Sitting of 16 October 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HSBC INVESTMENT BANKING BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

    BARCLAYS GROUP REORGANISATION BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
    Orders for Third Reading read.
    Read the Third time and passed.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL
    Motion made,
    That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
    That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
    That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
    That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
    That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
    That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
    That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
    That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Wednesday 23 October at 7 pm.

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
    Motion made,
    That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Woolas.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To he considered tomorrow.

    ENGLISH NATIONAL STADIUM REVIEW
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Final Report made by Mr Patrick Carter in October 2002 in respect of the English National Stadium Review.—[Mr.Caborn.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

  Affordable Housing (London)
  Mike Gapes: What plans he has to increase the availability of affordable homes in London. [71949]
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): We are working on a range of measures, for both the short and the long term, to ensure that more people have access to an affordable home in London. For 2003–04, £482 million of the Housing Corporation's programme will go directly to London projects, along with a £200 million challenge fund to encourage quick delivery of 4,000 new affordable homes in the south-east through off-site manufacturing.
  Mike Gapes: I am grateful for that reply, but does my right hon. Friend accept that London faces an acute housing crisis? Many people cannot afford to live and work in the city. Is not it time that we invested far more in social housing, instead of selling off the social housing that we have? At the same time, should not we recognise the needs of those London boroughs that do not have much land but which have serious problems with people on their housing lists? Should we not give those authorities the right to nominate people for the new social housing developments in the Thames gateway and elsewhere?
  Mr. Prescott: I agree a great deal with my hon. Friend. Resources are important. Since the Government were elected in 1997, we have tripled the resources devoted to housing, raising the figure from £1.5 billion to £4.5 billion in the third year of the spending review. However, the problems are immense. On 18 July, I mentioned in the House that, by the end of this year or

  299
  the beginning of next, I would make a statement about how we will apportion the resources available in the community housing programme.
  David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister has made it known in recent months that he does not approve of the right to buy. In stressed areas such as London, he believes that it leads to a reduction in the availability of affordable housing. The outcome has been a panic in London, with applications for the right to buy doubling in many London boroughs. Will he comment on that?
  Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear that we have not challenged the right to buy. The Government have brought before the House housing proposals that would have given us the opportunity to restrict the right to buy had we wanted to do so. As I have pointed out, housing problems in certain areas of London have reached such a crisis point that we need to act in a variety of ways, and that includes giving consideration to the right to buy. I chose to use legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government that laid down that there could be restrictions on the right to buy in 25 rural district areas. I believe that homeless people in inner-city areas are just as important as those in rural areas.
  David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be getting excited, but I have looked forward for some time to this occasion today. I was going to say that he and I are old sparring partners, but his history and my broken nose mean that that phrase could be misinterpreted.
  It is interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the fact that he is interested in restricting the right to buy. We are not talking about rural areas today, although I have some sympathy with that argument. However, in the five years that the Government have been in power, homelessness in London has doubled. The Government need more imagination in what they are doing, instead of resorting to the simple ideological nonsense that the Deputy Prime Minister has come up with.
  The Mayor of London has proposed that new development in London should be 50 per cent. affordable. At first sight, that proposal appears very good, but many experts think that it would drive development down or out of London. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his opinion on that proposal?
  Mr. Prescott: Perhaps I should have welcomed the right hon. Gentleman to his position, although I am confused about whether he is shadow Deputy Prime Minister or shadow Secretary of State; there are different interpretations according to who is asked, but I welcome him to whatever position it is.
  On the right to buy, I think I have made the position clear: we want to consider the matter where there is a homelessness crisis, and that is certainly the case in some inner-city areas and in London. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a new policy at his party conference whereby about a million people in housing associations would have the right to buy. I should inform the House that that is not a new policy; it was announced by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979 and for 20 years the Conservatives were unable to implement it because
  300
  they could not get a majority for it in the House. Not only is the policy not new, it is completely uncosted and, frankly, has nothing to do with the right to buy, but only the right to become the Leader of the Opposition.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the Government's examination of the housing crisis facing people in the inner city, especially inner London. Does the Secretary of State accept that unless there is a substantial increase in affordable rented housing in inner London, the poor will simply be exported from the city? Will he also intervene when local authorities, such as Islington, are deliberately selling off vacant property and buildings that could be converted into affordable rented housing, to ensure that the working-class and poor people of this city can continue living in this city and do not become just a prey to property speculation?
  Mr. Prescott: I agree with what my hon. Friend says, especially that the right to live in the city is equally as important as the right to buy and that those rights are in conflict. That is why I have asked my Department to look carefully into the circumstances and I hope shortly to be able to report our conclusions to the House.
  As for how many houses should be built in those areas, I am looking into that problem and will report back to the House.
  Mr. Don Foster: I am not surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister is confused about the Conservatives' alleged new policy on the right to buy when, only five months ago, their then housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), referred to the right-to-buy scam. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, with 100,000 empty homes in London, one way to solve the housing problem would be to bring some of them back into use? Is it not a disgrace that, if someone wants to build a four-bedroomed, double-garage, mock-Georgian house on a greenfield site, they pay no VAT, yet they have to pay full VAT at 17.5 per cent. to renovate empty properties? Should not VAT be equalised for both at 5 per cent?
  Mr. Prescott: That sounds like quite a good policy—we have advocated it from time to time. The hon. Gentleman must await the Chancellor's decision; hon. Members would not expect me to give a judgment, although I might have a view on tax matters.
  The hon. Gentleman's comments about empty houses are absolutely right—we have not done anything about that. I point out to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), whatever his title may be, that all parties have to take some blame. As I said on 18 July, it would be much better if we took more opportunities to improve the situation for the homeless rather than making political propaganda out of it.
  The point about empty houses is obvious and I am looking at the matter, including the incentives that might be involved in achieving the objectives. I am taking a comprehensive view.

  Public Service Agreements
  Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on progress with local PSAs. [71950]
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We have concluded negotiations and signed agreements with 61 local authorities, including 20 that were involved in the pilot stage of this scheme. We are concluding negotiations with 19 authorities and have started others with a further 13 authorities. A schedule for negotiations has been agreed with the remaining authorities that wish to take part in the scheme.
  Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer.
  In the spirit of the new localism, will my hon. Friend ensure that the spirit of the local public service agreements, which were widely welcomed as representing a real partnership for improvement between central and local government, is not lost in the new comprehensive assessment regime but made central to it?
  Mrs. Roche: I agree with the important points made by my hon. Friend. Local agreements are essential to local delivery. The best thing about the scheme is that it enables local authorities not only to agree national targets but to deliver the objectives wanted by local people in their area.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister tell us the annual cost of monitoring these over-bureaucratic local PSA targets?
  Mrs. Roche: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures, but I would be careful about criticising them if I were him because all political parties in all the local government organisations warmly welcome them. Indeed, Kent county council, which is controlled by the party that he supports, is a great supporter of them.
  Alan Simpson: I thank the Minister for rejecting the notion that local PSAs are a bureaucratic encumbrance—there is local authority enthusiasm for them—but will she focus on the aspect that relates to the decent homes standard to ensure that local authorities are not caught in a different trap where the obligations to meet energy efficiency targets are in conflict with their commitments to provide safe housing areas in which people can live?
  Mrs. Roche: That is an important point, and my hon. Friend has a very honourable record in this area. The good thing about those schemes is that local authorities and other agencies in the voluntary sector can negotiate with us directly to make sure that they get aims of that kind.

  Local Government Finance
  Richard Younger-Ross: What progress he is making on the review of grants to local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the methodology he is using. [71951]
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The formal consultation on options for the formula grant distribution system closed on 30 September. We will consider the evidence, the pressures and the points made before we take decisions. Those decisions will be announced in the 2003–04 provisional settlement around the start of December.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister accept—he partially did in the debate that we started yesterday and have still to continue—that the present methodology is extremely complicated? Would it not be better to move from the present grant system to a fair system, abolish the present Tory council tax and have a system based on ability to pay, such as a local income tax?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate elements in the local government finance framework. The Liberal Democrats' local income tax proposals are, as I understand them—they are a confused party with somewhat confused proposals—designed to be an alternative to the council tax. What we are discussing under the formula grant distribution is Government grant and how it is distributed between local authorities. That in no way relates to raising any form of local revenue through local income tax.
  Judy Mallaber: As part of the review, will my right hon. Friend consider how to implement the Government's policy of helping coalfield areas? That policy is directly contradicted by making those areas, such as Derbyshire, subsidise the wealthier, less deprived counties through the area cost adjustment—the home counties subsidy.
  Mr. Raynsford: Several issues have been raised during the consultation about particular indicators and measures that would be significant to coalfield communities. Some of the issues that we have considered have also related to rural, former coalfield areas with relatively sparse populations that have suffered the consequences of the decline in the traditional industries, so we are looking at the detailed factors in coalfield areas and, indeed, in all areas. I hope that, when we publish our proposals, my hon. Friend will understand that we have been doing our best to replace the unsatisfactory standard spending assessment with a fairer, more transparent and better system.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Does the Minister agree that those local authorities that find that their grant will be supported by the floor next year, but get specific grants for a large proportion of their funding this year, may find his promise that they will be no worse off pretty hollow?
  Mr. Raynsford: No; the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have given a clear undertaking that no local authority will suffer a cash loss as a result of the change in

  303
  formula. [Interruption.] Opposition Members get very excited about this. I have explained time and again—let me do so once more so that they may eventually come to understand—that we will have a floor, which we expect to be substantially higher than the guarantee that I have already offered. Until we have received all the data, including information on up-to-date school populations, it is not possible to come forward with floors because we do not have the information on which to reach a prudent and sensible judgment. While the Conservatives are becoming increasingly irresponsible in financial matters, we believe that we need to be prudent and responsible.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that, in reforming the distribution of Government grant to address what are perceived as injustices, it would be very sad if we were to introduce fresh injustices. I fear that that might happen if sufficient cognisance is not taken of high housing costs, which would greatly affect unitary authorities such as mine that have high social deprivation in association with extremely high housing costs, which create terrible problems.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point in highlighting the particular needs in some areas with very high costs. He will appreciate, however, in the light of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), that there are concerns about the area cost adjustment in areas of low cost. One of our dilemmas is trying to reconcile the many conflicting claims of different areas, which see the need for changes in the system that will advantage them. Our job is to achieve a balance, reach a judgment and produce a system that is the fairest possible combination of factors, recognising the different pressures facing different areas.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Dealing with the specific grant element of the reforms, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the director of inspection at the Audit Commission, Mr. Paul Kirby? He has said:
  The idea that you give freedom to the people who are already achieving is quite perverse. The real issues are the councils in the middle and the failing ones which actually just need a lot more freedom."
  Does he also agree with Mr. Kirby that pinning down councils is causing a problem?
  The right hon. Gentleman has been at the Department for many years. When did he realise that the Government's reforms were causing damage to local authorities? When does he expect that local authorities will have the degree of freedom that they had under the last Conservative Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps consider employment in a comedy show, because his last question indicates a remarkable lack of sense of reality. The last Conservative Government were responsible for the greatest act of centralisation of powers, taking powers away from local government, controlling local authority spending, abolishing local authorities and interfering again and again in local democracy. I am
  304
  delighted that the Conservatives have had a death-bed repentance and that they will follow our Government in giving freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities.
  On Mr. Kirby, we not only agree with him—although not on that particular point—but have just employed him in central Government. He will be taking up a new post helping us to improve delivery. On that point, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether he really believes that it is perverse to give additional rewards and support to successful authorities to encourage them to do even better. He will be in a minority of one if he believes that.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Kevin Brennan: If he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to require local authorities to implement recommendations of reports from the local government ombudsman. [71952]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): To maintain the independence of the public sector ombudsmen, the Government do not intend to shift the balance and compel local authorities to implement all ombudsmen reports. Councils are accountable first to their electorates. However, audit and inspection will become more important for local government as the new system of comprehensive performance assessment comes into effect.
  Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this era of earned autonomy and modernisation, local authorities should be made to be accountable when citizens successfully show themselves to have been the victims of municipal maladministration?
  Mr. Leslie: I certainly agree that local authorities should be held to account. However, they should primarily be held to account by their electorates rather than by putting ombudsmen into a management structure above them. The ombudsmen do not wish to have such binding power, but I understand my hon. Friend's sentiments.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister reconsider this matter? I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). If someone goes through the procedure of going to the local ombudsman and the ombudsman gives advice and makes recommendations, surely the local authority should implement those recommendations. They usually are implemented but, if they are not, does that not make a mockery of the ombudsman's role if he cannot—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy. That is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I think that I have made my point.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman certainly did. The ombudsmen say that they are dissatisfied with only about 3 per cent. of local authority responses to recommendations.

  305
  It would not be right to jeopardise the ombudsmen's independence, but I am sure that we all want local authorities to respond fully and comprehensively to the ombudsmen's recommendations.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: There are usually two parts to an ombudsman's recommendations, and local authorities often go along with recommendations to change policies. However, in some cases, ombudsmen recommend financial compensation. What right does the citizen have to receive that compensation when a council says that it is not going to follow an ombudsman's recommendations?
  Mr. Leslie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we must get this in proportion. Local authorities implement fully and satisfactorily the vast majority of ombudsmen's recommendations. Ultimately, if people are not happy with their local council's response, they should hold it to account at the ballot box.

  Regional Government
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What the cost of the regional government establishment in England is in 2002–03. [71953]
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the legislation for the elected regional assemblies is not yet in place, so there has been no cost in this financial year. However, we fund a number of regional bodies. For example, we fund at a cost of £100 million a year the government offices for the regions that were introduced by the Conservative Government and we are making available grants of £5 million to the eight regional chambers in this financial year.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the increasing public concern at the size and cost of the massive new regional bureaucracies in Cambridge and elsewhere, particularly when no one is terribly sure what they do apart from organising conferences and consultation exercises? I specifically wish to ask whether there are any European obligations pertaining to this. If there are no such obligations, will he agree to scrapping regional government and saving a great deal of taxpayers' money?
  Mr. Prescott: I thought that I had made it clear that we have not established regional government yet, so it is not there to scrap. Most of the bodies that have been set up with regional dimensions came under the Administration that the hon. Gentleman supported even though we were a member of the European Community. I point out to him that the number of Tory members of the regional chambers that he wishes to scrap has increased from 130 to 150. Three regions are dominated by Tory council members, so perhaps he should address his remarks to them, including Councillor Howard Briggs, who is from his constituency and sits on the East of England regional assembly.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the North West regional assembly on its recent work in Brussels in lobbying
  306
  European Commissioners to continue funding the objective I area on Merseyside and the rest of the north-west? Does he look forward to the day when directly elected regional assemblies have the power to bring more support and investment to the north-west, the north and other regions of this country?
  Mr. Prescott: I compliment all regional assemblies on doing an excellent job in checking what the regional development agencies do. It is the one part of democratic accountability that we have introduced to existing bureaucracy and I believe that it is welcomed by Tory, Labour and Liberal members who sit on the assemblies. Regional assemblies do an excellent job. The House and the Select Committees are aware of that and we should acknowledge it.

  County Councils
  Mr. Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received from representatives of county councils about the future roles, functions and responsibilities of these councils; and if he will make a statement. [71954]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Ministers are in regular dialogue with county council leaders and chief executives on a wide range of issues, including finance, planning and, more recently, the White Paper on regional governance.
  Mr. Luff: The Deputy Prime Minister is planning to sideline Worcestershire county council and other county councils on planning. He is planning to fine Worcestershire county council social services department if it does not do what the Government want. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is bypassing Worcestershire local education authority and controlling schools direct from Whitehall. The Deputy Prime Minister is planning to perpetuate the unfair funding of Worcestershire county council. He is also planning to abolish Worcestershire country council to create the monstrous regional governments. Our county councils have served us well for so long. What does he have against them?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should calm down and take a breath. There are no plans and no threats to county councils. Indeed, in terms of regional government, the Boundary Committee for England has not precluded letting county councils be unitary authorities. We should let the people choose in a referendum what to do about regional government.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Ql. [71978] Mr. Graham Brady: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 October.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I met ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today. I also spoke this afternoon to President Megawati of Indonesia.
  Mr. Brady: In the past six weeks, the Government have missed their targets for literacy and numeracy; they have failed in their target on truancy; they have presided over the chaos in criminal records checks; and they have seen the destruction of all confidence in the A-level system. The Secretary of State for Education is the most accident prone Education Secretary in history. Why does the Prime Minister not sack her?
  The Prime Minister: For this reason: we have the best primary school results that this country has ever seen and literally hundreds of thousands of children, who used to be in classes of over 30, are now not as a result of the measures introduced by this Government. In addition, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and constituencies up and down the country, we have put extra investment into our school buildings, our computer facilities and the schools themselves, and every single penny piece of it was opposed by the Conservative party.
  Jim Sheridan: May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's comments yesterday? It is the innocent and poorest people of Indonesia and, indeed, Iraq, who suffer most from such vicious attacks. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will pursue with vigour those responsible for those pernicious attacks? Will he share with me the regret of the family of a constituent of mine, young Stephen Speirs, who lost his life in the tragedy in Bali?
  The Prime Minister: First, I am sure the whole House would want to join in giving to the family of Stephen Speirs our deepest condolences and sympathy on his tragic murder in Bali. I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we will do everything we can both to ensure that we prosecute those responsible for the atrocity in Bali and to take action across the world to do everything we can to root out this scourge—this evil—of terrorism, which can strike at any place in the world. His constituents today will be feeling all the grief for the loss of their son, and many other people in the country will be in the same position. We must ensure that more families in the future do not suffer in the same way, which is why we have to take the action we have set out.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I start by associating myself with the Prime Minister's remarks about the victims in Bali?
  In July, the Prime Minister told me:
  "head teachers … have … the power to exclude pupils who have been violent towards their teachers."—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 978.]
  Since then, a school in Surrey has been told to reinstate two boys who threatened to kill their teacher. Does the Prime Minister now regret giving appeals panels the right to overrule head teachers on school discipline?
  The Prime Minister: No. Of course it is right that head teachers should have the ability to exclude their pupils,
  308
  but there is an appeals panel procedure, which, as I understand it, was introduced in 1987. It is important, however, that we make sure that the decisions of appeals panels are sensible. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that only a small number of the exclusions were appealed against and the number of appeals upheld was about 3 per cent. of the overall exclusions.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister needs to recognise that in 1998 his Government gave appeals panels the right to overrule schools on exclusions—it did not happen before that. He also needs to remind himself that the teachers at Glyn technology school have refused to take back the children concerned, and as a result his Education Secretary is making a fool of herself, blundering around all over the place, trying to resolve a crisis that she does not have the power to resolve. Surely the simplest thing for the Prime Minister to do is admit that he and his Government have made an honest, straightforward mistake, scrap the appeals panels and give teachers back the power to ensure that there is discipline in their classrooms.
  The Prime Minister: No. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, the appeals panels were introduced in 1987 and have been working since then. In 2001, we made it clear in an amendment to the statutory guidance that
  "appeal panels should not normally recommend the reinstatement of pupils where there has been serious actual or threatened violence to a teacher or fellow pupil."
  In addition, from January, there will be a teacher on every panel, an absolute requirement to balance the interests of the whole school against those of the pupil and no scope for overturning exclusions on a technicality. It is not true to say that this Government introduced the appeals panels—they were introduced under the previous Government. Nor is it true to say that we have not tightened the appeals procedure, because we have in the way that I have just described.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: As usual, everybody is to blame but the Prime Minister and his Government. He is confused, because he gave those appeals panels the power to get pupils back into schools. He knows it, and he will not own up to it. But head teachers up and down the country, such as those whom I met in Manchester and Birmingham this week, all say the same thing: they cannot maintain discipline if they are constantly overruled by bureaucrats, which is what the Prime Minister has made possible.
  I remind the Prime Minister that there are now four times as many attacks on teachers as there were five years ago, when he took office. Forcing schools to keep such pupils does not help the pupils; it does not help the teachers who want to teach and it disrupts the children who want to learn. Why does not the Prime Minister take this opportunity simply to say that he will scrap the appeals panels, as he has the power to do, and sort out this problem?
  The Prime Minister: I will not say that I will scrap the appeals panels because I do not think that it would be the right thing to do. However, we are making it clear that we would normally expect any pupil who threatens a teacher with violent behaviour to be excluded. The

  309
  right hon. Gentleman says that head teachers up and down the country all have their decisions overturned, but I point out that 3 per cent. of decisions are overturned.
  It is important to realise also that, as a result of the additional measures that we have introduced and the amendments that we have made to guidance, there is greater protection for teachers. I am not saying that this is not an issue; it is, for precisely the reasons to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. We have amended the statutory guidance. To try to suggest that appeals panels were introduced by this Government, and introduced to constrain head teachers, is simply factually wrong, and it does nothing to advance the debate on education in this country.
  Ms Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police youth services and young offending teams on their work in reducing youth crime? In particular, will he support my local youth project in Kensington and Westminster, which has run successful summer action programmes, and Operation Puma, aimed at cracking down on antisocial behaviour, which is helping to implement £3 million-worth of Government investment in behaviour improvement in schools? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a long way to go, and can he assure me that, now that the summer is over, the youth service and connection programmes will continue to have the highest priority in bringing about a sustained reduction in youth crime?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that, as a result of the changes that have been made, we ensure not merely that there is big investment in summer programmes for young people but that any child who is permanently excluded from school is now in full-time education, as opposed to being left to roam the streets with a minimum of two hours' education a week. In addition, as a result of the measures taken by the Metropolitan police, street crime has fallen in London. I can assure my hon. Friend that both the investment and the necessary changes that have worked such improvements in her area will be applied across the country.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister tell the House under what circumstances he would refuse to support unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq?
  The Prime Minister: I am not going to speculate on the basis on which we will or will not support military action in Iraq. I simply say that I have made it very clear in the House that I want this to proceed on the broadest possible basis of consent. That is why we have the process under way at the moment in the United Nations. I have also said—and I repeat—that the United Nations has to be the way of dealing with this issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it.
  I believe that we will achieve a consensus internationally. The reason for that is that I think that most people, when they reflect on the matter, understand that weapons of mass destruction are an
  310
  issue, understand that it is not safe for the world to allow Saddam to have chemical, biological and, potentially, nuclear weapons, and understand that the world community must make it clear that he has to be disarmed of those weapons. I hope that it is done through the UN, and that is what I am trying to achieve.
  Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister is undoubtedly genuine in believing that the fight against terrorism can be accompanied by preparations for possible military action against Iraq; that the two can and, indeed, must go hand in hand. Will he acknowledge, however, that the successful building of an international coalition against terrorism, including across the political spectrum in this country, could begin to fracture if unilateral action is taken against Iraq?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly understand the concerns that people have about unilateral action. It is precisely for that reason that I have tried to achieve a situation where action is taken through the United Nations. I also think that people in this country are sensible enough to realise that we cannot do nothing about a regime as despicable as Saddam's, which has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to develop nuclear weapons.
  I would have thought that most people could agree that this is the right way forward: the United Nations lays down very clearly to Saddam that he must disarm himself of those weapons and co-operate fully with the weapons inspectors. If he does so and disarmament happens peacefully, then conflict is avoided; but if he refuses to co-operate or to allow the inspectors to do their work, the international community will face a choice: either its will or authority will have been flouted and it will have done nothing about it, or it will have faced up to the fact that its will had been flouted and acted. I happen to believe that where the UN's authority is challenged in that way, we have a duty to act. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
  Linda Perham: Does the Prime Minister accept that company activities must be made more accountable and transparent? Will he give an undertaking that the next companies Bill will include a commitment to mandatory social, environmental and financial reporting?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot give a commitment in precisely those terms, but the issues that my hon. Friend raises around social responsibility are the subject of discussions at the moment between the Department of Trade and Industry and business. We hope that we can make some progress on that, although I would want to do so in a way that minimises any potential bureaucracy or regulation.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom must develop as many alternative renewable energy sources as possible? Is he aware of the proposal in Golden Valley in my constituency for what could be the largest UK land-based wind farm, which would put up to 50 turbines—[Interruption.] There would be up to 50 turbines twice the height of Hereford cathedral. As the proposal is too

  311
  large to be considered by the local authority, does he agree that the only way that both positive and negative views of local people can be heard is by a public inquiry?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say to the hon. Gentleman that I am an expert on the Golden Valley wind farm proposal, but I am somewhat helped. Proposals for any such power stations above a certain capacity are considered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. However, it says here that no such application has been made to build a wind farm at Golden Valley—[Laughter.]—so I am slightly at a loss. I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows his constituency better than the people who brief me, so perhaps an application has been made; if so, I will have to write to him to correct what I have just said. Obviously, we are aware of the Liberal Democrats' strong support for—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Wind."] What can I say other than that this is one area on which I think we can work together?
  David Taylor: Given the profound misgivings about the private finance initiative revealed by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants survey, and following the Capita-caused chaos in school staff screening, is it not about time for a fundamental review of that most costly and misconceived of policies; and should not our leadership end its five-year love affair with private financiers and get back to basics in public service delivery?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid the short answer is no—I do not agree with that at all. We certainly will not scrap PFI. The reason for that is simple: up and down this country, it is delivering hospitals, schools and improvements to our public services. I know that from my constituency, where it has delivered a brand new community hospital and is delivering improvements to local schools. It would be wholly irresponsible of us to get rid of it. The fact is that it has resulted in an additional £4 billion of investment in this country. Under the old way—under the Conservatives and, indeed, the last Labour Government—we never had anything like the capital programme we now have flooding into our public services. This is one occasion on which we are at our best when at our boldest.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: When Mike Tomlinson, the man leading the inquiry into A-level regrading, describes the exams system as
  "an accident waiting to happen",
  what will the Prime Minister do to guarantee that the current crisis will not happen again next year?
  The Prime Minister: We of course take full responsibility for it, and it is important that we learn the lessons, which is precisely what we are doing. Mike Tomlinson will complete his report in the next few months. We shall then make sure that—as we did with the lessons he outlined recently—any lessons he outlines in that report are learned and implemented.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: But many of those lessons were evident long before the Tomlinson report. Mr. Tomlinson has said that now nobody—teachers or
  312
  pupils—has any idea what an A-level is. He admits that at the heart of the current mess is the fact that AS-levels are too easy—we know that the examination boards thought that. However, we also know that parents, teachers and pupils feel that the AS-level places too great a strain on them during the course of their two-year studies. Surely the Prime Minister has a simple answer in front of him: why does he not simply do away with the AS-level?
  The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why we will not do that. Let me explain how AS-levels came into being. In 1996, the Conservative Government set up a committee under Sir Ron Dearing: that committee recommended AS-levels. The then Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—now the shadow Leader of the House—said:
  "Sir Ron has … proposed introducing a new advanced subsidiary—or AS—qualification, representing the first half of a full A-level … We have already welcomed those recommendations",
  adding, "We expect" them
  "to be in place by September 1998."—[Official Report, 17 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 1178–79.]
  That formed part of the Conservative manifesto in 1997. We took over that consultation process, which yielded 66 per cent. of respondents in favour of AS-levels. The only change we made was to delay implementation from 1998 to 2000. That is why we do not believe that it is sensible to scrap AS-levels.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I say to the Prime Minister that when it's wrong, it's wrong and there is no point in trying to pretend that it's right. He has in front of him five years—[Interruption.]—of looking at that examination and all the reports that have come back from teachers and parents—[interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should leave the shadow Leader of the House alone.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I must say that I thought that it would be a fine day when Labour Members would pray in aid my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House.
  The Prime Minister has in front of him all the evidence from parents and teachers, and from all the assessments that have been made, that the AS-level examination, since being implemented, has failed. So the right hon. Gentleman has a simple choice. Right now, faith in A-levels has been shaken to the core. No one even knows whether they are worth the paper that they are written on. Why does he not accept that the AS-level is a failure and that it is time to scrap it?
  The Prime Minister: That is not what the Tomlinson report found at all. Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman says that A-levels are not worth the paper on which they are written, that is a gross insult to teachers and pupils throughout the country. This has been an immensely difficult time for students, but only slightly more than 1,200 had amended grades—about 4,000 have their grades amended every year in the normal

  313
  way; and 168 students may have to change their universities. It is wrong that they should have been put in that position. We accept full responsibility for that. However, to say to students that A-levels are not worth the paper on which they are written is totally irresponsible.
  I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what most parents would fear, and that is what was outlined at the Conservative party conference when it was said that the aim of the party in public services was to complete the Thatcher revolution. That is what would worry most parents. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are nodding their heads. That is exactly what they want to do. What is more, parents would be worried also by the commitment given at the Conservative party conference that Conservatives would not support the extra investment in education.
  Parents will have a clear choice between the Government, who believe in equality of opportunity and access for our students, and the extra investment to sustain that, or the Opposition, who want to continue the bad old days of the 1980s and have opposed the investment that our schools need.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Andrew Miller. [Hon. Members: "More."] Order.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: As someone who has spent all his adult life as an active trade unionist, I have had to write to members of the Fire Brigades Union locally to tell them that I think that the claim that has been submitted is ill-founded. As much as everyone believes that the fire fighters have a case that needs to be examined, they have gone over the top with their claim. Will my right hon. Friend set out the Government's position so that fire fighters throughout the country know that they have the Government's support but realise that the claim, as it stands, is ill-founded?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We support, of course, the work that fire fighters do. They do a fantastic job. However, we cannot support the wage claim because it amounts to 40 or even 50 per cent. In circumstances where inflation is as low as it is, no Government could support such a claim.
  Secondly, we have offered a fully independent review under Sir George Bain, who is highly respected by those within the trade union movement as well as outside it, to look into the claims of the fire fighters. Unfortunately, at present the union leadership is saying that it will not co-operate with that review in any way.
  We have tried to do our best to ensure that there is some objective basis on which we can study the claims that are being made. I ask the union leadership to cooperate with Sir George's review. If it refuses to do so, it must understand that we as a Government, trying to act responsibly in terms of the public interest, could not support a 40 or 50 per cent. wage claim. The only result
  314
  of that would be problems throughout the public services and a rise in interest rates that would do no good to anyone.
  Hugh Robertson: Following the introduction of the national minimum wage, why do the Government insist on retaining an agricultural wages board?
  The Prime Minister: Because the agricultural wages board has enormous support from agricultural workers in the industry who fear that if the board is not there, their wages may be put down unfairly. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's question implies that he supports abolishing the agricultural wages board—
  Hugh Robertson indicated assent.
  The Prime Minister: He does. I do not know whether his question implies that he does not support the minimum wage.
  Hugh Robertson indicated assent.
  The Prime Minister: He does support the minimum wage. Well, we are getting somewhere! If he supports the minimum wage, I suggest that it is sensible to support a board that makes sure that there is a floor underneath agricultural workers' wages.
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I ask the Prime Minister to join me and most of the House in sending good wishes to the England team for the match against Macedonia—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Wales."]—and Wales, and Northern Ireland? Will he take this opportunity to make his feelings clear about the appalling racist abuse of Ashley Cole and Emile Heskey in the match against Slovakia at the weekend? Will he use his good offices to impress upon UEFA that unless there is a vigorous and sustained campaign against racism in European football, it will not go away? The cancer does not cure itself.
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House joins in the good wishes to the English team tonight, and of course to the Welsh team also—and when we get round to it, to the Scottish team and the Northern Ireland team as well. My hon. Friend makes a serious point about racism. We must make sure that that does not come back into the game in our own country. Also, I hope that the football authorities take very firm action in respect of any country where such racism rears its head. The scenes in Slovakia were disgraceful. I think that people understand that, and I hope that the authorities there take the appropriate action against those responsible.
  Mr. John Taylor: How can it be right to punish the law-abiding parties in Northern Ireland by suspending the institutions, rather than excluding the only offending party, Sinn Fein-IRA?
  The Prime Minister: There are two reasons why we took the decision that we did. The first reason is that to have said that the IRA had come off ceasefire would

