern for gender equality needs to be reflected across the full range of employment policy. The Government principally achieves that outcome through the Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment Guidelines, issued to all Departments in November 1998, and through the Gender Impact Assessment framework, which will be produced during 2002–03.
  568W
  The website of the Women and Equality Unit of the Cabinet Office publicises this activity, which is also reported on in the UK Employment Action Plan 2002, along with a gender breakdown of performance data. The LKP will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Customs and Excise
  Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) size of fleet and (b) type and age of vehicles was in each division of Customs and Excise in the last three years; [53478]

  (2) what percentage of the vehicle fleet of Customs and Excise were equipped with online computer terminals in each of the last three years. [53477]

  Mr. Boateng
  Like all their equipment and staff, Customs' vehicles are deployed in a flexible way based on the latest assessments of risk, rather than located exclusively in any one region. On a national basis, the total Customs' vehicle fleet has increased from 2,085 in 1999–2000 to 2,143 in 2001–02.

  The average age of the vehicle fleet has remained constant at around 4.5 years. The proportions of different vehicle types which make up the fleet have also remained broadly constant with approximately 78.3 per cent. designated as cars, 8 per cent. as car-derived vans, 8.5 per cent. as light commercial vehicles and 5.2 per cent. as specialist/heavy goods vehicles.

  The percentage of the vehicle fleet fitted with online computer terminals, used either for satellite navigation or covert tracking, has risen from approximately 3 per cent. in 1999–2000 to approximately 8 per cent. in 2001–02.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed at the HM Customs and Excise Coventry International Hub in each year since 1995. [58086]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise's station at Coventry International HUB opened in October 1999.

  Staff employed (headcount) at the station in 2000, 2001 and 2002 (1 April each year) were as follows:

  Number of staff employed

  2000

  63

  2001

  68

  2002

  59

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58584]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's expenditure relates to the conduct of national economic and financial policies. It does not make grants or other payments which can be attributed to individual parts of the country.

  Negative Equity
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of mortgage holders experiencing negative equity in each of the last 20 years. [58635]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury do not make estimates of negative equity. Estimates from the DTLR are shown in the table. Figures were not produced pre-1989, and have not been produced post-1997 on the grounds that with rising house prices the number of cases are likely to be negligible.

  DTLR end year estimates of numbers of mortgage holders with negative equity

  Thousand

  1989

  78

  1990

  340

  1991

  507

  1992

  1,221

  1993

  894

  1994

  677

  19951

  907

  19961

  226

  19971

  30

  1 Different methodology used for estimates from 1995.

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the objective of the preliminary technical work on the five economic tests which is being carried out by the Treasury is; and if he will make a statement. [58819]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the comments 1 made during the adjournment debate on the preliminary and technical work held on the Floor of the House on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 267.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many times the Cross-party Committee on Euro Preparations has met since 7 June 2001; what meetings are planned over the next six months; and if he will make a statement; [58791]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent work of the Cross-party Euro Preparations Committee. [58792]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Cross-party Group on Euro Preparations has met on five occasions since 7 June 2001. The Group continues to hold regular meetings looking at euro preparations from the perspective of different sectors of the UK economy. Recent meetings of the Cross-party Group on Euro Preparations have focused on the cash changeover in the euro area, UK business preparations for working with the euro now, and public sector euro preparations.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) special advisers have had since 1 January with Conservative hon. Members on the subject of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [58816]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and special advisers from HM Treasury have had no meetings since 1 January with Conservative hon. Members on the subject of the euro.
  570W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the time it will take to assess whether the five economic tests for euro entry have been met, from the time when the assessment is begun; and if he will make a statement; [58793]

  (2) whether it is his policy to make a public statement when the preliminary technical work on the five economic tests for euro entry is completed and the formal assessment of the tests is begun; and if he will make a statement;[58794]

  (3) whether he has started the assessment of the five economic tests for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [58807]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 2 July,Official Report, column 67W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the preliminary technical work so far completed on the five economic tests for the euro; and if he will make a statement; [58798]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent progress on the preliminary technical work relating to the five economic tests for membership of the euro. [58808]

  Ruth Kelly
  The assessment has not yet started, but the preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years as we promised—is under way. The Government have said that they will complete the assessment within two years of the start of this Parliament. Once the assessment is complete, the Government will publish the conclusions and the report.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many individuals within HM Treasury were working on the preliminary technical work on the five economic tests on the latest day for which information is available; and if he will make a statement; [58801]

  (2) how many people in the Treasury will be involved in the formal assessment of the five economic tests for euro entry; who they are; and if he will make a statement; [58795]

  (3) which (a) units and (b) individuals within HM Treasury will complete the work to establish whether the UK has met the five economic tests for euro entry; and if he will make a statement; [58802]

  (4) whether HM Treasury will be involving officials from other Departments in the final evaluation of the five economic tests for euro entry; [58803]

  (5) whether HM Treasury is involving officials from any other Government Departments in the preliminary technical work on the five economic tests for euro entry; and if he will make a statement. [58804]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made during the adjournment debate on the preliminary and technical work held on the Floor of the House on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 268.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what opinion polling has been carried out by his Department since 7 June 2001 into public attitudes to the euro; what the cost has been of such polling; if he will publish the results; and if he will make a statement. [58796]
  571W
  Ruth Kelly
  No opinion polling into public attitudes to the euro has been carried out by HM Treasury either since 7 June 2001, or before then.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the outside academic work which has been commissioned since June 2001 by HM Treasury as part of the preliminary work on the assessment of the five economic tests for euro entry; and if he will make a statement. [58818]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 6 February,Official Report, column 959W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had since 1 January with Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry about the Government's plans for the euro; and if he will make a statement. [58797]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor has regular discussions with Ministers in other Government Departments on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had since 1 January with(a) trade unionists, (b) business leaders and (c) the CBI, about Government policy on the euro; and if he will make a statement. [58817]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor frequently meets representatives from outside organisations to discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had since 1 January with other EU Governments about British policy on the euro; and if he will make a statement. [58813]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor has frequent discussions on a wide range of issues with his European counterparts.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals from the Bank of England are seconded to HM Treasury to work on the preliminary technical work on the euro; and if he will make a statement. [58799]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made during the Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 268.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relative positions in the economic cycle of the United Kingdom in relation to the economy of the euro zone; and if he will make a statement. [58790]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will not give a running commentary on the five tests. The assessment of the five economic tests has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow us to undertake the assessment within two years as promised—is under way.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed within the euro preparations section of HM Treasury; how many were employed on(a) 31 December 2000 and (b) 31 December 2001; and if he will make a statement. [58809]
  572W
  Ruth Kelly
  The number of staff in the Euro Preparations Unit in the Treasury on the dates requested is as follows:

  EPU staffing1

  31 December 2000

  12

  31 December 2001

  14

  1 April 2002

  14

  1 Full-time equivalents

  The aims and objectives of the Euro Preparations Unit were set out in Treasury Press Notice 156/97 of 5 December 1997.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made recently of the competitiveness of the pound against the euro; and if he will make a statement [58812]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not comment on day-to-day developments in the value of sterling, as they believe this could have destabilising effects. However, a stable and competitive exchange rate is sought over the medium-term.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of British membership of the euro for British fiscal policy autonomy; and if he will make a statement. [58815]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. All relevant economic issues will be dealt with as part of the assessment.

  Growth Rate
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he predicts that the Scottish GDP growth rate will match the overall UK GDP growth rate. [59397]

  Ruth Kelly
  Neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Executive produce GDP forecasts for Scotland, or any other country or region of the UK.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what levels of growth the Scottish GDP would have to attain in 2002–03 to keep pace with the projected EU average. [59396]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest EC GDP growth forecast for the EU-15 in 2002 and 2003, as published on 24 April 2002 in 'European Economy—Economic Forecasts Spring 2002' (ref no. 2/2002), was 1.5 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he devised the UK GDP growth rate that was announced in the Budget. [59395]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest forecasts for UK GDP growth are based on a comprehensive assessment of domestic and world economic developments and prospects, as set out in Chapter B of the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC592). This assessment takes into account a wide range of economic data from official and private sector sources.
  573W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the GDP growth rate for Scotland was in each of the last five years for which data was available; what it is projected to be for this year; and if he will make a statement. [59394]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Scottish Executive produces a constant price index of Scottish Output (Gross Value Added). These data are available on the Scottish Executive website.

  Neither the Scottish Executive nor the UK Government produce GDP forecasts for Scotland or any of the other countries and regions of the UK.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the size of the usable surplus in the national insurance fund; and what restrictions there are on the future use of the fund. [58204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Government Actuary (Cm 5383) published in February 2002. The report estimates the receipts of and payments from the national insurance fund for the years 2001–02 and 2002–03 and the balance in the fund at the start and end of each year. Under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 the national insurance fund can only be spent on contributory benefits and related expenditure, and certain redundancy payments. Any surplus is invested in Government securities.

  Offshore Tax Havens
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent research his Department has commissioned on the effects of company offshore tax havens on United Kingdom tax revenue. [58211]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue regularly monitor the effects of other jurisdictions' tax policies on UK tax revenues.

  EU Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on tax harmonisation within the European Union. [58814]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's approach to EU tax issues is based on fair tax competition rather than tax harmonisation.

  EU Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress his Department is making in working with other EU Governments to reform the Stability and Growth Pact; and if he will make a statement. [58811]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government support a prudent interpretation of the Stability Pact, which takes into account the impact of the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment. We continue to discuss this with our EU colleagues.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the final report by Lord Penrose into Equitable Life; and if he will make a statement. [57606]
  574W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 214W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances special advisers within his Department see draft answers to parliamentary questions; whether they make comments on these; and if he will make a statement. [58806]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 958W.

  Bank of England Governor
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to announce the appointment of the next Governor of the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement. 158800]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 March 2002,Official Report, column 523W.

  Temporary Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees under contract from temping agencies were working in his Department and how much was spent on temporary staff(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of the total staffing budget in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [58186]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The total cost of temp services for the last five financial years along with a comparative percentage of total staffing costs is as follows:

  Temp costs£

  Percentage of total staffing costs

  1997–98

  156,823

  0.5

  1998–99

  462,521

  1.4

  1999–2000

  614,706

  1.7

  2000–01

  929,800

  2.4

  2001–02

  1,012,776

  2.4

  Actual numbers of staff under contract from temping agencies are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Mobility Products
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a statutory code of practice governing the sale of mobility products for elderly people. [58021]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have agreed to meet Age Concern to discuss their recent report on sales techniques used in selling assistive products. There are however no plans to introduce a statutory code of practice.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39068]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table. Details of where the advertisements are placed are not centrally recorded. Regional offices and agency recruitment details are not collated centrally.

  Senior and specialist posts are advertised nationally and/or in specialist press.

  The Department has a robust external recruitment policy which complies with the rules and requirements of "Minister's Rules for Selection", "The Civil Service Order Council", Treasury and equal opportunity and employment protection legislation.

  £

  Job vacancy

  Advertising cost

  Admin and secretarial posts

  52,885.54

  Branch head posts

  81,905.87

  Business manager posts

  16,843.15

  Communications specialist posts

  69,031.88

  Director posts

  88,261.90

  Economist/analyst posts

  51,629.96

  Human resource professional posts

  13,587.70

  Information/librarian specialist posts

  4,282.88

  Local public service agreement coordinator posts

  3,390.56

  Management accountant posts

  5,710.88

  Mental health group manager posts

  2,286.93

  Policy officer posts

  12,192.73

  Primary care nursing adviser posts

  4,789.76

  Pharmaceutical specialist posts

  10,262.17

  Project manager posts

  20,821.26

  Researcher posts

  12,803.15

  Risk management officer and quality inspector posts

  15,108.32

  Scientific specialist posts

  10,211.78

  Senior auditor posts

  9,486.76

  Senior forensic mental health specialist posts

  2,670.46

  Senior medical officer posts

  17,243.81

  Senior quality assurance coordinator posts

  10,979.32

  Social services inspectors posts

  14,435.67

  Valuing people regional worker posts

  3,188.20

  Web development manager posts

  4,753.49

  Total cost

  538,764.00

  Source:

  Department of Health central recruitment data March 2001 to February 2002.

  RSV
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the(a) effectiveness, (b) cost-effectiveness and (c) affordability of a programme of RSV immunisation for (i) all premature infants before their first or second winter and (ii) infants with a history of, or with, a lung or heart condition. [41473]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department of Health has not undertaken a study to assess the cost effectiveness of a programme of respiratory syncytial virus immunisation in premature infants and those with a history of a lung or heart condition. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has considered this and has asked for more information.

  Oral Contraceptive Pills
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many oral contraceptive pills were dispensed to teenage girls in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) age and (b) region. [42328]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The information requested is not collected by the Department. Data on general practitioners prescriptions are not broken down by age.

  Information about the number of first contacts with girls age under 16, and between 16 and 19 years of age at family planning clinics, where the primary method of birth control was the oral contraceptive, is given below. The figures for England are published in "NHS Contraceptive Services, England: 2000–01", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Because regional health authority boundaries changed in April 1998, the information is presented in two tables, one for the pre-1998 boundaries and one for the boundaries introduced in 1998.
  First contacts with teenage girls at family planning clinics where the primary method of birth control was the oral contraceptive.

  (a) 1996–97 and 1997–98: Health regions in existence before April 1998

  Age under 16

  Age 16–19

  England

  22,968

  110,115

  Regions 1996–97

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,979

  14,372

  Trent

  2,464

  9,070

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,787

  9,968

  North Thames

  2,528

  15,826

  South Thames

  3,081

  16,265

  South and West

  2,912

  14,876

  West Midlands

  2,706

  13,169

  North West

  3,511

  16,569

  1997–98

  England

  22,675

  115,879

  Regions 1996–97

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,788

  16,861

  Trent

  2,421

  9,086

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,712

  9,776

  North Thames

  2,431

  17,087

  South Thames

  3,506

  17,037

  South and West

  2,864

  15,186

  West Midlands

  2,475

  13,217

  North West

  3,478

  17,647

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics Division SD2B, form KT31

  (b) 1998–99 to 2000–01: New health regions from 1998

  Age under 16

  Age 16–19

  1998–99

  England

  21,830

  114,959

  New regions from 1998–99

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,922

  15,719

  Trent

  2,309

  9,283

  Eastern

  1,491

  10,691

  London

  3,232

  19,416

  South East

  3,412

  17,748

  South West

  2,094

  10,440

  West Midlands

  2,297

  13,678

  North West

  3,073

  17,984

  577W

  (b) 1998–99 to 2000–01: New health regions from 1998

  Age under 16

  Age 16–19

  1999–2000

  England

  22,736

  118,752

  New regions from 1998–99

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,939

  16,201

  Trent

  2,479

  2,524

  Eastern

  1,733

  10,806

  London

  3,251

  20,698

  South East

  3,811

  19,394

  South West

  1,560

  9,215

  West Midlands

  2,726

  14,248

  North West

  3,237

  18,666

  2000–01

  England

  23,911

  116,682

  New regions from 1998–99

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,930

  16,342

  Trent

  2,522

  9,676

  Eastern

  1,814

  10,406

  London

  3,494

  19,707

  South East

  4,072

  18,798

  South West

  1,614

  8,174

  West Midlands

  2,773

  14,194

  North West

  3,692

  19,385

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics Division SD2B, form KT31

  Hearing Aids
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how long the average wait has been to receive an NHS hearing aid in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [48573]

  (2)how old the average recipient of an NHS hearing aid has been in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [48574]

  (3)how many people have been on a waiting list to receive an NHS hearing aid in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [48572]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally. However according to the Institute of Hearing Research, the mean age of adults supplied with hearing aids as part of the modernising hearing aid services project is 71 (with a median age of 74). The Department is working in partnership with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to modernise hearing aid services. The project includes provision of digital hearing aids as part of a modernised service designed to meet the needs of people with hearing impairments. Over £30 million has been invested to support the modernisation project.

  Mount Vernon Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and nurses have worked in each service provided at Mount Vernon hospital in each of the last 10 years; and how many doctor and nurse vacancies there have been in each service provided in each of the last 10 years. [48907]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are provided at Mount Vernon hospital; how many patients were treated as(a) out-patients and (b) in-patients in each of the last five years,
  578W
  broken down by service area; whether each of the services will continue to be provided in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [48910]

  Mr. Hutton
  Hillingdon Hospital National Health Service Trust provides the following services on the Mount Vernon site: general medical and surgical out-patient care (including orthopaedics and urology), endoscopy day care and in-patient general surgery, urology, orthopaedics, rehabilitation and continuing care.

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust provides specialist services on site such as cancer services and burns and plastics. They also provide pharmacy, medical physics and haematology services.

  The future of cancer services at Mount Vernon is currently under review. The long term review of the Mount Vernon cancer network and centre is scheduled to be published in June 2002. A review of burns and plastics services has already been undertaken and these services are due to move to the Northwick Park site by 2004.

  Information is not collected centrally with regard to the number of patients treated as in-patients and out-patients in each of the last five years, broken down by service area. The data are collected annually at NHS trust level, rather than by individual hospital site. NHS trusts provide health care but may provide it at more than one hospital site.

  Smoking Czar
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 276W, when (a) he and (b) his Ministers last met Nikki Griffiths of his Tobacco Policy Team. [53068]

  Yvette Cooper
  No meetings have taken place between Nikki Griffiths, alliance network co-ordinator, and either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health or any of his ministerial colleagues.

  Renal Transplant Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the relative benefits of transferring renal services from St. George's to St. Helier hospitals. [54280]

  Mr. Hutton
  10 criteria were considered as part of the assessment of the relative benefits of centralising transplantation services at Epsom and St. Helier national health service trust, St. George's healthcare national health service trust or Guy's and St. Thomas' national health service trust. These criteria included access; clinical quality; standard of facilities; staff recruitment and retention; strategic fit; education, training and research; clinical links; resource effectiveness and affordability; achievability; methods for patient and carer involvement. These criteria were agreed by clinical and managerial staff of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, Brighton and Sussex university hospitals national healthcare service trust, St. George's healthcare national healthcare service trust, Epsom and St. Helier national healthcare service trust, their kidney patient associations and Merton and Sutton community health council.
  579W
  Proposals to centralise services at St. George's hospital are currently subject to a three month public consultation which concludes on 25 June 2002.

  NHS Appointments (Non-attendance)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank in order of non-attendance the level of failed appointments in each health authority for each hospital in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [55789]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of failed appointments due to non-attendance are not available at health authority or hospital level.

  Data ranked by the level of failed appointments due to non-attendance in national health service trusts during 2000–01 have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to increase the number of dentists taking NHS patients in the Boston and Skegness constituency. [56148]

  Yvette Cooper
  All health authorities in England have in place dentistry action plans to ensure that everyone in their local area can access NHS dentistry if they want it, within a reasonable time and distance. These plans identify shortfalls in service provision and ways of tackling user demand.

  Based on information held by NHS Direct, one practice in both Boston and Skegness are accepting NHS patients. Action is being taken to improve this situation. Lincolnshire is one of the third wave personal dental service pilots. The pilot will see the development of a dental access centre at six sites across the county, including Boston and Skegness, through a combination of new buildings and conversion of existing community dental services. £877,000 capital and £340,000 revenue were allocated to the pilot in 2000–01 with a further £270,000 capital and £91,000 revenue in 2001–02.

  In addition, Lincolnshire has received dental care development funding amounting to £95,000 in 2000–01 and £185,000 in 2001–02 for expansion and modernisation of practices in areas of poor access which are already offering significant NHS commitment and are prepared to increase numbers of NHS patients. A further allocation of £407,000 has been made from the dental modernisation fund to modernise premises and upgrade equipment and from the dental practice. £17,000 has been allocated from the dental practice grant to set up quality assurance systems in each dental practice.

  Waiting Times
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum waiting time for radiotherapy in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells has been in the last 12 months; and what the target is for maximum waiting times for radiotherapy. [56273]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on radiotherapy waiting times is not collected centrally.
  580W
  The Government are committed to improving the whole cancer pathway from referral to diagnosis and, if needed, treatment. We have set out a series of targets that will come into force during the next few years. By 2005, there will be a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to treatment for all cancers and a maximum two month wait from urgent referral to treatment for all cancers. Information to monitor the achievement of these targets will be collected and published.

  Hospital Treatment
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency patients attending Oldchurch A and E department received in-patient treatment in(a) each half-yearly period from 1994–95 to date and (b) each of the last 12 months. [56520]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on patients admitted from accident and emergency are not available for the individual hospital requested. The Oldchurch hospital is part of Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust, which was formed in April 2001. Information on the number of patients admitted from an accident and emergency department is shown in the table. Previous years' figures are not available as this information was collected at health authority level.

  Admission from accident and emergency departments, for Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS trust, 2001–02 quarters one to three

  2001–02

  Number of patients admitted through A and E

  Quarter three

  7,369

  Quarter two

  6,338

  Quarter one

  6,120

  Source:

  "Your guide to the NHS" form

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients failed to attend for in-patient and day-care treatment in each of the past 10 years in England. [56527]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of in-patients and day-cases that failed to attend (FTAs) are shown in the table.

  In-patient and day-case FTAs—NHS Trusts, England

  Quarter

  Patients admitted

  Patient DNAs

  DNA rate percentage

  1991–92

  —

  2,993,532

  192,068

  6.0

  1992–3

  —

  3,111,627

  180,538

  5.5

  1993–94

  —

  3,110,477

  179,594

  5.5

  1994–95

  —

  3,376,016

  199,535

  5.6

  1995–96

  —

  3,500,353

  207,515

  5.6

  1996–97

  —

  3,549,073

  223,255

  5.9

  1998–99

  —

  3,826,507

  171,382

  4.3

  1999–2000

  —

  3,682,180

  146,599

  3.8

  2000–01

  —

  3,467,338

  125,860

  3.5

  2001–02

  1

  791,623

  28,299

  3.5

  2001–02

  2

  814,973

  28,393

  3.4

  2001–02

  3

  822,616

  28,681

  3.4

  Note:

  Data for 1997x2013;98 was collected at year end only, not on a quarterly basis, and is not included because of issues surrounding the quality of the data.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH06
  581W
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people attended the A and E department at Oldchurch hospital in Havering in(a) 1992–93 and in each subsequent year to 2000–01 and (b) each of the last 12 months. [56521]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on accident and emergency (A and E) attendances are not collected on a monthly basis. From 2001–02, the information is available on a quarterly basis and previous to this on an annual basis.

  Accident and emergency service activity, for the selected NHS trust, 1992–93 to 2001–02 quarter 4

  Name

  First attendances

  Follow-up attendances

  Total attendances

  2001–02 quarter 4

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals NHS trust

  41,846

  2,000

  43,846

  2001–02 quarter 3

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals NHS trust

  43,709

  2,587

  46,296

  2001–02 quarter 2

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals NHS trust

  43,382

  1,940

  45,322

  2001–02 quarter 1

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals NHS trust

  43,770

  1,904

  45,674

  2000–01

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  76,416

  3,744

  80,160

  1999–2000

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  79,973

  3,684

  83,657

  1998–99

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  86,118

  6,240

  92,358

  1997–98

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  88,182

  6,869

  95,051

  1996–97

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  89,273

  8,516

  97,789

  1995–96

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  86,167

  8,603

  94,770

  1994–95

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  93,356

  9,191

  102,547

  1993–94

  Havering hospitals NHS trust

  100,627

  12,856

  113,483

  1992–93

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA

  110,529

  15,850

  126,379

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH09

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the advisory committee on training in nursing 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. [56756]

  Mr. Hutton
  The advisory committee on training in nursing (ACTN) is one of a group of committees set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  The ACTN was set up by Council Decision 77/454/EEC. Its mandate is set down in Article 2, which states that:

  1. The task of the Committee shall be to help ensure a comparably demanding standard in the training of the various categories of nursing personnel throughout the Community.

  2. It shall carry out this task, in particular, by the following means:
  exchange of comprehensive information as to the training methods and the content, level and structure of theoretical and practical courses provided in the member states,
  discussion and consultation with the object of developing common approaches to the standard to be attained in the training of nursing personnel, and, as appropriate, to the structure and content of such training,
  keeping under the review the adaption of the above-mentioned training to developments in nursing practice, medical and social science and teaching methods.

  3. The Committee shall communicate to the Commission and the Member States its opinions and recommendations including, when it considers it appropriate, suggestions for amendments to
  582W
  A and E data are not available for the individual hospital requested. The Oldchurch hospital is part of Barking, Havering and Redbridge hospitals national health service trust, which was formed in April 2001 (previously it was part of Havering hospitals NHS trust). Information on the number of A and E attendances at the NHS organisation that contained the Oldchurch hospital is given in the table.

  be made to the provisions concerning training in the Directives relating to nursing activities as in Directives 77/452 EEC and 77/453/EEC.

  4. The Committee shall also advise the Commission on any matter which the Commission may refer to it in relation to the training of nursing personnel.

  Each advisory committee has three members per member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are also appointed. Members and alternates are nominated by Ministers following consultation with the relevant professional bodies.

  Advisory committee expenses fall to be paid by the Commission (or on occasion by the professions concerned). There is thus no direct charge to public funds.

  Member states are currently considering Commission proposals for streamlining the directives and processes relating to free movement of professionals. None of the advisory committees has met during the last 12 months; and none of them has any items under consideration.

  In April this year, the issues arising from the Commission's proposals for the future of professional recognition were submitted to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees (Explanatory Memorandum No. 7239/02-COM(2002)119final).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the advisory committee on medical 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 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. [56755]
  583W
  Mr. Hutton
  The advisory committee on medical training (ACMT) is one of a group of committees set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  The ACMT was set up by Council Decision 75/364/EEC. Its mandate is set down in Article 2, which states that:

  1. "The Task of the Committee shall be to help to ensure a comparably demanding standard of medical training in the Community, with regard both to basic training and further training".

  2. It shall carry out this task, in particular, by the following means:
  exchange of comprehensive information as to the training methods and the content, level and structure of theoretical and practical courses provided in the member states;
  discussion and consultation with the object of developing common approaches to the standard to be attained in the training of doctors and, as appropriate, to the structure and content of such training;
  keeping under review the adaptation of medical training to developments in medical science and teaching methods.

  3. The Committee shall communicate to the Commission and the member states its opinions and recommendations including, when it considers it appropriate, suggestions for amendments to be made to the Articles relating to the training of doctors as in Directives 75/362/EEC and 75/363/EEC.

  4. The Committee shall also advise the Commission on any matter which the Commission may refer to it in relation to the training of doctors.

  Each advisory committee has three members per member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are also appointed. Members and alternates are nominated by Ministers following consultation with the relevant professional bodies.

  Advisory committee expenses fall to be paid by the Commission (or on occasion by the professions concerned).

  Member states are currently considering Commission proposals for streamlining the directives and processes relating to free movement of professionals. None of the advisory committees has met during the last 12 months; and none of them has any items under consideration.

  In April this year, the issues arising from the Commission's proposals for the future of professional recognition were submitted to the parliamentary Scrutiny Committees (Explanatory Memorandum No. 7239/02— COM(2002)119 final).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the advisory committee on the training of dental practitioners 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. [56758]

  Mr. Hutton
  The advisory committee on dental training (ACDT) is one of a group of committees set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters 584W
  relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  The ACDT was set up by Council Decision 78/688/EEC. Its mandate is set down in Article 2, which states that:

  1. The Task of the Committee shall be to help ensure a comparably demanding standard in the training of dental practitioners in the Community, with regard both to the training of dental practitioners and that of practitioners of specialised dentistry.

  2. It shall carry out this task, in particular, by the following means:
  exchange of comprehensive information as to the training methods and the content, level and structure of theoretical and practical courses provided in the member states,
  discussion and consultation with the object of developing common approaches to the standard to be attained in the training of dental practitioners and, as appropriate, to the structure and content of such training,
  keeping under the review the adaptation of the training of dental practitioners to developments in dental science and teaching methods.

  3. The Committee shall communicate to the Commission and the member states its opinions and recommendations including, when it considers it appropriate, suggestions for amendments to be made to the Articles relating to the training of dental practitioners as in Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC.

  4. The Committee shall also advise the Commission on any matter which the Commission may refer to it in relation to the training of dental practitioners.

  Each advisory committee has three members per member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are also appointed. Members and alternates are nominated by Ministers following consultation with the relevant professional bodies.

  Advisory committee expenses fall to be paid by the Commission (or on occasion by the professions concerned).

  Member states are currently considering Commission proposals for streamlining the directives and processes relating to free movement of professionals. None of the advisory committees has met during the last 12 months; and none of them has any items under consideration.

  In April this year, the issues arising from the Commission's proposals for the future of professional recognition were submitted to the parliamentary Scrutiny Committees (Explanatory Memorandum No. 7239/02— COM(2002)119 final).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the advisory committee on the training of midwives 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. [56757]

  Mr. Hutton
  The advisory committee on the training of midwives (ACTM) is one of a group of committees set up to advise the European Commission and member states on
  585W
  matters relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  The ACTM was set up by Council Decision 80/156/EEC. Its mandate is set down in Article 2, which states that:

  1. The Task of the Committee shall he to help ensure throughout the Community a comparably high standard in the training of midwives.

  2. It shall carry out this task, in particular, by the following means:
  exchange of comprehensive information as to the training methods and the content, level and structure of theoretical and practical courses provided in the member states,
  discussion and consultation with the object of developing common approaches to the standard to be attained in the training of midwives, and, as appropriate, to the structure and content of such training,
  keeping under the review the adaptation of the above-mentioned training to developments in midwifery practice, medical and social science and teaching methods.

  3. The Committee shall communicate to the Commission and the Member States its opinions and recommendations including, when it considers it appropriate, suggestions for amendments to be made to the articles concerning training of midwives in Directives 80/154/EEC and 80/155/EEC.

  4. The Committee shall also advise the Commission on any matter which the Commission may refer to it in relation to the training of midwives.

  Each advisory committee has three members per member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are also appointed. Members and alternates are nominated by Ministers following consultation with the relevant professional bodies.

  Advisory committee expenses fall to be paid by the Commission (or on occasion by the professions concerned). There is thus no direct charge to public funds.

  Member states are currently considering Commission proposals for streamlining the directives and processes relating to free movement of professionals. None of the advisory committees has met during the last 12 months; and none of them has any items under consideration.

  In April this year, the issues arising from the Commission's proposals for the future of professional recognition were submitted to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees (Explanatory Memorandum No. 7239/02-COM(2002) 119final).

  GPs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners he estimates will opt out of 24-hour responsibility. [56918]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is too early to estimate what proportion of general practitioners will respond to the opportunities offered by the planned new national GP contract.

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were screened for breast cancer in each of the last five years. [56910]
  586W
  Yvette Cooper
  The number of women screened by the NHS breast screening programme in England in each of the last five years are contained in the following table.

  Number of women, aged 45 or over, screened for breast cancer in England, 1996–2001

  Number of women screened

  2000–01

  1,298,752

  1999–2000

  1,322,891

  1998–99

  1,232,310

  1997–98

  1,179,658

  1996–97

  1,109,845

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics Division 3G KC62.

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1121W, on waiting lists, when the results of the regional office reviews of the listed trusts will be (a) completed and (b) published. [57024]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Audit Office (NAO) report "Inappropriate Adjustments to NHS Waiting Lists" recommended that the Department investigate trusts where more than 10 per cent. of patients are suspended and which have more than 2 per cent. of patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment. There were 13 trusts that met both these criteria at the time of the report.

  An investigation was already taking place in Royal United Hospitals Bath, one of the 13 trusts that met the NAO criteria. This commenced in December 2001 with the findings being made public in a press release (ref: 2001/0201) on 3 May 2002.

  Between December 2001 and early May 2002, regional offices reviewed the waiting list position at the 12 other national health service trusts and found no evidence of inappropriate adjustments to waiting lists taking place. The findings of these reviews were also announced on 3 May.

  Infectious Diseases
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of running each of the high security infectious diseases units in each of the past five years. [56996]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department provided funding for the running costs of the high security infectious disease units at Coppett's Wood and Newcastle in the past five financial years as shown in the table:

  £

  Coppett's Wood

  Newcastle

  1997–98

  333,405

  171,169

  1998–99

  366,543

  170,000

  1999–2000

  340,000

  185,000

  2000–01

  321,000

  180,000

  2001–02

  321,000

  180,000

  Note:

  The figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 include an annual transfer of £47,000 from the Scottish Executive.
  587W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in each of the last five years were treated in the high security infectious disease units in(a) London and (b) Newcastle; [57001]

  (2) for what diseases patients were admitted, and how many patients there were in each case, to each of the high security infectious disease units in each of the past five years; [57002]

  (3) what the staffing levels were at each high security infectious diseases unit in each of the past five years. [56997]

  Yvette Cooper
  Patient admissions and diagnoses at the high security infectious disease units at Coppett's Wood (north London) and Newcastle from 1997 to 2001 are shown in the table:

  Coppett's Wood

  Newcastle

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  11

  21

  2001

  0

  0

  1 Lassa fever

  2 Suspected Lassa fever, subsequently diagnosed as malaria

  These units exist as a contingency arrangement to provide secure and specialist clinical care for patients with or suspected of having rare, highly contagious and serious infectious diseases such as Ebola and Lassa fevers. Admissions are therefore infrequent.

  Sufficient medical, nursing and laboratory staff, who are routinely involved in the treatment, care and diagnosis of patients with infectious diseases, are on call for the medium and high security infectious disease units. This ensures that they maintain equipment and participate in regular training exercises so that the units remain in a state of readiness to admit and care for patients securely.

  48-hour Access Target
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the NHS Plan 48-hour access target will apply in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [56928]

  Mr. Hutton
  This target applies only in England.

  Vaccine Contracts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the value was of contracts awarded for supply of(a) BCG vaccines, (b) Tuberculin PPD solutions and (c) influenza vaccines in the last 12 months. [56655]

  Yvette Cooper
  No tenders were sought and no contracts awarded in the last 12 months for BCG vaccine or Tuberculin PPD solutions.

  The value of the contract for a contingency supply of influenza vaccine cannot be disclosed as it is commercially confidential.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the National 588W
  Clinical Assessment Authority at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56859]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Clinical Assessment Authority employs 38 staff. Of those, 10 have clinical contact with national health service patients.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff were employed in the General Osteopathic Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients; [56869]

  (2) how many staff were employed in the Retained Organs Commission at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients; [56856]

  (3) how many staff were employed in the General Optical Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients; [56871]

  (4) how many staff were employed in the Nursing and Midwifery Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients; [56867]

  (5) how many staff were employed in the General Medical Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients; [56866]

  (6) how many staff were employed in the General Dental Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients; [56872]

  (7) how many staff were employed in the Health Professions Council at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56868]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the number of people employed at 1 April 2002 in the seven independent health profession regulatory bodies. None of the staff have clinical contact.

  Name of regulatory body

  Number of staff employed at 1 April 2002

  General Osteopathic Council

  20

  General Chiropractic Council

  8

  General Optical Council

  13

  Nursing and Midwifery Council

  139

  General Medical Council

  294

  General Dental Council

  60

  Health Professions Council

  51

  Note:

  Figures are based on head count.

  Speech Therapists (Vacancies)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for speech and language therapists; and if he will make a statement. [57087]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 31 March 2001 there were 200 vacancies for speech and language therapists that had lasted for three months or more.

  Between 1997 and 2001 the number of speech and language therapists working in the national health service has increased by 810 (11 per cent.) and the number of training places available for students has increased by over a hundred since 1998. There will be further increases in the number of students entering training as a result of the NHS Plan commitment to provide 4,450 more training places each year for therapists and other health

  589W
  professionals by 2004. The increased investment in training, work to make the NHS a better employer and encourage return to practice, will result in a continued increase in the number of speech therapists available to work in the NHS.

  Surgical Outsourcing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rate of outsourcing of surgical interventions has been in the last 12 months. [57155]

  Mr. Hutton
  Based on a survey of national health service organisations carried out in October 2001, we estimate that in the first six months of 2001–02 the number of surgical procedures carried out by independent providers on behalf of the NHS was equivalent to around 1.2 per cent. of total NHS acute elective in-patient and day-case surgical activity.

  Smear Tests
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have failed to make appointments for their regular smear test in each of the last three years; how many appointments for smear tests have been broken in each of the last three years; how many cases of cervical cancer have not received their regular smear test in that time; and if he will make a statement. [57349]

  Yvette Cooper
  Cervical screening is not a test for cancer but for abnormalities which, if left undetected and untreated, may develop into cancer. The national computerised call/recall system for cervical screening invites women aged 20 to 64 for a free cervical screening test every three to five years.

  The figures are not available in the form requested. 83 per cent. of eligible women were screened at least once in the last five years. Detailed statistics on the number of invitations and the number of women tested are available in Tables 3 and 5 of Statistical Bulletin: Cervical Screening Programme, England: 1998–99, Statistical Bulletin: Cervical Screening Programme, England: 1999–2000, and Statistical Bulletin: Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Paediatric Pathologists
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address the shortage of paediatric pathologists. [57202]

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff within the physiotherapy area of work by health authority area and per population as at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Whole-time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per head of population

  Headcount

  England

  12,990

  26

  0.0003

  16,210

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,880

  30

  0.0003

  2,270

  QDD—Bradford

  160

  33

  0.0003

  190

  QDE—County Durham and Darlington

  110

  18

  0.0002

  130

  QDF—East Riding and Hull

  140

  24

  0.0002

  160

  QDG—Gateshead and South Tyneside

  80

  23

  0.0002

  90

  QDH—Leeds

  280

  38

  0.0004

  330

  590W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is aware of the difficulties facing national health service paediatric pathology services, highlighted in the recent report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 'The Future of Paediatric Pathology Services.' We are committed to working closely with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Pathologists to improve long-term staffing levels in this speciality. The establishment of three histopathology training schools and of international fellowships to attract experienced histopathologists to work in the NHS will both increase the pool from which paediatric pathologists can be recruited. The children's care group workforce team also plans to start work on this issue in June.

  Food Allergies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died as a result of a food allergy in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [57256]

  Yvette Cooper
  Reliable data are not available for the number of deaths associated with food allergy. This is because deaths due to allergy are often attributed on the death certificate to asthma or some other symptom rather than to actual food allergy. The committee on toxicity reported in 2000 that of about 20 deaths annually attributed to fatal anaphylactic shock, 30 per cent. (i.e. about seven) are due to foods, the most commonly implicated food being peanut.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the UK have been diagnosed as having a potentially fatal food allergy. [57255]

  Yvette Cooper
  Reliable data are not available for the precise incidence of potentially fatal food allergy. Most allergic reactions to food are mild, although reactions can be severe, even life threatening in a small number of cases. The food most commonly associated with fatal food allergic reactions is peanuts. In the UK, a recent study published in the British Medical Journal has shown that 1 in 200 children suffer from peanut allergy.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists there are per head of population in each of the National Health Service trust areas in England. [57299]

  Mr. Hutton
  Population data are not available by trust but have been given by health authority as shown in the table.

  Between 1997 and 2001 the number of physiotherapists has increased by 1,640 or 14 per cent.
  591W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff within the physiotherapy area of work by health authority area and per population as at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Whole-time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per head of population

  Headcount

  QDJ—Newcastle and North Tyneside

  150

  33

  0.0003

  180

  QDK—North Cumbria

  110

  33

  0.0003

  130

  QDM—Northumberland

  150

  49

  0.0005

  180

  QDN—Sunderland

  80

  27

  0.0003

  90

  QDP—Tees

  180

  33

  0.0003

  220

  QDQ—Wakefield

  90

  29

  0.0003

  100

  QDR—North Yorkshire

  180

  24

  0.0002

  240

  QDT—Calderdale and Kirklees

  170

  28

  0.0003

  200

  Trent

  1,330

  26

  0.0003

  1,600

  QCG—Barnsley

  60

  27

  0.0003

  70

  QCH—North Derbyshire

  90

  25

  0.0003

  120

  QCJ—South Derbyshire

  120

  22

  0.0002

  160

  QCK—Doncaster

  90

  31

  0.0003

  100

  QCL—Leicestershire

  200

  21

  0.0002

  240

  QCM—Lincolnshire

  120

  18

  0.0002

  140

  QCN—North Nottinghamshire

  110

  27

  0.0003

  130

  QCP—Nottingham

  210

  32

  0.0003

  250

  QCQ—Rotherham

  80

  33

  0.0003

  100

  QCR—Sheffield

  230

  43

  0.0004

  270

  QDL—South Humber

  20

  8

  0.0001

  20

  West Midlands

  1,360

  25

  0.0003

  1,750

  QD9—Birmingham

  330

  33

  0.0003

  390

  QEA—Coventry

  80

  27

  0.0003

  110

  QEC—Dudley

  70

  23

  0.0002

  90

  QED—Herefordshire

  40

  22

  0.0002

  60

  QEE—Sandwell

  50

  17

  0.0002

  60

  QEF—Shropshire

  140

  32

  0.0003

  190

  QEG—Solihull

  20

  8

  0.0001

  30

  QEH—North Staffordshire

  160

  34

  0.003

  200

  QEJ—South Staffordshire

  120

  20

  0.0002

  160

  QEK—Walsall

  40

  15

  0.0001

  40

  QEL—Warwickshire

  130

  25

  0.0002

  160

  QEM—Wolverhampton

  60

  25

  0.0002

  70

  QEN—Worcestershire

  130

  24

  0.0002

  180

  North West

  1,940

  29

  0.0003

  2,360

  QC1—South Lancashire

  60

  18

  0.0002

  80

  QC2—Liverpool

  150

  33

  0.0003

  170

  QC3—Manchester

  270

  63

  0.0006

  310

  QC4—Morecambe Bay

  90

  29

  0.0003

  130

  QC5—St. Helen's and Knowsley

  70

  23

  0.0002

  90

  QC6—Salford and Trafford

  140

  31

  0.0003

  160

  QC7—Sefton

  120

  41

  0.0004

  130

  QC8—Stockport

  70

  23

  0.0002

  80

  QC9—West Pennine

  100

  21

  0.0002

  110

  QCT—Bury and Rochdale

  70

  18

  0.0002

  80

  QCV—North Cheshire

  110

  35

  0.0004

  140

  QCW—South Cheshire

  160

  23

  0.0002

  220

  QCX—East Lancashire

  110

  22

  0.0002

  140

  QCY—North West Lancashire

  120

  27

  0.0003

  160

  QDA—Wigan and Bolton

  190

  34

  0.0003

  230

  QDC—Wirral

  110

  35

  0.0003

  150

  Eastern

  1,110

  20

  0.0002

  1,400

  QA6—Bedfordshire

  100

  17

  0.0002

  120

  QAX—North Essex

  150

  16

  0.0002

  200

  QAY—South Essex

  120

  17

  0.0002

  140

  QCF—Suffolk

  150

  22

  0.0002

  210

  QER—Cambridgeshire

  200

  26

  0.0003

  250

  QET—Norfolk

  210

  26

  0.0003

  260

  QEX—Hertfordshire

  180

  17

  0.0002

  220

  London

  2,000

  27

  0.0003

  2,320

  QA2—Hillingdon

  30

  13

  0.0001

  40

  QA3—Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  210

  52

  0.0005

  250

  QA5—Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  50

  11

  0.0001

  60

  QAD—Croydon

  70

  21

  0.0002

  90

  QAG—Kingston and Richmond

  60

  16

  0.0002

  70

  QAH—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  260

  34

  0.0003

  280

  592W 593W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff within the physiotherapy area of work by health authority area and per population as at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Whole time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per head of population

  Headcount

  QAJ—Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  260

  40

  0.0004

  310

  QAP—Barking and Havering

  100

  26

  0.0003

  110

  QAR—Brent and Harrow

  130

  27

  0.0003

  160

  QAT—Camden and Islington

  210

  55

  0.0006

  230

  QAV—Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  140

  21

  0.0002

  170

  QAW—East London and the City

  170

  26

  0.0003

  180

  QEW—Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  170

  20

  0.0002

  210

  QEY—Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  140

  19

  0.0002

  180

  South-East

  2,000

  23

  0.0002

  2,670

  QA7—Berkshire

  160

  20

  0.0002

  230

  QA8—Buckinghamshire

  150

  22

  0.0002

  210

  QAE—East Kent

  150

  26

  0.0003

  190

  QAF—West Kent

  190

  19

  0.0002

  260

  QAK—East Surrey

  90

  21

  0.0002

  120

  QAL—West Surrey

  210

  32

  0.0003

  280

  QAM—East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  190

  25

  0.0002

  250

  QAN—West Sussex

  150

  20

  0.0002

  200

  QCC—Northamptonshire

  100

  17

  0.0002

  140

  QCE—Oxfordshire

  200

  32

  0.0003

  280

  QD1—North and Mid Hampshire

  100

  18

  0.0002

  130

  QD3—Southampton and South West Hampshire

  140

  26

  0.0003

  190

  QEV—Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  150

  22

  0.0002

  190

  South West

  1,370

  27

  0.0003

  1,850

  QD5—Somerset

  130

  26

  0.0003

  200

  QD6—South and West Devon

  180

  30

  0.0003

  220

  QD7—Wiltshire

  150

  25

  0.0002

  240

  QD8—Avon

  310

  30

  0.0003

  390

  QDV—Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  120

  24

  0.0002

  150

  QDW—Dorset

  180

  26

  0.0003

  260

  QDX—North and East Devon

  150

  31

  0.0003

  200

  QDY—Gloucestershire

  150

  27

  0.0003

  200

  Notes:

  1. Staff figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Population rates are rounded to the nearest whole number and four decimal places

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Chiropody
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the numbers of persons entering training as chiropodists. [57218]

  Mr. Hutton
  Chiropodists are included within the NHS Plan target for 4,450 more therapists and other key professional staff entering training each year by 2004. Our latest forecast or meeting this target suggest an increase of more than a hundred places (34 per cent.) over current levels by 2004.

  We intend to work with the society of chiropodists and podiatrists to raise the profile of the profession and encourage students to enter training.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts on the provision of chiropody services; and if he will make a statement. [58515]

  Jacqui Smith
  No guidance has been issued to strategic health authorities or primary care trusts (PCTs) on provision of chiropody services. However, chiropody/podiatry services are essential parts of the national service frameworks for older people and diabetes. The
  594W
  Department has also launched a "National Primary and Care Trust programme (NatPaCT)" designed to support PCTs in delivering their key functions which will be:

  improving the health of the community,

  securing the provision of high quality services, and

  integrating health and social care locally.

  As local organisations, PCTs are best placed to understand the needs of their patient populations. This will ensure that the right services are delivered to the right people in the right location at the right time.

  Violent Incidents
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish figures for violent incidents against NHS staff. [58348]

  Mr. Hutton
  The analysis of data collected on the levels of reported violent incidents, together with data on the levels of reported accidents and sickness absence should be complete by the end of May. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Scanners
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRI scanners the NHS has. [57513]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are currently 198 magnetic resonance imaging scanners (MRI) installed in the national health service in England.

  In September 1999 the new opportunities fund (NOF) provided funding for the purchase of equipment in support of the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, which included 38 new and replacement MRI scanners. Of these, 30 have been delivered and are operational.

  NOF announced further funding in November 2001 for 16 MRI scanners to be used for the diagnosis of stroke. 11 of these scanners will be additional and five will be replacement. All are due to be installed by the end of 2003.

  The NHS Plan and NHS Cancer Plan make a commitment for a further 50 additional MRI scanners to be installed in the NHS by 2004.

  Flu Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take-up rates for flu vaccine were at(a) 1 November and (b) 1 December 2001 for each health authority. [58035]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Information received from flu co-ordinators show the uptake rates in those aged 65 years and over at 1 November and 1 December for each health authority as follows:

  November 2001

  December 2001

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  45.6

  59.3

  Cambridgeshire

  55.5

  70.5

  Hertfordshire

  47.9

  61.3

  Norfolk

  51.7

  65.6

  North Essex

  55.7

  65.5

  South Essex

  50.9

  63.4

  Suffolk

  55.1

  65.7

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford

  53.3

  64.3

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  55.3

  64.2

  County Durham and Darlington

  52.8

  63.9

  East Riding and Hull

  42.5

  67.3

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  55.1

  67.7

  Leeds

  56.3

  69.7

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  57.0

  66.7

  North Cumbria

  54.9

  67.6

  North Yorkshire

  58.5

  70.6

  Northumberland

  58.6

  68.9

  Sunderland

  55.4

  65.5

  Tees

  51.4

  64.8

  Wakefield

  56.6

  66.4

  South east

  Berkshire

  53.9

  67.3

  Buckinghamshire

  51.7

  65.2

  East Kent

  57.0

  65.0

  East Surrey

  45.6

  62.3

  East Sussex, Brighton/Hove

  54.9

  68.5

  North and Mid-Hants

  37.9

  69.5

  Northamptonshire

  58.2

  66.3

  Oxfordshire

  54.3

  69.4

  596W

  November 2001

  December 2001

  Portsmouth and South-east Hants

  51.8

  65.7

  Southampton and South-west Hants

  57.8

  68.1

  West Kent

  55.0

  64.0

  West Surrey

  47.0

  41.9

  West Sussex

  57.2

  63.5

  North west

  Bury and Rochdale

  42.9

  59.4

  East Lancashire

  49.1

  63.3

  Liverpool

  48.6

  61.1

  Manchester

  46.8

  55.4

  Morecambe Bay

  47.2

  65.2

  North Cheshire

  54.1

  62.8

  North-west Lancashire

  38.6

  56.7

  Salford and Trafford

  51.2

  64.5

  Sefton

  54.4

  66.7

  South Cheshire

  57.0

  68.4

  South Lancashire

  55.5

  67.1

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  54.3

  65.0

  Stockport

  52.4

  67.9

  West Pennine

  49.2

  63.3

  Wigan and Bolton

  53.4

  63.9

  Wirral

  48.1

  62.8

  London

  Barking and Havering

  50.2

  64.1

  Bexley and Greenwich (Bromley)

  49.2

  60.0

  Brent and Harrow

  47.5

  61.9

  Camden and Islington

  43.4

  50.1

  Croydon

  44.1

  59.5

  Ealing, Hammersmith, Hounslow

  42.7

  56.4

  East London and City

  47.0

  56.5

  Enfield and Haringey (Barnet)

  50.1

  65.6

  Hillingdon

  68.6

  63.4

  Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster

  35.7

  46.9

  Kingston and Richmond

  50.3

  61.5

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  38.4

  47.5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  46.7

  60.6

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  50.7

  63.3

  South and West

  Avon

  49.0

  67.5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  49.4

  60.6

  Dorset

  53.5

  65.2

  Gloucestershire

  53.4

  67.8

  North and East Devon

  55.6

  66.5

  Somerset

  50.9

  63.1

  South and West Devon

  51.1

  65.7

  Wiltshire

  52.8

  63.9

  Trent

  Barnsley

  49.4

  63.8

  Doncaster

  55.9

  68.3

  Leicestershire

  49.7

  61.9

  Lincolnshire

  54.9

  66.3

  North Derbyshire

  61.5

  72.1

  North Nottinghamshire

  54.0

  65.4

  Nottingham

  57.3

  66.5

  Rotherham

  57.8

  74.9

  Sheffield

  54.2

  70.7

  Southern Derbyshire

  58.2

  68.3

  South Humber

  55.7

  68.3

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  51.1

  60.4

  Coventry

  48.9

  61.1

  Dudley

  50.8

  63.2

  Herefordshire

  63.1

  68.7

  North Staffordshire

  57.9

  68.2

  597W

  November 2001

  December 2001

  Sandwell

  48.8

  57.4

  Shropshire

  55.6

  67.2

  Solihull

  56.9

  67.4

  South Staffordshire

  53.8

  65.3

  Walsall

  53.2

  61.7

  Warwickshire

  57.6

  69.6

  Wolverhampton

  50.2

  64.2

  Worcester

  54.6

  67.5

  MMR
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason children given measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations singly have the rubella vaccination first. [57528]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government do not recommend the use of separate vaccines to protect children against rubella, measles or mumps and are therefore unable to comment. We recommend that children are vaccinated with the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, as the safest way for parents to protect their children against these potentially very serious diseases.
  598W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if MMR is included in the research into the causes of autism undertaken by his Department. [57529]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Medical Research Council (MRC)—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—is the main Government agency that funds research into the causes of medical conditions. Their most recent review of the epidemiology and causes of autism, published in December last year, notes that autism seems likely to result from a range of causes but that the strongest evidence to date is for a major genetic component. The report states that several genes may interact to create susceptibility to the disorder. In relation to the combined MMR vaccine, it advises that the evidence does not support the proposed causal link between MMR and autism.

  We have since announced the allocation of a further £2.5 million to the MRC for autism research. This will complement and add to the MRC's current support for research in this field. The MRC welcomes high quality applications for support in any scientific area which will further our understanding of autism, and especially those areas which were highlighted in the recent MRC review of autism: causes and epidemiology; this does not preclude research involving MMR.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

A1-Jazeera
Lord Campbell-Savoursasked Her Majesty's Government:
On how many occasions in the last month the British ambassador in Doha has raised the issue of A1-Jazeera operations with representatives of the state of Qatar.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's ambassador in Doha has regular meetings with both the Qatari Foreign Minister and the Director of European and American Affairs at the Qatari Foreign Ministry. The issue of A1-Jazeera was raised during the month in question. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, also discussed A1-Jazeera with the Qatari Foreign Minister during his recent visit to the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. That was an excellent Answer. I could not have written a better Answer myself. It will be greatly welcomed by all those people in the United Kingdom who look forward to an A1-Jazeera English language service. Can my noble friend impress upon Ministers in the Government the need to utilise the services of A1-Jazeera when they want to get a message over to people in the Arab world?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that pleasant little bouquet. We should not naturally assume that there will be English language translations of A1-Jazeera, but I do believe that the positive contribution A1-Jazeera has made to encouraging free debate on political and social issues in the Middle East is considerable. Of course we welcome the opportunities for United Kingdom Ministers to present their message directly to an Arab audience. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done so. Indeed, I did so myself only yesterday when discussing business opportunities for women in the Arab world.

Turkey: Human Rights
3.2 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are discussing with the Government of Turkey allegations of the use of torture in that country and of the denial of education in Kurdish to members of that minority.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our officials in Ankara discuss human rights issues regularly with the Turkish authorities and raise specific cases, including those highlighted by your Lordships. In June this year senior officials will launch a human rights dialogue with Turkey. Turkey's human rights record was discussed at the EC-Turkey Association Council in April and most recently last Friday 17th May at a meeting of political directors from Turkey and the European Union.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Can she say whether the Government had any success in their discussions with the Turkish Government? Has the noble Baroness read recent reports by Sir Nigel Rodney on torture in Turkey, which include, for example, falaka or bastinado and rape, and his comments on impunity for those who have inflicted torture?
Will she ensure that recent arrests and prosecutions of students who have asked for lessons in the Kurdish language, together with the comments of the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, are brought to the attention urgently of the EU Commissioner with responsibility for expansion and enlargement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, refers. There is this year's report and there was another one in 1998. Of course, the contents of the reports are being put into the dialogue which the United Kingdom has on a bilateral basis and which we will take forward again next month, and indeed the discussions that are going forward on a European basis. The noble Lord can rest assured that we are very much alive to these difficulties and are raising them with the Turkish authorities.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while much further reform is required in Turkey, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has indicated, and while torture is revolting wherever it occurs, it would probably be unwise to link the necessary reforms in Turkey, which are beginning to go forward anyway, too closely with EU membership and its prospects, since that may not happen and since there appear to be some radical new thoughts in Turkey about the role that that great nation will play, which might be more of a bridge between the EU and Asia than actual membership of the EU itself?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that not only the Government in Turkey but most European countries look forward to being able to welcome Turkey into the EU in due course. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not all gloom over the issues about changes in humanitarian law in Turkey. There have been constitutional changes. They are working through the system. It is very much to be hoped that Turkish parliamentarians will continue to work speedily and indeed with a sense of purpose to bring home those reforms.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great many of those reforms exist on paper only and are not implemented on the ground? Has she seen, for example, the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture? It says that in the Kurdish regions a substantial number of cases of torture are still occurring. Is she aware of the report of the Turkish human rights association, the IHD, which shows that more torture cases occurred in the first nine months of 2001 than in the whole of the year 2000?
With regard to the teaching of the Kurdish language, does the noble Baroness agree that it is incompatible with the Copenhagen principles for Turkey to continue to resist minority language education and that that is a must for Turkey entering on to the ladder of accession?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Turkey is committed to the elimination of torture as a short-term priority in its national programme for the adoption of the acquis, which was published in response to the accession partnership declaration put forward by the EU. The Turkish Government are strengthening their legal and administrative measures to fight against torture. But of course the noble Lord is quite right. We also have to see real implementation of those measures. It is important to note that such measures were legislated upon, not only in October last year but again in March this year.
As to Kurdish language education, that is another very important topic. Progress is being made on broadcasting, but there are issues still around using the official language of the country in schools, which is in the Turkish constitution. We very much hope that, within that constitution, Turkish authorities will find a way forward on the issue.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, that Turkey is looking eastwards at many of its former historical contacts, that in no way reduces the commitment of the Turkish Government, as we understood it—some parliamentarians went to Turkey a couple of weeks ago—to making accession to the European Union a very high priority? In that connection, it is precisely because of the importance that the Turkish Government attach to accession to the European Union that the intense discussions on the Copenhagen criteria are producing step-by-step progress. That does not detract at all from the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Nevertheless, that priority is there.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have made the United Kingdom Government's position very clear; that we want to work with Turkey to eradicate the kinds of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has again brought to our attention today. But we do not believe that there is any falling off in Turkey's commitment in pursuing its European candidature. Indeed, I, too, have been in Turkey fairly recently. My impression was very much like my noble friend's impression—that our friends in Turkey want to pursue their application to join the European Union. In addition, we have seen the constitutional amendments brought forward by the Turkish Parliament which were passed with substantial majorities in both October last year and March this year. I think that gives a good indication of the way in which Turkey is moving.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite the appearances of a parliamentary regime in Turkey, it is the senior military influences in the National Security Council who really wield the reins of power? Those people are not particularly interested in improving Turkey's human rights records or in early entry to the European Union. Does that not limit our bargaining power somewhat, so that perhaps the only way in which we shall have any influence is by some form of economic sanctions or restricting military assistance? That is rather difficult at the moment when Turkey is so vital to our proposed operations in Afghanistan and the continuing operations against Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must be realistic about this issue. We know that Turkey must address many human rights issues. The Government are absolutely clear about that. That is why we are pursuing the arrangements that I described to your Lordships—bilateral discussions with Turkey next month on humanitarian issues.
My noble friend should also read carefully the detailed list of constitutional amendments proposed last year and this year in the Turkish Parliament, which deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—the use of language but also issues surrounding the functioning of the National Security Council, use of the death penalty and several other serious issues, including freedom of thought and expression. Those are genuine changes proposed by the Turks and, for my part, I hope that they will be encouraged to implement them and that their efforts to reform will not be undercut.