  315
  have been a serious thing to do, and we had to weigh carefully the consequences of that. The second reason is that, without support from the nationalist community as well, an exclusion motion would not have succeeded, so we would have been back to suspension in any event. We do not want the suspension to last. We hope that we can find a way forward, but we have reached the crunch point where people must decide whether they are committed to exclusively peaceful means or not. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time, and he will recall that the previous Conservative Government faced tricky and difficult issues over these matters, particularly concerning the IRA. I hope that we get some understanding from the Opposition that we are trying to negotiate our way through an immensely difficult situation. If one looks back over the five years of the peace process in Northern Ireland, one sees, I believe, that, despite everything, it has brought considerable gains to the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is worth making every effort to secure a way of putting the agreement back together again and moving it forward. The only basis on which that will happen is if it is made very clear by everyone, in word and deed, that exclusively peaceful and democratic means are the only way that people can be in government.
  Andy King: My right hon. Friend has received many letters from the people of Rugby and the surrounding constituencies of Warwickshire and Coventry strongly opposing the building of a giant new airport in the green belt between Rugby and Coventry—an option that has no support whatever in the midlands. Does he agree that the best way forward is to use our existing airports better and more wisely to minimise environmental damage and achieve truly sustainable development in air transport for many years ahead?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concerns, which he has articulated on behalf of his constituency. The reason that the issue arises is that we had to put forward all the options. We have not made decisions on any of those options at all. That will come when we publish the White Paper on the air transport
  316
  plan some time next year. I assure my hon. Friend that we will listen carefully to the points that he and others are making.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: In terms of the Prime Minister's responsibilities for upholding standards in public life, does he accept that if a political party fails to declare the proceeds of a fundraising dinner attended by a major drugs dealer who is subsequently shot dead, it might be in danger of bringing politics into disrepute? Will the Prime Minister call for and support an investigation by the Electoral Commission under the relevant legislation, and will he discuss these matters with Mr. Jack McConnell?
  The Prime Minister: As has been said, if there are such allegations, they should be made to the appropriate authorities, which will investigate them.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, night after night in our communities, citizens are subjected to not only mental but physical pressure from the yob culture? Will he send today the strongest and clearest message not only to the victims, but to the thugs and louts who engage in this practice? Will he assure the House that he will make this issue a priority, ensure that adequate funding is available and return communities to the law-abiding and decent people who live in fear at the present time?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the Scottish Executive has proposals to deal with the issue, including the investment of a significant sum in tackling antisocial behaviour. I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that one of the biggest problems that local communities face is the degree of antisocial behaviour that occurs. That is why we introduced antisocial behaviour orders and are now piloting fixed-penalty notices. I believe that the Queen's Speech will outline certain other measures that will allow us to tackle antisocial behaviour in any way we can. In particular, it is right that the Government deal with the issue and we are committing a massive amount to inner-city regeneration and have introduced the new deal, the working families tax credit and sure start. We are entitled to demand in return proper, respectful and law-abiding behaviour. That is what the vast majority of people in communities such as his want, and that is what we are determined to implement.

Duty Free Imports (Personal Use)
3.31 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a system of prior approval by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for duty free imports for personal use; and for connected purposes.
I arrived at this place on the Order Paper today in an attempt to rationalise four increasingly strained forces in the arena of personal imports to the United Kingdom. They concern the importation of duty free goods and goods on which duty has been paid abroad. First, the United Kingdom is part of the European Union, where jobseekers, residents and businesses can come and go throughout what was meant to be a truly free market. We have a right to cross our borders into the EU and are, indeed, encouraged to do so. I remain one of those who still believe passionately in the Common Market principle.
Secondly, the increasing use by all Governments of indirect taxation that has dramatically exceeded that levied elsewhere in the EU is a process that has been accelerated by the remorseless promotion of stealth taxes since 1997. That has created the incentive to make legitimate use of cross-channel travel to import goods—principally alcohol and tobacco—for personal use. I can think of few other reasons for voluntarily spending a never-ending period on an overcrowded ferry on a dark October evening on the English channel. If the UK Government had not seen those goods as a soft target for taxation, the existing price differential would have been substantially reduced.
Thirdly, we are seeing the Customs and Excise equivalent of military overstretch. Customs budgets are often seen as a soft touch and the codewords "intelligence-led operations" are substitutable for reduced manpower, which covers the country so as to leave the stable door ajar for covert smuggling operations. Resources are at a premium, as is illustrated by the recent revelation in an inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of the fact that the service in Scotland does not have access to one detection sniffer dog. Instead, that dog is on "intelligence-led standby" from Hull or Manchester.
The Bill is intended to focus scarce resources on the genuine problem: organised smuggling operations. The price differential has created a much more sinister and despicable trade. Hon. Members will know of many independent retailers in their constituencies who are paying the price of regular smuggling for resale. Consistent abuse by individuals and groups of free-flowing traffic between the United Kingdom and our neighbours puts at risk the future of many independent businesses and UK jobs.
The regional media in the south-east of England were surprised that an hon. Member with a constituency that is a long way north of Watford raised the issue. They should know that the effects of illegal smuggling reach far beyond the south-east. Convenience stores and supermarkets in Newton Stewart and Stranraer are only too aware of the effect on their businesses. Legitimate sales are all but eliminated in some areas of the country by illegitimate trade in smuggled goods. For example, smuggled goods account for more than 20 per cent. of
318
cigarette consumption in the UK as opposed to the 7 per cent. of legitimately imported goods. It is little wonder that smoking started to increase again in 1997. The low street price of smuggled tobacco proves a dangerous attraction to the new generation of vulnerable young smokers.
Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is doing what it can to restrict the illegal trade, but with increasingly limited resources. It is struggling to make the distinction between legitimate import and illegal trafficking. The Bill would introduce a voluntary procedure and assist Customs and Excise in making the distinction.
The system's premise is simple. United Kingdom residents who want to visit the continent with the principal or secondary aim of bringing back goods for personal use should be able to do that. If the goods are genuinely for personal use, those people are most likely to use a system of prior notification. Conversely, those who undertake illegal activity are least likely to notify Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of their trip in advance. If Customs officers used the system properly, they could prioritise their scarce resources and concentrate on travellers who had not given prior notification of their trip.
With the House's agreement, I shall engage with Customs and Excise to develop a workable system of prior notification. It must be administratively simple and must facilitate easy analysis by officers at the ports.
If prior notice were given of a trip by the same vehicle on three separate occasions in three months, the service might deem it suitable to use the information as sufficient intelligence for stopping and inspecting it. If someone gave prior notification of one trip in five years, perhaps to gather continental beverages for one of those 40th birthday parties for which Galloway is famous, it would be reasonable to assume that Customs resources would be best targeted elsewhere. Surely that is simply common sense.
Hon. Members know about the publicity that surrounds ordinary members of the public who have vehicles confiscated when apprehended by Customs and Excise officers. It would be much more straightforward to identify those who were attempting to smuggle for commercial gain if we could presume in favour of those who had gone out of their way to inform the authorities in advance of their journey. A constituent of mine, Mr. Andy Shiells from the Machars in Galloway found no such system in place. He wanted to do the decent thing and advise Customs and Excise of the trip in advance, but was unable to do that. The Bill will put that right.
I do not propose an increase in state surveillance or support for big brother. Curiously, the system needs to be voluntary to be most effective. The Bill would not compromise the right of Customs officers to inspect anyone entering the United Kingdom, pre-registered or not. They must retain the ability to act on intelligence. However, the House must accept that more accurately targeted resources are increased resources, at no cost to the taxpayer.
The Bill is not a smugglers' charter. It is intended to provide a system whereby honest and law-abiding UK citizens who want to import for personal use can do that without feeling like criminals. They have a right to use the Common Market, just as those who try to abuse the system have the right to expect that our limited Customs and Excise resources will focus on their activities.

319
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Duncan, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Paul Goodman, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Mark Field and Mr. Christopher Chope.

DUTY FREE IMPORTS (PERSONAL USE)
Mr. Peter Duncan accordingly presented a Bill to create a system of prior approval by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for duty free imports for personal use; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 194].
Opposition Day
[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Department for Education and Skills
3.41 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its sympathy to the pupils, parents and teachers affected by the fiasco of grading this year's 'A' level exams; condemns Ministers at the Department for Education and Skills for proceeding with the new system of 'A' levels in the face of expert advice; regrets the confusion this has caused in university entrance both this year and next; calls for the Qualification and Curriculum Authority to be made independent of Government; further regrets the confusion caused by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills over her powers on exclusion appeal panels; expresses its sympathy to the teachers at the Glyn Technology School in Ewell for the problems this has caused; calls for the end of the current system of appeals panels and the introduction of the option of enforceable contracts between schools and parents; notes that the problems for schools caused by the backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau are continuing; regrets that there is no sign of a reduction in truancy numbers; and further notes that the Government has failed to hit its targets on primary school attainment and that the Secretary of State has failed to repeat the pledge of her predecessor to resign if these targets were not reached.
It is right and proper that this House should, for the second day in a row, be dealing with the failures of the Department for Education and Skills, because those failures spread far beyond the A-level fiasco that we discussed yesterday. Wherever we look in our education system, from primary schools to universities, we find missed targets, demoralised teachers and angry students. Ministers' complacent performance over A-levels shows how far they are out of touch with the reality of the world of education. They should know that there is a rising tide of discontent among those who work hard to keep our schools. colleges and universities going. Heads and teachers are doing their best to help children. Ministers delude themselves that they can provide the solution. Mostly, Ministers are the problem. Non-stop intervention, meddling, pointless initiatives and meaningless targets have left teachers crying out to be allowed to get on with their job of teaching.
The underlying problem with this culture of non-stop intervention is that, too often, there is no substance behind it. The most telling phrase to describe the Secretary of State's approach is the description of her secondary school policy as being like a doughnut, in that
"It has icing on the top and nothing in the centre."
It is a telling criticism, because it comes from her deputy, the Minister for School Standards, talking privately—or so he thought—to Sir William Stubbs. Hell hath no fury like a senior official sacked as a scapegoat. I look forward to hearing more of the views of the Minister for School Standards on his Secretary of State's policies.
Let us look in detail at some of the Secretary of State's recent interventions. There are five areas that need to be covered in this debate. Those involve the serious problems that have hit the Department since the House rose for the summer at the end of July, so this is just two and a half months' worth of disasters. There are many more, and I know that many colleagues on both sides of the House will want to add to the list during this short debate.

321
Let us start with the most extraordinary failure of the Secretary of State: the mess that she has helped to create at the Glyn technology school in Ewell, where an appeals panel has insisted that two boys excluded for issuing death threats to a teacher should be let back into the school. This is an extraordinary failure because she has managed to make a bad situation worse, even though almost no one disagrees with her. Of course the two boys should not be let back into the school. What they did to the teacher concerned was a disgrace, and I am not surprised that the head and the other staff feel as strongly as they do. But if ever there was a time for quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, it was last week at the Glyn technology school.
The parents have legal rights—because of the appeals panel system that we have just heard the Prime Minister defending—and they are insisting on exercising them. Instead of quietly helping the school and the local education authority, however, the Secretary of State saw the chance for some easy headlines about how tough she is. She must have known that she had no power to back up her tough talk. All that she succeeded in doing was to raise the temperature, so that there is still no solution.
Councillor Kay Hammond, who is now responsible for sorting out this mess, summed up the effect of the Secretary of State's intervention. [HON. MEMBERS: "She is a Tory."] Labour Members are complaining that Kay Hammond is a Tory, as if that makes a difference. It is a great shame that Government Members are playing politics when a councillor is trying to solve a difficult problem in a good local school that is threatened by a national crisis.
Kay Hammond wrote to the Secretary of State saying that her intervention
"was not helpful because we were trying as a matter of urgency to find a way forward in a very difficult situation."
She went on to say:
"Unfortunately, all the attention, exacerbated by"
the Secretary of State
"acting beyond her powers, has made Surrey's job almost impossible at present."
That is a damning indictment of the right hon. Lady, even though she has acted in a way that all of us would support. No one in the House thinks that those boys should he back in that school, but Surrey county council has been trying to act effectively, and not jump on a bandwagon, as the Secretary of State did.
In the spirit of inclusiveness that pervades the Conservative party these days, I offer the Secretary of State some suggestions of positive action that she could take to avoid this mess in the future. First, she should get rid of appeals panels. Even without the bad decisions that they reach, they are expensive, legalistic and take too long to come to a decision. I agree with the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers that these panels should go. Heads and governors should have the power over discipline in a school. If the heads and governors get an exclusion process seriously wrong, the local education authority should be the appeal point. [Interruption.]
Secondly, I offer the Government another of the policies that we unveiled last week. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): That is an interesting new policy. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Conservative policy is not, as I had thought until a minute ago, to abolish appeals panels, but to make the LEA the appeals panel instead of the present independent panel?
Mr. Green: The hon. Lady should listen. Of course, we want to abolish appeal panels, but a due process must be operated. [Interruption.] There could be a simple appeal to the LEA. The right hon. Lady seems to be particularly ignorant of her own policies, as she misbriefed the Prime Minister, who looked extremely foolish when he claimed that the appeals panels that were established under a Conservative Government had the power to do what they have done, which was not true. That was done under an Act that the right hon. Lady introduced.
Estelle Morris rose—
Mr. Green: The right hon. Lady has had her chance. What the Government have been saying all along as an argument against the abolition of appeals panels, which we support, is that that would bring the courts into the equation.
Estelle Morris rose—
Mr. Green: The right hon. Lady should contain herself for a second. As I understand it, the Government's objection to the abolition of appeals panels is that that would bring in the courts. That is a ludicrous objection, because it is impossible for the courts to be much more legalistic than the appeals panels already are. She must know, as I do, of head teachers who have had to spend in excess of £20,000 on individual appeals. We believe that that £20,000 would be better spent on books, teachers and equipment in our schools.
The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do, that if we are to avoid a legal process, which is expensive, bureaucratic and takes a long time, in law there needs to be an appeal in case the process is wrong. The simplest and cheapest way is for the LEA to carry out the appeal. I do not know why she objects to that.
Estelle Morris: Can we be clear about this new policy, which is being developed on the hoof? Having given LEAs the power to carry out the exclusion appeal hearing, will the hon. Gentleman also give them the right to overrule decisions of the head teacher and the governing body?
Mr. Green: Only if the process is wrong. The right hon. Lady should have listened to me. [Interruption.] I can tell that the amount of legal knowledge among Government Members is less than it should be. Like every MP, she should be aware of the powers of people such as ombudsmen, who cannot take hearings of fact but can take hearings on legal processes. The difference should be clear to every Member of Parliament, but it appears not to be clear to Labour Members. I can only assume that none of them has ever —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) must be heard.
Mr. Green: I can only assume that no Labour Member has ever taken up a constituent's case with an

323
ombudsman, and that the simple difference between problems with process and problems with fact has therefore never occurred to any Labour Member.
Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Green: I want to make some progress.
Let me offer the Government another of the policies that we unveiled last week. Why does the Secretary of State not allow heads, if they wish, to insist on binding contracts with parents setting out their schools' disciplinary codes? Parents would then know that they had some responsibility for their children's behaviour even when they were inside the school gates.
Both those policies would have a beneficial effect on situations such as the one affecting Glyn school, and either would be more effective in the long run than the Secretary of State's talking tough when she cannot act tough.
That was just one of the October crises, but let us move on to one of last month's horrors—the failure of some schools to open for the start of term because of a backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau. I am aware that that is partly a Home Office problem. If the Secretary of State is feeling sore about her predecessor and what he has done for her reputation, let me assure her that I shall come to the primary school targets in a moment. The real scandal of the Criminal Records Bureau, however, is that things are getting worse. The backlog is now at a record high. Errors have led to 100 people being wrongly accused of having a criminal past. Thousands of applications have been stuck in the CRB system for up to seven months, and nearly 4,000 completed checks have been disputed by applicants.
The problems that that is causing are particularly acute in education. One of the teacher supply agencies, Time Plan, has said that it still awaits the results of dozens of CRB checks. Local education authorities have experienced delays as well. Essex county council has 400 outstanding applications, 50 of which were submitted during last April and May. Even by the standards of this Government and this Department, that is spectacular incompetence.
The Secretary of State is getting used to apologising. Another person to whom she should apologise is Donna Naseby of Whitley Bay, who has been unable to open her day nursery on time because her CRB disclosure took 15 weeks to arrive. We have all sat here for some years listening to the Government explaining how important early-years education is, but that same Government, through their own inadequacy and bureaucracy, are preventing nurseries from opening.
The Secretary of State might also like to apologise to a teacher who has written to us from Daventry. I hope Ministers will listen, as they say that they are in favour of teachers. This teacher writes that he has done
"20 years unblemished service as a teacher and … passed the threshold for enhanced pay."
324
He writes
"In August my name was removed in error from the Northants supply teachers list, the LEA informed me that to be restored to the list I must be checked by the CRB, and to add to the insult, pay the fee. On August 30th I took the completed Form and various credentials to"
the relevant building
"where they were checked by a clerk and the Form taken in … On or about the 26th September I received a letter … asking for more proof of identity. I returned the necessary documents on the 30th September …
I telephoned the CRB this morning"—
the letter is dated 8 October—
"and was told I would have to wait a further 6 weeks! Without the Certificate Northants Schools will not want to employ me as a Supply Teacher. I have therefore had no opportunity of working for Northants since the commencement of the new school year, and for at least the next 6 weeks, making 3 months in all. I am apparently not entitled to unemployment benefit and cannot improve my Teachers pension."
If the Government are presiding over crises like that, they should be apologising to more people than A-level students.
Roger Casale: Whether we are talking about appeals panels, AS-levels or extra resources for literacy and numeracy, does not the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party—as we heard from its leader a few moments ago—amount to little more than "Scrap it, scrap it, scrap it"? As his party's education spokesman, has the hon. Gentleman anything positive to say about raising education standards? If he has, when will he get on with saying it?
Mr. Green: This party has many things to say about raising standards, the first of which is that we need better standards of discipline in our schools. We will provide that by supporting heads and teachers with home-school contracts—which, had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have just heard me recommend to the Government—by scrapping appeals panels and by allowing students in class to learn and not be disrupted by a small minority of disruptive pupils.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the Criminal Records Bureau, he should recall that the public may have appreciated this matter over the summer to a much greater extent than beforehand, not least because of events in Cambridgeshire. However, it should have been amply evident to the Government that things were going wrong and that action was not being taken. Cambridgeshire county council wrote to the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau in March. I had correspondence with Ministers in July. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) had a debate in July. Ministers blithely worked their way towards disaster in August and September without taking a grip, just as they have done on so many other issues.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I suspect that Members of this House on both sides have heard tales about the problems with the CRB. I know that the teaching unions alerted the Department as long ago as last April that a crisis was coming. Extraordinarily,

325
no one in the Department appeared to grasp the basic fact that the school year starts in September and that more teachers need to be processed in August than in any other month of the year. It was only in August that the Department panicked and took one decision, followed by a flatly contradictory one when the Secretary of State got back from holiday in September and realised that many schools had not opened. It was a classic case of how not to do it.
Phil Hope: I have just been on the phone to a number of teenagers in my constituency who recently passed their A-levels. They were watching Prime Minister's Question Time. They were absolutely shocked and furious to hear the grades that they achieved described as not being worth the paper they were written on. One of them received four grade As at AS-level and three grade As at A2-level. Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity, on behalf of the Conservative party, to dissociate himself from those remarks and apologise to the thousands of teenagers slandered by the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Green: The people who should be apologising are the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for what they have done to the A-level system. For 50 years, A-levels were the gold standard in education in this country. In five years, the Government have managed to destroy that gold standard.
The Criminal Records Bureau was the second disaster. The third disaster that the Government have had in the last two and a half months is in their truancy policy. On 9 October, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)—who sits here, quietly chuntering to himself—announced yet another range of tough measures on truancy, to follow the last range of tough measures on truancy that he announced on 18 June. By coincidence, this latest tough package was released on the same day as the new truancy figures, which showed that, despite all their initiatives, the Government have completely failed to cut truancy at all.
According to the Government's own figures, exactly the same number of half-days are lost through unauthorised absence as in 1997-98. The Government have made no progress, despite the fact that one of their first promises was a drastic cut in truancy. In December 1998, in the comprehensive spending review public service agreements—on which the Prime Minister was so keen a few moments ago—the Government promised a reduction by one third in school truancy by 2002.
As 2002 approached, the Government realised that they were going to miss the target. A sensible Government would have taken some measures to ensure that they hit the target. Not this Government; when they see that they are going to miss a target, they change the target, which is what they did. They dropped the 1998 target, hoping that no one would notice; sadly for them, we did. They replaced it with a target to reduce truancy by 10 per cent. from the 2002 level; the House will recall that that there has been no reduction in that level since 1997, which was the previous target. The Government's policy on truancy would be laughable were it not so serious.
326
The director of Truancy Call, a charity dealing with truants, revealed that, on a typical school day, some 50,000 children are playing truant in this country. That is a genuinely terrifying statistic. If the Government took some effective measures against truancy, they would probably do more than anything else to stop too many vulnerable young people getting on the conveyor belt to crime. Sadly, they have failed to take any effective measures, and their response to that failure is not to try to find effective measures, but to fiddle the figures.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: What measures would the hon. Gentleman take if he were the Minister responsible?
Mr. Green: The most important long-term measure that we learned about from other countries—[Interruption] The Government are addicted to short-term measures—a fact never better displayed than by that reaction. The best thing to do for most of those 50,000 children is to make school relevant to them. The biggest historic failure in our education system, going back some 100 years, is that of vocational education. We need to provide excellent, world-class education for the less academic children, as well as the more academic. Frankly, under successive Governments we have failed to do that. This is one of the most important long-term changes that we need. One hugely beneficial side-effect would be that the school day would be relevant to all pupils at all levels of academic attainment. That is the long-term way to treat truancy.
Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Green: I have given way enough in the past few minutes.
The fourth recent disaster to hit the Secretary of State was the primary school attainment figures, which were published last month. They showed that the Government missed their key targets for English and for mathematics among 11-year-olds. On this, I have some sympathy with her personal plight. When the Home Secretary was doing her job, and he made his now notorious pledge that he would resign if the targets were not hit this year, we all knew that, by 2002, somebody else would be carrying the can. Sadly for the Secretary of State, it is her.
There are three key issues that the Secretary of State could, and needs to, address. First, in her tough-talking moments she has been prone to saying that heads and teachers in failing schools will have to go. So if schools do not hit their targets, someone takes responsibility and goes, but if Ministers do not hit their targets, no one takes responsibility and no one goes. The next time the Prime Minister complains about cynicism in modern Britain, he might like to look close to home to find some of the causes. Secondly, since the Secretary of State is not hitting the existing targets, what on earth is the point in setting new and more difficult ones for future years? Can she tell the House what she proposes to do if those targets are missed as well?
Thirdly, the right hon. Lady will see that improvements in both English and mathematics have completely stalled in the past three years. The figures

327
have barely moved, and about a quarter of our children leave primary schools unable to read, write or count at an acceptable level. I dare say that she and I would agree that that is completely unacceptable. If we look at the figures for 2000, 2001 and 2002, we see that they have not moved. Literacy and numeracy hours have done some good, but it looks as though radical change will be needed to move the attainment figures from the plateau on which they are stuck. So far, her Department has shown no sign of recognising that the figures are stuck, and that radical change is needed to achieve anything better. This debate provides a chance for the Secretary of State to make it clear that she sees the scale of the challenge. So far, all that we have had from the Government is bluster, but when a quarter of our young people are leaving primary school unable to read, write or count properly, that is a national disgrace.
The fifth and most serious of the current crises is, of course, the A-level fiasco.
Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to the proportion of 11-year-olds who did not meet basic standards in mathematics and reading when we took over?
Mr. Green: Rather than bobbing up and down with Whips' questions, the hon. Gentleman should listen to what I just said. I said that the literacy and numeracy hours have done some good. The figures went up from the mid-1990s to 2000. Since 2000, the English figures have stuck at 75 per cent., and the mathematics figures have fluctuated between 71 and 73 per cent. [Interruption.] Government Back Benchers can chunter as much as they like, but the fact is that we are stuck with a quarter of our primary school pupils being inadequately educated. If they are happy with that, fine, but I am not, and Britain's parents will not be happy with it either.
The fifth and most serious of the current crises is, of course, the A-level fiasco. Yesterday, the Secretary of State tried the old trick of defending herself against a charge that no one in the House was making—that she interfered personally to fiddle the grades—while trying to ignore the charges made in this House and by many teachers, parents and pupils. Those charges are that she presided over a system that was bound to fail, and that she had been warned that it would fail.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that no one had warned her. I remember Nick Tate, the QCA's former chief executive, saying that the QCA had warned her that the system was about to fail. She rejects the charge that she ignored the warnings, because she has no defence against it, and she has no defence against it because it is true.
Today's reports on the latest Tomlinson findings must make fairly grim reading for the Secretary of State. The editorial in today's edition of The Independent stated:
"This episode has shredded confidence in the integrity of England's exam system",
and I am delighted to read that newspaper saying what I said yesterday.
328
Most serious of all, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition noted in Prime Minister's questions, is that Mike Tomlinson said yesterday that schools are left with no idea of what an A-level is. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting the parts of Mike Tomlinson's report of which she approves. I hope that she has analysed carefully what he said yesterday. He challenged the Government over A-level reforms by warning that the qualification was clouded in confusion. He said that it was "amazing" that schools were in the third year of the changes brought in under Curriculum 2000, yet still did not know what examiners expected of students. I think that he is being especially polite.
Mr. Mike Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Leader of the Opposition that today's A-levels are worthless?
Mr. Green: That is not what my right hon. Friend said. Mike Tomlinson has said that schools are left with no idea of what an A-level is. If this Government believe that they have not damaged the reputation of that exam—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the Chamber, and hon. Members should be listening to the debate, not shouting.
Mr. Green: If Labour Members seriously believe that the Government have not damaged the reputation of A-levels, I can only suggest that they visit secondary schools when they return to their constituencies. They will find a lot of angry students and teachers, who feel that they have been working very hard for a long time but that they have had their efforts undermined by an incompetent Government.
The point that Mike Tomlinson makes is that the QCA had direct responsibility for the problems, and I think that that point commends itself to the Secretary of State. Where the Secretary of State is at her most evasive is in denying that she is responsible for the QCA. It is perfectly simple. If she can sack the chairman of the QCA, then she is responsible for the QCA. If the QCA is responsible for the A-level scandal, she is responsible for that scandal. That is the inescapable conclusion of all the facts that have come out so far.
I hope that the Secretary of State is suitably embarrassed by what she said about the QCA as recently as 17 June. She said:
"I am sure that the talented staff at the QCA can meet these tough challenges for the benefit of pupils, teachers and parents. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of its Chairman, Sir William Stubbs. Sir William has played a key role in putting the QCA in the position where it can reform for the future."
That is what the Secretary of State thought in June. By September, when she needed to save her own skin, she sacked the very official to whom she had paid tribute.
What brings all those disasters together is the characteristic new Labour cocktail of centralisation, meddling from Whitehall, and lack of trust in the professionals on the ground. The Government fiddle the figures when they can, and ignore them when they cannot. They show a touching faith that a press release equals ministerial action. Our schools deserve much more than the Government offer. Heads deserve real