Agricultural Shows: Biosecurity
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Onslowasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether regulations on biosecurity, including those applying to cow-pats, will impose any limitations on agricultural shows planned for this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the veterinary advice to government is that livestock shows pose a small but significant risk of the transmission of foot and mouth and other notifiable diseases. The biosecurity conditions attached to the shows' licence are designed to minimise that risk. The Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations and other stakeholders have played a positive role in the development of the biosecurity conditions, which are intended to cause the minimum limitation on livestock shows this year.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading out the Answer that he gave to a Written Question asked by my noble friend Lady Byford. If we have foot and mouth disease in this country, there should be no cattle shows. If we do not have foot and mouth disease in this country, it is impossible to spread it. So why do we impose terrible damage on agricultural shows—several of which are unable to allow sheep, cattle or pigs to be present? Why do we have this ridiculous rule? Either we have foot and mouth disease, in which case there should be no shows; or we do not and there should be no silly regulations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of the devastation of British agriculture during the past few months—the past year—that is an irresponsible attitude. It would not be sensible for the House to support it. I recognise that I have given the same Answer to other noble Lords, because the same position applies.
If there were another outbreak of foot and mouth or, indeed, any other notifiable disease, we know that the mingling of animals, and transmission from people who have handled animals to other animals, present the highest risk. That means that shows are a risk for the spread of the disease. Any responsible government and organiser of a show will observe the kind of biosecurity arrangements that we propose.
The noble Earl is a little out of date. Under the previous rules, several organisers found it difficult to hold shows earlier this year. The vast majority of shows will go ahead—as from a couple of weeks ago, for sheep as well as for cattle.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in view of the new rules concerning farm animals at agricultural shows, will the Government insist that all footpaths crossing farmland where livestock graze should be closed with immediate effect?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if I may say so, that is atypically illogical of the noble Baroness. The restriction on shows where livestock is shown—which may host thousands of people—is that animals are not to be handled and that the possibility is minimised of disease from what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, delicately referred to in his Question as cow-pats, being transmitted to other animals. The situation with ramblers is entirely different. The risk is absolutely minimal; there is not a single case of the transfer of the
880
disease due to walkers. It is only when people who handle animals then handle other animals that there is a risk of the spread of the disease. In view of the enormous damage done to parts of the rural economy by the closure of footpaths during the early part of the epidemic last year, it is not sensible for the Government to restrict access to farms when the risk is so minimal.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the cost to individual shows, such as the Royal Bath and West Show, which he will visit next week and which will spend about £70,000 on biosecurity measures alone? Does he therefore understand the frustration that the rules appear to be interpreted differently in different parts of the country by his department? For example, the Royal Bath and West will have to scoop up cow-pats and cover the area with sawdust, but its organisers say that other shows will not have to do the same. Will the Minister ensure that the interpretation of the rules is fair and equal?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a slight problem of differential interpretation—possibly by officials but also by show organisers themselves. The rules regarding cow-pats relate only to the area where the public move if livestock are moved across those paths. Of itself, that is not a huge expense. Indeed, most shows would undertake that to the best of their ability in any case—regulations or no regulations. There are additional costs, which may be significant for large shows, but for the vast majority of shows the conditions can and are being met now that the post-15th May rules are known.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a fundamental fallacy underlies the Question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow? He presumes that having foot and mouth disease in the country, and knowing that you have, are contemporaneous events and that there is therefore no need for precautionary measures. I should have thought that the most cursory analysis of the most recent outbreak—when we now know that there was unreported disease in the country for at least four weeks—would suggest that a precautionary approach is in order.
Lord Whitty: Absolutely, my Lords. It is one of the great lessons of the outbreak that we must take precautions all the time. We are not returning to the situation that prevailed with movements or biosecurity before the latest outbreak. Many diseases may, in one way or another, break out in the country. We must ensure maximum observance of the rules, but minimum restriction in how those rules are applied to shows and to other movements.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those organisers of shows who have successfully staged them despite considerable difficulties deserve our congratulations and support? Furthermore, the

881
same should apply to the owners of livestock who have fought through the red tape and successfully brought their livestock to shows.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am entirely willing to endorse the noble Lord's remarks. In the early part of the year it still appeared that many of those shows would not take place, or would do so only under severe restrictions. I am glad to say that many shows have now been held successfully and I congratulate both the organisers and those who have shown at them.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that we are now treating the agricultural economy and the country as though we have a permanent foot and mouth epidemic? Are the regulations, which so hinder agricultural shows, permanent or temporary?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The noble Lord, who follows these matters carefully, will note that the restrictions on movements, markets and shows have been progressively relaxed as the disease status has altered. However, in view of the devastation caused by the disease, both we and other European governments will be wise to recognise that some restriction on movement is necessary in all circumstances—in peacetime, as it were—to ensure that undetected disease does not spread in the devastating way that the foot and mouth epidemic spread.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, to some of us, it appears odd that any spokesman for his department should be so irrational as to accuse my noble friend Lady Trumpington of illogicality? That is a classic case of a rather grubby pot calling a brand new kettle black.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, speaking as a grubby pot, I must say that I prefaced my remarks about the question asked by the noble Baroness by expressing surprise. I thought that, for once, she had been slightly illogical. Normally, the House would not expect that of her, but on this occasion, there was a certain lack of logic in her intervention.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I could not possibly disagree with that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister explain exactly what regulations apply to cow-pats?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, part of the biosecurity regulations relates to the areas across which livestock might move and in which the public also move. The noble Earl may wish me to read them out, but I think
882
that that would strain the tolerance of the House. The regulations relate to those public areas and only those areas.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before we move to the next Question—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am in order. There is plenty of time.
I have a simple question for the Minister. Does his department believe that there is residual foot and mouth disease in the country, as implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it was clear from the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that she was not implying anything of the sort. She said that experience had taught us in a devastating way that we could not assume that there was no disease—foot and mouth disease or any other—in the country simply because it had not been reported. We must, therefore, take precautionary measures.
In the Government's view, the country is FMD-free and has been for the period required by the international community. However, if there is unreported FMD in this country or other countries, the disease can spread. We must have some controls relating to the areas where the risk of the occurrence of the disease is highest.

Gibraltar
3.22 p.m.
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
In what sense the recent talks about the future of Gibraltar between the Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart, Jose Maria Aznar, were in the words of the Prime Minister's official spokesman "an interim staging post rather than make or break".
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in the sense that the exchanges about Gibraltar continue. The discussion on 20th May was positive and constructive. The two Prime Ministers agreed that the talks in the Brussels process should continue. A further formal Brussels process meeting is being arranged for late June or early July.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if the Government believe that the status quo is not an option, the people of Gibraltar must first be persuaded of that, before any agreements or declarations in principle can be made by the United Kingdom and Spain? Does she also accept that, unless the people of Gibraltar support an agreement on joint sovereignty, there can be no basis for such an agreement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the two governments are discussing a range of options. It will, of course, be a matter for the people of Gibraltar to decide. That has been made clear, and it is in the 1969 constitution, which Her Majesty's Government have upheld rigorously. It has been made clear in the statements made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Anything that, in any way, proposes changes to the sovereignty of Gibraltar will be put before the people of Gibraltar. Everybody understands that considerable work will have to be put into the total agreement, if anyone is to vote for such arrangements.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it must be a long-term process and that confidence-building is needed to persuade the people of Gibraltar that it is in their long-term interest to have closer integration with Spain? We must make it clear that the Spanish Government are willing to offer the sort of concessions to the people of Gibraltar that they have failed to offer for the past 20 years. We must expect that the negotiations will, necessarily, take time and should not he rushed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if we reach an agreement—like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I see it as very much a question of "if"—it must then be worked up into a detailed package that could be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right to say that it will take some time to do that. We would, of course, invite the Government of Gibraltar to join us and Spain in working up such a package, if we reach an initial agreement.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in the event that an agreement is reached and the people of Gibraltar reject it, will the agreement between the British Government and the Spanish Government remain in place, without being implemented, or will it fall?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there would still he an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Spain. However, it would be only a political agreement—if I can put it that way—with a small "p" and a small "a".
The important point is that such an agreement would not be legally binding, in the sense that it could not be worked up into a treaty, and we would not sign or ratify a treaty until, of course, the whole matter had been put before the people of Gibraltar. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, by a "political agreement", does the Minister mean one that is not binding?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it could not be implemented. In that sense, it could not be legally binding if the people of Gibraltar voted against it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Gibraltarians have never harmed Spain in any way and that there is no justification for the way in which Spain has treated Gibraltar and its citizens?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I certainly agree that there have been regrettable incidents, in which Spain has behaved in a less than altogether fair way towards the people of Gibraltar. We have discussed those incidents several times, including the refusal to give telephone numbers to the people of Gibraltar and the considerable difficulties over, for example, delays at the border. It is to obviate such difficulties that Her Majesty's Government have been in discussion with Spain to try to find a better way forward and a better future for the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it correct that, since 11th September, it has been discovered that the depots, bases and signalling facilities at Gibraltar are much more relevant to the battle against global terrorism and to the security of this island than was previously believed? Will the Minister explain the worries of the Secretary of State for Defence about the prospect of joint sovereignty?
In the light of those serious worries, would it not be sensible to let the rather mishandled talks fail and turn to negotiations that concentrate on practical matters, such as the harassment of the people of Gibraltar? We should identify a constructive approach that will carry the people of Gibraltar forward with it on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, without going into intelligence matters, I can say that I agree with the noble Lord that our base in Gibraltar is important. It was before 11th September, and it still is. That is why my right honourable friend Peter Hain told the House of Commons that,
"we will retain our full control over the military base on the Rock, which is of key strategic importance to us".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/02; col. 451.]
My right honourable friend said that on 16th April, well before the letter dated 26th April from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, to which, I think, the noble Lord is referring.
The noble Lord knows that I will not comment on a leaked letter, and I invite him to consider the fact that one preceded the other. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Europe had already made it clear that we would maintain full control, in a military sense, over the Rock.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question to which my noble friend will have to answer "No". Is it not true that, if we were to ask the people of the United Kingdom what they thought on

885
the issue of Gibraltar, they may come up with an answer which the people of Gibraltar might not necessarily like?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that would very much depend on which people in the United Kingdom one asked. I sometimes believe that if we asked Members of your Lordships' House that might not necessarily be so.
I find it slightly disappointing that sometimes in answering these questions, as I have on many occasions, I have the feeling that some Members in your Lordships' House would rather the negotiations failed. That cannot be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar. Just as it was right to establish the Brussels process in 1984 under the party opposite, it is right to do everything we can to make these discussions a success.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clause 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 and 5,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 6 to 10,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 11 and 12,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 13 to 19,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 20 to 28,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 29 to 44,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 45 to 49,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 50 to 61,

Schedule 10,

Clause 62,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 63 to 84,

Schedule 12,

Clause 85,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 86 to 92.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wembley Stadium
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the progress of the National Stadium project. This fulfils my commitment to the House on 7th May to update honourable Members before Whitsun.
"I would like to address four main points concerning the project. First, the extent and nature of the government responsibility for this FA project. Secondly, the allegations that arise from the James and Tropus reports into the early stages of the tendering process. Thirdly, to update the House on progress made since I last informed the House on 7th May. And, fourthly, I would like to comment on the lessons learnt and the changes put in hand as a consequence.
"First, then, the role of government. Quite clearly, the project is primarily a matter for the FA. It wants a national stadium. It wants it at Wembley and it is prepared to pay for it. But it is a clear principle that big infrastructure projects require government engagement, whether financial or in facilitation. Patrick Carter's report has made that clear.
"Government support is plainly a factor in the market's assessment of a project such as this. The first Wembley proposal was over-ambitious. It was poorly managed; the tendering process was flawed; secure bank lending was not achieved; costs escalated; and the Government's role was ambiguous. It was those weaknesses which led to delays; to the request from the FA for extra public funds, and to the Government's decision to ask Patrick Carter to carry out a full review of the project's feasibility.
"Now, the Government can decide to support the FA or, of course, can walk away. If we walk away, it will almost certainly stop the project in its tracks. What we cannot, should not and will not do is to take over the direction of the project itself. That remains clearly with the FA.
"However, when public funds are committed to a project, government do have a responsibility to ensure that proper standards are met to safeguard public investment and to secure the improvements to the management and governance of the project necessary for success. And that is what we are doing.
"We are insisting on 'best practice' public-sector standards. We need this to protect the taxpayer and the lottery player. But that should also reassure the market that this is a worthy project to invest in.
"Once these measures are in place, it is appropriate for us to meet some of the non-stadium infrastructure costs, and we have identified

887
£20 million for that purpose. And of course we need to stay engaged with the project, to protect the public interest in the £120 million lottery grant made by Sport England.
"To turn to my second point, honourable and right honourable Members may have read much in recent days about the Tropus and James reports into the stadium project. These reports investigated alleged irregularities in the tendering and procurement processes and weaknesses in the corporate governance of the project in the period 1999 to the summer of 2000. These allegations make disturbing reading.
"That is why in December I set clear conditions that this project had to be cleansed before any further commitment from the Government. But I believe it is important that they are now considered in the context of progress since my Statement to the House of 19th December.
"These four conditions were: a full value-for-money assessment of the construction agreement to be undertaken by an independent assessor; that WNSL supply a copy of the James report to the National Audit Office; that significant changes be made to corporate governance; and that legally binding agreements for the financing of the stadium he concluded. I do not believe that there have been any new disclosures which add to the concerns previously identified.
"It is important to note that the David James report did not find any evidence of criminal impropriety. It did not recommend retendering the contract for rebuilding Wembley. So the most important question to be answered was whether the flaws identified had irrevocably damaged the project on grounds of cost, propriety or deliverability. The expert judgment suggests they have not.
"In December, I asked both the FA and WNSL to publish the James-BLP report. However, for legal reasons WNSL felt unable to publish it. A publishable version has finally seen the light of day. Much of this is history, but history from which we must learn. Changes have been made, particularly since December. I wish now to look to the future.
"In many ways, there has been as much improvement in the past five months as in the previous five years. Three conditions—assessment of value for money; the consideration of the relevant papers by the NAO; and the strengthening of project management and corporate governance—have broadly been met.
"I will not repeat what I said on those matters just two weeks ago, except to say that the Sweett report, the independent value-for-money assessment, is now in the Library of the House of Commons for any who wish to read the detail.
"It confirms that it is unlikely that retendering of the construction contracts would result in significant savings. However, I do wish to bring Members up to date on the question of financing.
888
"On 7th May, I informed the House that the lead bank had agreed in outline to proceed. The FA has since said that it expects to sign a 'heads of agreement' and exclusive mandate with WestLB, the lead bank, in the next seven days which will agree the overall financial structure of the project. It has said that it will then expect to complete all the financial contracts some time within the next 10 weeks.
"The bank is satisfied that it has access to all the information it requires, including the James and Tropus reports. The prospects are good, progress is promising, but the outcome is not yet certain. Accordingly, I will not give final approval on the Government's contribution to non-stadium infrastructure until a final report has been produced by Patrick Carter, after proper banking arrangements have been concluded and assessed.
"I am clear—as indeed is the Football Association—that the current negotiations represent the last chance for Wembley. Should a Wembley deal not prove possible, I would expect as I indicated in December and ever since—that the FA would enter into discussions with Birmingham over its proposals.
"The FA has repeated its assurances that if Wembley fails to proceed, then it would look for other options; options which would include Birmingham.
"Birmingham's bid was and is credible. It has been examined by Patrick Carter and by the FA in good faith. However, the Carter report supports the view that Wembley would deliver higher revenues, hence the FA's declared preference. And the Birmingham bid is still only embryonic: planning permission for what is a green belt site has not been given; the detailed design has not be completed; final costings for the stadium have yet to be done; the business plan has not yet been thoroughly tested or backed by market research; and there remains a significant funding gap to be bridged. So moving the project to Birmingham is not a straightforward process with a guarantee of success. But if Wembley fails, Birmingham deserves the chance to make its case.
"I now want to clear one matter up. Some have mistakenly assumed that there is a secret agreement between the FA and Sport England to reopen the old Wembley stadium if the new project fails. This is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the staging agreement between Sport England and the FA. It is the security obtained by Sport England for the £120 million lottery grant. It could, in theory, allow Sport England to require the FA to stage events at Wembley for 20 years in the event of the project failing.
"In reality, the stadium would be very expensive to reopen, and would be increasingly substandard as a venue. The Carter report indicates that it would cost around £40 million for a quick fix to open the doors—a solution which would require a second, major refurbishment only five years later, costing tens of millions of pounds more.

889
"The FA made clear in its statement yesterday that reopening the stadium is only one of the options that might be available in the event of a failure to proceed with the new stadium. And given the cost, it is an unlikely option for the FA to choose. However, it is for Sport England and the FA to decide how, in the event of the project failing, the grant is repaid.
"I come now to my last point. Hindsight shows what a high-risk project this was. Lottery money is not about risk avoidance, though. It should be about risk management; and I accept that more work needs to be done with distributors on risk assessment.
"One possible solution is to involve the Office of Government Commerce in all high-risk lottery projects, to ensure full scrutiny of proposals before their approval. This has now been done on Wembley, and the OGC's report, in the light of changes made and proposed, supports the stadium plans. I intend to include this issue in the forthcoming consultation on the future of lottery distribution which I hope to bring before the House before the Summer Recess. It is important for the future of the lottery to get this issue right.
"One year ago, this project was flawed, tainted and unsustainable. Since then, the efforts of the FA and other stakeholders, working with Patrick Carter and his team, have yielded results in governance, transparency and the potential to attract financial support to a much more credible project.
"The money sought from government is still on the table. It forms part of the financial package and it will remain there while the present negotiations with the bank continue to progress to conclusion.
"There is some distance still to travel; and if my four conditions are met in full, the House can be assured that government support is being given to a project that will have demonstrated that it deserves it—a project that will benefit sport in England at all levels for generations".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We seem to be stuck in the nightmare of the film "Groundhog Day"—another day, and we simply cannot escape from the same thing happening again and again, without resolution. For the sake of our sportsmen and sportswomen, we must break free and settle the matter.
The Minister stated that she is awaiting a final report from Patrick Carter, and that the FA has told the Government that it expects to complete the financial contracts some time within the next 10 weeks. I noted carefully what the Minister said. There was no mention of a deadline this time. Why is that? After all, by my reckoning, 10 weeks will take us to 1st August—after, as we all hope, the House has risen for the
890
Summer Recess. Will the Minister give an undertaking that she will return to the House before the Summer Recess to give an account of progress on the specific matter of Wembley? The Minister referred to progress on lottery resolution. Will she please also give an undertaking to report on progress on Wembley?
The financial details of this deal have become a byword for fiasco. That pleases no one in this country. The Minister referred to the Tropus report, which revealed irregularities in the procurement processes. When did that report first reach the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? When was it first read, if at all, by Ministers?
What is the Government's response to the Football Association's statement to the Select Committee of another place this week that the Government should have been aware of the Tropus report last summer because they were in touch all the time with David James and he knew of its remit and likely contents? It was also stated that there was a pervasive awareness of allegations of impropriety in procurement matters.
The Minister stated that she did not believe that there had been any new disclosures to add to the concerns previously identified. What about the revelation this week of the "staging agreement" between the FA and Sport England? This means that if the current bid to build a new stadium at Wembley breaks down, the old stadium must be taken out of mothballs and used for football international matches and FA Cup matches for the next 20 years, so that the £120 million of lottery money can be repaid. It is a simple guarantee to Sport England.
That was certainly a new disclosure to me, and to most of the country apart from the favoured few. Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State admitted to the Select Committee of another place earlier today that she was one of the favoured few and did have prior knowledge of the staging agreement?
The Minister tries to make light of the agreement; but does it not fatally damage the hopes of Birmingham or Coventry that they could ever genuinely be considered as a venue for the national stadium?
After all, the staging agreement is a contractual term. It is not for the FA to choose whether it keeps to it or not. Sport England is a contractor to the agreement too. So, if the Government are so confident that there is a way out of this impasse, why is that the case? Have the Government sought, and received, from Sport England a guarantee that they would not enforce the staging agreement if the negotiations for a stadium at Wembley were, God forbid, to fail? Does the Minister realise that, without that, her warm words about Birmingham and Coventry mean nothing?
Finally, is the Minister aware that in the Select Committee of another place earlier today the Secretary of State admitted that she knew that there were weaknesses in Sport England's oversight of all these processes? What meetings have the Government held with Sport England since the Statement made in this

891
place in December last year to call Sport England to account for its handling—or mishandling—of the lottery agreement, of public money?
It is vital that this matter is resolved swiftly and effectively. Our sportsmen and sportswomen, and the whole country, deserve that.
3.48 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which she read so expertly. In so doing, she concealed the alarm that it has caused me and, I imagine, other Members of this House.
When I arrived this morning, I was told by my Whips' Office that it was of a mind to refuse the Statement and thought that the Conservative Benches would refuse it too. It was almost like being told, if one were eagerly awaiting a sequel to "Four Weddings and a Funeral", that it had suddenly been withdrawn—I do not want to associate the word "funeral" with this particular project, but the noble Baroness will take my point.
The project is in a terrible mess. Most of the media and the press share that view. To use another motion picture analogy, there is a certain amount of speaking with forked tongue in the Statement. As we all know, and as any member of the public knows now, if we are entering into a project such as a national stadium, there needs to be full and whole-hearted commitment by government to support it. There never has been that commitment. The Government, however, have involved themselves for the very reasons given in the Statement. This type of project, whether it be a national stadium or a national football stadium—which is what it is—needs government support in some shape or form in order for it to succeed.
The problem is that when the project got into difficulty, the Government sought to tell us that it was nothing whatever to do with them. The Government say that it is a matter of commercial agreements between various parties. We were told that some weeks ago by means of the David Frost show on national television. When it comes down to it, however, the Government are very much involved. After all, they have committed a great amount of public money—lottery funding to the tune of £120 million, to be precise—to the project. As for the future of that, I would not blame anyone for being nervous about reports that lottery funding of the millennium fiasco is unlikely to be recovered. We hope that the same will not apply in relation to this project.
Some of the remarks in the Statement are extraordinary. The Government say, for example, that we have learned lessons. However, this is not the stage at which we should he learning lessons. We should be teaching lessons, not learning them. The Statement also says that the Football Association wants a national stadium. It does not want a national stadium; it wants a football stadium. The sooner we stop talking in these terms, the better it will be. It is a football stadium for which a type of enlarged Lego project—to
892
add a running track and so on—has been discussed ad nauseam, with the enormous costs and problems attached to that.
The Statement makes the extraordinary claim that the prospects are good, progress is promising, but the outcome is not yet certain. From my modest career in commerce, that is certainly no basis on which to encourage investors to invest. That is a point on which I have questioned the Minister when we have previously discussed these matters. If she is of a mind to answer my question, or those of other noble Lords who may speak later, I hope that she will not tell us that certain aspects are "commercially sensitive", because that just will not do. We have not been told anything concrete about the project's potential for revenue earning although such potential is vital for funding.
It has been bandied about that the facility will be used for 20 days of the year. Anyone with a cigarette packet and a pencil can work out the fact that it will be very hard for a stadium costing such sums but used for only 20, 40 or even 60 days of the year to produce a cashflow projection that will inspire any confidence in those minded to invest. We have had no serious and encouraging remarks from the Government about that. All they say is that, "This is a contract between two, three or four commercial bodies and they must get on with it. We are there only to protect the public funds, the lottery funds, involved in this".
This is very unsatisfactory. It is procrastination which has been forced on the Government. The Government have prolonged the deadline for the conversations to continue. The Minister has now told us quite clearly that there is probably no truth in the fact that, if this fails, the Football Association will want to continue with Wembley in the future. However, I am quite sure that there are sensible people in the Football Association, although one begins to doubt it.
Wembley is like the London Zoo in many ways. I have enjoyed many happy days at Wembley, for boxing matches and football. I was at the 1966 World Cup. I have a great affection for Wembley. I also have a great affection for the London Zoo, where I used to watch polar bears. However, it is all out of date. There is no way in which Wembley can be either a national stadium or a national football stadium.
I do not come from Birmingham, but I have a great feeling of support for Birmingham. I also see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on the edge of his seat, ready to tell us what he thinks. I do not know whether Birmingham's plan is well shaped and well formed and ready to go or what difficulties might exist, but Wembley is an obvious alternative. It is only fair to the Birmingham people that they should be told now the likelihood of success. They should not be strung out for months upon months with the promise that there is a deadline and that Birmingham will have a fair crack of the whip if the deadline is not met.

893
What a sad Statement. In fact, it is a classic. I shall stick it up on the wall somewhere in my house, together with some other extraordinary things that have happened in the House and with which I have been involved, although I am not sure where. No one will understand it. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for their comments and questions. I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has had so many enjoyable trips to Wembley as well as the London Zoo. I hope that he has more enjoyable trips to Wembley in the future if this project comes off. It will be a rather different experience from going to the London Zoo.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked why there was no mention of a deadline. Perhaps I should remind her that the 30th April deadline was not a government deadline but a deadline provided by the FA. It has failed to meet that deadline because it has not been able to complete its commercial—I underline commercial—negotiations with those who are financing the project. I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to impose a further deadline at this stage. The FA has made it clear, as I have made it clear in the Statement, that it hopes that it will be able to complete its negotiations within 10 weeks.
The noble Baroness then asked whether I would give an undertaking to return to the House before the Summer Recess. Clearly I cannot give any such undertaking. However, I shall certainly pass on what she has said to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness then asked about the Tropus report, and whether any new disclosures have been made in relation to the staging report. I shall start with Tropus. Tropus produced a dossier containing a series of allegations about the procurement and corporate governance procedures in WNSL. These issues were aired with Patrick Carter and his independent review team in discussions about the viability of alternative options for the national stadium. WNSL responded very quickly to those allegations and appointed David James to carry out a full independent review of the main concerns.
The James report is a very thorough investigation of the main Tropus allegations. On receipt of the report, we responded decisively by setting out the four conditions which I made clear in the Statement. As David Hudson of Tropus said on Tuesday, the James report showed that the position was worse than we had thought. We have now reviewed the Tropus dossier. We are satisfied that there are no issues that have not been covered by the comprehensive changes that WNSL and the FA have agreed to make to their procurement and corporate governance procedures.
I turn now to the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the staging agreement. It might be helpful and clarify matters if I read out a letter sent by the FA chief executive, Adam Crozier, to
894
the project director in Birmingham. Before doing so, however, I shall read to the noble Baroness what was said in a statement made by Adam Crozier earlier this week. It states:
"All parties have recognised that in the event that the Birmingham proposals were to be considered and proved viable it would be necessary to conclude an event staging agreement in relation to the new Stadium once current legal commitments relating to the National Stadium project at Wembley had been concluded in a way that satisfied all parties".
In his letter to Paul Spooner in Birmingham, he wrote:
"as far as The FA is concerned, Birmingham would remain an option for the national stadium should the new Wembley not proceed. As has always been the case, this would of course be subject to discussions by all the stakeholders on how best to abort the current project and any agreements relating to it".
I am very clear, therefore, that Birmingham has not been misled by either the Carter review team, government or the FA.
The noble Baroness also suggested that this was some secret agreement. I hope that I may put her right on that. There is nothing secret about it. Indeed, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was told about the staging agreement some two years ago in 2000.
4 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the other place broadly welcomed the Statement by the Secretary of State and said that it was only sensible to delay a little longer to see whether the Football Association could sign the heads of agreement with its financial backers? That is in complete contrast to the rather rambling statement made by the noble Viscount a few minutes ago. Does my noble friend also agree that the approach that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the DCMS team have adopted is in marked contrast to what happened prior to December last year? The use of the words "flawed", "tainted" and "unsustainable" which I noted down from the Statement I think describe everything that went wrong. I refer also to the words "high risk" and "high risk project". The ministerial team, as well as everyone else who was involved in the project up until the general election, are no longer in post and certainly the fiasco over Wembley had a large part to play in that.
However, since the Secretary of State took a grip on the matter in December and demanded answers to the four questions, it seems to me that all reasonable people would—like the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House of Commons—want to give the Football Association the opportunity to see whether these matters can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion and that their choice, and the choice of most people in this country, that Wembley should be the site of the national stadium, should be implemented.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing up the differences between what was said by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman in the House of Commons and by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman in this

895
House. I am sure that they will meet to discuss their slight differences in tone as regards the relative welcome given to the Statement in another place and the remarks made in this House.
That gives me an opportunity to pick up a matter that I perhaps should have mentioned when responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. He suggested that we had not been told enough about revenue from the project. He poured scorn on the suggestion that this was a commercial matter. I profoundly disagree with his view that this is not a commercial deal between private sector banks and the Football Association.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, I said no such thing. Of course it is a commercial matter. All I said was that the Government have said that they do not think that it is right for them to be directly involved in the issue because it is a commercial matter. Their only concern is to protect public funds. That is all that I said.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is exactly the position of the Government and that must be right. Were we to start to intervene in every commercial deal that was carried out all over the country, many people would start to jump up and down and would have something to say about that.
I hope that I may put the noble Viscount right on one other matter. He said that the business plan is predicated on around 20 sports events and six other events. The business plan has been market tested by independent consultants and is going through a process of due diligence. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Viscount; it is designed to be so.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has already reminded us of the statement made by, I believe, the company secretary of the Football Association to the House of Commons committee earlier this week as regards the binding agreement made with Sport England in 1998 that there would be football at Wembley for the next 20 years. The Minister has already quoted one letter that Adam Crozier wrote to the Birmingham bid team, but I hope that I may remind her of another. Perhaps she does not read the local press as I do and did not read the Birmingham Post this morning which quotes a letter from Adam Crozier to the Birmingham team. The letter is dated July 2001—that is three years after the agreement was reached with Sport England. The letter states:
"In order to be completely open with you—
think of those words—
"can I let you know exactly where we are in the process. Effectively, we have three options going forward:

1. The current design proposal for a 90,000 stadium at Wembley,

2. A new 80,000/85,000 design for Wembley,

3. A new 80,000/85,000 design in Birmingham".

There is nothing there about Birmingham being a fallback when everything else has fallen behind. Mr Crozier says that he is being open in outlining the
896
three options when behind his back, three years before, an agreement was reached with Sport England. How does the Minister reconcile those two statements? Does she suppose that the chief executive and the company secretary actually talk to each other?
Furthermore, what view does the Minister take of the fact that in the light of that letter stating that Birmingham, along with others, is an open option, the Birmingham and Solihull bid team has spent half a million pounds to produce its bid when all the time an agreement had been made with Sport England that there would be football at Wembley for the next 20 years? Has the FA some liability to reimburse that expenditure? That is a serious question. I refer also to reimbursement of the costs of the Coventry bid.
The Minister also mentioned planning. It is worth reflecting that the planning authority is one of the authorities that is behind the bid. I suspect that its own planners must have considered it.
It is also worth reflecting on the fact that the city and business community of Birmingham has a proven record in completing projects on time, within budget and without compromising the project in hand. I think particularly of the very important Millennium Point which was opened last year as part of the regeneration of the east side of Birmingham city centre. That matter needs to be considered.
Does the Minister appreciate that in the light of all of that the people of Birmingham, Solihull and the West Midlands have little remaining faith in the integrity or competence of the Football Association?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his interest in the project. I understand that this may be the last occasion on which he is able to ask questions in your Lordships' House before he retires. I wish him a happy retirement.
I turn to his questions. I shall start by referring to the staging agreement. There is much misunderstanding about the nature of that agreement. As I said before, the agreement concerns a guarantee that events will take place if funding is provided, whether public or private. Exactly the same kind of staging agreement would occur were Birmingham to be the bidder. The right reverend Prelate should not read into the matter some plot to undermine the Birmingham bid, far from it.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether the Football Association ought to reimburse those cities which submitted bids for the stadium project. I believe that when any city or part of the country decides to submit a bid for a project of this kind, so long as they have been treated fairly as regards the whole approach to the competition, there is absolutely no reason why they should or could be reimbursed. This is a competition and there are some winners and some losers.

897
On the point about planning authorities, Birmingham was originally turned down in 1995 partly because Solihull district council said that it would not give a planning agreement. It may have changed its mind—
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, Solihull and Birmingham are behind the bid together.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, during the early stages of the competition, when the FA decided to reject Birmingham, I have it on good authority—I shall check again and write to the right reverend Prelate if I am wrong—that Solihull district council could not support a planning application because a greenfield site in green-belt land was involved. If it has now changed its mind, there are virtually bound to be objections to a decision to locate in a green-belt area, which would mean that the project would have to be called in and a planning inquiry would take place. That would certainly delay the project in Birmingham.
While I am on my feet, I should add that, as I made clear in the Statement, many other problems would have to be resolved before the Birmingham project could go ahead.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when Wembley was created for the Great Exhibition in 1924, the nation felt pride and was given a great uplift? For the following 75 or more years it has proved to be a focal point for football and other activities and, in terms of football, has been the envy of the world. I should declare an interest as an Arsenal supporter, because my team plays there so often in cup finals! Wembley Stadium as it currently is needs either pulling down and rebuilding or drastic refurbishment. People who used it in recent years have been ripped off because of the appalling conditions that they had to endure while watching games.
I add that the siting of a national football stadium at Wembley would benefit from the infrastructure that already exists, although it would of course need to be improved. The arrangements have been in place for a number of years—there are excellent transport arrangements. London Transport has done a wonderful job clearing Wembley Park station of 70,000 to 80,000 people very quickly.
I ask the Minister to do one thing: to get on with it. The people—or most of the football supporters—of this country want an answer. I wish the people of Birmingham good fortune if Wembley should not prove to be a viable proposition. The main thing that the people—that is, the footballing people—of this country currently want is some action. This issue has gone on for far too long. Will the Minister put her elbow behind this and get Wembley refurbished or rebuilt, or make a decision and take the project elsewhere?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was not around in 1924 to celebrate the building of Wembley but I agree
898
with my noble friend that it served its purpose for a very long time. As the noble Viscount said, people have had many enjoyable experiences watching matches and other events at Wembley. However, conditions worsened, the infrastructure started to collapse and it was right to start thinking about a new national stadium for football and rugby league—and, we now hope, for athletics, too.
My noble friend and I support the same football team. I hope that I shall join him at some point at a cup final to see our team playing and winning in the refurbished Wembley. I am sure that he is right to say that the people absolutely want a new national stadium. If the Wembley bid goes through and meets all of the conditions that we have set, no one will be more delighted than me. At the same time, I make it clear that the choice of Wembley is a matter for the FA. If it fails, Birmingham will be considered.
Lord Coe: My Lords, in her Statement, the Minister properly referred to the protection of the public and the use of the £120 million of lottery money. She will be aware that that sum was given on the basis that the stadium could properly house football, rugby league and athletics. There has already been talk about a facility costing nearly £12 million to raise a demountable track and we are told that the time involved will be some 17 weeks. Given that the stadium would be out of use for nearly 17 weeks, does she genuinely think that the stadium will be "athletics compliant" and that there is any incentive for the future owners of Wembley to bid for the World Athletics Championships? She will also be aware that we lost a World Athletics Championships last year. At the time, her department announced a study by the PIU into future strategies to attract such sporting events to these shores. Will she give the House an update on the progress that has been made and tell us when we are likely to be able to deliberate on its findings?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is absolutely right about the importance of protecting the £120 million. I am sure that he will have seen the Sport England report that makes it clear that it is possible for an athletics platform to be put into the new stadium at considerably lower cost than would have been the case under the original concrete plans and that it can be installed and removed much more quickly.
With around 30 events a year, there should be no problem for those running the new national stadium to plan ahead for a major international athletics meeting. As the noble Lord knows very well, we are not of course talking about frequent athletics meetings—we could use Birmingham, Sheffield and Crystal Palace for national events. We are talking about the occasional international event of major importance. We should now celebrate the fact that we will at last have an international as well as a national location for athletics if the project comes off.
The noble Lord also asked about the PIU. The PIU project team will develop an overall strategy for guiding the Government's decisions on sports policy,

899
including major events of the kind to which he referred. We expect the project to be completed in the summer.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which was honest, clear and rightly self-critical. I do not think that anyone could possibly claim that this project had been smoothly managed. However, we must face the fact that we are where we are. I suspect that there have been far too many deadlines and misleading headlines.
Would the Minister be so kind as to confirm two basic principles about the project? First, will she confirm that the FA is funding the project and that Wembley is its preferred venue? The FA has said that perfectly clearly and it is negotiating with banks in order to achieve that end. Secondly, will she confirm that there will be no additional government funding, apart from the funding that has already been stipulated—the £20 million that has already been earmarked for the infrastructure? That has been said many times but people have clearly not taken that on board. That is a very important point for those who are watching this debate very carefully.
It is now possible that we have but 10 weeks before completion. It would be a tragedy if we drew back at this moment. That point was made clearly in the other place this morning by a Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I hope that the House will give a ringing endorsement to the proposal that Wembley is the preferred option. The sooner that that is achieved, the better; if that is done, the sports lovers of this country will be best pleased.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks. I confirm that the project is being funded by the Football Association and that Wembley is the association's preferred venue and choice. I can say absolutely categorically that there will be no additional government funding, over and above the £20 million that is still on the table for infrastructure improvement, to ensure that people can travel between Wembley, London and points farther afield. I am grateful to my noble friend for her general comments on the Statement.
Of relevance to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—who I see shaking her head—is that David Moffett, the relatively new chief executive of Sport England, told the Select Committee in another place that Sport England's handling of the project could have been better. We ought to recognise a willingness to concede that the matter might have been handled more effectively. We should be grateful to Mr Moffett for that.

Education Bill
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
900
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 202:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS PURSUANT TO DECISIONS OF THE ADJUDICATOR
In section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (adjudicators) there shall be inserted—
"(5) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for a body to hear appeals pursuant to decisions of the adjudicator.""
The noble Baroness said: The amendment poses the question whether an original jurisdiction should be allowed to exist, with no room for appeal—except by judicial review on procedural grounds only. It raises also the technical question of whether Section 86(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 makes it possible for the adjudicator to treat entry to a test as an expression of preference for a school.
We all know that organisation committees and adjudicators were set up to allow the Secretary of State to pass to an elected, unaccountable body the responsibility for making decisions that are tiresome for a Secretary of State, including the merging or closing of schools and the alteration of school structures at local level. That development wrote out of the loop the responsibility of local education authorities and put such decisions at arm's length from the Secretary of State. The most significant deficit is that parents, school communities and schools themselves are in no position to counter the adjudicators' absolute power.
If, when an organisation committee receives a proposal written in the organisational plan, one sector of the committee takes a different view, the proposal automatically goes to the adjudicator for determination. The adjudicator can uphold the majority or minority view, alter the proposition or substitute a wholly different decision. There is absolutely no appeal to the adjudicator. We and members on the Liberal Democrat Benches were extremely disquieted by the advent of organisation committees and adjudicators because they were unelected and unaccountable and adjudicators were given absolute power.
At least one adjudicator has already been taken to the courts and found wanting because he had exceeded his powers. The Government's answer was to extend the adjudicators' powers—so if the same decision were made today, it would not be against the law. It certainly would be against the interests of people locally and of schools.
The Government argued that committees and adjudicators would bring decision making closer to the people. Anyone who has examined the areas for which adjudicators are responsible will know that they are extremely wide—they extend far beyond local authority areas. In my area of Cambridgeshire and

901
East Anglia, the adjudicator could not possibly know all the nursery, primary and secondary schools in Cambridgeshire because that individual is responsible for several county areas—yet that one person has absolute power.
Different adjudicators have different ways of working. There ought to be a test of fair process—not just correct process, in terms of judicial review. As I said, the only recourse open to a school community or parent body is to make an adjudication the subject of judicial review on the basis of process only, not its merits or demerits. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
My preference would be to see adjudicators removed from the 1998 Act, but if we must live with that unaccountable aspect of local decision-making, there ought to be a process of appeal. If the Minister argues that there was not previously the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, that is not true. There was a system of review and judicial review. Those of us with experience of local authorities, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, know that they had to make judgments about the number of places available; and took views on mergers, closures and additional schools. Such propositions were considered at working party level and there would be road shows, talks to local communities; and discussions with governors, parents, and parish and district councils.
After the working party, a proposal would go before the primary and secondary sub-committees and the county council. Then the decision would go to the Secretary of State. If there was concern about a proposal before it reached the Secretary of State, parents could approach the Secretary of State—himself an elected individual—through their Members of Parliament and make their input. The people who submitted the proposal in the first place and the individual decision-maker were elected.
The Government should be generous with the amendment and at least allow appeals to the all-powerful, all-pervasive adjudicators. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I underline what my noble friend said. Since the end of the 19th century, it has been a tradition in this country that local authorities should play a prominent part in education, in particular in relation to the more delicate situations, such as school closures and entry problems. It is a fairly novel development in English education for that role to be handed over to an official appointed as a result of patronage. As my noble friend pointed out, one can escape that only by judicial review. But judicial review is an enormously expensive process. It is possible that large local authorities could afford it, but schools and parents could not unless they had a large amount of money.
In addition, adjudicators have not always been as careful as they might be. For example, in Kent, when they considered the matter of choice of schools after someone had tried to get into a grammar school, the
902
adjudicators did not consult the grammar schools in the county. Another adjudicator subsequently altered the decision of his predecessor. That was a messy situation and, had the county been able to afford it, it would certainly have made mincemeat of the Government at a judicial review.
I do not understand why the Government cannot allow appeals. We all know why the situation occurred. The Secretary of State did not want angry parents or angry local authorities on his doorstep. The best way to avoid that was to appoint, in the French Napoleonic manner, an official who would do the work for him, and not allow appeals. That is a denial of democracy, and a Government who care about the people should do something about it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Minister replies to the amendment, I believe that part of the problem with this debate and our other Committee stage debates is that we have been unclear as to precisely what the Government intend for the future of local education authorities. Because of that, I believe that, throughout the Bill, a whole series of initiatives are being taken to put in place what are almost substitutes for local education authorities. We have not had a clear view from the Government as to whether, in the long term, effectively they wish to make all schools independent, with no local education authorities at all. Thus, I believe that we are getting the worst of all worlds. From the number of letters and representations that I have received from people involved in local education authorities, the provisions that the Government seek to introduce are certainly perceived in that way. If that is not the intention of the Bill and if that is not the long-term intention of the Government, I believe that it would be helpful for the Government to put that on the record.
I also believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to say that parents will be looking for a way, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just said, to ensure that, where there is dispute, a fair and proper means of resolving it exists.
Another theme that has run through our debates is that we should do nothing to dissipate accountability. Local education authorities may have their failings—I was a member of one for many years. Nevertheless, they have virtue because they contain an elected element—most of their members are directly elected local councillors. I believe that the more we diminish their powers, the less people will be prepared to serve on such bodies and, even if it is not the intention of the Government to abolish them, they will simply wither away.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is an interesting way to start this Committee day. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving me the opportunity to talk about local education authorities. There is no question but that local education authorities provide an invaluable role within our school education system. This Government have no intention of seeing them disappear.

903
We are trying to ensure that we develop our relationship with schools and local education authorities so that each performs the duties, responsibilities and functions most appropriate to them. That means enabling schools to have control over their own budgets, and allowing them to grow and develop for their community. It means ensuring that local education authorities play a strategic role, and it also means that the Department for Education and Skills and, of course, the Secretary of State, have a responsibility and a duty to all our children and all our schools. I set the Bill within that context. We are trying to ensure that each plays the part that we consider to be appropriate and valuable. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord because I know that there are issues to be teased out and debates to be had.
Perhaps, for Members of the Committee who are less familiar with it, I may say something about the role of the adjudicator in general. The adjudicator has two different roles: one is concerned with admissions; the other with school organisation. The first concerns determining objections to admission arrangements. In a sense, therefore, it is an appeal role. With regard to school organisation, the adjudicator determines school organisation plans and proposals where there is no unanimity on the school organisation committee.
Of course, these issues were all debated in the School Standards and Framework Act before I had the pleasure of being part of your Lordships' House. It is my view that the adjudicator process is working in practice. Fundamentally, it is the appeal process.
I believe that the Government are in a type of "cannot win" situation. If we said to the noble Baroness that we would take the view that the adjudicator role was not working and that we would return to the previous position, that would be a centralisation process. It would place decisions firmly back in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is not what we wish to do. We believe that such decisions are best left to an independent adjudicator. He is appointed by the Secretary of State but on the basis of his educational expertise. Members of the Committee will be able to see that process in terms of the people who have been appointed and who, rightly, we are proud to have in that role.
Therefore, we believe that adjudicators are independent. We believe that they should, and can be, challenged through judicial review. That process is open to those who wish to follow it. That would affect not only the cases about which Members of the Committee may be concerned; it would also affect adjudicator decisions allowing mid-year variations to admission arrangements and school organisation decisions.
We believe that adjudicators provide an independent mechanism. They work on a good timescale. Our objective is that decisions should be reached within six weeks. The process takes longer when objections are put forward, in particular, during the school summer holiday period. However, even in
904
those cases, on average decisions have been reached in fewer than 10 weeks. We believe that the adjudicator performs the role of the appeals process and that, therefore, the provision should stand. We hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that this does not bode badly for the rest of the day. That was the most disappointing answer that I have had. The noble Baroness said that there is no question that LEAs are threatened, but I need some convincing of that. We have learning and skills councils, national learning and skills councils, organisation committees and adjudicators. Sixth-form funding is about to be removed from local authorities. We also have sector skills councils and national sector skills councils, most of which are now regionally based.
The subject of county councils was brought up in a Statement the other day. There is no question that county councils—predominantly those who are responsible for the decisions that we are discussing today—look very vulnerable. That certainly came out in the debate. The Minister who replied to the Statement gave no comfort whatever to this House that county councils would be safe in the future. If one removes local education authorities from county councils, there will be almost nothing left. Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness that her answer on that point was less than convincing. Certainly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made is well taken in that respect.
The noble Baroness also went on to say that fundamentally we have an appeals process. The point that I made was not picked up by the noble Baroness. Once the organisation committee has considered the proposition but one vote on that committee has disagreed with it, the adjudicator can uphold the majority decision that has been considered; or he or she can uphold the minority decision that has been considered; or he or she can modify and alter the proposition; but under the law he or she is free to substitute a decision that has not been considered. How can such a situation be democratic? If one person can take a decision, which has not had full consideration by such bodies as the local authority upwards, how can that be democratic?
The noble Baroness considered that it was something of a virtue that such decisions can be made in six weeks. I have been involved in making recommendations to Secretaries of State in relation to decisions on possible school closures, and those who experience the pain of such decisions would like to believe that it would take more than six weeks to consider all the representations and all the aspects of a decision. To boast that all that can take place in six weeks is no answer. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Marlesford, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Astor, V.

Moynihan, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Biffen, L.

Noakes, B.

Blatch, B.

Northbourne, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Northbrook, L.

Burnham, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cuckney, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elles, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plumb, L.

Elton, L.

Quirk, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Freeman, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Saatchi, L.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Luke, L.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Weatherill, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ahmed, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Filkin, L.

Alli, L.

Gale, B.

Andrews, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Golding, B.

Bach, L.

Goudie, B.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grocott, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Harrison, L.

Billingham, B.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hattersley, L.

Borrie, L.

Hayman, B.

Brett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Chan, L.

Christopher, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jordan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dearing, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dubs, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mishcon, L.

906

Mitchell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Nicol, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Ouseley, L.

Tenby, V.

Peston, L.

Thornton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Turnberg, L.

Puttnam, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Radice, L.

Whitaker, B.

Rea, L.

Whitty, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Wilkins, B.

Rix, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Simon, V.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 202A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 4 [Admission arrangements]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 203:
Page 133, line 30, at end insert—
"() After subsection (3)(c) there is inserted "; or
(d) if the child has been identified upon an assessment requested by the head teacher of the school as having significant emotional and behavioural difficulties and the local education authority responsible for maintaining the school is unwilling or unable to provide to the school such resources as may reasonably be considered appropriate to meet the needs of the child""
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 203 is to ensure that schools have adequate resources to support pupils with significant emotional and behavioural difficulties. Schools cannot be expected to know whether they have the appropriate resources unless they know the full nature and extent of the problem. That is why this amendment proposes that head teachers have the right to refer pupils for an assessment prior to admission to a school if they have reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has a serious problem. Therefore, the amendment seeks to amend the Schools Standards and Framework Act to that effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We have already in place, as noble Lords are aware, a system for assessing and supporting children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, through the special educational needs framework. The special educational needs code of practice for England and Wales sets out a systematic process for schools to identify and to provide for children's special educational needs in school.
With reference to children with challenging behaviour, the school admissions code of practice makes it clear that admission authorities should not make subjective judgments as to the suitability of children for a school. Of course, if the pupil, once admitted, is seriously and persistently disruptive, the school may take appropriate disciplinary action, including temporary and, ultimately, permanent exclusion from the school.

907
We want education to be as inclusive as possible and the admissions code makes clear that children with special educational needs, but without statements, must be treated as fairly as other applicants. Admission authorities may not refuse admission simply because they consider themselves unable to cater for his or her special educational needs. Nor can they refuse to admit such a pupil on the grounds that he or she does not have a statement or is currently being assessed for one. It is not acceptable for a school to refuse to admit a child merely because he or she has exhibited potentially challenging behaviour or because it considers that the child should first be assessed for special educational needs.
We shall require the mandatory admission forums in England to discuss issues relating to the admission of children with challenging behaviour, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. That will enable local admission authorities to agree strategies for their areas in relation to how their admission arrangements might best work to ensure a more even spread and the best possible resource for each child between all their schools.
In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Minister sits down, figures published today show that 9,000 children have been excluded from schools—a large number of them from primary schools, where there has been an alarming increase in the number of exclusions. Will the Minister agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has a valid point; namely, that before putting children into schools simply to place them at risk of exclusion, we should first consider and address the reasons that such children exhibit emotional and behavioural problems? I welcome the Minister's concluding remarks, but does she agree that we need to give a little more thought to that matter?
Baroness Blatch: My point is related to the noble Lord's. The Minister will be aware that today some very disturbing news has been announced about the dramatic increase in the number of young people in schools who are behaviourally disordered and resort to violence, for which there appears to be no answer. Teachers, especially those who have to deal with older and physically stronger secondary school children, feel unprotected. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right that it is depressing to know that that kind of disruptive and sometimes violent behaviour is now a feature of our primary schools.
I should like to pose a question to the Minister. We are now almost at the end of the school summer term. As I understand it, a large number of county councils do not presently have full-time education places to offer all the young people who have been excluded. That now is a pledge—nay, even a guarantee—that by the first day of term early in September full-time education will be made available, either in pupil referral units, in learning support units and/or in other forms of provision, for every excluded child, a pledge which many councils cannot at this time honour. That
908
will happen in a matter of weeks. Will the Minister therefore say how that can be achieved in the time remaining between now and the beginning of the new term?
Lord Northbourne: Having been a governor of a school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and having provided for their holidays over a number of years, I support this amendment. Not enough is being done by the Government to understand the terrifying reality of these children's problems. Without additional resources, it is unhelpful to place those children in mainstream schools. All they do is damage the mainstream schools. With resources, it may be possible to bring them along in mainstream schools in such a way that they do not need extremely expensive special provision later.
Lord Lucas: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. However, I do not agree with the amendment. It would not be right for schools to play ping-pong with children. If schools have disputes with local education authorities about the level of provision, they should take up those disputes with the local education authorities and not seek to deprive children of an education while they are resolved.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I, too, should like to seek some clarification from the Minister in her response. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the worrying rise in the number of exclusions that have taken place. Some surprisingly young children have very difficult emotional and behavioural problems, with which teachers find it extraordinarily difficult to cope. Many of those children are excluded from other schools and then allocated to new schools. However, if resources are not in place to cope with those difficulties, they become excluded again, which does them no good whatever. If a head teacher perceives that she and her staff do not have the resources to cope with such children, that poses very real problems. It also raises the question whether admitting children into a school at that point, rather than being able to cope with them, does more harm. I am not sure that on such occasions admissions authorities will be able to help.
Lord Dearing: If I may comment briefly, first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that ping-pong should not be played with children. Secondly, referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the issue of resources is immensely important, and the resources are not there. I know how long it takes to get a client statemented, and I suspect that that is linked to the inadequacy of resources for handling these children. It is a growing problem throughout the educational system. The funding of education was one of the crying needs for action highlighted by the Local Government Association. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, the Government must face up to the fundamental problem. If these children are to be placed in normal schools, the schools must be funded properly to cope with them and to give them a good education.
5 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I listened this morning to the Secretary of State for Education speaking on a radio programme about the increase in the number of expulsions. She was not able to reveal the figures at the time, but she made great play of the fact that the situation had changed since 1997 in that there were far more referral units to which expelled children might be sent. Can the Minister give the Committee some detail on the number of expelled children who would be attending referral units? For example, would this option be available to all, or only some of them? Can the noble Baroness say how extensive such units are? Further, can she tell us how many of those excluded children would fall into the category covered by the amendment?
Baroness Andrews: I intervene to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I am well aware of the situation, working, as I do, with many schools. I should declare an interest as the director of a national education charity. One of the most effective ways of dealing with disturbed children and those who are prone to violence and general disaffection has emerged through the provision of learning mentors, classroom assistants, and learning support assistants. They are increasing in number, especially in primary schools, and are able to give the sort of individual attention to which these children respond. Indeed, we shall discuss later a similar amendment relating to children leaving care.
The support that an individual learning classroom assistant can provide is absolutely vital. Indeed, I have seen the difference that it can make to "school-phobic" children and those whose parents fail to support them. We know that there is a major problem regarding parents who collude in truancy. These assistants are incredibly effective people in primary schools—often very motherly. As I said, the numbers are increasing, though clearly we do not have enough of them; otherwise we would not be in the present position. When searching for individual attention for many of these children both in and out of school, pupil referral units are a last resort choice.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the noble Baroness's point, and I know that schools have welcomed the provision of the 20,000 additional classroom assistants. However, during the period that they have been working in the classroom, the number of permanent exclusions has risen by 11 per cent. There are now more children being excluded than previously. The teachers' unions have drawn attention to the demand on the teacher in the classroom and the disruption to the education of the other children. The unions accept that those exclusions are justified; but, equally, the National Union of Teachers—this links very well with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—argues that:
"Government must make sure that schools receive the staffing, support and training which is necessary to tackle unacceptable pupil behaviour and that those who are excluded receive the education their needs demand, whether in units or special schools".
910
It is a fundamental question. We all know that there is a distinction between wilful naughtiness and disturbed behaviour that arises from other difficulties, such as social or mental problems. Nevertheless, it is a very practical issue for teachers in the classroom.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the Committee for responding too early to the noble Baroness's amendment. I recognise that we have some later amendments that are based specifically around the area of exclusions. I shall attempt to give noble Lords some of the answers, but, obviously, I shall welcome the opportunity to talk in more detail, if appropriate, at a later point.
It may be useful for me to explain something about the figures that were released this morning, so as to give Members of the Committee an understanding of what is interesting about them, beyond the headlines. There have been an estimated 9,210 permanent exclusions. The word "estimated" is used in these cases, because we still have to confirm some final details with a few LEAs. It is worth comparing them with two figures: in 1996–97, the figure was 12,700; and, last year, the figure was 8,323. Of the latter, noble Lords will probably find most worrying the fact that there has been an increase of around 19 per cent within primary schools, while figures for secondary schools revealed an increase of 10 per cent.
However, I should draw noble Lords' attention to the decrease of 11 per cent in exclusions in special schools. Noble Lords have often described their concern that children with special educational needs were six-times, or possibly seven-times, more likely to be excluded. However, the figure in respect of statemented children with special educational needs appears to have dropped, as they are now three-times more likely to be excluded. I accept that that is still not on the right side of the equation, but it is an interesting figure. We are thinking most carefully about what that development is really telling us. I also note that the figure for black Caribbean exclusions is down from 46 in every 10,000 to 38 in every 10,000. I hope that those improvements have arisen as a result of new government policy, but I wish to study the situation to see what is happening.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Lucas. We must be most careful about ping-ponging children. Although I paraphrase it, the thrust of this amendment is that some decision would have to be taken about a child's suitability before he or she had even got into the school. That is not the direction in which we want to see education move in this country. However, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said about resources. That is an important consideration. We have put £178 million into schools specifically to cover issues arising from behavioural problems. I am the first to say that there is more to be done, but we want to achieve that within a context of an inclusive system in which such children at least get a chance to get through the door of a school, and the chance to prove

911
themselves. Therefore, such resources must be made available to enable schools to work with those children.
There are 331 pupil referral units at present. They form a very important part of a strategy that is about guaranteeing full-time education. We are working closely with every local education authority. We expect the pledges to be met. There will be full-time education for every excluded child from the beginning of September—a policy of which I am deeply proud. Before we took this route, children who were permanently excluded were often excluded on to the streets. That is an unsatisfactory position from any perspective. We are now ensuring that every child receives full-time education. That is our intention. We are working closely with LEAs in order to achieve that aim. It is not an easy task—indeed, no one would say that it is—but we want to ensure that we complete it.
Of the children who are excluded, roughly 50 per cent will be in pupil referral units, while others will be placed back in other schools. Sometimes exclusion from one school can lead to reinstatement at a different school. With some support that can make a difference. However, sometimes it is time for the child to move on. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will be aware, there are also learning support units within schools, which attempt to ensure that children do not end up on the road to exclusion. They focus quite heavily on children with challenging behaviour, and behavioural problems.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was really searching for early identification. I could not agree more with him. It is very important that our health, education, and social care services work very closely together with our youngest children right the way through the schooling process to ensure that we identify those who have special educational needs, which are often the reason for such behaviour. We must ensure that we give those children and their families the support that they need.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, talked about EBD schools. I have been talking to some of the head teachers who are working with children with emotional and behavioural problems. It is interesting that those heads see themselves as part of the continuum of education for such children. The success criteria often used—namely, "How many children can we put back into the mainstream?", or "How many children can we claim as a success?"—will not apply to every child. I want to ensure that the expertise within those schools is made more available to our education system in the broadest possible sense. I am, therefore, considering how those special schools can work more closely with mainstream schools by offering their expertise and experience to our teachers.
In the light of my full explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister for her extended reply to my amendment, and to all the queries that we subsequently raised.
912
Serious problems still remain in this area. On such an occasion as this, it is not a question of the child being excluded; it is a question of a child having been excluded from one school on grounds of emotional and disturbed behaviour being allocated to another school where the head teacher genuinely feels that the school does not have the necessary resources to cope with the situation. It does not do the child any good to go into another school, only to be excluded again.
There are some real problems to solve. As the Minister said, it is a question of adequate resources being available; and, indeed, of being able to obtain the services of a teaching assistant. I take very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that many of these children are lacking tender loving care. That is what they are looking for. They need someone to give it to them and to provide them with stability in the school.
Perhaps we shall return to this matter on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rixmoved Amendment No. 204:
Page 134, line 14, at end insert—
"(8) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
"(10) "Ability" and "aptitude" shall be interpreted to include among selected children those children with special educational needs who require additional support in displaying and developing the relevant ability and aptitude.""
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 204 which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. It is somewhat surprisingly grouped with Amendment No. 204A which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Listowel. My amendment is about children with special educational needs and/or disability, while his is concerned with children in care. This clearly, in theatrical terms, is a double booking, for both are fighting for the same page and the same line. Surely, there is room for both.
Last year the Special Education Needs and Disability Act fulfilled many of our ambitions for pupils with special educational needs and disabled children. The emphasis was on education in mainstream settings, while carefully preserving the special school option for those children for whom this is the better option.
I fear that the important changes secured during the passage of that Act, which makes discrimination in schools illegal, could be threatened by admission arrangements that extend the scope for selection. Many tests by aptitude are indistinguishable from tests of ability. The Sheffield Hallam research, to which the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, have already alluded in a previous debate, also raises concerns about the nature of the tests used to determine aptitude in selection arrangements for specialist schools.