329
power to run their schools. Teachers deserve to be trusted to know how to teach. Pupils deserve an exam system that they can trust, and parents deserve to know that their children will be safe from disruption in the classroom. The present Government are failing on all those counts, and their failures are a betrayal of young people across the country.
I commend the motion to the House.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"applauds the priority the Government attaches to education and congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on her excellent leadership of the education system; notes the current record levels of sustained investment in education with an increase from £41.6 billion in 2001–02 to £57.8 billion in 2005–06; welcomes rising standards and progress being made in schools up and down the country, congratulating in particular all those who played a part in achieving the best ever results in literacy and numeracy for 11 year olds, with 75 per cent. making the grade in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics compared with less than a half in 1997; welcomes the importance the Government attaches to tackling indiscipline and non-attendance at schools; notes that while the Criminal Records Bureau continues to improve its performance, the Department's interim "List 99" measures are allowing schools to operate with a full complement of staff; expresses its sympathy for the pupils, parents and teachers who have been affected by the recent 'A' level grading problems; but congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for her decisive action in setting up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson to restore confidence in the exam system."
I was not impressed by the words—many of them—of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). Many people who work in our schools and many parents whose children are educated in our schools will not recognise the picture that he painted.
Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady always says that.
Estelle Morris: I always say that because it is always the case.
Before we go on to the specific allegations, let us clarify what progress has been made during the past five to six years and what we have achieved in partnership with our teachers, governors and all who work in our schools. That achievement was made against the background of massively increased investment in our schools. By 2005–06, we shall have invested more than £1,100 extra in every school pupil, arid every Member of Parliament will be able to see evidence in their constituency of the huge capital investment that we have made—not only in primary and secondary schools, colleges of further education and universities but in nurseries, where previously they did not exist, and in sure start. Almost all three and four-year-olds now have a nursery place.
All that investment and leadership from the centre has brought real results. Nearly 500,000 five to seven-year-olds are no longer in classes of 30. We made that pledge in 1997 and we have met our target. Ofsted notes that almost seven classes in 10 are good, compared with four in 10 only five years ago. People with children in classes
330
where Ofsted judges that the quality of teaching is better are glad that a Labour Government are in power and are showing leadership.
More than nine in 10 schools have made satisfactory or better progress since their last inspection. Fewer schools are going into special measures: last year, there were 137, compared with 230 in the previous year. Ofsted rates the current generation of teachers as the best ever.
I am not complacent about that, but I take pride in the contribution that the Government have made, as a partner in the education service, in ensuring that none of our infants is in classes of more than 30 and that all our four-year-olds and 70 per cent. of our three-year-olds have the chance of early years provision. Yes, a quarter of our 11-year-olds have still not reached the standards in reading and writing that we expect of them, but only six years ago half of them had not done so.
That is a massive improvement. Not only the Government but the whole nation should be proud of the literacy and numeracy strategies. They are world class and world leading. They are admired throughout the world. I do not think we could find anyone in the education system—head teacher, teacher or parent—or in the wider community who would not give thanks for the introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategies.
Yes, the strategies have stalled, but they did so after increases of 12 percentage points for maths and 11 percentage points for English over five years. The question is: what do we do now? If the hon. Member for Ashford had chosen to examine the figures in a little more depth, he would have found that each year we assessed the results not only for literacy and numeracy in general for each of their component parts; that in the next year we invested more money, training and support; and that we often saw progress.
It is interesting that two or three years ago, writing standards were falling behind, whereas those for reading were increasing. What did we do? We made extra investment, adjusted the strategies and provided extra training. What happened? Writing improved. However, reading has stalled. What that reveals is not a political point but an educational one: the capacity of the system to concentrate on writing, which we required, while maintaining the necessary focus on reading.
As a politician, I do not have an answer to that problem, but we are looking into it. We know that we attained higher levels for writing. We know that previously we reached higher levels for reading. The task is to build capacity into the system and to ensure that heads, teachers and all those who work with them can maintain their focus on both reading and writing. That is how we shall move closer to our target.
Chris Grayling rose—
Estelle Morris: I shall finish dealing with this issue before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The literacy and numeracy issue is really difficult. No generation of educationists, nor any previous Government, have ever even tried to crack the problem of people leaving our education system without the basic skills. That is why 7 million adults do not have the reading and number skills that we would expect of 11-year-olds. We are making a good attempt. We are

331
investing the money and our approach is evidence based. We are working with those in the profession, whom I thank. We have made immeasurable and massive progress. No, we are not there, but I would tell the hon. Member for Ashford one thing: we will not give up, and we will continue to invest and to try until we have moved even further towards our target.
Chris Grayling: The most recent research into why teachers are leaving the profession says:
"The resignation rate from schools is rising sharply"—
it has risen by 4 per cent. since 1999. It also says that nearly 40 per cent. of those leaving the profession cite Government initiatives as one of the reasons that they are going. Does the right hon. Lady think that our education system may have stalled because so many experienced teachers are leaving the profession?
Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman will also know, if he is into reading research, that even more people are now joining the profession, and they do so knowing what it is about. They see the investment that the Government are making, the literacy and numeracy strategies raising standards and the excellence in cities scheme, which is beginning to close the gap in achievement levels between children in inner cities and elsewhere. That is why we have more teachers in the profession than at any time since the early 1980s. I am proud of that, but, equally, I take the challenge of keeping people in the profession.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong about this, but if my memory serves me right—I do not—have the figure in front of me—it is true to say that five years after teaching 80 per cent. of those who have completed their training have taught for some time in the maintained sector. Many teachers who leave school will return after having had time out to raise a family or because they have moved to another part of the country.
I do not underestimate the nature of the challenge in retaining teachers in our classrooms, but I hope that, in return, the hon. Gentleman will give credit for the fact that we have the best recruitment levels for two decades and that, today, more teachers are serving in our classrooms, teaching our children, than since the start of the 1980s.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Estelle Morris: Not at the moment; I want to move on, because I am sure that the House will want to know of other targets that have been met as well. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to know that our target for the number of 16-year-olds who get five good GCSEs at grades A to C was met a year early. I am sure that, like me, they look forward to the publication of the next set of results tomorrow. I am sure that they will be as pleased as I am that, for the first time, the Government's initiatives—yes, initiatives, but they were funded and training for them was provided, about which I am proud—are the first ones to close the attainment gap in standards in this country.
332
More than in any of our competitors in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, this country's under-achievement is linked to poverty and social class. The best thing about the literacy and numeracy and the excellence in cities initiatives is not only that standards increased across the board, but that the attainment gap closed, and they are the first education initiatives of any Government of any political party to achieve that.
If the hon. Member for Ashford wants to abolish those initiatives, he should say so now, as I believe he has done in the past. Let us make no mistake: taking away initiatives such as literacy and numeracy, key stage 3 and excellence in cities would be at the children's cost because, without those initiatives, teachers would not have the support that they need to do what we want them to do—raise standards across the board.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
Estelle Morris: I will give way, and then I shall make progress on another issue.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I commend much of what the right hon. Lady seeks to do. I particularly commend the Government's new realism in education, but does the right hon. Lady accept that the reason for the crisis that she is seeking to correct is that for many years, not just under Labour Governments, there was a blind pursuit of the comprehensive ideal, which did a great deal to destroy standards and quality in education in this country?
Estelle Morris: All I would say is that the performance of girls has increased in the past couple of decades, as has the number of youngsters who have qualifications enabling them to go on to higher education. That has happened on the back of the comprehensive system, not some rigid selective system that existed previously. I am proud of the comprehensive ideal, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I think that we need to renew it. It has not achieved all that I aspire to. It has not closed the social class gap, and some ethnic groups are achieving below the level at which they should. That is exactly why we talk about reforming the comprehensive principle, while the Prime Minister and I talk about the post-comprehensive ideal.
Mr. Phil Willis: Would the Secretary of State therefore agree with the Minister for School Standards, who said in Brighton last week that he regretted the passing of the direct grant grammar schools? Do the Government plan to return those to the state fold?
Estelle Morris: I shall say three things: first, my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards did not say that; secondly, I always agree with him; and, thirdly, we have no plans to introduce the direct grant system.
I want to move on to the very serious issue of exclusions. It is fascinating that a new Tory policy has been announced only minutes after the Leader of the Opposition sat down and forgot to tell us that the Conservatives believe in appeals hearings after all. I want to correct something that the Leader of the Opposition said during Prime Minister's questions.

333
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that appeals panels were introduced in 1986, and the following justification was given in Committee proceedings on the Bill that I presume became the 1987 Act:
"a parent may genuinely feel that an authority has taken insufficient notice of the pupil's point of view of the difficulties arising through its endorsement of a decision to expel. The parent may continue to feel that expulsion is unjustified, or the expelled pupil may be at a critical stage of preparation for school-leaving examinations. An alternative school may pose problems of accessibility, or the parent may be unhappy about the curriculum offered by that school."
That was the justification given by Chris Patten when he spoke about the introduction of appeals panels in a Standing Committee in 1986. He was right. People must have an avenue to seek redress if they feel that injustice has been done. I cannot understand, however, why the Leader of the Opposition went on to say that we took away from the head teacher the right to overrule the appeals panel, as the following was also stated in Standing Committee on 1 July 1986:
"We therefore propose that … When an authority confirms an expulsion the parent would have a … right of appeal … Such appeals would be to appeal committees established under section 7 of the Education Act 1980."
Chris Patten went on to say:
"New clause 10 provides that a committee's decision should be binding".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 July 1986; c. 389–90.]
Would the hon. Member for Ashford like to answer to the House and withdraw the accusation made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's questions?
Mr. Damian Green: What my right hon. Friend said was that the Government changed the guidance, which was true.
Estelle Morris: I stand to be corrected when Hansard is published, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Leader of the Opposition said that the appeals panel could not overrule the decision of the head. Chris Patten, who was the Minister at the time, said that the appeals panel decision would be binding.
Let us move on—instead of going over the quiet words of a quiet man—to consider the more vocal, louder comments of the hon. Member for Ashford, who, to tell the truth, is an equally quiet man. Today, he announced that, although the appeals panel will be abolished, the local education authority will resume the function of hearing appeals from parents. When he announced that, I had an eerie feeling that not one of his Back Benchers knew about it. Now we know what is the definition of a quiet man and a quiet party—it means not telling Back Benchers about the policy before announcing it to the House of Commons.
Let me be helpful by spelling out what that policy means. It will mean that any parent who disagrees with the judgment of the head that their child should be excluded for any reason will be able to appeal to a local education authority. That is what was said. Let us make no mistake—if we give the local education authority the right to hear the appeal, we have to give them the right to overturn the judgment. If we do not do that, we will take away its power to take a decision.
334
I am happy to give way on this issue, so would the hon. Gentleman like to tell us who will sit on the LEA appeal panels? Will they be made up of the teachers who we insist should sit on panels from January next year? If the panel is run by an LEA, will it be made up of local councillors and local education officials? If it is not made up of councillors and education officials, will it be made up of independent members of the public? If it is made up of independent members of the public, I am not sure how it will differ from the independent exclusion panels that we have at the moment.
Mr. Green: The right hon. Lady appears incapable of listening. She said that I had just said that any parent would be able to appeal on any matter to the LEA. She knows perfectly well that I did not say that. She was not listening and she wants to hear what she wants to hear. I made a clear difference between process and fact, and that is an obvious point that applies to all appeals to people such as the ombudsmen. She should know that, because she is experienced enough to know the difference. She may be attempting to be malicious, but I am afraid that she will not find that I said what she said I had said.
Estelle Morris: I heard the point about process and fact, but I did not have the slightest idea what the hon. Gentleman was on about. That is why I had to intervene.
Let me explain what I think stage two of the new policy will be, because the hon. Gentleman has now mentioned guidance.
Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Estelle Morris: No, not at the moment.
I think that the Opposition's new policy means that not every parent will have the right to go to the LEA to seek the overruling of the head teacher's and governing body's judgment. Some parents will have that right, and others will not. Whether they have the right will depend on guidance written by the hon. Gentleman. If that is the policy, that is fine. However, we have heard all the time from the Opposition that never under any circumstances should the head teacher's judgment be second-guessed because it is absolutely sacrosanct. No matter how the hon. Gentleman tries to get out of it, he has just said that, in certain circumstances that he has not yet described to his Back Benchers, the Government or the public, the head teacher's judgment can be second-guessed by an appeal panel.
As I said, I always agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. He is absolutely right. The only difference is that, under this Government, the system will be independent whereas under the Tories it will be run by the LEAs. I leave it to people to reach a judgment on that.
Chris Grayling rose—
Mr. Lansley rose
Estelle Morris: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I shall make progress.
Chris Grayling: May I return the Secretary of State to the reality of what has happened? Eighteen months ago,

335
her predecessor wrote to the head teacher of Glyn school after an appeal had been overturned and a pupil had been replaced in the school after exclusion. Her predecessor set out clearly in a letter a number of cases, including those involving violence and the threat of violence, in which a governing body had every right to exclude. However, when the governing body and head teacher of Glyn school put that statement to the test, the system failed them. The system is clearly wrong. The Secretary of State is making small political points, but when will she sort the problem out?
Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall read the words from the guidance that was issued to the appeal panels before the last election. It said:
"We would normally regard it as inappropriate to reinstate pupils where there has been serious or actual threatened violence to teachers or fellow pupils."
That is exactly why I made my statement last Thursday. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying—I say it again at the risk of again being accused of interfering—that I back teachers if they are threatened with violence or abuse by any pupil in their school. That should not happen. However, it should be equally clear that, in a natural system of justice in which appeal panels have power, I have no powers to overrule them. The hon. Member for Ashford is suggesting that, if the Tories were ever to return to government, they would take to Secretaries of State the right to overrule an independent appeal panel—in his case, the LEA. That is their policy, but I have described the only way to proceed.
The process is important and I want to explain my actions on the incident at the school. Whether there are appeals panels and whether they are independent or part of the local education authority, there is still a right in law to go to judicial review whether we like it or not. No hon. Member can change that—unless, of course, there is another policy announcement. In recent years, parents who have not got satisfaction at exclusion appeals hearings have gone to judicial review. No one is saying that that is not the case. If we get rid of appeals panels, which was Tory policy until today, people would seek to pursue the course of natural justice by questioning a decision in the courts. The quickest, most expedient, cheapest and most efficient way to deal with the natural right of a parent to ask for a double check to be made on a key decision is to go to an independent panel, and that is why we support them.
My right hon. Friend said in Prime Minister's questions that of all the decisions taken by heads, at the end of the day 3 per cent. are overturned. In some cases, such as last week's high-profile case, a decision comes to the public attention. Last week's decision was important. I do not detract from the need to have a national discussion about that because I welcome it. There is nothing wrong with the discussion that the nation had over the weekend. Indeed, it is about time that parents and everyone else in the community joined politicians and educationists in deciding what behaviour we accept from our children in schools. We should make that clear. I made my view clear last week and will continue to do so at every opportunity.
Kevin Brennan: Surely the policy just announced by the Conservative spokesperson on
336
education is even more incoherent when he mentions the local government ombudsman because the ombudsman's decisions have no force over local authorities. He cannot compel them to do anything.
Estelle Morris: That is absolutely right and people would probably end up in court. Perhaps I should not say this, but that process would take far longer than an exclusion panel.
Let me set out my involvement in the constituency of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) last week. He wrote to me on 7 October, expressing his concern about the case. He had every right to do that. It is a letter that I would expect to receive from a Member of Parliament. It shows a proper process and reflects the fact that the hon. Gentleman expected the Secretary of State to take an interest, offer help and express an opinion. There was nothing to suggest that he did not want my interest in the case to be noted. By the time I heard about the letter on 10 October, someone had taken the case to the media and it had become the focus of national attention. That was the situation by the time I knew of the case and read the letter.
I am not criticising that—it was natural that the case should cause concern—but the media were already circling the school and trying to discover the identities of the parents and children, and people were giving interviews to the press. The idea that I would say, "Not me, guv. I have no powers and will not express an opinion," is wrong. That is not something that hon. Members will ever hear from this Secretary of State. The case deserved national attention and the nation was entitled to ask the Secretary of State's view.
I went further than that, as I would do in many circumstances, and not just those that relate to exclusions. I asked my officials to phone Surrey county council and ask whether we could help. I also wanted them to ask whether the process was as speedy as possible given the fact that the public eye was on the school and the boys. I mentioned that for two reasons: first, the school needed to get back to normal and there was a ballot for a teachers' strike the next day; secondly, and of equal importance, the boys' future needed to be settled because they had rights as well. They needed to get back to full time, good quality education.
That was the nature of my intervention, and it became very public last Thursday and over the weekend because the incident was in the spotlight, but quite honestly it is the bread and butter of my Department's work. It regularly responds to invitations, such as the one that I received from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, in whose constituency the school is situated, to do what it can. Sometimes, in fact quite often, we are asked to give money, while other requests are for us to change legislation or use our influence. On that occasion, we sought to use our influence.
Mr. Damian Green: The right hon. Lady rightly says that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) wrote to her on 7 October, and she now tries to muddy the waters. I point out to her that on 10 October she found time to issue her press release and gain publicity, but she did not bother to reply to my hon. Friend until this morning, six days later.
Estelle Morris: I shall let the House into a state secret: I have a marvellous Department, but sometimes it does

337
not reach its targets for replying to letters. Six days exceeds every Whitehall target for replying to letters, and I am very pleased about that.
The hon. Gentleman should further consider the timing of the statements, which is an important point. One of our most important tasks is to get the standards agenda going and to achieve the desired progress in the education system. What we need to do most is back schools on discipline; collectively, we must make sure that we get that right. I made my statement at about four or five o'clock in the afternoon; I stand to be corrected about the precise time. By the time I made my statement the story had already been reported in the media, and rightly so—I make no criticism of that. It does not matter who gave the story to the media; it is a matter of natural national concern, and we acted completely appropriately.
Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Estelle Morris: I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman because the matter concerns his constituency, but I will not give way again after that.
Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way to me a second time. We all share the aspiration of sorting out this matter, but may I just explain to her the problem that her intervention caused? By issuing to the media a statement that she had overruled the appeals panel, the Secretary of State raised expectations in the school that the problem had been solved, and 24 hours later those expectations were dashed when the school realised that she did not have the power to overrule. That is the problem that she caused locally.
Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman reads the statement and listens carefully to the comments made that evening by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), he will find that I made it quite clear that I had no powers. I knew that I had no powers and I had been through the matter that afternoon. Sometimes, however, one can just stand up and be counted, and that afternoon I stood up to be counted. I do not care two hoots that criticism followed; it was right for the Secretary of State to stand up and be counted and to use what influence I had. It was right for the Secretary of State to ring Surrey county council and say, "You know that we have no powers, but can we do anything to help? Could you move as quickly as possible to remedy the situation?"
I shall say no more about that because I am happy to be judged on my record, on my intervention and on my words, not only by teachers but by parents who want good standards of education and well disciplined schools.
I have taken far longer than I should have done—
Mr. Henry Bellingham: What about A-levels?
Estelle Morris: I will talk about A-levels. Everybody who has got a grade this year should feel proud, and it is worth the paper that it is written on. It was absolutely
338
deplorable, indeed shameful, of the Leader of the Opposition to say that the results are not worth the paper they are written on. I say once more that I have every confidence in yesterday's report by Mike Tomlinson. In addition, I know that all the organisations that brought the complaints to his attention have confidence in the report. I acted swiftly. I made sure that the inquiry was independent. I acted on every one of the recommendations, and I will act on the recommendations that come back from the second part of the inquiry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Estelle Morris: I have been generous in giving way.
I want others to have the opportunity to address this subject. Everybody—at least those on the Labour Benches—looks forward to even more amazing policy announcements in the couple of hours ahead.
4.40 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: It would be easy to use this opportunity merely to throw insults at the Government for their handling of education policy without recognising as a starting point the huge problems that they inherited in 1997. I certainly want to go on record as saying that the Liberal Democrats recognise that there have been some improvements since 1997. The catalogue of improvements that the Secretary of State read out at the beginning of her speech was not due simply to Government policy. It was very much due to the hard work of our teachers, lecturers and everyone in the education world. The Government sometimes accept too much credit for what goes right and totally ignore things when they go wrong.
Although there was much with which I could agree in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the accusations had a hollow ring when one examined the alternatives presented by the Conservatives in Bournemouth and, indeed, today. In a half-hour speech, there was not a single positive proposal to resolve the issues that have been raised.
Phil Hope: I have been watching the hon. Gentleman discussing the issue of A-levels on various news programmes. While he is putting on record the views of Liberal Democrats, will he dissociate his party from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who described A-levels as not worth the paper that they were written on? Will he join us as we go to prize-giving evenings at schools to award the certificates to young people in congratulating them on their fantastic hard work?
Mr. Willis: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for considering that very soon the Liberal Democrats will be the official Opposition. When we are, we shall not be repeating the outrageous slur made by the quiet man earlier today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Willis: I would like to make a little progress.

339
What lies behind this debate is a deep-seated jealousy over the fact that the Labour Government are delivering Conservative policies. That is the truth of it. I ask Labour Members whether even a Thatcher Government would have dared propose such right-wing policies as creating a free market for higher education, breaking up the comprehensive system, introducing performance pay, stripping the last vestiges of power from local education authorities and handing them to private companies, privatising schools, privatising the Criminal Records Bureau and micro-managing our education service from Sanctuary house through a target-led agenda? That is a Thatcherite agenda that Thatcher herself could not introduce, and that is why the Tories are jealous. Labour Members are delivering the Tories' policies.
Dr. Julian Lewis: While the hon. Gentleman is in the business of accusing the Government of being Thatcherite, perhaps he might explain why the Liberal Democrats seem to have gone rather socialist. Is it not a fact that the Liberal Democrats were reported in The Times Educational Supplement of 20 September as planning to do away with the curriculum for infant schools and to revert for those up to the age of seven to an educational policy dependent on learning through play? Is that not a reversion to the 1960s socialist policies that did so much damage to the education of our children?
Mr. Willis: It is worth coming into the Chamber just to hear the hon. Gentleman's intelligent and articulate interventions. I will send him the whole document, because it is crucial reading material on a serious issue. I strongly believe that we are moving away from quality early-years education by putting youngsters into formal education settings far too early. I make no apology for that view—it is something that I fervently believe. The hon. Gentleman should look at the experience in countries such as Denmark, Sweden or Holland, which have highly advanced early education services. He made a derisory comment about learning through play, but the fact is that all children learn though play. Had he spent a little more time playing as a child, he might have learned a little more.
The key accusation that the Liberal Democrats would lay at the Government's door is not one of inactivity, but one of paranoia. The Government need to control everything, to manage everything, to trust no one, to seek blind affirmation and to treat criticism with contempt—and, as we have seen today, above all never to accept responsibility when things go wrong. Imagine the outcry if local education authorities, not Capita, had failed to vet 7,000 teachers in time for the start of term. What would have happened—would the LEAs have got a £400 million contract extended? What if the further education sector, not Capita, had made a hash of individual learning accounts resulting in a multi-million pound fraud? Would the sector have received yet more lucrative contracts from the Government? Of course not; yet, in effect, that is what has happened with Capita. Both disasters could have been avoided if the Department for Education and Skills had prepared the
340
contracts' specifications correctly and the Secretary of State had effectively monitored their delivery, but they did not, and that is a significant failure.
The current fiasco surrounding A-levels is yet another example of the Secretary of State behaving like Pontius Pilate when things go disastrously wrong. There were warnings as early as October 1998 that the new system of post-16 exams was deeply flawed. A 1998 internal report to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority that was sent to Ministers warned that unless the problems were sorted out, they would lead to massive grade inflation or grade fixing. Undeterred, the Government went ahead against all advice. There was chaos in the first year, with modules failing to appear, course materials failing to arrive in schools, and no markers to mark the modules. Our students were treated as little more than guinea pigs in a glorified experiment.
True to form, the Secretary of State stepped in in 2001—not to apologise or to accept that the situation was the result of her policy, but to take action to cut the number of modules. She said,
"the … reforms … did not do credit to anybody".—[Official Report, 12 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 954.]
But they were the Secretary of State's reforms. What was left when the right hon. Lady had cut the number of modules students could take was a system simply for stacking up A-level points. That was the net result. It has thrown the lives of thousands of our students and their teachers and lecturers into confusion, and undermined confidence in the A-level system.
Let me make it clear to the Secretary of State and the House that the Liberal Democrats fully supported the introduction of AS-levels and A2s. We believed that it was right to broaden the curriculum at that time. Furthermore, we have not accused and will not accuse the Secretary of State or her Ministers of direct interference in the marking or grading process. Rather, we accuse her and her Department of creating a climate in which it was perceived that what was required was the avoidance of any accusation of grade inflation.
Mr. Lansley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the events of summer 2001, may I put it to him that he does the Secretary of State a slight injustice? The right hon. Lady is quoted on the BBC website as saying at the time
"All new exams take time to bed in, but the new AS has had more than its fair share of problems. I regret the extra stresses that have been put on students and their teachers."
There was at least an expression of regret. However, is it not more significant that the right hon. Lady said at that time—I quote the BBC's report of her remarks—that she was
"now determined to get the reforms right so that A levels could continue as 'a crucial benchmark of quality.'"
Having said that in July 2001, and considering it from the perspective of October 2002, it seems that the right hon. Lady took responsibility and is now trying to discharge it.
Mr. Willis: I apologise to the Secretary of State for not recognising that she did offer a mild apology at the end of 2001. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that from the summer of 2001, when AS-levels went so badly wrong, there was paranoia—I use the word again—within the Department to ensure that grade inflation did not occur at the end of the year.

341
It was obvious that when students took a clutch of AS modules, they had the opportunity to resit them if they did not get good enough marks, and therefore get higher marks. They also had the opportunity to drop the modules at which they were not successful. It was obvious also that if 50 per cent. of the marks were to go on AS-levels, we would then have massive grade inflation. That was not because standards were dropped but because the kids followed the system and did better. That was the crux of the issue, and that was the system. It was nothing to do with the QCA or the examination boards. It was entirely the Secretary of State's responsibility. What has happened is the result of her refusing to accept any responsibility and simply passing the blame to the QCA. I think that it is shameful to use Mike Tomlinson's report as the basis for doing that and fundamentally wrong.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: No. I want to finish the point.
This year, there was a quinquennial review of the QCA's work. In June, the report highlighted the confusion of the relationship between Ministers and the authority. That was a central element of the report. In spite of that—this is an example of the incestuous nature of the relationship between the Secretary of State's Department and the authority—it argued for the status quo as it combines the "appearance" of independence while "retaining the ear" of Ministers. We cannot have that sort of contradiction and expect to have transparency. Equally, we cannot have a Secretary of State who then distances herself from an organisation that said, following a quinquennial review that reported to her, that it should have an "appearance" of independence while "retaining the ear" of Ministers.
The review went further. It dismissed any possibility of clarifying the relationship. Instead we are promised "a memorandum of understanding." If there is such a memorandum, we now know that it resulted in complete confusion. However, that is the proposal of the QCA in putting its house in order, together with the Secretary of State.
We know too that at the heart of the QCA since November 2000, the deputy chief executive and then the chief officer has been a serving senior civil servant seconded from the Department. She may not have been taking orders directly from the Secretary of State but surely she would have been able to convey the appropriate perceptions either to or from the right hon. Lady. I do not believe that a senior civil servant in the Department would be seconded elsewhere and would go to that new venue not knowing the policy of the Department and what it expected.
Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me about that last week, and I regret the fact that he has raised it in the House. It is totally inappropriate that civil servants should be attacked in that way, and one has just been attacked. I make it clear that it is a policy not only of my Department, but of the whole of Government, that senior civils are seconded both in and out of Government Departments. Officials in our Department are seconded not only to the QCA, but to Ofsted, the Teacher Training Agency, local authorities
342
and many of our agencies. In that way they gain a better understanding of the needs of the education system. Equally, I have serving civil servants who are seconded from headship, from school advisership and from other Government agencies. I believe that every one of those civil servants carries loyalty to the organisation to which they are seconded and abides by the rules of that organisation. To imply that one of my senior civil servants was not able to do that, or may not have been able to do that, was shameful, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Willis: Methinks the Secretary of State protests too much. That is not what I said, and I do not think that hon. Members understood me to say that. What I am saying to the hon. Lady is that I do not believe that if I went from my headship, which I did on one occasion, and was seconded to another organisation—[Interruption.]—that is wishful thinking—I would not take with me the culture of that organisation. One naturally does that. That is not a slur on civil servants. It is an inevitable outcome of moving from one Department to another. While the Secretary of State is speaking of secondments, perhaps she would explain to the House why, when we cannot have the curriculum and staffing survey done, and when there are not enough senior civil servants to oversee contracts, 22 per cent. of the senior civil servants in the Department are seconded out of the Department. It is an amazing situation.
Mr. Andrew Turner: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments about stacking up points? I remind him that the Secretary of State told me yesterday, when asked
"Is an AS-level half an A-level or not?"—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 218.]
that in some subjects the AS-level would be marginally easier than the A-level standard. That means that one can take six AS-levels, never taking a full A-level, and get the same number of UCAS points as if one had taken three A-levels and passed them at equivalent grades. If that is not devaluation, I do not know what is.
Mr. Willis: With due respect, that is an issue for the Secretary of State to answer. I know of no case where a student has stacked up six AS-levels in order to gain the qualification, but that is the logic of what the right hon. Lady said in reply to the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday, and it is up to her to respond.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, he spoke about the nature of the QCA and the fact that in the quinquennial review it was decided to leave it as it was, in order to retain the ear of the Secretary of State. If that is the case, does he not think it extremely odd that it did not come to the ears of the Secretary of State that all that pressure was being put on the exam boards?
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman could say that; I could not possibly do so, but that is the obvious conclusion. That is where, in this whole episode, we are left hanging in the air. The Secretary of State may feel that she is off the hook, but most people will have concluded otherwise.