913
Some of the tests are very close indeed to tests of general ability. The study states that some of the criteria used are,
"diverse, largely unaccountable and sometimes obscure".
Examples of this include:
"Chosen by the Governors as likely to contribute to the life of the school".
Clearly, any such criterion might well disadvantage children with special educational needs, who may not be the governors' natural first choice. I find the reassurance by the Government that only a small percentage of specialist schools do use aptitude tests to select pupils is not enough to dissuade me from pursuing this amendment.
I have a further concern. The ability to select should not lead to the concentration of children with special needs in non-selective schools which are less esteemed and less well resourced. The other concern is that children with special needs who could benefit from a specialist education should not be denied that education because they require extra resources to fulfil their potential.
If the Minister wishes to offer assurances rather than legislation, I shall of course listen carefully to what she has to say, but, as an actor who lost his trousers on many occasions with comparative ease, I would prefer the belt and braces of regulatory security rather than a bland reassurance that they will not end up around my ankles again. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I support the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I do not know whether I approach it from the right angle, but there are many young people with special educational needs who, with support, can compete and sometimes even surpass their counterparts in mainstream education. For example, when young people go to university there is a raft of available facilities—readers, technology that assists people, walkers, physical adaptations, or whatever. Believing in opportunity for all means that, where the needs of someone with special needs can be met so they stand on a par with those who have been selected by ability and/or aptitude, the door should be open for them. I hope that the noble Lord accepts my angle, but I do believe in the thrust of the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I speak to Amendment No. 204A which stands in my name. It seeks to ensure that local education authorities can place a child in public care in a particular local maintained school. Local education authorities already have a similar power for children with special educational needs.
Admission forums have many attractions. I welcome the Minister's assurance that they will contain a local authority representative. But the current situation for looked-after children is so poor that more is required.
The Minister may be concerned that a looked-after child imposed on a school is likely to become aware that he is unwelcome. She may be anxious that that
914
imposition will repeat the child's previous experience of rejection. I am assured, however, that this should not be the case. A responsible local education authority will discuss carefully the placement of a child with the proposed school. Identical arrangements for special educational needs children have not given rise to significant problems.
Local education authorities need this power to ensure that the better performing schools, sometimes over-subscribed by more than five to one, accept looked-after children.
The Minister may be concerned also about meeting a placement during the course of the school year. I point out that special educational needs children whose statements are being adjusted and are delayed on their entry, are currently accepted after the start of a school year. I am unaware of any problems arising from that matter. I am told that it is possible for the children of diplomats and senior politicians who arrive in an area in the course of a year to be found a place. It should not be difficult to make space for this relatively small number of children.
There should always be careful consideration and dialogue between school and local authority before a looked-after child is placed in school. Amendment No. 204A ensures that authorities and carers have the full attention of proposed schools.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I want to speak to both Amendments Nos. 204 and 204A. My name stands to Amendment No. 204 in support of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I echo very much his words. We shall return to this whole issue of aptitude versus ability when we debate city academies and entry into them. On this issue of children with special educational needs I endorse strongly what the noble Lord said about the need for such children to have access to the specialist facilities that are often available.
I also want to add support to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Looked-after children are in a special situation. They do not have parents to fight for them. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 is entitled "Parental preferences". One needs someone to fight for one. It is very important that these children's interests are looked to and that they are encouraged to take an interest in what they do. We should give them every chance.
Lord Swinfen: I support Amendment No. 204 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. One of the purposes of education is to turn out well-rounded and useful members of society. If we find that a child with special educational needs has an aptitude it should be encouraged and developed. That is particularly so for those with behavioural or emotional problems. Very often those children are very bright. It may well be that they are not being properly stretched. Therefore, if we can find something that interests them and where they can shine, they will take pride in themselves and develop properly and cease to be a nuisance to the country as a whole.
Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may briefly join the debate by offering two examples that exemplify what

915
the noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke about to express my approval of the amendment. First, years ago I supported a mathematics club in a special needs school in which some gifted young mathematicians invited children from a maintained school to share the maths games that they had developed. One benefit of that was to show children from the maintained school how bright and able were those young children with special needs. Secondly, I have seen the difference that handheld computers can make to severely handicapped children's access to the curriculum. They have phenomenal abilities—there is nothing wrong with their brainpower; the main difficulty is often their inability to handle a keyboard. We can and should provide such computers, but they come at a cost.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I, too, rise to support Amendment No. 204, moved by my noble friend Lord Rix, for the reasons that have already been advanced. For five years, I worked with children with special needs and one of the last children whom I taught was a young boy who was dying of cystic fibrosis. Many of the children with whom I worked during that period may have had physical disabilities, but they were, as has been said, bright children who just needed the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
An issue which always perturbed me and still worries me is that some selective schools that are highly esteemed for their academic achievement are some of the worst schools for making proper provision for those who have physical disabilities. That is a key question. If someone is in a wheelchair or has other difficulties with mobility, it becomes impossible to go to some schools where proper provision has not been made for access and so on. I realise that the law has changed in a positive way—I welcome the most recent changes. Nevertheless, we must still encourage such schools to realise that beyond the disability often lies a person of enormous talent. Everything that we can possibly do should be done to encourage such children to fulfil their potential.
I remember when I was in another place being profoundly affected by a young woman whom II met who had been told that she would be dead by her teens. She was then in her late twenties. She had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She had a classics degree; she had presented the "Same Difference" television programme; she had written poetry; and she was able in every sphere of her life. When I attended her funeral in Bristol, the place was overflowing its capacity with all the people who had so valued and appreciated the contribution that she had made to their lives. From all that has been said, we understand the importance of the point made by my noble friend Lord Rix. I hope that we can go beyond assurances to legislation.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed. It is not a case of going beyond assurances; it is simply that we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I want to explain why we think it unnecessary—not that what is being asked for is not important.
916
Current legislation already provides children with special educational needs with the protection sought through the amendment. The school admissions code of practice advises that, as far as possible, any arrangements for testing ability or aptitude should be accessible to children with special educational needs and gives examples of how that might be achieved. It also makes clear that children with special educational needs but no statement should be treated as fairly under a school's admission criteria, including its oversubscription criteria, as other applicants.
Where children with special educational needs, but for whom statements are not maintained, fulfil the criteria to be admitted to a selective maintained school, the school is under a duty under Section 317 of the Education Act 1996 to use its best endeavours to make the provision for which their learning difficulties call. That may include support for any particular aptitudes and abilities that such children may have. The SEN code of practice, to which all maintained schools, including selective schools, must have regard gives guidance on identifying and meeting children's special educational needs.
I agree with what Members of the Committee have said: children with special educational needs can have the same range of ability as those who do not have special educational needs. As I would expect, the Committee is fully aware of that. Paragraph 8.83 of the SEN code states that local education authorities should not name a maintained school in a statement if the school is selective and the child does not meet the criteria for selection. But if a child with a statement meets those criteria and the school is named in the statement, the governing body will be under the duty imposed by Section 317 to make the provision for which the child's learning difficulties call.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically mentioned those with disabilities. From September, changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will make it unlawful for admission authorities to discriminate against disabled prospective pupils in the terms on which they offer to admit a child or by refusing admission. They will be under a new duty not to treat a disabled prospective pupil less favourably than they treat a non-disabled child, without justification, and to take reasonable steps to ensure that such children are not put at substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled.
Schools that operate a permitted form of selection will continue to be able to do so but they will be expected to make such reasonable adjustments to their selection arrangements as may be necessary to ensure that disabled prospective pupils are not substantially disadvantaged. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 204A. I have a great deal of sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment. I fully agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we should seek to protect that vulnerable group of children.

917
Of course, where a school is not oversubscribed it is in any case under a duty to comply with parental preference—in this case, the corporate parent's preference. Even if the school is full, the local education authority can decide to admit a child who is the subject of a care order to a community or voluntary-controlled school because it is the admission authority. Alternatively, it could direct the governing body of any foundation or voluntary-aided school to admit the child.
We are, however, aware of the particular needs and difficulties that children in public care and other vulnerable children may have. We will therefore attempt to assist their admission into popular schools in other ways. When we revise the admissions code of practice later in the year to reflect the Bill's changes, we intend—subject of course to consultation—to recommend to all admission authorities that they give looked-after and vulnerable children top priority in their over-subscription criteria and place them at the top of any waiting lists.
The Committee will be aware that we intend to prescribe in regulations for England that admissions forums must discuss the admission arrangements for vulnerable children, including children in public care. We shall shortly be consulting on proposed regulations that will give admission forums responsibility to consider the issues relating to children in public care and how to ensure that such children are placed in schools that meet their social, pastoral and academic needs by means of local protocols. We also propose through regulations to introduce a requirement that social services should normally be included as a member of the admissions forum and to explain in the admissions code that they should be in attendance for consideration of all aspects of sharing vulnerable children and in-year admissions. I hope that those steps meet the noble Earl's concerns.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before the Minister sits down, can she tell the Committee what happens now when a child subject to a care order is excluded from school? Is any special attention given to that child, bearing in mind that, as she acknowledges, such children are vulnerable and do not have parents but only the authority in loco parentis?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The reality is that the situation varies. Local education authorities, who are responsible through the local authority for corporate parenting, would act in loco parentis for those children. However, we know that the educational attainment of such children is extremely low. Although we have set targets, we admit that they are quite low. We want to ensure that we address the needs of such vulnerable children. I said that most of those children have been neglected or abused—that is why they are in public care—and many of them will have additional needs.
It is important that we consider the new arrangements to ensure that across the country, admissions forums take seriously such children and that we put in place a series of measures to ensure that
918
their educational, pastoral and social welfare is looked after. We know that education is crucial to such children, so we want to do as much as we can. What happens in some areas is better than in others, but the provisions are entirely designed to ensure that we seriously addressed the educational needs of such children.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their support for the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which she assured me that my amendment was not necessary. Unfortunately, I do not have the benefit of having a brief quoting all the Acts and guidance, as the Minister did. I shall, therefore, read what was said in Hansard tomorrow, consult my colleagues and decide whether to bring the amendment back on Report.
I heard the dread words "as far as possible". That seems to me to be the beginning of a cop-out. I am sure that the House will forgive we if I do not seek its view on this occasion. I shall consider the amendment in the light of Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204A and 205 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 206:
Page 134, line 25, leave out "by the governing body"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 are technical amendments. I shall speak to both.
An admissions authority need not, at present, comply with a parent's preference for a school for their child, if the child has been permanently excluded from two or more schools during a period of two years. As the Bill stands, the change made by paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 would have the effect that, in certain circumstances, a pupil ought not to be regarded as having been permanently excluded for the purposes of Section 87, even though a direction to reinstate the pupil concerned was not given. Typically, that would happen if the pupil would have been reinstated, had it been practical to do so. An obvious example would be the case of a child who is now too old to be reinstated in the original school.
In the Bill as drafted, that change will not apply to pupils excluded from a pupil referral unit, who would have been reinstated if it had been practical. The amendment will correct that position, so that the same provision applies to pupil referral units as to schools. The two amendments will extend the definition of "relevant authority" in the revised Section 87(4) to include the definition of a "responsible body" in Clause 49(5), so that those new provisions also apply to pupil referral units. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: If we remove the words "by the governing body" the clause simply says:
"a review of his exclusion".

919
By whom? I am not sure that the Minister covered that point.
I have another rather rhetorical and slightly cynical point to make. I cannot remember precisely when the Bill was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons, but I know that it has gone through all its stages there and has come this far in this House, and only now are we correcting that error. It is extraordinary that it has taken so long for us to discover it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The effect of removing the words would be as I described. It will make sure that "the relevant authority" referred to in revised Section 87(4) includes the definition of "responsible body".
The noble Baroness will know well that, when we are dealing with legislation, there will always be issues to which we will need to return. I apologise to the House that we need an amendment, but I am pleased that it will make sure that the position is clear in respect of children in our maintained schools and in the pupil referral units. On that basis, I hope that the House will forgive me for tabling the amendment and accept that it is necessary.
Baroness Blatch: I accept what the Minister has just said. However, my point was that it was not a matter of returning to the point; it has not actually been discussed since the Bill was produced on 4th December. We are correcting a part of the Bill, that relates to an issue that has not been discussed. It is not the case that we are returning to the issue; someone has discovered, very late, that there is a mistake in the Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I meant that the department would have to return to it, rather than Parliament. We discovered that we needed to correct it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 207:
Page 134, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
""the relevant authority" means—

(a) the responsible body as defined by subsection (5) of section 49 of the Education Act 2002, or

(b) a panel constituted in accordance with regulations under subsection (3)(c) of that section."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 208:
Page 135, line 43, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
"(1) Section 90 of the 1998 Act (reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), for "consulted by the admission authority under section 89(2)" there is substituted "who were, or would but for subsection (2A) of section 89 have been, required to be consulted by the admission authority under subsection (2) of that section".
(3) In subsection (2), paragraph (c) is omitted."
920
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would enable parents to refer to the adjudicator any objections about a school's admissions arrangements, if they believe them to be contrary to the interests of local children and parents. At present, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, admissions authorities—local education authorities for community schools and governing bodies for foundation and voluntary schools—are required to consult other admissions authorities in their area before finalising their admissions arrangements. The consultation is voluntary, but if any admissions authority—the LEA or the school—is of the view that it is disadvantaged by the arrangements, it has the right of appeal to the adjudicator.
Parents, however, have limited powers of appeal. A group of 10 or more parents may appeal, but only if the school concerned was partially academically selective prior to 1997. Paragraph 2.4 of the policy statement issued as the precursor to the new code of practice on admissions made it clear that the right to object would be extended to allow two or more parents to object to the number of pupils that a school proposed to admit. That does not extend to objections about admissions arrangements. The amendment would enable a group of parents to make such complaints.
Parents often realise that their children are disadvantaged by the admissions arrangements of local schools only when they make applications. By then, it is too late for appeals to have any effect before the opening of the following school year. Schedule 4 already proposes to extend the right to refer objections to the adjudicator to the governing bodies of community schools. Until now, they had to rely on the LEA to object on their behalf. Although that change is welcome, it does not go far enough.
The need for such a power is well illustrated by two recent cases. The first concerns the Prendergast School in south London, where parents had, since 1998, complained about the school's practice of interviewing applicants for places. As a foundation school, the school was its own admissions authority, but the code of practice on admissions made it clear that, although the school could decide whom to admit, interviewing, which can discriminate against less articulate pupils, was not to be encouraged. Nevertheless, although the school was aware that admission via interview was frowned upon, it continued to do it. Neither the LEA nor the schools in the vicinity raised a complaint with the adjudicator. Eventually, a group of parents complained to the local government ombudsman, who recently found in the parents' favour and against the LEA, on the grounds that the school's admissions practices were unfair and that the LEA had not done enough to ensure that the school complied with the Government's code of practice.
The second case concerns the Coopers' Company and Coborn School in Upminster. Again, some parents complained to the local government ombudsman that the LEA had not done enough to ensure that the governors followed the Government's code of practice on admissions. In both cases, if

921
parents had had the right to refer objections to the adjudicators, the breach of practice might have been discovered and put right earlier.
The amendment would not open the floodgates for objections from individual parents. Subsection (2)(b) would continue to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe which parents might refer objections. Currently, they must be parents of a child of compulsory school age receiving primary education. Subsection (9)(a) would continue to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the conditions to be satisfied before an objection could be referred by parents. Currently, the regulations require that at least 10 parents are involved. Both conditions are reasonable, and we do not seek to change them. We seek to open up the opportunity for parents to make such objections. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Having spoken to my first amendment today, it will be no surprise that I seriously object to this amendment. I believe that it ascribes to the adjudicator powers which are not, and should not, be contained within the Act. It would give the adjudicator powers of investigation which I believe would be quite wrong. He would then acquire a bureaucracy and a back-up service that would duplicate the work of the Ombudsman. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, described a remedy that was available to aggrieved parents if a school was breaching the law.
I do not agree, but the law says that schools are not allowed to interview for admissions. If schools were found to be interviewing, and the governing body was not prepared to remedy the situation, the local education authority could step in. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that in some cases local education authorities turn a blind eye. However, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene and investigate whether the law is being broken by a particular school. Indeed, the Secretary of State also has powers to instruct the local authority to do something about a breach of the rules and regulations by an individual school.
All the remedies are there in law. I am sorry that schools do not have freedom to interview for admissions to their schools, but that is not the point of Amendment No. 208. The amendment is to invoke the procedures, including the adjudicator, and I strongly oppose that idea.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I have concerns about this amendment and I was intrigued by the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, gave to the Committee. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I am also worried about the issue of interview. I do not believe that there is an overwhelming case against schools having the right to conduct interviews—in fact, sometimes it can be fairer than some of the other methods that are used. These are issues that are best settled by common sense rather than by diktat. As the noble Baroness has said, if there is an unfairness there are now ways of remedying that.
922
My greater concern is not, therefore, about the specific cases which have been laid before the Committee, but that we can go so far down this road that we will actually encourage a process of complaint. We live in a blame culture and there will always be aggrieved people—whether it is by interview, by examination or by going to the head teachers of primary schools. Whatever system is used there will always be complaints about the way in which the system has worked. Although I believe that there are really deep concerns, there ought to be a mechanism, as there has been in the past, for resolving them.
I believe that to incite and encourage even more complaint will lead to even greater unhappiness. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment will solve the problem, although I recognise the sincerity with which it has been raised today. I suspect that it will only add to the sheer level of complaint and the number of people who do not like the decisions that have been made. Even though some people may not approve of it, we must decide locally on an admission's policy.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, this amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power under Section 92(c) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to prescribe the type of objection about admission arrangements which parents of a prescribed description may refer to the school's adjudicator.
The current situation is that under regulations parents in groups of 10 have the right to refer an objection to the adjudicator. However, those objections are restricted by the regulations to admission arrangements which make provision for partial selection and which have been in place continuously since before that legislation came into force. We gave parents that right because we believe that they should have the opportunity to make their views known when such partially selective arrangements are an issue. As noble Lords will know, we believe that it is up to parents to decide the future of selective admissions to existing grammar schools through a ballot and petition process.
We have considered whether we should extend parental objection rights further. We intend to do so by amending the regulations to enable parents of the prescribed description to object where an admission authority determines an admissions number which is lower than the one indicated by application of our new net capacity assessment formula. We believe that to be right, bearing in mind that standard numbers are to be abolished, together with the statutory process for changing them in which parents had a right to be heard.
However, there was not a great deal of support in our consultation in England for extending parental rights of objection beyond what we have proposed. We asked consultees whether they thought we should go further. Just under one third of respondents thought we should, and not all of those suggested going further in that particular respect. Existing legislation does

923
allow us the flexibility to extend parental objection rights further in the future if we consider it right to do so.
We are fully aware of the two cases of Prendergast and Coopers schools to which the noble Baroness referred. As regards interviews, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know, Church or boarding schools may interview as part of their admission's process—Church schools, of course, to assess religious commitment and boarding schools to assess suitability for boarding. That is a provision we would not want to see removed. Of course, in the case of the Coopers School the issues were about the use of interview. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, heard this, but in the case of the Prendergast School the local education authority was found guilty of maladministration.
We hope that the signal that has been sent out to local education authorities is a strong one. We want them to take seriously the issues concerning the questions with which they are dealing. Nominally, we believe that we should be able to rely on the rights of objection which admission authorities already have, and community and voluntary controls will, of course, be given by the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, parents are interested in the effects that admission arrangements have on their own child's chances. For example, it could be that one group of parents may want to object to the inclusion of criteria which are quite normal and acceptable, such as priority for siblings. Another parent group might object if that priority were removed.
As our consultation did not produce a strong call for an extension to parental rights, we have not yet been persuaded of the need to give parents additional rights of objection other than those relating to admission numbers, to which I have already referred. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am unhappy in the sense that I do not know precisely what the consultation processes were. Of course, questions in a consultation document can actually steer the answer to that and it may be that parents were not actually given the opportunity explicitly to answer the question. It does seem that there is an asymmetry at the moment between the rights of parents in the sense that they have the right to object on number, but not actually to object on admissions arrangements. It seems rather unsatisfactory that they have to go through the longwinded process of going to the local government ombudsman. I agree that one hopes that this will send out a clear message to schools such as Prendergast which were contravening the regulations.
I will do further homework on this issue, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 211:
Page 139, line 3, at end insert—
"Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991
13A In section 3 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (1991 No. 2) (transactions for which advice or consent of Board is required), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
"(cc) consulting under section 89(2) of that Act about proposed admission arrangements for any school year;"."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 211 and to debate Amendment No. 246 also in my name. The two amendments relate to the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 and have been agreed with the Church of England. Starting with Amendment No. 211, Section 89 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires admission authorities for schools to consult on their proposed admission arrangements for the following academic year. They must consult with all other admission authorities, including local education authorities, within a specified relevant area. They must take into account any representations made when reaching a final determination of their admission's policy.
Many governing bodies voluntarily consult the diocesan board but that is not a statutory requirement. Therefore, there is no formal mechanism for ensuring that a school has a say in admission to its schools. The General Synod Board of Education has asked the Government to amend the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 so that diocesan authorities can have greater influence in local decisions about admission arrangements for Church of England schools. By requiring governing bodies of these schools to consult with diocesan boards of education and to have regard to their advice, we can provide the Church with a means to encourage schools to fulfil their commitment to have more inclusive schools. I hope therefore that Members of the Committee will accept the amendment, which is supported by both the Church of England and the Government.
I turn to Amendment No. 246. I want to begin by acknowledging and welcoming the support of the Church of England for the academy's programme. The Greig Academy in Haringey, one of the first opening this September, is sponsored by a Church of England trust and by the London diocese. The diocesan authorities for Leeds and Liverpool are involved in plans for a Church of England and ecumenical academy respectively in those local education authorities.
My noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard, who is not in his place, was kind enough to refer to the plans in Liverpool during his speech on Second Reading of this Education Bill. The Government have already provided in the Bill for Church of England academies to be added to the categories of schools which can benefit from funds held in uniform statutory

925
trusts; a type of trust which holds the proceeds of sale of closed Church schools and allows for them to be used for other Church schools.
We are now bringing forward the amendment in response to a request from the Church of England. The Church has asked that the remit of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure should be extended to academies with links to the Church of England. The DBEM gives diocesan authorities rights to advise, issue certain directions to and be consulted by Church of England schools. In practice, and for academies, that will mean under Section 2 of the DBEM the relevant diocesan board will be able to advise the governors of Church of England academies on any matter and promote Church of England academies within their area.
Under Section 3, the governing body of a Church of England academy would need to seek the advice of a diocesan board and have regard to that advice before disposing of any part of its premises. The trustees of a Church educational endowment held wholly or partly in connection with a Church of England academy would need to obtain the advice of a diocesan board and have regard to that advice before altering the purposes for which the endowment might be used. Where a diocesan board was satisfied that the trustees of any Church educational endowment held wholly for a Church of England academy was using the endowment in a way that was not in the best interests of the school, or the trustees were failing to discharge their functions, the board would have the power to direct the trustees on how to act and the trustees would have to comply.
I commend the amendment to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: It would be a great service to me and to the Committee if the Minister were to read the order as it will be amended. The order as it is available from the Printed Paper Office is completely incompatible with the amendment because, apparently, it has been amended so many times subsequently. While the Box has been extremely helpful to me, I do not have a copy with me and the amendment as it appears makes no sense as against the papers we are examining. If the Minister could say how the diocesan order will now read, that would be a great service to me and to other Members of the Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: While that is being done, I rise to thank the Minister for her courtesy and to declare an interest as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. I was also the Bishop who steered the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure through the Synod and came to give evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament all those years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right in saying that the Measure has been amended to meet developing changes and circumstances in education, as the past 10 or 11 years have rolled by.
Amendment No. 211 is most important because it brings forward the fact that our Church of England schools are part of a family. Some of our earlier
926
debates on "exclusive" and "distinctive" and so forth are greatly affected by that. Those Members of the Committee who were privileged to read last week's Times Educational Supplement will have seen a serious letter from the headmaster of a school in Bolton. He seriously disagrees with the policy of the board of education and has been trying to drive a wedge between its officer and myself as chairman, which is quite unworthy of the issue. The fact remains that we want governing bodies of Church of England schools to take account of the diocesan policy. I am therefore most grateful to the Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 211.
Amendment No. 246 is a way of helping exciting developments to take place and ensuring the Church's continuing interest in the academy as it is. However, it also ensures that should the academy fail the rightful assets of the Church are returned for educational purposes, as though it were any other Church of England educational trust.
There are exciting developments to which the Minister referred, not least in Liverpool where the proposal for a joint Anglican/Roman Catholic academy is far advanced. But throughout the country, through the auspices of diocesan boards of education and other Church sponsored bodies such as the Church Schools Trust, interesting developments are coming forward. I am grateful that Amendment No. 246 will enable those to go forward with an underlying sense of the interests of the Church as the providing body to be preserved.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I hope that it will help the right reverend Prelate to know that, following the correspondence he referred to in the Times Educational Supplement, I spoke today with a group of teachers from Church schools. They had seen that correspondence and wholeheartedly supported the position taken by the right reverend Prelate during our Committee proceedings. I have personally supported the position and have associated my name with a number of the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate in relation to these issues.
I was pleased that, like the Minister, he mentioned the initiative in Liverpool. I have been involved with that and have supported it and I pay great tribute to Bishop James Jones who spearheaded that initiative in the city. During the 30 years since I was first elected to Liverpool City Council, I have been privileged to see such a terrific change in the relationship between the different denominations. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is also aware of the relationships developed between her noble friend, the right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, its former Bishop, and the late Archbishop of Liverpool, Derek Warlock. That has flowered in the continuing relationships between the leaders of the Churches, including the Moderator of the Free Churches and perhaps more importantly on the ground in a city which was once caricatured for sectarianism.
As recently as the 1950s, the two Bishops refused even to say the Lord's Prayer with one another because they did not recognise each other's orders. We have

927
had our Orange Day marches to celebrate the crossing of the Boyne and the St Patrick's Day marches, too. Although some of the city's past has been disfigured by sectarianism, it is a model for the future and shows how far we have come and that it is possible for the Anglican and Catholic communities in that city to work closely together on education issues. Yes, differences will remain but that is not the point. Where people can stand together they should,
I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for the way in which she has dealt with these issues throughout the proceedings of our Bill. It should not turn into a mutual admiration society and I am sure that it will not, but occasionally Ministers are entitled to be told how well they have done. I have frequently encountered Ministers who can be difficult or obdurate and who knock down any reasonable amendment simply because it was not one of their own Members who put it forward. I have noticed in the way in which the Minister has dealt with these sensitive questions throughout our proceedings a real willingness to involve all those who are affected by them and to try and find a rational and sensible way forward. This amendment provides an opportunity for putting that on the record.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to welcome any development in the academy programme. They are city technology colleges in all but name. They have been most successful and, although during our previous debate the noble Baroness said rather dismissively that she hoped there would be no more of them, there are to be more of them and with the Government's blessing. I welcome that.
I particularly welcome the Church's involvement with that, and even more particularly welcome the way in which the Anglican and Catholic Churches are working together. Indeed, they have worked together before, but in the academy's programme that is particularly welcomed.
Furthermore, I welcome the advent of the academy in Liverpool because it ought to have benefited from the first tranche of city technology colleges. Sadly, it did not although the area was right for such experimentation at that time. It is late in the day but I welcome it.
I want to make two technical points. The first is to support my noble friend Lord Lucas, because reading the orders is most important. Although the legalese is complex and defeats most of us, they must make sense and I am not convinced at this stage that they do. Therefore, my noble friend with his eagle eye has made a valuable intervention which in a technical sense needs to be answered.
My other question is purely technical and relates to Amendment No. 246. My understanding is that when a third party, whether the Church or a private commercial venture, enters into an agreement to establish an academy, usually the ratio of the third party contribution to the Government's contribution is a relatively small one: in some of the academies it may be a £2 million capital grant, against many more
928
millions put in by the Government. If at some future date the premises are disposed of, are the Government saying that all of the Government's input, together with the relatively small input of the third party—in this case the Churches—would fall to the Church of England?
6 p.m.
Lord Dearing: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, prick my conscience. I am conscious that when the Minister rises to respond, she stands so frequently alone. Looking at the Benches behind her, I cannot recall many occasions when there has been overwhelming support—with notable exceptions, of course, including the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as he indicates.
I am grateful to the Minister for the first of the two amendments. I was involved in a report about the way ahead for Church of England schools in which my committee was concerned to endorse the principle of inclusiveness. We recommended in the report that all dioceses should adopt the policy, already employed by many dioceses, of offering guidance to schools on their admissions policy. This was against a background of encouraging greater inclusiveness in those schools where the policy was to admit Church of England pupils only—such schools are a small minority.
I have been much heartened by the line taken on this matter by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the House of Bishops. The adoption of this amendment will help to encourage inclusiveness policies throughout Church schools.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Bishops in Liverpool. This is a triumph. The Church of England Synod, in its discussion of the report on the way ahead, specifically and strongly advocated an ecumenical policy—and here we have it, as a flagship. I hope that it will serve as an example to many.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was nearly overwhelmed for a moment. I, too, want to pay tribute to all that happens in Liverpool. I was involved in 1975 in the World Council of Churches events that took place. They were truly ecumenical; they were something of a novelty at the time and recognised fully the work of the two Bishops who became synonymous with Liverpool and with unity. I should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the part that he has played.
Perhaps I may quote from Section 3 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991, and then state where the amendment fits in. I hope that that will help the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The section deals with transactions for which advice or consent of the board is required. It reads as follows:
"(1) The governing body of any church school, and the trustees of any church educational endowment held wholly or partly for or in connection with any church school shall obtain the advice of the Board for the diocese in which the school is situated and shall have regard to that advice before—
"(a) publishing proposals for any prescribed alteration to the school under section 28(2)(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;

929
"(b) publishing proposals for the discontinuance of the school under section 29(2) of that Act;
"(c) serving notice of an intention to discontinue the school under section 30(1) of that Act".
The amendment would insert a further paragraph:
"(cc) consulting after section 89(2) of that Act about proposed admission arrangements for any school year".
To return to the technical question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it was a very good technical question. I am afraid that I must write to the noble Baroness. I cannot answer it.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. There is no paragraph (a), (b) or (c) in the original 1991 Measure, so one can become totally lost trying to find where the amendment fits.
This is very much where I had hoped that we should end up. Schools will have to pay attention to what the diocese says and we can berate the Bishops, at least for a few years yet, if the diocese is not saying things that we like.
I am encouraged, too, by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which seemed to indicate without being specific that the Roman Catholic Church will follow along similar lines. I know that it has had its difficulties in the past with particular foundations which have not chosen to follow diocesan advice or indeed have said that diocesan advice is of no relevance to them at all. A few exceptions do not matter. What matters is that the broad thrust of religious education in this country is inclusive. I shall be delighted if this turns out to be the way it works in practice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 212:
Page 139, line 3, at end insert—
"Selection by aptitude
In section 99 of the 1998 Act (general restriction on selection by ability or aptitude) subsection (4)(b) is omitted.
Section 102 of the 1998 Act (permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to drop the provision now open to specialist schools to admit up to 10 per cent of their pupils on the basis of aptitude.
Section 102 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 allows the admission authority of schools with a specialism to give priority for up to 10 per cent of the pupils who can demonstrate an aptitude in the relevant subject. Current regulations allow selection in physical education and sport, the performing arts, visual arts, modern foreign languages and technology. The Government are now extending the range of specialisms to include maths, science and business and engineering specialisms.
Our objection to the ability to select by aptitude is threefold. First, it is unnecessary. Government-funded research undertaken by Dr Anne West and colleagues at the London School of Economics found that of the schools responding to their survey—namely, schools with a specialism—only 7 per cent were actually selecting by aptitude. In other words, in practice, very few schools use this facility. Indeed, when pressed about the legitimacy of such selection processes, the Government's usual response has been to say: "Very few schools do it, so why worry?". But it is very strange to justify legislation in such a way. It would be better by far to remove it from the statute book.
Secondly, there are real doubts about whether it is possible to distinguish testing for aptitude rather than ability. Professor Peter Mortimore, then director of the Institute of Education at London University, writing in the Guardian in 1998, declared that it was not possible to diagnose specific aptitudes for most curriculum subjects. Where it is used, it is more likely to be used by voluntary-aided and foundation schools. A Written Answer to a Question posed by Mr David Chaytor in another place on 5th March 2001 listing specialist schools operating as of that date showed that, of the 24 schools using the facility to select by aptitude, 19 were foundation or voluntary-aided schools. In most cases these schools set tests and/or interviewed pupils.
Tests and interviews of the type used in these circumstances do not widen choice—they give more choice to those few children (and their parents) who pass the test or interview, but for most children and parents it means that, whereas their local school used to take pupils from across the whole ability range, it is now restricted, and it is the school, not the parents and children, which is doing the choosing.
Thirdly, although little used at present, the substantial expansion in the number of specialist schools may lead to the process of selection becoming more commonly used. There is a domino effect: when one school in a neighbourhood starts setting an "aptitude test" to select 10 per cent of its intake, neighbouring schools feel obliged to follow suit. In many areas—my own area of Guildford is an example—all secondary schools will be specialist schools of one sort or another. Parents who in the past have been confident of a place on the grounds of nearness to a school put their children in for the test "just in case", with the result that more and more children—on top of their year seven SATs—now face entry tests for secondary school, with all the worries and, if they fail, the perception of failure that this entails. Is this really what the Government want?
To return to my first point, at present so few schools test by aptitude that this is an unnecessary procedure. We should like to see it removed from the statute. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This really is high politics. We are returning to what I have always regarded as the politics of envy. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, speaks against the background of a very recent press release

931
from Mr Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrats' lead education spokesman in another place. The press release states:
"Let me make clear my opposition to selection in whatever form it takes. By ability. By aptitude. By specialism or by faith".
That is the background against which she speaks.
I profoundly believe that education should educate children so as to match their aptitude and abilities as closely as possible. As the Minister herself has argued, the "one size fits all" approach certainly does not work and we need different types of school for different children.
There is already a great deal of selection. Parents select school by moving house—to an area where there is a school that they would like their children to attend—but that option is not available to those who cannot afford to move. There are tests and entrance examinations for young people seeking to enter dance schools, drama schools, language schools and schools specialising in science and technology. There are arrangements for young people wishing to do particular courses after 16. Some young people present themselves for a particular course at a further education college, but, sometimes, when their aptitude and/or ability is tested, they are counselled that they are perhaps over-reaching themselves or seeking to join the wrong course for their particular aptitude and abilities. Although the colleges may not be able to stop young people taking those courses, they nevertheless try to counsel them in a manner that accords with their best interests. Aptitude and ability are tested also in colleges and universities.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We are saying in this amendment that we are against testing for aptitude at 11, not 16 or pre-university. We accept that it is possible to set tests to measure aptitude at those ages, but we do not think it feasible to do it at 11.
Baroness Blatch: I really would like the noble Baroness to attend some of these schools to see just how successful they are. I am pleased to support the Government in their policy objective of expanding the number of specialist schools. They want more children to have the choice. They want more and more children to receive an education that matches their needs, aptitudes and abilities as closely as possible.
As I was about to say before the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I do not want to get into the issue of the difference between ability and aptitude. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who preceded the Minister in her role as education Minister in this House, never succeeded in distinguishing ability from aptitude, and I do not want to get into those semantics. I know that someone with an aptitude for science and technology usually has to have an ability in relation to the same. Equally, those with an ability to be proficient in dancing, drama and/or music usually also have an aptitude for them. It is an arcane argument that I do not wish to enter.
I really do believe in opening up the education system and selecting children. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that even some special schools
932
select children. Some pupil referral units select children. It seems absurd to say that selection should cease regardless of whether it is on the basis of ability, aptitude, specialism and/or faith.
Perhaps I am remiss in not familiarising myself with Section 99 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. However, given that legislation and the Government's programme for city technology colleges, city academies, specialist schools and even their bursaries for dance and music schools, I cannot see them accepting this amendment. Nevertheless, if they were to accept it, my understanding is that that would be the end of grammar schools, specialist schools and city academies, all of which are comprehensive in every sense of the word. By law, under a band system, they have to accept pupils across the ability range. Consequently, if the amendment were passed, many young people could be disappointed. This is a mean-spirited amendment and I hope that it will not be accepted.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because she has done a better job than I could possibly do in stating everything that I disagree with in education. I am rather shocked that the Conservative Party, of which she is an official spokesman, has gone back that many years in defending selection, secondary modern schools and all the things that we have spent most of our lives trying to get rid of.
Baroness Blatch: I did not go very far back. City technology colleges, city academies, specialist schools, the remaining grammar schools and the introduction of 10 per cent selection at many of cur schools are all current policy, not only of the recent Conservative government, five and a bit years ago, but of the current Government of whom the noble Lord is a member.
Lord Peston: I am not a member of the Government. That may be to the Government's loss, but perhaps I may make the famous remark, "I am not and never have been a member of the Government". I was speaking for myself. I was saying that the noble Baroness has outlined everything that I have spent my whole life in education opposing. I should add, just to rub the point in, that the sooner we get rid of the grammar schools, the better it will be for the education system of this country. The same applies to specialist schools and so on. I am opposed to selection, which is disastrous for our education and for the education of all of our children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the politics of envy. However, people like me who are incredibly clever do not have to be envious of any of these things at all, because we were the ones of whom everyone was envious. We got everything. We had to grow up and mature—I certainly did—to know that, apart from everything else, that was morally wrong. As I have said before to your Lordships, in the grammar school I attended, we were divided from the moment we arrived. Everyone thought it was a great triumph to

933
get past the 11-plus, but, before one looked round, some of us were in the A form and quite a few were in the D form. It is that that some of us have fought all our lives to try to take out of our education system.
On the aptitude/ability theme, I know that my noble friend the Minister has previously tried to explain the distinction, and I am sure that she will try to explain it again today. The research evidence is overwhelming that aptitude measured in a narrow sphere and ability measured in a broad sphere are enormously highly correlated. As those of us who remember the 11-plus will recall, we had a test that tested our aptitude in mathematics and our aptitude in English. The idea that it was a measure of general ability was simply the view of people like Sir Cyril Burt, who probably did more damage to the education system of this country than anyone else we can think of. The idea was that these measures of aptitude were measures of general ability. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is entirely right.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the Government have gone down this path. However, that does not mean that I personally have to accept it. I think that, one day, we shall realise what an error that was. I regard all the other forms of selection she mentioned as equally bad. I am therefore particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, as I was wondering when I would get an opportunity to make a pro-comprehensive speech today. Until the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke, I did not realise that this debate would give me that opportunity. Some of us ought to go on record as saying that we believe in what we have always believed in. Sometimes we may deviate from that but we at least like to believe—I say to the right reverend Prelate that this may be a matter of faith rather than anything else—that one day the education system of this country will revert to what it should be.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Lord mystified me in an earlier debate when he appeared to vent his feelings so strongly against selection for particular kinds of schools. But in his latest contribution he accepted the fact that, as soon as a child enters the secondary phase, selection automatically takes place. The noble Lord referred to his own experience of selection. How on earth can one not have selection in schools by way of streaming or some children being more interested in a particular group of subjects than others—for example, the sciences or the arts? That surely is inevitable. Irrespective of whether an outside authority does the selection or a head teacher, the child himself will select.
Lord Peston: I referred to the grammar school I attended. I pointed out that it was selective before one got there and became even more selective once one was inside. My experience of comprehensive schools—I refer, for example, to the schools that my children attended—is that their philosophy is different. Their philosophy is that every child can be taught and that the role of the teacher is to bring out the best in every
934
child being taught in the school and not to say, "Some children are capable of being educated but others are not".
All children are worthy. To go back to the politics of envy phenomenon, clever young people, as I was, have to be told, "So what? You are just a person like everyone else in the school. You do not deserve more resources. You do not deserve more attention". I am totally committed to that philosophy. I am not saying that some children do not work harder than others or that teachers do not have their favourite pupils. As my daughter, who teaches non-literate young people has discovered, it is certainly easier to teach someone who is literate. It is much easier to teach someone who is already "OK". However, our task is to regard every young person as worthy of an education.
Some of us may not have aptitudes in certain areas. I have no aptitude for drawing. It did me the world of good to be made to look completely incompetent in that field. The teacher tried to get me to understand perspective. I understood it mathematically but I could not understand how to incorporate it in drawing. The noble Baroness is entirely right to say that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy between us on this matter. She has given us the opportunity to make clear which of us believe in what. I am totally indebted to her for that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord. Lord Peston, for his support. At one point I felt somewhat isolated in the Chamber. I reiterate the point that we are here talking about selection at the age of 11. The Government's campaign of having more specialist schools has been successful. However, I believe that it has been successful as the route of becoming a specialist school has brought more money into those schools. It brings an extra half a million pounds of funding into any secondary school. That has been the main driving force behind it. We do not deny that that money has helped to improve performance. In this country we spend on average £2,500 per secondary school pupil. Private schools spend £6,000 plus per pupil. If we could spend an extra £500 per secondary school pupil, that would make a difference to results. The reason schools want to go the specialist route is to gain those resources.
I agreed with the Minister's comment that it is good for schools to feel that they have something to shout about. That makes them proud and gives them an ethos. Nevertheless, why select? I come back to the point at which we started. One cannot select someone satisfactorily at the age of 11 according to aptitude or ability. The important point about the comprehensive principle is that it holds open the doors so that pupils can display their capabilities and develop them. We know that children develop at different rates. Some are early developers but some are late developers. It is vitally important to hold open the doors and to give them the chance to develop. That is what the comprehensive system is about. That is why we on these Benches support it.
Baroness Blatch: This is an interesting and rather important debate. However, I say to the noble

935
Baroness, Lady Sharp, that one can select at the age of 11 and it does work. One can see examples of that around the country. As this debate will be read by people outside the Chamber, I ask the noble Baroness whether it is her party's proposition that all selection should end and that all specialist schools, all city academies, all academies, all city technology colleges and all grammar schools should be converted to comprehensive schools? Is that what the noble Baroness argues for—an end to selection and a one size fits all schools?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I answer that by saying that as a party we believe in devolution of responsibilities. Although as a party we are committed to comprehensive education, we acknowledge that local authorities have traditionally run education in this country. We believe in a regime—which this Government and the previous government, if I might say so, have done their best to ditch—of diversity and pluralism in government. Local authorities have an important role to play and, given that education is one of their responsibilities, it is up to them to make their own decisions on this matter. In this vein, we acknowledge that the boroughs of Kingston and Sutton prefer to keep their grammar schools.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has introduced an interesting confused note into the debate. We ought to act with some humility in this Chamber. We are enormously privileged to belong to it. We are increasingly privileged still—unless the impending reforms of this place change that—to be party to making legislation. If the noble Baroness believes in devolution of responsibilities, she should not in her position as a maker of legislation cut off the opportunity to allow people to make decisions at a local level on whether they want to keep selection. The amendment of the noble Baroness states that we in this Chamber decree that there will be no selection by ability. However, at the same time the noble Baroness is trying to argue that her party believes in devolution of responsibilities and that people should make their own decisions at the local level.
Lord Dearing: I do not argue from principles. As a long-standing civil servant, by definition I have no principles. I am a pragmatist. I do respect the principles expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. However, if I have a principle, it is that of responding to the individual child. If all our schools could respond to all our children according to their needs, I should walk warmly with the amendment. However, in a society where we cannot equip all our schools to offer excellent facilities and teaching to all children according to their aptitudes—and I believe that we are not such a society—and are able to provide excellent facilities only on a limited scale, we should seek to accommodate a child who has a distinctive talent.
It is said that Mr Beckham has the most talented right foot in the world but I am not aware that he is equally talented in other areas. I would be anxious to
936
give a young Beckham the opportunity to develop his talents. A child may be a talented musician. Last night I listened to and watched the Young Musician of the Year competition. A child of 12 won the strings section of the competition. That child was remarkable. All the competitors were remarkable; they were all extraordinarily talented. That talent should be nourished in schools that have special facilities.
I refer to mathematics. I remember sitting at the feet of a professor at the university I attended—a less distinguished one than the LSE. He described exceptional ability in mathematics as "spooky". I knew that I did not have that spooky ability, but some people are especially talented.
If we are saying that we cannot afford to equip all of our schools with first-class engineering, IT or music departments, and if we are saying that we seek in Guildford, for example, to ensure that all schools there have specialist school status in some area or other and that they were complementary, and if we say that we should reserve only 10 per cent of places for children who seemed to have a particular talent, I cannot see that we are adopting a repulsive policy of selection by denying the 90 per cent the opportunity to share in the specialism. We should be saying only, "Because some children have special talents, let us nourish them by giving some places—a small minority of places—to them". I do not think that this denies to the many the opportunity to have exposure to those facilities. It involves saying, "For those children who happen to have a special gift, let us ride with it and help them".
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: When one thinks about it, this is a very complex debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, does not have a great deal of time for faith schools in contemporary society. He consistently paid tribute to the work of the Churches in earlier times. The one thing that he has to admit is that the Churches have embraced the comprehensive principle within the umbrella of the faith—both Roman Catholic and Church of England.
I stand before the Committee as the product of a small grammar school. I remember the day when I was called out with six others to the front of my primary school to be acknowledged and affirmed about going to the grammar school. As a working-class boy, I doubt whether I should be here today if that had not happened. That is just how things were. The problem at that time was that secondary modern schools were not given adequate resources.
The problem today with comprehensive education is the ability of the rich to buy the comprehensive education that they want by moving house. I remember when I worked in South London that people would buy houses within the area of the Wandsworth Comprehensive School, which in those days had a terrific reputation. I taught at the Spencer Park Comprehensive School by Clapham Junction. It was a sink comprehensive. It is closed so I can make such statements without the public record having to reveal that. We worked very hard and tried to pull

937
ourselves up by our bootstraps. In the programme for speech day, a student's degree and university were put after his name if, like me, he had been at Oxbridge. If students had been at Leeds or elsewhere, that information did not appear—they were just "BA" or "MA" or whatever was appropriate. The fact that I got into Oxford via theological college is very interesting but I shall not go into that tonight. That was the situation.
That has been replaced by a system in which comprehensive schools in urban deprived areas take only a particular group of people from homes that are, on the whole, socially deprived. I support the Government's plans involving city academies and specialist schools because I believe that the drive behind that is to enable boys like me, and girls of the same age that I was then, to develop their aptitudes and skills in the way that Beckham—if that is the example that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, finds helpful—has developed his.
The dilemma for those holding the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I believe that the Churches have tried to go with that—is how one deals with the business of "choice by wealth" within the maintained sector. I do not see how one can sort that out without social engineering, which none of us favours.
On balance, I therefore come down in favour of what the Government are trying to do; that is, to enable those who have aptitude and ability to be affirmed despite a background that may be to their disadvantage, however willing their parents may be that they should grow. I do not know how we square the circle in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, rightly wants—the best for every child— against what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, suggested; that is, that comprehensive schools are not currently achieving that. That involves not so much grammar schools—there are so few of them left—but wealth and where people are able to buy housing.
Baroness Andrews: We should do this complex debate a disservice if we did not put on record two points. First, comprehensive schools in this country display enormous talent in terms of teaching and learning. A huge cultural diversity—multicultural diversity—is visible on the walls of those schools. I refer to the music of the schools, scientific displays, their academic and cultural achievements and the way in which they work with the community. There is enormous diversity and achievement. On both sides of the Committee, we take pride in what has been achieved during the past 30 years—not least by the party opposite—in terms of abolishing the barriers to talent-flowering through changes to the system of comprehensive education. We should all celebrate that. The debate about specialism is in danger of diminishing what we all recognise are the achievements of our comprehensive schools.
Secondly, the Labour Party's commitment to comprehensive education is unconditional. We celebrate that in many different ways. I was deeply sceptical a few years ago about the growth of
938
specialisation. I saw it as having a distorting effect on communities and schools. I have watched the debate develop and seen the impact on schools, which want to demonstrate that although they offer a broad and balanced curriculum in which there is a positive ethos and great achievement, they also want to do other things. The development of specialisation, whether in relation to arts, sports, science or engineering, provides an important opportunity.
I was concerned that we seemed to be saying that 50 per cent of schools should have those opportunities. I am reassured that every school has the aspiration. The more schools I talk to, the more convinced I am of that. The concept of working towards specialisation is exceptionally important as an aspiration and it will be an important achievement. That will be the antidote to distortion.
This is a serious debate, and it is keenly and personally felt. Diversity has brought great achievements and opportunities. I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by those on the Benches opposite. We have not compromised principles of comprehensive education in that regard.
I, too, am the product of a hugely selective grammar school system. Without that education, I, like 95 per cent of the children with whom I went to primary school, would have had a secondary modern education. Thirty years ago, that was hugely inferior and hugely disadvantageous. We have lost a tremendous amount of talent nationally as a result.
Lord Lucas: I should certainly not go all the way with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I cannot see how one can run a music school or a dance school, for instance, without having some form of selection. The idea that I could have gone to a dance academy simply because I wanted to is ridiculous. I do not think that the noble Lord would have enjoyed the experience of watching me at a dance school, either.
There is a better way to approach this matter. I am in favour of parents choosing schools rather than of schools choosing parents. Two things need to be done to achieve that. First, we should free up the supply of schools and school places; we shall come to that in relation to a later amendment. It is crucial to stop the straitjacket that does not allow schools which are of the type that parents want to expand and come into existence but which forces parents to choose from the types of schools that exist.
Secondly, we need to change the school transport system from one that is run for the benefit of local authorities in order to make it extremely difficult for parents to choose schools, to one that is run for the benefit of parents, so that they have the maximum possible chance of getting their kid to the school that they want him to go to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that Beckham's left foot is not bad, either. We hope to see it in action a great deal. I was smiling to myself about that example

939
because the person who I referred to this morning when discussing special schools was David Beckham. He is much in our thoughts at the moment.
Members of the Committee have covered much ground in relation to specialist schools. Before turning to the amendment, I want to make a few observations. We are dealing here with comprehensive schools. We are celebrating things that are the same about our schools and which we relish but also their differences. The specialist school model gives schools the opportunity to demonstrate the icing on the cake—the ability to provide something above and beyond a good education for all children.
On a visit to Stevenage last Friday, I met the head teachers of seven secondary schools—all of whom are considering applying for specialist school status. Stevenage is a new town that perhaps suffers from low aspirations and schools with a high number of children having special educational needs compared with the national figure. Those head teachers were keen on a collaborative model to develop specialisms that they could share between themselves and beyond—including all the primary schools in the area. That education model is supported by the LEA and involves working closely with the chamber of commerce and other partners.
We discussed the kind of education that children will need, particularly in a world in which technology has revolutionised how information is sought and found. Perhaps there is a need to prepare today's children differently. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, was at Stevenage. He and I have discussed on many occasions the issue of teaching modern foreign languages and how to prepare children beyond the model of French, German and Spanish for the global economy. Allowing schools to offer their local communities something extra, in addition to a good education, is good in the context of the kind of education that children will need in future.
The regulations state that with some of the specialisms that we have now schools should be allowed to select a maximum of 10 per cent of children by aptitude. I return to the example given by my noble friend Lord Peston. Some children really can draw and are superbly talented in the visual arts. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we might allow a few such children to attend a specialist school. That is not to say that such a specialism would not be offered broadly in the community.
Ninety-four per cent of schools do not make use of selection by aptitude and maybe never will, but that option is worth having in recognising that children are different. It does not mean that we want to return to the days when differential education meant that one received either a good education or practically nothing. Within a system that is geared and designed to give the best that it possibly can, specialist schools have a role—particularly in disadvantaged areas.
It is true also that the Government's aspiration is that one day every school will be a specialist school and will work together with others if it wishes. Some schools might choose different routes. It is about what
940
a school wants to do. Specialist schools often collaborate closely with local education authorities. In Stevenage, as in other parts of the country, schools are working together to develop specialisms to serve their own communities and beyond.
I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about transport. As he knows, we are looking at pilot schemes.
We do not accept the amendment. If a community feels that selection by aptitude is not the right kind, there are opportunities for parents to lobby the admissions authority or for that authority to object. In light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We have had a useful debate. I did not expect much support from the Official Opposition and am delighted at that which I received. Neither did I think that the Minister would concede the amendment.
We must be careful not to be too urban-centred. There are real problems with the concept of specialist schools in rural areas, where only one secondary school serves the population. The concept is something of a smokescreen because it is essentially a matter of obtaining more money to provide some schools with additional resources. I am delighted that the Minister will spread the goodies around, which is vitally important. More money needs to be spent on secondary schools.
I take on board the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Lucas. Dancing and music are talents that children develop at an early age. Few benefit from attending highly specialist establishments, such as the Yehudi Menuhin school for violinists, which produced the Young Musician of the Year. The majority of kids attend school at age 11 and develop their ability. By the time that they are 14 or 15, they know whether they are going to be a Beckham—whereas at age 11 there may be no signs.
Lord Peston: I am not under the impression that Mr. Beckham or any of our other talented footballers have got where they are as a result of attending a specialist school. The case is completely unproven so far as I know—let alone whether Mozart went to a specialist school. On reflection, the whole thing is preposterous.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I think that Mozart had a specialist father. The great thing is that the Beckhams of this world did not attend specialist schools and that the comprehensive system served them well.
I pay tribute to the comprehensive system. When I arrived at my grammar school, the pupils were rapidly streamed and I was told firmly by the lady in charge of history—I majored in history—that third or C grade children should not be attending the school because they were not up to a grammar school education. Today, 50 per cent of children achieve five A to C