343
The issue of standards was raised yesterday and the Secretary of State, who usually responds honestly and openly, did not do so on that occasion. It is important that she makes clear her policy on standards before Mike Tomlinson goes through the next part of his inquiry. He has to make recommendations for
"setting, maintaining and judging A-level standards".
Therefore it must be clear that where students achieve the standard set, they should be awarded the grade. The Secretary of State needs to make it clear in the House that it is the Government's policy that if a student achieves the necessary standard, they get the grade.
Estelle Morris: Of course.
Mr. Willis: That clearly was not what happened this year. If that was the case, we would not have looked at the work of 90,000 students and we would not have regraded nearly 2,000 students. If that is the case—I am glad that she said that it was—the Department for Education and Skills should not be put off by the annual wailings of Ruth Lea or successive Conservative Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for Ashford. On 13 August, even before this year's A-level results were published, he called for AS-levels to be scrapped and for an
"independent audit of exam quality".
He made that call before the results were even published, which is hardly a ringing endorsement for the 250,000 students who had taken their exams. Of course, we saw today the most deplorable example of the quiet man saying after all the anguish of the past two months that students now had certificates that were not worth the paper that they were written on.
Tony Cunningham: I applaud the Liberal Democrats' condemnation of Tory education policy, but I wish that they would pass it on to the Liberal Democrats on Cumbria county council, who are running the council in coalition with the Conservatives.
Mr. Willis: I do not know whether I am grateful for that intervention. I do not speak for Cumbria county council and it would be wrong of me to seek to do so.
Of course, the Government were right to broaden the post-16 curriculum. Indeed, it should be broadened even further, but if that is to be managed, far greater emphasis must be placed on internal assessment. To achieve that, as John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said yesterday in The Guardian, we need to establish credited chartered examiners. I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider that idea, which is not new. Teachers have already been doing similar work in music, drama, art and modern languages. but the proposal is one way of ensuring quality without making teaching the servant of an endless examination system. Alongside the abolition of league tables, the establishment of an independent QCA and the streamlining of the current examination boards into a single awarding body, such a proposal would do much to re-balance the emphasis in our schools towards teaching and learning, rather than testing and audit.
344
What would not help, however, is a sudden abandonment of the AS-level and A-level system after two years, as the Conservatives propose. Neither do we want the sudden lurch towards the international baccalaureate at which both the Secretary of State and her Minister for School Standards have hinted. Many schools, but especially FE and sixth form colleges, have invested very heavily in the new AS-level programme. Many colleges are already reporting a downturn in the number of applicants for AS-level courses. A sudden abandonment would create huge problems for the sector.
The Liberal Democrats hope that, in addition to the Tomlinson report, the Secretary of State will take a much more long-term view of the whole of the 14-to-19 curriculum and examination framework. Simply considering A-levels in isolation from the rest of the 14-to-19 framework would be a huge mistake. We have applauded many of the ideas in the Green Paper on 14 to 19-year-olds, but the sector needs a comprehensive framework of qualifications to underpin its success. It is increasingly clear that a one-size-fits-all examination system is inappropriate, especially when the vast majority of young people stay in full-time education or training until they are 19. Further tinkering as a response to political pressure is simply not acceptable. Now is the time to establish a royal commission to consider this whole vital area, take on board the views of industry, universities, colleges and the rest of the education world and produce a qualifications structure in which all sections of society can have confidence.
Chris Grayling: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be contradicting himself. He said that we should not touch the AS-level and A-level system because our sixth formers need stability, but went on to say that we need to appoint a royal commission with a view to completely overhauling the examination system. What sort of message will that send to the sixth formers who are currently starting their courses?
Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who usually makes intelligent interventions, may regret those comments. If he does not believe that there is a crisis of confidence in our examination system, he must have been elsewhere for the past two months. We are all united about the need for a new curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds. [Interruption]. The Liberal Democrats and the principal Opposition are certainly united.
If we are to introduce much more realistic vocational options, we must have an examination system that meets that aim. The Association of Colleges produced an interesting proposal for an overarching certificate. The Government have introduced the idea of a graduate certificate. We should examine the whole process to ensure the confidence of employers and the education world.
The debate has been interesting. Doubtless Members of all parties will ask questions about the competence of the Department for Education and Skills. However, what matters is what works for young people, adult learners, the community, and industry and commerce. A discredited system and a Department in which people have no confidence do none of us credit.

345
Let us consider higher education policy. Even before the review is published in November, the Minister is going around saying that we should have a market-led higher education system, that universities can go to the wall and merge without any discussion in the House. That discredits the Department and gives us the impression that the Secretary of State is not mistress in her house. The Minister for School Standards is looking for her job and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education reports to the No. 10 policy unit. Unless we ask Mystic Meg for advice, we are clearly in a mess.
5.7 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on education. He cares and is deeply knowledgeable about the system, unlike the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Tory spokesman. The latter epitomises the problems that the Conservative party is experiencing. He seemed to want to crawl around the minutiae of political debate with a loud hailer. One cannot communicate with the wider public in such a way.
Rob Marris: The quiet man.
Mr. Foster: I do not believe that he is a quiet man. It is right to have the debate, and it is right that the Tories tabled the motion and are attempting to hold the Government to account on education. However, they should recognise that they must have a little more vision and breadth of perspective to communicate with the voters, with whom they have failed to communicate.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems for the Tories on education is that they do not believe that an A-level or any exam is worth passing unless many others have failed it? As the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) showed today, their message is that competition is the only way to achieve success and improve standards.
Mr. Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Innate elitism pervades much of the education system, not only the Conservative party. I entered politics to try to get rid of that, and many people from different parties are dedicated to such an objective.
One advantage of a long political memory is that, although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I remember reading about Tony Crosland and Edward Boyle, who were enormously respected by the education establishment. It was said of both of them, however, that their only function at that time was to hassle within the Cabinet and get a good Budget settlement, and that that was the end of their job.
The culture change that has occurred since those days is quite bewildering, not surprisingly, to many people, and not entirely welcome to everyone. It is welcome to me, except for the fact that the debate about centralism and localism is a perpetual one that will continue throughout the history of debates. From time to time, central Government become too centralist, and from
346
time to time they devolve power to other bodies—local authorities, for example—only to discover that that is inadequate and that they have to claw back some power.
No one can doubt that education is the Government's top priority, not least because the Prime Minister has said as much so often, but it is so easy to say things. Why has he argued that it ought to be the top priority? He has done so partly because education is at the root of a strong economy. That is particularly relevant to my constituency, because we have always under-achieved according to all the measures of educational attainment. Far too few of our pupils have stayed on at school and gone to university; if we are to be a match for the fierce competitive world that is upon us—almost sweeping over us—we must attain far better levels of education and training.
Education is important not only because of the needs of a strong economy, but for reasons of social justice. That is one of the reasons that I came into politics almost 30 years ago. I had the advantage of a good education through the grammar school system, oddly enough, but the vast majority of my contemporaries—many of whom were just as bright as me—did not have that advantage, and were condemned for many years. Some of them never recovered, because of that system. I was determined that every child should have the same rights and opportunities as I had. That is what motivates the Prime Minister and everyone on the Labour Benches. I also concede that it has motivated many Conservatives over the years—for many of whom I have had enormous respect—and many Liberal Democrats. It is quite right that we should differ over how we should achieve that end, but that is our motivation, and a huge investment in education is absolutely crucial to achieving the objective of social justice.
I do not think that there can be any doubt about the huge investment that has been made by this Government since they took office in 1997, although some people may quibble about the statistics. I know that, for the first two years, we kept to the previous Tory Budget targets, but I was part of that decision so I have never complained about it, uncomfortable though it was during those two years. Since then, however, the investment in education has been enormous—I think that it has been unprecedented—and sustained. That is important in itself, but it is also important to understand that it has been possible only because of the economic competence of the Government.
I have been critical of the Government from time to time, as many right hon. and hon. Members know, but the economic achievement of getting low inflation, high employment and low unemployment at the same time, together with economic growth and the huge injection into all public services, is unprecedented in the Labour party's long history. It is also unprecedented in British politics. Until 1992, the Tories were thought to be the only party of economic competence, but Tory Governments never believed in or had the political will to make huge investments in public services. I can say with great confidence that such a configuration of achievements—low inflation, high employment, low unemployment and huge investment in public services—is pretty well unprecedented in the past 50, 60, or 75 years, or perhaps even longer than that.

347
We should celebrate the Labour Government's economic competence and the political will that enabled them to make this huge investment in education, without which most of the exchanges across the Chamber would be highly irrelevant. Without more money going into schools for revenue and for capital, many of the points of detail would be completely irrelevant. When I have visited schools, especially in the past 12 months, head teachers, members of boards of governors and teachers have told me I do not have to ask them—that the money is making a difference. Everyone who believes in public services, as I do, knows that we cannot achieve change without money as a lubricant.
We have made the investment, but we must make it work. In the days of Tony Crosland and Edward Boyle, Governments did not accept that as an objective: it was sufficient that they provided the resources, and the system had to deliver what it could within those resources. The Government have had the courage to intervene to try to make the money work effectively. In so doing, they have come up against many vested interests, and have often made themselves deeply unpopular with teachers, head teachers, teachers' associations and members of the Labour party. That has also been unprecedented. The Tories would have loved to intervene to make schools more effective, but they did not know how to do so and they did not have the political courage to tackle that problem.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the previous Conservative Government took a different route, which was to place trust in the professionals, and not to believe that everything can be done from Whitehall?
Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that intervention, because I have a long political memory of the 18 years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. Year after year, successive Tory Secretaries of State denigrated teachers and schools, and I longed for the time when we would have a Labour Government who would do what he says and trust the teachers.
Tony Cunningham: I was not going to intervene until I heard that comment from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I taught for 17 years, including during the period of Conservative government between 1984 and 1994, and there is a stark contrast between then and now. Then, we had raffles to get money to buy exercise books, but now huge resources have been provided. I have talked to many head teachers in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is excitement and a buzz about schools now? They want to do things and to change things. The situation has turned round completely.
Mr. Foster: I entirely agree. During all those Tory years, it was quite painful to listen to Members all the way down from Keith Joseph, for whom I had enormous respect in other contexts. From the Opposition Back Benches, I tried to convey to him that continually denigrating schools and teachers was not the way forward. That, however, was a lesson that the
348
Conservatives could not learn. I do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
Tough decisions have been taken in an attempt to improve school performance. Many of us who had been involved in education knew that the head teacher was crucial—that without heads who inspired the confidence of staff, drove up standards and made everyone feel concerned about standards, schools were wasting their time. We all knew of heads who did not measure up to that; we all knew of teachers who should not be in the profession, and who were letting their colleagues down. No one before this Government, however, had the courage to deal with the problem. Carrying out that tough task and withstanding all the criticism that often came from their own side took enormous courage, and persistence and vision.
Driving up standards is not simple—there is no magic wand. Problems must be dealt from day to day in the classroom, and the teaching force must be galvanised. I accept some of the criticism of my party: I concede that our centralisation has now gone a bit too far. We must begin to trust teachers.
Chris Grayling: That is Conservative policy.
Mr. Foster: No, I have always believed that. I applaud what the Government have done in driving up standards and showing us the way, but now that all that courageous work has been done we have an opportunity to look to teachers to show us new and exciting ways of doing their job better. I hope—indeed, I believe—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her colleagues will take that unique opportunity. We needed intervention to show that those whom we represent would not accept excuses for low standards in, for instance, inner-city schools. It was important to put that across, and it was not done without causing some pain and suffering to all involved. Now, however, we have a golden opportunity to allow teachers to show us what can be done—the delivery of standards in the hands of teachers, including head teachers; politicians cannot achieve it.
It is right for people to crawl over the minutiae of who said what to whom, when and with what motive, but it was regrettable that during yesterday's exchanges the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) seemed to be trying to get away with alleging that there had been political interference. Today, he backed off, and I am glad that he did so, because what he said yesterday did him no credit. I was going to urge the quiet man to have a quiet word with him; perhaps that has happened in the meantime.
I think that the Conservatives have failed two important tests. First, have they the economic competence to deliver the objectives that this Government have achieved? Since 1992, no one has believed that they have. In fact, many in the Conservative party do not believe it either.
Secondly, if the Conservatives had that economic competence, would they have the political will, or even the desire, to make the investments in education that the Labour party has made, or would they prefer some other course of political action? In my book, they fail both those tests.
5.25 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I had not intended to get into the wider debate but simply wanted to concentrate on the A-levels fiasco and its effect in my constituency. However, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) was unfair to Edward Boyle and to Tony Crosland. As I recall, although it was a long time ago, Edward Boyle was the Secretary of State who introduced polytechnics, and Tony Crosland—who worked in the white heat of the technological revolution—did a great deal to improve technical education; certainly the Labour party always said so.
Looking back, some bad things were done by the Labour party, but there were some good things. The same is true of my party. During the 18 years of Conservative rule, the national curriculum and league tables were introduced, through which we discovered what needed to be done in our inner-city schools. City technology colleges brought hope to areas where there was none before. Specialist schools, on which the Government have built, are a Conservative idea. We should not be too churlish about one another.
Turning to the A-levels fiasco, the alarm bells were rung first at the Knights Templar school in my constituency. Articles in the media described the plight of students such as Laura Wheen, who obtained A grades in psychology A-level while receiving a U for her coursework, as did the whole class. That is extraordinary; that excellent class had received excellent AS results, and good grades were predicted for it. The teacher had read the coursework and was impressed by it, but the class received these extraordinary results.
The same was true in history. Louis Gearing, a gifted history student, needed a particular result to get into Oxford, but he did not get it because his coursework was marked down to U. It seems odd that a bright student, who received two As in other subjects and A grades in part of his history course in the exams, should suddenly get a U for his coursework. I am pleased that Louis Gearing has been regraded. His grade has gone up and he is now able to go to Oxford, although he has put it back until next year. I am glad that that was possible as a result of the regrading exercise, but some questions remain.
The set of Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations psychology results that was not reviewed—the grade boundaries have not been changed—seems very odd. How was it that, at the Knights Templar school, these excellent students were able to get A grades in some of the examinations in psychology, yet were all getting U, a fail, in their coursework? No one has explained that. It was not explained by Mike Tomlinson, and I would like an explanation from Ministers. How does an A-grade student suddenly become a failure when it comes to the coursework? That seems extraordinary. One might understand if it were the other way round. Someone might help a student with the coursework and the student might struggle through.
Mr. Willis: That is usually the criticism that is made of coursework.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is right. How can it happen the other way round? It does not make sense.
350
Labour Members might think that it was down to the teacher, who may have read the coursework and been over-optimistic. She may not have understood and it was all a terrible accident. However, I checked with other schools in my constituency, including Fearnhill in Letchworth, another good school. The head there, Lynne Monck, wrote to me to say:
"Students who had received A or B grades for most psychology modules—
this relates to the OCR again—
"were awarded U grades for coursework.
The coursework of some candidates awarded a U grade was judged to be A grade standard by the subject teacher who had attended the support meeting and followed the guidelines."
Now, two teachers are getting it wrong—looking at course work, seeing that it is really quite good, and being surprised when it is failed. As we have heard through the media, that is being repeated around the country.
I want to know from the Minister why OCR psychology A-level has not been subject to a review of the grading boundaries. How could this have happened? The Minister might want to consider the following point, which is also suspicious. When Fearnhill requested a re-marking of the results, they came back the same. It also asked for the scripts—the coursework papers—to be returned. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister would listen to this. Fearnhill was told that the papers could not be sent back, even though they should be available under the guidelines. The same is true of Knights Templar, which was told in August—when it originally raised the matter—that it would be sent photocopies of the scripts and coursework papers.
John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: In a minute. Knights Templar was promised the papers, yet they never came. It filled in the forms, which stated that it could have the scripts if it wanted them. In a letter to me, Knights Templar said:
"We asked for a re-mark of our candidates' 2543 Research Reports (Psychology) and 2549 Psychology and Crime. We also asked for the scripts. We received letters giving the outcome of the results enquiry this morning"—
7 October—
"but without the scripts. Oddly, these letters all stated, 'Script Copy: Not Requested'. Having checked his records and finding that he had indeed ticked 'Copy of Scripts' on the form".
the head of the sixth form who deals with these matters
"rang OCR to ask why the scripts had not been returned. The initial response was that scripts in certain subjects were not being returned. After persisting, he was then told that exceptions could only be made in special circumstances. Eventually, the person from OCR decided that ours was an exceptional circumstance and agreed to send the scripts."
However, they have not arrived.
The question remains as to how A-grade students who were awarded U grades in these psychology papers were awarded A grades for other papers in the same subject. That seems extraordinary. The grade boundaries in psychology were not reviewed, although it was said that they would be. Why not? Why is OCR so reluctant to return the psychology coursework and scripts?

351
Andrew Wheen, father of Laura and a constituent of mine, says that the way to address the issue is
"to select a sample of candidates with anomalous grade combinations"—
in other words, the candidates who got As and Us—
"and to review all their examination scripts and coursework"
in close detail. That need not be a massive exercise; it need only be a sample.
The Minister has a duty to get to the bottom of what went on. It is not right to leave students failing to understand why they ended up with the marks that they did.
John Mann: The hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution is in contrast to others from those on the Opposition Benches. We owe a debt of gratitude to Peter Chapman, the head teacher of Knights Templar school, for being the first to raise this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Peter Chapman, who said during the Radio 4 interview in which he first raised this issue publicly that he regarded the Secretary of State as a woman of great integrity, and as an exemplary Secretary of State? Does he also agree with Peter Chapman's comments at a parents' evening at Knights Templar school—my wife was a governor at the time—in 2001? He said that, before casting their vote at the general election, parents should remember the difference in funding under a Labour Government and a Labour Secretary of State between 1997 and 2001, and funding before 1997—
Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is rather long.
Mr. Heald: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I was almost tempted to ask him to give way. He and I know Peter Chapman, and he may remember that I was giving the prizes at that prize day. In my speech, I said that life was not a dress rehearsal. If a student has a question mark over an exam result and does not understand why a particular result was obtained, that can be really devastating. Laura Wheen wanted to go to one university but is having to go to another, and that is devastating. For two months Louis Gearing thought that he was not going to Oxford, which was his life's ambition. He is going to Oxford now, but he thought that he would lose the opportunity. It is important that students be given proper respect.
I have never challenged the Secretary of State's integrity. Peter Chapman was grateful for some school buildings put up that very year, thanks to a combination of the Government and the Hertfordshire county council, which is an excellent, and Conservative-controlled, education authority.
Alistair Burt: And thanks to a good MP.
Mr. Heald: I lobbied for the building, yet the important question is not about whether any Secretary of State is pleasant or a person of integrity but about whether pupils and students have been affected. For the
352
individuals whom I have mentioned, these are desperate stories, and we have not yet got to the bottom of what happened.
Another case that I want to outline is not one of the OCR cases. It involves Edward Browning, another Knights Templar student who was doing Edexcel A-level music. He gave a live performance for his grade 8, which he gained with a distinction, and he gave the same performance for his A-level two weeks later. The guidance for A-level unit 4 states that a pupil who achieves grade 6 would attain a top mark in that unit.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) probably also knows Simon Marlowe, the accompanist on that occasion and a professional pianist. He has told me that Edward Browning's second performance for A-level was even better than the first performance, for grade 8, for which he was awarded a distinction. However, he was awarded only 10 out of 90 for that second performance.
It is extraordinary to note that, when Edward appealed, the mark was raised to 59 out of 90. How can it happen that an original mark of 10 out of 90 can be raised on appeal to 59 out of 90? The curious thing is that he was awarded almost 100 per cent. at his grade 8 exam.
Ministers should not think that the problem with what is happening with A-levels is over. They need to audit what is happening much more carefully.
Laura Wheen and her family are unhappy about the letter that the Minister for School Standards wrote to me in response to these matters. They did not object only to the fact that the letter was the classic civil service response, that it said that the Tomlinson report would take effect and that the matter was nothing to do with the Government. They are unhappy that the letter spoke about what would happen were Laura still unhappy with "his" grade after the revision process. That is not good enough.
The Government often say that the problem is all to do with schools and hospitals. They did so again at the Labour party conference, but that is not the case. The problem is to do with pupils in education, and patients in health. The Government have many plans, grand schemes, projects and initiatives, but they must remember that someone like Laura Wheen is entitled to know why she was not given the grade in the OCR psychology A-level that everyone expected her to obtain.
5.39 pm
Liz Blackman: I came into politics after spending most of my previous life in teaching. I took that road because I was so frustrated by the lack of policies and resources at the front line for the education of pupils. I looked with great interest to the Labour Government to bring in the right policies and the resources to implement them. By all accepted measures, educational achievement has been raised since 1997. I note the miserly acknowledgement of that from the Opposition education spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). We have made dramatic improvements in achievement in all key stages since 1997. I shall return to key stage 2 later.
We also ensured that inclusion was at the forefront of early years provision and that access for adult learners was a success story. That calls for celebration. Indeed, I

353
have joined in the celebration of those achievements in many secondary schools in my constituency. It is lamentable that the motion tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat amendment made no mention of those achievements. Of course, if they had done so they would have had to recognise the Government's success and input.
Whenever politicians try to analyse and assess the impact of policies they should look to their own backyard—the constituencies that they represent. In Erewash, the improvements both in pupil performance and tangible resources have been extremely visible. We have a sure start programme for the early years. We have new teachers and teaching assistants and new classrooms. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, Ofsted said that the current generation of teachers was the best ever. I pay tribute to teachers in my constituency and beyond.
The improvement in the quality of head teachers has also been much more evident in my constituency. The quality of newly appointed heads is undeniable and it filters down into the performance of their school.
We have seen new classrooms, new roofs and refurbishment although, lamentably, with small security fences. There are two new schools on the block, one funded by the private finance initiative and the other via the public funding route. I welcome that.
Managing improvement is always challenging, however; there is always a job to be done. It is an evolving process. Those who are managing policy constantly need to innovate or supplement to solve the challenges. Key stage 2 is an example of that. My right hon. Friend mentioned the need constantly to re-evaluate. That is not to deny, however, that in the round key stage 2 has not been a success when we compare performance between 1997 and the present.
Since 1997, there has been a 10 per cent. improvement in English and a 14 per cent. improvement in maths. The literacy and numeracy strategies have played an enormous part in ensuring higher performances from pupils. However, that is not to say that we have not reached a plateau, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged.
The Tories ask why we have targets if we do not meet them. I argue that it is right to have targets and. when we do not quite reach them, to acknowledge it, as long as we are travelling in the right direction. We need targets to raise expectations; to set policies; to target resources; and to analyse what is happening. After that analysis, the professional course is to further the policies by setting new targets and refocusing existing policies to ensure that the missing aspects are put in place.
Chris Grayling: Given the fact that teachers are leaving the profession at an alarming rate—one in seven each year—and that the exam system is clearly in chaos, as well as the obvious disciplinary problems in too many of our schools, will the hon. Lady say exactly what she has in mind when she uses the word "refocusing"?
Liz Blackman: I was about to come on to that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, teachers are moving into the profession at an extremely rapid rate and we have never had a better qualified and more professional group of teachers as acknowledged
354
by Ofsted. I will move on to discipline because the issue needs airing, but I should like to finish what I was saying about key stage 2.
One of the issues with key stage 2 is related to the differential between boys and girls, which partly relates to the way boys are socialised and partly to the way males and females develop their linguistic skills. That issue has been around for a long time, but we are at least beginning to tackle it. Support packages are now going into schools and catch-up programmes are being rolled out nationally for all year 5 pupils, which is absolutely right. So further literacy support is being given. The intention is to give further support to schools that do not perform as well as others that operate in similar catchment areas, to ensure that their pupils catch up by having access to the same quality of education as their peers in similar schools.
The Government cannot be complacent, as the Secretary of State has clearly signalled this afternoon, but progress never follows an even, upward line. There are blockages in the system. For me, the issue involves recognising those blockages and finding ways to solve them, not sweeping them under the carpet and saying that we have not got a problem.
When I was considering speaking about key stage 2 in this debate, a press release arrived on my desk, and I shall quote it to rebalance the picture slightly:
"National test result for 11-year-olds have just been published by the Government and Derbyshire pupils have outperformed schools across the East Midlands and the rest of the country."
As I represent a Derbyshire constituency, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my local LEA.
Moving on to behaviour and exclusion, yes, there is a challenge in our schools—a challenge that a few pupils pose to teachers because of their unacceptable behaviour. I have always maintained that good teaching can eliminate poor behaviour from 90 per cent. of pupils. That quality of teaching draws pupils into a more positive attitude, works with them and moves them on to success. That is why we must continue to strive to improve the quality of teaching. I acknowledge that the quality of teaching is rising, as does the chief inspector of schools, but there is no doubt that children on the fringe of bad behaviour will not stray if they are given the right sort of high quality teaching.
That said, some children in our schools will demonstrate challenging and disturbed behaviour for whatever reason, and no matter how many strategies are tried, schools simply cannot move those children towards behaving acceptably. That damages everyone—the pupils themselves, the pupil cohort, the teachers and the reputation of the schools. That issue has to be addressed, but the question is how to do so.
There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about the issue of the structure for permanent exclusion. In the first instance, it is the head's responsibility, and, in the second instance, it is the responsibility of the independent appeals panel. I agree with Chris Patten's justification for setting up the appeals panel in 1986, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—parents must have an independent place to go to challenge a decision. That is an issue of natural justice, as he mentioned, and is related to the Human Rights Acts. There is also a place for the Secretary of State to comment on a decision that I, too, believe was

355
profoundly wrong, as the guidance was not followed by the independent appeals panel. The structure and mechanisms of the system, however, have served us quite well since being set up in 1986. As has been flagged up, the guidance needs to be tougher and stronger and needs to make it extremely clear that the issue relates to the impact of such pupils on the school community. I therefore welcome the fact that one of the members of the independent appeals panel will be someone who has had direct experience in the classroom, which is essential.
I wanted to move on to the issue of the Conservative party's stance on this matter, but I must confess that I completely lost track of what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was proposing this afternoon when he was making policy on the hoof. I had understood that the Conservatives' official policy was that there should be legal home-school contracts, which I think is a barmy idea—it is extremely bureaucratic, and there would be many legal challenges and resource implications for the school. It would be a plate of spaghetti—a complete nightmare. It is therefore far better to toughen up the present system, which has served us quite well, than to follow that route, which would be a knee-jerk reaction.
Before I finish on the issue of exclusions, we should also recognise the importance of dealing with and acknowledging the rights of children who are permanently excluded. I recall from my teaching days that there was nothing for them—it was very difficult to get them into other schools if they were very challenging, and they entered what I call the twilight zone. They never touched base with any educator whatever. They got into trouble and began to get involved in petty crime. There was nothing for them—not even a safety net. I praise the Government's commitment to and delivery of full-time education for those children, for all sorts of reasons, but mostly because their behaviour is not irreversible at that stage in their lives if we do not walk away from them, which the previous Government did and this Government have not done. I note the comment by the Office for Standards in Education that the education standards of permanently excluded pupils have sharply improved, which is absolutely right.
Truancy is part of the problem, and good teaching minimises it, but there are other reasons for truancy, not least parents condoning it. A multi-agency approach is important in that regard. It is important that parents are supported and that there are police on the streets who are part of the solution in terms of identifying truants. That is where community beat teams, which have been doing sterling work in my community, fit in. Ultimately, however, it is important to recognise that parents, too, have a responsibility. When they are not discharging their responsibility and not accepting the support for that responsibility, they should be challenged, and we should make greater use of parenting orders and fines.
Rob Marris: Would my hon. Friend agree that, by way of analogy—this is an Opposition day debate, and I can see only five Conservative Members in the Chamber—the Conservatives are playing truant and their quiet man is not taking responsibility in leading them either?
Liz Blackman: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point. The Chamber has indeed become rather sparsely populated.
I want to move on to other issues. I want to flag up another particularly good policy, which, again, relates to discipline, truancy and school performance—the idea of federations of schools and of taking good leaders who have a track record of turning schools around and making their talents available to others. We should take that forward swiftly. On the day that policy was announced, a head from Sheffield, I think, was wheeled out by Radio 4 to comment on it. He had turned around the culture in several schools that were now performing well. We need to encourage more good leaders to come into schools as heads, but at the same time, we need to use the people with the track record and the expertise who are already there.
I have concentrated on discipline, achievement and behaviour, but those are bread-and-butter issues. I am really disappointed that the Conservatives have virtually nothing positive to say about how they would move the agenda forward and raise achievement. I am equally disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have come forward with very little. We have the commitment and the track record in terms of pupil performance, but what really heartens me is that, when we have got it wrong, we have the honesty to say that we have got it wrong. It is not easy to move forward. When there are problems, we tackle them, and we say that there are problems. We consult and we try again to move the agenda forward. That is important. We are an open Government in that respect. By listening, and by recognising the issues, we have achieved a great deal in the last five years.
5.57 pm
Chris Grayling: I shall try to keep my remarks relatively brief, as I know that other Members want to speak.
The House will not be surprised to learn that my biggest concern in relation to this debate is the situation surrounding the school in my constituency; however, I also want to make several points about the predicament that many of the other head teachers in my area and around the country face in trying to maintain the improvements that have taken place under governments of both parties in the past 15 years.
It is important to remember that recent international surveys of educational performance in different countries—the most recent of which was carried out by the OECD a couple of years ago—highlighted the high quality of the education that our 15-year-olds receive. Those 15-year-olds have been educated under Conservative and Labour Governments. The reality is that, over that 15-year period, good work has been done across the political spectrum to raise standards, given that in the preceding era, teaching strategies in this country were broadly speaking not as good as they should have been.
The tragic thing today is that we risk losing many of the improvements that have taken place over that 15-year period. Ultimately, we risk losing them because the teaching profession is becoming demoralised and teachers are leaving their jobs. Good heads and good