941
grades in GCSE subjects when they were not considered capable of sitting the old GCE examination. If one sets one's sights high enough, one can achieve. We want the comprehensive system to open doors, to allow pupils to achieve as much as they can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49
[Exclusion of Pupils]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 213:
Page 33, line 19, after "may" insert "in exceptional circumstances"
The noble Lord said: The amendment would restore something that the Bill appears to remove—a provision that exists as part of Circular 11/99 but is not in the Bill. It is right that children should be excluded from pupil referral units only in exceptional circumstances. It is the job of PRUs to deal with children as they are. If units start to exclude children on the same basis that would be justified in an ordinary school, they are not doing their job. I would like the policy back where it was before the Bill.
Much the same applies to Amendment No. 214. A school's right to exclude and the parents' right to information and to make representations are in the legislation as currently drafted—one against the other. In this Bill, we find only the school's right to exclude and there is no mention on the face of the Bill of the parents' right to information and representation. I believe that the two should have equal status and, therefore, I should like that provision to be put back into the Bill.
The wording of Amendment No. 214 has an additional effect in that it seeks to give parents the right to information and representation for short-period exclusions. The reason for that, of course, is that short-period exclusions are allowed to add up to a reason for permanent exclusion. One can find examples—there have certainly been documented circumstances—where children have received a series of short-term exclusions but their parents have not received information as to the reasons and have had no right to information or to make representations. Suddenly, those exclusions are accumulated into an allegation of misbehaviour over a long period, the child is excluded permanently and one suddenly finds oneself falling off a cliff. That does not seem to me to be reasonable.
If something goes wrong with a child in school or if something happens which requires a child to be excluded, even for one or two days, then the parents should be involved, not least because there may be reasons for it and because the school may not appreciate that the child has a special educational need or a particular characteristic. There should be a dialogue between the school and the parents. It should not be open to the school simply to exclude a child without saying why or involving the parents. It is enormously important that that relationship is kept going.
942
Amendment No. 215 has two completely different parts. I do not know why they were lumped together. The first gives the Government the right to issue guidance. They can do so at present but the Bill appears to end that right. Again, I believe that this is an area where the Government should have an influence on what schools are doing. They should be able to issue guidance, but I am concerned that the Bill appears to remove that right.
The second part of the amendment provides an opportunity to tease the Government over Clause 50, in which they set targets for attendance. One of the principal problems that schools have in relation to attendance is that parents take their children out of school for holidays. Schools have no sanction against that. One can take one's child out of school for a couple of weeks and there is nothing that the school can do. Schools are generally grateful when parents are polite and ask permission first. But how can we hold a school to account for something over which it has no power?
Therefore, I believe that if we are to measure schools by what they achieve in terms of attendance, logically we must give them the power to do something about it. But I do not see how that can be done. Perhaps the best answer is to remove Clause 50 and not to have attendance targets. Frankly, attendance targets should be set at 100 per cent and schools should be doing their best to achieve that. To set an attendance target of 92 per cent, which is approximately the current national average, seems to me to permit and encourage children to take off 8 per cent of their school days. If they have not had their ration towards the end of June, they should take off an extra couple of weeks in July in order to ensure that they reach the 92 per cent average. I simply want to understand why the Government are setting targets without giving schools the power to act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support Amendment No. 214 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Clearly, just as the right of head teachers to exclude is being kept on the face of the Bill, so, indeed, should the right of parents to appeal those exclusions be included.
I draw particular attention to the matter of oral hearings. I am advised that holding a hearing, even for a very short exclusion, can be worth while because it gives parents the opportunity to raise issues which may be affecting their child both at home and at school. Any emerging difficulties can then be discussed before they become entrenched. An oral hearing may be the only way that parents with literacy problems, for example, can make their views known.
I also want to speak to my Amendment No. 216, which is grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. The purpose of this probing amendment is to ensure that all assistance is available to looked-after children in appealing their exclusions. The amendment seeks to ensure that the letter currently sent out by the head teacher immediately following an exclusion informs the parent or carer of a local advocacy service or one

943
of the parent support services established, I believe, under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.
The importance of advocacy for such children is highlighted many times in the Government's own guidance on education and looked-after children. In their guidance on exclusions, the Government say:
"Schools should be especially sensitive to exclusion issues where children in care are concerned … In cases where, nevertheless, a child in care is excluded, the person (for example, a foster parent) or organisation … having parental responsibility for or care of the child will have the right to make representations and appeal and should pursue these rights if there are grounds for appeal".
However, we know that very few exclusions of looked-after children are, in fact, appealed. That may be because carers are often over-stretched and under-supported. The availability of an independent, free advocate early in the exclusion process would at least help the child to feel that he had had a fair hearing and that we valued his participation in mainstream education.
I have often met young people who have come through the care system. It is most striking how very disenchanted they are with the education system and with the whole idea of learning or of picking up a book of any sophistication.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the thrust behind the amendments. I certainly believe that it would be not only inconceivable but wholly wrong for pa rents not to be informed at the point of exclusion. It seems to me that it would he irresponsible of an education authority and/or a school to exclude a child from school permanently, in particular, without informing the guardian, the carer or the parent.
My understanding is that statutory procedures are in place which would require the parents to become involved in everything that leads to the point of exclusion. Very few schools would reach the point of excluding a pupil without a number of measures having taken place prior to that; that is, the parents or, where necessary, the carer and/or the guardian, would be brought in and talked to.
However, through the Minister I want to ask a question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Again, I want to support him. It seems to me that young people in care—that is, looked-after children—are already very vulnerable. I believe that they need someone to act on their behalf. However, I wonder whether Amendment No. 216 is not a little like bolting the stable door in that the advocate is called for only at the point of exclusion.
As I said a moment ago, I believe that in a number of cases a school has taken the view that the behaviour of a child is such that it wants to take disciplinary measures against him, culminating, when all that fails, in a decision to exclude. I know that the process is lengthy and that it can be challenged, but I believe that most children will have a parent who will be involved in that process.
However, where the parent is either uncaring or wishes to have no part in supporting the child in school, it seems to me that someone should speak up
944
for the child. In particular, where the child is in care, if the carer is not prepared to act as advocate, it is important that someone else does so. However, in relation to Amendment No. 216, I should prefer that to be done at an earlier stage than at the point of exclusion.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this point. Of course, it would be better if a child received advocacy support early in his school career. Ideally even before he enters a school, someone should speak up for the child. In the other place, an amendment was moved to the Adoption and Children Bill which would put on the statute a requirement that children in care should have free access to an independent advocate. I hope that we shall consider that matter when that Bill arrives in this House. I declare an interest as a patron of A Voice for the Child in Care.
However, as matters stand, there is no independent and well trained advocate for looked-after children in the education system. Given the current position, at a critical moment in a child's life there should be an independent, free, local advocate available to him or her.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the spirit of Amendment No. 213. As I said in an earlier debate, 331 pupil referral units are registered in England. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that they carry out excellent work with some of our most disadvantaged young people, enabling many of them to re-enter mainstream schools. Exclusions from pupil referral units are rare and no decision to exclude from such a unit is taken lightly.
There is already guidance in our Circular 11/99, which says that we would expect exclusions from a pupil referral unit to occur only in exceptional circumstances. We give the example of where a pupil poses a threat to his or her own safety or to the safety of other pupils or staff. So we already have what the noble Lord wants, but in guidance and not in legislation. In practice, there are very few exclusions from pupil referral units—perhaps 10 a year.
I firmly believe that guidance is the appropriate place to set out examples of what "exceptional circumstances" may mean in practice. We believe that legislation that restricts exclusion to "exceptional circumstances" without further definition could open doors to interpretation and possible legal challenge. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that our expectation is that exclusion from a PR U will be a rare occurrence. When the guidance in Circular 11/99 is revised, we shall emphasise that point.
I turn to Amendment No. 214. I can assure noble Lords that the head teacher's existing duties to inform parents about the period of exclusion, reasons for the exclusion and right to make oral or written representations to the governing body will be set out in full in regulations. Parents will have the right to make representations about permanent exclusions and

945
fixed-period exclusions totalling more than five school days in any one term. Fixed-period exclusions of five school days or fewer in any one term will not attract the right to make oral representations. That will be a matter for the governing body's discretion. As noble Lords have said, we would expect the dialogue between school and parents, which we want for every child, to be an ongoing process and not something that comes into play only when a child has a problem. I am mindful of the burden of meetings placed on school governors. We believe that we need to give them some discretion as to the need for meetings in respect of less serious exclusions.
Turning to Amendment No. 215, Clause 49(4)(b)achieves the result sought by the first part of the amendment. A head teacher of a maintained school or a teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. No one else may exclude a child.
On the second part of Amendment No. 215, I recognise that the noble Lord is teasing out what is in fact part of the clause stand part debate to which we shall come later. I am reluctant to get into the detail of that matter now. It will not be a surprise to noble Lords that we do not believe that absence is an appropriate ground for exclusion. To get pupils back into school, we believe that it is important to work with those pupils and to address the problems that can lead to irregular school attendance. The problems may be due to circumstances in the home, to the disaffection of the child and, in some circumstances, to bullying. We believe that our approach is the right way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned school holidays. Schools have discretion to grant a maximum of 10 days' leave of absence for the purpose of family holidays. We recognise that schools need to be sensitive to the needs of families, but some families take extended holidays. We have approached that matter in a way that we believe is right: by working with the community so that such families understand the importance of education and of their children's attendance at school. That is a relationship that links into the Education Welfare Service. That service works to identify children's attendance problems and it recognises the importance of a child being at school. As noble Lords know, parents can face imprisonment if their child does not attend school and if reasonable steps have not been taken to ensure that he or she does so. We believe that the use of exclusion to deal with truancy or absence would be self-defeating.
I turn to Amendment No. 216, which raises a serious issue about advocacy of children in public care in the context of exclusion from school. I fully support the concern of the noble Earl to ensure that children in public care are properly supported, not only in this context, but more generally in their educational development. That is an issue that the Government take very seriously.
The noble Earl talked about the Adoption and Children Bill that is currently before another place. We are considering how best to ensure that children in public care have the necessary advocacy. I am not sure
946
that the best way forward is to put requirements in legislation in the way that the amendment seeks to do as that may be too constraining. Permanent exclusions, for example, are reviewed to a strict statutory timetable and there is no scope for delaying meetings while independent advocacy is sought, if that is necessary. It may be more helpful to have an adult who knows the child and who can provide more continuity of support throughout the child's education and be involved in that process.
However, I can undertake to keep the noble Earl well informed of our developments in improving support and advocacy for children in public care. It is open to the Committee to return to the debate on these issues as we deliberate the Bill. I can assure the Committee that I am working extremely closely on these issues with our colleagues in the department so as to address them properly. I hope on that basis that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness for her response to my amendment. My amendment is grouped with that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and on this occasion I had not intended to move it but simply to speak to it. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I look forward to reading Hansard.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that she has disposed of Amendments Nos. 213 and 215 quite satisfactorily. I shall consider carefully what she has said on Amendment No. 214. I still have difficulty with at least two aspects of the provision as it is set out.
I do not believe that we are providing enough incentive for a school to ensure that the dialogue with the parent takes place properly when a child finds himself or herself on the road to permanent exclusion by means of a series of small exclusions. In other words, it is not clear to me that we are providing a process that will not allow a school to get away with failing to communicate so that suddenly a parent is faced with the permanent exclusion of his or her child after a series of small exclusions. That would be a particular problem if a child had a five-day exclusion in one school year and a five-day exclusion in the next school year, and then, as has happened, was suddenly faced with a permanent exclusion for having been temporarily excluded for 10 days and for being a persistent offender, and that was the first the parent heard of it.
There has to be a duty on the school to communicate with the parent and to keep the parent involved. It is unsatisfactory for a school to be able to use the power of permanent exclusion when nothing serious has happened to justify it. There may be a failure by the school to communicate a series of small indiscretions and small misbehaviours that may well be the result of an undiagnosed special educational need. There may be an issue that should have been taken seriously by a parent and by the school at a much earlier stage rather than the matter being dealt with by minor punishment.

947
I shall consider the matter and I shall talk to ACE, the Advisory Centre for Education which has been helping me with the amendments. I shall return to the matter on Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 214 to 216 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy de Knaythmoved Amendment No. 217:
Page 33, line 23, at end insert—
"(aa) requiring a head teacher to provide the responsible body with information on the identification of, the assessment of and the provision made for any special educational need that an excluded pupil may have,
(ab) requiring the responsible body to take account of any information provided under paragraph (aa) in determining whether or not to reinstate an excluded pupil,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 217, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 223, 226 and 227, tabled in my name. It is a mixed hag in a larger sack about information, advice and legal protection for children with special educational needs. The amendments are very different, and I shall need to speak to each in turn. I hope that Members of the Committee will therefore bear with me, but will be consoled by the thought that they will hear from me only once today.
Amendment No. 217 ensures that a head teacher excluding a pupil is required to provide information to the responsible body about any special educational needs of an excluded pupil, and that that body takes account of the information when deciding on reinstatement.
There is information to suggest that sometimes an inappropriate SEN provision, or a failure to make such a provision, leads to the exclusion of a pupil with special educational needs. That point is underlined by the National Autistic Society, whose 2000 report on inclusion found that 21 per cent of children with autism spectrum disorders are at some stage excluded from school. It shows that frustration from lack of understanding leads to challenging behaviour, which in turn results in exclusion.
This amendment does not seek to prevent the exclusion of children with special educational needs when necessary. Nor does it impose further work on the school, because the information will be available. But the special educational consortium feels that it may prevent inappropriate exclusions stemming from a failure to meet the special educational needs of some children.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 223, which would ensure that, where a claim of disability discrimination was being heard as part of an exclusion appeal, a legally qualified person with an understanding of the DDA would chair the appeal panel. I shall not bore the Committee by repeating my earlier arguments on Amendment No. 199 on admission appeals. The same questions and arguments apply. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is back in his place
948
and in good voice. As the Minister will understand, this whole special educational needs package is designed to wind him up yet one further notch.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on Amendment No. 219, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I think this amendment means that appeals could be heard by the SEN Disability Tribunal, just as appeals for fixed term exclusions will from September go to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, where claims are made tinder the DDA for fixed term exclusions. Those panel members will have received training in DDA duties.
I ask the Minister to assure me that where a claim of disability discrimination is made at the same time as an exclusion appeal, the clerk—if not the chair—of the independent appeals panels for exclusions will be legally qualified; that the clerk will have received training on the DDA duties; that panel members will have received training on the DDA and will have access to the clerk's legal knowledge; otherwise, in view of the fact that those facing fixed term exclusions will go to the SEN DIST and those children facing the seriousness of permanent exclusions may lose out, we may have a two-tier system.
I turn to Amendment No. 226, which would ensure that parents of children with special educational needs who are excluded from school are referred to an independent source for information and advice on their and their children's rights. It is worth reminding the Committee that children with statements of special educational needs are seven times more likely to be excluded than other children.
IPSEA's casework—I declare that I am a patron of IPSEA—shows that children with statements are excluded for a variety of reasons; that simply appealing for reinstatement is not always relevant; and that, even when it is, it is rarely a sufficient remedy on its own. Children may be excluded because the LEA has failed to put in place the support that it has asked for in its statements or because the statements are so vaguely written that the parents and the school have no clear idea of how much or what kind of provision is needed. A head teacher may exclude children in order to highlight the problem, or teachers may not know how to manage particular behaviour that is not threatening or aggressive but which disrupts the work of the class—in other words, a cry for help. There are many more reasons.
Similarly, there are various or a combination of actions to best help the child: an immediate review; a reassessment leading to a statement quantifying provision; a change of school, and so on. Parents need to explore all those possibilities. They also need to consider whether to appeal against exclusion—whether they actually want the child to return to school. This amendment would guarantee parents contact with an independent organisation or person who can help them reach an informed decision.
In conclusion, I turn to Amendment No. 227. This amendment would ensure that a decision by a governing body or an exclusion appeal panel to reinstate a child who had been excluded would result

949
in a resumption of the child's education. The Members of the Committee may think that there would be absolutely no necessity for this amendment. But, following the judgment in the case of L v Governors of J School (2001), an order for reinstatement by an exclusion appeals panel may lawfully be interpreted by a school as a requirement to admit a child on to the school premises, but not to their class or to any class or any particular educational provision. The effect of that judgment is to vitiate potentially every decision made by a governors' discipline committee or an exclusion appeal committee that an excluded child should be reinstated.
In that particular case, the reinstated child was kept out of lessons because the teachers' unions threatened to strike when they learnt of the reinstatement decision. The court held that, given the damage that would have been caused to the education of all children in the school, the head acted reasonably in bowing to the unions' threat. But Lord Justice Laws, in a rider to the judgment, raised the possibility of teachers' unions as public bodies being susceptible to judicial review because of such a threat. He suggested that if a trade union takes a position designed in terms to frustrate the lawful decision of Parliament's delegate—here the appeal panel—that might be vulnerable as a matter of public law as being calculated to undermine the rule of law.
In this Bill we have an opportunity to resolve what has suddenly become a very volatile legal situation. The amendment invites Parliament to decide what powers it intends appeal committees to exercise in the future, rather than leave it to litigation and the vagaries of case law. It would place a duty on a governing body to ensure that a child received education following reinstatement. It would not limit the powers of a discipline committee or an appeal committee to uphold an exclusion by rejecting a parent's appeal for reinstatement. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this issue or assure me that it will be dealt with in some other way.
I return to Amendment No. 217, which would ensure that the head teacher excluding a pupil is required to provide information to the responsible body about any special educational needs that such a pupil may have, and that the responsible body take account of the information when deciding whether or not to reinstate an excluded pupil. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I have tabled three amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 218, 219 and 220. Amendment No. 218 asks the Government what the words, "in any prescribed case" in line 17, page 33, are intended to achieve. They appear to me to allow the Government to exclude the right to appeal in certain circumstances. I shall be interested to see what the effect is.
Amendment No. 219 is intended to be a helpful suggestion. Today's statistics suggest that there are about 1,000 appeals per year that must be made to
950
panels constituted by local education authorities. On a rough calculation, that would mean that each LEA's panel would hear approximately eight appeals per year, and can therefore scarcely be expected to accumulate any great degree of expertise or breadth of experience.
Many of these appeals will involve children with special educational needs. Roughly 70 per cent of pupils in pupil referral units have such needs; indeed, about 20 per cent of them have statements, while 50 of them are without statements. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that a large number of pupils who become the subject of appeals will have special educational needs. The tribunal established under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 has, or will have, a greater depth of experience and a good deal more specialist experience available to it than an occasionally constituted LEA tribunal. It will also have a range of remedies available to it that may prove to be much more constructive in particular cases; for example, imposing a requirement for the training of staff or other remedial measures to be introduced into a school so that it will be better able to deal with the pupil in question.
Amendment No. 220 uses the tribunal, in whatever form it may be, to give a right to a pupil or the parents to assert the right, which, as the noble Baroness has quite correctly said, will come into force this September, to full-time education if he has been excluded from school. At present, if a pupil is excluded he theoretically has this right to full-time education. However, if it is not provided, there is no useful way to enforce that right. If the LEA is dilatory and provides the child with, say, five hours of tutorial a week and does not bother to do anything else, there is no easy comeback for the parents. Therefore, this amendment would provide a route whereby parents can enforce the right of a child to full-time education in an easy and practical way.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to support Amendment No. 217 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 221 and 225 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp.
In view of the large number of excluded children who have special educational needs, it seems to me that it is vital that the nature of such needs is well understood by those charged with giving them an education—it is to be hoped with a view to reintegrating them into the mainstream, if appropriate, at some future date. It is also vital that they are obliged to take notice of that information. I echo the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that the reason for the exclusion in the first place may be partly because of the inability of the school to deal appropriately with a child's special needs. How much more important, therefore, that this situation is not perpetuated in the child's new educational environment.
Amendment No. 221 seeks to ensure that LEAs provide sufficient resources in the school, or pupil referral unit, to meet the needs of children and young

951
people with emotional and behavioural difficulties. It should always be the case that exclusion is used as a last resort by head teachers seeking to protect the rest of the children in the school and to find an environment more suited to their particular needs.
The Government recently introduced a number of measures that may, if successful, reduce the incidence of high level disruptive behaviour. We also welcome the commitment to provide full-time education to excluded pupils. However, there has been little so far to address the every-day concerns of both teachers and pupils whose lessons are disrupted by pupils with special emotional and behavioural needs within the mainstream. Despite the fact that there is a responsibility on central government and LEAs to meet the needs of these pupils, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to ensure that those needs are met.
There are many things that can be done in this respect. On a recent visit to Japan, I was very impressed to learn that every school has a professional counsellor available to help children with emotional and behavioural problems. I wonder whether the problem of disruption has become so great that something of the sort may be needed in this country. Whatever the solution, the matter is one of great concern both to teachers and to other pupils, as a number of recent consultations have shown. For example, in the recent teacher workload study, PricewaterhouseCooper found deteriorating pupil behaviour to be a major concern. An annual survey of pupils' views conducted by Keele University found the same concerns among them.
I recently received one view of the matter from a year 10 pupil, Sheila Begum from Swanlea School in Whitechapel. She said:
"From my point of view, I think kicking pupils out of school permanently is not the best thing to do and is not the answer to improve pupils' behaviours. From my school, I have seen so many pupils being expelled, whose immature behaviour has increased or stayed the same after being expelled. I think that pupils who have bad behaviours at school and put others' lives in danger should be put in a behaviour school where they can get punished, but still continue with their education".
The Government have stated that they are committed to a focus on,
"prevention, early intervention and the provision of education for long term excluded children",
so why not include the provision of appropriate resources on the face of the Bill?
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 219 and 222, which are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224, which is tabled solely in my name. I should mention that this amendment has the support of both the British Psychological Society and the Who Cares? Trust. I have often heard from teachers and educational psychologists that not enough children are being assessed for special educational needs. We heard this at the beginning of our debates this afternoon; and, indeed, we have heard it several times during the
952
course of this debate. Those with conduct disorders or emotional disorders are being overlooked and often treated as being "naughty" rather than in need of help.
Two separate reports in the 1990s of academic research found that approximately 90 per cent of excluded pupils were presenting with special educational needs. In the light of that research evidence, the case for the utilisation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal is very strong. In his critique of the school exclusion appeal system entitled Challenges to School Exclusion, Professor Neville Harris urged that panels should be able to play both a judicial and a welfare role, recommending next steps for children.
Under the terms of Amendment No. 222, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, in tandem with the Community Legal Service, could play an important role in spotting children who should have received a statement but have been missed. Together, they could make a significant improvement to current practice.
The purpose of Amendment No. 224 is to ensure that excluded children receive a fair hearing. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her earlier support, which I much appreciated, for the idea of advocacy for looked-after children in school. Exclusion is a critical event in the lives of these children. The Leggatt report on tribunals recommended that tribunals, such as independent appeals panels, should have a legally qualified chair. Professor Neville Harris has also recommended that panels should be chaired by appropriately trained lawyers.
These cases are becoming increasingly complex—a complexity that will be sharpened by the implementation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. An exclusion clerk, a former deputy head of a special school, suggested to me that a legally-qualified chair would ensure greater consistency in outcome, which would be welcomed by schools. I would prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but, failing that, I hope that my amendment will find sympathy with the Minister.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Before I begin to speak to this group of amendments, perhaps I may make clear the fact that I have a good deal of sympathy with the intentions that lie behind them. That applies also to the remarks made by all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. At this point it may be helpful for me to make a few general remarks which may take the debate forward.
In this Bill we are trying to set out the key principles of the law, which will be backed up by provision in regulations and in guidance. While our view is that legislation must be in place to secure the key rights and duties of all parties concerned, we equally know that legislation can be a blunt instrument when dealing with very serious matters of judgment and as regards guiding appeal panels to ensure that all appeals are heard on their merits.

953
I turn to Amendment No. 217, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. Although I sympathise with the intention of the amendment, I believe that it is a matter best left to guidance. We are very aware of the increased risk of exclusion that children with SEN face. I do not think that the noble Baroness was in the Chamber earlier when I said that the figures that have been released today were interesting. The figure that such children were seven times more likely to be excluded has dropped to three times more likely. That figure is still on the wrong side, but it is interesting and I look forward to discussing it in more detail with the noble Baroness and others as we begin to understand precisely what has happened.
We have put in place a requirement on local education authorities to arrange for parents of children with SEN to be provided with advice and information about matters relating to their child's needs. The LEA must make this service known to appropriate people and must make arrangements to avoid or resolve disagreements between parents, schools and LEAs.
The guidance on exclusions also makes it clear that schools should avoid permanently excluding pupils with statements or who are being assessed for a statement. I believe that such matters are best left to guidance. But we shall look to ensure that the guidance is as clear as it can be on that point.
I turn to Amendment No. 218. This part of the Bill refers to both permanent and temporary exclusions. If it were a permanent exclusion, there would be a right of appeal, so that is why the wording is as it is. I assure noble Lords that in making regulations we intend to preserve the key features of the existing exclusion and exclusion appeal legislation which builds in rights for parents, pupils and schools.
In addition, we are establishing a right of appeal in relation to exclusions from pupil referral units. As I said, the clause deals with both permanent and fixed term exclusions. Under the provisions included in Sections 64 to 67 of, and Schedule 18 to, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, only parents of pupils who have been permanently excluded may appeal to an independent appeal panel. As noble Lords will know, fixed period exclusions do not attract the same rights—they are a matter for the governing body alone.
Therefore, the wording in the Bill is intended only to preserve this position. There will be a right of appeal to an independent panel in relation to all permanent exclusions, but not in relation to fixed period exclusions. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Amendments Nos. 219,223 and 224 all deal with the nature of the body that hears exclusion appeals. Amendment No. 219 seeks to have appeals heard by the SEN and Disability Tribunal, while Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 suggest that there should be legally qualified chairs of appeal panels.
954
It is my view that exclusion appeals are, and will be adequately dealt with by independent appeal panels. The task of an exclusion appeal panel is quite simple. It must first consider whether the pupil committed the offence, or offences, which prompted his or her exclusion. If the answer is yes, the question that it then has to consider is whether permanent exclusion is a reasonable response to that behaviour, taking account of all the circumstances and any mitigating or aggravating factors. Panels provide an appropriate forum for redress and an appropriate educational remedy. They can direct reinstatement.
We believe that a lay panel can deal with those issues without the need for a lawyer to chair the panel. There is a risk that the requirement to involve a lawyer would unnecessarily formalise the appeal process, potentially raise costs and cause delays in constituting a panel. Appeal panel members are unpaid volunteers and panels are arranged locally by LEAs, involving local people of good sense, if I may so describe them, many of whom are known to your Lordships. We believe that they can perform the job well.
We have made it clear in statutory guidance that we expect every clerk to the appeal panel to have legal training and to be familiar with exclusions and equal opportunities legislation. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks. Exclusion appeal panels already deal satisfactorily with issues including sex and race equality, and there is no reason to believe that they will be unable to deal satisfactorily with issues of disability discrimination.
I would also point out that the new arrangements introduced by the SEN and Disability Act will apply for the first time from September this year. During the passage of that Act, our starting point in considering rights of redress was to use the existing appeals mechanisms where they were suitable. Therefore, although the SEN and disability tribunal will hear most cases of disability discrimination, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with exclusion appeals. The House accepted during the passage of the SEN and Disability Act that independent appeal panels were the best route for hearing appeals against permanent exclusion from maintained schools. The panels work well and can provide a quick and appropriate remedy by directing the school to reinstate the child.
In turning to Amendment No. 220, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others that we are committed to providing every excluded child with an appropriate education suitable to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. That is why we have said that we want every LEA by September of this year to provide full-time education for all pupils excluded for more than 15 school days.
However, I do not believe that the independent appeal panels should be given powers to deal with the LEA's duty under Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996. The appropriate remedy if a child has been wrongly excluded is clear—reinstatement. But an independent panel has no power and is not the right body to direct an LEA as to how it should discharge its duty to provide suitable education for that child. There

955
is an existing mechanism for resolving disputes between parents and LEAs on this duty under Section 496 of the Education Act 1996.
In relation to Amendment No. 225, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for allowing me to make it clear that we shall certainly keep exclusions guidance in force. The existing guidance is set out in circular 10/99, which explains what should be done before resorting to exclusion, when exclusion should he used and the procedures for excluding pupils. We have issued for consultation draft revised guidance and plan to issue revised guidance in its final form later this year.
I turn to Amendment No. 226. The current guidance on social inclusion and pupil support already makes it clear that a head teacher who excludes a pupil should notify the parent immediately, ideally by telephone, and should write within one school day. The letter should include the name and telephone number of a contact at the LEA who can provide advice on the exclusions process, and a helpline number for the Advisory Centre for Education, an independent body that is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, which provides free advice and support for the parents of excluded pupils.
We have strengthened the arrangements for identifying, assessing and providing for children's special educational needs and have taken action to promote partnership between parents, schools and local education authorities. I therefore believe that strong arrangements are being put in place to support children with SEN and their parents in these circumstances.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 221 and 227. I confirm that the important matters in Amendment No. 221 will be dealt with in guidance, which can more fully set out the subtle matters of judgment to be taken into account here. To address the first part of the amendment, Clause 49(4)(b) requires a person or body administering or reviewing an exclusion
"to have regard to any guidance given from time to time … by the Secretary of State or — the National Assembly for Wales".
I believe that to put such matters in regulations would be too inflexible.
The second part of Amendment No. 221 covers an important issue, which is also addressed by Amendment No. 227, which is the reintegration of an excluded pupil. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has already referred to the judgment that was handed down, from which I shall quote shortly. This is an important part. The Appeal Court has recently confirmed that an appeal panel's direction to reinstate means the removal of the exclusion but not necessarily a return to the status quo. Lord Justice Laws in his lead judgment said:
"The reality is that once he is reinstated, his exclusion is cancelled and he is to be treated like any other pupil; and in respect of any pupil, special or particular measures or initiatives may be required at any time".
That means that although it must always be the intention to ensure that the re-instated pupil is fully reintegrated into school as quickly as possible, there may
956
be circumstances when an immediate return to the classroom on the same conditions will not be possible. I think that deciding how to manage a pupil's reinstatement is best left to the judgment of the school or PRU concerned, perhaps with assistance from the LEA, taking into account all relevant factors and conditions.
I hope that in the light of all I have said, noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the answer to Amendment No. 218, which I suspect answers it fully. I shall need to read carefully what the Minister said about Amendment No. 219, and see whether other aspects of the way that appeals will be dealt with need to be covered. With regard to Amendment No. 220, I think that I misheard the reference she made to the 1996 Act. The section that I thought she mentioned has nothing whatever to do with relationships between local authorities and parents. Perhaps she will repeat the reference in the 1996 Act.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was making the point that we did not believe that independent appeals panels should be given powers to deal with what is an education authority's duty. It is a duty under Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I invite other Members of the Committee to speak to my amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may say a few words. The Minister said that excluded pupils returning to mainstream are to be treated like any other pupil. Of course, that is exactly what they are not. That is the reason why they were excluded in the first place. Often they have very special needs. That is why we, from these Benches, would prefer that a commitment is put on the face of the Bill to provide appropriate resources to the school dealing with them on their return. That commitment would be most welcome. With that, I end my remarks.
Lord Lucas: I have now found Section 19(1). It does not give parents any rights at all. It puts a duty on the local education authority to make arrangements for the full-time education of pupils. But if it fails to do that, there is nothing that the parents can do about the matter. That is the problem that I was trying to address. Can the noble Baroness say whether in circumstances where a local authority fails under the duty in Section 19(1) one has to take the matter to the High Court to get it to move?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: When I continued on from the statement that I made about Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996, I said that that was the responsibility of education authorities. I then went on to say that there was already an existing mechanism for resolving disputes between parents and local education authorities. Sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 state that, including by parents, these disputes could be referred to the Secretary of State. She of course has power to direct an education

957
authority if she determines that it is failing in its duty. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not hear me. I hope that that answers his question.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister very much for her careful, considered and detailed reply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support on Amendment No. 217. I think that I am reassured about the guidelines. The Minister was right; I was not in the Chamber when she said that the number of excluded children with SEN had gone down, and they are now three times rather than seven times more likely to be excluded. I am absolutely delighted about that.
Amendment No. 223 relates to the independent appeal panel. There is a good deal of support for everything going to SENDIST. So long as SENDIST is not overloaded, I might be for that too. I am happy with what the Minister said about the clerk being legally trained. It is important for the clerk to have legal training. She did not say firmly whether the appeal panel members would have a reasonable amount of training—not just an hour—in DDA.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We would want all appeal panels to be trained. The clerk would have specific training in that function and that role, but we would expect—indeed, it happens—appeal panel members to want that training and to make sure that they have as much knowledge as possible.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: That needs to be the case because, as the Minister knows, the questions asked with regard to DDA are terribly important. There will be access to the clerk.
Amendment No. 226 relates to the helpline. I think that I am reassured by the ACE helpline for parents and children.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said about Amendment No. 227 because the matter is complicated. I think that I am a little reassured, but I shall probably need to come back to it. I am not totally sure about the judgment part. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is nodding. She is very supportive of the amendment, but could not be in her place earlier. I am nevertheless very grateful to her. Perhaps I could discuss the matter with the Minister at some stage outwith the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 218 to 221 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill commences again not before a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Epilepsy
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewtonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to implement the recommendations of the section Epilepsy—Death in the Shadows of the Chief Medical Officer's annual report 2001.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate this short debate on epilepsy during National Epilepsy week and to thank those noble Lords who will be participating.
I start by declaring an interest as president of the British Epilepsy Association and chair of the All-Party Group on Epilepsy.
I wish to preface my remarks by highlighting the prevalence of epilepsy and touch on the consequences for those affected. Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder. It is a major global health problem with an estimated 50 million people affected worldwide.
At any one time, over 300,000 people in the UK have some form of active epilepsy. Every day about 32 people will be told that they have epilepsy. Yet in spite of its prevalence, it remains a hidden and sometimes feared condition. It remains in the shadows. As a consequence, people with epilepsy are all too often at a greater disadvantage than those with physical and sensory disabilities.
Children with epilepsy may be excluded from mainstream education because of their seizures. Thirty per cent of children with severe epilepsy may also have learning difficulties. People with epilepsy are likely to be needlessly unemployed or socially excluded. They often face discrimination in the workplace.
Last year, I went with representatives from the Joint Epilepsy. Council to meet Bert Massie, chair of the Disability Commission, to ensure that discriminatory practices against people with epilepsy were recognised and understood. We were positively reassured when he told us of a case he had defended in an industrial tribunal of a man who had seizures only in his sleep and who worked days but was sacked when the management found out that he had epilepsy. As he did not sleep during the day and on the job he won his case. This was a classic example of lack of understanding and latent prejudice.
Since 1953 there have been five government reports—1953, 1956, 1969, 1986 and 1999—which have all failed to be followed by any significant change in the services and support provided for people with epilepsy. Neither service planners nor policy makers seem to have been moved by the plight of people with epilepsy, irrespective of the fact that all these reports have drawn the same conclusions about the fragmented and poorly co-ordinated service provision. This only underlines the ignorance and apathy towards the needs of people with epilepsy. There must be better integrated care through better co-ordination and better cohesion between health, social services, education, employment and the voluntary sector.

959
All the evidence also shows that about 80 per cent of people with epilepsy suffer only minor problems and could lead normal lives. Their symptoms are controlled by medication and there is a broad range of modern effective treatments. But there is no doubt that there is still a treatment gap. Approximately 30 per cent of patients with active epilepsy are not receiving treatment from a specialist. One in 12 people are not referred to a specialist at all. On average, it takes six months to one year from the onset of a first seizure to definitive diagnosis and treatment. Research also shows that 20 to 25 per cent of cases are wrongly diagnosed.
That results not only in highly inappropriate and wasteful treatments being prescribed. It can also cause and exacerbate social and psychological implications for the wrongly diagnosed.
I shall say a few words about women and epilepsy. Epilepsy for a woman is not the same as epilepsy for a man. For a woman, it can affect sexual development, sexuality, the menstrual cycle, aspects of contraception, pregnancy, the mother-child relationship and the menopause. Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity about the variable standard of treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy. It is clearly crucial that all women wanting to become pregnant are referred for appropriate specialist advice.
This Monday morning, I had the privilege to chair the launch of the National Sentinel Clinical Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death. The audit was commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as a result of lobbying by organisations representing clinicians, researchers and the voluntary sector, led by Epilepsy Bereaved. The audit addressed questions and issues that had in the past been felt to be too sensitive to ask. The audit has brought epilepsy out of the shadows. Media coverage of the launch has enlightened many people who had no previous knowledge. I say that because of the many people who have approached me this week to discuss the question and express their surprise and concern.
I want to place on record our sincere appreciation to the families, some of whom are listening to this debate, who bravely told us their own tragic stories, to Jane Hanna, who was the driving force behind the report, and to the team of professionals who have worked with her. The audit tells a tragic story of the scale of the problem, with about 1,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom. Tragically, 52 per cent of all epilepsy deaths were of people under 50. Three people die every day—half of them young people. Some deaths are due to accidents, drowning or extended seizure. However many—around 500—are sudden, unexpected deaths, SUDEP, which do not have a clear course. Parallels have been drawn between the trauma of cot deaths and SUDEP. It is clear why. Most individuals who die from SUDEP die in their sleep. As with cot deaths, families experience bewilderment, isolation and distress because the death is sudden and unexpected.
The great tragedy is that the risks are known, and have been for a long time, but only 1 per cent of families are made aware that seizures can be fatal. So the fundamental question must be: were some of those deaths preventable; and if so, how?
960
The audit addresses both of those questions. The conclusions do not make easy reading. There are major deficiencies and failings at all levels of care. Of the 595 deaths investigated, there were inadequate levels of care in 77 per cent of child deaths and 54 per cent of adult deaths. The principal criticisms were poor access to hospital specialists, inadequate drug management by doctors and poor medical investigations.
Against the background of those criticisms, and given that better seizure control is likely to reduce the risk of epilepsy-related death, it was considered that 39 per cent of adult deaths and 59 per cent of children's deaths were probably avoidable. That says an awful lot about the society in which we live. Even in death, the victims were poorly served: 87 per cent were inadequately investigated; there were few post-mortems; and inaccurate statements were recorded as to the cause of death.
If I had more time, I could cite many more examples of such deficiencies. We can only hope that the audit is a loud wake-up call to all those responsible for the care of people with epilepsy. As I said, it has certainly brought epilepsy out of the shadows.
The report has been welcomed by the Chief Medical Officers around the UK. Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, has pledged to develop an action plan to reduce the level of preventable deaths within three months. I suggest that he takes note of the statement of good practice recently produced by the Joint Epilepsy Council, which calls for a review of local epilepsy services, early and better diagnosis, quick access to a specialist with knowledge of epilepsy, fast-track treatment procedures and, most importantly, better co-ordination between all professionals. Any action plan must also include giving better advice to people with epilepsy and their families.
In conclusion, I can do no better than to cite the report of the Chief Medical Officer for England. Referring to the five government reports, he said:
"The reports have remained largely unimplemented, negative attitudes to epilepsy still persist in our society an the disease remains an unglamorous area of clinical practice. It is a time for a real breakthrough in our approach to epilepsy, one that is modern, enlightened, transforming the lives of the 380,000 or so people in England who have epilepsy".
I await with interest the reply from my noble friend the Minister as to how those wise words are to be turned into reality.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, epilepsy affects 300,000 to 400,000 people in the United Kingdom and is the commonest serious condition of the brain. I therefore congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on initiating this debate today on a disease that causes needless deaths, especially in our children. Here I declare an interest as a Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
The risk of premature death is two to three times higher in people with epilepsy than in the general population. Sudden, unexpected death in patients with

961
epilepsy, SUDEP, is common among young people, especially children. Half of the sudden deaths in epilepsy take place in the 20 to 45 year age group and most occur at home. Those tragic deaths in people at the peak of their productive lives is eminently preventable. In addition, most people with epilepsy—about seven in 10—have the potential to be free of seizures if they receive adequate medical care.
The urgent need for better care of people with epilepsy has been raised again by the publication of the report launched by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould: the National Clinical Audit of Epilepsy-related Death. That is the fifth major report following previous government reports during the past 40 years and it yet again recommends better care for people with epilepsy.
I now summarise some salient findings of that important study. The latest national audit focused on 2,412 deaths in the 12 months between September 1999 and August 2000 where epilepsy was mentioned on the death certificate. Of those, 1,000 were due to epilepsy. Inadequate levels of care occurred in 77 per cent of child deaths and 54 per cent of adult deaths. Only one in eight of the deaths examined by the national audit were judged to be adequately investigated by doctors who attended them. Families received little information about epilepsy from healthcare professionals even though they may have other children facing a similar risk. Many doctors underestimated the risks of epilepsy, reflecting the mistaken belief that epilepsy is a benign condition.
The audit concluded that an estimated six in 10 deaths in children and four in 10 adult deaths could have been avoided by appropriate investigations, adequate drug treatment and access to specialists in epilepsy. Other disturbing findings emerged from the national audit. In general, record keeping was very poor throughout the primary and secondary or hospital care of those patients.
The following recommendations arose from this study. First, there should be better training among doctors including GPs on the management of epilepsy according to published national criteria. Secondly, there should be access to good quality care for epilepsy, particularly for people with learning difficulties. Thirdly, we need better communication between clinical staff and between healthcare professionals and patients and their carers. According to the report, shortcomings in those areas may have contributed to avoidable deaths.
The Chief Medical Officer's annual report for 2001 stated that, within three months of the publication of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's national audit of sudden death in epilepsy, an action plan should be in place to cut the level of preventable deaths from epilepsy. NICE will provide guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in children and adults—that is expected in June 2004—and on the technological appraisal of epilepsy drugs for children and adults by December 2003.
962
We need greater public and professional awareness of epilepsy. That need is reflected in the small number of Peers present this evening for the debate. Greater awareness will help to break down the stigma associated with epilepsy and galvanise greater commitment to helping sufferers. I look forward to the Minister's response on this important, common but neglected medical condition that leads to unnecessary deaths, particularly among children.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as president of the British Epilepsy Association, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, is a model leader of a proactive charity, not just a titular president. She last raised the subject of epilepsy in your Lordships' House in February 2000 and will, doubtless, continue to do so regularly until the care of epileptics improves and perhaps after that.
We are discussing the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal audit of death and epilepsy, commissioned by NICE. It is worth pointing out that there have been four—or is it five?—major reports on epilepsy in the past 50 years. Despite that, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group reported, rather diplomatically, two years ago that,
"the management of epilepsy in the United Kingdom is still less than optimal".
Not much has changed in the past two years.
One partial reason for the lack of action was that the condition was thought to have a low mortality rate, despite its socially and economically disabling nature. This report deals with death in epileptics and may, thus, grab the attention of the public, the Government and the health professionals more effectively than past reports. It should be said that epilepsy does not have a high mortality rate: it is 2.1 per thousand. However, death occurs at a younger age, robbing epileptics of decades of expected life. And, as has been said, the rate is two to three times higher than that among the general population of the same age.
The report describes a retrospective study. It is well presented and effectively reveals the deficiencies in the current care of epileptics. Overall, in 54 per cent of the adult deaths and 77 per cent of the children's deaths studied, the patient was felt to have had deficiencies in care. It is difficult to attribute the deaths to deficiencies in care with any certainty. There are no similar studies measuring in the same detail the number of epileptics now alive and well who also receive deficient care. The percentages may not be all that different.
What deficiencies were found? There is quite a list, and some of them were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Here are a few that relate to primary care; there are plenty more in secondary care. Too often, there was no structured review process. There was a low level of recording of clinical information; it was restricted to noting drugs and blood drug levels. There was no management plan, and few details of the type of seizure or of response to drugs or other treatment were recorded. There was a low level of re-referral for people with changing patterns of seizure or life events

963
or trigger factors. The provision of information—if any—about epilepsy or its potential risks to patients was not recorded. There were problems in professional communication between primary and secondary care and individuals in both settings.
It is not my place or that of the House to make detailed suggestions as to how the situation should be handled. The Chief Medical Officer has announced that, within the next three months, he will produce an action plan to reduce the number of preventable deaths. Work on that has already begun, and we should welcome that. However, because SUDEPs cannot be predicted, the only way to prevent them is to improve the investigation and care of all those with epilepsy, whether they have the idiopathic type—in which no physical changes can be found in the brain—or suffer from seizures caused by some other pathology—a tumour or a head injury. There is a long list of things that can cause fits.
Although first diagnosis is best made by a neurologist, preferably one with a special interest in epilepsy, ongoing care will, in most cases, be managed by a general practitioner or—increasingly, I hope—by a specialist nurse trained in the care of epilepsy. He or she could well rotate around several primary care teams, giving advice on setting up management plans and other ways of managing patients with epilepsy at those practices. Of course, there must be ready access to specialist units for those whose seizure pattern is changing or not responding to medication.
I want to ask my noble friend a few questions. I gave him some notice of that, although not much. How many consultant neurologists now work in the National Health Service? How many are paediatric neurologists? How well distributed are they around the country? The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, asked me to apologise on his behalf for not being able to make it this evening. He told me that Finland had the same number of neurologists as the United Kingdom but only one twelfth of the population.
Are there plans greatly to increase the number of nurses trained to provide care for epileptics? Have we any figures for such nurses? Long-term or chronic conditions such as epilepsy require surveillance and adherence to a protocol. They are much better managed by nurses than by doctors, who are usually more interested in diagnostic detective work and initial treatment than long-term care. It would be an excellent plan for every PCT to aim to provide a dedicated service for epileptics, which could be run in a primary healthcare setting or a secondary healthcare setting. The director of such a service could come from general practice, nursing or a neurological background. It does not matter as long as they are well trained, interested and dedicated to the work. I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that such a resource might be considered.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for giving the House this opportunity to discuss a much
964
neglected subject. I would really like to pay tribute to the work that she does as the chairperson of the all-parliamentary group. Under her astute chairmanship and with the concerted efforts of organisations such as Epilepsy Bereaved, The Joint Epilepsy Council, the British Epilepsy Association and the National Society for Epilepsy, things are beginning happen. I believe that is a great testament to her, and to them.
Noble Lords may have read in the press earlier this week the story of Prince John, the fifth and youngest son of King George V, who was born in 1905 and diagnosed with epilepsy at the age of four. When he was 11 his fits got worse and at a time when eugenics was gaining credence he was sent away to a cottage on the Sandringham estate, cut off from the rest of the family completely, and denied education. In 1919, at the age of 13, he died of what we would now call SUDEP. Almost nothing has been heard about him since. Well, it happens in the best of families.
This report, Epilepsy—Death in the Shadows, is an outstanding piece of work. It is a model of co-operation between the voluntary sector and the NHS. Shocking though its findings are in many ways, it is research of high calibre and, despite the classic criticisms of methodology from a medic, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, its calm, factual approach makes it all the more powerful. In the time available to me I want to focus on one subject on which the report sheds new light; namely, the issue of children with epilepsy. In light of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, I make this speech with a lot more trepidation than I would otherwise have done.
Although the number of children in the study was not large, the findings specifically about children are particularly important. The waiting time for referral to specialist care is not analysed by age, but it is reasonable to assume that a typical wait for a referral by a GP to a specialist takes between one and six months. What happens in those circumstances? What happens is people go private. People who would do anything for their children feel that they have no option other than to go private. I am not an advocate of private healthcare—in fact, I passionately believe that wealth should not be a barrier to health-care—but I understand why those people feel they have to do so. My concern is for those who do not have the means.
When referrals were made 35 per cent of people went to paediatric neurologists and only 3 per cent to specialists in learning difficulties. Given the increased incidence of learning difficulties among children with epilepsy, one has to question whether referrals to specialists were adequate. I say that because of all the children included in this study, whose secondary care notes were audited, none was known to be seizure free in the year before they died. Furthermore, the fact that a significant number of adults with learning difficulties got lost in the system during the transfer from paediatric to adult care demonstrates that the care pathways are wrong right at the heart of the NHS.
The transition through adolescence to adulthood is physically difficult for any child, and often traumatic for parents. Changes in hormonal patterns, muscle size

965
and density, changes in body weight, are all key factors in adolescent health. Children with epilepsy become normal teenagers. However, the interaction between physiological change and drug regimes is another factor which is not dealt with in this report but I believe ought to be the subject of further research.
The nature of hospital investigations is another area for concern. None of the children in the study had notes indicating that a brain scan or EEG had been carried out. Yet we know that access to EEGs and MRI equipment is becoming wider all the time. One can only wonder whether lack of scanning was in any way related to the fact that 22 per cent of the children were not receiving AEDs and that drug management for children was inadequate.
For families of children with epilepsy the lack of information about the risk that seizures could be fatal was unacceptably low. Use of specialist epilepsy nurses was rarely recorded and information about voluntary organisations and advocacy groups rarely issued to those people. Yet information about how to spot epilepsy, how to differentiate it from febrile convulsions and how to assist treatment with complementary lifestyles, such as ketogenic diets, are all important things which families need to know. Families are the key people who help people to live with epilepsy.
For the children themselves inadequate drug management, inadequate access to specialist care and inadequate investigations, cumulatively led to deaths. Tragically 77 per cent of those child deaths could have been avoided with timely diagnosis.
There is one other group of children who have not so far featured in our discussion. They are the children of adults who have epilepsy. Those children are often present when seizures take place and they may sometimes be the only people who are present when those seizures take place. It is my belief that when we talk about support to families and carers, children should be specifically included in support and training.
In the time that I have been aware of epilepsy I have been horrified—and I do mean horrified—to learn of the difficulties that children and families have to face. Lack of information, huge disparities in service standards and lack of community support are common experience. Yet those people who are affected by this condition have come to operate almost like a successful underground network. Word spreads about which consultants are good; people pass experience by word of mouth; people act as advocates for each other. However, guessing the right treatment should not be a matter of chance; it should be the norm. This report is an important step to making that happen.
Like other speakers, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am very heartened by the reaction of the Chief Medical Officer to the National Sentinel Audit. In August I will be searching the newspapers and the websites for the first sight of the promised action plan. It is heartening that the CMO has given a firm commitment to respond to this report. Unlike the
966
noble Lord, Lord Rea, I have no compunction about making suggestions about what I believe should be in it.
I think it should include the following provisions: first, an undertaking that in each strategic health authority area there will be a neurological unit, properly resourced, to act as a centre of excellence for epilepsy to co-ordinate epilepsy services across each PCT within its area; secondly, a requirement for each of those units to implement and audit epilepsy diagnosis and management training for paediatric services in the tertiary sector and in the primary sector as part of the franchising process; thirdly, some of the resources announced in the budget for the NHS should, within an overall IT development strategy, include the setting up of an epilepsy management recording system in which the key factors highlighted in this report should be tracked; fourthly, a requirement for each PCT to include within its prospectus the establishment and maintenance of a medicine management programme to oversee regular reviews of AEDs for all people with epilepsy; fifthly, a programme of investment in information and advocacy services to be operated by the main voluntary organisations operating in this field: they are already extremely good but their services exist on a hand to mouth basis; sixthly, a programme of education for health and social care professionals working with children to be designed and implemented as soon as possible.
I started with the story of a little boy and I want to finish with the story of another. He is a friend of mine and he has just had his 10th birthday. I will never forget the look of fear and confusion on his face one night several years ago when his mum had been rushed to hospital having suffered several fits. Happily for my friend his mum survived. Her condition was controlled and she has been seizure free for a number of years. However, it was only through the persistence of her family and the extraordinary lengths to which they went to get information. A family that had never read the Lancet started reading it and by enabling themselves to have the information they persisted and challenged the doctor. That family was very lucky.
In 2002 with improved medication, sophisticated imaging technology this is, as this report shows, a real chance to decrease SUDEP dramatically. It may not take vast resources, just a willingness to change and development the interface between acute hospitals, primary care and users. This report shows how it can be done. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will support the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and those charities, in what I believe is an extremely important piece of work.
8.20 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on tabling the debate and on once again raising a subject in which I have a personal interest as president of the National Society for Epilepsy. The NSE at its headquarters in Chalfont St Peter is, I am proud to say, second to none in the world as a provider of assessment diagnosis and treatment

967
for people with more complex types of epilepsy. Largely by virtue of that, but also thanks to an active partnership with the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queens Square, it is recognised as one of the foremost centres of excellence anywhere in the world for postgraduate neurological research and training. Alongside that, the society continues its longstanding role as a provider of long-term residential care and therapy for those whose epilepsy is particularly problematic.
I mention the work of the national society before anything else, not just because I take what I hope is an understandable pride in it, but also because it is an example of the voluntary sector as its absolute best in a field where voluntary sector organisations are very much to the fore. It is regrettable, to say the least, that many of the problems which the noble Baroness and I raised in your Lordships' House just over two years ago, when we previously debated the subject, remain as unresolved and as pressing today as they were then. However, as she indicated, things are moving. I take real heart from the fact that in an annual report covering issues of obvious gravity—for example, health inequalities, high blood pressure, liver cirrhosis and E.coli—the Chief Medical Officer should also have devoted a most thoughtful chapter to epilepsy. This is a long overdue, though decidedly welcome, recognition of a condition which, in comparison to many others, has been sidelined in the public consciousness.
How extraordinary that fact seems when we reflect that epilepsy is far and away the most common neurological condition of all, affecting as it does no fewer than one in 20 of us at some time in our lives. In England alone, 380,000 are afflicted with it. One cannot imagine until one has seen it or lived with it what a devastating effect epilepsy has on normal live and how fraught with dangers it can be if not properly treated. Of course, we all know the reasons for its Cinderella status. For centuries, those unfortunate enough to suffer from epilepsy have endured a social stigma and a lack of understanding which even in these supposedly enlightened times still persist in many quarters. Perhaps because of that, epilepsy has been an unfashionable area of clinical practice. As the noble Baroness said, we do not as a country have enough neurologists; not even half the optimum number. So how much more acutely we feel the lack of neurologists who have made epilepsy their speciality.
What is sobering in the CMO's findings is the confirmation of what some of us have long suspected: that too many people are being misdiagnosed and receiving inappropriate treatment; too many never see a specialist of any kind; and too many are having to wait an inordinate length of time before they are diagnosed and treated. In today's context, these are basic shortcomings. They should not be happening, yet they are. And it is these deficiencies in care that almost certainly lie behind one of the worst and least talked about aspects of the condition—least talked about, that is, until this week—sudden death. The National Sentinel Clinical Audit of Epilepsy Related Death was published on Monday, as the noble
968
Baroness said. The audit was commissioned with a specific aim: to establish whether deficiencies in the standard of clinical management of epilepsy or in the overall healthcare package could have contributed to deaths.
We have heard the statistics about those deaths. In the UK, 1,000 people a year die from epilepsy and about half to two-thirds of those are victims of SUDEP. There is a correlation between the risk of death and the frequency of seizures, which is why the control of seizures is critically important. The conclusions of the report were that 39 per cent of adult deaths and 59 per cent of deaths in children where epilepsy was a factor are probably or potentially avoidable. Hospital care was felt to have shortcomings for a large proportion of those patients whose care before death was audited. Access to out-patient advice, drug management and appropriate investigations were all found to be inadequate. Record keeping was found to be very poor and many deaths involving a post mortem were inadequately investigated. On one level, those findings should appal us. However, on another the fact that these weaknesses in clinical services have been highlighted by the audit is something we should be grateful for. Indeed, like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to Epilepsy Bereaved and the Joint Epilepsy Council for spearheading such an authoritative piece of work, which I am encouraged to note has been welcomed in unequivocal terms by the Chief Medical Officer.
One feature of the audit stands out. Many of the shortcomings identified emanate from what one might term a lack of joined-up services for epilepsy patients: for example, a disconnect between primary and secondary care; a difficulty in accessing the right kind of specialist; a failure by hospitals to monitor out-patients properly; a failure by doctors to review patients and if necessary to re-refer, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out; and a lack of communication between A&E and primary care. Perhaps the most dismaying disconnect is between doctor and patient—the failure by doctors to discuss with the patient the risks of epilepsy and how to minimise them; a failure to mention the side-effects of drug treatment or to point the patient in the direction of support from voluntary organisations.
It is easy to put that lack of communication down to the pressures under which GPs now operate, but I think it runs deeper than that. Many GPs have precious little understanding of the complexity of epilepsy as a clinical condition; nor do they often appreciate the huge burden of exclusion that epilepsy patients suffer socially, educationally and vocationally and the emotional turmoil to which that can lead. I am sorry to say that this part of the report spoke to me of a basic lack of willingness on the part of doctors to involve patients in decisions about their own care and a ducking out of confronting unpleasant truths.
Although I do not want to keep blowing the trumpet of the NSE, these are all issues on which that organisation has placed great emphasis, not least during this week—National Epilepsy Week—when it has undertaken a direct mailing campaign on the

969
theme of "living well with epilepsy". Information packs are being sent to hospitals, neurologists, specialist nurses, libraries and a whole range of places and individuals and the packs include a new leaflet called Epilepsy: risk which describes the risks that people with epilepsy face and how these can be minimised. It also emphasises how important it is to keep risk in perspective and to find a realistic balance between personal safety and personal freedom.
What should happen now? As other noble Lords have pointed out, no fewer than five government reports since 1953 have highlighted serious deficiencies in provision for epilepsy and little has change. One might think that there were no guidelines for best practice in the care of epilepsy, but nothing could be less true. There are all sorts of excellent guidelines; they just need to be implemented. But at long last, I really do think that we have something to look forward to. The action plan promised by the CMO arising from the SUDEP audit will be a welcome next step. I hope, by the way, that the CMO will agree to meet the voluntary sector organisations as he takes his work forward. There is to be guidance from NICE which I hope will be informed by the modernisation board. In due course, although further away, there will be a national service framework for long-term conditions including epilepsy.
All that is positive, but the momentum must not be lost. Epilepsy Bereaved described its report as a wake-up call and that is exactly as it should be. But it is a call to wake up and stay awake for not just the Government but for everyone involved in the care of this cruel and poorly served condition.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating the debate. It could hardly be better timed, coming as it does in the middle of National Epilepsy Week. I acknowledge my noble friend's important position as chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group. The group has an important part to play in raising the profile of treatment for this condition.
The Chief Medical Officer's report in 2001, On the State of the Public Health, spoke clearly and trenchantly about the need to reinvigorate our commitment to improve epilepsy services. It did not duck the embarrassment of all governments over the past 20 years that we have not as yet cracked this matter in the way we feel we should have done. The report recognises that it has become a neglected area of clinical practice. As we acknowledge, more can and must be done to address the matter.
I shall not speak at length about the condition. It has been well spoken about in terms of the rate of epilepsy—significant numbers of people in Britain suffer from the condition; the fact that it is usually controllable, but the risk of premature death is significantly higher than it is in those without the condition; and the fact that women face particular difficulties and vulnerabilities.
970
The Government have, this week, welcomed the publication of the National Sentinel Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death report. The report was commissioned by the Government in response to representations from Epilepsy Bereaved. I should like to thank that organisation warmly for making the initial proposal and for project managing the audit. It is an excellent illustration of the significant contribution that a non-governmental organisation can make to the development of healthcare—it and others, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out.
The starkness of the information about sudden unexpected death is both shocking and potentially a powerful lever to action. To see that perhaps 59 per cent of child deaths and 39 per cent of adult deaths— no one will quibble about the exact figures, but these are high proportions—were potentially or probably avoidable is a very significant issue which no government can afford to ignore. It could mean that, nationally and annually, as many as 500 people die when their deaths might have been deferred. That is clearly a powerful clarion call to us.
Noble Lords have spoken clearly and accurately about what the audit indicated. In summary, it painted a picture of slow access to relevant specialists; a higher level of wrong diagnosis than one would want or expect; wrong medication and treatment regimes; and poor information and advice. All these added up to a picture of preventable deaths and needless suffering and anxiety for people who are exposed to the condition.
Perhaps I may talk briefly about the remedial action that is under way and touch on the importance of the next three months in terms of driving that forward. First, in terms of access to a specialist, there is progress. In the quarter ending in March this year, the average wait to see a neurologist was just over 12 weeks. Averages, of course, have extremes. We clearly wish to see that figure reduced substantially, but it is better than it was.
On improving the quality of treatment, what is significant is that we already know in large part how to diagnose and treat this illness. It is not one of the great unknown killers. The Joint Epilepsy Council's advice, to which reference has been made, is a compendium of best practice. The challenge is how to make sure that best practice is followed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, remarked, work has already started on improving the quality of treatment. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence provides advice on best clinical practice to NHS clinicians, commissioners of NHS services and to patients and their carers. The sixth wave of NICE's work programme includes the development of a clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy.
There are also a number of new anti-epileptic drugs, and NICE is conducting a technology appraisal of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the new drugs in children and adults. The clinical guidance is due in spring 2004; the appraisal is due in autumn 2003.