357
teachers are leaving, for a variety of reasons. At the heart of those reasons—this is backed up by specific research concerning those leaving the profession—is the issue of discipline. Sadly, although the vast majority of our young people are a credit to us—they work hard, achieve excellent exam results and go on to do an excellent job in our society—a minority continues to cause trouble in our schools. That minority continues to disrupt otherwise hard-working classes and to set an example to its peers that we would not wish to be set. We should have a system that backs up heads and teachers when they take difficult decisions about that troublesome minority. As we have seen in my constituency in the past few weeks, the tragedy is that such a system does not exist.
I feel very much for the predicament that the governors and teachers of Glyn school have faced. This is not the first time that they have had to face such a problem. Eighteen months ago, they decided to exclude a boy who was caught with drugs in the school. That decision was overturned by an appeal panel and it caused great distress in the school, not because of the principle of the individual case but because of the signal that it sent to every other pupil that they could get away with it. There is no ultimate sanction if pupils who are excluded can go to an appeal panel and be placed back in the same classroom with the same teachers who tried to discipline them in the first place. What message does that send to anyone tempted to cause trouble in future?
One can imagine the great distress caused to the head of the school, his governing body and the teaching staff when the same thing happened again 18 months later. The circumstances may have been different but, as outlined specifically in a letter from the Secretary of State, they were such that the decision to exclude should have had a rock-solid foundation. There should have been no doubt at all. There had been a clear indication from the Government that, this time, in taking a decision to exclude, the school and its governing body was right. One can imagine their distress when the decision was overturned and they were instructed to take the boys back into the school.
We have seen the rest of the story unfold in the media in the past few days. It is very much my hope that the media attention will die down and that the school, the LEA and the parents of the boys can sort the matter out. The school will then be able to return to normal. The boys will be able to continue their education, which they must have, in a different place, perhaps separated from each other, but in an environment in which they can be sorted out and placed on to the straight and narrow and achieve their potential without a further signal being sent to pupils in that and other schools that they can get away with such behaviour.
Fundamentally, however, we will still be left with a system that is flawed. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that only 3 per cent. of exclusions were overturned by appeals panels, but one third of appeals involve pupils being returned to schools from which they have been excluded. In one third of exclusion cases, a message is sent to the rest of the boys and girls in those schools that they can get away with bad behaviour. That is wrong. It is right and proper that every case is considered carefully, and I do not believe that any head teacher or governing body takes lightly the decision to exclude. I must correct the hon. Member for Erewash
358
(Liz Blackman), who said that the decision is taken first by the head and then by the appeal panel. It is not. We have governing bodies that represent local authorities, teaching and non-teaching staff and other people in the community; who better to be the ultimate arbiter of whether a head teacher's decision is correct?
Caroline Flint: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the media taking a lower profile in this case, but it is one case, and most appeal panels do not overturn the decision taken by a school. Did the hon. Gentleman have anything to do with leaking the story to the press in the first place?
Chris Grayling: I did not leak anything to the press. I have been totally open in raising my concerns locally and nationally. I wrote to the Secretary of State at the very start to say that there was a concern that needed to be sorted out. The hon. Lady does my constituents discredit if she does not recognise the angst in my constituency and in the whole area about what has happened and if she does not realise the extent of the debate that has taken place locally. It does not take anyone to leak a story like that to the media: it gathered momentum from the beginning, because of the genuine frustration that exists.
We must have a system that reflects the needs of schools, head teachers and governing bodies to maintain discipline. The Government must come up with a viable alternative, and I urge them to so because the need exists today.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Having been the chair of governors of a secondary school for 12 years, I sympathise with the school governors in this case. This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition called for the abolition of the appeal panels, but the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should come up with a new system. When will we hear the hon. Gentleman's or the Conservative party's solution to the problem?
Chris Grayling: There is no difference. I fundamentally believe, as does the Conservative party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—he set this out at our party conference that the ultimate decision must rest with the governing body. The governing body and the community that it represents must be the final arbiter.
Let us consider the consequences of getting things wrong. [Interruption.] It is all well and good Labour Members trying to score points across the Floor of the House. They do not seem to understand the importance of this issue. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards may chuckle, but does he not realise the strength of feeling in the teaching profession? Does he not talk to those head teachers who strongly believe that the current system is letting them down? Does he not read the surveys of teachers leaving the profession? As I said, in the last year for which we have figures available, 15.8 per cent. of teachers resigned from the profession. Some 85.2 per cent. referred to getting out of teaching and some 45 per cent. referred to pupil behaviour as a key reason for their decision to leave. Has the Minister really not understood the importance of this issue? Can

359
he not get to grips with it and give head teachers a framework within which they can work that is fair and just and protects the interests of their schools?
Rob Marris: Labour Members are a little confused about the system that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described earlier, in which LEAs would have a role in the appeals system. That is in contradistinction to the system that we have now. Will the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) therefore explain how that would have worked in the case of the two pupils at Glyn technology school?
Chris Grayling: I did not come here to engage in a prolonged discussion about Conservative policy. I want action from the Ministers who have the job today and whose responsibility it is to sort out problems such as those experienced in my constituency. They have not done and are not doing enough. I hope that they will soon do enough to ensure that such a case cannot recur.
This case is only one problem. We have also had the A-level fiasco, and Epsom college in my constituency was one of the schools caught up in that. The Government also appear actively to encourage higher education institutions to accept pupils with lower attainments than those achieved by pupils in other schools. I highlight the case of a young lady from Epsom college who achieved very good A-level results but who was turned down for a place at a university that had offered places to pupils with significantly lower attainments. That cannot be right. We will not help to achieve excellence in society if we force down the achievements of those at the top of the pile so as to promote those who need help but who should not be pushed to the top for no good reason.
If the problems are not solved and if the Government cannot deliver a fairer framework and provide better practical support to heads and teachers, they will leave the profession. The plateau that we have mentioned today will be there tomorrow, the day after, the year after and the year after that. It is all well and good Labour Members citing all the so-called achievements of the past five years, but if they talk to teachers and head teachers, they will find that there is a crisis of credibility in the current system. If the Government do not address that crisis and provide the real solutions that keep the best and most experienced teachers in the profession, the improvements that have taken place in recent years under all Governments will not be able to continue.
6.9 pm
John Mann: In the summer I spent a weekend at a game park in a faraway land. When a person visits a game park, he hopes to see the kill and have a sense of blood. As a new MP I have been waiting for the lions to devour the carcase of the downed Front Bencher. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed. The other part of the equation in a game park is the heat of the midday sun when mad dogs and Englishmen go out. That is when the jackal appears. It runs around but does
360
not make a kill. Instead, it scavenges for berries and insects. There are a lot of jackals here today, desperately looking around for the odd—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though the hon. Gentleman's contribution may be, he should address his remarks to the motion.
John Mann: In that case I shall talk about the coalfields.
For the past 80 years in my constituency, the education world—
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman took us on a tour of Africa and now we are off to the coalfields. Surely the subject of the debate is education.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is correct. I have already reminded the hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to that topic.
John Mann: On coalfields and education, for the past 80 years, mining villages—now mainly former mining villages—in my constituency have not been well served by successive Governments when it comes to education. For decade on decade, the grammar school debate has had little relevance to them, other than in relation to secondary moderns, which the overwhelming majority of children from pit villages attended. During that period the children in schools in my constituency were described as pit fodder because on the Friday on which they were leaving school at the age of 15—eventually it became 16—the National Coal Board turned up and told them which pit they were working in on the Monday. Whether they liked it or not, they went into the pit.
The legacy of that is twofold. In our surgeries we see the level of illiteracy among the older population. Scores of retired miners who come to see me with compensation claims for industrial injuries caused by working down the pit cannot read or write. They bring the wife, the son or the daughter with them because, although they will not admit it, they cannot fill in the forms to get the compensation themselves. That is the norm rather than the exception.
However, the problem of lack of aspiration is even more terrifying. I spent most of September holding a public inquiry into heroin use in coalfield communities. Until the pits shut, those communities had a cohesion and a discipline that held them together. To put it crudely, problems of discipline were sorted out beneath the ground. The pits are not open now but the communities still exist and, since the decimation of the pits in the 1980s and early 1990s, they have struggled to cope. The level of heroin addiction among younger people from those villages in my constituency leaves me incredulous. Some of them started using drugs in the early 1990s at the age of nine, 10 or 11. Five of them died this year. The one permanent institution is the school. I am not prepared to tolerate for those children —from this or any other Government—anything less than I expect for my children.
My children go to and have gone to local state schools. That is my experience of education today. I can see improvements year on year, as can the majority of

361
hon. Members, especially Labour Members. In addition to the results and the figures, we can witness the improvement. We can feel it and understand the difference today. I go to schools all the time. I take classes in secondary schools and talk to primary schools constantly, as I am sure do most of my colleagues. We find that teachers, head teachers and governors no longer have the problem of resources.
Let me give an example. Since Labour came to power, there have been 10 exclusions from Bircotes school in one of the big pit villages. The head teacher excluded pupils because he wanted to turn that failing school into one in which the community could take pride. He told me that the biggest difference was the £300,000 that was spent on the flat roof. The advantage of that was more fundamental than the saving in recurrent maintenance costs, which was substantial and detracted from other uses for the money; it also meant that his time as a head teacher could be used differently. Should his time be spent patching up 30-year-old flat roofs that should never have been built like that in the first place, or should it be spent on building standards in schools? That is the big difference.
Let me also give the example of New Manton primary school, which used to be called Manton primary school, and tell the House something about exclusions. The Government have made a bigger difference to primary schools than to anything else. The late Matthew Wilson—he died earlier this year when he was 19 years old—was in the headlines when he was five or six because the teachers went on strike when the governors would not exclude him. That school excluded someone three weeks ago.
The school is called New Manton because £1 million has been spent on it in the past six months. It has been rebuilt. That is the sort of change that we need if we are to raise aspirations among those children. For 80 years they have been told their place in society. They have been told where to go, and it did not matter whether it was a secondary modern or a comprehensive. They have been told where they would be for the rest of their lives. That does not create aspiration. When the jobs and the job security go, a time bomb ticks away that encourages a lifestyle of truancy, absenteeism and experimentation with drugs, especially heroin. I assure Ministers that when I publish our report on Monday, I will deliver a copy to the Department for Education and Skills. It makes four recommendations on the national curriculum and on how we create aspiration in schools in such communities.
The debate should be about how we further that process and extend to other schools the gains made at Knights Templar school, which my eldest daughter attended until the election. We need to translate the successes at brilliant schools to schools that are slowly beginning to be successful so that that success is replicated in every corner of the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on a considered and relevant speech, but to people living in my constituency—and to those who went before them—it is a disgrace to hear the nonsense and rubbish that we have heard from the jackals at play.
6.19 pm
Mr. David Rendel: It is a little odd that on this Conservative Opposition day so few Conservative Members have been here.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is the only Liberal here.
Mr. Rendel: Indeed I am, but this is not a Liberal Democrat Opposition day. It is perhaps significant that the Leader of the Opposition today made a remark that some Conservative Members may be embarrassed about.
Earlier, a Conservative Member criticised comprehensives. I should like to start on a note of personal gratitude to the state school system. The last of my three children has just left school. All my children were educated entirely in the state system, and they got a great deal out of it. I know that many of their colleagues and friends also had a very good education in the state system. As people tell me is unmistakeable from my accent, and as you can probably tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not a product of the state system. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) never ceases to remind me of that fact whenever I speak in the House. Nevertheless, I feel, for a number of reasons, that my children have had a much better education than most children who go through the independent system now. They have emerged with a lot more knowledge of the world and a better understanding of how normal people live. They have certainly had excellent teaching throughout their school careers.
I realise that that is not true of the state system in every part of the country. It happens that in my part of the world, west Berkshire, we have an excellent state system. I would have been happy to send my children to any of the schools in west Berkshire, and I am delighted that our system is so good.
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rendel: I apologise to hon. Members but I have been asked to keep my speech short, so I have said that I will take no interventions. I am not trying to be rude; I know that a number of other Members want to speak, so I must do without interventions today.
There are undoubtedly problems in the state system, some of which have been highlighted today. I turn first to the A-levels fiasco. I certainly do not agree with the phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today when he said that this year's A-levels are not worth the paper that they were written on. I regard that as an appalling slur on the students who have taken A-levels and, in many cases, gained grades that are fully justified and of which they can be proud. They will feel that those grades have been maligned by the right hon. Gentleman's remark. It is interesting that when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was challenged to confirm that he agreed with his leader, he failed to do so. Indeed, he refused to do so and seemed rather embarrassed by the remark. Perhaps he wishes that the quiet man of politics had been a bit quieter or shut up altogether.

363
The remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) were very interesting, and I am pleased to see that he is still here. His remarks were to the point, and he asked a series of questions to which I hope the Minister will properly respond. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is not the only one who has come across cases of the sort that he mentioned. Obviously, because I have children who have friends in different schools around the country, I have heard of various cases in which young people have had A-level papers marked with very different grades, in spite of the fact they have the same level of intelligence and received the same teaching.
That is inexplicable, particularly when, as happened in at least one case that I know of but not in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the papers were returned and the teachers confirmed that it was extraordinary that one paper should have been marked with a U when the others received a much higher grade. There seemed to be no difference in the standard of the papers. Either the paper had been completely mis-marked or there had been a misunderstanding about what was required. I suspect that the Government will tell us that the teachers and pupils in such cases simply did not understand what was required in particular A2 papers this year. If so, surely the Government should be criticised for utterly failing to pilot the A2 stage and make sure that it was understood in good time.
The whole fiasco has had a further effect on the universities. We know that not many papers were re-graded and not many students will have to move university, finding that they had the right to go to their first choice after having decided that they must go to their second choice. However, there is a large number of young people who were left wondering which university they would be able to attend. When it became clear that a number of papers would be re-graded, they were left hanging, trying to decide whether they should take up their place at their second choice of university or wait in case they could go to their first choice.
As we know, a number decided at the last minute not to go up to university at all this year but to put off their course and take a gap year. I hope that the Minister will tell the House whether he is researching how many unfilled university places there are as a result of students having decided at the last minute not to take them up. Sadly, many will not have got the re-grading that they needed, but even so they may have decided to give up for this year and left places unfilled. I understand that the Government have guaranteed that they will pay the extra costs caused by those students who decide to move university, but will they pay the universities for the cost of any unfilled places resulting from the fiasco that they caused? How many such places will there be? Will that cause a bulge next year when those pupils will want to find a place?
I want to make a further quick criticism of the Government that concerns the intolerable delay in making decisions about the new system of student finance, and I am delighted to see the relevant Minister, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, in her place. That delay is making life very difficult for those who are trying to decide when and where to go to university next year, and I hope that the
364
Minister who winds up the debate will give an absolute guarantee that the new system will be in place not just before the new university year starts but before students have to make those decisions. Knowledge of what the financial package will be is a critical part of that decision.
There is much excellence in our schools, colleges and universities at present. There are some excellent teachers, head teachers, governors and LEAs, but sadly they are too often let down by too much testing and too little teaching. When the testing proves flawed, as has happened this year, we get the worst of both worlds. For that at least the Government ought to be held responsible, and they ought to take responsibility tonight.
6.28 pm
Caroline Flint: My constituency is much like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann): a collection of satellite communities, including mining villages and rural areas, in this case around Doncaster. He was right to say that young men would come out of school at 15 and be sent down the pit. Young women had nowhere else to go, and like men they suffered from the lack of aspiration. There were generations about whom Governments could say, "They don't need an education. They can work in steel, in mining, on the roads or in other manual jobs." They rejected those people, and that is why today significant numbers of older people cannot read or write.
What we know today is that children's expectations are not those of their grandparents, and that those jobs have enormously declined. Even to do manual work for local authorities, such as that done by carpenters, electricians, plumbers and plasterers, one needs to know how to read and write so that one can organise the work. It is no longer enough to have the manual skills to do the job; one needs to be able to use a computer.
Future generations—and the kids going through school at the moment—face a major and difficult challenge. In mining areas, like many others that depended on heavy industries and manual labour, we are having to challenge some of the ideas of grandparents and parents and, to be honest, of some of those who work in education and support it in our local authorities. I say that as a Labour Member of Parliament from a Labour area.
I remember only a few years ago being in one of the primary schools in my constituency where this Government had provided funds to create a computer learning centre. A new classroom was developed, software and hardware was installed and the kids were there; it was a great day. The head teacher whispered in my ear, "Of course, these kids won't need this." I am pleased that everything that this Government have done has challenged inequality and the idea that a child born in poverty will never have the chance to take GCSEs and A-levels and go to university. That idea was accepted for too long. During 18 years in government, the Conservative party did nothing to tackle such discrimination and inequality.
Several attacks have been made today on this Government's policies, but the Opposition Front-Bench teams have not suggested how they would turn round the situation or where they would find the money to

365
improve things. We know from the Conservative party conference that the Tories would like to introduce legal home-school contracts. This Government introduced such agreements. Incidentally, before they did so, my children's primary school already had them. Good head teachers saw contracts as a carrot not a stick with which to develop a dialogue with parents on their children entering school. Not only did I and the head teacher sign a home-school contract, my child did as well. That was part of creating a dialogue early on, which is right. The Conservatives opposed home-school agreements when this Government suggested them and accused the Government of being too bureaucratic. Now they want to turn what is a very good way to start communication with parents and families into a legal minefield.
The Conservatives are also interested in vouchers. We all remember the nursery vouchers. They did nothing to improve early-years education or standards in the sector, yet the Conservatives now want to introduce such a system for schools too. They want to give a parent a voucher who would then on their tod find a school for their child. It would be a little like "Supermarket Sweep". The system is flawed, as shown by the introduction of nursery vouchers. Not even Margaret Thatcher or Keith Joseph suggested introducing vouchers for schools, but the new Thatcherites of today want to do so.
Such a system does not in any way recognise the different needs and challenges of each community. It has nothing to do with education for the many. It would promote education for the few who feel able to articulate their children's needs and find a school suitable. It has nothing to do with people wanting to go to a school in their community that meets the standards that they require for their children. It has nothing to do with dealing with truancy or disaffection.
As many of my hon. Friends have said this afternoon, some of the problems in our communities require that schools are integral to the communities and projects on the ground. As someone who sits on the board of a sure start scheme, I know that such schemes are a good example of trying to work with families and schools before children attend school. In order to help schools, my sure start board has funded staff to conduct home-school liaison before children start nursery school.
Such partnership is about creating a community and recognising that most kids spend most of their time outside school. It is about what affects them on their walk to school or in the home. It is about addressing their aspirations and poverty in the community around them. That is why Connexions, sure start and multi-agency work is so important. That is why I am pleased that the most recent education legislation considers giving schools more of a role in developing more on-site wrap-around services—child care, adult learning clubs or whatever—and allowing them the freedom to develop the services with the community that are so desperately needed.
A-levels have been the subject of much of the debate. I do not want to repeat what others have said, but I would like to say this: there was never a golden era when A-levels were not criticised. When I took my O-levels and A-levels, the criticism was that students had just one shot. If they did not perform on that day at that time in that examination, that was it. It did not matter if someone had terrible hay fever that affected their
366
performance or what issues they had brought from home. I remember fellow students feeling that they had done so much work over two years yet none of it had been recorded or appreciated.
There was a debate over why girls were not doing as well as boys, and the old argument that boys could cram things in on the day. There were accusations about cramming and students not getting a learning experience. That is partly why we moved to a system that offered some continual assessment as well as some measure of performance under examination conditions. That is right. That does not mean that there are not issues over striking the right balance, but let us not try to return to what I do not think were the good old days. Is it a bad thing to record as a result of continual assessment young people's progress over the two-year course—GCSEs or A-levels—and their consistent attainment? If the system means that more people get their GCSEs and A-levels, what is wrong with that? Such a system is a truer record of a young person's performance.
We have a real challenge ahead of us. The comprehensive system must be looked at. We must consider how specialist schools should work. I have been a very strong advocate in this House of 14-plus education and the vocational element to it. We must ensure that that works. We must have an education system that tackles the things that do not work but at the same time recognises that, unless we put resources in, we will not be able to change anything.
6.38 pm
Alistair Burt: What outsiders find puzzling about politics is how a debate that embraces a wide number of subjects and in which all Members are interested becomes so polarised. Those on one side make it clear that, as far as they are concerned, the starting date for everything wonderful about the education system happens to be 1997, and that nothing of any value occurred before then. Everybody in the real world understands that the process of government is continuous. All Governments do good things and less good things. The Labour Government have done some good things and less good things, and the same is true of previous Conservative Governments.
Obviously, an Opposition day debate puts into sharp focus the things that might be wrong. That is the purpose of opposition, but the point of the debate is not to denigrate everything in the education system but to focus criticism properly where it might be made. Some Labour Members have tended to take a blinkered view that there is only one starting date and that only one party cares about a particular topic. That runs counter to the intelligence of the population, who know that that is not true and that it is not the way to go about things.
As for criticising aspects of new Conservative policy, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and her colleagues might remember that some of the things that we had in our policy ideas box a few years ago are now the policy of the Labour party and the Labour Government. I enjoyed Prime Minister's Question Time today, at which the Prime Minister teased my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about completing the Thatcher revolution, when many members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party believe that he knows more about completing the Thatcher revolution than anyone on the Opposition Benches.

367
I shall concentrate my remarks on the concern about examinations expressed in the Opposition motion. Three aspects cause me particular concern. I am puzzled about why the fuss about improvement—the higher quality of students and their grades—arose in the first place. I am concerned about the Government's role in understanding that the structure of the new examination would lead to problems. Finally, I am worried about the reasons why there should be any perception of Government interference in the process.
First, I am puzzled about why, when it emerged that A-level grades would be better than in the past, there was such an extraordinary panic among the Government and the examination boards. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made clear, the whole structure of the examination was designed so that hard-working pupils would achieve better grades. First, they were taking a public examination at the end of the first year of the sixth form, which had not previously taken place; secondly, the way in which the examination was structured and the modules introduced ensured that those who worked hard could count on reaching a basic standard, and that a significant improvement in grades was highly likely.
I should have thought that a Government who always castigate Opposition parties if they raise a scintilla of doubt about grade inflation would have spent the summer preparing the British public for a significant improvement in A-level grades and explaining precisely how that improvement, which I find entirely understandable, had come about. At what stage did someone suddenly think that it was a problem? I cannot understand that. The examination was set up and people worked harder, so grades should have been better—but at some stage somebody panicked. Why? We have never had a clear explanation.
The second source of my puzzlement and concern is how the Government could have known nothing about the way in which the very nature and structure of the examination would lead to higher grades and cause some of the problems on which Mike Tomlinson reported. How did they not know that that was going on? That is the most significant challenge facing the Government tonight.
The House debates many issues that affect people's lives only tangentially, but occasionally we do things that affect people on a personal level for the rest of their lives. In his eloquent and excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) described the personal difficulties affecting some of his constituents that will mark them for life. When a great principle goes wrong, the bottom line is that people are damaged. The Government cannot and should not walk away from their responsibility for that, and they will not do so. We have had only the first major report and this is only the first Commons debate, but there will be more, because the Government are responsible for real damage on this occasion.
First, how did the original intention behind the AS-level system—to broaden the post-16 curriculum and to have five subjects going down to three—get lost, so that it became four subjects going down to three? There is
368
not much broadening in that. Was the upheaval really necessary if we were to have only four, not five, subjects initially? How did that come about? Who took that decision?
Secondly, the recommendation was that the relative weighting of AS and A2 should be 40:60, to acknowledge the fact that the first year examination must necessarily be easier because students had had only one year of study. Who took the decision to make the weighting 50:50? Name the Minister who took that decision and explain the reasoning that led to their failure to understand that that would cause the very inflation about which the Government are now concerned. Was it a wise decision, who took it, and why was the original 40:60 recommendation turned down?
Thirdly, there is the issue of where the grade boundaries should be set and the grades defined. As Mike Tomlinson reports, the system contains no definition of what constitutes an A-grade, a C-grade or an E-grade. How did that come about? Who failed to spot the omission? Which Minister was responsible? The QCA is not an independent organisation: it is accountable, not to Parliament, but to the Department for Education and Skills. How is it that throughout the years of development, the problem was not spotted?
Is it true that at a relatively early stage, in 1998 or 1999, meetings took place between Government advisers and representatives of the QCA—meetings at which senior officials from the DFES were present—during which the deficiencies in structure were brought out? If it is true, why were the problems not communicated to Ministers? Did they not know? Why did they not take responsibility?
Can Ministers explain how a school that knows what it is doing—of which there are thousands throughout the country— can produce a pupil who works hard and gets an A-grade on an examination, but receives a U-grade on a piece of coursework? How is that possible? We have had no explanation so far. We have raised all those issues, but received no answers—certainly not from the Secretary of State, who hardly mentioned the examinations issue.
The third source of puzzlement is the perception of what the Government wanted and the suspicion of interference. Could it be that in education, as in every other sphere of public service, nothing in this country moves unless the Government know all about it; and when things go their way, they claim credit, but when something goes wrong, their hands are snatched away as though they had had a collective electric shock, and it is all somebody else's fault? I can provide examples of that. We have not gone into the individual learning accounts scandal today, although the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned it and we could have explored it. A system was set up to help people to get back into the world of education, but they were let down because of chronic Government failure, for which Ministers have never taken responsibility.
When the Government manipulate access to university as they have been doing, is it any wonder that people suspect they might be guilty of manipulating the examination system as well? I agree with Mike Tomlinson that there is no evidence of direct ministerial interference, but everyone in the Chamber and outside can understand how such a perception might arise, given

369
the fact of an interfering, manipulative, centralising, authoritarian, bullying Government. That is what the Government are, and that is why, when something goes wrong, people outside suspect that the Government had a hand in it.
If we are to move on, we have to recognise that the Government are at fault and Ministers have to acknowledge that. They have to explain how they knew nothing until we reached the current stage. They have to answer the questions that thousands of school pupils and their teachers are asking about how the individual who should be responsible can pass on that responsibility to others.
If we want to find a way out of the uncertainty and translate the good things that happen in some schools to schools throughout the country—as we all do, without exception and regardless of party—the one thing that is needed is certainty in the system. The Government are guilty of having failed the public: they have introduced uncertainty into the examination system, which has been thoroughly damaging to the chances of hundreds of thousands of this country's students. What is needed to restore that certainty are an independent inquiry into the examination system—including GCSEs as well as A-levels—and an independent QCA. If we can achieve those things, we might rescue something from the mess.
Finally, I want the Government to answer this question: if the boards' perception was that somebody somewhere wanted grades to be lowered, how did that perception come about? How was it communicated to them, or did they just make it up? How did Bill Stubbs come to perceive that the marks that pupils had worked hard to achieve and which the examinations had been constructed to create were wrong and had to be lowered? Was it the fairies, or did somebody somewhere give the boards a real sense that that had to be done? Bearing in mind the Government's track record, most of us know the answer.
6.50 pm
Mr. Chris Pond: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for whom I have had respect for many years. My respect has been greatly enhanced in the past few minutes. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Opposition care about education. This is an Opposition day debate, but most Opposition Members have been playing truant: for most of the time, hardly one sixth of a primary school class has been sitting on the Opposition Benches—and this is their own debate.
The debate has, of course, nothing to do with education: it is all about trying to exploit the discomfort of A-level students. That strategy was revealed and undermined this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition told all A-level students that, despite their hard work, their A-levels were not worth the paper on which they were written. That is shameful. I hope that in the last few minutes of the debate an Opposition Front Bencher will apologise to A-level students in my constituency and elsewhere for what the right hon. Gentleman said, and will say that he did not mean it and that he withdraws his statement. I do not expect that we will hear that apology.
The opening remarks of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), were presented to us without him being able to tell us of
370
the changed achievements of 11-year-olds between when the Government took office and now. I shall put the changes on the record. The percentage of pupils achieving the expected level 4 in English at the age of 11 rose from 63 per cent. in 1997 to 75 per cent. last year. It rose from 62 per cent. to 71 per cent. in maths and from 69 per cent. to 87 per cent. in science. I am proud of what pupils, teachers, governors and parents have achieved. I am proud also of the Government's part in that.
There is still much more to do, but when I became a Member about five years ago primary schools in my constituency were operating with broken windows, leaking roofs, very few books and no IT equipment—rotten conditions in which children were supposed to learn and in which teachers were supposed to teach. I am proud that we have been able to do something about that.
Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Pond: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me. We are very short of time, so I cannot take interventions.
An important part of the improvement that we have achieved is reform, but we have also been able to put more resources into education. As has been said, the resources that have been made available have lubricated the necessary changes. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the announcement this week that Gravesham will be included as one of 13 excellence clusters, which will mean extra resources and extra investment for schools in some of the most deprived parts of my constituency.
Kent county council recently announced that it has been able to make use of the extra education resources to open nine new nurseries, which is eight more than we had before. That should be a cause for celebration, so I was a little surprised to find primary head teachers in my constituency slightly down in the mouth when I met them a few days ago. They had recently had a presentation from Kent county council, which is Conservative controlled, although I am sure that that has nothing to do with what I am about to say. The presentation informed them that, despite the 6 per cent. increase in education spending to 2005–06, there will be a loss to schools in Kent of 8 per cent.—£40 million over the medium term. That is equivalent of the closure of every school in my constituency, and an inability to meet basic standards.
I have the presentation that was made by an officer of Kent county council. I shall circulate it to every head teacher in my constituency. I hope that the Department will ensure that it goes to every head teacher in Kent. The letter that I and other Members received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 8 July underlines the fact that the Government have given a guarantee that no authority schools
"will lose out in real terms as a result of introducing the new system."
That refers to the new local government finance system. The letter continues:
"This protection of the funding assessment will be in addition to the protection offered by the proposed continued operation of grant floors and ceilings."

371
It is disappointing that, despite this being an Opposition day debate on education, we have not heard any positive proposals from the Opposition. They have attempted only to criticise what the Government have achieved, often in difficult circumstances, over five years. They have made no attempt to congratulate students on what they achieved through hard work. To tell young people that their qualifications are not worth the paper on which they are written is shameful. I hope that Opposition Members will take their last opportunity in the debate to pay tribute to those young people and perhaps to give some credit for what has been achieved in education.
6.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to contribute to the debate, which has been interesting, not least because of Labour Members' desire to steer well away from any justification of the Government's activities and of the conduct of the Department, which is the subject of the debate and on which I shall focus. Happily, there will be other opportunities to discuss how Conservative policy will be able to contribute to an increase in standards in schools.
As for the conduct of the Department, I shall refer briefly to three issues, each of which has the same characteristics—namely, that Ministers are responsible for their decisions. They should have known that problems were occurring: indeed, they were warned that problems would occur. Over the summer—this is the second day after the conclusion of the summer recess—the chickens came home to roost, yet Ministers will not take responsibility for what occurred.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) I had the opportunity to refer to the difficulties associated with the Criminal Records Bureau. Ministers knew that there had been problems virtually since the beginning of the programme in February. They had been warned. In July, Home Office Ministers said that teachers would have access to list 1999 and that there would not be a problem. They said that if timetables were met, there would not be a backlog by the end of the summer, but they failed. It was their responsibility, having introduced the system. I declare an interest because I was a member of the Committee that considered the Protection of Children Bill. Ministers knew that they had to get right an important issue. They delayed the introduction of the system so as to get it right, but they failed to do so.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying clearly for more than three years that schools should make decisions on the merits of a pupil's exclusion, and that the final decision should rest with the school. Action should then be taken outside the school through the improvement of pupil referral units, or progress centres. That would ensure that discipline and decisions made in schools were defended. It would restore an ethos within schools and remove one of the reasons why teachers find it increasingly difficult to teach and to maintain discipline.
Some of my constituents work at the OCR. The Secretary of State has sought to rely on the Tomlinson report but to take account only of its second half. She
372
says that there is no documentary evidence of Ministers having any responsibility for creating a perception that grade boundaries should be redefined to secure a particular statistical outcome for the 2001 results. The front end of the report, however, is all about the policy decisions that have been taken. I shall not rehearse those decisions in detail as they were mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). Ministers decided that although the content of the AS course made up 40 per cent. of the demands placed upon students, 50 per cent. of the marks would be available for it. Ministers decided that it would be the subject of retakes. That meant, as Tomlinson said, that within the design of the system, it was implied that there would be higher grades than would have been the case in the legacy A-level.
As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel) made clear, Ministers decided to proceed with A2 without piloting and with limited piloting for AS- levels, and Mr. Tomlinson could find no justification for proceeding without proper piloting of the A2-levels. Nevertheless, those decisions were made. It is clear that the exam boards were unable to find any common standard or any mechanism by which to aggregate the results from different years, with different demands placed upon students, in order to produce one result. They were told that they should try to make that statistically more consistent with the previous year's A-level results, with no mechanism for doing that. The QCA did not give them one.
More than a year ago, as I said in the course of the speech from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, given the problems that had emerged in relation to the AS-level, the Secretary of State, whom I am pleased to see in her place to hear the debate, said that she would take responsibility for seeing that the reforms would go through in a way that would secure the A-levels as a crucial benchmark of quality. More than a year later, we find that that did not happen. The examination boards had no mechanism established through the QCA to aggregate results in a form that would relate directly the standards from the legacy A-level to the standard set in the new A-level.
It was to have been a new base year, but by some mechanism—as yet we do not know precisely how it happened—the QCA was encouraging the examination boards to treat the two as though they were precisely the same, when in practice they were different examinations, with different structures, imposing different demands at different stages of the sixth form period. It should have been acknowledged as a new base year, but it was not. The Secretary of State took responsibility more than a year ago for delivering those reforms and making sure that the Department would get them right. They went wrong, as other things went wrong, and the Secretary of State has failed to take responsibility for them today.
7.2 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who made an excellent speech, as is typical of him. He reminded the House that in all the current crises in education, Ministers were warned; Ministers had notice before they happened. They were warned that the way in

373
which they introduced AS-levels and the new sixth form curriculum would cause problems. They proceeded regardless. They were warned that the Criminal Records Bureau could not complete the checks in time for schools to open at the beginning of the school term, and they failed to take action. On all the key issues in education, Ministers have had adequate warning, but their response has been less than adequate.
Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) referred to the measure of the Government being intervention without substance, and he prayed in aid the Minister for School Standards, who used the wonderful metaphor of the doughnut—the education policy with a hole in the centre, even though it has a lot of icing on top. It was a brilliant metaphor, if I may say so, and the hon. Gentleman should take full credit for it. It says everything that it is necessary to say about the Government's approach to education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford went on to speak about the fiasco of the Criminal Records Bureau checks, and the fact that 100 people had been wrongly accused by the Criminal Records Bureau and thousands are stuck in the system. Even more worryingly, perhaps, there has been no common sense and no consistency in the way in which the Government have dealt with that crisis. There was advice from the Secretary of State one day and contrary advice the next. Schools were left for an unacceptably long period not knowing which way to turn. Ultimately, they were left to make their own decisions and to risk the consequences.
The Minister for School Standards confirmed to me in a written answer today that no guidance was given to the Criminal Records Bureau about the way in which people who have an unbroken record as teachers should be treated. There was no differentiation between those who were applying new, those who had no record of good service in our schools, and those who did have such a record. That, again, was an appalling breach of common sense.
In the debate we heard about the Government's record on truancy and the fact that another target had been missed. Truancy was meant to go down, but it has gone up. We heard about the Government failing to meet their primary school targets. We heard even from the Secretary of State that she stands by the targets, but I think she said that she had no idea how she would reach them. She thought that they were worth while in themselves, but she had no practical suggestions as to how we would move away from the plateau which she accepted we had reached.
Mr. Alan Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he agrees with the statement this afternoon by the leader of his party that A-levels are not worth the paper that they are written on?
Mr. Brady: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has bothered to drag himself into the Chamber at this late stage of an education debate to read out a script from his Whips Office. He has done it perfectly well, but what he needs to address, what Ministers need to address, and what the Secretary of State signally failed to deal with earlier is the A-level crisis into which the
374
Government have plunged the country. What he has failed to deal with, what the Secretary of State has failed to deal with—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The House must quieten down.
Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that even at this late stage, Labour Members and Ministers will begin to address seriously the crisis facing tens of thousands of young people in our country. Hon. Members are trying to make silly politics out of a situation that has been created entirely by Ministers.
Mr. Tomlinson, the author of the Tomlinson report, said today:
"After a month of inquiries, I still don't know what the standard ought to be. It is worrying that we have an examination system where the standards have not been adequately defined for examiners, teachers and pupils."
That is what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) should be addressing, that is what the Secretary of State failed to address at the beginning of the debate, and that is the shameful record that Ministers ought to be defending.
We heard from the Secretary of State a shockingly complacent catalogue. She believes, apparently, that in the years since she has been a Minister in the Education Department, we have had nothing but success. At a time when we have had a catalogue of errors, crises and mistakes directly attributable to Ministers, she believes that nothing has ever gone wrong. All she is doing today is trying to throw up a smokescreen. On exclusions, she said at the beginning of the debate, "My views are clear that schools must have the choice". I, on the other hand, have been entirely consistent, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Ms Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brady: No. The hon. Lady should listen. Having served, as I did, as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, she should know something about the subject. If she, like the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister earlier today, does not understand what the Government have done in relation to exclusions, she should listen.
The Secretary of State referred to the new guidance that has been introduced for appeals panels. She said nothing about the guidance that was introduced in 1999—the guidance that stated that schools must not exclude pupils under any circumstances until a variety of prior alternative strategies have been tried. That guidance said prior alternative strategies must be tried in respect of teachers who were assaulted or threatened, and the Secretary of State was a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills when it was introduced.
The Prime Minister said earlier that independent appeals panels were introduced in 1987 by the then Conservative Government. That is true, but let us consider the facts. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State must start to get a grip and take some responsibility, as her fingerprints are on all these issues, going back to 1997. She has had a ministerial role in the Department

375
for Education and Skills as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, a Minister of State and Secretary of State. She was a Minister in 1998 when the new Labour Government gave new powers to the appeals panels to reinstate excluded children. For the first time, those decisions were binding on all parties involved.
The relevant measures can be found in section 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The Secretary of State and I both served on the Standing Committee that considered the measures, which I am sure are currently her bedtime reading; indeed, I imagine that that is one of the reasons why she has sleepless nights. Section 67(1) states:
"A local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the relevant person to appeal against any decision of the governing body under section 66 not to reinstate a pupil".
Subsection (3) states:
"The decision of an appeal panel on an appeal pursuant to arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be binding on the relevant person, the governing body".
The Government made appeal panel findings binding. Last week, when the Secretary of State bungled into the circumstances surrounding the exclusions at Glyn school, she did not know the law and made a huge mess as a result.
Huw Irranca-Davies: In my former career as a lecturer, records of achievement were frequently put on my desk. Would the record of achievement of the Tory years be worth the paper that it is written on?
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman has been present for some of the debate, for which I give him credit, but he does not appear to have gained much from the experience. [HON. MEMBERS: "That's not surprising."] Opposition Members can say that, but I imagine that the hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) have different views, although they may have failed to enlighten their colleagues in their contributions.
Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman may recall that we served on the Select Committee on Education and Employment when it produced a report on disaffection. Does he agree with the Committee's finding—and there was consensus throughout the Committee—that unnecessary exclusions could be avoided if schools intervened earlier and used different strategies in relation to disruptive behaviour?
Mr. Brady: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has made such a sensible point. Of course, nobody wants schools to resort to exclusion where it is unnecessary. On the Glyn school, however, in relation to which the Secretary of State ventured to express the view that pupils should not be excluded, we are considering a case in which it is necessary to exclude and inappropriate to require the school to readmit pupils. None the less, we agree that early intervention is right and she makes an entirely sensible point.
Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brady: I have taken a lot of interventions and I should like to make a little more headway, as we do not have much time.
376
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) also contributed to the debate. He is a man for whom I have enormous affection and a very high regard. In the past five years or so, he has perhaps made more contributions that have been a slight irritant to those on his Front Bench than entirely helpful and supportive ones. The fact that he came to the Chamber to make a speech that was entirely an apology for the Government's record demonstrates the depth of the hole into which he thinks that they have already dug themselves. He suggested that the whole thing was about money and that there was no need for anything else in the whole of education policy. He went on to praise the fact that the Government had intervened massively in schools and education, taking away from the rights of parents, heads and teachers to run the affairs of schools. However, he also said that that had gone far enough, that moves should now be made in the opposite direction and that far less intervention was now needed. I was delighted to hear his contribution, but I do not believe that he did justice to the depth of the crisis that is affecting our schools and young people.
In an excellent and balanced contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) noted that, after trumpeting the importance of breadth with regard to the introduction of AS-levels and curriculum 2000, Ministers went on to reduce that breadth and undo precisely that which had been the intended purpose of introducing AS-levels. The decision was taken by Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills at a time when the Secretary of State was a Minister, so she was again party to that decision.
The Secretary of State cannot hide from the fact that she has been an Education Minister continuously for the past five years and a part of all the decisions and problems that are now coming home to roost. She has been party to the demoralisation of the teaching profession to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) referred. The collapse of discipline is largely due to the new guidance to appeals panels that she and her colleagues introduced—guidance that sought to make it impossible to exclude in any circumstances. As my hon. Friend said, it is now one of the principal reasons why teachers are leaving the profession in droves. The Secretary of State was keen to take credit for the fact that new teachers are coming into the profession. Of course, that is welcome—
Estelle Morris: That is the first time we have heard that.
Mr. Brady: That is simply not true. We welcome new teachers coming into the profession, but the Secretary of State must understand that that achieves nothing if she and her colleagues are driving out teachers more rapidly than they can be recruited. The Government's record on exclusions is one of the principal reasons why that has been happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important contribution in which he spoke about the Government's role in the A-levels fiasco. He tellingly said that life was not a dress rehearsal and mentioned that Ministers had been warned that the fiasco was not over yet.

377
All that we have heard from those on the Labour Benches is complacency and self-justification. We have heard no apology for the fact that so many young people have been hurt by their actions and no hint that they understand the harm that has been done to our examinations system and the young people who have been affected. It is time for the Minister to stand up and put that right. He should come to the Dispatch Box with some real contrition and an understanding of the damage that the Government have done. Only if he does so will people have any faith that the Government will be able to restore confidence in the system.
7.17 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Today's debate has been much more illuminating than any of us could have expected. I shall come to the comments of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in a moment, as I should like first to congratulate some Back Benchers on their excellent contributions. The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) all said that they wanted to congratulate teachers and students throughout the country on the hard work that they are doing and the improvements in their schools, which should be recognised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) made a typically insightful call for more informed professionalism and devolution of power to head teachers. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman), for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) drew on their experience to talk about how schools were changing in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) did everyone a service by correcting some grotesque misinformation that has been circulated about the local government finance review.
I should like to pause for a moment to address what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, as he made a serious speech in which he focused on the genuine hurt and anger that many young people rightly feel about the way in which they have been treated this year. In particular, he asked some very detailed questions about the psychology papers of Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations. I cannot answer for the examinations boards and it would be wrong for me to do so, as they are independent bodies. However, I assure him that we will follow independent advice—[Interruption.] This is an independent system that has been supported throughout the years. I assume that he is not calling for the nationalisation of exam boards. We will follow the reform proposals that emerge from the second stage of the Tomlinson inquiry, which will include the role and regulation of exam boards.
The Back-Bench speeches put to shame the performance of the Opposition Front Bench. Within an hour of the "quiet man" rubbishing the efforts of hundreds and thousands of students throughout the country, the hon. Member for Ashford came to the Dispatch Box to do a somersault on a policy that he announced only last week.
It is not AS-levels that are not worth the paper on which they are written, but the titles "Leader of the Opposition" and "Conservative spokesman on

378
education". The Government are ready to build up and support our education system, while the Opposition run it down. The motion refers only to confusion and problems; it does not mention the dedication of the nation's teachers or the achievements of the nation's children. It does not refer to improved Ofsted reports or rising teacher numbers. It does not acknowledge that the revenue budget will grow by £1,100 per pupil by 2005–06 or that the capital budget will increase three times.
Chris Grayling: If all is so rosy in the garden, why are so many teachers leaving the profession?
Mr. Miliband: One would not realise from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that there are 20,400 more teachers now than in 1997. Have the Opposition not read the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, which showed schools' improving performance? Have not they noticed the rising standards in our primary schools, which now lead international practice? Have not they read the chief inspector's report, which states that seven in 10 classes are good and that a quarter are very good, and that nine out 10 schools had improved since the previous inspection? Have not Conservative spokesmen noticed in their constituencies that, for example, £45 million extra has been spent in capital spending in Kent, and that £9 million extra has been spent on buildings in Trafford? The simple truth is that Conservative Members have noticed all those matters, but they cannot admit it. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that he freely admitted that "Conservative Governments did not do enough for education."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 July 2002; c. 185WH.]
We agree. No wonder they spent the past week expressing their regret.
We have increased spending on every child by more than £500 a year in our first five years, whereas the Conservatives cut it by £120 a year. Standards in primary schools have improved dramatically in the past five years; they were stagnant for 18 years under the Conservative party. They are ashamed that although we now have the fastest improving education system in the industrialised world, they took us to 42nd in the world education league.
The Department, under the Secretary of State, supports good schools. We support good teachers and good performance. We are the first to say that there is further to go. We are not satisfied with simply being better than the Conservative party. We are ambitious for our education system, and we are raising, not lowering, expectations. We know what will make a difference.
Reform of school leadership is vital so that the 1,400 toughest schools get the extra help that they need to gain the leadership that they deserve. I encourage the hon. Member for Ashford to listen to our plans for the leadership incentive grant, because we shall first offer them to the Conservative party in case it wants to benefit from them.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Why is the plan not available to primary schools that are in difficulties?
Mr. Miliband: We have many programmes for primary improvement. The leadership incentive grant is

379
designed to tackle the problem that 50 per cent. of young people leave secondary schools without five good GCSEs. We are proud of achievements in primary schools and we want to go further. However, the priority is the secondary sector. We are therefore committed to improving the structures of secondary schooling, too. We have a special mission for every school and collaboration will also be open to every school. In 57 city academies and 2,000 specialist schools that will give a new start to a comprehensive—I stress the word—intake of young people in areas where the education system has failed.
The Labour party is leading the way in reforming the school work force. We are providing not simply the 10,000 more teachers that we promised in our manifesto or the 25 per cent. increase in teachers' pay since 1997 but also the extra support staff that will facilitate the contractual change to give teachers time to teach.
We are also committed to radical reform of partnerships outside the classroom, and responsibilities of parents for discipline exercised outside the courts, not inside them, where the Conservative party wants to drag us. At least, we believed that until today. We want head teachers in the lead, teachers focused on teaching and schools modernised to support high quality learning.
We have heard much today about A-levels. Three weeks ago, the Opposition called for resignations because the problem was so great. Yesterday, they called for resignations because they were disappointed that it was so small. What are the facts? There is overwhelming support in the education world for broader A-levels. The Government delayed the plans for that which we inherited in 1997. There have been serious failings by the QCA in setting subject-specific grade criteria. There was a perception of pressure by exam board chiefs, not from the Government but from the QCA, to match this year's results with last year's.
Chris Grayling: The Minister claims that the problem is small. Will he apologise for that comment to the more than 1,000 pupils who lost places at the university that they should have attended?
Mr. Miliband: I did not say that the problem was small. I said that Conservative Members spent yesterday claiming that it was small. Mike Tomlinson and Bill Stubbs have made no accusations of political interference. Labour Members are happy to acknowledge rising standards; we shall not spend time attacking the young people who do better. It is time to end the English curse, invoked every year, that somehow more means worse. It does not.
As long as one third of school classes are not yet good, the Labour party will not rest.
Alistair Burt: Before you leave the A-level examination fiasco, can you answer the question—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not answering any questions.
Alistair Burt: Before the Minister leaves the A-level fiasco, will he answer the questions that were posed by
380
the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and me? If the Department knew everything about the incorrect structure and definition of the examination, why did not the Government take action? That contributed markedly to the failures of the summer. Why did the Minister do nothing?
Mr. Miliband: The answer is simple: we did not know that the A-levels were going wrong. If we had known, we would have corrected the error. [Interruption.] We did not know. The Government are responsible for the structure of the exam system, not the daily assessment procedures. It would be wrong to get involved in them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Miliband: I am very tempted to give way, but I am determined not to do that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Miliband: The Labour party will not rest as long as one third of school classes are not good, secondary schools wait for the best classrooms, and working class children are half as likely to get five good GCSEs as upper class children.
As long as the Conservative party preaches concern and contrition but practises hypocrisy and humbug, we shall not rest. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition said that Conservatives had to stop living in the past. Today, he must be in despair. They say that travel broadens the mind; it does not for the Conservative party. It has done a U-turn on the AS-levels that it invented; last week, it did a U-turn on appeals panels, which it also invented. At 3 pm today, abolishing appeals panels remained Conservative party policy.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Miliband: No, I am winding up. At 4 pm, the hon. Member for Ashford said at the Dispatch Box not that he would abolish appeals panels but that he would reinstate LEA panels to second-guess them. Yet the Conservative party wants to abolish LEAs. It is not fit for Opposition.
Three years ago, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), as shadow Education Secretary, promised to match Labour spending pound for pound. The hon. Member for Ashford did not say that. He talked to the quiet man from Chingford. The compassionate Conservative stated candidly in a pamphlet two years ago that
"public services … had to be paid for and invested in."
The quiet man listened, but a nasty man from Folkestone was also present. The hon. Member for Ashford went in saying that spending had attractions in principle—that was the extent of his compassion. He came out saying that cuts were the only option. That is the reality of Conservative policy.
Last week, the difference between us became clearer. The Government are steadily advancing to spending £5,000 a year per pupil in the state sector. The

381
Conservative party opposes that. However, last week, the hon. Member for Ashford revealed that he was willing to spend £5,000 per pupil on those who go into the private sector. Private good, public bad—they are the same old Tories. Every Conservative Member will be asked from now until polling day why £5,000 is not good enough for state sector education if it is good enough for private education. Parents will ask every Tory Member of Parliament and candidate, "Why will you spend £5,000 on a few children when you won't spend it on mine?" The hon. Member for Ashford cannot answer that question, which will haunt him.
One can talk about concern or act on it. One has got to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. We are walking into the Lobby to vote against the motion because that is right for the nation's children. I urge all hon. Members to follow us.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

Division No. 321]

[7:29 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden

Allan, Richard

Amess, David

Djanogly, Jonathan

Ancram, rh Michael

Dodds, Nigel

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Bacon, Richard

Doughty, Sue

Barker, Gregory

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, Nigel

Bercow, John

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Forth, rh Eric

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Brady, Graham

Francois, Mark

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Gamier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Breed, Colin

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gidley, Sandra

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bruce, Malcolm

Goodman, Paul

Burnett, John

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Burns, Simon

Grayling, Chris

Burnside, David

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burt, Alistair

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, John

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Grieve, Dominic

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gummer, rh John

Cameron, David

Hague, rh William

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Hammond, Philip

Cash, William

Hancock, Mike

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Chope, Christopher

Harvey, Nick

Clappison, James

Hawkins, Nick

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Collins, Tim

Heald, Oliver

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat—Amory, rh David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hendry, Charles

Cotter, Brian

Hermon, Lady

Curry, rh David

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

382

Jack, rh Michael

Rendel, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Robathan, Andrew

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M—Kent)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Keetch, Paul

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rosindell, Andrew

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Ruffley, David

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Kirkwood, Archy

Sanders, Adrian

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Selous, Andrew

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Simmonds, Mark

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Simpson, Keith (M—Norfolk)

Lamb, Norman

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

Lansley, Andrew

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Leigh, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Letwin, rh Oliver

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Lidington, David

Spring, Richard

Lilley, rh Peter

Steen, Anthony

Loughton, Tim

Streeter, Gary

Luff, Peter (M—Worcs)

Stunell, Andrew

MacKay, rh Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Maclean, rh David

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Malins, Humfrey

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maude, rh Francis

Taylor, Sir Teddy

May, Mrs Theresa

Thurso, John

May, Mrs Theresa

Tredinnick, David

McIntosh Miss Anne

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Mercer, Patrick

Tyrie, Andrew

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Viggers Peter

Waterson, Nigel

Moore, Michael

Webb Steve (Northavon)

Moss, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Widdecombe, rh Ann

Norman, Archie

Wiggin, Bill

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Wilkinson, John

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Willetts, David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Ottaway, Richard

Willis, Phil

Page, Richard

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Paterson, Owen

Pickles, Eric

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Portillo, rh Michael

Young, rh Sir George

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Younger—Ross, Richard

Pugh, Dr. John

Randall, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Redwood, rh John

Angela Watkinson and

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Mr. David Wilshire

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Berry, Roger

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Betts, Clive

Ainger, Nick

Blackman, Liz

Alexander, Douglas

Blears, Ms Hazel

Allen, Graham

Blunkett, rh David

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Boateng, rh Paul

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Bradshaw, Ben

Atherton, Ms Candy

Brennan, Kevin

Atkins, Charlotte

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Austin, John

Browne, Desmond

Bailey, Adrian

Bryant, Chris

Barnes, Harry

Buck, Ms Karen

Beard, Nigel

Burgon, Colin

Begg, Miss Anne

Burnham, Andy

Bell, Stuart

Cairns, David

Bennett, Andrew

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

383

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hendrick, Mark

Caplin, Ivor

Hepburn, Stephen

Casale, Roger

Hesford, Stephen

Caton, Martin

Heyes, David

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Challen, Colin

Hodge, Margaret

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Clapham, Michael

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Clelland, David

Hoyle, Lindsay

Coaker, Vernon

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Coleman, Iain

Connarty, Michael

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hutton, rh John

Cranston, Ross

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Crausby, David

Ingram, rh Adam

Cruddas, Jon

Irranca—Davies, Huw

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cummings, John

Jamieson, David

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Jenkins, Brian

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Curtis—Thomas, Claire

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dawson, Hilton

Kemp, Fraser

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kidney, David

Denham, rh John

King, Andy (Rugby)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Doran, Frank

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lammy, David

Drew, David (Stroud)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Dunwoody, Gwyneth

Lazarowicz, Mark

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lepper, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Leslie, Christopher

Edwards, Huw

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Efford, Clive

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Linton, Martin

Etherington, Bill

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Fisher, Mark

Love, Andrew

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Flint, Caroline

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

MacDonald, Calum

Follett, Barbara

MacDougall, John

Foster, rh Derek

MacShane, Denis

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Foulkes, rh George

Mahmood, Khalid

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Mallaber, Judy

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Gerrard, Neil

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gilroy, Linda

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Godsiff, Roger

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Goggins, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McAvoy, Thomas

Grogan, John

McCartney, rh Ian

Hain, rh Peter

McDonagh, Siobhain

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McDonnell, John

Hanson, David

McFall, John

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McIsaac, Shona

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

McKenna, Rosemary

McNulty, Tony

Healey, John

McWalter, Tony

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McWilliam, John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Meacher, rh Michael

384

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe Lunesdale)

Miliband, David

Miller, Andrew

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Mole, Chris

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Julie

Southworth, Helen

Morley, Elliot

Squire, Rachel

Morris, rh Estelle

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Mountford, Kali

Steinberg, Gerry

Mudie, George

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mullin, Chris

Stewart, David (Inverness E Lochaber)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Straw, rh Jack

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Stringer, Graham

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

O'Hara, Edward

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Owen, Albert

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Perham, Linda

Timms, Stephen

Pickthall, Colin

Tipping, Paddy

Plaskitt, James

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pound, Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Truswell, Paul

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Prescott, rh John

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Prosser, Gwyn

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Purchase, Ken

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Purnell, James

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Rammell, Bill

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Walley, Ms Joan

Raynsford, rh Nick

Wareing, Robert N.

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Watts, David

White, Brian

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Ruane, Chris

Wills, Michael

Ruddock, Joan

Winnick, David

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Salter, Martin

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Woolas, Phil

Savidge, Malcolm

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Sawford, Phil

Sedgemore, Brian

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Sheridan, Jim

Wright, David (Telford)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wyatt, Derek

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Singh, Marsha

Mr. John Heppell and

Skinner, Dennis

Joan Ryan

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House applauds the priority the Government attaches to education and congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on her excellent leadership of the education system; notes the current record levels of sustained investment in

385
education with an increase from £41.6 billion in 2001–02 to £57.8 billion in 2005–06; welcomes rising standards and progress being made in schools up and down the country, congratulating in particular all those who played a part in achieving the best ever results in literacy and numeracy for 11 year olds, with 75 per cent. making the grade in English and 73 per cent. in mathematics compared with less than a half in 1997; welcomes the importance the Government attaches to tackling indiscipline and non-attendance at schools; notes that while the Criminal Records Bureau continues to improve its performance, the Department's interim "List 99" measures are allowing schools to operate with a full complement of staff; expresses its sympathy for the pupils, parents and teachers who have been affected by the recent 'A' level grading problems; but congratulates the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for her decisive action in setting up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson to restore confidence in the exam system.

Rural Economy
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on the rural economy. I should announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.42 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the livelihood of millions of British people depends on the rural economy; notes that British agriculture is in the throes of its worst recession since the 1930s; regrets the burden of regulation imposed on farms and other rural businesses; expresses concern about the lack of affordable housing and the strain on public services in rural areas; and calls upon the Government to acknowledge the gravity of the crisis in the countryside and to address effectively and urgently the problems faced by rural communities.
Britain today is an overwhelmingly urban and suburban society. What I found most striking about last month's countryside march was the fact that those who took part identified themselves as a minority in society whose interests were being ignored by those in positions of power. The reasons for that are straightforward. Our farmers and growers are struggling with the worst recession to hit their industry since the 1930s. Red tape and regulation are holding back efforts to develop new enterprises within agriculture or in the wider rural economy. Too often, police officers are not seen on patrol in the village streets but glimpsed occasionally behind the wheel of a passing patrol car. There are severe pressures on transport services and affordable housing, and rural post offices and rural magistrates courts continue to close. All that carries a human cost. The rural stress information network, which is an independent charity, reports that calls to its helpline are now running at twice the rate of two years ago before the foot and mouth epidemic began.
I admit that the mood in the countryside is not solely due to disillusionment with the present Government. There is also disaffection with the political process and with politicians of all parties. That more general feeling of mistrust found expression in the mass abstention from voting in last year's general election, about which every one of us, from whichever side of the House we come, ought to be concerned. However, it is accurate to say that there is an especially strong sense of grievance against the present Government. It was not a politician but the chairman of another charity, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Mr. Wallis, who last month wrote to the Prime Minister about the views of farmers. His statement sums up the much wider public perception in our rural communities. He wrote:
"Your Government is, at best, not bothered, at worst hostile to the interests of a strong GB farming industry. It is felt that trust between the farming community and DEFRA is mutually at an all time low."
The Government started with an enormous fund of good will in rural as well as in urban areas. Part of the reason for this change, which requires some explanation, is the behaviour and language of Ministers. When someone as senior as the Deputy Prime Minister talks in the most scathing terms of
"the contorted faces of the Countryside Alliance"
he causes real hurt and resentment among the hundreds of thousands of decent men and women who have supported successive peaceful marches and

387
demonstrations. When the Minister for Rural Affairs said that he thought that those who marched last month were a little confused, it spoke volumes about the Government's unwillingness to listen. I genuinely wish that many more Labour Members had come to London on 22 September, not necessarily to agree with all or even some of what the marchers said, but to show, like some of their colleagues, a readiness to listen to the views that were expressed, often in desperate terms, by the marchers that day.
Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for the Environment attended the previous countryside march, which we thought was courageous and fair-minded.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the contrast in the behaviour of Ministers then and now. That shows that the confidence that people in the countryside have in the Government has been sapped in the past few years.
Jim Knight: Would the hon. Gentleman blame some of us for not attending the march given the tactics of some of its supporters? A supporter attached to my garden gate a poster advertising the march and took pictures of it, which I assumed would be used in some propaganda. That did not endear me to their cause.
Mr. Lidington: The illicit poster on the hon. Gentleman's gate has obviously been preying on his mind for some weeks, and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to get it off his chest. I do not for a moment defend such action, but he has overlooked the fact that more than 400,000 of our fellow citizens were prepared to give up a Sunday and travel long distances into London if necessary to make their views known. It would have helped not only the Government—I am not usually in the business of trying to help the Government—but the cause of democracy and a sense of reconnection between public and politicians had more than a handful of members and supporters of the Government been present to listen.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who were on the march were conscious of the fact that, even though the Government have argued that this issue is a matter for the House and not for them, as they are merely in charge of the process, the marchers, wherever they came from and whatever principled ground they held, were against the Government of the day and those in power?
Mr. Lidington: I think my hon. Friend has summed up views expressed by a great many people that day.
The trouble with the Government's approach to rural policy is the same as the trouble with their approach on so many other fronts. All too often, we have seen a gap between what was promised and what has in practice been delivered. The Government—admirably—committed themselves to rural-proofing their policies; yet 12 months after the Government entered into that
388
commitment, the chairman of the Countryside Agency, a Government-appointed chairman of a Government body, reported
"most Departments have done the minimum necessary to introduce rural proofing".
He stated:
"I am not convinced that policy makers generally are giving sufficient thought to the impact on the countryside and the people who live there when they develop policies".
It is not necessary to look far to discover why Mr. Cameron reached that conclusion. Let us consider the representation. Ministers are still committed to a system of regional government that will inevitably take power and influence away from rural communities. In the sort of regional assembly that Ministers envisage, with perhaps 30 elected members from across the region—30 members probably picked in accordance with some region-wide party list—the focus is bound to be on the interests of the towns and cities. Their priorities will receive the most attention.
Mr. Mark Todd: The regional assemblies will, of course, be introduced only if voted for by the people whom they will seek to represent.
May I also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the experience of rural development agencies? All of them, I think—in particular, one in my area—have taken a significant interest in the rural economy, in how to make it thrive, and in how to establish a dedicated representative to fulfil the necessary role.
Mr. Lidington: I will go as far as this with the hon. Gentleman. Travelling around the country, I have encountered examples of budgets allocated to regional bodies being spent well; but I have also encountered numerous complaints from elected councillors and others who have said that the bureaucracy involved in trying to obtain a grant from a regional body is so complicated as to deter many grass-roots organisations, even local authorities—especially in rural areas—from making the attempt in the first place.
David Burnside: In the case of regional assemblies, the problem is not grants. Until midnight on Monday, we had an Assembly in Northern Ireland. My views on the Assembly are pretty anti, but all parties in the Assembly—DUP, Ulster Unionist, Alliance, Women's Coalition, you name it: there are so many parties in Northern Ireland—right over to Sinn Fein believed that agriculture in Northern Ireland would be much better served by a regional assembly than by a national Government.
Mr. Lidington: There is, I think, a profound difference between the history and representative traditions of Northern Ireland and those of England. In England in particular, we have looked to counties, boroughs and cities to provide a focus for local representation.
Mr. David Curry: I hoped that my hon. Friend would illustrate his concern by reference to Yorkshire and Humberside. North Yorkshire contains 14 per cent. of the population of that region. The remaining 86 per cent. are already in metropolitan