971
Turning to the point about a shortage of neurologists, the NHS Plan sets targets for 7,500 extra consultants, and we have invested in extra training places in neurology. The number of neurologists could be boosted by the Department of Health's global overseas recruitment campaign. I have said to officials in the department that we should make sure that neurologists are on our shopping list when we are looking abroad for relevant specialists to accelerate the speed at which we have adequate specialists.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked a series of questions. The latest figures indicate that there are 326 consultant neurologists, with five additional specialist registrars recommended for the year that has just ended. An additional 80 specialist neurologists are under training now. That should produce an increase of about 24 per cent by 2005. As at September 2000, there were 30 consultants in paediatric neurology. Although we do not collect detailed statistics on epilepsy nurse specialists, we estimate that about 100 are currently operational. No doubt the issues that the Chief Medical Officer will be addressing will be, first, whether anything can be done to accelerate the arrival of suitable consultant specialists and, secondly, whether those numbers look as though they are likely to be adequate to achieve the kind of access speed that one should expect when one has had a potential diagnosis from a GP of a condition as serious as epilepsy.
Turning to epilepsy specialist nurses and other health professionals, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the potentially important role that nurse specialists can play in this and other areas. They provide an additional clinical resource. They have spearheaded the development of nurse-led and fast access clinics, monitoring seizure regimes and seizure control, support and information on aspects of medication and side effects and lifestyle precautions. The development of increasing numbers of nurse specialists in epilepsy, working appropriately with clinical teams, will play an important part in reducing diagnostic and treatment failures indicated in the audit report.
I shall not repeat the data on the number of additional nurses or the number of additional therapists and health professionals who are already en route in training as part of the NHS Plan. The House will be aware that good progress is being made on those. Again, these are no doubt matters on which the Chief Medical Officer will wish to take a view in terms of whether this looks adequate as a supply development for raising the standards to the level that we want to achieve on epilepsy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned scanners. I agree with her: there is, without doubt, a need to have faster access to MRI and CT scanning for epilepsy patients. If I have done my arithmetic correctly, the New Opportunities Fund has already provided for 54 new MRI scanners; and 21 additional CT scanners are coming through Treasury funding. In addition to those figures, the NHS Plan and the NHS Cancer Plan should produce a further 100 CT or MRI scanners by 2004 which are suitable for epilepsy
972
scanning as well as for cancer scanning. Again, one would expect the action plan to check whether that number looked adequate to produce the kind of outcomes that we want in terms of access to suitable equipment.
On voluntary organisations, I again thank the Joint Epilepsy Council for the work that it has done on this matter, and I acknowledge the role of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as president of the National Society for Epilepsy. He is quite right: this is a field in which so often in the past one has seen the voluntary sector playing a powerful role, almost punching way beyond the weight that would be expected of it compared to the national bodies on the other side—although perhaps I should move away from the boxing metaphors.
In terms of the way forward, I cannot speak for the CMO's diary, but I am certain that the department would welcome meetings with the voluntary organisations rapidly in order to receive their input into the review that is on-going. To take that one stage further, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, gave a most interesting list of potential action plans. We shall study those.
We would also want to issue an invitation to other specialist voluntary organisations that have views not so much on where we want to go—I think we are agreed on that—or on recruiting more neurologists and finding more MR1 scanners, but on the difficult issue of how to shift the working practices of thousands of disparate professionals so that a condition which they may not frequently encounter is placed higher in their skill and understanding agenda. It is easy to issue circulars and advice but effectively shifting behaviour is the crucial issue.
There is a National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions. I think that NSFs are one of the most profound policy developments in terms of achieving clarity about clinical and medical outcomes and thinking seriously about how to achieve those outcomes. As noble Lords know, there is a commitment to that. In February 2001, Alan Milburn announced the development of the Framework for Long Term Conditions. As noble Lords will remind me, it will not be completed until 2005, which is why we have to have action as the CMO has indicated.
Like other noble Lords, I celebrate the role of the CMO in making a strong and clear commitment. From his almost unique position, he has said, "This will not do. We have to move forward. We must stop producing reports and turn it into effective action".
As time is pressing, I shall have to take the points very rapidly. The report raises probably five key issues, the first of which is access to specialists. I have talked about that and about what some of the checks would be. The next is advice to patients and health professionals on the treatment for epilepsy. Clearly NICE will have important work to do on developing effective advice on medication and seizure-control regimes and ensuring that it is taken up. As for access to investigations, we have spoken about EEG, MRI and CT scanners. I think that no more needs to be said at this stage on that.

973
How best to manage shared care between GPs and hospital specialists is the really difficult issue which we must all focus on if we are going to shift practice. Perhaps we need to ensure the development of clinical networks and clinical leaders who exhibit some of the excellence of best practice that others can learn from. I am sure that nurse specialists will play a significant role in such initiatives.
The last point is information to patients and their families. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, powerfully made the point that patients and their parents must be treated as responsible, intelligent adults who have a right to be informed of the risks of, for example, sudden death. The failure to provide such information is clearly a fundamental gap in any form of healthcare. We have to think how we can significantly improve the information and advice provided to patients and their families not only about the clinical condition or medical risks, but about how to live effective lives while carrying the condition.
The NHS Modernisation Agency will have an important role to play in considering whether there are any lessons for the design and promotion of good practice. However, the dissemination of good practice to front-line clinicians and nurses is the most crucial issue. Although no government of the past 20 or 30 years can hold up their head with pride on this issue, we have all been given an effective wake-up call by the audit, the CMO's commitment to move forward on it and the voluntary organisations' commitment—if I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, correctly—to continue to work in partnership in moving from rhetoric to results. I very much welcome that commitment and hope that we will be able to turn it into effective dialogues and then into effective action.
Our commitment is underpinned by the extra funding provided in the Budget. Many of the steps we are taking would not be possible without that significant increase of 7½ per cent above inflation over the next five years. I would certainly never like to have to come to the House and cite insufficient funding as a reason for not delivering appropriate remedies. I welcome this debate and I very much look forward to "progress debates" and being brought to account by the House in positive ways.

Education Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 49.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 222:
Page 33, line 29, after "pupil," insert—
() requiring any child in public care to be represented in the event of any exclusion under subsection (1) or (2), for that representation to be independent of the local education authority and funded through the Community Legal Service in the matter of an appeal under subsection (3)(c), and for representations to be made on behalf of such a child at every suitable opportunity"
974
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 223A.
We have managed to deal with 11 groups in the past four hours. At that rate, I reckon that we have 10 hours to go. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to think that we shall rise earlier. I am delighted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Over my dead body.
Lord Lucas: I would not wish that, so I shall make good speed.
These two amendments are not in any way connected. Amendment No. 222 addresses the issue of how a child in care should be represented, given the fact that essentially local authority tribunals will decide the fate of such children who appear before them. As local authorities are also essentially the parent of such children and the body that should prepare for and make representations to the tribunal, we should consider a separation of the functions and provide children in care with a route for independent representation. The local authority should not be forced to act as both the child's advocate and his judge.
Amendment No. 223A addresses the issue of undiagnosed special needs. It suggests that, in their guidance and regulations, the Government might find it convenient to suggest to local authorities that children permanently excluded for behavioural problems who have not had an assessment of special educational needs should perhaps have such an assessment. It is something that the local authority should consider. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support Amendment No. 222, which is supported also by the British Psychological Society and the Who Cares Trust. The amendment would allow for the representation of children in public care by guardians, educational psychologists or other care professionals. It would be a great improvement on current arrangements.
I should perhaps take this opportunity to voice some concern about an earlier reply on the independent appeal panels to which the children will be sent. There is considerable concerns about the quality of decisions made by the panels, which were very well outlined in the article by Professor Neville Harris. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss those concerns before Report.
I shall also speak briefly to Amendment No. 223A. I feel very sympathetic towards the provision although I have not had a chance to study it in detail. I hope that it will receive a very sympathetic hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I sympathise with the intention behind Amendment No. 222. As I have said both several times today and previously in the House, children in public care are a particularly vulnerable group and are particularly vulnerable to exclusion. We believe that it must be for the person or organisation with parental responsibility for the child to decide whether to make representations about the child's

975
exclusion and to determine the content of those representations. However, there would be severe practical difficulties in accepting the proposal in full, including in relation to the timetable. Additionally, the effect of introducing publicly funded representatives into the exclusion procedure for children in public care or children in other categories would inevitably be to make hearings much more like judicial proceedings. That is something we wish to avoid. A degree of formality is, of course, needed but not to the extent that the hearing resembles a court hearing.
However, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are very aware of the risk of children in public care being excluded from school and of the need to ensure that they are properly represented at appeal hearings. That is why the joint DFES/Department of Health guidance on the education of children and young people in public care points out that local authorities as corporate parents are expected to act as champions for the children in their care and as advocates for their needs in exactly the same way as a parent.
We have also included guidance on children in public care for the first time in the draft revised guidance on exclusion published in January. That makes clear that in cases where a child in care is excluded, the person having parental responsibility for, or care of, the child will have the right to make representations and appeal and should pursue those rights if there are grounds for appeal.
I turn to Amendment No. 223A which we believe is unnecessary as it replicates the provisions already contained in Section 323 of the Education Act 1996. That section places a duty on local education authorities to assess a child's special educational needs where the authority is of the opinion that a child for whom it is responsible has, or probably has, special educational needs which call for special educational provision. That duty exists and I see no merit in repeating the provision in regulations governing exclusion.
As I said earlier this evening, I acknowledge that children with special educational needs are disproportionately excluded. That is a problem that we intend to address. I have already invited the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to talk with us further about the issues of advocacy and the revised guidance. We intend to address that matter in the revised guidance on exclusions to be issued later this year. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I suspect that the arguments about the constitution of the appeal panel and representation in front of it will rumble on for some long while. We are being left with a system which has, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, a number of well known disadvantages and malfunctions. That will result in a continuing flow of protest over the years. We may eventually end up with a better system.
So far as the local authorities' requirement to assess is concerned, what we face—it is evidenced by the number of people with special educational needs who
976
end up in prison—is a system where people with special educational needs slip through the net. One of the main ways they slip through the net is through becoming disenchanted with school, being excluded from school and otherwise dropping out of the system. It seems to me that it is important that where a step is being taken in regard to a child, such as exclusion, and there are symptoms present which could well be symptoms—as many behavioural symptoms are——of an underlying special educational need, that there is a duty to look again at that particular point at whether that excluded child should be assessed. I know that there is a general duty, but should it not, at least in guidance, be made clear to local education authorities that this is a point in the life of a child when the local education authority should have particular regard to whether there might be an underlying SEN? However, I am grateful—
The Earl of Listowell: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. On the legal side of things, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a point made by Professor Neville Harris in his book; that is, that parents in middle class occupational groups aged under 50 who had received advice, especially legal advice, were far more likely to bring an appeal than others. That again seems to suggest the importance of having some legal involvement for these particularly vulnerable children. They should have access to the community legal service.
Baroness Ashton of 1Upholland: I say to the noble Earl, as I think I said earlier, that vie are considering the whole question of advocacy. The noble Earl referred to the adoption Bill that is going through another place. We are looking across government to ensure that we look at the needs of this particularly vulnerable group in terms of advocacy. We shall, of course, keep the noble Earl in touch with those developments. We take that point on board.
Lord Lucas: Practice and experience show that there is increasing use of advocacy all through the system at the moment as this is such a crucial matter. Those who can afford it are routinely resorting to solicitors. What we are doing is depriving those who cannot afford that of equal attention. However, as I say, I believe that we shall return to this matter over the years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 223 to 227 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 228:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
"PARENTAL BEHAVIOUR
(1) If a parent or guardian of a child registered at a maintained school behaves in a manner which—

(a) exhibits violence towards a member of staff of that school, whether or not on the premises of the school, or

(b) disrupts the normal functioning of the school,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

977
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3) Section 8 (parenting orders) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows—
(a) after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted—
(e) a person is convicted of an offence under section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002";
(b) in subsection (2) after "444" there is inserted "of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) or section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002"; and
(c) after subsection (6)(d) there is inserted—
"(d) in a case falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, the commission of any further offence under section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002"."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 228 aims to introduce an amendment to a criminal justice Act—Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—in order to make it an offence if parents behave violently towards a member of staff on or off school premises, or if they should disrupt the normal functioning of a school. In response to the growing number of violent attacks on teachers and other staff and the growing number of incidents where the normal functioning of a school is disrupted by the behaviour of parents, the Government have pledged publicly on a number of occasions that they intend to extend parenting orders. My amendment does just that. One reason for the delay given by Her Majesty's Government has been the lack of parliamentary time in the legislative programme. By accepting the amendment it would not be necessary to wait for a relevant criminal justice Bill.
In drafting the amendment I took advice from the Public Bill Office and I tabled a Question for Written Answer which was answered by the Minister about which statute would require amending to give effect to the aims of the amendment. The answer was that it should be Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That is what I have done.
This is a serious problem in our schools. Only today we heard about the increasing level of violence of pupils towards teachers and other members of staff and, of course, towards each other. Sadly, often those children's parents then come to the school and behave violently. We are hearing more often teachers themselves say how unprotected they feel in school. It was most depressing to learn that policemen are now being put on school campuses. We should not be proud of the fact that we are having to offer police protection in our schools. Sadly, it is a sign of the times. The pressures on teachers are considerable enough without their having to worry about their physical protection while teaching in school.
I hope that the Minister will accept from me that this is a straightforward amendment. There are no politics involved. I believe that Members on all sides of the Committee want to do what they can to protect teachers. We know that there is a deficit here. Certainly, the National Association of Head Teachers believes that there is a serious deficit in this regard. The Government have promised that association that
978
parenting orders will be extended. We on this side of the Chamber have also been promised that parenting orders will be extended.
I have done the legwork for the Government. It would be a simple matter to accept the amendment. Teachers deserve no less. They should be protected and they should be free to get on with what they do best; that is, teaching our children, safe in the knowledge that if parents cause harm or disrupt the normal functioning of the school on school premises or within its vicinity, a penalty will apply. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to comment on the issue of parenting orders. Having been the founder and for eight years the chairman of the Parenting Education and Support Forum, I was interested to hear at a conference a few weeks ago my erstwhile colleagues say that although they had been strongly opposed to parenting orders when they were introduced, they now found that many parents subject to parenting orders thanked them profusely and were delighted with the information that they received. It is encouraging to think in terms of parenting orders being acceptable and successful in many cases.
In reality, while I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in tabling the amendment, I think that in the real world the only thing that will make a serious difference to parents' attitudes to schools is efficient and proper school outreach to parents which, again, I regret to say, will require additional resources. However, if parents understand what schools are trying to do and are encouraged to be sympathetic about what they are doing and even to participate in decision-making, there would be much less trouble with parents.
9 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I have some reservations about the provisions, partly because I have the gravest reservations about the utility of putting parents in prison because of the behaviour of their children. Our prisons are already far too full; it is an utterly useless thing to do.
Baroness Blatch: I should correct the noble Baroness. My amendment relates not the behaviour of the children but to parents who are violent. It has nothing to do with the violence of children. I cited the increasing number of violent children who are turning into violent parents. The amendment relates to violent parents.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I agree that the behaviour of some parents is appalling. Anything that one can do to restrain that is an advantage.
I strongly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We need to develop an outreach mechanism that can help parents in the community. Many of them need help with their parenting skills.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the important question of dealing with the small number of parents who disrupt school life by being violent in schools or by threatening school staff in or out of school. The Government view that matter with the utmost seriousness. I make it clear that there is never any excuse for a parent to abuse, either physically or verbally, a teacher or anyone who works in our schools. Unfortunately, we know that that happens. We are very clear however: we expect the toughest possible line to be taken against such behaviour.
In the vast majority of cases, as Members of the Committee will know, relations between school and parents are mutually respectful and good. That is how they should be. The outreach referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, works well. It is inconceivable to most of us that any member of the school community should run the risk of being subject to violence at work. It is our very firm opinion that anyone who presents that sort of risk should expect to be punished.
Last autumn, the department consulted on extending the use of parenting orders. We had in mind then that disruptive or violent behaviour in school by a pupil resulting in a pattern of fixed period exclusions or permanent exclusion could be a "trigger" for initiating court proceedings, leading to a parenting order being imposed. We have made it clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, that we intend to pursue this option when a suitable criminal justice Bill is available.
We said in the consultation paper that there was an issue about whether parenting orders should apply where the parent's behaviour, not the child's—the noble Baroness pointed that out—is causing a problem. Seventy-eight per cent of those consulted—104 out of 134 respondents last autumn—opposed extending parenting orders to cover parental behaviour. That was because parenting orders are fundamentally about improving parenting, not about punishing people for violence.
However, we are absolutely clear that we want school staff to be protected and violent parents to be prosecuted. Let me remind the Committee of the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when she addressed the Easter conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. She reminded the conference that there is already a range of ways in which bad parental behaviour can be punished: parents causing a disturbance can be removed from school premises and prosecuted by the local education authority; parents assaulting a teacher or causing damage to schoolteachers' property can be charged under criminal legislation—for example, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or the Criminal Damage Act 1971; or anti-social behaviour orders can be imposed. If someone causes harassment, he can be taken before the courts under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That legislation offers a range of sanctions, including custodial sentences and fines that are greater than those proposed in the amendment. So we are clear that the powers are already there.
980
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said to the ATL conference, we do not need new legislation; we just need the will to use the powers that already exist. She made the position very clear. Employers must take whatever action is necessary to protect teachers, including prosecution. Where teachers are assaulted or threatened in the course of their duties, employers already have the power to act decisively. We want them to do so. This is a real opportunity for LEAs to lead.
We are now taking active steps to make the existing remedies better known and to promote their use, so that action can be taken against disruptive parents at the first opportunity. We have had very positive discussions about that approach with the Association of Chief Education Officers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers. We are looking to ensure that schools have the support to ensure that rapid and tough action can be taken against anyone who threatens their staff or their smooth operation.
I have a final word on the issue of police in schools. Members of the Committee may be familiar with examples of police in schools, but I strongly recommend them to visit schools. Police working in schools are seeking to enhance the relations between the community, the school and the police. They provide a real service to children—they are often children who are trying to lead the kind of life that we wish them to lead. Policemen and policewomen talk with the children, are involved in their lives and help them to understand, perhaps in a citizenship role, their place. That is very much the role that we envisage. It is not about providing a protection service in that sense.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for moving this amendment, which has given the Committee an opportunity to unite in saying that we expect teachers and other staff in schools to be protected to the fullest extent of the law. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees with me that, given the range of powers that can be used and the severity of the penalties available, we must now concentrate our energies on ensuring that those powers are used as fully as possible to give all our teachers and staff the protection that they deserve. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot describe how disappointed I am with that answer. The Government gave a promise that they would extend parenting orders—they did not say that that would be put out for consultation or that they might be extended. The NAHT and other teachers accepted the promise that they would be extended. All that was stopping the Government was a legislative opportunity to do so. We have provided such an opportunity, but what did the Government say? That the law is all right as it is, that teachers are fully protected under the law and that all that we need to do is to enforce the law. Teachers do not believe that. They do not feel protected and on a

981
daily basis teachers up and down the country are being physically hurt by violent parents. We have left them undefended.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that existing law should be used. The Government have done nothing about finding ways of encouraging magistrates and the courts to use the law more effectively or to encourage the police to use their powers where necessary, to protect teachers. Instead, the Government say that they will extend parenting orders.
Tonight, the Minister has elegantly danced on a pin in finding ways to avoid honouring the Government's pledge. I expect the Government to match their words with deeds. I am deeply disappointed. The issue is too important to run a vote at this time of the evening, knowing that the Government have their army corralled outside. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again about the Government's promise to teachers and the protection that they deserve. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Attendance targets]:
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: Any target for school attendance should not fall below 100 per cent. At even the best-run schools, some children will fall ill while others may suffer a death in the family. By any yardstick and for totally understandable reasons, some absences will be justified. However, we are talking not about the actuality but the target. The expectation should be 100 per cent attendance. Can one imagine a school being given an attendance target of 70 per cent, 80 per cent or 90 per cent? No school in the land should be set an attendance target anything below 100 per cent.
I was part of the ministerial team that introduced the publication of absenteeism figures, starting with unauthorised absences. It quickly became clear that schools throughout the land had varying attitudes to children being absent. Some were lax. Provided a parent telephoned or sent a note after the child's absence or if the child looked sufficiently pleadingly into the eyes of the teacher, that was acceptable to some schools as an authorised absence. I managed to persuade my ministerial colleagues that it would be a good idea to publish publicly figures of authorised and unauthorised absences, so that people could identify how relaxed or rigid a regime a school operated and for Ofsted to make a judgment about a school's absenteeism policy management.
There is positively no defence for allowing a school to have an attendance target of anything less than 100 per cent.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I could not agree more that schools should aspire to 100 per cent attendance—although, as the noble Baroness said, there are times when children suffer bereavement, illness or other circumstances. We are enabling the
982
Secretary of State to set targets aimed at reducing all types of absenteeism—not only those unauthorised by the school.
In the last academic year, 0.7 per cent of half days were missed due to unauthorised absenteeism but 6.5 per cent of half days were missed due to authorised absenteeism—which accounts for 90 per cent of all absences from school. A large proportion of children stopped by truancy patrols are with an adult. According to Ofsted, the figure is about 80 per cent. Your Lordships may have read press reports in recent days in which one excuse for school absenteeism given by a family was that they were out to buy a hamster.
Children who are out of school are missing out on their education. I am sure that every Member of the Committee agrees that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Good attendance is crucial if children are to achieve at school. The emphasis should not be on why the child is absent from school but on making sure that he or she gets back to school as soon as possible. It is important that children are taught the importance of good attendance if they are to succeed later in life. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that employers might ask for an applicant's school attendance record when assessing his or her suitability for a job.
Appropriate targets play a vital role in school improvement and raising community awareness of the issue. Many schools already work hard to improve attendance and set their own targets with their local education welfare service. It is important that schools have the right incentive to take all types of absence seriously. Therefore, a requirement that targets are set for schools with above-average absence figures ensures that they put their energy into working with parents and with the education welfare service in getting children back to school instead of debating whether or not an absence should be authorised.
The targets will not be additional to existing targets. Instead, they represent a widening focus that we believe will be welcomed by schools and local education authorities. That is why we have moved to a target for all absences. Of course, I accept what the noble Baroness said. We want every school to move towards 100 per cent attendance. The clause seeks to move schools from having high levels of absence into a better position. It seeks to raise awareness, get schools to focus on the issues, work with the education welfare service and move beyond.
Of course, our ultimate objective is for every child in school to learn and develop to the best of his ability. I hope that the Committee will see that the clause forms an important part of our plans to raise the level of attainment of all pupils. It should, therefore, stand part of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I hoped that the noble Baroness would say something about her plans—or the Government's plans—to give schools the necessary powers to do something about the problem of absence. Schools can add something to their newsletters to parents or send a note home with little Jimmy saying that it would be

983
nice to see him in school more often. But it is the culture among many parents to take a relaxed altitude to the presence of a child in school. When they want to buy a hamster or take a skiing holiday off-peak or get some winter sun, they take little Jimmy out of school and off they go. Unless that occurs in the middle of an exam period, it does not really matter because being out of school provides just as good an education as being in school. Those are all things that parents say.
That is a problem which the school can do nothing about. No sanctions are available. There is no sanction that anyone will lay against such parents; nor do schools have any way of offering rewards. If a target is set, surely there must be some way of it being reached.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We do have sanctions against parents. In recent days, there was a very high-profile case of a parent who did not send her children to school. The result was that that parent was imprisoned. As I mentioned earlier this evening, I was in Stevenage last week. A head teacher there said to me that two children whom he had had great difficulty in getting back into school reappeared last Monday morning. When asked why, the children said, "Because our mum does not want to go to prison".
We have sanctions. The education welfare service does a good job in working with schools—it is often based in schools—to develop links with such families in order to get their children into school. It is very important that we ensure that the service works well. But, ultimately, sanctions do exist. They are an issue that we must consider, and local education authorities do so.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has given me no reason whatever to support the idea of a school having a target lower than 100 per cent. She said that the Government want to set targets in order to enable the Secretary of State to reduce all types of school absence. In that case, let us give them a target of 100 per cent and ask them why they have not achieved it. They may or may not have very good reasons for not doing so. But the judgment can be made. As for the child who was found with a parent buying a hamster, that parent was breaking the law and should be dealt with.
The Government appear to be taking some credit for the fact that, for the first time in a very long while, one parent has been imprisoned. I agree with the noble Baroness that that has had quite an impact throughout the parent and pupil communities. However, it came about through the persistence of the local authority. One has only to look at the catalogue of attempts that had been made to ask that parent to comply with her obligation to send her children to school to see that the local authority reached the end of the line in trying to persuade her to be compliant.
However, I still say that if only 0.7 per cent of absences are unauthorised and 6.5 per cent are authorised, then reducing the target below 100 per cent is almost to condone the rate of absence. It seems to me that one answer is to make the target 100 per cent and
984
to make schools accountable for the absences that fall short of that target. The Government have put up no argument or defence whatever for their proposal.
I want to relate an anecdote in order to express my incredulity at this clause. I was once involved in contemplating the privatisation of cleaning and caretaking in schools. As part of the prerequisite work for that, I discovered to my horror that a bonus scheme was operating in the local authority. The scheme paid a bonus to anyone who worked at a level above 70 per cent effort. I then asked the natural follow-on question of how many people had received the bonus. I discovered that everyone had received it. The shock to me was that it was considered the norm to work at 70 per cent effort. I do not know any other norm than working flat out. One does one's best, and if one does not expect people to do their best they will not. That pertains particularly to children. The more one expects of children the more children will rise to the challenge and want to deliver.
In the case of people who were expected to work at 70 per cent, everyone received the bonus because there was no measuring system in place. The exercise is worth undertaking if only to find that out. I believe that the target should be 100 per cent. There should be no bureaucracy. The Government suggest that the local authority liaises with every school. The noble Baroness has just said that the local authority, in conjunction with the school, should arrive at a target and monitor whether that target is met. That appears to me to be an absolute nonsense. Through my amendment I advocate the removal of the clause from the Bill. I believe that the Government should expect all children to attend school on each school day of the year.
In view of the existence of published information, Ofsted inspections, the LEA's duty to see that children are in school and the parents' obligation to get their children to school, in relation to which a raft of measures can be taken by the courts, the police and support systems, I simply cannot understand the Government's reluctance to remove this clause from the Bill and their insistence on this idiotic policy.
Lord Dearing: I have great sympathy with the principle raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The objective should he for all children to attend school 100 per cent of the time. However, as a manager, I am conscious that to be told in difficult circumstances that 100 per cent is the target may cause people to give up. With a highly transient, difficult population teachers may say to themselves, "The legislators do not live in the same world as the people of this borough".
I believe that it will help to say on the way to that desired objective of 100 per cent, "Your target is to move towards that to a certain extent". In that situation I can see teachers rallying around the head teacher in support. As a manager, I fear that if one asks too much, people will put up their hands and not try. While agreeing with the principle put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I realise that the

985
Government are adopting a practical and workable policy that will move matters in the direction that we all want.
Baroness Blatch: In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has said, many schools that are struggling against the odds are damned often by reputation and often by people knowing that it is not the best school in the town. If I, as a parent, moved into an area and looked for a school for my children and I knew that the target for attendance at a school was less than 100 per cent—it may be 60,70,80 or 90 per cent—I would be very concerned about sending my children there. I would know that a certain percentage of the children at that school would not be expected to be in school at any given time.
I agree with the noble Lord that there is a problem and that we should approach it from a different angle. Such a school should be given as much support as possible to help it to fight against those odds even though it has a high percentage of non-compliant parents in the area. One should do that through support systems, through liaising with the police, and through finding innovative ways of trying to connect with the parents and remind them of their obligations. Setting a target below 100 per cent will damn a school and that will certainly not achieve the objective.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We are trying to find a mechanism. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is absolutely right to say that we want 100 per cent of children in school at all times. Some of our schools, in challenging circumstances, have a real difficulty with the issue of school attendance. We are trying to move them towards that figure. The purpose of this clause is to remove the difference between "unauthorised" and "authorised" in order to create one target on attendance. We have spoken to education authorities and schools, which have welcomed that move.
With regard to whether targets work, there is always a case of the jury being out. We know, however, that as a result of the targets that we set, in the past two years the level of unauthorised absence in primary schools has decreased in 44 local education authorities. We also know that the level of unauthorised absence in secondary schools has decreased in 60 local education authorities. It is an ongoing process that is being used as a means of ensuring that we work closely with our schools and put in the right kind of support mechanisms. In that respect, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
It is important to encourage schools to focus on the issue of moving towards the target to which we all aspire and to put in place targets that they will try to meet to ensure that children are in school. I do not believe that the noble Baroness and I are in disagreement about this matter. It is a mechanical process: a way of ensuring, on the basis of what the
986
noble Lord, Lord Dearing has said, that we have in place targets towards which schools can work. On that basis, I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I still profoundly disagree with the Minister. It is not right to say that we are both coming from the same place. I do not believe that we are. The intention of this clause is to include authorised as well as unauthorised absences. The Minister has already said that a number of remedies are in place for dealing with parents who do not send their children to school.
If we are referring to schools that find it difficult to get children to attend because their parents are not complying, by either condoning the absence, failing to alert the school of problems, or not meeting their own obligations to get their children to school, that is the issue to be tackled. The schools would welcome tougher action being taken with parents who are non-compliant in relation to sending their children to school. However, it seems bizarre to put the target on the school by saying, "You as a school must expect to achieve only 80 or 90 per cent attendance". The target should be 100 per cent. If the parents are at fault in not sending their children to school, that is the problem that the Government should address.
I withdraw my opposition to the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill, but we shall certainly return to it at another stage.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Power of LEA to provide for governing body to consist of interim executive members]:
The Lord Bishop of Blackburnmoved Amendment No. 229:
Page 37, line 26, at end insert—
"() In the case of a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school, before giving consent to the exercise by the local education authority of the powers conferred by subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the appropriate diocesan authority."
The right reverend Prelate said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 229 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. At first glance, it may seem a strange amendment to move in the light of subsection (2)(4) of the clause, but I hope to explain that in a moment.
I say at the outset that nothing in this amendment goes against the thrust of this clause in the Bill. If there are problems in the governing body of a voluntary-aided school that lead to the failure of a school, they need to be addressed. But we look for some assurance at the outset of the process. It seems to us that before consenting to the process beginning and taking up the point made by the local authority, the Secretary of State should at least check out this matter with the appropriate diocesan authorities.
Although in this country relations are excellent between most local authorities and the governors of voluntary-aided schools, sadly there are cases in which, for doctrinaire or whatever other reasons, some

987
local authorities try to make life quite difficult for the governors of voluntary-aided schools. In those rare circumstances where in our judgment there may be a slightly unworthy motive, the Secretary of State should be required, as it were, on the face of the Bill at least to consult with the diocesan authority in order to check out the facts before acceding to the request of the local authority.
I re-emphasise that there is nothing in this amendment which runs against the thrust of Clause 54 in trying to impose, where appropriate, an interim executive board. However, I hope that in her reply the Minister will give me the small amendment that I seek in order that the governors of aided schools may feel rather more secure than they do with the clause as presently drafted. I beg to move.
9.30 p m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am very happy to support the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. The point that he made about the non-controversial nature of this clause is one with which I agree. It is right that the Government should take these powers to deal with the imposition of interim executive members in the case of the schools that are mentioned in subsection (1) and also in other subsections. However, it does not spell out exactly what would happen in the case of diocesan schools. I know that not only the Church of England authorities but also the Catholic Education Service are concerned about what would happen in such circumstances.
I hope that the Government are minded to accept the spirit of this amendment. If the Minister believes that the first line of consultation, as it were, should be with the local education authority, perhaps he could tell the Committee what would happen in the case of the sort of dispute outlined by the right reverend Prelate. If there were to be a dispute, can the Minister say who would be the point of reference in those circumstances? Even if it is not on the face of the Bill, the Minister's clarification in that respect could meet some of the concerns that have been raised.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there is any issue between us—I do not believe that there is—it is not whether there should be consultation with diocesan authorities, but who does the consultation. There are two ways in which interim executive members can be appointed to replace the governing body of a school where that school requires "special measures" or has "serious weaknesses": first, by the local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, and following consultation. Consultation will include the appropriate diocesan authority in the case of a foundation or voluntary school, which is Church of England, Church of Wales or a Roman Catholic School. The second possibility is appointment by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the relevant diocesan authority and others, unless the LEA has already undertaken this consultation.
988
We have not been debating these interim executive measures because no other amendments have been tabled on the subject. The intention is that such powers should be used only in exceptional circumstances where there is a need for prompt, rapid intervention to improve standards. On the first option, the Secretary of State will expect to be informed about the LEA's consultation on appointing interim executive members in considering the LEA's case. If there is any concern that the appropriate diocesan authority has not been consulted adequately, the Secretary of State will request further details, asking for sight of any correspondence or notes of meetings, or will undertake further consultation.
We do not wish to impose more work on the diocesan authorities by legislating far the duplication of consultation. I hope that the assurance I have given—namely, that the interests of diocesan authorities are already protected in either case—will meet the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I thank the Minister for his reply, which goes some way towards reassuring those whom I represent that the Secretary of State will take due note that the consultation has taken place and that, before giving whatever consent is necessary, will investigate the situation in some way. I hope that my understanding of the Minister's response is correct. In the knowledge that that assurance is on the record, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Power to require LEA to obtain advisory services]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 230:
Page 41, line 11, at beginning insert "following consultation with the local education authority,"
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 231.
Clause 60 provides for the Secretary of State to intervene and direct the LEA to introduce a partner to assist with turning round a failing school or schools if insufficient progress has been made. However, there is nothing in the Bill to require that the Secretary of State must consult with the LEA in such a situation.
The exercise of those powers will have clear financial implications for the LEA, especially when a lot of money is to be delegated to the new partner. It will also have implications for other schools for which the LEA has responsibility as it could put in jeopardy the necessary critical mass of the authority's advisory and other services if a large chunk of those services were taken over by a partner.
It is therefore surprising that the Government think it appropriate for the Secretary of State to interfere with local decision making to such an extent without

989
even ascertaining from the authority what the knock-on effects of such action might be. The Minister may say that of course such consultations will take place, and perhaps with the current Secretary of State, they would. However, we shall not always have the present Secretary of State, so it is necessary to put this protection into the Bill for the benefit of other schools in the area. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I shall explain in what circumstances those powers could be used. I emphasise that it is certainly our intention that they should be used extremely rarely.
I say that in the context that our policy in tackling failing schools is working well. In the past few years more than 900 schools have been turned round, and I pay tribute to the role of local education authorities in that achievement.
Many LEAs have established effective partnership arrangements. The power in the clause to direct an LEA to involve a partner to support the governing body of a weak or failing school, or to support the LEA itself, will be needed in only a very small number of cases, where the LEA has chosen not to do so itself.
There are two possible instances when the power could be required. First, when an LEA is preparing an action plan following an Ofsted inspection which has judged a school as having serious weaknesses or requiring special measures, it may be necessary to require the LEA to involve external support where action is clearly necessary and the authority has no plans to take such action. Alternatively, a direction may be necessary later in the process if it becomes clear that an LEA's recovery plan is not working.
In either case, we shall have been working closely with the LEA in question to help it to tackle the difficulties that it faces. Therefore, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will have sufficient knowledge to be satisfied that a direction is the appropriate course of action. There will have been detailed discussions throughout this time, which I should have thought would go rather further than consultation in the formal sense. Therefore, we do not need a further requirement to consult. That would slow down the process of securing for children the quality of education that is their right.
I turn to Amendment No. 231. We expect the Secretary of State to use her power under Clause 60 to direct the LEA to obtain advisory services. We expect that to happen only rarely. The fact that it has happened in my borough of Haringey is perhaps irrelevant to the argument. We propose to provide guidance on the way in which any local education authority might use external partners to provide advice on turning failing schools around.
We want the guidance to be as helpful as possible and we believe that LEAs will find examples of model contracts more useful than detailed guidance about the terms and conditions which the Secretary of State
990
might include in a direction. We hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will agree that that sort of guidance would be preferable to a formal direction.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might have to use such powers—hopefully rarely—it would probably mean almost a complete breakdown in relations between the DfES and the local authority in question. I very much hope that the Minister is right and that it would be used rarely. I shall read his remarks with great care and possibly return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 232:
Page 41, line 34, leave out "an order of mandamus" and insert "a mandatory order"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 232 is a drafting amendment which brings the matter up to date. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Academies]:
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 233:
Page 42, line 42, after "State" insert "(in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales)"
The noble Lord said: Clause 62 and the succeeding clauses up to and including Clause 67 apply to England only. Some of us in Wales feel that it may be losing out by not opting in to some of these clauses and some of the possibilities that they contain.
Amendment No. 233 seeks to remedy this short-sightedness, particularly in relation to academies. The amendment, I hasten to add, is only indicative, in the sense that if it were to be accepted, other consequential amendments would be necessary in the clause. We have not littered the Marshalled List with them at this stage.
The argument is very clear. Here is a proposal that the Secretary of State may enter an agreement with a person to establish and maintain an independent school with a broad curriculum but with an emphasis on a particular subject area. That we know represents a popular approach to education among young people with a special interest. They take an interest in their schooling. With that kind of interest, there is something to combat the inertia that we all remember from our schooldays.
Such youngsters in Wales are to be denied any such opportunity and so are the potential patrons of such schools. And why? It is because the Welsh education system and the Welsh proposals in the Bill are anachronistic, backward instead of forward looking

991
and antipathetic to novelty and change. The ethos is static, self-perpetuating, anti-enterprise and, frankly, wrong. New ideas and concepts are anathema.
It will be said that there is no demand for such schools as these academies and that there is no queue of patrons at the Minister's door. There certainly will not be now that the door has been firmly slammed in their faces. I am sorry to say that the best that we can hope for in Wales is that news of the success of these academies will percolate down in time and that someone will press for such academies to be established there. As the Bill stands, it will not be possible for Wales to benefit unless the amendment is accepted making Clause 62 apply to Wales as well as England. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 234, 237, 238, 242, 243 and 245. This series of amendments all relate to Clause 62 which deals with the setting up of new academies. Each one is, however, slightly different and addresses a slightly different issue. I shall address each one of them separately.
Amendment No. 234 seeks to ensure consistency of terminology. The 1988 Act's,
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum",
is well understood by teachers as one which includes a range of individual subjects which collectively covers all experiential disciplines and one which all pupils have access to. All pupils follow one curriculum differentiated accordingly to ensure equal access.
The 1988 Conservative Government at the time clearly envisaged the national curriculum as providing the necessary breadth and balance. But with the need for sex education and careers education, it was always clear to teachers that a balanced and broadly-based curriculum referred to the national curriculum plus the wider school curriculum. The current Government appear to view a "broad" curriculum as something different again. In the proposals for 14 to 19s and the White Paper, terms like "balance", "breadth" and "entitlement" are used but clearly do not have the same meaning as before.
The Government appear to envisage that a "broad" curriculum will mean something different to different pupils. The amendment is intended to find out exactly what they mean. We suggest that the Bill refers to the Act by inserting the words,
"curriculum which satisfies the requirements of section 74(1)".
Amendment No. 237 is intended to probe the Government to clarify pupil admissions to academies. Section 482(2)(b) of the Education Act 1996 states that the school, or in this case the academy,
"provides education for pupils of different abilities who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated".
By inserting the words "local education authority" before "area", we seek further clarification with regard to admission to academies. Can the Government clarify—or in this case, quantify—the term "mainly"? What area will academies serve?
992
I turn to Amendment No. 238, which is also a probing amendment regarding the Government's intention in relation to the establishment of additional academies. The amendment would ensure that no academy was established without prior consideration of its value in raising standards across the LEA. The establishment of city academies—or, as proposed, academies—may fragment local provision of secondary schools. Academies also involve the transfer of publicly funded assets to sponsoring bodies, which are not necessarily accountable. Sponsors provide about 20 per cent of the initial capital cost of setting up a city academy—up to £2 million of the average cost of £10 million. Public money is used to fund the remainder of the capital cost.
In the case of the proposed city academy in Haringey, for example, there have been numerous technical difficulties in transferring land and assets to the sponsors. The relationship of sponsors to the governance of city academies has not been adequately dealt with, which is why we want to insert the new subsection.
Amendments Nos. 242 and 243, which we have tabled at the behest of the Local Government Association, are intended to enable local leaders, in consultation with their communities, to decide on the planning of new secondary schools. That is currently the role of the schools organisation committee. The LGA is concerned that the Bill takes powers and responsibilities away from local community leaders and gives them to the Secretary of State. That undermines local democracy and provides for an unacceptable level of centralisation.
The role of community leaders is crucial, especially given the Government's proposals to make communities more cohesive in the wake of last summer's disturbances in some English towns and cities. The proposals for community cohesion are cross-cutting and extensive and will require the full involvement of local leaders and a level of local knowledge that only they can provide. They feel—and we on these Benches agree—that the Bill runs counter to those proposals and will make it difficult for local leaders to perform their community function. The Bill fails to foster a genuine partnership between local and central government, which we want to protect.
The Government are leading a consultation exercise on the new secondary school planned for Clapham, in a prosperous area in the borough of Lambeth. The school, a city academy, will be privately sponsored by the Church Schools Company and will take up to 180 students a year. The academy will meet the urgent need for secondary school places in Lambeth and the proposal has emerged after a long lobbying campaign by council and residents.
Issues forming the basis of the consultation include admissions criteria, the school's ethos, how the national curriculum will be delivered and the make-up of the governing body. The borough's executive director of education, Michael Peters, has asked residents to do all in their power to ensure that the city

993
academy delivers what is best for the community, the borough, pupils and parents. Those concerns are all relevant to the amendment.
Amendment No. 245 originates, I think, with the NAHT. It is self-explanatory. The duties imposed on the governing bodies of maintained schools should be echoed for the academies.
Baroness Blatch: My first observation is that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, in the guise of someone trying to be helpful to local authorities is, in fact, showing her petticoat on her dislike of city academies, city technology colleges or whatever. They are, in fact, state independent schools, and the legislation setting up the city academies is based on the legislation that set up the city technology colleges in the first place.
To be fair to the noble Baroness, she has made no secret of her views. From our earlier debates today, we know that there is an antipathy towards those colleges. I believe that they have raised educational standards in the areas in which they have been established and have been an enormously valuable educational experiment in some difficult areas, particularly urban areas.
I shall pose a question to the noble Baroness. The city technology colleges, on which the city academies are based, have been in place for some years. What is it about those city academies that has proven to be a problem in the opinion of the noble Baroness? What has made her feel that we ought to change the basis on which the schools are set up? If we take the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness together, it would seem that she is trying to turn them all back into normal comprehensive schools within the state system and take away the independent status that they enjoy. As far as I know, the Government intend that those schools should continue to enjoy that status.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a mixed bag of amendments. It starts with Wales, so I had better deal with Wales first, had I not?
The National Assembly for Wales has set out its strategic view of the needs for education in its document The Learning Country. The contents of that document were widely welcomed in Wales. As in England, there has been a long-standing commitment to enabling schools to build on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. In Wales, that finds expression in the close partnership arrangements with local education authorities and in the Partnership Council, which consists of Assembly Members and members of local authorities and was established by the Government of Wales Act 1998.
In those circumstances, the Government's view is that it is right to respect the decision of the Welsh Assembly that, in the light of the approach that they are taking, they do not wish to have the power proposed here. That is why we have not extended it to Wales.
I turn to Amendment No. 234. We already require that the curriculum in each academy should be broad, and we use funding agreements to flesh that out.
994
However, I see merit in extending the legislative requirement so that it resembles more closely the requirements placed on maintained schools in respect of the breadth and balance of the curriculum and the emphasis on meeting the moral, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical needs of young people and preparing them for later life. That is what the amendment does. Therefore, we accept the principle behind the amendment and its intention. We shall bring forward a government amendment at Report stage to implement it. I hope on that basis it will not be pressed.
I am not so happy about Amendment No. 237 and I hope that it is just a misunderstanding. We agree, of course, with the intention that academies, like other schools, should serve their community and we have put in place stringent requirements to ensure that that will happen. I remind the Committee, and give a further commitment, that academies will be bound through their funding agreement to conform to the requirements of the law on admissions and the statutory codes of practice as those apply to maintained schools.
If I sometimes say that the rules for academies are consistent with those for maintained schools, what I mean is that, in effect, they are the same. They are achieved in a different way through funding agreements rather than in other ways. However, the problem with the amendment is that communities do not always follow neat local education authority boundaries. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, knows, for maintained schools there is case law. The 1989 Greenwich judgment established that LEA maintained schools were not allowed to give priority to children simply because they lived in that LEA's administrative area. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that academies should, as far as admissions are concerned, be treated in the same way as maintained schools.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 238, 242 and 243, the Government have consistently made clear that we expect academies to be established in partnership with local education authorities. Indeed, that has been the case. The LEA has been an active partner in all of the 17 city academy partnerships announced to date and we continue to have expressions of interest from LEAs which are keen to explore the opportunities that city academies offer for tackling under-achievement and raising standards in their area.
Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right. There is public money involved, in particular in the provision of the sites. The key question for the Secretary of State when she considers whether or not to enter a funding agreement with an academy is the likelihood that the academy will make a significant contribution to raising standards. That is not just raising standards for pupils in the academy, but contributing to the education of pupils in other schools in the area. Academies' funding agreements will set out explicit targets for attainment at the individual school level which will feed into the host LEA's targets. They will be required, through their funding agreements, to contribute to raising standards across the board by

995
sharing their facilities and expertise with other schools and the wider community. Therefore, the involvement with the LEA can be seen to be pretty important in the establishment of academies.
In considering sponsors' proposals, we look for evidence that local stakeholders, including the LEA, have been involved in their development. We want to be sure that each one will complement and augment the existing provision in terms of the education it provides and the opportunities it offers to the wider community. The involvement of LEAs has contributed to the city academies programme. We expect LEAs to continue to play a positive role, for example, by being represented on the governing bodies of academies.
Already, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult relevant LEAs before entering into a funding agreement with a city academy and that obligation, which I believe is the thrust of these amendments, is reenacted under subsection (3) of the clause. The Secretary of State is already consulting LEAs as required. We have testimonies which I could read out, if it was not so late, from a number of local education authorities, to that point. However, we do not see any need to put in place unnecessary additional legislative hoops. The primary goal of the academies is to raise standards and it will do so most effectively when it works in partnership with the LEAs and other stakeholders.
There may be occasions when the LEA, or an adjacent LEA, does not support the case for an academy. The Secretary of State has to consult the LEA and any other LEA from which the Secretary of State thinks pupils might attend. If the LEA or LEAs, do not support the academy, they will say so. The Secretary of State will then have to consider their views alongside the case made for the academy by sponsors and others, including local parents and other community groups.
However, it is possible that the LEA's view may not always be the right one. There may be cases—I expect them to be rare—when the LEA sets its face against an academy and where an academy is exactly what the area needs. In such cases, the Government feel that an academy should go ahead.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 245. I am happy to say that I think it is unnecessary. Academies are independent schools funded by the Department for Education and Skills. We work hard to ensure that each one will play a full part in its local family of schools and is properly accountable. But there is no need for the blanket insistence that academies should he the same as schools maintained by the LEA. What matters—and all that matters—is that each academy has governance arrangements that meets its needs and helps it to provide the best possible education for its pupils. That does not mean that in each case the governance should be the same.
However, it does mean—and I can give the Committee this assurance—that academies will comply in full with the requirements of special educational needs, admissions and exclusions
996
legislation as they apply to maintained schools. We expect academies to be established as charitable companies limited by guarantee. They will have a memorandum and articles setting out their governance arrangements. We have agreed a standard memorandum and articles with the Charity Commission and we have placed a copy of this in the Library, together with a standard funding agreement.
We intend that academies should be treated no more and no less favourably than maintained schools. They are equal but different. I hope that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wants because that is what we want.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I think I am quoting the Minister accurately when he previously said that as far as admissions are concerned academies should be treated in the same way as maintained schools. There are two very important distinctions between academies and maintained schools. One is that they take in children from across the ability range but in about live ability bands. That is scientifically worked out, which is wholly unlike maintained schools which, if they are local comprehensive schools, simply take all-comers, whatever their abilities.
Secondly, academies admit by interview and no other maintained school is allowed to take in children under the admissions procedure by interview. Therefore, they are different in that respect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not quite say that the admissions procedure was the same. In order to be safe, I shall read what I said because I was reading my brief on this occasion. I said that academies will comply in full with the requirements of SEN admissions and exclusions legislation as they apply to maintained schools. As regards the issue of banding, we turn to that with the next group of amendments. I think that it would be better if we discussed the matter then.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back on that. I was referring to an occasion much earlier today when the noble Lord said that as far as admissions were concerned academies were treated the same as maintained schools. It might have been in the context of another aspect, but it was not in the context of SEN.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not always read speeches and perhaps I made some such comment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is not necessarily the case—and perhaps this is relevant to the next group of amendments—that academies have banding policies. It is not necessarily the case that they interview potential pupils.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I am somewhat reassured by what he has had to say. I am delighted that he has accepted our Amendment No. 234—that is a nice little bonus for us.

997
The only issue to which I want to return is that of admissions. Am I right in thinking that academies are their own admissions authorities, in the same way as the CTCs are their own admissions authorities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are independent schools in the public sector, and they have funding agreements, memoranda, and articles. I have explained what those require them to do and the extent to which they have to obey the same law as maintained schools; but they are their own admissions authorities, subject to those very significant constraints.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I realise that those are very significant constraints and that is reassuring. What I find particularly reassuring is the degree to which the academies will be serving their own local communities. On these Benches, we feel strongly that a great deal of public money is going in and that it is important that they do not become élite academies.
In relation to Amendment No. 237, we should be delighted to see the abolition of the Greenwich judgment, but it is there and we recognise the limitations that that imposes.
There is a great deal in the Minister's answers, for which I thank him. We shall read them with care, and we shall possibly return to some of these issues on Report.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for explaining why Clause 62 does not apply to Wales. He referred to the document produced by the National Assembly, The Learning Country, which I have read more than once. It looks forward a decade or so, but, alas, is not very innovative in terms of practical ideas. It seems as if a straitjacket has descended on the comprehensive system in Wales. Possibly, the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been abroad in educational circles in the Principality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord does not expect me to agree with him. In words once used by Ken Tynan, wild horses on their bended knees would not extract from me a criticism of the National Assembly for Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: As regards the amendment, my personal view is that Wales is losing out and that the Bill is not as enabling as it might be, in that, if these clauses did apply to Wales, it would, of course, be up to the Assembly and others involved in education as to whether they were activated or not. Personally, I think that the idea of academies is a promising one and would be relevant in the Principality. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 235:
Page 43, line 11, leave out "different" and insert "all"
998
The noble Lord said: I hope that I can deal briefly with these two amendments, Amendments Nos. 235 and 236, especially as I am indebted to the good offices of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch. I tabled them partly so that we could have a good debate on comprehensives, and we managed to have such a debate earlier.
The two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend should not be interpreted to mean that either of us supports what I regard as the most idiotic idea; namely, "academies". I have no idea what the origin of this lunacy is, but in speaking about the idea I hope that I am not interpreted as thinking for one moment that it would be other than damaging to the education system of our country.
The Minister has spoken on more than one occasion of the Government's commitment to comprehensive education, for which I am indebted. "Comprehensive" education means admitting pupils of all abilities. One need rarely argue about the word. It does not mean "different abilities"; it means "all abilities". Therefore, given the Minister's commitment to comprehensive education—and the Minister having said how sympathetic she is to at least one Conservative amendment, how sympathetic she is to one amendment tabled by the Bishops, how sympathetic she is to one Liberal Democrat amendment—we might have an absolutely miraculous occasion and she might actually support an idea coming from her own supporters. I therefore press on the Minister the notion that we need the phrase "all abilities" and not the phrase "different abilities".
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey reminds me of our younger and happier days when the idea of banding was introduced in a moment of aberration on the part of the people of Haringey who voted for a very short time for a Conservative local administration. It did not last very long, but it thought that the idea of banding was a good one. Two leading figures in opposing that to the death were my noble friend and myself. We won that battle. I certainly have not changed my view and I take it that he has not. Therefore, we really must replace the word "different" with the word "all".
Amendment No. 236 is more of a drafting amendment. In the provision, the word abilities—which I hope will be "all abilities" rather than "different abilities"—is followed by "who are wholly or mainly". That could be interpreted as meaning that the issue of abilities applies only to those who come under the "who are wholly or mainly", so that young people who do not come from the local area do not have to be of "all" or "different" abilities, but could be of one ability. That is my reading of the amendment.
There are two possibilities here. The first is that I am right and that we need the "and" that I suggest. Alternatively, as I am not an expert in drafting, my noble friend could say, "No, we don't need the 'and' because the clause as it stands means the 'and"'. Not being an expert on reading legislation I shall take his word whichever way round. However, my reading of it is that the "and" is required.

999
Those are my two points. We need "all abilities" because allegedly—not allegedly; my noble friends have said how committed they are—definitely we believe in comprehensives. The "and" is to avoid any confusion as to what the clause means. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that the importance of education is to do what is best for the child rather than to employ political prejudice.
Baroness Blatch: I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have on record now the city technology colleges, city academies and specialist schools, all of which have made a positive difference. The noble Lord cannot point to any of those establishments and say that it has failed young people in any sense whatever. In fact, they have served the more deprived communities better than any preceding schools.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness should know that there is no research evidence supporting what she has just said, and that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence showing exactly the opposite. There is no case other than an a priori and a prejudiced case—to which I shall return in a moment—that it is the other way round. There is no case for these schools. No one has ever shown a research case for them or, in my view, a philosophical case for them. The noble Baroness really should not persist with this view that they are doing a lot of good. There is no evidence whatever that they are doing a lot of good.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I shall remain undaunted and continue to press my case. However, the noble Lord himself has not produced any evidence whatever for the case he is pressing. I shall make the following statements:
"The comprehensive revolution has not removed the link between education and class but it has strengthened it. The revolution which afflicted state schooling from the 1960s is one of the most profound and incendiary factors influencing the state of British society. It was not merely a technical educational change, but changed the nature of the country. In 1965, the Labour-controlled House of Commons resolved that moving to a comprehensive system would 'preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children'".
Few would maintain that that has in fact been the case. Moreover,
"The comprehensive revolution tragically destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle class children now go to middle class comprehensives whose catchment areas comprise middle class neighbourhoods while working class children are mostly left to fester in the inner city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from".
Those are not my words but those of Andrew Adonis, a Labour Party educational adviser to the Prime Minister.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the Committee concludes its debate on this amendment and issue—as
1000
the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, we have rehearsed some of the arguments already—I should like to share an experience from my early days as a local councillor in Liverpool, 30 years ago, when I became the governor of a local comprehensive school which had been built for 2,000 children. It had been built in an area where mass demolition was taking place. The numbers in that school had fallen to about 300 or 400 pupils. Huge efforts were made, not least by the local authority which spent vast sums of money on the school. At one point it was suggested that it would have been cheaper to provide places at Eton for every child at the school than to run the school with those numbers of pupils. However, it drew from an area that was incredibly socially deprived. That council ward which I represented had some of the worst social indicators in England. Half the houses had no inside sanitation, running hot water or bathrooms. That school was more like one of the old secondary modern schools that both the noble Lord, Lord Pest on, and I wholly oppose.
I lived on a council estate and my father worked on the shop floor at Ford but, like others who addressed the Committee earlier this evening. I attended a grammar school. I am aware of the opportunity that that afforded me. I share that experience with the noble Baroness and others who have spoken. My support, as it were, for comprehensive schools is predicated on those experiences. However, I do not support comprehensive schools where they are simply a replica of old secondary modern schools. There is no doubt that where a school's catchment area excludes children from other social backgrounds due to its location, it is in danger of becoming that kind of school.
To complete the story, the school I mentioned was closed down by the local education authority. That is relevant to other debates that we have had here because, ultimately, the Church of England took over the school and turned it into a non-selective girls' school. It is extraordinarily successful and, indeed., has introduced some of the most advanced technology facilities in the city. In a sense that story illustrates what the Government are trying to achieve through diversity.
The other part of the story is that, quite close by, it is planned to situate the new academy in Liverpool which was mentioned earlier. That is to be based in an area that I represented in another place for many years. That has resulted primarily from the initiative of the Bishop of Liverpool., James Jones, who has been a powerhouse of energy in trying to make that happen. I can see that that will have a radically improving effect on the possibilities for children in inner-city Liverpool. We have so-called comprehensive schools in the heart of that city that have virtually never produced anyone who has gone on to higher education. We delude ourselves when we say that those schools are achieving the same objectives as comprehensive schools that are situated in suburban parts of the same city which do an incredibly good job and whose pupils are admitted to the LSE and elsewhere, as we would all wish to see.