389
areas. Therefore, the fate of two-tier government in Yorkshire and Humberside will be settled by the 86 per cent. who have no experience of it.
Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend puts his point well. It has also been made to me by people living in rural Northumberland, who are worried about the creation of a north-east regional assembly, and by people living in rural Cheshire and Cumbria who are worried about the possibility of a north-west regional assembly. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) says that exactly the same fears are being expressed in his area.
Sir Patrick Cormack: We do not have natural regions in England. I do not want to contradict what was said by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), but if he is trying to impose that on England, he is talking nonsense. To go against our traditional county structure is to strike a death blow at rural England.
Mr. Lidington: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in both his historical analysis and his understanding of the likely consequences of the regional agenda becoming reality.
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No. I must make some progress.
According to some estimates, tourism is now worth about £14 billion to the rural economy in England alone—that is, not counting the other nations of the United Kingdom. The foot and mouth epidemic, followed by the collapse of foreign visits after 11 September, has had a devastating impact on the industry. Many businesses have already gone under. There are nearly 300 fewer entries in the standard guide to bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England this year than there were last year. More than a quarter of owners who have survived say that they do not expect to recover fully until 2003 at the earliest. Yet the Minister's colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been dithering for more than six months about whether to give the English Tourism Council responsibility for marketing England as a tourist destination. The tourism industry is still battling with enormous difficulties, yet because of Government delay and uncertainty the ETC has no marketing budget, no timetable and no plan.
Tourism, like many other sectors of commerce, will in future have to rely more and more on fast, good-quality electronic communication with its customers. That means access to broadband. People have made the point to me again and again, from Northumberland to Cornwall: without access to broadband, new micro-businesses in the countryside will be at a permanent disadvantage compared with their urban competitors.
There are issues related to the number of subscribers needed to make broadband economic. I know that British Telecom says that between 200 and 750 would be necessary, but according to other studies as few as 40 might constitute a viable threshold. The broadband link in Cumbria runs underneath Penrith so surely it cannot be right that businesses in that town are denied a
390
connection altogether. Britain now has one of the lowest rates of broadband take-up anywhere in the OECD area, and our rural businesses above all stand to lose out because of the delay. I believe that Government action to tackle the problem—to increase availability of broadband and provide incentives for its provision in rural areas—would command strong cross-party support in the House.
People need somewhere to work in the countryside. They also need somewhere to live, and rural homes are becoming less affordable. According to the Countryside Agency, nearly two thirds of people living in rural areas would need to spend more than half their incomes on mortgages to buy an average home. Part of the answer certainly lies in the provision of more homes, and the great merit of the policy announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is that it would provide funds to pay for perhaps as many as 13,000 new homes every year nationwide.
Clearly there would be a need for particular measures, as exist in the present legislative system whereby small estates in small village communities are subject to particular arrangements.
Mr. Todd: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to develop that point. In the tiny hamlet of Thurvaston in south Derbyshire, three housing association homes were recently constructed by agreement with the local landowner. I can tell the hon. Gentleman for free that if those were made available for sale, they would rapidly disappear and not be replaced. How does he intend to address that kind of problem?
Mr. Lidington: There are a number of ways in which we intend to address the problem that the hon. Gentleman has rightly identified. First, there will undoubtedly remain a strong case for having an exceptional arrangement for designated small rural communities as currently exists under the present law. Whether the limit should remain as it is under the current arrangements is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is consulting the interested bodies.
Secondly, there is the need not just to provide only accommodation to rent, but accommodation for shared ownership. That proposal has been made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden by the Rural Housing Trust, and he is discussing it with the trust and other parties.
The point that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has overlooked is that the chief complaint by those who have objected to the right to buy in the past has been that tenants had the right to purchase their house but that the money received by the local authority could not then be used to provide additional housing. The Opposition are now committed to a policy that will free housing associations to spend the receipts from the sale of those housing association properties on the provision of new homes. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman made a serious point that deserves a serious answer.
The trouble with the arguments put forward by Labour Members is that they are trying to conceal the fact that they remain instinctively hostile not just to

391
what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden proposed last week, but to the whole notion that tenants should be enfranchised and have the right to buy their own homes. If the Minister for Rural Affairs or the Under-Secretary is prepared to stand up and say, not just to this House but to the tenants of housing associations throughout the country, that the Labour party remains adamantly opposed to tenants being granted the right to buy, my hon. Friends and I will be glad to take that message back and campaign on it in counties and cities throughout this land.
I am glad that it was the hon. Member for South Derbyshire who intervened earlier, because I said that while part of the problem was that we needed to provide new homes, we must also make sure that the homes were in the right places. I want to refer to something that the hon. Gentleman has said in the past. The Government's top-down approach is wrong. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be rushing to concrete over great swathes of southern England and, in the process, is planning to build large new estates in some areas that are already relatively low cost. Surely we need instead a policy that begins with a sensible analysis of local need.
The Rural Housing Trust argued in a paper earlier this year for the provision of six to eight subsidised homes in each of 8,000 small villages throughout England—roughly 50,000 more homes in total—but sited in places where there was a proven local need that the local community would accept. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for South Derbyshire too much but I was impressed by an exchange that he had in the Select Committee on 21 November last year with a senior executive of the Countryside Agency.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire acknowledged that an over-rigid approach to planning guidance, and particularly to PPG13, was tending to focus development exclusively in so-called key settlements, with a lot of smaller communities being, in his words, "effectively preserved in aspic" and therefore becoming more exclusive and less sustainable over time. I hope that the Government will look seriously at their planning guidance in light of our experiences as a country and at the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman has rightly identified.
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No. The hon. Gentleman had one intervention about his front gate. I do not want a tour around his entire garden.
The rural economy is about a lot more than farming but farming still lies at its heart. Agriculture is not only important economically; farmers and growers are also custodians of a landscape that is valued by people in cities as well as villages and is a prime asset for our tourist industry.
Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crisis in rural areas predates the election of the Labour Government? For instance, farm incomes were falling under the previous Conservative Government and the fuel tax escalator imposed an added burden on rural communities. Also,
392
the one episode in particular that precipitated the crisis in the countryside would have to be the BSE disaster, over which his Government presided.
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman will know that most of the subjects that we are debating today are, in Scotland, devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, I take his point seriously. I will not quibble about statistics; the historians can argue over those. I am willing, as is my party, to learn the lessons of our period in government. We can learn where we got things right and where we got them wrong. What we ask of the present Government is that they be prepared to learn from their experiences over the past five years when they have failed to deliver on the promises that they were so keen to make to people in our rural communities.
It is true that farm incomes, employment and investment have all plunged in the last few years. It is true that no Minister—not even one as benevolent as the Minister for Rural Affairs—can simply wish away the problems caused by international commodity prices, world competition and fluctuating exchange rates. But that makes it even more important that the Government act firmly and effectively on those matters that do lie within their own power.
Britain's farmers need a fair deal from current European negotiations. The best future for farming lies in moving towards a system where farmers are free to respond to what their customers want rather than to the edicts of Government, whether in Whitehall or in Brussels. It is right also to find ways to recognise the public good that farmers and growers provide for the nation in terms of landscape and biodiversity. Some of the key elements in Commissioner Fischler's proposals—such as the ceiling on payments and the idea of putting modulation receipts into a common European pot—seem to have been designed quite deliberately to discriminate against British agriculture. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are determined to resist such discrimination.
There are many things that the Government could do now, without the need for international negotiations, to assist British agriculture. Top of that list must be, at last, some effective action against the illegal importing of meat. We know that the Government's assessment is that that was almost certainly the cause of the foot and mouth disaster. The Government are always lecturing farmers about the importance of biosecurity. It is about time that we saw the Government taking seriously their own responsibilities for biosecurity at our ports.
If one flies from London to Dublin, as I did last month, one finds when one arrives in Ireland a terminal plastered with posters warning that meat is not to be brought in. There is a disinfectant point, clearly signed, for travellers who have visited a farm or who are otherwise considered high risk. There is a large amnesty bin in which passengers can dump their ham sandwiches or whatever else they might have brought with them. All of these measures were introduced by the Irish Government in response to the epidemic here in 2001, even though there was only one case of foot and mouth disease on the island of Ireland.
When one returns to terminal 1 at Heathrow, one finds nothing. There are no bins, posters or disinfectant points. From written answers, we know that the number

393
of spot checks carried out at ports and airports is pitifully low and that there are still no clear lines of command between the different agencies that share responsibility for port controls.
We are now a year on from the last case of foot and mouth, and we are six months on from the Government's misnamed "action plan" on illegal meat imports. Their sloth and incompetence on this issue is nothing short of a disgraceful failure to carry out their public duty.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has made that charge on his own account, but I should point out that when Professor Follett, who chaired the inquiry into the science of foot and mouth disease, was asked during today's Select Committee meeting what he would like to see following the Government's action plan, he replied "Action."
Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend demonstrates that the views that we are expressing on this matter command wide support in the country. People are experiencing a mixture of bafflement and anger at the Government's failure to act on a matter that they themselves have said is important.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend mentions terminal 1 and flights from Ireland. Of course, a lot of the infected meat comes from Africa and the middle east, and at the Heathrow terminals that handle those flights there is no warning either.
Mr. Lidington: I hope that, if nothing else, after this debate Ministers will take the steps that they promised they would take six months ago, and ensure that fairly straightforward measures such as warning posters and amnesty bins are at last delivered.
Farmers want action on food labelling, too. Often, it is far too difficult for shoppers to find out whether the food that they buy is British and meets this country's stringent standards on hygiene and animal welfare. It is more than two years since the Prime Minister promised the National Farmers Union that he would introduce new labelling guidance to ensure that foreign goods are not passed off as British simply because they have been processed here. Yet the Government that he leads blocked a Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), which tried to give that promise the backing of law. If the Government are not prepared to look again at this issue, we will look for an opportunity to bring the matter back for further debate.
Like other businesses, farmers are struggling day by day with the cost in time and money caused by Government regulation. Too often—far too often—new rules are being brought in with scant regard to their practical impact on people who are trying to run small businesses. European legislation on nitrates and on environmental impact assessments has been gold plated in Whitehall. Burying fallen stock on-farm will be illegal from May next year, yet the Government have still given us no details on how alternative arrangements are supposed to work, or on who will pay for them. At the moment, those farmers who live within reasonable distance of a hunt can get rid of livestock carcases;
394
however, the Government have their own plans for that source of help as well. That problem is causing particular anxiety in upland areas. The subject was raised with me by the National Farmers Union in Wales and the Farmers Union of Wales when I met their representatives.
The 20-day rule on livestock movements in England and Wales is causing enormous practical problems for farmers. I remember attending the Hexham auction market—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—and listening to sheep farmers. They said that they would have to choose between going to a ewe sale one week or a lamb sale the next, because it was impossible to do both.
Mr. Todd: Since the Chairman of the Select Committee referred to one thing that Sir Brian Follett said, perhaps I can refer to another. He was questioned on the 20-day movement restrictions, and referred back to the experience of restrictions on pigs. Again, he recalled outrage at the implications, said that that industry had accepted that that was the right thing to do, and rather suspected that the same view might be taken some years hence.
Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman refers to Sir Brian Follett's original report and to Dr. Anderson's report, he will find two further things. First, they recognised that there were profound differences between the structure of the pig industry and of the sheep and cattle sectors. Both men drew attention to the serious practical difficulties that they acknowledged would be caused, were the 20-day rule to be maintained. They also said that the Government should carry out an urgent cost-benefit analysis of the 20-day rule. Frankly, the Government have known since before those inquiries were set up that this was one of the big issues to be determined. That we are still waiting for the Government to reach a conclusion again indicates a complete unreadiness to face up to the difficulties that country businesses are experiencing.
Mr. Curry: There may be a case for one set of restrictions on movement, but of course we have two sets, because we have different systems north and south of the border. Does my hon. Friend think that, in Scotland, it is the sheep, the farmers or the politicians who are more intelligent than their counterparts in England?
Mr. Lidington: It is probably not among the sheep or the farmers where a difference in intelligence, or perhaps in judgment, exists. I have seen no hint from Ministers that farms in England or Wales are at risk of a renewed outbreak of foot and mouth disease because no border is being enforced between England and Scotland. Ministers have so far been unable to explain why a system in Scotland can exist alongside a completely different, far more stringent one south of the border.
What makes matters worse is the incompetence that the Government too often display in administering their own rules. The Rural Payments Agency could not meet its legal deadline for payments to cattle farmers, and we learned this week that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs still owes some £100 million to contractors that it employed to clean up farms infected

395
with foot and mouth. The memory of the Government's mishandling of that epidemic still rankles with many thousands of people in our countryside. There was inadequate contingency planning, delay in calling in the Army, confusion over the contiguous cull and question marks over its legality. The experience of many people, particularly those in the areas hit hardest by the disease, was—to quote Cumbria county council's inquiry team—one of "confusion, disorder and delay".
How that contrasts with the vision painted in the Government's rural White Paper: a vision of
"a living, protected and vibrant countryside … one where people have access to the jobs and services they require … a countryside that can shape its own future, with its voice heard by Government at all levels."
That was a statement with which few could disagree, and it undoubtedly commanded widespread support in all parts of this country. That there is now such disillusion and discontent is above all down to the Government's blatant and repeated failure to deliver on the promises that they so glibly made.
8.18 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I am delighted that the Conservative party has at last woken up to the fact that the rural economy is an important issue. [Interruption.] It was noticeable that, in introducing the debate, the party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), went very wide of the topics in the motion. I am glad that he quoted our purposes for the countryside—on which we are delivering—in his closing remarks. The Opposition are catching up with Labour's 180 rural and semi-rural MPs, whose pressure on their constituents' behalf since 1997 has led to the rural White Paper, to a raft of specific economic measures, to the rural service standard, and to the rural proofing of policies. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the latter, which was described as courageous by Ewen Cameron, the Government's rural advocate, from whom the hon. Gentleman quoted so selectively.
The hon. Gentleman was very selective in the way that he addressed even the issues covered in his own motion. The Government have acted to help rural businesses and the rural economy as a whole, not just farming. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent march in London, so let me say to him what I said at that time. There was muddle at the heart of the march. The organisers were muddled. After the march, they had to produce a 10-point argument to explain why they organised a march in London. I received a small number of letters afterwards from people who took issue with the suggestion that there was a muddle at the heart of the march. Those who wrote said that they were not confused and that they knew why they had at tended the march, but they all quoted different reasons for their presence. There was a muddle at the heart of the march.
Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: I shall give way with pleasure.
Mr. Gray: After the march, the Minister made some remark to the effect that he had no idea what it was all
396
about and that it was all a muddle. Will he explain why the No. 10 lobby briefing of the next day presented a different case? It was stated then that the Prime Minister knew precisely what the march was about, that he was extremely concerned about the issues raised and that he would do something about them. Why is the Minister singing a different tune from the Prime Minister?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is a shadow spokesman on economic issues but has apparently been left out of this debate, so I understand that he needs to make his voice heard at some point. However, if he had waited a moment he would have heard me say that most of the problems listed in the motion have not appeared since 1997 but have been building up over the past 25 years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister responded courteously to the 10 matters listed by the Countryside Alliance after the march in September. Subsequently, I responded in great detail to each of the issues. I explained where the Government stood on them, and pointed out what we were doing about them.
The Countryside Alliance knows that we take the matter seriously, because we have given it a seat at the table—a place on the Rural Affairs Forum for England. To be fair to the alliance, I must say that it has worked constructively with the Government on a series of issues, but let us have no more nonsense suggesting that there was clarity behind the march.
In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Aylesbury rightly acknowledged that any sense of grievance is aimed not only at this Government but at all politicians. The real damage to rural economies—as with urban areas—was done in the 18 years of damage and neglect under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. [Interruption.] Of course Opposition Members do not like to hear that: throughout those 18 years, they tried to blame the previous Labour Government. Even 17 years into the Conservative Government's rule, they were still looking to the previous Administration. They will therefore be reminded of their faults and of the evils of the Conservative Administration.
The Labour party was the first political party to devote a national conference to rural issues, which all the interested parties attended. The National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, voluntary organisations and the Countryside Alliance, as well as representatives of local government, animal welfare organisations and business, were there because they were able to debate with Labour MPs and Ministers the issues that affect rural economies.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Minister accept that country people feel that they are losing their roots and tradition, and that they do not have enough impact on national affairs? When people in Lincolnshire are asked where they live, they say not that they live in West Lindsey or the east midlands but that they live in Lincolnshire. Why do the Government intend to proceed with a proposal that will abolish 1,000 years of English history? It will remove a golden thread running through people's lives. Before the Minister says that there will be a vote on the matter, I remind him that people in rural in Lincolnshire will be outvoted by

397
people in the big cities of Nottingham and Derby. Will he give those rural people some sort of veto? Why is he trying to abolish what they hold most dear?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a rather delphic utterance. If he is referring to regional government, I can tell him that, since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, rural interests and the rural economy in Wales have been more extensively debated in the Assembly, and especially in its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. The Assembly has increased the level of interest and debate, and has also delivered a better standard of debate.
Jim Knight: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that people look to their county, district, borough and city councils, but he did not mention parish councils. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that parish councils are especially important in rural areas, and that this Government are acting to improve parish councils' powers and responsibilities?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall turn to the role of parish councils later in my speech. This Government are the first to focus on developing the role of parish councils, but Opposition Members have never understood that and, in government, they have never tried to do it.
Gregory Barker: I—and I am sure many other hon. Members—have received letters from parish councillors who, after years of loyal service to their communities, have resigned in disgust at the new regulations placed on them by the Government. How many such letters has the Minister received?
Alun Michael: The number is very small indeed, but I have received many letters from parish councillors around the country welcoming the way in which the Government are strengthening the role of parish councils. We have given those councils grants so that they have money to spend on matters such as transport and the development of parish plans. That allows parish councils to develop their role and to look after their communities' interests. A few Conservative parish councillors have stood down, and some people have been misled by incorrect information being circulated by a member of the Conservative party. The Government are working with parish councils, local government and the people who represent rural communities across the country.
Mrs. Browning: Why did the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 remove the right of parish councillors to nominate governors to local village schools?
Alun Michael: I am not going to develop education policy. I am talking about the role of parish councils and how the Government are enabling them to take the lead in their communities so that they can develop answers to local problems.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury had quite a bit to say about farming. There are genuine, serious and deep-seated problems in that sector, which have been developing for years. Under this Government. Those
398
problems are being tackled comprehensively for the first time. It is widely recognised that the Curry commission on the future of farming and food has given the answer to the problems faced by the farming industry. We are putting in £1.7 billion through the England rural development programme. Help is being provided on a variety of matters, including diversification and marketing. A direct comparison can be made: this Government are making available £240 million a year, compared with the £56 million a year made available between 1993 and 1999.
It is vital, however, that we secure effective reform of the CAP, and drive modernisation in the farming industry. Reform is needed to make our agriculture more competitive and more sustainable, and to ensure that our rural economies can flourish despite the challenges ahead.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The Minister mentioned the Curry report. Many would agree that it was very sensible. Sir Donald Curry said that the farming industry would need £400 million a year, but the Government have offered £200 million in two years' time.
Alun Michael: No, that is a misinterpretation. The figure for the third year of the spending review alone is £200 million, and £500 million is the overall figure.
The Government are working with the farming industry to deliver on the Curry report. The Opposition may say now that that is common sense, but no previous Government have adopted such a comprehensive approach. It was a courageous step to take.
The food and farming sector makes an economic contribution, but farming also has a role to play in the countryside in respect of the landscape. We all value our landscape, but farmers, given that they manage some 77 per cent. of UK land, make a significant contribution to protecting the rural environment.
Pete Wishart: Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who described farmers as subsidy junkies?
Alun Michael: Many farmers accept that there is a serious point to be made about the extent to which farming has become dependent on subsidy instead of becoming competitive and effective. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meet farmers all the time, and we have detected a remarkable shift in attitude. The shift took place in part during the foot and mouth outbreak, when people realised how vulnerable the industry was. Many matters were brought to a head at that time. We need to move away from a culture of subsidy in the farming industry, and towards a culture that assists the industry to be competitive. In addition, the agri-environment schemes are designed to pay for things that provide a public good.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister explain how the British dairy industry can be 30 per cent. more efficient than the dairy industry on the continent, yet can be underpriced continually by that industry? Supermarkets can buy milk from France and

399
Ireland, for instance, at prices lower than those charged by our dairy industry. Are there not both institutional and fiscal reasons for that? Do not the Government need to do more work on the euro and commodity prices to ensure that our farmers are truly competitive? Is not it wrong for the Minister to blame farmers for not being able to face the market, when the Government are closing the gates to that market?
Alun Michael: There have been problems for many years in the milk industry—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is a supply and demand problem.
Alun Michael: Indeed. One difficulty is that co-operatives in continental countries are far stronger than those in this country. A point stressed by the Curry report, and one that I strongly applaud, is the need to strengthen the co-operative culture so that farmers can take a greater part of the shelf price, which goes back to the primary producers. We strongly support that element of the Curry report—recognising the need to strengthen the requirements on competition.
Countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive areas, the two main agri-environment schemes, are delivering more than £100 million a year to maintain and enhance the rural environment. The schemes have 26,000 agreement holders and cover about 1 million hectares—almost 10 per cent. of agricultural land. I emphasise that we need to make use of the money that is being invested in agriculture to reform farming and to give it a sustainable future. The problems will not be solved overnight, but we are working on them with the industry.
The picture painted by the Conservatives is a travesty. A few days ago, the Prime Minister pointed out that our commitment to a future for farming means that more money is going into that industry than into all other industries put together. The industry is important; it is vital for our countryside, but we must put it in balance. The motion refers to the wider rural economy and rural communities—the real rural agenda. People in rural areas want the same things as people in urban areas: jobs, access to services, a good standard of schools and education, health services, transport, affordable housing and a secure future. They have the same aspirations as people in urban areas, but sometimes there is a different set of problems in respect of the delivery of those services.
In urban areas, it is often possible to target problems by measuring them at ward level, but it is difficult to do that in rural areas. Communities are dispersed and so are their problems. People who need help are often dispersed throughout largely prosperous areas.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Before the Minister moves away from farming, will he explain the implication of the extremely interesting statement that he has just made? Is he saying that the Government will reverse their policy on breaking up Milk Marque?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are encouraging the development of co-
400
operatives; that is part of the Curry agenda and we strongly support it. I appreciate that he wants to take me back in my speech, just as his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Aylesbury, wanted to evade the terms of the Conservative motion. We want to encourage co-operatives—small businesses, new businesses and entrepreneurship—to work together to improve the standard of living of people in rural communities.
As I have just pointed out, the problems for rural communities are extremely local. We have a large number of small communities; for example, there are about 8,000 parish and town councils. They are experiencing the impact of social and economic change. It is a fact of life that many people in rural communities also have access to supermarkets. They have the choice of shopping locally or in neighbouring towns or cities. It does not help to play politics with such issues.
The long-term social trends are difficult for rural communities. They present choices for local government and local people as well as for the Government. We are trying to enable people and communities to make those choices, which is why the work of the Countryside Agency is so important. Through the finance strands that we make available, the agency offers people a chance to take decisions about their futures at the most local level.
Mr. Curry: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that one almost hidden countryside industry is the care of the elderly. The local residential home may be the largest employer in many villages. Is he aware of the pressure being put on the sector because of local authority difficulties in funding care? What representations has DEFRA made in the name of joined-up government to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department about funding super-sparsity in rural areas and assisting sectors on which many people depend for part-time employment, not least to buttress agricultural incomes?
Alun Michael: I shall develop those points in a moment. We are working with colleagues throughout the Government, especially in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to consider the needs of rural areas. Indeed, my right hon. Friend is taking a personal interest in issues such as the need for affordable housing in rural areas.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) makes very well the point that I was coming to: if we are to help rural economies, we have to understand them. I spent most of today with the Countryside Agency, which plays a vital role in this field. The agency rightly made the point that to maintain and extend the significant contribution that rural economies make to the UK economy—they benefit not only themselves but the wider economy—requires better engagement with those business sectors that make the most important contributions to rural economies.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to farming and I have responded because it is important. However, almost 80 per cent. of the 5.22 million employees in rural workplaces work in four broad industrial groups about which we have heard nothing: for example, distribution, hotels and restaurants. Nowadays, more people in the

401
rural economy are employed in tourism than in farming. People work in public administration, education and health—the sector to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon referred. They work in manufacturing, banking, finance and insurance. The pattern is repeated in 65 per cent. of rural economies or 95 of the 145 rural local authority areas. We need to pay more attention to their economic footprint on rural England. Sometimes, that may not happen because such employment is also dominant in many urban districts, but it is also part of the positive and necessary engagement with farming.
It is important, for example, that in some of our most beautiful landscapes—our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—we also engage with the local economy and community, so that they can truly be test-beds for sustainable development and that they do not turn into landscape museums.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not only in respect of housing that the planning system is desperately in need of reform. In the countryside, we have the capacity to regenerate rural areas because there are many vacant or under-used buildings—usually farm buildings. I am sure that my experience is shared by many hon. Members: there is often great conflict between those who want to develop such buildings and those who want to pickle them in aspic—to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). We have to make people understand that if they want the countryside to live we must develop those buildings. I hope that changes to the planning system will allow that to happen.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased about the interest shown by my noble Friend Lord Rooker, who deals with housing. He will attend the next meeting of the Rural Affairs Forum to debate the issue with representatives and colleagues. At the forum's last meeting, one of his officials was present to hear the views of people across the board, to ensure that those views are fed into the processes. There is no magic wand; what one person wants to do may have an impact on neighbours. The planning processes have to be followed with balance and care, but my hon. Friend is right to point up their importance.
We need to examine the potential for growth in rural communities. I have stressed the importance of the horse industry and have met its representatives on several occasions recently.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to access to broadband. That, too, is important and I met BT for discussions about it earlier this month. However, it is essential to be precise about what we want it to do. Broadband is not a magic wand that will suddenly do away with problems in rural areas; it offers potential but it must be used with precision and planning.
Mr. Todd: My right hon. Friend briefly touched on the horse sector, and I saw one or two other hon. Members nod their agreement about its importance. That sector is clearly growing in my constituency, but, once again, it would be facilitated by a careful examination of the planning regime that applies to the
402
development of not only the more serious horse enterprises, but those that provide more rough and ready leisure pursuits.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are working with the industry to identify what is needed to help it to expand.
The point that I am making strongly is that the Government are listening. We recognise that there are issues that need tackling to achieve our vision, which was so eloquently quoted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, of a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside, but we are taking action and we have made considerable progress. We are committed to engaging and working with people in the countryside to develop solutions.
David Taylor: Before the Minister moves on from equestrian activities, may I tell him that a farrier came to see me at my advice session on Saturday because he was concerned, not surprisingly, about the impact of a possible ban on hunting? Nevertheless, I put it to him that the probable disappearance of hunting is likely to be associated with an expansion in equestrian activity when the stigma of it being linked to hunting is removed. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Alun Michael: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I shall not expand on that topic during this debate, as I am sure that we will discuss it in the near future.
The Government are trying to govern for all the country. The rural economy is a part of the national picture. Effective national policies benefit everyone, irrespective of whether they live in rural or urban areas. Our economic policy has led to the United Kingdom having the lowest inflation rate in Europe and the lowest in this country for 30 years. That benefits the rural economy. We have the lowest long-term interest rates and mortgage rates for homeowners for 40 years. Unemployment in Britain is lower than at any tune for 25 years. Some 1.5 million more jobs have been created, and long-term youth unemployment—once 350,000—is now just 5,000.
To those Opposition Members who wish to talk down the rural economy let me say this: unemployment is down 36 per cent. in rural areas, compared with a drop of 31 per cent. in urban areas. Rural areas have benefited massively from the drop in unemployment that the Government have achieved, and other national policies benefit rural areas, too. Putting schools and hospitals first, with the biggest ever sustained increases in public investment, help both the rural and urban economies. The adoption of the minimum wage has raised incomes in rural areas. Indeed, the benefits to low-paid people in rural areas are probably greater than to those in urban areas.
What about the Conservative party's record on school closures? Three rural schools a year have closed since 1997, and only five have closed since 2000. Between 1983 and 1997, the closure rate was 30 a year. I am not surprised that Conservative Members look embarrassed.
Mr. Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend mentioned the minimum wage. We hear much about