1001
I believe that the Government have the matter right. The words "all" or "different" in the amendment go to the heart of the problem. Diversity is surely the issue. As my noble friend Lord Northbourne said, we must provide for the individual needs of every child. I believe that we are agreed not that every child is the same but that what is required is equality of opportunity.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Had those children been sent to Eton, they would have found familiar conditions; that is, no inside toilets and heating on just three days a week. It would have been just like home for them. I am sure that they would have done well there.
I shall be fascinated to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has to say about banding and whether the Government are for or against it. It may interest the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to know that the place where it is becoming most popular at the moment is Camden. Clearly, being socialist is not necessarily an antidote to banding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When we opposed banding in Haringey, it was being proposed by the Labour Inner London Education Authority. So, there is no accounting for taste.
I hope that the Committee will allow me to talk about the amendments and not about the theory of comprehensive schools. My noble friend Lady Ashton dealt with that matter this afternoon and last week. Her and my commitment to comprehensive education is not to be doubted. However, that issue is not raised by the amendments we are discussing. I want to talk about the amendments.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with regard to what "different" might mean. Although he did not say so, he could be questioning whether it could allow an academy to admit only category I—the very bright—and category 2—the bright. They would be of different abilities and would certainly not be comprehensive. I make it absolutely clear that that would not be allowed.
The Government wish that each academy should cater for pupils with very different abilities; that is what the Bill provides. I know that Members of the Committee are keen—the Government are certainly keen—that academies should also cater for pupils from their local communities. The rules for admissions to academies—I said this in response to an earlier amendment—are consistent with those for maintained schools. I use the word "consistent" because they are based on funding agreements rather than other legislation.
I shall now descend into semantics. Where fewer pupils apply than there are places, the academy must admit all of them. I cannot imagine a situation in which those pupils would not be representative of "different" abilities. But they may not be representative of "all" abilities nationally. In an ideal world, all abilities nationally would be represented
1002
locally. But in the real world, we know that we have geographic segregation. It may well be that pupils of all abilities do not apply to the academy, so the test set by the amendment could not and would not be met.
Stephen Timms, the Minister for School Standards, said that he wanted academies to serve the needs of children of all abilities. That is indeed our aim and our aspiration, but it is not something that we can guarantee, as the amendment would require. Let us imagine a situation in which the academy is oversubscribed and cannot take all those who would like a place. The academy will have clear oversubscription criteria to determine who should be admitted in such cases. Those criteria will be clear, fair and transparent. They will be published locally for all to see and will be contained in the academy's funding agreement and approved by the Secretary of State.
A common oversubscription criterion is based on distance from the school—those who live nearest have the best chance of securing a place. I believe that most people agree with that; it ensures that schools serve their local community. But let us combine that criterion with a requirement to admit pupils of all abilities. What happens if the pupils who live nearest the school do not represent all abilities? Should some of them be denied places so that the school admits pupils of all abilities?
There is a further problem. There are many things that the Government can require of academies. We have made it clear that they must be inclusive schools and that they must follow the rules that all maintained schools must follow in terms of who is admitted. But the Government cannot require that they admit pupils of all abilities because we cannot require that pupils of all abilities apply to the academies.
Perhaps I should apologise; it may be thought that that is a semantic argument. However, it applies not only to academies but also to all maintained schools. It is not introduced by the idea of academies. I know how my noble friend Lord Peston feels about academies; he has made his views very clear. However, what is proposed in this regard is not an admissions policy that somehow departs from the comprehensive system any more than the admission policy for maintained schools might be thought to do so.
I turn to Amendment No. 236. We of course agree that academies should serve their community. We have put in place stringent requirements to ensure that that will happen. Academies will be bound through their funding agreements to conform to the requirements of the law on admissions and the statutory codes of practice as those apply to maintained schools.
However, the problem with the amendment is the one that I set out when I responded to Amendment No. 237, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Local communities do not follow neat LEA boundaries. The 1989 Greenwich judgment established that LEA maintained schools were not allowed to give priority to children simply because they lived in that LEA's administrative area. The Government's policy—I believe that this view will be

1003
generally held—is that academies should, so far as admissions are concerned, be treated in the same way as maintained schools.
I have not raised issues of profound principle about comprehensive education because I do not believe that they are raised by the amendment. However, I hope that I have answered the specific concerns that are raised by them.
Lord Peston: I suppose that when the proposed reforms are implemented and we rise at 10 p.m. the House will operate more efficiently. I must admit that I could not understand a word that the Minister just said. It may be old age or the lateness of the hour, although it is not that late.
If I were asked to describe a comprehensive school, I would have no difficulty defining it as an all-ability school, not a different ability school. I am at a loss to understand why the department decided that "different" is right and "all" is wrong. The only explanation is that the schools are not going to be comprehensives.
I am even more mystified by my noble friend's unwillingness to use "and". I had no idea that "and" had anything to do with the Greenwich judgment. I just thought that it would clarify the purpose of that part of the clause. My noble friend might like to reflect on the answer that the officials have written for him, which he read out admirably, and reconsider whether adding "and" would have an effect on one of the most fundamental parts of education. It beats me completely but at twenty past 10 o'clock, at my age, it is all a hit much for me. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Lord sits down, he might like to note that Section 101(1)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states
"that in any year the pupils admitted to the school in any relevant age group are representative of all levels of ability among applicants for admission to the school in that age group".
That seems a formula that we might try putting into the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236 to 238 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 239:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
"(2A) The Secretary of State shall annually lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the admission of disabled children and children with special educational needs to schools to which an agreement under this section relates."
The noble Baroness said: This probing amendment is designed to elicit a response from the Minister as to whether or not academies will be included in local education authority monitoring of admissions of children with special educational needs, with or without statements.
1004
Earlier, the Minister gave an assurance that academies will meet the full requirements but the amendment calls for monitoring at national level. If academies are not included in LEA monitoring, it will be important to have information on admissions of children with SENs brought together nationally, as proposed by the amendment, so that the picture is complete. If academies are to be included, will LEAs be in a position to challenge admissions if an academy were found systematically to be admitting fewer disabled and SEN children than had been expected? Current statistics show that specialist schools and CTCs do not admit the same number of children with SENs and disabilities, which gives cause for concern. I hope that the Minister agrees that as city academies are a new invention, careful monitoring is absolutely necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Given that the Government will be collecting the information anyway, the assurances given earlier, which I welcome, and the increased resources that the Government have properly made available to children with special needs, which are to be commended, laying a report before Parliament would do the Government a service. The form proposed by the amendment may not be precisely the right way but no one will go to the stake over that. However, the spirit behind the amendment is good and, rather than knocking it stone dead this evening, I hope that the Government will consider the proposal between now and Report stage, if they cannot accept it tonight.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: During the passage of the Learning and Skills Act, Ministers gave unequivocal commitments that city academies, as introduced by that Act, would be inclusive schools and would treat pupils and prospective pupils with special educational needs or disabilities on an equal basis with others. I can reiterate that commitment in respect of academies. I believe that that is fundamentally what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wanted. I repeat, as I have said throughout, that they are subject to comparable requirements in all those respects to those which apply to maintained schools.
As to the issue of reporting, each academy's funding agreement will also require the governors to publish an annual prospectus. The information to he included in the prospectus will include details of the governing body's policy for pupils with special educational needs, the details of the arrangements for the admission of disabled pupils, the steps taken to prevent disabled pupils from being treated less favourably than other pupils, and the facilities provided to assist access to the academy by disabled pupils. I believe that that covers the reporting point which is made in the amendment. Therefore, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he agrees with me on a point that

1005
I hoped would have been included in his answer. City technology colleges—I suspect that the academies will be no different—have been enormously innovative in providing education for children with special educational needs. Incredibly effective dyslexic and other programmes have been put in place. I have been deeply inspired by many things that I have seen in those schools. I believe that their achievements are greatly to their credit. They will have a great deal to record if they are invited to make an annual report. We all have much to learn from what they are doing in disseminating good practice around the system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. There is no doubt whatever that the monitoring process is helpful. I should also expect to see some monitoring of outcome. As I said, the evidence to date among specialist schools is that they have not taken an equivalent number of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities as has been the case across the whole population of schools. The concept of ex post monitoring is that that target would be met.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case, I cut down my speech too much. Of course, the duties set out affecting schools in Part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act apply directly to academies. They are legally bound not to discriminate against disabled pupils and prospective pupils, to make reasonable adjustments and to plan for increased access for disabled pupils. I agree that that is process and not outcome, and I believe that the noble Baroness makes a very valid point about further reporting on outcome and what actually happens. I should like to take away that point and consider how it should be done.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that it should also be placed on the record that there is no evidence for what may be anecdotal or perception in relation to our specialist schools. Those schools are as bound by the law as are city academies and maintained schools. They cannot refuse young people with special educational needs; indeed, they have an obligation under the law to provide for them. I believe that they do so.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I believe that there is a distinction between CTCs and city academies and some of the specialist schools that have been developed. However, I shall withdraw the amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister may bring forward.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 240:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
"() Any agreement proposed should be published at least six months ahead of being formally entered into."
The noble Lord said: When these amendments were put down in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David, our intention was to have a full debate on the academies. So far as I know, there has never been a full debate in your Lordships' House on the nature of these institutions and what they are all about. However, I must take account of the lateness of the hour. A few moments ago, my thought was to wait until Report stage to raise the matter. But my luck has been so bad that, if I leave the amendments until Report stage, they will probably be dealt with at one o'clock in the morning rather than at half-past ten. Therefore, I shall soldier on, but briefly.
I also apologise to the Committee because, although the three amendments were grouped together in order to have a large debate, they are something of a ragbag. Therefore, I must treat each of them separately.
Amendment No. 240 concerns the fact that in order to go ahead with these matters—earlier the Minister made this clear—there has to be proper consultation. The amendment says that the agreement should be published early enough and with a sufficient time lag so that the consultation shall be more than a formality. There should be an opportunity for everyone who believes that he or she is interested—I do not regard the LEA as the only interested body—to intervene.
The second point relates to the peculiar phenomenon of the academy. I emphasise the word "peculiar" because my understanding is that it will be an independent school and yet a state school. It appears that we are giving a large amount of publicly owned assets to the private sector. On other occasions one may consider that a misuse of public funds. Again, subject to the Minister telling me that I am wrong, we shall be financing them more generously than other local schools.
Some people who are involved with the academies do not appear to have any connection with education, let alone education within the maintained sector. To say that one is suspicious of that is to put it mildly. If public assets are to be given to private individuals, the very least we should demand is the highest standards of financial planning, transparency and all the related matters. There will be a need to draw up proper accounts and to publish them such that they can be subject to proper scrutiny so that we know what is happening.
Where the Government have brought in the private sector and given it public sector assets I have been troubled by a question to which I received a glimmer of an answer earlier when we discussed Church schools. If anything goes wrong, to whom will the assets revert? That is an extremely important question. Many of these schools are on sites that would be worth millions of pounds if they were converted into supermarkets. If something went wrong, the owners, who would not be the Government, could sell the site and build a supermarket.

1007
Apologising for jumping all over the place, which as my noble friend is aware is not my wont, alarm bells sound in relation to what is said on page 43, lines 25 and 26. It starts by saying that these schools cannot charge fees and then says that they can, but it does not tell us in what circumstances. I can imagine no worse event than such schools having a power to charge any pupil for education. On the whole I am not a conspiracy theorist as I assume that everything in the world in which we live is open and honest, but why does it say,
"subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the agreement"?
In my judgment there should be no exceptions whatever. It should be absolutely out of the question that any school should be able to charge its pupils. I am sure that my noble friend is about to tell me that I am right, although I need to ask him so that it is put on the record. It also gives him an opportunity to say that the words that I want to take out are a nullity. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am a conspiracy theorist. I assume the worst in all circumstances. I can assure my noble friend that I questioned officials deeply when I saw these amendments. The idea of inadequate consultation or additional charging or a lack of financial planning would have turned me utterly against the idea of academies in the first place. I shall not comment on his fundamental distrust of academies. If he had wanted to express that, I have no doubt that he would have tabled an amendment to that effect. However, he has tabled amendments about the detail of academies. I believe that I can reassure him on each of his points.
I believe that Amendment No. 240, which proposes that a funding agreement be published six months ahead of being formally entered into, is unnecessary. Where it is proposed that an academy be established in response to an LEA invitation to interested parties to bring forward proposals to provide an entirely new school, the provisions of Clause 66 of the Bill would apply. Where an academy replaces one or more existing schools, the system is again clear and transparent—the LEA, or the governing body as the case may be, will consult locally and publish notices in accordance with the relevant sections of the School Standards and Framework Act to close the existing school. Those notices will set out the arrangements to be made for the pupils who attended those schools and the provision to replace that which is currently made in those schools.
My noble friend Lord Peston will remember that when we went comprehensive in Haringey in 1967, we closed all the schools. He will also remember how long it took us to close them. It took a great deal longer than six months—the period provided for by this amendment.
Under the provisions of Clause 62, before signing a funding agreement, the Secretary of State already must consult the LEA in which the academy is to be located, and any other academy from which significant numbers of pupils are likely to attend.
1008
In practice, the funding agreement will be signed many months—not six—in advance of the opening of the academy. In the case of the Walsall academy, which was undertaken with the enthusiastic support of the local education authority, the agreement: was signed in December 2001 and the academy will open in September 2003. There are no circumstances in which a school could open within less than six months of the signing and publication of the funding agreement.
With regard to Amendment No. 241, I can assure the Committee that the financial controls must and will conform with the requirements of both propriety and good financial management. Through their funding agreements, academies are required to ensure that appropriate financial planning and management controls are in place to safeguard public funds.
Incidentally, I can again reassure my noble friend Lord Peston that there is no more generous public funding for academies than for maintained schools. There may be more funding from sponsors, but there is no more funding from the public purse than for maintained schools. With regard to the issue of public assets going into the academies, I can also assure my noble friend that if for any reason the academy comes to an end—a point that may be dealt with in later amendments—there is no question but that those public assets will return to the public sector.
Academies are expected to be companies and charities. They are required to prepare and file with the Companies Registry such annual accounts as are required by the Companies Act 1985. and to prepare and file with the Charity Commission annual accounts prepared in accordance with the statement of recommended practice. They must also comply with their obligation under the Charities Act 1993 to prepare an annual report and to transmit it to the Charity Commissioners. Through their funding agreements, they are required to secure annual auditing of their accounts by independent auditors appointed under arrangements approved by the Secretary of State. That is the formal position. Will that meet the requirements of good financial practice, which is what the amendment seeks?
Unfortunately, the amendment would undermine an academy's ability to manage its affairs and carry out its core function of raising standards in some of our most disadvantaged areas. It would seek to include in an academy's funding agreement, which is a legally binding document, a detailed financial plan for the first five years of the academy's existence. It would bind an academy to a rigid, long-term spending regime from which it would not have any flexibility to deviate. That kind of requirement is not placed on maintained schools. If we are seeking equality with maintained schools, the amendment would depart from that. We want to give—and the whole thrust of government policy has been to give—the maximum amount of flexibility to schools to manage their own affairs.

1009
Amendment No. 244 relates to charging. Again, I can give the Committee assurances on this point. Clause 62 provides that no charge may be made for admission to, or attendance at, an academy. The standard funding agreement provides that academies should act in accordance with certain sections of the 1996 Act, as those provisions apply to maintained schools; in other words, Clause 62, taken with the provisions of the standard funding agreement—which, as I said, is available in the Library of the House—means that academies are treated in exactly the same way as maintained schools.
I know that my noble friend is not satisfied with the position of maintained schools. I realise that he does not like the provision that, for example, musical tuition for groups of fewer than four can be charged for. I also know that my noble friend does not like the fact that charges for travel and accommodation on school trips can be made. However, that is the wider law as it applies to maintained schools. It has been thrashed out over a very considerable period of time. Therefore, to require academies to depart from the conditions for maintained schools, will, as I said earlier when we discussed the issue of school companies, mean that adult education centres, for example, could not charge for classes held on school premises outside of school hours.
In common with maintained schools, academies can levy charges for board and lodging for residential trips, and for what are called "optional extras"; but they can do no more. We would never agree that they should do any more. My fundamental point for all these amendments is that there are no privileges here in any of these respects for academies. The standards required of maintained schools apply equally to them.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with the noble Lord about the degree of accountability of these schools: they are very accountable in a most public way. However, it is my understanding that they do in fact receive greater revenue funding from the Government. I also understand that the children who attend them receive more hours of education than those in maintained schools.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know the position regarding school hours. They have greater flexibility as to what hours they offer, but they certainly do not receive more funding.
Lord Peston: I must begin by apologising to my noble friend. I, too, was under the impression that academies were more generously financed. However, my noble friend is advised, and I have to work these things out for myself. Given what I was pretty sure was the case, I certainly hope that he will ask his officials to check the position. I was very much under the impression that such schools were more generously financed for current expenditure, but, because I am a perpetual student, I am always delighted to be corrected on such matters.
1010
I am very much reassured by what my noble friend said on the charging point. I should add that my objection to charging is not quite as strong as he maintained. If what is charged for is defined as part of the curriculum, which it often is, it just should not be charged for. The fight for free education in our country simply should not be ended because of new doctrines that emerge. However, if such activities are nothing to do with the curriculum and are extraneous, I can live with the situation. What is troubling me is that sometimes they form part of the curriculum and great pressures are put on very poor parents to find money that they should not be asked to find. None the less, although I suspected that there was something special about these schools, as opposed to others, I take my noble friend's assurance that that is not the case.
I shall read my noble friend's response with care. I am a little mystified here. I do not see that the criteria set out in my amendment for proper financial behaviour and probity would in any way restrict schools. After all, every organisation must have the sort of financial arrangement that I have outlined. I have not noticed that business enterprise complains because it has to have proper financial arrangements in terms of flexibility, and so on. Having a full financial plan covering five years is absolutely standard in business. Therefore, why it should in any way limit these schools is quite beyond me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a legally binding document, and that is not the case for the financial plans of businesses. It would not be capable of amendment in the way that a business plan would be.
Lord Peston: That mystifies me even more. A well-run operation sets out what money it proposes to spend and where it will get it from. The fact that it is a legally binding document does not excuse bodies from doing exactly that. It would be foolhardy not to do so. To use a word that has been bandied about, it is all semantics and we really agree.
We have covered some of the ground, but it is not the end of the matter, although my noble friend the Minister has been very reassuring. I need to put on record more strongly my antipathy to these bodies. That can wait in the hope that the subject of academies will come up in daylight hours in a couple of weeks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before that happens, I want to add a question and hope that the Minister will write to me between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The academies are funded directly by Government and not by an LEA. Every LEA holds back different sums of money for different functions, so the amount of money that goes to schools is consequent upon the amount of money held back by the LEA. The Government treat the academies rather differently; they are directly funded. How do the Government calculate the sum of money that would normally be fed

1011
through an LEA to a school per pupil and the way in which academies are funded? We would find the answer illuminating.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will remember that the Bellman in the The Hunting of the Snark said:
"What I tell you three times is true".
I have told her twice and she now wants me to write to her in more detail, shall gladly do so—that will be the third time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241 to 245 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 43, leave out lines 35 to 37.
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief as I simply want to question why there has been a change. The city technology colleges have been in place for some time and Section 483 of the 1996 Act has worked well. Subsection (2) in lines 35–37 on page 43 will effect a change from "shall" to "may". In a slightly cynical way, I must ask whether an amendment was won to change "may" to "shall" against the then Conservative Government. Does the change represent the department's revenge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the ranks of the conspiracy theorists.
It might be helpful if I explain the intention behind Clause 62(2), which the amendment would delete. It should be considered alongside the proposed repeal of Section 483(3A) of the 1996 Act contained in Schedule 22 of the Bill, as it effectively replaces the provisions of that section.
The purpose of subsection 62(2) is to allow for, rather than require, academies to repay capital grant to the Secretary of State in the event that their funding agreements are terminated. I referred to that in passing when my noble friend Lord Peston was here. This provision is necessary because academies, unlike CTCs, will not retain the land and buildings that they occupy in the event that their funding agreements are terminated. That is fundamental and my noble friend Lord Peston is strongly recommended to read this part of Hansard when it appears tomorrow. Because of this difference it would he perverse for the Secretary of State to require them to repay capital grant paid in respect of the land and buildings. They would have no assets or income from which to fund the repayment.
Academies will be established as replacements for existing maintained schools, or to provide new school places in areas where there is a need. In all circumstances, we expect the LEA in which the academy is to be situated to transfer a suitable site to the academy at no cost, as it will be providing places for children who would otherwise be the responsibility of the LEA. The LEA may lease the site to the academy, or transfer the freehold.
1012
If the funding agreement is terminated, for whatever reason, it would be inappropriate for the academy to retain ownership of land and buildings transferred to it at no cost. Where a local education authority transfers land to an academy, either leasehold or freehold, there will normally be provision in the contract for the land to revert to the authority if it is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
The Secretary of State will also have the power, by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Bill, to transfer land from an academy to the local education authority which provided it, where the land is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
I hope that the House will agree that it is right that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to waive repayment in those circumstances, and that the provisions of subsection 62(2) are art improvement on the order-making power which currently exists.
The Secretary of State will also have the power, by virtue of Schedule 7 to the Bill, to transfer land from an academy to the local education authority which provided it where the land is no longer required for the purposes of the academy.
I hope the Committee will agree that the Secretary of State should have the discretion to waive repayment in those circumstances. The provisions of Clause 62(2) are an improvement on the order-making power which currently exists.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: If the local authority transfers the freehold over to the new academy, which is an independent company limited by guarantee, then surely the company owns the land. How is it proposed to impose on that company an obligation to return the land to the local authority if it did not fulfil its functions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is proposed to do that by imposing a condition to the freehold transfer, which can also be done to a lease. Schedule 7 to the Bill disapplies the rule against perpetuities, so removing restrictions on the grant of an option to a local education authority to re-acquire the interest in a site transferred to an academy.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that it is not a pun, but I want to talk about a level playing field. We talked earlier about a change to a diocesan measure where the Church enters into a contract to establish an academy and the land is subsequently sold. It is the same basis here with the academies, only the third party is not a Church venture. If the land is subsequently sold, my understanding is that—and I have left a question with the noble Baroness to attend to later—the land and its value actually goes to the Church and the Church is obliged to use any proceeds from the sale for educational purposes. There is not a level playing field here in that the land reverts back to the LEA. There is no ongoing obligation on the part of the third party. So it would seem that the Churches are being treated

1013
extremely favourably. I should like to leave that question on the record so that it can be scooped up with my previous one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me respond immediately to that because my understanding, and the answer I gave, was based on the assumption that the land had come from the local education authority and had been transferred at no cost. My advice was that that would be the normal situation. Under those circumstances land has to return to the local authority. I see the point of the question of the land going back—to use Ray Gunter's words—"from whence it came". I would like to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about that matter.
Baroness Blatch: That would add another dimension to the question. My understanding is that some of the schools set up with Church collaboration are not necessarily always preceded by ownership by the Church. Therefore, there will be a transfer of land and assets. It would be useful to have that question answered. I am still puzzled as to why this has worked so far and why there is this change. I shall read what the noble Lord has had to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Academies: supplementary]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 246:
Page 151, line 20, at end insert—
"Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (1991 No. 2)
1A (1) Section 10 of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of "church school", at the end there is inserted "or an Academy falling within subsection (1A)".
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) An Academy falls within this subsection if—

(a) at least one member of its governing body is appointed to that body to represent the interests of the Church of England;

(b) the premises provided for the Academy when first established were so provided on trust that, in the event of the discontinuance of the Academy, the property concerned was to be held for, or sold and the proceeds of sale applied for, the benefit of the Church of England; or

(c) the premises provided for the Academy when first established were so provided on trust in connection with the provision of education, or the conduct of an educational institution, in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 247:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF SPECIALIST SCHOOL
The Secretary of State may by order designate any community, foundation or voluntary secondary school as a specialist school if it has one or more of the following specialisms—

(a) technology;

(b) arts;

(c) sports;

(d) languages;

(e) engineering;

(f) business and enterprise;

(g) community;

(h) international;

(i) any other specialism introduced by order of the Secretary of State; or

(j) any other specialism applied for by the governing body of a secondary school."

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 247 seeks to tease out the concept of the specialist school more than we have to date. There is no secret that we, on these Benches, have reservations about the whole concept of the specialist school. At present, this applies to a limited number of schools. While the Government are extending that number, it is proposed that only 50 per cent of our secondary schools should become specialist schools. The arrival of specialist schools brings a considerable financial benefit.
The categories suggested here extend the list of specialist schools to international schools and to any specialism applied for by the governing body of a secondary school. In other words, the amendment develops the concept of innovation that the Minister intends the Bill to encourage. There may be areas of specialisation for which schools would like to apply that are not currently listed. It also introduces the concept of a specialist community school. The concept of a community school, which brings such facilities as, say, a public library, childcare and nursery facilities, information services, youth and leisure facilities and adult education alongside a school, has been around for a long time. Indeed, it has been practised with a great deal of success in several areas—perhaps the most renowned being the Cambridge community colleges.
The Local Government Association, in its response to last year's White Paper, Schools—achieving, success, proposed the extension of specialist schools, arguing that there was a need for the community category of specialist schools because in many areas where specialist schools may be proposed, parents and the local community need to be engaged. Community schools have a good record of engaging children's families in learning activities.
In advocating those developments, the LGA wants to look beyond the normal cluster of activities associated with community schools to such areas as banking, post office or health facilities, housing advice and tourism. Whether schools as the centre of a community should extend as far as the LGA envisages is a moot point, but the central argument remains:

1015
involving the community in its schools raises aspirational achievement. That would be a novel way to extend the concept of the community school. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will know from our earlier deliberations, the specialist schools programme is well established. The current network of 685 specialist schools includes all types of secondary school across every part of England and encompassing 90 per cent of local education authorities. The schools currently in the programme were designated through an administrative process. That mechanism has worked well for a long time—since 1994, in fact—and continues to work effectively. Making the designation process statutory would of course make it more cumbersome and would have no benefit for applicant schools. I can see no point in making regulations where there is no good reason for doing so and therefore the new clause should be rejected.
The process of designating a school to a specialist status is not about making a change in the legal status of a school or affecting its admissions policy. It remains a community, foundation, voluntary or special school. I want to be clear on that. Seeking designation in one of the eight specialisms now offered is about the focus on a specific curriculum area to develop a school's distinctive ethos and character in order, as I said earlier, to play to the school's strengths. The extent to which a school is committed to and capable of embedding a specialist school identity is shown by the quality of the application that it submits and during a visit to the school by an assessor.
It is on the basis of that application, which is judged against others and against the published criteria, that the Secretary of State awards specialist designation. By seeking to enshrine in legislation the categories of specialism, the new clause puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of the programme's development. Such an amendment would add to bureaucracy at a time when we are considering how to reduce the burden of regulation.
Let me comment briefly on the inclusion of "international" schools. We have, as I said, retained a curriculum focus at the heart of the programme. Of course, some schools will develop international links—one thinks of modern foreign languages as an obvious example. But we should focus on curriculum areas.
The question of community schools is a different debate. We can debate extending what schools do, but that is inappropriate to the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. The concept of a specialist community school is rather a good one. I am sorry that she has dismissed it out of hand.
I recognise what the Minister says about the focus on the curriculum. Nevertheless, as she knows, it carries a considerable money tag. The schools that
1016
need the extra resources are the schools that. arguably, find it most difficult to meet the requirement to raise the extra £50,000 for the curriculum lag. The definition of a specialist school is too narrow, and we should widen it.
Given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 248:
Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
"PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH ETC.
() A proposal to establish, alter or discontinue a school can be made by an admission authority or potential admission authority, the Secretary of State in the case of a City Academy, or the Local Education Authority where the authority is not the admission authority.
() All proposals shall be considered and determined by the School Organisation Committee which covers the area in which the proposed school is to be situated."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 248, I shall speak to Amendment No. 253 and oppose the Question that Clauses 66 and 67 stand part of the Bill. It may sound as though it will be a long speech, but it will not, as the Committee will be relieved to hear. I shall be concise.
Clauses 66 and 67 enshrine in the Bill further ways in which powers and responsibilities are to be taken away from local authorities and given to the Secretary of State. That undermines local democracy and is part of the centralising agenda behind the Bill. Under those clauses, the LEA would have to invite bids to establish new secondary schools, and the resultant competition would determine who established the school. By removing the clauses, inserting the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 248 and removing paragraph (b) of Clause 67(2), we would ensure that local leaders would decide on the planning of new secondary schools in consultation with the LEA. They would be able to take into consideration the needs of other schools in the area, as well the type of demand for a new school.
Such consultation can work well, as has already been proved in Clapham. There, a new school—a city academy—will be privately sponsored by the Church Schools Company and will have an intake of up to 180 students per year. It will meet an urgent need for places in the borough. The school was established after long consultation with the council and residents on its ethos, admissions criteria, curriculum, the make-up of the governing body and many other matters. Such consultation could be bypassed by Clauses 66 and 67. That is why I am concerned about them.
The school organisation committees were established to oversee school planning in an area and to consult all stakeholders. It is important that those bodies are always involved in such planning and that that function is not centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The new clause would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, reverse the provisions that we are introducing in Clauses 66 and 67 of the Bill.

1017
Clause 66 provides that, if a local education authority thinks that an additional school—I choose my words carefully—is necessary, it must publish a notice inviting proposals from interested parties. At the end of the period given for proposals to be made, it may also make proposals of its own. All the proposals will be considered together and decided on by the Secretary of State. Between 1998 and 2001, there were 17 additional schools. Last year, there were six.
The new clause provides for proposals to establish, alter or discontinue a school to be made by an admissions authority or by the local education authority if it is not the admissions authority. The proposal would then be decided on by the school organisation committee. That goes beyond reversing the provisions of Clause 66 and would greatly extend the powers of local education authorities over schools for which they are not the admissions authority. Most proposals relating to alterations to voluntary and foundation schools are the sole responsibility of their governing body. The new clause would allow an LEA, for example, to propose the closure of a voluntary-aided school.
The suggestion that the Secretary of State should be able to publish proposals to establish or alter an academy is both at odds, and odd, in terms of local decision-making. Plans for academies are developed by local partnerships, including the local education authority and the sponsor, which provides the substantial contribution, as Members of the Committee know, to capital costs. The Secretary of State already has powers to terminate agreements with academies.
However, not only are its ramifications very wide, we cannot accept the replacement of the provisions of Clause 66. We believe that our proposals will encourage a greater range of providers to think seriously about establishing new secondary schools, and help to encourage greater innovation across the state sector.
I should like to say more about the way in which this proposal would work. The basis of this clause is that when a local education authority believes that a new secondary school is necessary, the way in which it will put this forward is that the local education authority will publish a notice, identify a site, invite any interested parties to come forward and publish a notice setting out information. All the proposals go to the local organisation committee for comment before being passed on to the Secretary of State, and will be considered on their individual merits.
We want to rectify the position that at present those who have an interest in providing a new secondary school may simply not be aware that there is any need for additional places. Even if they are, they may not be able to find a suitable site. We want to rectify that and to create a level playing field for new promoters. The notice will specify a site.
1018
The noble Baroness has argued that this clause takes power from local education authorities. I do not believe that, for the reasons that I have already explained. I can say one thing that I hope will be helpful without damaging the principles of the clause. If it would help Members of the Committee, I am prepared to bring forward an amendment at the next stage to remove the requirement in Clause 66(1) for local education authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent before presenting a notice under this clause. That confirms the local education authority as being firmly in the driving seat in this process. I hope that that might help the noble Baroness.
Clause 67 simply updates existing provisions to allow LEAs greater flexibility in responding to directions. The Secretary of State already has powers in Schedule 7 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to direct local education authorities and governing bodies to bring forward proposals to rectify any shortfall or surplus of school places, and to bring forward her own proposals if she is not satisfied with those published in response to the direction. This clause simply widens a local education authority's possible range of response to a direction by adding the new powers of Clause 66 to the existing arrangements. I should stress that the powers in this clause are very much powers of last resort that would be used only in very exceptional circumstances.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 253. I should stress that it would not reinstate the local education authority's ability to respond to a direction from the Secretary of State by publishing proposals for additional schools without inviting other interested parties to make bids. That would require that paragraph 97(2) of Schedule 21 should cease to have effect in those circumstances. The actual effect of the amendment would be to limit a local education authority's ability to respond to a direction because it would not be able to create an additional school. The fact that these proposals are being made in response to a direction does not change our view that all interested parties in an area should be properly informed of the need for a new school so that they can consider the contribution they can make.
As I said, our provisions do not prevent local education authorities making their own proposals; they merely ensure that others do so as well. In the light of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply and eagerly look forward to her amendment at the next stage of the Bill. We may then return to the issue of the removal of power from local authorities and instating it in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has in mind to put the LEA in "the driving seat". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 249:
Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
"GRAMMAR SCHOOLS: RETENTION OF EXISTING ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31)—

(a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4),

(b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements),

(c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to end selective admission arrangements), omit subsections (3)(b) and (4)."

The noble Baroness said: I return to the Prime Minister's personal adviser on education who wrote a book, A CLASS ACT: The Myth of Britain's Classless Society, in conjunction with Stephen Pollard. On pages 39 to 40, he wrote:
"In the post-war decades direct-grant schools such as Dulwich College provided a far more effective bridge between the state and private sectors than the more recent assisted places scheme. The direct-grant scheme succeeded, without any fanfare, in opening up many of the best independent schools to ability rather than wealth. It is a sad irony that in destroying the direct-grant schools on the alter of equal opportunity, the 1974–9 Labour government succeeded only in denying opportunity to many poor children and increasing the number of fee-paying parents. From then on, for any parent concerned to secure a rigorously academic education for his child, there was generally little choice but to go private".
One could say the same about the demise of grammar schools.
It bears repeating that on page 51, Andrew Adonis goes on to say:
"The comprehensive revolution has not removed the link between education and class but strengthened it. The revolution which afflicted state schooling from the 1960s is one of the most profound and incendiary factors influencing the state of British society. It was not merely a technical educational age, but changed the nature of the country".
On page 52 he said:
"In 1965 the Labour-controlled House of Commons resolved that moving to a comprehensive system would 'preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children'. Few would maintain that this has in fact been the case".
On pages 54 to 55 he went on to say:
"The comprehensive revolution, tragically, destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle-class children now go to middle-class comprehensives, whose catchment areas comprise middle-class neighbourhoods, while working-class children are mostly left to fester in the inner-city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from".
Those passages bore repeating because this is the Government's own education adviser recanting on much that had gone before.
At least the city academies, the city technology colleges and the specialist schools are doing something about tackling that problem in the inner city areas. However, I have to say that the Government have been wringing their hands for a long time about young people from poorer homes entering higher education. It is interesting to note that a greater proportion of young people from poorer homes entered higher
1020
education at the beginning of direct-grant schools, then from assisted places schools and certainly from grammar schools.
Therefore, one of the questions one must ask the Government is: if the reason that the panoply of petitions, ballots and so forth to determine the future of schools is because they are selective, why grammar schools? There are selective special schools and bilateral schools. Why does the community not have a say in respect of bilateral schools? There are selective faith schools, so why does the community not have a say about them?
I am not advocating that, because I believe in freedom, choice and diversity, in which the Government say they believe. That is right, but why are grammar schools singled out for this particular treatment? I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: It is no secret that on these Benches I in particular dissent from the views about grammar schools expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Government's adviser, Andrew Adonis. Perhaps one of the reasons I feel that so much of the Bill is bad is because much of it has derived from Andrew Adonis in Number 10.
My amendment also relates to grammar school ballots but my concern is to simplify the whole process of the ballot and make it somewhat fairer. I have been provided with a long brief which goes into the details of grammar school ballots, but I do not propose to read the whole of it at this hour of night. It is much too late.
Perhaps I may make only three comments. The amendment we have tabled makes three changes. First, it concerns the question of who is eligible to vote and it extends the right to allow an area ballot for all parents by removing the legislation relating to feeder-school ballots. Therefore all local parents of primary-age children and younger would be eligible to sign petitions and vote on whether their local secondary schools should cease to select.
Secondly, it would reduce the percentage of the electorate required to sign a petition in order to trigger a ballot, which is currently at 20 per cent, to 5 per cent. That is the proportion required, for example, to trigger a local referendum in a big issue at a local level.
Thirdly, it would allow the LEA to give more indication about what a comprehensive system would look like in the event of a successful vote.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these new clauses would either repeal the provisions for petitions and ballots of parents to decide on proposed changes to the selective admission arrangements of grammar schools, or fundamentally change the way in which they are conducted. We believe that in both cases the effects would be unfortunate, and that the amendments are unnecessary.
The details of the petition and ballot process were debated vigorously and at length during the passage of the 1998 Act, both in this House and in another place. The issue was debated again during the passage of the

1021
Learning and Skills Act 2000. Indeed, Amendment No. 249 is itself largely a repeat of amendments which have already been tabled against this Bill and debated in another place.
Amendment No. 249, by removing the arrangements for ballots completely, would seek to take power away from parents—the people most concerned in the outcome—and place it back in the hands of local authorities.
We have made our position on selection clear. We do not support selection by ability at 11 and do not wish to see it extended. We remain convinced that local parents—rather than Ministers or local government—are best placed to decide whether the 164 existing grammar schools should continue to select their pupils by ability.
I am well aware that it was a Conservative government who first gave parents the right to a ballot on whether schools should opt out of their local education authority and become grant-maintained. We believe that the system of balloting can be appropriate, and that is why we believe that in this case it should stay.
The ballot legislation does not threaten grammar schools. It ensures that local school provision reflects the needs and wishes of local people. If local people declare that they wish their grammar school to retain its selective admission arrangement, as was the case in Ripon, in North Yorkshire, then so be it; that is local democracy.
It is parents who should be making these decisions. They are best placed to make the right decision on the future of their local school. It is right that they should continue to be given the opportunity to participate in such decisions.
Whereas Amendment No. 249 would remove the ballot legislation altogether, Amendment No. 249A seeks to make changes which could be just as damaging. The changes it proposes would disenfranchise the parents of several groups of children who might wish to express an opinion. Such changes would add a great deal of unnecessary complication to the process.
Subsection (2) would remove the current sub-LEA groupings of grammar schools, which are designed to take account of local circumstances, including the pattern of intake and the provision of single-sex education.
If the intention is that all ballots must involve all parents throughout the LEA even if there is only one grammar school in one corner of the area, the actual number of petitioners required to trigger a ballot could be higher than it is now, even if the threshold is reduced from 20 per cent to 5 per cent—and many of the parents whose support would be needed would have no direct interest in the outcome, so would be less likely to be interested in petitioning for a ballot.
If the intention is that specific sub-LEA areas should be defined for each grammar school or group of schools not in a selective area, this would be an
1022
extremely complicated, and in some cases arbitrary, process. It could also disenfranchise many parents with a reasonable expectation that their child would attend the relevant grammar school.
Subsection (3) would remove the right of parents of secondary school aged children to vote in ballots concerning selective areas, even though any change to the grammar schools would have a knock-on effect for secondary provision throughout the area. Parents of secondary age pupils have a real interest in the outcome of such ballots, and should not have the opportunity to vote taken away from them.
Subsections (4) and (6) would remove the right of feeder school parents—those parents with the most direct interest in the future admission arrangements of the grammar schools—to vote, and would mean that all ballots would be based on a defined area. We believe that removing provision for feeder school ballots would be unhelpful.
I understand that subsection (5) is intended to lower the petition threshold—although I must say that it is not drafted in that way. We have made clear that we feel that 20 per cent is the right figure to demonstrate clear local support for a ballot before one is actually held. Setting the threshold as low as 5 per cent would mean that the expense and uncertainty of holding a ballot could be incurred when there is really very little local demand to change the existing arrangements.
Finally, subsection (7) is more prescriptive than the current provision in the School Standards and Framework Act. There is nothing currently to stop an authority from producing proposals on the system it would introduce should selection be removed. On the other hand, the narrower wording adopted in the amendment may prevent some proposals from being published because they do not fall within the precise wording of the provision.
These new clauses are unnecessary. As I said, the grammar school ballot arrangements have been debated in great detail and the arguments are well rehearsed. We remain convinced that the arrangements currently in place represent the best way forward and that parents must continue to be given the opportunity to express their opinions. These new clauses offer nothing new to that debate and, as explained, could have unfortunate results. I therefore very much hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, will not press their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I should have said at the outset that my argument, like that of Andrew Adonis, is not against comprehensives per se. It is on the record—I shall say it again—that my own children went to a comprehensive school in Cambridgeshire. They did very well and I have no complaints about the school at all. I am talking about "one size fits all". I have heard the Minister herself say that they do not believe that one size fits all and that there is room for diversity. Of the 24,000 or so schools, we are talking about 166 grammar schools. I simply do not understand how a group of schools can be so offensive to the Minister and her colleagues.

1023
The Minister criticises my amendment on the basis that the proposals have been discussed on a number of previous occasions. There is no law against returning to a subject. In fact, during our debates, the Government have returned to a number of previous statutes and proposed changes to them. I have not used the argument that we have been here before, that the proposals have been discussed endlessly and that we should therefore not accept them. Legislation is a dynamic process. Times change and the world changes and legislatures go back to previous statutes and discuss them again. I make no apology for returning to previous debates.
The Minister also said that there should be no extension because the Government fundamentally do not believe in this form of selection. My amendment has nothing to do with extension. Although, as she knows, I would not object to any extension for these schools, my amendment is not suggesting extension. It is merely suggesting that there should not be this continual war of attrition on these schools.
Another argument used by the Minister is that the Conservatives introduced balloting for grant-maintained schools. That is absolutely true. However, the very important distinction is that that balloting did not change the nature of the school. Schools that became grant-maintained schools retained their nature. If they were selective before, they were selective after; if non-selective before, they remained nonselective; if comprehensive, they remained so; if specialist, they maintained that status. There was absolutely no change in the nature of the school.
These ballots would result not only in the school's nature being changed but in the school's abolition. It would no longer be a grammar school, and there is no guarantee that it would remain a school at all. As was confirmed in previous debates, in some cases, post-ballot, the school would disappear entirely. In other cases, it would be converted to a non-selective school. In fact, we tried to introduce an amendment providing that the local authority should say in its business plan what would happen if a ballot were successful. The Government insisted that that should not happen and that the business plan should follow and not precede the grammar school's demise.
I do not think that the arguments are very strong, but I shall not press my amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 249A.
Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
"GRAMMAR SCHOOL BALLOTS: EXTENDING ELIGIBILITY TO LOCAL PARENTS
(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 105(2) (procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements), paragraphs (h) and (c) are omitted.
(3) In section 106(1) (eligibility of parents to request or vote in a ballot) there is inserted "primary" before "schools".
(4) In section 106 subsection (2) is omitted.
1024
(5) In section 106(3)(a) (proportion of parents required to request a ballot) for "20" there is substituted "5".
(6) In section 106(3) paragraph (b) is omitted.
(7) In section 107(3) (information provision by the authority or body on intentions or proposals following a successful petition) for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
"(c) a statement by the authority or body on intention or proposals for a non-selective education system which may include information on options, costs and planning assumptions in the event of such a result."."
The noble Baroness said: I am disappointed with the answer from the Minister as the amendment was intended to simplify the incredibly Byzantine rules currently surrounding grammar school ballots. There is a great deal to be said for trying to simplify the rules and make them fairer and easier for parents. However, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 249A not moved.]
Clause 66 [Proposals for additional secondary schools]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 250:
Page 44, line 22, leave out "local education authority in England" and insert "permitted body"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 252. I do not pretend that this is anything like complete drafting. It is merely intended to introduce the general proposition that we should seek to move towards the Dutch and Danish method of organising school systems; that is, to allow not any party but any sensible party the right to establish a school if they can establish that there is a demand for that school. That school would then become part of the state system subject to the usual terms and conditions of that system.
For a long time, certainly when my party was in government and all the way through this Government's term of office, there has been a long debate about surplus places as if that was something which could be cured only by planning, by placing bureaucratic restrictions on the ability to create new schools and by bearing down ever more on the availability of surplus places—surplus places, of course, being the only mechanism that was available to enable school choice on the part of parents to take place. So, we have the uncomfortable position whereby a lot of parents are not getting the schools that they want for their children, but there is an inability to create the schools that parents would want.
If one looks at the Dutch and Danish systems—as was done a few months ago with great care and insight by the Robert Adam Institute—one sees that allowing freedom for schools to be created within the state system does not result in a widespread waste of money or surplus places but in an efficient system where schools in an area tend to be the sort of schools that parents want in that area. If there is a demand for, say, a new Roman Catholic school, the Church will propose it, recruit the parents that it needs to reach the minimum level, provide it and it will just happen. If there is a shrinkage of demand, as happens in the private sector, a school will reduce in size or go out of existence if that is what parents want. A system is

1025
produced which is much more responsive to parents' wishes than anything that relies on our Stalinist style of planning, however burdened it may be with wondrous committees of people who are appointed rather than elected to decide how we should establish our school system, how it should be regulated and how admission should be organised.
This measure is just a first step in the right direction. It suggests that the Secretary of State should designate a number of bodies. She could start with the Churches. The principal Churches would be obvious people to be allowed to propose the establishment of a new school. One might name a number of other bodies which have successfully established, say, city technology colleges or other state educational institutions and allow them to propose a school if there is a local demand for it. If there is a local demand, they should be allowed to go ahead and create a school.
If someone is doing that with their own money and providing the capital cost of a school, I cannot see that that would result in any disadvantage to the state system. It would provide a great influx of new ideas and new blood and it would at the end of the day be an alternative to the old grammar school system and selection. If people could establish schools which were intended to attract bright kids from the inner cities and that were free of the old dusty, discredited state schools in the area, and could provide arrangements for parents to get to them and prove that parents wished to use them, that surely would be a great deal better than allowing the system just to run on as it always has because there is no mechanism for changing it.
I do not myself like selection except where it cannot be avoided but I do like parental choice. Over the next 10 or 20 years we shall have to make real strides in making parental choice a real possibility. As we can never be in a position where there is an enormous number of surplus places, choice has to be achieved by allowing parents to create schools where they need them and to abandon schools where they do not. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In responding to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I should like also to speak to government Amendments Nos. 252A and 252B. These technical amendments put more fully into effect our original intentions in respect of the newspaper notice inviting proposals for additional secondary schools.
As currently drafted, the clause requires the notice to specify all the information that must be contained in any proposals that are brought forward in response to the notice. We never intended the notice itself to go into that level of detail. The first amendment therefore removes the need for all the information that proposals must contain to be specified on the face of the notice. That will instead be listed in regulations, but in practice we expect that interested parties will refer to the guidance on statutory proposals, which will be updated to include pro formas giving all the necessary information.
1026
The second amendment provides for regulations to prescribe the information that must be contained in the notice, in addition to a possible site for the school and the date by which the proposals must be submitted, which are specified in the clause.
The additional information that will be required by the regulations will be based on that specified in the first paragraph of the policy document that was prepared in another place for the Committee and deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House.
That approach is really a technical adjustment to clarify our original intentions, and I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Bill should be amended accordingly. I shall spare Members of the Committee specific details on the newspaper notice—although I should be happy to go into them if any Member of the Committee requires it.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 250 and 252. Their effect would be to permit a charitable body approved by the Secretary of State, as well as the LEA, to publish a notice inviting proposals for the establishment of a maintained secondary school or academy. That is unnecessary because the amendments would not increase the powers of any person to bring forward proposals. Under existing legislation any person may already bring proposals for the establishment of a secondary school. Section 28(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 allows any persons, generally referred to as "promoters", to publish proposals for a new foundation or voluntary school. Section 482 of the Education Act 1996 enables any person to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State to establish an academy.
So there is no constraint on charitable bodies making proposals. Furthermore, Clause 66 provides that the LEA can publish proposals, as I have previously said in your Lordships' House, only for the establishment of a wholly new secondary school subsequent to it publishing a notice inviting others to bring forward proposals. If, for some reason, individuals or bodies do not want to publish proposals themselves but encourage others to do so, they are perfectly free at the moment to take any steps that they wish in order to achieve that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the Dutch system. I should very much enjoy discussing that with him, but I fear that tonight may not be the best moment. I understand what he said in that regard and we have of course looked into the system on the basis of his known interest. We have also looked at the Learning from Europe report, which recognised in its foreword that the Government are interested in diversifying the provision of public services. That is a major element of the Education Bill.
With those assurances, I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I quite agree that it is too late at night to discuss the Dutch education system, or anything else Dutch for that matter. I am sure that we shall find another opportunity to return to this matter at a more sensible time of day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1027
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 252A and 252B:
Page 44, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 44, line 35, after "submitted," insert—
"() specify such other matters as may be prescribed,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Duty of LEAs to secure proposals]:
[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 254:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
"MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOLS SIXTH-FORMS
After section 113 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (inadequate sixth-forms) there is inserted—
"113A MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOLS SIXTH-FORMS
(1) Where the Learning and Skills Council proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard.
(3) A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places, and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for existing places, provided that the schools can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.""
The noble Baroness said: There is a great deal of disquiet about the future of sixth forms in the context of the advent of regional assemblies, the establishment of learning and skills councils, the thrust behind the Government's actions, and the organisation and funding of sixth forms. I well remember the Government's unequivocal promise in debates on establishing learning and skills councils that they would not have the power to remove sixth forms. We suspected at the time that the Government's agenda, if not hidden, was under the surface. It has been brought to fruition in the Bill.
The National Association of Head Teachers remains most concerned about the powers granted to learning and skills councils to reorganise post-16 education and thereby close sixth forms. There is deep suspicion that LSCs will attack small sixth forms in particular and, on the back of area inspections, look to a tertiary solution in general.
My colleagues in another place were denied the opportunity to debate the future of sixth forms because of the pernicious use of the guillotine procedure: otherwise, they would certainly have introduced an amendment with a presumption against
1028
closure of a sixth form where the governing body believed that it was of value to the school as a whole. My colleagues would also have produced an amendment to protect per capita funding, even if the number of pupils increased. I know that they were concerned to ask the Government to continue to provide per capita funding and to guarantee it for five years from April, with local learning and skills councils free to increase funding but not decrease it. As we all know, as numbers expand, the per pupil amount of money is not necessarily guaranteed.
The first part of the amendment provides that where a learning and skills council proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth form will not he closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole. The proposed subsection (2) states that presumption shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard. If a sixth form is not providing good education, there will be a formal inspection. Only subject to that would the proposed subsection (1) apply.
Finally, a maintained school) that provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of 19 may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places. The relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for existing places, provided that: the school can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.
The Government make much of wanting to provide education in all areas to match the needs of young people. Rural areas in particular, where there is much less choice, become attached to schools that have sixth forms. Those areas are increasingly concerned about the external views of learning and skills councils, which will philosophically have an urge to rationalise 16-plus provision, make it administratively neat and tidy and create a tertiary system—ignoring the value of a sixth form to a particular school and the logistical problems faced by young people in rural areas, including the distances that they would have to travel to a sixth form or further education college.
I believe it is absolutely right that the patchwork of provision for post-16 education should include a robust further education sector and a very robust sixth-form college centre, where that works. Certainly the noble Baroness will know that the collegiate system in the city of Cambridge works extremely well. 'There are also schools there which have sixth forms and value them. Therefore, there is a mixture of sixth forms, a sixth-form college system, further education colleges and even workplace education. I believe that those should be allowed to exist.
From informal contacts with the learning and skills councils, especially at national level, we know that there is definitely an agenda here. Because of that, we are supporting the National Association of Head Teachers. We also support the idea that all schoolls that have a sixth form should continue to enjoy that sixth

1029
form unless, under the second part of my amendment, the quality of education becomes so poor that it would not be advisable for the school to continue with that sixth form. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I also want to speak to Amendments Nos. 255, 256 and 257, which also raise concerns about precisely what the extension of powers of the Learning and Skills Council, as contained in Clause 68, means. These three amendments are probing amendments. They seek to find out a little more about precisely what the Government and the Learning and Skills Council have in mind.
The first—Amendment No. 255—comes from the Association of Colleges. It is concerned with trying to obtain a clearer picture of what the Government's intentions are in relation to the circumstances under which the Learning and Skills Council will be empowered to bring forward proposals for the establishment and reorganisation of sixth forms.
In the consultation paper, 16–19 Organisation and Inspection, which preceded the Bill, the Government proposed two triggers which would allow the Learning and Skills Council to initiate proposals for the improvement of 16 to 19 provision. The first would come from recommendations arising from the report on area inspection; the second would arise where other evidence, such as institutional reports of student achievement or participation rates, convinced the Learning and Skills Council that provision in the area was not sufficient or adequate to meet the needs of the students. The first proposal is embodied in proposed new Section 113A, but the second has been replaced by a much more general power embodied in subsection (1)(b) to specify in regulations other circumstances where the LSC would be able to act.
Changes to the organisation of 16 to 19 provision are frequently controversial because of the impact on existing provision, both in regard to changes in the character of institutions and on access for students. Often, they will also have substantial implications for employment, involve significant investment and require restructuring of a learning delivery system. Only rarely will changes be possible which do not affect existing institutions to any significant extent; for example, where new provision is being developed in response to major population growth and new housing development.
Equally, while there would be general agreement about the desirability of improving the quality of provision and raising standards, the assessment of quality involves subjective judgments as well as objective evidence. The relationship between the organisation of provision and quality is complex. In consequence, it is vital, first, that it can be shown objectively that the reorganisation is necessary and that other measures would not achieve a similar outcome; secondly, that the basis on which proposals
1030
are developed are clear and transparent; and thirdly, that the proposals are cost-effective and will result in clear improvement.
Therefore, Amendment No. 255 is intended to probe how far the Government intend to use these powers. It is based on four propositions reflecting those considerations. The first is that the evidential basis for action should be established clearly and publicly by the Learning and Skills Council before any action is proposed. Secondly, re-organisation should not automatically be the preferred option where there are weaknesses in the provision and other options for improvement should also be considered, and considered on an equal footing. Thirdly, there should be a formal published assessment of the impact of any re-organisation proposal on local providers, taking into account access, personnel, finance and estates issues. Lastly, the criteria that should be used to assess the validity of the proposals should be consistent and should, as a minimum, cover the impact on existing provision in both institutions that are the subject of proposals.
Amendment No. 256 proposes that the additional powers intended for the Learning and Skills Council, as outlined in Clause 68, are interventionist and go against local accountability, in that it has always been the role of LEAs, schools and local organisation committees to put forward proposals concerning school organisation. Clause 68 and Schedule 9 provide additional powers to the Learning and Skills Council in England and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales relating to the restructuring of sixth forms.
We are opposed to the proposal that enables the Learning and Skills Council to make proposals directly to the Secretary of State concerning school sixth forms. Local accountability must be maintained by safeguarding the decision-making processes of the school organisation committees. The Learning and Skills Council should not be able to gainsay the decisions made by the school organisation committees, as those committees were originally set up to consider school organisation proposals with all the local stakeholder groups involved.
Local accountability and democratic processes will be seriously undermined should the Learning and Skills Council and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales be given further extended powers in relation to the establishment, alteration and closure of maintained sixth forms.
Amendment No. 257 relates to special educational needs. Its purpose is to ensure that disabled young people and the parents of disabled children and children with special educational needs in schools in the area are consulted about any proposals to establish, alter or discontinue sixth form provision and that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales take account of those views.
Lord Lucas: I would be grateful if the Minister could help me in relation to the interpretation of new Section 113A(3). Paragraph (a) appears to refer to what I

1031
would call a sixth form college, except that it is now to be established by a local education authority but it is a school providing sixth form education only. Why is that not to be established as a sixth form college? Why is it to be established under the aegis of the local education authority? Have I misunderstood what kind of a body it is? Similarly in subsection (3)(c) are there any such bodies that could be discontinued? I was not aware that there were any maintained schools that offered only sixth form education.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Once, many years ago—more than I care to remember—I led the parliamentary football team on to the pitch at Old Trafford after 67,000 spectators had left the ground because the main match had finished. The Members of Parliament played to a house of 200 supporters who were locked in because they were regarded as potential hooligans and were not allowed out at that time. I feel that this evening I am again in that position. A substantive Committee has now been reduced to a diligent few. I am grateful to those who have stayed.
I have a sympathetic response to a number of the amendments in this group, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will recognise that I have a little less sympathy with hers. The Bill, together with the regulations and guidance for which it provides, will have the effect of ensuring that the LSC proposes changes to the pattern of sixth form education only where there is real evidence of local need and only where change would clearly benefit the young people in the area. That is why the LSC will be able to make proposals only under clear conditions. Therefore, I want to dispel the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the LSC may be conducting its affairs in some position of prejudice against small sixth forms. That is far from the case.
The first clear condition on which the LSC will operate is set out on the face of the Bill; namely, the follow up to an area inspection. The second condition, which we shall be putting into regulations, will ensure that sixth-form proposals may be published only where there is clear, objective evidence of local need. That evidence may come, for instance, from recent institutional inspection reports or from local achievement and participation data.
In addition, the regulations and guidance provided for in the Bill will ensure that, rather than relating to single institutions, the LSC proposals will be based on a clear assessment of the overall need in an area. We are clear that for the purposes of this new power, proposals should relate to the quality and sufficiency of provision in an area as a whole.
We shall consult representatives of schools, Churches, colleges and other relevant local interests on the detailed arrangements for developing and determining 16–19 proposals for the LSC. In doing so, we intend to ensure that local LSCs must fully consult with all local interests, including, of course, the schools that may be affected. Local LSC proposals must be approved by the national LSC Young People's Learning Committee before publication. That will ensure consistency with national policy and priorities.
1032
In preparation for that role, the LSC is granting to the Churches membership of that committee and strengthening its expertise in schools matters.
Any objections, comments or concerns must be fully described in the material that will be submitted to the Secretary of State, alongside the published proposal. In making any decision, the Secretary of State will take full account of the strength of the case for reorganisation; the extent to which solutions other than reorganisation have been considered; the breadth of local consultation; and the nature and extent of any local objections.
Those measures guarantee that the voice of individual sixth forms, to which the noble Baroness quite properly drew attention, will be heard in the proposal and decision-making processes. But, crucially, they will also ensure that, without preconceptions or in-built biases, local 16–19 reorganisation proposals consider the range and quality of local provision across all the relevant providers and offer a solution that best meets the overall needs of the area.
In my view, by linking the possibility of closure simply to the views of the sixth form concerned regardless of the wider local needs, Amendment No. 254 takes a totally different and retrograde approach.
I have greater sympathy for the other amendments. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, expressed her position in terms of the need for effective local consultation. I say at the outset that the Government accept the spirit of the amendments that she has tabled. However, as a general principle, we are not in favour of specifying in the Bill the details of the proposal-making processes. In the light of earlier experience, we need flexibility to adjust those processes to meet concerns or unforeseen circumstances.
I should add that we are also committed to further future consultation on all the details of the processes needed to support this new power. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to consult widely with representatives of Churches, schools, head teachers, LEAs, colleges and others. I fear that the amendments before us today would pre-empt much of the consultation that we undertake to carry out. I agree with the noble Baroness that the key to the proposal-making process is that it should be transparent:. The information and analysis that support local proposals must be available to all those who may be affected, as a basis for full discussion about the best way forward for tackling local weaknesses, raising standards, and improving supply, as well as promoting participation in 16 to 19 learning. I recognise that the noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 255, rightly identifies some of the most important elements that are needed to ensure this openness. However, I hope that she will also recognise that we have proposals in hand for improving the process of consultation after we have been able to extend our work more widely.
I turn to Amendment No. 256. It is certainly essential that school organisation committees can make an input for 16 to 19 proposals that affect them.

1033
The consultation paper on 16 to 19 organisation and inspection that we published in the autumn made it clear that we envisaged that school organisation committees and LEAs, school and college interests must be fully consulted.
Where I disagree somewhat with the noble Baroness is in the detail of the procedure. The consultation paper envisaged that the learning and skills council would be required to send proposals to the relevant school organisation committees, which would have the right to attach comments after consulting other local interests. The LSC would then be obliged to submit any comments from the school organisation committee with its own proposals as a package to the Secretary of State. That process was strongly supported in the consultation.
Amendment No. 256, which is also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would substitute for this a two-stage process in which the Secretary of State would, first, receive the proposal, and then consult the relevant school organisation committees. The differences are not critical: both options would achieve broadly the same. I am happy to give the Committee a clear assurance that we shall be ensuring that school organisation committees have a statutory right to be consulted.
We accept the principle that Amendment No. 257 seeks to establish. Indeed, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that we intend to take that principle further. We wish to ensure that the process for local proposals takes account of the views of the full range of young people and parents who may be affected by changes in their area. That effort ought to go wider than those affected by disability or SEN provision, while ensuring that those particular needs are separately and clearly identified.
I hope, therefore, that I have persuaded the noble Baroness that we accept the many good points made in her amendments. We shall be reflecting their spirit in the arrangements that we intend to put in place. Where we disagree in principle, we do so to support the effective local planning and collaboration needed to secure a wide range of high quality opportunities for all young people. In either case, I hope that noble Lords will agree that this part of the Bill should not be amended in any of the ways proposed today. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords will not press the amendments.
Midnight
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord does not seem to have answered some of the questions that I asked. I hoped that I saw some communication floating his way from the Box. I shall be most grateful for some clarification. However, perhaps I may raise some further points in anticipation of that response.
From what the noble Lord said, if the various local interests get together and decide that what they need is a consolidated sixth-form school "x", or that they need to establish what seems to be a quasi sixth-form
1034
college—I do not know why it is not a proper sixth-form college—once all the consultation has gone through, it seems to me that they will have the power to say to schools that are operating what they consider to be small sixth forms, "You have to close because we need the pupils for our sixth-form college", or, indeed, to make a big sixth form at school "x". That would be very foolish.
Many pupils and parents will wish their children to carry on at the schools that they currently attend. The atmosphere in local schools with a small sixth form is very different from a sixth-form college or a school that gathers in children from a wide area. Those children who want a protected, less adult environment will often be much better off in their local school.
Small sixth forms in both the private and state sector can perform extremely well. Pupils receive much more individual attention than in a larger college. The cost and burden of that can be accommodated in the overall provision for such schools. I have not observed that it has been at the expense of the rest of the school, but it seems to fit in well with the way in which a good school can be run.
The two great sixth-form colleges that were established in the Cambridge area did not mean that sixth forms in the surrounding schools were abolished. They got smaller and one which was particularly enterprising has turned itself into Impington village college, which is an extraordinary establishment, born out of the pressure of having to compete with the sixth-form colleges. It has produced something unique and wonderful.
The idea that a school should have to submit to diktat to close its sixth form because someone else wants its pupils is both against the wishes of parents and, in the long term, against the good of the school system as a whole.
I hope that the Minister can answer my original question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising that initial point. I agree with him entirely. Sixth forms play the role that he has identified. I hope that nothing I have said this evening detracts from our support, commitment and admiration for the enormously good work that is done by sixth forms of widely varying size across the country.
I want to respond to the final point kindly made by the noble Lord. All local interests will be taken into account. I sought to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, whose amendments probed the issues of consultation, which we regard as extremely important. There is no doubt that when a sixth form is performing a function that is greatly valued by parents and young people, there is no question of its status being altered. The purpose and objectives of the LSC are how to enhance educational opportunities.
The reason why I hestiated on the question posed by the noble Lord, for which I apologise, is that I was unable to remember the name of the school that was whizzing round in my mind. That is a problem that we

1035
all have late at night. There is a sixth-form college run by the local authority in Hammersmith—the William Morris school. It has a special status as it evolved in special circumstances a number of years ago. That is the exception to the general provision across the country, and that is why it has to be recognised. It is an interesting and fine establishment, but it is not a precursor to any other proposals for a similar institution.
Lord Lucas: I was referring to new Section 113A, which is how the new sixth-form only institutions will be established. They will be established as maintained schools under an LEA rather than as new sixth-form colleges. That is the wording that interests me most. Is it proposed that William Morris should be the model rather than the sixth form colleges that currently exist? If so, why has that been chosen, rather than—since the LSC is involved—creating new sixth-form colleges alongside existing ones?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The framework provides for the possibility of a sixth-form college developing under LEA auspices. Sixth-form colleges have established a good reputation in many parts of the country—the noble Lord referred to Cambridge, where there are two outstanding achievements. That is more likely to be the model, but we are not seeking to prejudge the position in this legislation.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps the noble Lord might prefer to write to me. It seems that new Section 113A only allows William Morris colleges to be established rather than sixth form colleges, which were originally FEFC colleges. If I have misunderstood the situation I am sorry, but I should like to understand how a sixth form FEFC college, on the old model, can be established under this part of the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has a reputation for modesty. He suggests that he might have misunderstood the position, but it is as likely that I have. If I have, I shall in due course apologise to him. I will certainly write to him, if necessary, with any correction to the position that I have put forward today.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his response to the various amendments to which I have spoken. I am reassured that the Government will consult fully locally on any move by the LSC and that it would be a transparent move.
I have one reservation about the whole business. Too often there is a tendency to change for the sake of change. These are institutions, some of which have only just begun to put down and feel their roots. There is a rumour that we will see more change and that we shall have big sixth form/FE colleges for the 16 to 19-year olds, putting up Chinese walls between the various parts of their provision and so forth. That is all very unsatisfactory. We really want to give these colleges a chance to get off the ground and to develop the new relationship with the LSC. They are just
1036
beginning to do that and we do not want to see yet more change. I hope that none of these rumours will come true.
In the meantime, given the lateness of the hour and the hope that we had that we were going to finish some time ago, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. No, I do not beg leave to withdraw, I just sit down.
Baroness Blatch: It is my amendment, so if anyone is going to withdraw the amendment, I shall. I just might run a vote. It would liven us all up. The Minister a moment ago referred to it being very late at night. I remind him that it is actually early in the morning that we are discussing the amendment.
I am not surprised that the noble Lord floundered when he talked about William Morris. William Morris was established by stealth. It was illegal for a long time until in a recent statute the Labour Government made it legal. The students remained on the rolls of their parent school and not on that of William Morris. There is nothing like it in the country. The way that it was established and the way that Hammersmith and Fulham turned a blind eye to the legal position was an absolute disgrace. Indeed, I must say that I believe that the department was also complicit in that.
My basic point is to ask why the LSC should be involved at all. Sixth forms are not add-ons to schools. Where they exist they are an integral part of the whole school. The idea of siphoning off the sixth forms to be responsible to another body—again an unelected and unaccountable body—away from the other part of the school which is accountable to its local education authority is a recipe for disaster. It is not surprising that they feel vulnerable.
In the past when the Government have funded a whole school, the way that that money was spent by the school and how it was distributed between the teaching of sixth-formers and other children in the school was a matter for the governors.
The staff who teach sixth-formers will teach other young people in the school. There is an integrated network of activities between the sixth form and the rest of the school. The notion that they are somehow add-ons is a retrograde step.
I am rather sad that the Government have gone down that road, other than to understand what the hidden agenda is. The hidden agenda is tertiary education. In days gone by, the Labour Party made no secret of this. They do not dare mention its name now because they know it is unpopular with schools that have sixth forms. The truth is that they always did have an open agenda about tertiary education. Now, as I say, it is a policy that dare not speak its name.
I should like an assurance from the Minister, today if possible, that a sixth form would only be abolished if it was failing in the quality of education that it offered its students, that it would not be closed on cost grounds; it would not be an economic decision. I wrote down the Minister's words. He said that it would be decided on the quality and sufficiency of provision. As well as asking for those assurances, I also want him to explain what he means by "sufficiency of provision".

1037
Is he saying that if it is possible to remove a sixth form and disperse the children around other schools in the area to satisfy a spare places argument, as opposed to whether or not the quality of education is good, a sixth form could be closed?
The noble Lord views as a virtue the whole raft and panoply of consultation processes that would be in place. I am not concerned with that, because if the Learning and Skills Council wants to abolish sixth forms to achieve its hidden agenda, it can consult with all and sundry, with a relevant interest or otherwise, but at the end of the day, the LSC makes the decision. It can listen and be terribly patient, but if it wants a sixth form to be abolished, it has the power to do so. If the educational standard is satisfactory or better, on what other grounds could a sixth form be abolished?
12.15 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I may disabuse the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of her notion that there is a secret agenda that is the result of a Labour Party commitment to tertiary education. She is absolutely right that there are people within the Labour Party, as there in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and all parties, in favour of tertiary education, but I assure her that I have never read a document issued by my party nor have I been involved in any discussion of education—and I have been in a few—in which there was a commitment to tertiary education as the sole route by which to provide post-16 education. I have never read such a document or been involved in such a process. She may know my party better than I do, but I beg to differ on that point.
On the more general point about what criteria there are other than education, there are none—only the best possible educational opportunity for the children in the area. The noble Baroness must recognise that educational opportunity for young people these days must often have considerable breadth in its provision. Of course, it can be of high quality across a limited spectrum, but young people—and the wider society that we seek to educate and train—increasingly demand greater breadth and a greater range of choice in education. All of our proposals relating to changes in education for 14 to 19 year-olds are predicated on that assumption. She must recognise that an element in the decision must
1038
necessarily be what young people think of the quality of education provision as represented in terms of their breadth of opportunity.
I assure the noble Baroness that the criterion relates to educational achievement and the raising of standards, which is the objective of the Learning and Skills Council, as it is of the Government.
Baroness Blatch: In 1998, during the debate on the Bill which established learning and skills councils, we were suspicious that the council would be given powers over the organisation and reorganisation of sixth forms. Ministers stood where the Minister stands tonight saying, "I should like to disabuse the noble Baroness of any fears that she may have that that may come about". Here we are, a mere couple of years later, and precisely what were our fears then have come to fruition. So the noble Lord does not convince me when he says, "I should like to disabuse the noble Baroness of her fears". Much of what we fear now on sixth forms' behalf will come to fruition.
The noble Lord answered none of my questions. He did not say that sixth forms would be abolished only if their education was failing. He did not confirm that sixth forms would not be closed on the grounds of cost. He did not define the words "sufficiency of provision". He did not answer the question: if education was satisfactory or better, on what other grounds could a sixth form be abolished?
I hope that the Minister will write to me on all those points between now and the next stage. I will return to the matter, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Proposals relating to sixth forms]:
[Amendments Nos. 255 to 260 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Tax Credits Bill

    The Committee met at four of the clock.
    [The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
    Clause 10 [Entitlement]:
    Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 66:
    Page 7, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, which seeks information. In moving the amendment, perhaps may I repeat the gratitude expressed by my noble friend Lord Higgins', to the Minister for succeeding in giving us the regulations together with the Bill, which has been much appreciated. Can the Minister say why the Government feel the need for regulations to prescribe what is or is not remunerative work? It appears difficult to define remunerative work and we wonder whether this is an unnecessary complication. Perhaps we have misunderstood.
    We wonder whether anyone in remunerative work would not already be associated with the Inland Revenue. Therefore it would be on record who is and who is not so engaged. Perhaps the Minister could give some examples of situations where work is not to be classified as remunerative work. I beg to move.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I am glad that the noble Lord has found the regulations helpful. This morning I re-read them with a view, to reading across to our discussion. It is probably true to say that the question about qualifying remunerative work is one of the more difficult technical issues to be dealt with under the Bill. I use the term "technical" because it needs to take account of interactions with equivalent definitions used in the social security system; for example, for the purposes of income support and income-based JSA, but also to reflect people's working patterns, which may change over time.
    One reason why we need to set it out in this way is that, under the terms of the Bill, we are changing the approach to remunerative work compared with the existing WFTC model. The draft regulations do not follow the current model, which states that hours of remunerative work must be calculated around a particular cycle or a period around the date of the claim. That approach works for the current tax systems, which are fixed for six months at a time, but are not suitable for the new system. We want people to benefit from the working tax credit as soon as they start to meet the specified hours test and cease to
    CWH 134
    benefit once they no longer meet that test. So the hours test as set out in the draft regulations takes into account the flexible working patterns and fluctuating hours of so many of today's workforce. The qualifying remunerative work test will be based on a person's normal or typical working hours, with the expectation that the person will continue to work enough hours per week to qualify for working tax credit for at least four weeks. The regulations will also protect people who receive statutory payments in connection with the birth of a child or on account of a temporary break in work caused by illness.
    Perhaps I may cite some examples which may help our discussions. The term is traditionally defined in regulations for WFTC and DPT'C but there are various reasons why it needs to be redefined. For example, it must be made clear that work done without the expectation of payment does not count as remunerative work. I should like to follow this up with a little more detail. Issues may also arise where someone is working for, say, a voluntary organisation and thus we may need to protect them against putative assumptions of payment. That is where my mind was going as the noble Lord was talking. If I can enlarge on examples, I will either write to him or come back at Report stage.
    Lord Saatchi: Does that mean that qualifying remunerative work would be work as defined in the regulations as being for a certain number of hours?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Exactly that.
    Lord Saatchi: I thank the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Freeman Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 67:
    Page 7, line 28, at end insert ", and in particular whether the disabled person is returning to work during, or following, a course of medical treatment"
    The noble Lord said: It is clear that Clause 10(3) allows more flexibility than under 'working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit in drawing up regulations governing the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as engaged in remunerative work. So my amendment goes to the definition of the term "engagement". My noble friend Lord Saatchi asked about the definition of remunerative work. This new flexibility is particularly welcome. It will enable people who suffer from an illness or disability to adjust their working hours during periods of treatment or convalescence. That is the issue that the amendment seeks to address. It would give greater clarity to subsection (3), in particular to the reference to disabled people in paragraph (b).
    I shall give two examples of the greater clarity that my amendment would give to the interpretation of the Bill in relation to disabled people. I am not sure that my question has yet been answered in the review of the draft regulations that I have seen. If I am in error, the Minister will correct me. First, at present, unless a person is working at least 16 hours a week, they are not entitled to claim disabled person's tax credit. That
    sometimes has the effect of denying in-work support for those who need it. For example, a patient who needs renal dialysis is in hospital three times a week, leaving them with two remaining days in which to undertake remunerative work—a total of 14 hours. I am well aware that in Committee in the House of Commons, Ministers said that they were not prepared to relax the 16-hour requirement for working tax credit, but they gave the welcome assurance that, in cases such as that of a disabled person returning to work, they would consider spreading hours worked over the year and assessing entitlement to WTC on a weekly average. That is a step in the right direction, but more flexibility will be needed if the maximum benefit is to be achieved for the claimant and in terms of work incentives.
    A second brief example is relevant to the present rather inflexible and unwieldy rules governing the disabled person's tax credit fast track. The Minister recalls that under this procedure a person who becomes sick or disabled while in work may claim DPTC if as a result of their disability their earnings fall by more than 20 per cent—for example, if they move to less arduous duties or work for fewer hours—but in order to qualify it is necessary to be off work for 56 days, though not necessarily in a continuous period. Medical treatments have so advanced that 56 days, even if not a continuous period, may be too long and therefore too restrictive.
    I am well aware that this new flexibility is much to be welcomed. I am just seeking even greater flexibility and greater clarity. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord asked me a couple of questions. Amendment No. 67 would mean that regulations under Clause 10 could provide a different definition of qualifying remunerative work for disabled people, depending on whether they were or were not returning to work during or following a course of medical treatment. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (3)(d) already provides the power for regulations to have regard to other factors in determining whether a person is engaged in remunerative work. If at some stage the Government were to be persuaded to make the differential provision for which the noble Lord argues, that could be done using the powers within the Bill. If, however, he is using it to say that someone should be entitled on a regular basis to qualify for working tax credit by working less than 16 hours a week, which was an argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on Second Reading, I would not wish to go along those lines. We are seeking to incorporate the response to disabled people not with a separate benefit labelled DPTC but in the working tax credit system. Sick and disabled people who are on incapacity benefit or SDA will be allowed to go for permitted work for 26 weeks, maybe longer, earning up to £66. If it is supported permitted work, they can continue that permitted work rule of £66 indefinitely.
    In addition to that they have the earnings disregard, as the noble Lord will know. Taken together, I think that we have rightly put in place a supportive regime
    CWH 136
    for disabled people to be able to undertake work which is to their benefit, but which would not be at the expense of under-eligibility for working tax credit. I would be sorry to see us trying to tackle through the back door whether or not the 16-hour rule should be a trigger for working tax credit.
    I turn to the noble Lord's second point, which concerned the averaging of hours over the course of the year—he cited somebody on renal dialysis perhaps temporarily falling below the hours rule, perhaps for a month or so, and for the rest of the year being well above it. There will not be an averaging of hours over the year. If there was, a person who worked 16 hours a week for 51 weeks of the year would not qualify for any working tax credit if they did not work during the final week. It could also mean that we were taking working tax credit away retrospectively because in the last month of the year people failed to sustain the required hours. That could affect, say, a lone parent who suddenly dropped out of work over the Christmas holidays. However, we will look at people's normal working hours, so they would not necessarily be disqualified if they could not work 16 hours in a particular week for some reason.
    We do have a modest discretion. We have powers to address this situation should it prove to be more of a problem than we anticipate. In addition, we have generous financial support regimes for disabled people in relation to what is disregarded. So we are well aware of the issues associated with the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Therefore I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Freeman: I found that answer extremely helpful, and the record will show clearly the constructive spirit in which the Minister has approached this issue. The motive for the amendment is the former not the latter reason the Minister cited. It is a matter of being willing under the definition of any other factors to be flexible to changing medical conditions. On the basis of that most helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 68:
    Page 7, line 31, at end insert—
    "(4) Regulations may make provision for the purposes of working tax credit as to the circumstances in which a person is or is not responsible for a child or qualifying young person."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11 [Maximum rate]:
    [Amendments Nos. 69 to 74 not moved.]
    Clause 11 agreed to.
    Clause 12 [Child care element]:
    [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 70:
    Page 8, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert "so much of any relevant child care charges as does not exceed a prescribed amount.
    (2A) "Child care charges" are charges of a prescribed description incurred in respect of child care by the person, or either or both of the persons, by whom a claim for working tax credit is made "
    The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment but nonetheless it is not part of the package associated with Clause 17. It is a different issue. It clarifies the structure of the childcare element of working tax credit. Clause 12 provides for working tax credit to include an element in respect of childcare charges to be known as the "child care element". That element will be based on the existing childcare tax credit in WFTC.
    As with the existing childcare tax credit, the childcare element will represent a proportion of eligible childcare charges. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that the maximum rate of the element will be 70 per cent of eligible charges up to maximum charges of £135 for one child and £200 for two or more children. The first half of this amendment—that is, the amendment to the body of subsection (2)—makes clear that such proportions may be set out in regulations.
    The second part of the amendment, the new subsection (2A), makes clear that regulations may provide for how "child care charges" are to be calculated for the purposes of the childcare element. The regulations will provide that childcare charges will be calculated by looking at average weekly charges over a four-week period. This is similar to the formula currently applied in WFTC but is somewhat simpler. It is simpler so that parents can easily recalculate their weekly charges and have their award amended when the charges change because, as noble Lords may be aware, the new tax credit system will respond to changes in entitlement.
    Perhaps I have said enough about the amendment. If so, I hope that noble Lords will be happy to accept it. I beg to move.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness has explained the amendment very carefully. I presume that the way in which regulations come into operation varies in the Bill. Sometimes it says it in the clause and sometimes it is referred to way back in a later part of the Bill. I presume that these prescriptions are prescribed, if I can put it that way, in the later way—namely, some later section of the Bill says that the Government should have power to make such prescriptions. Having said that, the amendment clarifies the position somewhat and I do not believe we would wish to object to it.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 13 [Rate]:
    [Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
    Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 79:
    Page 9, line 21, at end insert—
    "() Regulations shall provide that all recipients of housing benefit and council tax benefit will receive in full any increase in their entitlement to tax credits."
    The noble Earl said: The Minister will, I am sure, have spotted that the intention of this amendment is probing. One of the problems that has to be settled before the Bill can be an efficient instrument of business is how it is going to impact on housing benefit and council tax benefits and how are those tapers will be affected. If this is not got right, then as soon as anybody gets any extra money out of the tax credit an immediate new poverty trap will be created out of a possible loss of housing benefit and increase in council tax benefit. The housing benefit tapers are, of course, moderately steep, certainly by the standards that the Bill is introducing.
    There is also a further problem about the requirement for information. The requirement of information for housing benefit is, of course, already a complex business, because it has to be supplied both to the local authority and to the Department for Work and Pensions. The question will arise, as it has already done over passported benefits, of whether we have sufficient authority in the Bill to deal with the information required by the local authority for housing benefit, or whether people are going to be required to supply two different lots of information, perhaps involving two different periods of measurement—in fact, precisely that sort of precise information that those who are in need of social security benefits tend to be particularly ill-equipped to provide, especially if it is true that the level of illiteracy in this country is somewhere around 10 per cent.
    I am not certain exactly how the housing benefit tapers should be adjusted, but they will need to be adjusted if the Bill is to work. My main purpose in tabling this amendment is to find out the Minister's thinking on the subject. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: This amendment is concerned with the rate at which the tax credits should be made available either by way of deduction or by way of benefit payment.
    I make one very trivial point in passing. I am slightly puzzled by what the printer has been up to. We suddenly get these little tiny printed headings, "Rate" and "Decisions" and so forth, which if one refers to the contents page at the front are in fact rather major headings. I am not clear why "Rate" appears in such small print in the centre of the page—it is not, as I understand, it part of the Bill—and then again in much bigger print further down. It seems to be the wrong way round. However, I leave that for further consideration.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has rightly raised the important question of housing benefit and the extent to which the tapers in the housing benefit and council tax regulations relate to those in the tax credit system

    CWH 139
    that the Government are seeking to introduce. I imagine this is going to be pretty complicated, although the amendment has a clear-cut variation on the possible solutions.
    I am rather more concerned about the other points which the noble Lord raised—that is, where is this information coming from? The Minister will know from many previous exchanges that we have always been rather concerned about the extent to which information related to housing benefit is obtained and the fact that the questionnaires put out by one local authority may be vastly different from those put out by another.
    I do not know whether this would be an opportunity, yet again, to press for some standardisation of these forms as presumably they will also need at least to include a question asking whether the individual is in receipt of a tax credit. This will be a fairly major task because of the disparity of practice between individual local authorities and the fact that this is shifting away from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Treasury. Local authorities will on the whole have been dealing previously, in relation to other social security benefits, with the Department for Work and Pensions and not with the Treasury. This will require quite a large readjustment of relationships as far as local authorities are concerned. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point and on the question of how the papers inter-relate.
    Lord Northbrook: Are housing benefits and council tax benefits counted as relevant income?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. It is the other way around. WTC will count as relevant income for housing benefit.
    If regulations were made to prescribe that claimants to housing and council tax benefits should receive tax credits in full—which is what the amendment seeks—this would mean that people in work would have increased entitlement to housing and council tax benefit. It would certainly be to their advantage, perhaps, but there are quite serious read-acrosses.
    I would not dispute the importance of housing benefit. Given that it is a high value benefit, matters will be complicated once one seeks to integrate housing benefit tapers with all other forms of support, whether tax credits, pension credits or other benefits. As we have discussed on previous occasions, introducing housing benefit tapers and council tax tapers to the other forms of tapers will certainly raise the marginal deduction rates. That is undeniably true. A family with children could receive a combination of child benefit, working tax credit, child tax credit and housing and council tax benefits on top of their earnings, and they would all be tapering out.
    Given this amendment, therefore, what are our considerations? A key factor is consideration of the effect on withdrawal rates. A person now on the tax credit taper and on the housing benefit and council tax benefit tapers would, under the Bill, have a marginal deduction rate of a little over 90 per cent. If, however,
    CWH 140
    the working tax credit was not taken into account in housing and council tax benefit, there would be a withdrawal rate of around 125 per cent. So people would be worse off for working harder.
    The second implication of the amendment is that we open up even greater disparity of treatment. Those on maximum benefit—income support or JSA together with CTC— currently receive maximum housing benefit and ISMI—help with interest payments on their mortgage. Once someone moves into work they are expected to pick up all of the costs for buying the house themselves, irrespective of their level of income, apart from a very brief rollover period. Accepting the amendment would mean that anyone receiving working tax credit, or indeed children's tax credit—which might go quite some way up the income level—would receive all of that disregard for the purposes of housing benefit, while someone on a much lower income would find that their expectation that they would be paying for their own mortgages would fall far behind the provision of giving rental support. That disparity would be unfair.
    The third problem, which is by no means minor, is the cost of the proposal. We estimate that the cost would be £1.2 billion in 2003–04, rising to £1.4 billion by 2006. Even if it were limited to disregarding only the working tax credit. the cost would be several hundred million pounds, and we do not feel that that money would be well targeted.
    Disregarding working tax credit in housing and council tax benefit calculation goes against the principle of taking into account income in the income-related benefits. That was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Disregards are in fact the exception, and other than a small disregard—the £10 or £20 that we might give to a lone parent or disabled person—net earnings are taken fully into account in housing and council tax benefit calculations. Therefore it does not make sense to treat working tax credit more favourably than earnings; to take earnings into account, but not the top-up of those earnings based on family benefit. In other words, we are following the practice already established in both family credit and working families' tax credit.
    For all those reasons, I hope that Members of the Committee will be reassured that we have fully considered those issues.
    I was pressed on a point of information exchange, and I agree that one of the considerable difficulties facing the department is the fact that local authorities, though they act as a kind of post box for a national payment of a national benefit, nonetheless have very different methods of delivering their letters, almost literally so in many cases.
    As the noble Lord will know through exchanges in the House, the House produced model forms which local authorities are increasingly using for housing benefit calculations. Individuals will need to provide their financial circumstances both to local authorities and the Inland Revenue, but—and this is worth saying—on the figures that I have had calculated, only around 5 or 6 per cent of all the families on the new tax

    CWH 141
    credits will be experiencing the housing benefit taper. Anyone on JSA or IS together with CTC will be receiving maximum housing benefit, child tax credit, and therefore will not be subject to a taper. Anyone further up the income level, from £12,000, £15,000, £18,000, depending on family size, will not be still eligible for housing benefit taper, and equally, of course, many people are buying their own homes and are therefore not eligible for any financial support.
    It means, therefore, that local authorities will be dealing with only about 5 per cent; that is, some 0.3 million or so of those in receipt of working tax credit and children's tax credit are likely to come within the remit of coming down the taper so that they are experiencing both a withdrawal of housing benefit from the maximum they would get if they were on income support or JSA alone. Only about 5–6 per cent will experience that taper in which they will have been tapered out of the tax credit at the same time as they were also being tapered out of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
    Given that, while I accept that people will have to give information both to local authorities and to the Inland Revenue, only 5 per cent of those in receipt of tax credits will experience both the effect of pretty high marginal deduction rates and the problem of giving that information twice. It also means that local authorities will not be dealing with a problem of monstrous proportions. Those currently tapering out of housing benefit are largely the same client group already under the WFTC, so we are not producing an additional load for them, except at the edges.
    With that explanation and given the substance of the amendment—that it should be disregarded altogether—I hope that the huge cost and unfairness in treatment between those seeking to buy their homes, and the fact that it would break all the existing methods of treating income for the purposes of assessing housing benefit, will enable the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Higgins: I do not propose to criticise the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for proposing an amendment which would cost —1.4 billion and still involve marginal withdrawal rates for 125 per cent. It is a rather useful amendment on which to examine the question of housing benefit.
    Before the noble Earl replies, could the Minister clarify one point? Am I right in thinking that in the light of what she says, there is no information flow from the local authority to the Treasury? Is it simply that the information on tax credits will be conveyed by the individual to the local authority?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is my understanding.
    4.30 p.m.
    Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for recognising that the purpose of the amendment was to generate a debate. I did not expect the Minister to he particularly happy with the
    CWH 142
    wording. But if one is a seasoned parliamentarian and one sees an open goal, one cannot resist putting the ball in the net. I express no surprise at that.
    However, do I understand correctly that the Minister is not proposing any further change in housing benefit taper as a result of the Bill? Was that in fact the purport of what she was saying? That would not satisfy either my colleagues in this place or my colleagues in another place. My honourable friend Mr Webb expressed his feelings on the matter strongly during debates in another place.
    The Minister said dismissively that only 5 or 6 per cent of those claiming working families' tax credit would be affected. That is a classic maid's baby argument. It may look like a small proportion, but it is in fact rather a large amount of people. It is a bit like the chap in Ruthless Rhymes who collided with a goatherd and by the time his car got through they were all defunct but two. The fact that two were not defunct is not an awfully good excuse.
    There is a considerable problem here. We will have to address it a good deal more thoroughly than we have done at present. We will have to come back to it at the next stage of the Bill, but, I assure the Minister, not with this particular amendment. I listened to her criticisms of it. However, it has elicited that the Minister is not intending any further change.
    The Minister mentioned ISMI. Do the Government have any intention of changing the practice of the previous government, under which ISMI is not available for the first nine months? That is quite a long period of time and it severely limits the usefulness of ISMI. If she wants to quote that as a mitigating factor she might think of changing that while she is about it.
    I should also like the Minister to look again at the operation of the system of RATS. I do not mean the ones in cellars; I mean the remote access terminal system for exchanging information between the Department of Social Security as it then was—the Department for Work and Pensions as it is now—and local authorities. I have a lot of evidence that that system is not working nearly as well as the Minister believes it to be. Perhaps she could look again and check her sources on that. If she has anything to say on that or the point about ISMI, I shall give way to her.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to intervene before the noble Earl decides what he wants to do with his amendment. He asks for an assurance that we are not changing the taper rates for housing benefit. No, indeed, we are not. We are changing the applicable amount, because it reflects the new structure of support for children. We are separating out the children's element from IS and JSA, because that is going to be the new child tax credit.
    The noble Earl asked whether there were any plans to change ISMI. I am not aware of any current proposals to change ISMI. On the point about the small numbers, I was not trying to suggest for a moment that a third of a million is a small number. In terms of the additional work load for local authorities, I was trying to put this into proportion by saying that

    CWH 143
    it represented 5 to 6 per cent of those on tax credits. My judgment is that almost all of them would currently already be receiving housing benefit under the existing WFTC scheme. Therefore, the argument about new complexity and new workload for local authorities—I was not talking about the significance for individuals—should not be overstated.
    Earl Russell: I thank the Minister. We have not heard the last of this subject. We need more thought on it, but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 13 agreed to.
    Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 80:
    After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
    "REVIEW AND ALTERATION OF RATES OF TAX CREDITS
    Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5) shall apply with like effect to tax credits and paragraph 28(2) and (3) of Schedule 3 to this Act shall amend section 150 accordingly."
    The noble Lord said: I have never been more pleased in my life to be overtaken. I move Amendment No. 80 in order to give the Minister an opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 214, which I am very glad to see in its place in the Marshalled List. I imagine the Minister would prefer to speak to it now rather than taking that debate very late in our proceedings. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Earl says, we are essentially doing the uprating that he is calling for. I do not know how specific he needs me to be. It is not right to apply the provisions in Part X of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to the new tax credit, as the amendment would do, because they are not part of the social security system. However, he may be concerned with the principle that there will be regular uprating. The Bill is designed to strike the balance between parliamentary scrutiny and flexibility. We believe that Amendment No. 214 is more appropriate than attaching tax credits to the provisions of Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act. Under the proposed new clause the process of setting and reviewing the rates of the new tax credit will be highly transparent and visible. This year the rates and thresholds of the new tax credits were properly a matter for the Chancellor's Budget and the Budget process is already the subject of an enormous amount of scrutiny. This will be true year after year. The new clause on annual review takes the Government's commitments further. It requires the Treasury annually to review the monetary amounts in the Bill against appropriate measures of prices, to prepare a report on that review and to lay that report before the House. I hope that that will meet the noble Earl's concerns.
    Earl Russell: I expected to find the Minister's reasons for thinking her amendment better drafted than mine persuasive. I have found them persuasive. It is therefore with great pleasure—
    Lord Higgins: May I ask a question?
    Earl Russell: I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
    Lord Higgins: Does the noble Baroness intend to speak to Amendment No. 214, which is related to this? My list has Amendments Nos. 214 and 222 in the same group as Amendment No. 80. Amendment No. 214 is a rather massive new clause on annual reviews.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thought I had spoken to that point. Amendment No. 214 is in this group. I believe the annual review gives the assurances that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is seeking.
    Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness dealt with it so briefly that I did not even see it going past me. I have one point to raise on Amendment No. 214. It is effectively an annual uprating and refers to each tax year, but it is in relation to prices. It is not—and I imagine that this is not what the noble Earl was hoping for—guaranteed to retain its value, but there will be a report if it does not fully maintain its value in relation to prices. That would leave a slightly strange position. It is like neither the minimum income guarantee, which is uprated in relation to earnings, nor the basic state pension, which is uprated in relation to prices. Apparently, as far as tax credits are concerned, it will be uprated in relation to various considerations that are set out here, but not necessarily fully uprated in relation to prices. Will the Minister say if that is so?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is slightly more complicated than that. We are dealing with three elements in tax credits. First the expectation is the basic working tax credit will be reviewed annually in line with prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made a commitment that the uprating of children's tax credit, to my delight, will be in line with earnings, which is better than prices. However, the situation is slightly more complicated because we do not want automatically to link the third element, which is the childcare element, to price inflation, because childcare costs do not necessarily follow those same trends. That is the reason for the form of wording.
    Earl Russell: That is a very good reason for that wording and I am glad to hear it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 14 [Provisional decisions]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 81
    Page 9, line 32, leave out "it is to be awarded" and insert "to award it"
    The noble Baroness said: We have already engaged with your Lordships the package of what I call the technical amendments that came in that rather large

    CWH 145
    bundle. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins and the noble Earl Lord Russell have received a package of speaking notes to those individual groups. Rather than going through long speeches, which are technically descriptive in an attempt to be accurate, I wondered whether it might be helpful to try another approach, if your Lordships were content. I shall say now what the overall package of amendments does, and set out the four main themes that operating throughout, and then simply indicate as we go which government amendments fall into those groups. I wonder whether that might be more helpful.
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I am sorry to interrupt, but there is a Division in the Chamber of the House. We will therefore adjourn the Committee.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.40 to 4.52 p.m.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Given that we are dealing with a very large bundle of technical redrafting amendments, it may be for the greater convenience of the Committee if I make a few introductory comments about what the package will do overall. If the Committee is content, as we come to each of the amendments I will say, "This refers to that bit and that refers to that hit". It may save us considerable time and allow more time to be spent on the policy scrutiny issue.
    All of these amendments, going right up through to Amendment No. 240, fall into four categories. If I take this fairly slowly it may allow me to cross-refer back and keep it all together. We have already trespassed on some of these amendments. The first category concerns destroying the distinction between the award of tax credits, under which payments are made during the year, and entitlement, which is settled after the year end when current year income is known. As the Committee will recall, we discussed earlier, in regard to Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 27, the distinction between awards, which are the payments in the process of the year, and entitlement, which is the balancing of hooks. At present there is some drafting confusion between the two.
    There are also some technical changes to the provisions in respect of recovering overpayments and paying out underpayments when entitlement turns out at the end of the year to be different to the amount paid under awards during the year. I am probably incorrect on this, but it is almost like the difference between the code as you go along and the end of year tax adjustments. That is one issue that threads through some of these amendments.
    The second issue relates to the fact that awards are not "revoked", which implies they never existed—which is not quite right—and that that should be substituted by the use of the word "terminated", if the board decides they should be. That links such awards to the end of year process. I suggest to the officials that an analogy might be between "revoking", which suggests an annulment of a marriage on the grounds that it had not taken place, and "termination", which
    CWH 146
    is more like divorce. That is the second issue that will thread through. We have already had an example of that in regard to Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 in Clauses 5 and 6.
    The third issue that comes up is making it clear that at the end of the year, the claimant needs to tell us about income for the year just ended; current year income for the year being finalised. At present, the Bill would require the claimant to compare previous year and current year income and the claimant does not need to be put to that trouble, the Revenue will do it. In other words, this will break down the concept of relevant income into current year and previous. If we keep relevant income, the client or the customer has to make those distinctions and they may be inaccurate. As I have said, the Revenue will do it, so that is a simplification. This issue has been picked up in Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 to Clause 7 of the Bill.
    Finally—and this is the substance of Clause 17—we are unscrambling Clause 17 into new Clause 17 and a new Clause 17A. That will divide two distinct aspects of the process: the notice, which is the end-of-year statement provision from the decision the board makes on entitlement after the year, to make Clause 17 less unwieldy. We could have one five-page clause, but we are separating out the procedures associated with giving out the notices and sending them back. Then, for clarity of drafting, we shall have the subsequent new Clause 17A, which will be the decision-making process.
    So we have four scenes: the first is between award and entitlement; the second substitutes for the word "revoked", the word "terminated"; the third breaks down the concept of relevant income into current and previous year's income; and the fourth, splintering Clause 17 into two clauses—the first dealing with notice, the second dealing with decision-making. However, these are all inter-related because they refer to the in-year and end-of-year processes. They all form a package, which is why they have taken time to finalise and, of course, they reiterate through the rest of the Bill. That sets out what we are doing here.
    I shall turn now very briefly to Amendments Nos. 81 to 83. Here we are allowing for awards at a nil rate. We shall keep them within the system rather than saying that, because they have a nil rate, they will fall out of the system and have to start all over again. It means, for example, that someone whose earnings rise higher in the year would otherwise fall out, or someone in receipt of a different benefit such as invalidity benefit, might fall out of the system. The phraseology, "awarding a tax credit'', in essence has the effect of keeping an entitlement going even though no money is in payment or in process. It makes it easier for the claimant and it makes it easier for us.
    I hope that, with those brief explanations of Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 within the context of the four scenes running through, the Committee will accept that these are technical amendments, designed to be helpful in clarifying the Bill. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness has made an extremely helpful speech which goes some way

    CWH 147
    towards clarifying what is a very confused position. It will be helpful to divide them into those four categories. Otherwise, every time one comes to an amendment concerned with award and entitlement, the Minister will have to make exactly the same speech she made earlier in the week. It would be absurd to go over them time and time again.
    We are clear which are the lead amendments we have either taken already or will reach later. Given that, it would be acceptable if she simply confirms that this is a further redrafting of the award and entitlement problem, or further redrafting of the notice as against the decision-making problem. Thus, unless a particular point relates to a specific amendment, which is other than restructuring—and "restructuring" is probably a better word than either "technical" or "redrafting"—as long as the Minister tells us into which category it fits, we can probably deal with the matter very much faster. It will also make it a great deal easier for those reading Hansard to comprehend.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Those were very helpful responses from both noble Lords and I am most grateful. If it is satisfactory to noble Lords, I should like to proceed on that basis.
    Earl Russell: It is entirely satisfactory to me. However, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. Were those responsible for putting the Bill together influenced in what they have done by the practice of the Inland Revenue in assessing Schedule D taxation? Of course they have a degree of familiarity with the problem of varying earnings, which is precisely what we need to import into this Bill.
    Recently I have been preparing my own tax return. As I did so, I recognised things that the Minister is coming across and having to revise her drafting to meet. That appears to be the case. If so, it is a sensible place to draw on for experience.
    5 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is a version of that situation, where there is fluctuation and where people might otherwise drop out of the system for a period because their earnings are uneven. That would certainly come within this type of amendment.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 82:
    Page 9, line 40, at end insert ", provided that the date specified shall not be less than thirty working days from the date of receipt of the notice"
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 82 on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Byford, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group.
    The amendments relate to the work of the board in reaching a provisional decision on the award of a tax credit, in reaching a revised provisional decision and inquiring into an award already granted.
    The Bill provides that the board may require the provision of information or evidence from a prescribed person. Any list of such individuals will
    CWH 148
    necessarily include employers. Large companies will have whole departments for personnel, payroll and pensions. They will have sophisticated computer systems for providing answers in respect of both present and past employees. But in many companies the owner/manager is the personnel, payroll and pensions function. Paying the wages is probably simpler than producing the papers. Year-ends are a nightmare. Extraneous queries, especially about previous employees, cause very real and time-consuming problems.
    This burden is particularly onerous for companies with marked seasonal variations and a high staff turnover. This obviously includes the farming sector, but also seaside hotels and boarding houses, country pubs and B&Bs, agricultural and landscape contractors and so on. In many of these, the owners, in the season, work non-stop from the crack of dawn until the small hours. They deserve protection from unreasonable demands.
    Indeed, government departments themselves know the difficulties of responding to queries that they do not control. In a Written Answer in another place on 22nd April this year, Mr McCartney gave the following information about the time taken to provide information under the Data Protection Act 1998. Over the period of 1st March 2000 to 23 October 2001, the Department for Work and Pensions responded to 91.4 per cent of information requests within 40 days—the amendments seek only 30 days' grace—8.6 per cent took more than 40 days, and the largest interval was 120 days.
    There is a further point here. Until and unless government departments and agencies start mailing their post within 24 hours of the date on the letter, there should be an acknowledgement that date of receipt is regularly anything up to eight working days later. Unfortunately, this seems to apply particularly to correspondence from the Inland Revenue.
    The amendments seek merely a modest period of grace of 30 days. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is correct. I believe that his very last statement was that this amendment seeks 30 days. The difference between us is the difference between 30 days and 30 working days. If the noble Earl is not seeking 30 working days, I do not know that his amendment does anything. Could I ask him to confirm that?
    The Earl of Northesk: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm that because my noble friend Lady Byford did not tell me precisely what was the thrust of her amendment on that particular point.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Earl. The department is proposing a 30-day limit. That is absolutely standard. The amendment seeks 30 working days. The hinge was on the word "working", which would allow extra time.
    I accept most of the noble Earl's argument. Obviously, the time starts clicking-in only after informal inquiries have pursued information on the

    CWH 149
    claim form and so on. In the light of that, is the noble Earl content that there will be the 30 days he requested at the end of his speech?
    The Earl of Northesk: I take the Minister's point. I obviously cannot speak for my noble friend Lady Byford, but no doubt she will read what the Minister has said. In the circumstances, I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 83:
    Page 9, line 40, at end insert—
    "(3) The Board's power to decide the rate at which to award a tax credit includes power to decide to award it at a nil rate."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 15 [Revised provisional decisions after notifications]:
    [Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
    Clause 15 agreed to.
    Clause 16 [Other revised provisional decisions]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 85:
    Page 10, line 22, leave out "revoke" and insert "terminate"
    The noble Baroness said: This comes into category two. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: Following our extremely helpful discussion earlier, does this fall into one of the four categories that were mentioned, and if so, which one?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Number two. It says that awards are not revoked, but terminated.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 86
    Page 10, line 35, leave out "revoke" and insert "terminate"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
    Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 17 [Final decisions]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 88:
    Page 10, line 42, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 46 and insert—

    "(a) for awards made on single claims, the Board must give a notice relating to the tax year to the person to whom the tax credit was awarded, and

    (b) for awards made on joint claims, the Board must give such a notice to the persons to whom the tax credit was awarded (with separate copies of the notice for each of them if'

    The noble Baroness said: I shall defer to noble Lords on whether we call this redrafting or restructuring, but this is where we do the work of pulling out of Clause 17 all the references to decisions and put them into the new clause. We can see the effect on the provision as a result.
    CWH 150
    The clause simply deals with notices. No policy changes follow. It is simply a disentanglement of the substance of that clause into two clauses. I wonder whether I have said enough for noble Lords to be satisfied. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 89:
    Page II, line I, after "must" insert "not require the provision of information which is already in the possession of the Board.
    () Subject to this it must"
    The noble Lord said: As with previous amendments, we are seeking to reduce the burden on businesses of providing information to the board. The amendment would do that by ensuring that the notice given by the board must,
    "not require the provision of information which is already in the possession of the Board".
    The amendment assumes that if the Inland Revenue already possesses particular information about a person, it may not be necessary for it to be requested a second time. I do not know whether that is practical, but that is the thrust of the amendment.
    Businesses, particularly small businesses, are subject to an excess of red tape and bureaucratic burdens of all kinds as it is. The amendment would help to relieve them of a very small part of that burden. I beg to move.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I sympathise with the amendment and I wish I could be more helpful. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has rightly identified, there are practical problems. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, says he has been doing his tax statement. As an ex-academic—decidedly ex in my case—I will not be able to complete my tax statement until the summer, because of the flows of different sorts of income, including book royalties, public lending rights and all the things that tend to come through at different times during the year, even though it refers to the preceding year.
    It takes time for the income tax system to get all that information. Employers must return details of employees by 19th May and details of taxable benefits in kind by 6th July. In addition, there are many other forms of income, such as profits or the income of the self-employed, who may take time to drav, up their accounts. People such the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with a number of distinguished books to his record and his credit, will often get details of their royalties quite late, particularly if those royalties are coming back from the United States, for example.
    The amendment would result in the suspension of the payment of tax credits from the beginning of the financial year until all the tax statements have been finalised. We do not believe that that is the correct thing to do and therefore it seems right that we should go for separate forms of information. However, I do not believe that that will impose any burdens on business.
    Clause 17 is concerned with asking claimants to confirm details of their income and circumstances. I do not believe it will add to the employer's burden, hut it

    CWH 151
    may take time for the Inland Revenue to co-ordinate all the information it has to hand other than PAYE systems. If we were to wait for that there would be periods of time in which some would not receive their payments. So I am afraid we are stuck. Though we sympathise with what the noble Lord is seeking to do, we cannot deliver it.
    Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, I should like her to withdraw one phrase from what she said; that is, her description of herself as an "ex-academic". That is grossly premature.
    Lord Higgins: I apologise to my noble friend Lord Saatchi for intervening on what is his amendment. It will become apparent why I am stimulated to do so in just a moment.
    I am quite incapable of filling in my own tax return and in fact in 1973 refused to accept the whole system of self-assessment which the Inland Revenue then tried to persuade me to introduce as a Minister. It is a dreadful system. It puts all the onus on the taxpayer and it is deplorable.
    To come to the point of the amendment, which may well be technically difficult, the thrust of my noble friend's argument is that the Revenue should not ask again for information which it already has. The reason why I am provoked to intervene at this stage is that a day or two ago a form P161 came to my attention, which the Inland Revenue had sent to someone. On the top of the form it had the tax reference and the national insurance number, yet proceeded to ask for an unbelievable amount of information which it surely must already hold; namely "What is your date of birth?", "What is your first name?" and so on.
    It also asked, "If you are receiving, or about to receive a state pension enter details below". For goodness sake, the Revenue must know whether or not the person is receiving a state pension, or at least one hopes it does. Another question was, "What is the weekly amount of your state pension?". The Revenue must also know that.
    I could go on. But I believe that Form P161 should be withdrawn forthwith to set an example to those in the Inland Revenue administering the tax credit system that they must not go on badgering people for information which they already have, and that if they only took a bit of time to sort out their computer system they would not have to trouble people in that way.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I say "Amen" to the whole of Whitehall sorting out its computer system! As somebody trying to integrate child support and income support computers, I am well aware of the problem.
    To go back to the substance again, let me just say that a note sent to claimants under Clause 17 will set out all the details of the family circumstances and income that are currently held by the Inland Revenue. The claimant must then check the notice and if any of the details are incorrect or not up to date, the claimant
    CWH 152
    must amend the notice and send the amendment back to the Inland Revenue within a specified time. If the details are correct, then the claimant need only confirm that and in some cases need do nothing else. The final award is based on details set out in the notice. Those details will also form the basis of the claim for the next year under the provisions of Clause 4 already discussed.
    We cannot wait until the Inland Revenue has collected in all the assessment information and then use that as the basis for doing the tax credit award simply because other adjustments to income may need to be taken into account. Therefore, we are going to have to run the two systems in parallel in order to ensure that tax credits are in payment as soon as possible at the beginning of the financial year.
    As for the concern of the noble Lord about self-assessment, I am dismayed. I felt that the new method of self-assessment was infinitely simpler than any preceding system once one had gone through the first year. As the person who organised that is now running the new Child Support Agency and the new assessment methods for that, I have high hopes indeed for its simplicity, transparency and workability. But of course the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will not come within the remit of the Child Support Agency.
    Lord Saatchi: One of the Minister's charms is that she is invariably deeply sympathetic with the amendments that we put forward but, on the other hand, is unable to support them. We look forward to the time when some of our amendments on these issues—which all seek to deal with the issue of complexity—receive a reaction a little warmer than sympathy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 99:
    Page 11, line 9, leave out from "than" to end of line 13 and insert "income) affecting—

    (a) the entitlement of the person, or joint entitlement of the persons, to the tax credit, or

    (b) the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled,

    for the tax year."`
    Page 11, line 16, leave out "relevant income or estimated relevant" and insert "current year income or estimated current year"
    Page 11, line 21, leave out "relevant income or estimated relevant" and insert "current year income or estimated current year"
    Page 11, line 26, leave out from first "the" to second "income" and insert "current year income or his or their estimate of the current year"
    Page 11, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
    "(6) The notice may—

    (a) require that the person or persons must, by the date specified for the purposes of subsection (4), declare that the amount of the previous year income was the amount, or fell within the range, specified or comply with subsection (6A), or

    CWH 153

    (b) inform the person or persons that he or they will be treated as having declared in response to the notice that the amount of the previous year income was the amount, or fell within the range, specified unless, by that date, he complies or they comply with subsection (6A).

    (6A) To comply with this subsection the person or persons must either—

    (a) state the previous year income, or

    (b) make the declaration specified in subsection (5)(b)."

    Page 11, line 42, leave out from "to" to "income" in line 43 and insert "estimated current year income (or the range within which estimated current year"
    Page 11, line 45, leave out "relevant" and insert "current year"
    Page 11, line 46, leave out "relevant" and insert "current year"
    Page 11, line 47, leave out "relevant" and insert "current year"
    Page 12, line 1, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 101 to 103:
    Page 12, line 23, leave out "to that member"
    Page l2, leave out line 25.
    Page 12, line 26, leave out subsection (12).
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 104:
    After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
    "DECISIONS AFTER FINAL NOTICE
    (1) After giving a notice under section 17 the Board must decide—

    (a) whether the person was entitled, or the persons were jointly entitled, to the tax credit, and

    (b) if so, the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled,

    for the tax year.
    (2) But, subject to subsection (3), that decision must not be made before a declaration or statement has been made in response to the relevant provisions of the notice.
    (3) If a declaration or statement has not been made in response to the relevant provisions of the notice on or before the date specified for the purposes of section 17(4), that decision may be made after that date.
    (4) In subsections (2) and (3) "the relevant provisions of the notice" means—

    (a) the provision included in the notice by virtue of subsection (2) of section 17,

    (b) the provision included in the notice by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, and

    (c) any provision included in the notice by virtue of subsection (6) of that section.

    (5) Where the Board make a decision under subsection (1) on or before the date referred to in subsection (3), they may revise it if a new declaration or statement is made on or before that date.
    (6) If the person or persons to whom a notice under section 17 is given is or are within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (7) of that section, the Board must decide again—

    (a) whether the person was entitled, or the persons were jointly entitled, to the tax credit, and

    (b) if so, the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled,

    for the tax year.
    CWH 154
    (7) But, subject to subsection (8), that decision must not be made before a statement has been made in response to the provision included in the notice by virtue of subsection (7) of section 17.
    (8) If a statement has not been made in response to the provision included in the notice by virtue of that subsection on or before the date specified for the purposes of that subsection, that decision may be made after that date.
    (9) Where the Board make a decision under subsection (6) on or before the date referred to in subsection (8), they may revise it if a new statement is made on or before that date.
    (10) Before exercising a function imposed or conferred on them by subsection (1), (5), (6) or (9), the Board may by notice require the person, or either or both of the persons, to whom the notice under section 17 was given to provide any further information or evidence which the Board consider they may need for exercising the function by the date specified in the notice.
    (11) Subject to sections 18 and 19 and regulations under section 20 (and to any revision under subsection (5) or (9) and any appeal)—

    (a) in a case in which a decision is made under subsection (6) in relation to a person or persons and a tax credit for a tax year, that decision, and

    (b) in any other case, the decision under subsection (1) in relation to a person or persons and a tax credit for a tax year,

    is conclusive as to the entitlement of the person, or the joint entitlement of the persons, to the tax credit for the tax year and the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled, for the tax year."
    The noble Baroness said: This comes into category four of the four themes I proposed earlier, which is the separation of notices from decisions. This is the clause that lays out decisions. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: As we have already agreed that this is related to the earlier amendments we discussed, I do not think there is any point in going over the same ground time and time again.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 [Power to enquire into awards]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 105:
    Page 12, line 37, leave out from "into" to "if" in line 38 and insert—

    "(a) the entitlement of a person, or the joint entitlement of persons, to a tax credit for a tax year, and

    (b) the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled, for the tax year,"

    The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 108 to 122 are consequential on changes made to Clause 17, again dealing with the separation out of notices from decisions. I seek to incorporate them into the Bill. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 106:
    Page 12, line 39, leave out ''to whom the award was made"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 108 to 119:
    Page 13, line 1, leave out from "decide" to end of line 2 and insert—

    "(a) whether the person was entitled, or the persons were jointly entitled, to the tax credit, and

    (b) if so, the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled,

    for the tax year."
    Page 13, line 3, leave out "in the case of an award"
    Page 13, line 4, leave out "17" and insert "(Decisions after final notice)"
    Page 13, line 6, leave out "award is made" and insert "enquiry relates"
    Page 13, line 13, leave out "17" and insert "(Decisions after final notice)"
    Page 13, line 14, leave out from "decision" to "in" in line 15 and insert "must be made under subsection (6) of section (Decisions after final notice)"
    Page 13, line 15, leave out "period to which the award" and insert "tax year to which the enquiry"
    Page 13, line 17, leave out "(6)" and insert "(1)"
    Page 13, line 18, leave out "period" and insert "tax year"
    Page 13, line 21, leave out "that section" and insert "section 17"
    Page 13, line 23, leave out "award" and insert "tax year"
    Page 13, line 27, leave out "award" and insert "tax year"
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    5.15 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 120:
    Page 13, line 42, after "the" insert "General Commissioners or Special"
    The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this separately because it addresses a different issue. It is not part of the technical groupings. The amendment concerns transitional arrangements for tax credit appeals. The main amendment in this grouping is Amendment No. 250, which provides the transitional arrangements for hearing tax credit appeals. Amendment No. 251 makes a consequential change to Clause 60, but obviously it is preceded by Amendment No. 120.
    Tax credits are part of the tax system. It has always been our belief that it is right in principle for tax credit appeals to be heard in the same way as tax appeals. This has not changed and the Bill provides for it in Clauses 36 and 37. However, when the Bill was debated in another place, a number of concerns were raised about the current suitability of the General Commissioners to hear tax credit appeals brought by claimants. Those concerns did not relate to the dedication of the Commissioners, nor to the quality of their decisions, but tax credit claimants will form a new and, in many ways, very different client group for the General Commissioners, for reasons we have already discussed; namely, that approximately 90 per cent of them will be receiving moneys that form part of public expenditure. Therefore, the question whether the general commissioners currently have the necessary experience and training to deal effectively with tax credit appeals were legitimate and the Government
    CWH 156
    have carefully considered the matter. I should add that at the moment the appeals are dealt with within the social security system.
    Both the Tax Law Review Committee and Sir Andrew Leggatt have identified the need to modernise the handling of tax appeals. The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering the options for modernisation and reform through an interdepartmental project, options to be worked out for consideration later this year. Those options will cover all aspects of the system and include such issues as appointments, training and administration—in other words, when the whole of the appeals system is integrated across different departments. The question remains, therefore, whether it would be appropriate to transfer the tax credit appeal to the tax commissioners in advance both of the reforms that are going on internally to the department and the Inland Revenue, and before final decisions have been made about the extent of the Leggatt review.
    In the light of concerns raised in the other place and following extensive discussions between the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as with representative bodies from outside government, we propose that tax credit appeals by claimants should continue, as now, to be heard by the social security appeals service until those reforms are in place. The new clause introduced by Amendments Nos. 250 and 251 provides for such transitional arrangements of the new tax credit appeals from 2003. Only when reforms of the system for handling tax appeals are in place will tax credit appeals by claimants be transferred to the reformed system.
    I should add that employer appeals remain unaffected by this amendment and will continue to be heard by the tax commissioners. We think that is right as it will enable employer appeals about PAYE, national insurance contributions and so forth to be heard by the same body. Here we are concerned with appeals by employees and other claimants.
    I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will be happy to continue the current arrangements for a further transitional period until both the internal reform or review or restructuring of the appeals system with the Inland Revenue is complete and wider Whitehall decisions have been made about the Leggatt review. I beg to move.
    Lord Higgins: The interesting question is whether the transition arrangements will continue permanently. In effect, these proposed changes reflect the move away from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Treasury. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, considerable criticisms and reviews are taking place so far as the review system or the Treasury itself is concerned. The Bill will come into effect, so to speak, at the point the arrangement into which the system is being transferred is itself generally regarded as not being satisfactory.