403
falling farmers' incomes, but, earlier today at Prime Minister's questions, once again we heard an appeal, loud and clear, from the Opposition to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. What good would that do to our rural economy?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Such a decision would be extremely damaging, which is why Ministers have not supported it.
I want to look further at the question of essential services because people need to have access to high-quality public services no matter where they live. Let us consider affordable homes. Since 1997, the Government have doubled the funding for creating affordable homes to £1.2 billion a year, which is supporting the creation of 20,000 affordable homes every year. The Housing Corporation's rural affordable housing programme has also been doubled. We are ahead of the target set out in the rural White Paper. Restrictions on the right to buy in rural areas have helped, as has judicious use of planning powers by local authorities. We recognise that more needs to be done, but we are working in partnership with employers and public and private landlords. It is worth noting that, since 1997, 20 per cent. of social housing has been built in rural areas.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury may think that it was a clever ploy to suggest a change in the arrangements last week—he has wisely rowed back from what was said then—but the right to buy led to a loss of 91,000 homes from the social rented sector in rural areas between 1985 and 1990. That would be okay if those homes were being replaced, but it is hardly a blinding flash of inspiration to accelerate the loss. We need to ensure that affordable housing is there not just for the short term, but for the long term.
The question of choice and enabling people to have a decent start in life and being able to own their own homes is part of a wider picture, and there is no quick fix. The Rural Housing Trust, with which I have had discussions, and other organisations—charities, as well as housing associations—have a major contribution to make. It is worth making the point again that the target of 60 per cent. of new homes being built on brownfield land has been met eight years earlier than was forecast. The Opposition seem to suggest that there is some sort of threat to the greenbelt, but 30,000 hectares have been added to it since 1997.
Let us consider health and social services. By 2004, there will be 100 new primary care, one-stop or mobile units, 5,000 intermediary care beds in rural areas, and guaranteed access to primary care within 24 hours and a doctor within 48 hours. NHS Direct is now available throughout England, and it is having an even greater impact in rural areas than in urban areas.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister is talking about access to doctors. Is he aware that my constituency has the fourth largest ratio of patients to GPs in the United Kingdom, that some GPs are about to retire and that those services are beginning to approach crisis point? How can he make those brave
404
boasts about increased access to GPs when the shortage of GPs is already a growing crisis around the United Kingdom?
Alun Michael: Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Government are training more doctors and more nurses, so making available the people who will start to fill those gaps? We are trying to ensure that they can be recruited to provide the service in rural areas, as well as in urban areas. We are trying to deliver services for the whole population, not just for segments of it.
On post offices, there is a requirement to maintain the rural network. Net closures fell from 435 in 2000–01 to 210 in 2001–02 and we are working with local communities and local government to try to ensure that there is no loss from the network. As with shops, there is a challenge to local communities to choose to use facilities to ensure that they are viable and can be maintained.
We recognise the differential needs of rural and urban communities. For example, the new rural police fund has injected an extra £30 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03. The fund was based on research into the cost of providing a rural police service, rather than research into the level of crime. I can say with some pride that I commissioned the research on which that decision was taken when I was deputy Home Secretary.
Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way once again and draw his attention to the experience in rural south Derbyshire, where a mobile police station, manned by two officers, has been dedicated to the task of working with rural communities, specifically farmers concerned about farm crime. I do not recall that service under the Conservative Government.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes his point very well indeed.
Throughout the country, I do not find that all the problems to do with fear of crime or those to do with housing or transport have been resolved, but people are more and more frequently saying, "Something has changed. Things are being done as a result of the Government's actions." For example, we have put £239 million over the three years of the spending period into public transport. We have 1,800 new or improved bus routes in England and 81 rural transport partnerships. We have created the formal presumption against closing rural schools, and only three schools have closed since 2001, compared to 30 between 1983 and 1997.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister provide an assurance this evening that he will fight within the Government to ensure that the proposed changes in local government funding, which will have a direct impact on the amount of resources going to Lincolnshire and other shire counties, will not happen? Will he also fight within Government against Home Office proposals to change the way in which police authorities are funded in rural areas, to ensure that there are no cuts in Lincolnshire or other shire counties?
Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am bringing to the attention of colleagues across

405
Government the needs of rural communities, and that we are discussing these matters sensibly. I must tell him, however, that anybody who has had experience of formulae, and of what happens when any formula is changed, whether in relation to local government, the police service or health—I have had experience of all three—will know the complexities involved and the unintentional outcomes when one seeks to make such changes. It is a difficult, delicate issue that does not get easier as time goes on.
I have illustrated that, in a series of areas, we have brought rural policy into the centre of government. The commitment on rural issues is reflected in central Government by the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the specific aim of achieving thriving rural economies and communities, bringing new focus and drive to the Government's policies for rural England. The establishment of the Countryside Agency, with a budget of some £90 million a year, is helping to deliver integrated and sustainable rural policy. It delivers important programmes combining social and community interests with economic and environmental needs, such as the vital villages and market towns initiatives, and has piloted innovative schemes to ensure that rural people get the services that they need.
Mr. Bill Wiggin rose—
Mr. Richard Bacon rose—
Alun Michael: I have spoken for some time and have given way repeatedly to Opposition Members. I think that I need to make a little progress to allow other Members on both sides of the House to enter the debate.
We are helping local groups to make the connection between their needs and opportunities, such as that developed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) with the local parish council—runners-up in the local parish council of the year award—in Waters Upton. Shop and pub closures have been recognised as issues with which local people need to engage. A recent pub closure led to a telling comment from the landlord, who said, "The problem is that I have trade during the summer when we have visitors and walkers in the area, but local people are not using the pub." The challenges are therefore not only for Government but for local communities in the choices that they make.
The Government are listening to the real concerns of rural people to find solutions, and are working with people on those solutions. We have set up the Rural Affairs Forum for England, which I chair, which works with representatives of all strands of rural opinion, giving rural people a voice at the heart of government. Every region has its own rural affairs forum with representation on the national forum, and sub-groups deal with specific issues such as tourism and urban-rural linkages. Next month, in conjunction with the forum, we are holding a rural conference for the first time to discuss the interdependence between towns and countryside. Opposition Members should work with us to try to recreate linkages and understanding between urban and rural areas rather than encouraging the idea of a divide.
406
We are not just listening; we are committed to working in partnership to achieve our aims. For instance, the "Your Countryside, You're Welcome" campaign was designed to assist rural communities to recover this year after the impact of foot and mouth disease. We are also working with the Countryside Alliance on its "Food Fortnight". We can work with all sorts of people to improve the economy and the quality of life in rural areas. We need to reconnect rural people with urban people, however, because we need each other. We need to get rid of the talk of urban-rural divides.
As I said earlier, we appreciate and value the contribution that parish councils make to local democracy, but they can do more. We are committed to giving them a greater role in leading and invigorating their communities. The quality town and parish council scheme will give country towns and villages more scope to shape their future and make local government in the countryside more responsive to local needs. We provided £2 million to help establish a national training and support strategy for towns and parish councils. I am very pleased to hear the responses from the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils, and parish councillors up and down the country, such as those whom I met recently in the Forest of Dean and west Lancashire. We seek to work with parish councils to enhance their role. The message is getting through and it is making a difference.
There are many example of how people in rural areas can take a grip of, and improve, their future. The vital villages project and the information provided by the Countryside Agency show how we can work with the agency and local government to improve the quality of life. Major challenges face rural communities along with those of maintaining a positive quality of life and the environment that is so valued. We are taking action to address the problems that exist and many improvements can be seen, although more needs to be done. We are committed to working with all those who share the Government's vision for the countryside and will empower communities to develop local solutions.
8.56 pm
Malcolm Bruce: This is an important debate, but it will be short and I fear that not many Members will be able to participate. Indeed, at one point, I thought that we would go straight from the Front-Bench speeches to the wind-ups.
I am astonished that the Tories should choose to debate the rural economy, given their record in government. It is worth recording what they did to it. They started by cutting independent agricultural research and compromised advice for their own policy. As a result of that, they presided over a series of catastrophic disasters in farming and the rural economy. They cut the number of government scientific offices and of vets. We then found ourselves with the catastrophe of BSE, which they were slow to acknowledge and to respond to. Indeed, they tried to cover it up until it was impossible to conceal the scale of the disaster that we faced.
Not only that, at a time when farmers faced the adverse effects of the exchange rate, the Tories consistently refused to pass on the full agrimonetary

407
compensation to which farmers were entitled. The Tories consequently contributed to the depression of farm incomes.
David Taylor:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish my description of this catalogue of disasters? The Tories sold off affordable housing in rural areas—we have debated that—and they now want to flog off the rest as their contribution to the viability of rural economies. They completely failed to acknowledge that their wholesale privatisation programme and the centralisation of services withdrew services and jobs from, and undermined the viability of, rural communities.
Mr. Martin Salter rose—
Mr. Colin Pickthall rose—
Malcolm Bruce: The Tories withdrew bus services under bus regulation, accelerated post office closures and withdrew health services into the city. That is the catalogue of disaster in 18 years of Tory government, and they have the cheek to come here with a bleeding-heart resolution expressing their concerns about the rural community that they destroyed.
David Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have added to that sorry catalogue of evidence the fact that, of the massed ranks of the 166 Members in the parliamentary Conservative party, only six are in the Chamber for their debate. Fewer than 4 per cent. of their number are here, so 96 per cent. of the parliamentary Tory party should be ashamed of themselves.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes his point perfectly fairly. The point I make, however, is not that the Conservatives have been out of power for five years and can now make a fresh start, but that most of the damage that has been inflicted on the rural economy was inflicted by the failures, the mismanagement and misbegotten policies of the Conservative Government. It is astonishing that they should now wish to come along as knights in shining armour in a bid to say that they are the saviours of the rural community.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The hon. Gentleman paints an interesting picture, but how does it correspond with what has happened under the Ministry for Environment and Rural Development in Scotland? Under its Liberal Democrat management, average farm incomes have declined to a greater degree in Scotland than in England and Wales. In fact, ministerial time has been taken up with a Bill to ban fur farming when there are no fur farms in Scotland.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman, who as the only Conservative MP in Scotland is himself an endangered species, should know that the Minister in Scotland has been acknowledged as standing up for rural communities and Scottish farmers, with whom he has a good relationship. In particular, he handled the foot and
408
mouth crisis with considerable acuity and distinction, and rather more effectively than the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have a great deal of confidence in him. I am not alone in that. I have heard the National Farmers Union and other environment agencies in Scotland sing his praises in meetings because of his competence and commitment to fighting for the rural community.
On farm incomes, I repeat that the exchange rate is the biggest single factor in the decline in farm incomes in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's party will not address that and it refused to provide the agrimonetary compensation to protect farm incomes. The Conservatives could have done that and, because they did not, are more responsible for the drop in farm incomes than even the Labour party.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of how much of the farming industry has reached this point, but he cannot wash his hands of his party's responsibility in Wales and Scotland, where it has been part of a coalition and where, as it happens, it is responsible for agriculture in both countries. Does not he think it uniquely ironic that his motion states
"that British agriculture"—
which I assume includes Wales and Scotland—
"is in the throes of its worst recession since the 1930s"?
What role has his party played in that?
Malcolm Bruce: I have just explained that the prime reason for the recession in agriculture is the exchange rate. That is the biggest single factor. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly do not have control of the exchange rate. The Westminster Parliament and the Whitehall Government do, but they will not make a decision that will resolve the problem because the Prime Minister is too scared to face up to it.
The Conservatives have a brass neck and a cheek to come up with the motion, which sticks in the throat. Most people in beef-producing rural areas such as mine still have fixed in their minds the picture of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) feeding his daughter hamburgers while he assured us that there was no problem with British beef—when, in fact, there was a catastrophic problem with it. They will not forget what the Tories did to our beef industry.
The Minister made a long speech, but he gave no clear idea of the results delivered by a Labour Government to turn the situation around. Labour continued to run down the number of scientific officers and vets when it came to power. That is only now being reversed, but the number has not climbed back to where it needs to be. The Government mismanaged the foot and mouth epidemic and refused to hold a public health inquiry. All they did was introduce draconian measures in the Animal Health Bill, which they tried to force it through Parliament. The other place rightly delayed it because the measures were unjustified, unnecessary and, in many cases, vindictive, and they did nothing to secure cooperation between Government and farmers to deal with the problem of epidemics.
The Secretary of State is not here. I am not complaining; I merely point it out. I criticise her most specifically on this matter. She loses few opportunities to

409
talk about reform of the common agricultural policy, but she does so in a way that shows a complete lack of consideration of the dire state of farm incomes. We all want a reform that ensures that the continual subsidisation of production is replaced by more beneficent measures. However, the Secretary of State seems to imply—the Secretary of State for Scotland has also been accused of this—that farmers are subsidy junkies. In reality, farmers are looking for an income that bears a correlation to their costs of production.
Most farmers I talk to would be happy to live in an environment without subsidies if the price paid at the farm gate related to their costs of production. There is no correlation at the moment, and it is one reason why all major agricultural systems in the world have some form of subsidy. When the Secretary of State talks about reform, she often does not realise how concerned farmers are that all she wants to do is to cut the subsidies that they still have, in spite of the fact that their average income has dropped to about £7,000 a year. That is not a viable proposition.
I repeat that the Government have underestimated the scale of the exchange rate's impact on farm incomes and business. They have not given the full agrimonetary compensation that was available, and they have continued to dither about what we should do about the exchange rate. This party has been clear in its views, and certainly an early decision to join the euro, subject to a referendum for the British people, would do more than any other measure to restore the incomes of the farming community. In any case, whether one is for or against the euro, what is needed in every sector of the economy is a decision, rather than the Prime Minister leaving the British economy to dither and struggle year after year because he does not have the confidence or leadership to face up to the issue.
As I have mentioned, I represent a mixed agricultural community, which apart from being a prime quality beef-producing area is also a pig area, a sheep area and an arable area. However, beef has been the flagship of the north-east of Scotland, and we are still suffering under export regulations negotiated by the Government to secure the chimera of the legal lifting of the ban, whereas in reality we all know that it is pretty impossible to sell British beef abroad because we are overregulated. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary is muttering. I say to him that companies and producers that had a large export market for prime Scotch beef are unable even to consider rebuilding it, because the regulations that we have imposed on ourselves to secure the lifting of the ban make it impossible, on grounds of practicality and cost, to deliver a product at the quality and price necessary to build up such a market.
The serious point that I make to Ministers is that with BSE incidence rising in France and Ireland, although not yet to UK levels, which are falling, surely there will come a time in the not-too-distant future when an EU-wide regime will apply fairly and evenly across the whole market and a genuine single market will be re-established for beef and beef exports. An Italian beef importer, rejoicing in the name of Mrs. Francesca Piccolini, was a major importer of quality Scotch beef before the ban was imposed and says that she has scoured the world to look for a replacement product of comparable quality and has been unable to find anything as good. Yet she still cannot get back into the
410
market because she cannot get quality at a realistic price. The Government should address that issue in the hope that, in two or three years, we can once more have a single market in beef and other meat products.
In the long speech by the Minister for Rural Affairs there were many references to initiatives, targets and White Papers, many promises and many indications of additional money here and there, but ultimately the Government will be judged on delivery. Right now, the rural economy does not see that delivery. People will judge the Government by the outcomes, and although I made it clear that the root of the problem was 18 years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, the Government have certainly not rebuilt confidence or solved the problems faced by rural areas. That is why, in spite of the lateness of the hour and the shortness of the debate, the fundamental question for the political parties is: who has the necessary vision to address the issues facing rural communities?
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of that rebuilding is very difficult because of the factors to which he adverted? Among other things, selling off care homes and privatising British Telecom, which made broadband provision much more difficult, have made it more difficult for us to climb out of the mess that we were left than if we had been given a reasonable shot.
Malcolm Bruce: That is a perfectly fair point; I will not take issue with it. I am saying, however, that excuses will not ultimately impress the voters. They want results; we have to deliver results. We as a party have sought to address some of the issues and to start to develop policies that we believe will begin to rebuild confidence in the economy. We have a vision of a rural economy that promotes harmony with the environment but recognises the varying and important contribution that the countryside makes to the whole economy; and, indeed, which ends the urban-rural divide, which is not constructive. We have a number of measures that would go some way towards achieving that.
I will not labour the point other than to say that it remains our view that joining the euro as soon as is practicable and subject to a referendum would help to secure a competitive market in the CAP. As long as we remain outside the euro, we shall be increasingly disadvantaged. That is an indisputable fact for agriculture whatever the relevance of the euro to other sectors of the economy. We happen to believe that the euro would benefit the whole economy.
We recognise that we need to diversify the strength of the rural economy—the income not only of agriculture but of other activities. We want to encourage and promote co-operatives, as the Government have said they recognise. We want to promote marketing initiatives that will help to secure diversification, adding value to and diversifying farm produce, boosting tourism and attracting new businesses. That requires practical measures of support—certainly in finding new investment.
Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Malcolm Bruce: No, I am anxious that others should he able to make some contribution to the debate.

411
One area worth exploring is whether rural communities can secure a direct stake in the resources that they provide for the whole community. I have in mind things such as the water supply, which at the moment is owned by privatised water companies that have their own shareholders and do not cut the community into the benefits. The Minister for Rural Affairs knows perfectly well that that is an issue of sharp political focus in Wales, especially north Wales, dating back 50 years or more. My argument is not that the residents of Liverpool, Birmingham or Manchester should not benefit from Welsh water, but that the Welsh people should receive some benefit in direct revenue accruing from that. We should consider community ownership or a community share, certainly for new developments. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, now Lord Ashdown, long argued that a mutual stake in such services had much to commend it.
We have the proposed expansion of renewable energy sources, such as wind farms and others. I recently witnessed with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and the all-party parliamentary group on renewable and sustainable energy the encouragement of the German authorities in order to ensure that communities secured an ownership in wind turbines. That had two benefits. First, it meant that the community could see an income flow rather than just an outside business developing and exploiting their resource. Secondly, with indicative planning, it helped to remove people's fear that wind turbines would be spread all over the landscape without any regard to bird migration, scenic beauty, scientific interest or, indeed, over-development. If rural communities are to be exploited in order to provide resources for the wider community, I strongly commend to the Government a sensitive planning regime and the opportunity for revenue to accrue directly to the community. I want the Government to consider whether there are ways of exploring that.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made mention of broadband, as did the Minister. Whenever the issue is raised with the Government, the standard ministerial reply is that they have had discussions with BT. With the greatest respect, I must tell the Minister that people are looking for a little more than that. They want some commitment to ensure that broadband will be available.
The problem is potentially rather more severe than the hon. Member for Aylesbury set out. Lack of broadband access will not only stifle the development or attraction of new businesses in rural areas but threaten the continuing survival of those already located there. If they cannot access broadband, many will have to move to a place where they can. I suggest that the matter requires more than Ministers having conversations with BT. There should be a Government policy to try to ensure the drawing down of broadband to rural communities and the delivery of the service in the long run.
Rural proofing has been mentioned as something that the Government talk about, but to be honest it does not test very well. Indeed, the Countryside Agency is not that impressed. There are a number of problems. The
412
costs of providing services in rural areas tend to be higher and the funding of local authorities and other public agencies does not fully take account of that.
A specific issue that has had an impact in my constituency is small rural schools. They are an important part of the fabric of the rural community, but if the rebuilding or modernisation of those schools is a serious issue and the Government's response is, in essence, that the only way to fund the work is through PFI, there is a problem. To be frank, rural schools are of no interest to private developers, so PFI could lead to the forced closure of rural schools, to be replaced by larger schools covering a wider area.
Pete Wishart: The Liberal Democrats are in government in Scotland.
MalcolmBruce: It is not happening in Scotland—well, it is in some parts of Scotland, but not where Liberal Democrats are in charge, because we consult local people and we have clearly stated that we will not close schools against the wishes of the local people. The one school in my constituency that has closed since Labour came to power, a school in the Moray council area, was closed by a Labour chairman of education and the closure was sanctioned by a Labour Minister, against the expressed wishes of the local community.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Malcolm Bruce: No.
Further issues relating to services in rural areas include the provision of further education, training within rural communities, and outreach clinics. As for the Post Office, it is somewhat ironic that the Government decided to force the transfer of benefit payments from post offices to banks and credit transfers to cut the costs of the former Department of Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions, but now have to find an almost exactly similar sum to support post office services. It makes one wonder whether they would have done better to leave well enough alone. Finally, advice centres in rural areas are difficult to fund and often face closure, leaving people having to travel to advice centres in towns up to 50 miles away.
Another important and much debated issue is that of affordable housing in rural communities. Local authorities and housing associations clearly need freedom to invest in housing, and planning guidelines must be revised. In addition, I suggest ending the second home council tax rebate and using the revenue to allow local authorities and others to fund new housing development to meet the requirement for affordable housing. It is interesting that the Tories are so keen to sell off the remaining housing association stock at a discount: it is Mickey Mouse economics to believe that one can continue to sell at a discount and the money will not run out. I wonder whether the Conservatives would be so enthusiastic if the same rule applied to privately rented accommodation in rural areas. If such properties were sold off at a discount to tenants, it would make a huge contribution to the welfare of rural communities. I suspect that such a policy would not be greeted with warm support from the Conservatives, but I think it a better policy than theirs.

413
As I am happy to acknowledge, there is strong political competition for rural votes. Many constituencies in rural areas are marginal, with some having only recently become so. Some Labour Members have been astonished to find themselves representing rural constituencies, and on occasion their astonishment shows. A lot of Conservatives are no longer in Parliament because they no longer represent rural areas, whereas there is a swelling rank of Liberal Democrats who have built up their strength: more than half our constituencies are rural. Major factors in our success have been the discredited policies of the Tory Government and rural people's lack of conviction about Labour's competence and understanding of rural issues.
I suggest that the complexion of the House of Commons after the next general election will to a substantial extent be determined by how the parties tackle rural issues. We Liberal Democrats are determined to be out in front in that respect—indeed, we already are. At our party conference in Brighton, we adopted as a blueprint for policy development our radical "Rural Futures" paper, which bears reading.
While the Tories, by their own admission, have no policies, and Labour continues to send a discordant message, we, the Liberal Democrats, are determined to establish our party as the natural party of the countryside.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I call Ian Cawsey.
Mr. Pickthall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether there is anything that Mr. Speaker's good offices could do to prevent a disgraceful situation whereby the amount of time available to Back-Bench Members is likely to be reduced to about 20 minutes if we are lucky?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. The time given to Front-Bench speeches is entirely a matter for Front Bench speakers.
9.20 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey: Having listened to that exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall either reduce the number of points that I make or speak faster—in reality, a bit of both.
I intend to speak about the rural economy and public services in rural areas. Many measures are used to establish how well an economy is going and to prove a point one way or the other. In my judgment, one of the best measures has always been that of how many people are in work. If the economy is going well, people have jobs. When it is not, unfortunately people do not have jobs. I represent one of the largest rural constituencies in England. Since Labour came to power, we have enjoyed a 41 per cent. fall in unemployment. That has taken the unemployment level down to 3 per cent. We are very pleased about that, of course.
The Opposition, in moving the motion, are commenting on the state of the rural economy. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), unemployment has fallen by 49 per cent. since Labour came to power. In the constituency of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
414
(Mr. Hayes), it has fallen by 32 per cent. In the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), it has fallen by 42 per cent. It has fallen by 29 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and by 43 per cent. in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean). In the constituency of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) it has fallen by 29 per cent. Whatever problems there are—and no one could deny that there are problems—things have become better since Labour came to power.
The motion refers to difficulties in agriculture that are real and ongoing. The hon. Member for Aylesbury fairly said in his opening remarks that they cannot all be put at the feet of the present or any other Government. But rural economies, like all economies, are dynamic. They must adapt and change to respond to different circumstances. I am pleased that in my constituency many of those involved in agriculture have diversified, modernised and considered other ways to run a business in their locality, and have since been successful.
Reference has been made to the Curry report, "The Future of Farming", which, broadly speaking, has received a good welcome throughout the House. There has been some talk about the funding that will come on board. However, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that many funding streams are already available for those in the rural sector. Only the other month, I was at Moore's farm, one of the largest farms in the south part of the Isle of Axholme in my constituency, opening its new plant and modernised equipment, which had in part been paid for through grant aid given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that that support was well received.
Councils can make a difference through their support. North Lincolnshire council, which serves the south part of my constituency, was successful in obtaining single regeneration budget funding—under SRB6. As a suggestion, which came in part from the local National Farmers Union, the council decided to put some of that money into the rural area represented by it to help people in agriculture who needed to diversify into other parts of business. That, plus the rate relief on rural businesses that the Government introduced, has made a real difference.
I make that point for two reasons. First, it is a success story in a rural area. Secondly, the same NFU made the same offer to the neighbouring council, which also had SRB money. That is a Tory council, North Lincolnshire being Labour. The Tory council refused the offer. Yet the Tories talk about problems in the rural economy. The money was available, the possibility was there, and the NFU was making the offer, but West Lindsey council said no. I say that because the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made a short intervention earlier. He is no longer in his place, but I know that he will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 35 per cent. in his constituency since Labour came to power.
It was helpful for many rural areas when the Government came to reassess the regional map to ascertain where we could tap into European funding. We broke down the areas that could be eligible. I represent Goole, which is not a rural area, but which has great deprivation problems. It could never get on to the map because it was surrounded by affluence. However,

415
breaking down areas into council ward level allowed that to happen for the first time for Goole, and the marshlands, which are all the villages round it. They became eligible for assisted aid from Europe, which was welcome.
Mention has been made of regional development agencies. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to the metropolitan areas of Yorkshire and Humberside. He, too, has left the Chamber. No doubt he will welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 49 per cent. since Labour came to power.
The right hon. Gentleman said that North Yorkshire was the only metropolitan area in Yorkshire and Humberside. I do not think that people in the East Riding of Yorkshire consider themselves metropolitan at all but they have managed to get significant funding through the regional development agency. They have also managed, through a local inquiry, to ensure that 200 acres of former agricultural land has been converted for industrial use to exploit the natural advantages of the area. The American company, Guardian, is building a large glass factory there that will employ hundreds of people, so I look forward to the 3 per cent. unemployment rate in my constituency falling still further. That will be an achievement due in part to what the Government have done.
Another successful scheme is the market towns initiative in Brigg. I am pleased that the Countryside Agency chose Brigg marketplace to advertise the market towns initiative in one of the excellent little newspapers that it sends us all from time to time. The picture showed my constituency office but the article did not state where it was, so I was a little disappointed at that, but in general terms it was nice to see Brigg being advertised in that way.
Matthew Green: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government often promote the market towns initiative as providing £1 million per market town? In reality, the maximum is £300,000, and it is dependent on an awful lot of matched funding coming in from various sources. A couple of towns in my constituency have been granted market town initiative status, and I am glad of that, but the promotion gave the impression that they would get £1 million of public money. The reality is far from that.
Mr. Cawsey: I am grateful for that intervention. I never thought that my town would get £1 million, and I have never heard that before. If there is such a misapprehension, I am sure that the Minister would want to pick it up. I stress that the initiative in my constituency was never advertised as providing £1 million for the town. Nevertheless, it was good news. There is much to be done in the rural economy, but people sometimes try to pretend that it is all wrong, when there are good things as well.
I shall comment briefly on public services. I served as a county councillor for seven years and as leader of North Lincolnshire council for two years before coming to the House. There has always been the challenge of delivering public services in sparsely populated areas—
416
for example, small schools service delivery. One of the things that we considered and eventually introduced in North Lincolnshire was the concept of local links out in villages—the idea that not just council services, but services provided by the jobcentre, colleges and other organisations can be based in one building, with a range of such bases across the villages, so that instead of always having to go to urban centres for help and support, people could get that out in the countryside. Those initiatives are now commonplace across our area and have proved to be enormously popular and successful.
North Lincolnshire council was a Labour council, and still is. It obviously was while I was leader. At the time when we proposed the local links scheme, the Conservatives on the council voted against it. They opposed it. They voted to keep all the council services in Scunthorpe, the major town of the area, and did not want anything to do with local links at all. We must ask ourselves who is talking about getting services into the countryside—the Labour party or the Conservative party?
On rural schools, so many classrooms have been built in my constituency since 1997 that I could bore the House endlessly with them. Let me tell the House about Alkborough, a lovely village. When we came to power, the school in Alkborough still had an outside toilet. Not only did we get rid of that very quickly, but we built two new classrooms in order to meet the class size pledge. When I went to the opening of those, there was a new foundation stone showing the year 2000, next to the one for the original building, which was from 1870-something. The head teacher at the time, Austin Holden, said, "We have these two foundation stones with 130 years between them, and no Government spent any money between those two dates, until this Government came along."
Jim Knight: Are any of my hon. Friend's schools getting new school halls? In my constituency just a year ago, three schools approached me, and now all three are on their way to getting new halls in the near future.
Mr. Cawsey: I am sure that that is the case. I hope to have a new school at Rawcliffe and another at South Ferriby.
There is much more that I could say about public services, but I am aware of the time and I know that others want to come in, so I shall give the final word in my little contribution to a local farmer, the chairman of one of the branches of my National Farmers Union. We were out together the other night in a joint enterprise to keep the British brewing industry going, and he said to me, "You know, Ian, I am not really all that bothered about politics". All hon. Members know that that is the lead-in to a constituent saying that he does not support them. He said, "I am not really bothered about politics, but when I was old enough to vote, I mentioned it to my granddad, who said, 'You are a farmer, son, so what you do is vote Conservative and pray that the Labour party wins.'"
Having watched the performance in the Chamber tonight, all the prayers and hopes must go to the Conservative party, because on this performance, the Conservatives do not have a prayer.
9.30 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), especially as he has enlightened me somewhat about the market towns initiative. Hexham was a Labour target seat and the Labour party announced before the election that we would have £1 million as part of the initiative. On making inquiries, just as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) did, we discovered that the amount put in was significantly less than £1 million. None the less, for target seats the stated amount was £1 million, and I still have the press release in my files to prove it.
It is right and proper for me to declare an interest as a consultant to the Countryside Alliance. I am proud to be a consultant to that organisation, which brought 407,791 people into London in the biggest demonstration ever seen in this city. Let me tell the Minister for Rural Affairs that there was certainly no muddle at the heart of the march. Presumably, he did not march, but I and many other colleagues did so and I can say that there was no such muddle. The muddle lies at the heart of