    CWH 157
    The Minister referred to the general commissioners. It would be helpful if she would distinguish between the general and the special commissioners. I presume it does not involve the special commissioners as far the tax credit system is concerned.
    The appropriate question here is this: given that 90 pet' cent of what we are dealing with here concerns payments of benefits, while in broad terms only 10 per cent could reasonably be regarded as a genuine tax credit—that is, a deduction against tax that would otherwise be paid—would it not be more appropriate not to have these transition arrangements and thus not eventually to shift the system on to the Inland Revenue system, which is already deficient and may well not be ideal when the review is completed? Should it not remain within the social security or work and pensions appeal systems rather than move to the Inland Revenue system?
    In particular. I ask how much more rigorous—from the point of view of an individual who may be on low income and dealing normally with work and pensions—is it going to be for him to go to appeal to the special commissioners? The atmosphere is probably not as user friendly, since usually they deal with highly technical matters, as the existing appeals procedure for social security matters. Since there are others in the House who are far more expert on such matters than I am, and perhaps other colleagues, we shall probably need to return to this on the Floor of the House. If the noble Baroness will clarify the situation on those points at this stage it would be helpful.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure that I can help the noble Lord but I shall write to him about special and general commissioners. I dispute the assumption behind his remarks that 90 per cent of the payments are really benefits and therefore should remain with DWP in perpetuity. We are anxious that they should be regarded as part of the seamless way in which people move out of work; into work; they move up the income ladder; they may continue to receive just the family element for a large swathe of their income and then fall back again.
    We are anxious that they should move and, given that the Inland Revenue is administering the whole of the tax credit range, it is right that, if at all possible, the administration of the appeals should also move over to the Inland Revenue. However, given that the Inland Revenue is in the process of reviewing its current structure of appeals and given that there are more profound questions about the integration of the appeals system across Whitehall, it seemed sensible to continue the current arrangements that apply to WFTC for at least a transitional period. How long that transitional period will be I cannot say, but I would expect them to come within the responsibility of the Inland Revenue as soon as those considerations have been resolved.
    Lord Higgins: Is the end of the transitional period to be determined by positive or negative resolution?
    Earl Russell: Before the Minister replies, I entirely agree with her about the inappropriateness of dividing
    CWH 158
    it into 90 per cent benefit and 10 per cent tax, or vice versa. It reminds me of the times when people say that a child takes 90 per cent after his father and 10 per cent after his mother, or vice versa. It is the sort of thing that is only said during a quarrel and is usually regretted afterwards.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As on so many points in the Bill, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord Huggins, about how long the transitional period may be, but the changes would certainly be introduced by negative regulation.
    Lord Higgins: So we would not automatically have a chance to debate them.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Noble Lords can choose to debate them if they so wish. All negative resolutions are in that sense available to your Lordships. This is not an uncommon transitional arrangement.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 121 and 122:
    Page 13, line 46, leave out from beginning to "is" and insert "Where the entitlement of a person, or the joint entitlement of persons, to a tax credit for a tax year has been enquired into under this section, it"
    Page 14, line 3, leave out from "a" to end of line 5 and insert "tax year is conclusive as to the entitlement of the person, or the joint entitlement of the persons, to the tax credit for the tax year and the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled, for the tax year."
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 19 [Decisions on discovery]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 123:
    Page 14, line 9, leave out "an award of a tax credit made to him" and insert "his entitlement to a tax credit for a tax year"
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 135. Again these are consequential technical changes to Clause 19. In other words, going back to my original schema, they are substantially about splits between decisions and notices. They also imply readjusting the terminology of "awards" and "entitlement". I hope that, with those assurances, the Committee will feel able to accept the amendments.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendments Nos. 124 to 135:
    Page 14, line 10, leave out "amend or revoke the award" and insert "revise that decision"
    Page 14, line 40, leave out "amendment or revocation" and insert "decision"
    Page 14, line 41, leave out "correctness of the award" and insert "person's entitlement"
    Page 14, line 46, leave out from first "to" to "is" in line 47 and insert "the entitlement of a person, or the joint entitlement of persons, to a tax credit for a tax year"

    CWH 159
    Page 15, line 1, leave out from "on" to end of line 4 and insert "the part of the person, or of either of the persons, or on the part of any person acting for him, or either of them,"
    Page 15, line 5, leave out "amend or revoke the award" and insert "revise that decision"
    Page 15, line 6, leave out "amendment or revocation" and insert "decision"
    Page 15, line 7, leave out "correctness of the award" and insert "entitlement, or joint entitlement,"
    Page 15, line 10, leave out "award" and insert "conclusive decision"
    Page 15, line 11, leave out "an award" and insert "the entitlement of a person, or joint entitlement of persons, to a tax credit for a tax year"
    Page 15, line 12, leave out "17(6) or (8)" and insert "(Decisions after final notice)(1), (5), (6) or (9)"
    Page 15, line 19, leave out from third "a" to end of line 21 and insert "tax year is conclusive as to the entitlement of the person, or the joint entitlement of the persons, to the tax credit for the tax year and the amount of the tax credit to which he was entitled, or they were jointly entitled, for the tax year."
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 20 [Decisions subject to official error]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 136:
    Page 15, line 24, leave out "17(6) or (8)" and insert "(Decisions after final notice)(1), (5), (6) or (9)"
    The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment which refers directly to the separation of decisions and notices. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Freemanmoved Amendment No. 137:
    Page 15, line 26, at end insert ", provided that the effect of the regulations shall not be more restrictive than would be the case if Extra-statutory Concession Al9 were to apply"
    The noble Lord said: There has been a great deal of running between legislative wickets over the last few minutes. Perhaps I can deal with something that is not a technical point and pause for breath.
    As the Minister will appreciate, Clause 20 is unique in the sense that in tax law there is no reference to an official error and therefore some tax history will be written if we pass this Bill.
    There is a clash of two cultures here. As the Minister will understand better than most, in social security legislation the regulations deal with detail, almost exhaustively. In tax law, the extra-statutory concessions amount in total to several Finance Bills put together. They are not submitted to Parliament. They may be commented upon but they do not pass through Parliament.
    Perhaps I may give the noble Earl, Lord Russell, an example of an extra-statutory concession which he will not find written down in regulations. When he is completing the tax return to which he referred earlier, is he allowed to deduct the bus fares from Parliament,
    CWH 160
    one place of work, to his publisher, another place of work, and offset the bus fares against the royalty income for the preceding year?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If he is self-employed, yes. If he is not self-employed, certainly not.
    Lord Freeman: The Minister is providing free advice, but I can assure you that she will not find that in regulations. It is in fact in an extra-statutory concession. The point of principle is how shall we draft the regulations under Clause 20? I have not seen a draft of these yet. Will we follow the social security model? That is contained in Regulation 1999/991, the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations. Or will we follow the Inland Revenue practice, where the relevant extra-statutory concession is A19? That sounds like a road, but that is in fact the definition of official error. It describes in what circumstances and how it is to benefit the claimant.
    I make a plea to the Minister that we should follow the extra-statutory procedure. That is the purpose of the amendment. In other words, I would not like to see the regulations be more restrictive than can be found in the extra-statutory concession A19. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: These Inland Revenue regulations are not totally uncontrolled. Every now and then they suffer from the intervention of the courts. The noble Lord may recall the case of Inland Revenue v.Woolwich Building Society where the Inland Revenue's demands were quashed by the House of Lords, in the person of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, who said that some might argue that the regulation might be left to Parliament to alter, but since caution—otherwise known as the Treasury—would never permit it, the court would do it itself. So far as I know, that has been left to stand. Let us not leave in anybody's mind the idea that the Inland Revenue has this power without any control being exercised over it.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is an extremely interesting amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for his explanation of it. As he pointed out, ESC A 19 provides, for example, that arrears of income tax or capital gains tax may be given up if they result from the Inland Revenue's own failure to make proper and timely use of information given by the taxpayer and employer, or, where taxable social security benefits are concerned, the Department for Work and Pensions. Tax will only normally be given up where the taxpayer could reasonably have believed that his affairs were in order and had been notified of arrears of tax more than 12 months after the end of the tax year in which the Inland Revenue had received information showing that more tax was due. This concession also provides for over-repayments of tax by the Inland Revenue to be given up in broadly similar circumstances.
    That may be appropriate, but I am not persuaded that ESC A19 provides an appropriate basis for imposing conditions on the Inland Revenue in cases of official error made when considering tax credit claims.

    CWH 161
    ESC Al9 deals with waivers of tax that strictly, in law, remain due. It is no more than an extension of the Inland Revenue's long standing practice of remitting tax in cases where payment of tax arrears is likely to cause hardship and is part of the Inland Revenue's care and management of the tax system. However, we are still talking about legally due tax.
    In contrast, Clause 20 is concerned with payment of tax credits which are properly due to the claimant but which, because of official error, have not been made. The Clause makes clear that any decisions in such cases are to be revised in favour of the claimant. It is also worth noting that if an overpayment of tax credits arose because of an administrative mistake, the Inland Revenue would not seek to recover the overpayment in the interests of fairness to the claimant.
    I defer to the noble Lord on this, but his amendment might be more appropriate in Clause 27, which deals with overpayments of tax credit. On that basis, we would he prepared to accept in principle that the conditions governing overpayments of tax credits should not be more restrictive than those contained in the concessions dealing with waiving arrears or incorrect repayments of tax. I wonder whether, with that, the noble Lord is content.
    I hope that the noble Lord would not want to put this on the face of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Russell might be concerned about that as well, because it would effectively permit Henry VIII-type activity, with regulations subsequently overturning primary legislation. Worse than that, it would be possible not just to change primary legislation through secondary legislation, but to change primary legislation with circular. In other words, it would not have to come back to the House at all. Given the procedural points and the restrictive nature of the substance on Clause 20, I hope the noble Lord will not wish to return t o that issue. However, he might wish to accept that we are willing to move to some extent on Clause 27, where his proposals might be more appropriately targeted.
    The noble Lord also asked which system of official error we would follow. The answer is neither. The regulations will need to reflect the structure of the system as set out in this Bill. However, the approach shall not be more restrictive than ESC A19, which is the Inland Revenue approach. This was the reassurance he was asking for.
    Lord Northbrook: Do I understand the noble Baroness to say that if there were an overpayment, in no circumstances would there be an attempt to recover that overpayment in the interests of equity for the taxpayer?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, where it is an official error, but no further than that.
    Lord Freeman: I am very grateful to the Minister. For the first 80 per cent of what she said, our two speaking notes seemed to be at variance, but I found the last part of her comments most helpful. I will study the record. Redirection to Clause 27 is probably right.
    CWH 162
    The spirit in which the Minister answered the point is helpful and will reassure a great many people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 21 [Information etc. requirements: Supplementary]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 138:
    Page 15, line 30, after "16(3)" insert ", (Decisions after final notice)(10)"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 138 and 140 return to the fourth theme about the separation of decisions, initially from decisions consequential on the restructuring of Clause 17. With that very brief explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be happy to accept it.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 139:
    Page 15, line 33, at end insert—
    "provided that such manner and form must allow for the supplier of the information, evidence, declaration or statement to do so without recourse to electronic or telecommunication equipment"
    The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Byford, I beg to move Amendment No. 139. The purpose of the amendment is clear. It seeks to ensure that responses to Section 17 notices do not have to be communicated by electronic means.
    The Government have no compunction about the possibility of using the benefit system to enforce behavioural outcomes that they believe to be desirable, as with the proposal of the Prime Minister to withhold child benefit from parents of unruly children. In a similar vein, it could be argued that the Bill advances the proposition that tax credit payments could be refused to enforce a specific commercial outcome. I do not doubt the benefits of IT in modern communication systems, but it is entirely credible that employers who calculate their wages and accounts by hand will be resistant to using, if I can put it this way, the newfangled technology. They may well not even have an accounts machine, let alone a computer. Accordingly, any hint of compulsion on them to communicate with the Revenue by such means is simply wrong. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: I should like to add my support to this amendment. A case with some parallels to this arose in the Chamber last Tuesday when the Government published the report of the Patients Information Advisory Group only in the form of publication on a website without any notice that they had done so. The Minister, generously, fully and freely admitted—under pressure—that this was an entirely unsatisfactory form of publication.
    It should be remembered that we are in real danger, if we are not careful, of creating a new underclass of those who are incapable of using these electronic means of communication. Since we are considering a Bill which seeks to deal with poverty, quite a number of poor people will be involved in it. For that matter,

    CWH 163
    it will also concern quite a number of employers engaged in small businesses—one thinks of sub-postmasters, among others—who may be at an economic level which is genuinely and properly classified as poor.
    A considerable amount of capital equipment is needed for using these services which some people might have difficulty in paying for. I do not think they should be put at a fundamental disadvantage because they cannot acquire such equipment. In a party policy meeting, my honourable friend Mr Webb once proposed to classify all those without access to the Internet as poor. I told him that the definition would classify me as poor. "Yes", said Mr Webb, "information poor". I do not think we should make that condition compulsory.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am slightly baffled by this. Perhaps it may be useful if I explain how we seek to produce information and see whether that allays the noble Earl's concern, because that was not how I understood the amendment. We have already talked about the claims process; in Clauses 3 and 4 we have already ensured that the process will allow claims to be made on paper. The claim form comes through and is filled in on paper. Where, in a minority of cases, people have on-line access to fill in the claim electronically, they can do so. If claimants or third parties such as appointees are called on to provide further information or evidence, they can do that electronically, by telephone or by correspondence. Equally, many may prefer face-to-face contact with officials who have been trained to help them. Thus, information can be provided in writing, by personal interview at the Inland Revenue inquiry centres, or indeed at the Jobcentre Plus.
    Given that the process is informal—it starts off with a claim form; it may require further information solicited by telephone; it may then move on to a formal notice only if that fails—I am not sure of the push of this amendment. Certainly the expectation is that there will be informal requests for information. If they are not effective, formal requests for information and response by the claimant may be in any form the claimant wishes—by writing, telephoning, going online or by going for an interview. I do not know whether there is a dispute between us. I look to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for some help on this.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the Minister. Part of the problem is that there is a tendency within government at the moment to over-hype the benefits of IT. In turn, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, put his finger on the point that the client groups of tax credits will not have access to IT methods of communication. Nonetheless, the Minister has reassured me that there are no intentions to make it the primary method of communication. On that basis, certainly at this stage, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 140:
    Page 15, line 35, after "17" insert ", (Decisions after final notice)(10)"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
    Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 22 [Notice of decisions]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 142:
    Page 15, line 37, leave out "17(6) or (8)" and insert "(Decisions after final notice) (1), (5), (6) or (9)"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 142 goes back to the fourth category of themes running through the government amendments which is the separation between notices and decisions. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 143:
    Page 15, line 41, at end insert—
    "(3) Notice need not be given of a decision made under section 14(1) or (Decisions after final notice)(1) or (6) on the basis of declarations made or treated as made by the person or persons in response to the notice given to him or them under section 17 if—

    (a) that notice, or

    (b) in the case of a decision under subsection (6) of section (Decisions after final notice), that notice or the notice of the decision under subsection (1) of that section,

    stated what the decision would be and the date on which it would be made."
    The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 143, together with Amendment No. 210, are new amendments dealing with notices of decisions and the exercise of the right of appeal. This again is about information and comes from the same group of concerns about the fourth theme covered by the separation of Clause 17 into Clauses 17 and 17A. Again, I ask Members of the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 23 [Payments]:
    The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 144:
    Page 16, line 19, leave out "Subject to section 24,"
    The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 144 and, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 149, 152, 157 and 159.
    Amendment No. 149 deals with what I hope is a relatively narrow point. Whether or not payment of tax credits are filtered through employers, ultimately they have to be paid by the board. It could, therefore, be argued that the conditionality of the phrase "subject to Section 24" is redundant and should be deleted; hence the amendment.
    Amendments Nos. 149 and 152, taken together, allow employers to recover the full economic costs they incur in making working tax credit payments through the wage packets.

    CWH 165
    Amendment No. 157 applies the same logic to the requirement of employers to provide tax credit information to their employees.
    Amendment No. 159, in the name of my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Saatchi is supposed to be a little more sophisticated and more modest. It offers companies that have incurred a cost in administering tax credits through their payroll a discount of £10 per employee from their corporation tax liability.
    As my noble friend Lord Saatchi said during our first day in Committee, we have given up on the notion that the Government might consider help for small businesses in these matters. Nonetheless, I make no apology for affording the Committee the chance to debate it further. During our first day's proceedings in Committee, the Minister asserted that the changes this Bill introduces over the existing tax credit system, with its accompanying savings of £11 million and its simplification and streamlining of procedures, have been warmly welcomed.
    That may well be so. But as we all know, the Government's proposed arrangements for tax credits fall disproportionately upon small businesses. In respect of WFTC, fewer than 10 per cent of claimants paid through the wage packet worked for companies with fewer than five employees, and yet those self-same companies bear around a quarter of the annual administration costs.
    What matters here is the context in which this imposition is being made. On the Government's own admission, in a Written Answer in another place from an employment Minister, business has been obliged to spend an extra £5 billion a year on red tape since new Labour came into office, with the burden once again falling disproportionately on small business.
    Moreover the Budget's increases in national insurance contributions, insofar as they are a tax on employment, are far from benign. The cumulative effect of all these factors should not be underestimated. Such levels of bureaucracy, of which the administration of tax credits through the payroll is a significant part, stifle economic growth. As the CBI president, Sir lain Valiance, has said recently,
    "Enough is enough. You cannot keep digging your hand into the business till without squandering the UK's advantage as a country in which to do business."
    Indeed, particularly in the small business sector, it is entirely credible that the Government's proposal will act as a barrier to further recruitment, in direct contradiction of the Chancellor's policy of encouraging people into employment.
    There is also a point of principle here. There is a very real sense in which the businesses are unpaid national insurance, income tax and VAT collectors. The tax credit system has made them unpaid benefit agencies as well, and yet in light of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report Reforming the Public Services: Principles into Practice, such a proposition is wholly inconsistent with government thinking. I repeat the passage that I quoted earlier in our proceedings.
    CWH 166
    "The starting point must be that the public has a right … to income support, and that a is the duty of the Government to secure these rights on their behalf."
    The inference is that benefits, whether or not they are delivered in the form of tax credits, are wholly and exclusively the responsibility of the Government. Palming off their administration on to business is an abnegation of a public duty.
    In sum, why should employers act without any recompense as the agents of the Treasury? Small employers especially, the great rising house of enterprise and hope for the future, simply cannot and should not be undermined in this fashion. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: In expressing a cautious sympathy with this group of amendments, I would not wish to be taken to be expressing sympathy with all the rhetoric with which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, surrounds them, but I am sure he would not have expected that.
    It has been a weakness of government for as long as governments have existed that they have wanted to get someone else to do their dirty work for them. The tendency to delegate the enforcement of government legislation to other people who are not the Government's appointed agent is very long-standing.
    In one of the most extreme cases, Cardinal Wolsey thought to still the disturbance in the City by commanding all husbands to keep their wives indoors. Needless to say, the attempt was a failure. Such attempts often are. A similar debate has been had about carrier's liability on immigration. Any noble Lord who is a friend of British Airways will know all about that and will have heard about it very often.
    The issue arose first in 1990 in the debates on the Education (Student Loans) Bill, which is, so far as I know, the only occasion on which the Government have conceded what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk is asking. They arranged for a payment to the universities for the costs of administering the Education (Student Loans) Bill. Since in my college that has meant the setting up of a separate office with a staff that must cost at least as much as one lecturer, or the books for six undergraduates to write their essays every year, it was extremely welcome.
    I suspect the Minister might have rather more trouble with the words "full economic cost" in the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, because the question of who is going to assess the full economic cost is bound to arise. Everybody is capable of putting their full economic costs down in a way that is either restrictive or expensive, and that is not necessarily a purely objective figure. I would not expect the Treasury to wish to accept somebody else's assessment of their full economic costs without any checking.
    The solution that was reached in 1990 with the Education (Student Loans) Bill was a flat-rate payment, which, while it fell short of the full economic cost, made a very helpful contribution.
    Having made those somewhat cautious remarks, I should like to address two amendments of my own, one of which, Amendment No. 154, is in this grouping.

    CWH 167
    The other, Amendment No. 153, I ask to be considered with it if no Member of the Committee objects. The two amendments are consequential on each other and neither will make sense without the other.
    As my honourable friend Mr Webb made very clear in the House of Commons, we think that the method of payment through the pay packet is itself an unsatisfactory method. We would like it in all cases to be paid direct to the carer, thus cutting the employer out of the business altogether. It is possible that the Opposition may feel sympathy with this proposal.
    The only reason given by the Government for insisting on payment through the pay packet was to teach people the importance of work. However, I think that it is a lesson that most people do not need to be taught. However, since I have argued the case with the Minister so often, I will not elaborate it now. The effect of these two amendments will be to remove the word "may" in line 31 and replace it with "shall". It would cut out paragraph (a), which requires employers to make payments for working tax credits or prescribed elements of working tax credits, in accordance with notices given to them by the Board. It would have to say "shall" thereafter—it said "may" because there are two options. If one takes out one of the options and leaves only one, a "shall" must be attached to the remaining option, otherwise they would not have to pay any working tax credits at all. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, or mine or, indeed, that of anyone else. That is why these two amendments have to be taken together.
    Bringing the employer into it has caused a great deal of trouble. That is not only because employers feel a sense of burden—as has my own employer—but also because it must be admitted that there are cases of employers failing to do justice to their employees. I have already mentioned that cases are known to the CAB of employers who dismiss employees for claiming working families' tax credit.
    One does not want anyone to profit from crime. On the other hand, since it is an inefficient system which necessarily goes through people who are not trained in doing the particular business required, there are bound to be errors along the way. I hope that the Government will remember—I have made this point before so I shall not spend time on it—to pay attention to those employers who do not pay statutory sick pay, or who dismiss women as a result of pregnancy. Both are far too common and it appears that the penalties do not deter. In the spirit of balance, therefore, while taking the burden of paying working families' tax credit away from employers altogether, I should also like to see pressure put on employers to discharge those liabilities which they have. Whether they ought to have them is a question on which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, might fruitfully engage me in discussion on another occasion. It is not for now.
    Lord Northbrook: I support my noble friend's amendment. In the Tax Credits Act 1999 and accompanying regulations, along with the regulatory impact assessment of December 1999, table 3, page 10,
    CWH 168
    the cost to employers of administering the WFTC shows a total figure of £105 million for recurrent costs, and £44 million for non-recurrent costs.
    "By April 2003, when the WFTC will be replaced, the total cost to employers of administering the benefit will have been almost £0.4 billion, even on the Government's figures. This has fallen disproportionately on small businesses. Although fewer than 10 per cent of WFTC claimants paid through the wage packet work for companies with fewer than 5 employees, around a quarter of the annual administration costs relate to companies of this size".
    6 p.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As one who took part in the discussions on this part of the Tax Credits Bill of 1999, I am very familiar with the arguments and I respect their origins. These appear clearly to reflect genuine concern by employers' organisations about the fact that working families' tax credit and now working tax credit are to be paid through employers. It is a familiar debate but it is entirely legitimate that we should have it again. But there are things that I have to say about the changes being made in the Bill which I hope will modify the already modified rapture with which the noble Lords opposite address these matters.
    Let me start by agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about the implication of the various amendments in this group. Amendment No. 144 seeks to remove the board's power to make regulations requiring employers to pay tax credit to their employees. That is clearly the most fundamental of them all. Amendments Nos. 149 and 152 taken together would mean that the Government would have to reimburse employers for the full economic cost of paying tax credit through the payroll. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Amendment No. 154, would remove the provision for regulations to require employers to pay working tax credit to their employees in accordance with the start notices sent to them by the board. His Amendment No. 153, which he now wishes to have considered with this group of amendments, is designed to freeze the regulation-making power contained in this part of the Bill.
    Returning to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, Amendment No. 157 would require the board to reimburse employers for the full cost of providing tax credit information to their employees. The noble Earl, Lord Russell has referred to the difficulties of that. Amendment No. 159 would enable employers paying tax credit through the payroll to deduct from their corporation tax liability the sum of £10 per employee in each tax year, or more if actual costs were higher. That goes back, in a sense, to the crudity of the concession that was made on student loans in 1990.
    I have said that the arguments are familiar, but perhaps the changes that are being made in the Bill are less well known. The Committee is well aware of the Government's position on payment through employers, just as we are well aware that there are some who are prepared to be persuaded that we are right. Payment through the wage packet is a vital ingredient of reinforcing the message that work pays

    CWH 169
    and of emphasising the rewards of work. With working tax credit, the message will be even stronger: working tax credit is what you get for working and there it is, in the wage packet, along with the rest.
    Let me explain how the system will work and how the new scheme will differ from the present one. Employers will, when notified to do so by the Revenue, pay working tax credit to their employees through the payroll. They will not be required to assess the amount of tax credit to be paid. The Revenue will do this and will tell employers when to start paying tax credit and how much to pay, giving them at least 42 days' notice to adjust their payrolls. Employers will then pay the appropriate amount of tax credit on each subsequent pay day, showing the amount as a separate item on the employee's pay slip until either the employee leaves or the Revenue tells the employer to stop or to vary the amount.
    Employers will fund the tax credit payments out of the PAYE tax, national insurance contributions and student loan deductions they are due to pay to the Revenue each month or quarter. If these amounts are not expected to he enough to cover the tax credit amounts to be paid, employers will be able to apply to the Revenue for advance funding. This issue of cash flow was considered in very great detail when we discussed the 1999 Bill. Employers will account to the Revenue for tax credit paid either monthly or quarterly and in their end of year returns.
    We fully expect the vast majority of employers to carry out these tasks correctly and on time. Payment through employers has been in place since April 2000 and works well in the majority of cases. But it is clearly also vital to ensure that any fraud by employers is tackled effectively. So Clause 24 provides powers on the lines of the established measures for monitoring PAYE, national insurance contributions and the current tax credits to identify and put right noncompliance. Penalties will be charged for persistent non-compliance.
    Before I leave that point, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that employers might be dismissing employees who are on tax credits. If they did that they would be acting illegally. The Bill includes provisions in Schedule 1 to protect employees. Not only that, since 2000 there has been no evidence of that happening on a large scale. No employees have yet approached an employment tribunal to complain about being dismissed on those grounds.
    While this general framework is broadly familiar to many employers, I want to emphasise that there are four important ways in which the new scheme will be simpler for both employers and for claimants. Mao Tse-Tung had the four modernisations; I have the four simplifications, and those four simplifications are going to be the theme of debate over the next few groups of amendments.
    First, claimants will not routinely have to ask their employers to verify their earnings. Because tax credit awards will normally be based initially on annual income for the previous year, people will already have the information necessary to make a claim; for example, on their P60 or self-assessment tax return.
    CWH 170
    Secondly, if an employee who is receiving working tax credit leaves, the employer will simply stop paying the tax credit. There will be no need for him to complete a certificate of payment, as happens now under working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit fixed awards where entitlement continues for six months even if the recipient stops working. If the employee remains entitled to working tax credit because he has another job, he will be responsible for telling the Revenue about the change of employer.
    Thirdly, because the new tax credits will be awarded on an annual basis, there is no longer the six-monthly stops and starts which have proved to be a troublesome feature of the current system.
    Fourthly, the application procedure for employers who need funding will be greatly simplified. Employers will apply at the beginning of each tax year and the Revenue system will adjust the funding amounts paid to an employer if there is a change in-year to the amount of tax credit the employer has to pay.
    The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, referred to the amount of burden on business as estimated in the Regulatory Impact Assessment of 1999. Those figures are now at least two years old. A new Regulatory Impact Assessment is being prepared and will be available later this year. I can say now, 'without anticipating what the final figures will be, that the four simplifications I have been describing are expected to reduce the compliance cost to business by £11 million a year compared with the current system. 'That is quite apart from the savings to claimants, which are clearly an important part of the four simplifications. They have been welcomed by the CBI and others in their response to our consultation document.
    In the light of that, and in the light of the fact that the use of employers to collect tax has been a part of our system not just since 2000 when working families' tax credit was introduced, but since the introduction of PAYE after the war, the Government are not willing to concede on the principle of payment of tax credits through the employer. However, I hope it is clear that we have listened to what employers have had to say and in designing the new system we have looked for opportunities to simplify administration for employers. I hope it is clear from that that we cannot accept these amendments.
    Earl Russell: For some reason I never thought of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as Don Quixote; but he has found a splendid windmill to go tilting at. All that about teaching people that work pays. My experience is that if work does pay there is no difficulty whatever in making people aware of the fact. In most areas, the difficulty is finding work for people to apply for. The latest research shows that the number of claimants has dropped most slowly in those areas where it is already largest. That is what I would have expected.
    That takes rather more attention than this business of teaching people that work pays. The Bill will assist in ensuring that work pays, but that news will pass very

    CWH 171
    rapidly indeed round the grapevine. It does not need this whole cumbersome mechanism of doing it all through the employer and putting it all into the pay packet in order to make it work. This is taking a hammer to crack a nut—and I do not think it will even crack the nut very effectively.
    The noble Lord showed a little innocence of the ways of the world in what he said about the practices of unfair dismissal. Most of the cases that I have come to me through the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is a reputable and reliable organisation—I have never met anyone who has denied that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, knows very well the reason why people do not go to a tribunal. People who are dismissed are usually employed for less than 12 months, or are on a short-term contract, or have the sort of employer who follows the practice of dismissing them just short of 12 months and then re-employing them on a new contract a week later, thus destroying their continuity of service. Under those circumstances, no claim can be made for unfair dismissal. I am sure that the noble Lord knows this as well as I do. The fact that no cases have gone to an employment tribunal is not nearly as impressive as he would wish it to be.
    If the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, consulted her officials, she would find records of a time when the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was a Minister, when I took a deputation to see him about dismissals as a result of statutory sick pay. He was perfectly aware of the extent of the problem. The situation has improved somewhat since then, but it has not stopped. In fact I am aware of a case at this very moment—aware as of personal knowledge and not through any third party.
    I must ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, not to hide behind these beautiful official phrases, but to look at the world as it actually is, as I know he is capable of doing. Meanwhile, I am sorry to hear him take so intransigent an attitude to these amendments, but I cannot cast him as both Don Quixote and King Canute in the same speech, so I will not try.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is going to reply in general, then I should reply specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. In a sense, he has replied to himself, because he criticised me for using the phrase "teaching people that work pays" but he acknowledged—and this is surely far more important—that we are making work pay. That is exactly the effect of tax credits. The fact that tax credits are paid in the same way as income tax and PAYE are received, through the Inland Revenue, is a simplification rather than a complication. Surely we should be much more concerned with the reality than with the teaching. If I allowed myself to be more impressed by the teaching, by the lesson, than by the reality, then I apologise, because this is an area with which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is much more familiar than I am.
    The reality is that people are in jobs because it is worth their while because of tax credit, whereas it was not worth their while before. That is to the benefit of
    CWH 172
    the people concerned and it is also to the benefit of employers, because it increases the pool of suitable labour from which they have to draw to make appointments to jobs. On that basis alone, the benefit to employers well justifies what is in fact the simplest way of making these payments.
    As to the illegality of dismissing employees who are on tax credits, there are many illegitimate and illegal reasons why employers want to dismiss employees. No doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right to point out that certain employers use the 12-month cutoff in a way intended to frustrate employment rights.
    However, I find it a curious to think that the very fact that somebody is on a tax credit should be a significant reason for dismissal. It cannot be because the employer is concerned that his employee has such a low income that he is entitled to tax credit because, of course, it is the responsibility of the employer as to how much he pays. Also, it cannot be that there is any public discredit on someone entitled to tax credit because none of these matters are made public.
    I do know the reality of citizens advice bureaux; my sister works for one. I am not at all innocent about these matters, but it seems to me prima facie that it is difficult to believe that this would be an important one of the many illegitimate reasons why employers would seek to dismiss employees.
    6.15 p.m.
    Earl Russell: If the Minister will permit me, he has heard the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. He has heard from that how a number of employers feel about this obligation being placed upon them. Does he not find it a conceivable consequence—I am sure one as little desired by the noble Earl as by myself—that employers, feeling so cross about it, might occasionally take it out on their more powerless employees rather than on the Government?
    On the question of making work pay, the point between us is simply this: is it essential for people to learn what we both agree we want them to learn; that the money should come to them through the pay packet? Neither I nor my honourable friend, Mr Webb, is in any way persuaded of this point.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, thinks employers are more spiteful and irrational than I do. There are some spiteful and irrational employers, but I do not believe anybody thinks they are in the majority. He also ignores the fact that Schedule 1 to the Bill improves on the 1999 Act specifically on the point about which he is concerned. The schedule provides that an employee, for the purpose of the Bill, is one who receives tax credit through the employer. All those who receive working tax credit will have protection under the Bill.
    Lord Saatchi: Does the Minister agree that employers vary in levels of spite and they also vary in levels of profit? If I understand correctly the procedure he has described, in the case of a company which is breaking even or losing money and therefore does not have, as he said, the cash flow to meet the obligation

    CWH 173
    to pay tax credit, that is the situation where employers will be able to claim a payment in advance from the Inland Revenue to enable them to meet their obligation to pay the tax credit. That may sound bizarre but it is, I believe, the result of the deliberations described by the Minister.
    Because a great deal of attention has been paid to this strange anomaly, could he say what is the amount that the Government will pay to loss-making companies or companies which otherwise do not have sufficient cash flow to enable them to meet the obligation to pay tax credits?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The business that I ran for many years was much more marginal and loss-making than the business of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—unfortunately for me—so I am much closer to this issue than he. However, there is no problem with regard to payment. There is no problem of money causing a loss in a business's accounts because of tax credit because every single penny paid out in tax credit is to be reimbursed by the Inland Revenue. Most of itarid I am still searching for a proportion if anyone can find one for me—does not involve any expenditure by the employer at all. In other words, most of it is simply netted off against PAYE and national insurance contributions and, indeed, student loan payments. So there is no change there. As the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, recognises, there is a proportion of employers who do not have enough PAYE contributions or national insurance contributions to pay their tax credit. In those cases, it is funded in advance on application to the Inland Revenue. The figure for that for 2000–01, which is the most recent that I have, is about £80 million.
    Earl Russell: The Minister is again not paying attention to the problem of cash flow. When one needs to pay and then get reimbursed, there is a period of time which elapses during which one may need to borrow the money and pay interest on it. When I consider the generosity of people who pay expenses for the journeys that I make to speak to them and so on, I consider it as much in terms of time as I do in terms of any thing else. During recessions, interest rates tend to be rather high. This is something we should not forget.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That intervention is inaccurate. The reimbursement is in advance. When a notice has been given of liability to pay tax credits, there is a 42-day period before the payments have to start to be made. There is plenty of time for the application to be made to the Inland Revenue; there is plenty of time for the money to be received from the Inland Revenue before the payment is made; there is no adverse effect on cash flow from the funding of any shortfall.
    There is of course a reduction in the positive cash flow which results from employers receiving from employees money which they have subsequently to pay out to the Revenue for national insurance and PAYE. That is true. As any of us who have run a payroll will know, for 40 or 50 years there has been a positive cash
    CWH 174
    flow from the Revenue to employers as a result of PAYE and national insurance contributions. That is to some extent reduced by the provisions for tax credit. But, if I were in the shoes of noble Lords opposite, that is not a point of principle that I would wish to pursue too keenly.
    Lord Saatchi: The Minister will concede that if a man from Mars were to land on Earth and he had to explain to the alien visitor that the Government first intend to cause companies to pay them tax and then invite the company to claim an advance payment to enable it to pay tax credits to its employees, he would have some difficulty explaining that logic?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No more than I would have difficulty in explaining the positive effect on employers' cash flow of PAYE and national insurance contributions. It is a very economical and sensible way of paying credit and it recognises what credits are—which is an incentive for people to go hack to work.
    Earl Russell: Has any calculation ever been made of the advantage to employers of receiving the money in advance, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew my attention, weighed against the cost of the Inland Revenue administering PAYE or tax credits? If such a calculation has not been made, how far can the Government rely on it as a justification of the argument for not doing anything to meet businesses' expenses?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The calculation has been made but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has discounted it already in his first remarks on this amendment when he reminded the Committee of how difficult it is to assess the true economic cost . Yes, over the years, of course there have been estimates made—some of them by employer organisations, some of them by Government—of the cost of PAYE and the re levance to that of the positive cash-flow element. As someone who ran a payroll for 30 years, I can only judge from my personal experience, which is not. to be relied on. There has to be a payroll anyway. The cost of adding to a payroll the PAYE and national insurance contribution element—and now the tax credit element—is a minor part of total payroll costs, and total payroll costs are a minor part of any company's obligations.
    The Earl of Northesk: Notwithstanding that we all knew what the Minister's substantive response was going to be before he delivered it, this has been a useful debate.
    As my noble friend Lord Saatchi pointed out during an earlier amendment, there is some satisfaction in being afforded warm sympathy for the thrust of our thinking. The only trouble is that it does not result in a translation of that sympathy into changes on the face of the Bill. Our overtures are still rejected.
    I understand the point the Minister makes about reinforcing the message that work pays, but this should not in any way obscure the sense in which the Revenue have a duty of care—almost a moral

    CWH 175
    obligation to claimants—which necessarily implies that it should have direct responsibility for paying the tax credits itself.
    I am also a little surprised by the Minister's references to the "age" of my figures. I will have to read Hansard closely on that point. As to my rhetoric, I should say to the Minister that I am quite happy to take a mild slap on the wrist from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in good part, but I am also bound to say that my rhetorical skills will never reach the heady heights of the noble Earl. Albeit the Minister suggested that the noble Earl's argument discounted the point about the full economic cost, during the debate on the first day in Grand Committee, as I understood it, the Minister effectively intimated that such a calculation of the economic cost is certainly not beyond the wit of the Treasury.
    I have no doubt that we will return to this subject at Report stage. This has been a reasonably useful debate but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.30 p.m.
    The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 145:
    Page 16, line 21, at end insert "provided that the prescribed method of payment shall include, in cases where payees are unable to obtain bank facilities or have had them withdrawn, credit documents cashable at post offices"
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 145, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 146. In one sense, at least, I am sure the amendments need no introduction. They are the so-called "Post Office" amendments.
    For the last two years or so the argument has raged over the payment of benefits through sub-post offices. My noble friend Lady Byford has raised the matter at every available opportunity and I pay fulsome tribute to her for so doing. Her substantive concerns are the numbers of people who cannot receive benefit via any other method and the problems and difficulties that those who will never qualify for any kind of bank account will face.
    The Government have tended to view the matter in terms of percentages. For example, in her reply at Second Reading, the Minister stated that 50 per cent of the rural post offices that closed last year had fewer than 70 customers per week. So be it. But, for the sake of argument, 50 per cent of 547 is 270, at an average of, say, 50 customers. That equates to 13,500 customers every week who now have to travel further to gain access to post office services.
    There is a fundamental point of principle here. In previous amendments, we have sought to highlight the Government's acknowledgement that, in respect of income support, they have a duty of care towards legitimate claimants. In other words, the system of tax credits should operate for the convenience of claimants and not for the Inland Revenue. Accordingly, where services from post offices include encashment of pensions, child welfare payments or
    CWH 176
    any kind of emergency social security funds, it is beyond the pale that a single customer, let alone 13,500, should be put to the inconvenience of having to travel further than they do already.
    As far as qualifying for a bank account is concerned, as recently as April this year the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has reported the following problems: in respect of the Bank of Scotland, only head office decides on new accounts, with the process taking three weeks; the Yorkshire Bank uses credit scoring and requires six months' pay slips and bank statements to open an account—an extraordinary state of affairs when one is trying to open a new bank account at the Government's behest; Barclays Bank also requires several pay slips and bank statements; the Woolwich interviews the applicant and then sends the application to head office for credit scoring.
    Bluntly, if an individual does not have enough money to live on and the tax credit is their only means of keeping afloat financially, a wait of several weeks to obtain a bank account, only to be told that they are not creditworthy, is counter-productive. It runs against the grain of the Government's stated policy aims. Applicants in need who wish to do so should be able to draw their money in the form of a giro and go to their local Post Office for the equivalent in cash. For claimants to be subjected to a wait for the board to set up a document process and a further wait for a bank to agree to open an account for them is unhelpful and needlessly bureaucratic. It also risks undermining the worthy intentions of the Bill by leaving claimants without funds to live on while they wait for this process to run its course. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the days when he was in opposition, used to say it was a central principle of government policy that, "it will be all right on the night". I do not think that is a party matter; it is a characteristic of government of any complexion. The Minister is certain to tell us—whichever Minister it may be—that all these amendments are entirely unnecessary since the universal bank will be up and running long before this Bill comes into operation.
    I am sure that whichever Minister says that will believe it from the bottom of his or her heart. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, telling us when the CSA was going to be up and running. I am sure she believed that from the bottom of her heart and said it in all sincerity and any failure of it to happen is no fault of hers. However, things go wrong from time to time. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, was entirely to the point in saying that what really matters is that if these arrangements break down, and if for any reason this Bill comes into force before the universal bank is up and running, people are going to be left with no benefits and with nothing to eat.
    That is a prospect of which, as Members of the Committee know, I take a very dim view indeed. Leaving people with no food, or able to get food only by sleeping—as in one case I have come across—on bare boards, in the dark, with no heat, because the electricity was cut off a long time ago and they have no

    CWH 177
    chance of getting any more, is not acceptable. Saying that it affects only a few people does not make i t more acceptable. If it were to happen at the other end of the earth, there might be collections for it, but if it happens in a place such as R hyl in North Wales, which is the last place where I heard of it happening, nobody seems to do anything about it. I am not happy about that.
    When we have government in conjunction with information technology, we seem to have a catalogue of accidents. According to a government press release of 29th March, the firm EDS—Electronic Data Services—is involved in developing the card accounts that will be available at post office branches. EDS will undertake production of the account card, account administration and account inquiries. In the company's words:
    "EDS enjoys strategic partnerships with the Department for Work and Pensions, Inland Revenue and other government departments to help them modernising government".
    I am sure the Minister remembers the first Child Support Act 1991 and the chaos into which it ran when it came into operation. That was very largely the doing of EDS which had supplied the computer equipment, based on the model they had supplied to the St ate of Florida, which then went to court. One of the lawyers in the case remarked: "The state asked for the moon and was given a crater".
    I am truly very surprised by the Government's continuing trust in EDS computer services. They have got it wrong before and the thought that they might get it wrong again is by no means unimaginable. I am asking the Government not to assume that they will, but simply to accept a necessary piece of precaution. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, once said, when he was told that one of his amendments was unnecessary, "I am no lawyer, but this is a matter of belt and braces and", he went on, "this is something of which I do have professional knowledge".
    My knowledge of that subject is not professional but it is nonetheless heartfelt.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I could, but I am sure that Members of the Committee would not wish me to, describe the payment methods that the Government expect to be in place over the next couple of years. Those range from facilities of direct banking through to ATMs, to the Link system, to the universal bank, to "card account at post offices", and other forms of electronic transmission. However, we do not need to go back into that. I can simply give Members of the Committee the reassurance that they seek tonight.
    The Prime Minister has made it clear that cash, including benefits and tax credits, will be available and paid out at post offices. I am sure Members of the Committee do not want me to go into a lengthy discussion about post office closures. Equally, in another place, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General has said that the requirement to receive payment into a suitable account—be it a bank account, the universal bank, the CAPO system or whatever—will not he introduced until such time as
    CWH 178
    the necessary facilities are in place. It cannot happen that way around. Why would it? Why should it? How could it?
    I could spend a great deal of time describing the payment methods being proposed. I could say a good deal about the situation facing post offices and we could extend the discussion for perhaps 20 minutes. However, all of this discussion has been based on the presumption that ACT will go ahead in advance, possibly, of any security or efficacy of testing. A situation could then arise in which claimants would fail to receive their money. That cannot happen. I hope that with that assurance—an assurance already given by my noble friend the Paymaster General in the other House—that the amendments will be withdrawn tonight.
    Earl Russell: Will the Minister be prepared to write the Prime Minister's reassurances into the Bill?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, it is not appropriate. The point is that this will not come into place until the payment methods are available and appropriate. The Prime Minister made it clear in Questions in the House that individuals will be able to receive their benefits or their tax credits in cash at post offices. What form it comes to the post offices in—for example, via their bank account, the universal bank, the CAPO system or whatever—will be subsequently determined in discussions with the individual claimants. The point is that they will be able to withdraw their cash, if necessary he said, on a weekly basis. They will be able to do so without charge at their local post office. That remains the situation and there can be no reneging on that commitment.
    All the debate this afternoon therefore has been based on false premises. There is clearly argument about whether the traditional, very expensive and vulnerable to fraud order book method of payment that post offices and sub-postmasters hold dear to their hearts should continue. However, cash will be available to claimants and the old system will not be abolished until the new system is in place. I hope that gives Members of the Committee the assurances they seek.
    Lord Northbrook: Can I ask the Minister to comment on the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about EDS? Are the systems it is now using satisfactory?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I cannot comment because, first, it would be quite improper for me or anyone in this Chamber to comment on the commercial viability or otherwise of EDS and its schemes and proposals. What matters is that there will be no move to the new system until it can securely deliver the cash payments. We are not offering a single system. This may be where the analogy with the CSA breaks down. There will be bank accounts, the Link machines, ATM payments, the universal bank and card accounts at post offices. Ultimately, if it is necessary, there could be a version of giro systems triggered by electronic cash transmission. There will be

    CWH 179
    a multiplicity of ways for the money to come to the Post Office according to what is most convenient and according to the facilities the Post Office itself enters into in discussion with the banks. The point is that cash will be available, without charge, based on benefits or based on tax credits, in the local post office for people, as it is now.
    The Earl of Northesk: I thank the Minister for her comments. On balance we may well attempt, between now and Report, to draft the amendment that she has recommended me so to do.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not. That is a heresy. Far be it from me to invite anyone—apart from Government Ministers, of course—to amend a government Bill.
    The Earl of Northesk: I should make one point. This is not an issue only about whether claimants are going to get their money. The other point at issue is whether claimants are going to get their money in a way that suits them and without being obliged to travel further to get it. Fundamentally, what is important here is that the method of payment should be a matter of choice for the claimant, not for the Government or the Revenue.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the noble Earl think he has the right to say that, if he uses a bank, or any bank in particular, that he can determine its location? I do not want to argue the point, but I will do so if noble Lords wish it. Indeed, I would be happy to do so because we have gone over this territory several times on the Floor of the House. The noble Earl cannot say that a claimant in a rural village, where perhaps 10 or 20 people a week use the rural post office, has an inalienable human right to have that post office continue to deliver a service at £1.41 per transaction instead of the one pence or so by ACT, together with the fact that it is vulnerable to fraud and so forth.
    That is particularly the case when 85 per cent of people in rural parishes live within two miles of a rural post office; the average distance is 1.23 miles. In urban areas, 90 per cent of the population on average live under half a mile from at least two post offices. One is not entitled to have a post office sited exactly where physically one wants it to be. That money will be available at post offices has been made clear; that it will be available in a form that is appropriate and acceptable to the claimant is clear; but where those post offices are sited remains with the claimant. If they use them sufficiently, then those post offices will survive.
    Earl Russell: I do not think anybody has been talking about natural rights, but there is a legal right to a universal service, which was repeated in the
    CWH 180
    Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, as recently as 30th April last. It is with that right that we are concerned.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Bill is not concerned with the location of post offices.
    The Earl of Northesk: I take the noble Baroness's point. In response I would refer her to the passage from the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit. I do not seek to make a meal of it at this stage. As the noble Baroness said, these arguments have been well rehearsed before. I respectfully suggest that they are really the province of my noble friend Lady Byford rather than myself. I would probably find myself getting into deep water by exchanging too many views about it. I have no doubt we will return to thi—almost on the recommendation of the noble Baroness—with another form of amendment, on Report. In the meantime, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 146 to 148 not moved.]
    Clause 23 agreed to.
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 148A:
    After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
    "REVIEW OF PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS
    (1) Not later than two years from the commencement of the Board's responsibilities for payments under Part I of this Bill, the Board shall review in conjunction with the Department of Work and Pensions, and shall publish for consultation a report on the effectiveness of the payment arrangements, particularly insofar as these relate to persons whose tax credit status changed during the course of the tax year.
    (2) The Board's report shall draw attention to any change in entitlement conditions, including the capital and income rules, which would seem likely to ease any difficulties experienced in establishing entitlement and making payments."
    The noble Lord said: This amendment takes up points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, at Second Reading. He spoke in response to representations he has received from MENCAP. I believe it takes the view that it would be appropriate for the Board of Inland Revenue to review the eligibility criteria for the disabled person's tax credit every two years and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State in the light of that review. The charity believes that such a formal system of monitoring will help the effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme. MENCAP also believes that the advantages of the scheme would be realised and the impact which it would have on encouraging people to work and so on, will depend on how far the separate tax and benefit systems and the employer's payroll system mesh together in a seamless way.
    MENCAP believes that, particularly for people with learning disabilities and on very low or no incomes, the initial arrangements that we have here are to some extent a compromise; that it would be appropriate for the way in which the scheme is operating with regard to those people (who all Members of the Committee are anxious to ensure receive the benefits of the scheme which the

    CWH 181
    Government propose) to be reviewed in the light of experience. If necessary the board could recommend any changes which might make the tax credits received by those who are disabled work more effectively.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am a little taken aback because I had not realised that that was where the amendment was pushing us. I thought it had a different intent.
    I wonder if I can give the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the assurance he seeks. As he knows, we have quarterly reports on the effectiveness of DPTC. We certainly have regular reviews of its effectiveness. If, as a result of both the annual reports and the quarterly reports that are published and are widely available, its effectiveness, its take-up and the number of claimants give us cause for concern, we will clearly come back and review our proposals.
    Obviously we will keep eligibility requirements under review. Going back to the debate, the noble Lord. Lord Rix, having failed to persuade myself on behalf of the Government that we should review the 16-hour rule, wanted some fall-back to see whether we could come back and look at the 16-hour rule in two years, time. That is not necessary.
    There is no question but that the new tax credits, exactly like the old WFTC and DPTC, will be carefully and continuously reviewed and scrutinised. This is a flagship development by government to ensure that we give help to people to go into work, to tackle child poverty, and to integrate the methods of helping disabled people with that of helping non-disabled people. It is a flagship policy, and substantial amounts of public money properly lie behind that development of policy.
    It will be continuously scrutinised, and if there is any area where the payment mechanisms, notice arrangements, decision procedures, appeals procedures or any of the like seem in any way to fall short of the standards we need to be delivered in order to get that money, we will be reviewing them and taking action.
    I cannot go beyond that unless the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, can help me on any particular issue that he thinks may be especially appropriate to disabled people that the Government have so far failed properly to take on board.
    Lord Higgins: No one doubts for one moment the Minister's good intentions in this regard. Clearly the outside body concerned felt that the Bill as it is now drafted left some possibility that the way in which the Minister wishes it to work would not necessarily be effective, and therefore there was a case for some form of review. No doubt it will read what the Minister has said between now and Report, and if it feels that more specific provision is required in the Bill itself, then it would be appropriate to pursue that matter at the later stages of the Bill.
    I certainly feel, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix—who will have an opportunity to speak on the Floor of the House—would feel that that is an appropriate way to proceed.
    CWH 182
    Having said that, we had a sympathetic response from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 24 [Payments of working tax credit by employers]:
    [Amendments Nos. 149 to 157 not moved]
    The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 157A:
    Page 17, line 14, at end insert—
    "() for the exclusion from subsection (1) of employers with fewer than 11 employees—

    (i) until they have suitable computerised payrolls (as may be prescribed in the Regulations), or

    (ii) until the Secretary of State has certified by notice to the employer that the Government programme on computerised payrolls has been fully implemented,

    whichever is the sooner"
    The noble Earl said: The Better Regulation Task Force has recently said that small firms can no longer cope with the imposition of regulations and laws. The Bill will add to those burdens in two significant respects. First, there is the duty to supply information when the board requests it; and, secondly, there is the duty to amend the payroll in order to pay the tax credit when the board so instructs. Small businesses, especially those liable to seasonal work and employing a high percentage of temporary workers, will find these duties particularly onerous and costly to carry out.
    As the Minister and the Committee will be aware, the Carter review of payroll services for small firms was due to report by the end of September 2001. Presumably influenced by this, the Chancellor stated in his pre-Budget review that,
    "There is a strong case also for cash help for small firms to bring their payroll and tax systems online".
    Indeed, as I understand it, the Budget announced a five- year programme and £250 of financial assistance to enable all small firms to file their annual returns electronically as part of a package of computerisation that would include payroll. That being so, there is a legitimate argument that until this programme is complete or small firms have suitable payroll systems up and running, the Bill should not apply to them. Hence the amendment. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment would exempt employers who employ fewer than 11 people from paying tax credits unless they either have suitable computerised payroll systems or the move to universal electronic filing of employer returns has been completed.
    The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is quite right about the Carter report and about the provisions in the Finance Bill which is currently passing through another place. Clauses 132 and 133 of the Finance Bill 2000 provide that employers will be required to file their end of year returns electronically from the following tax years: 2004–05 for employers with 250 or more employees; 2005–06 for employers with 50 or more employees; and 2009–10 for employers with

    CWH 183
    fewer than 50 employees. So the compulsory computerisation of payroll returns from the firms that would be covered by this amendment is some way off.
    The amendment would provide a perverse incentive for small employers to continue with paper-based systems in order to avoid paying tax credits. That would not be desirable and it is probably not what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, would wish. We do not know exactly how many small firms have computerised payroll systems because we do not require that information yet, but the likely effect of the amendment would be to eliminate about 1 million employers from the employer payment system, which is about 85 per cent of the total employer population.
    One might think—the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, may think—that that is a desirable objective. But of course it is not the number of employers that matters; it is the number of employees who would be denied the opportunity to have their tax credits paid via the payroll. I will not go back over the arguments about its desirability or otherwise. We are firmly convinced that it is desirable, both in economic and social terms, for payments to be made via the payroll. Exempting small employers would be wholly inconsistent with our objectives in requiring employers to pay working tax credit to their employees with their pay.
    One significant effect of the amendment would be to make things less certain for employees, especially those employed in a business whose workforce fluctuated regularly around the 11 employee mark so that they were sometimes receiving their working tax credit with their pay and sometimes receiving it directly from the Revenue. That would also be a problem for employers who would be engaged in negotiation with the Revenue about whether they should, or should not be, covered.
    CWH 184
    We have committed to making sure that the extra work involved in paying tax credits is kept to the minimum. We have been consulting employers continuously since May 1998 on the impact of the scheme on their payroll activities. I have already described the four great simplifications that we are making with the new tax credits. If there is a side effect that it encourages small employers to computerise their payroll, then I believe that is a desirable bonus. It is not part of the intention of the tax credit system, but it is a desirable bonus and this amendment would frustrate it.
    The Earl of Northesk: I must thank the Minister for that reply, and in passing say that not all small employers are as enthusiastic about IT as maybe others are, but I will leave that on one side. I shall read his comments carefully in Hansard tomorrow, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 not moved]
    Clause 24 agreed to.
    Lord Higgins: As the Minister, and indeed the entire Committee, will be aware, as a result of the cancellation of the first Sitting of the Committee, it was agreed that we would sit today, and that we would sit until seven o'clock. This is very much a House of Commons speech rather than a House of Lords speech, but it is true to say that we have made very reasonable progress and Amendment No. 160, and those which follow, raise some new territory. It is probably therefore appropriate, if noble Lords agree, that we adjourn at this point.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees(Lord Elton): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 28th May at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

  Rights of the Child: Optional Protocol
  Rights of the Child: Optional Protocol
  India and Pakistan
  India and Pakistan
  Juvenile Offenders: Electronic Monitoring
  Juvenile Offenders: Electronic Monitoring
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Wrongfully Convicted Prisoners
  Wrongfully Convicted Prisoners
  Lymphoma
  Lymphoma
  Aid and Development
  Aid and Development
  C17 Transport
  C17 Transport
  Rights of the Child: Optional Protocol
  Rights of the Child: Optional Protocol
  Eurofighter
  Eurofighter
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
  New Forest
  New Forest
  Traffic Lights at Intersections
  Traffic Lights at Intersections
  Bishopsgate Goodsyard
  Bishopsgate Goodsyard
  English Regions
  English Regions
  Civil Aviation
  Civil Aviation
  Theatres: Lottery Funding
  Theatres: Lottery Funding
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem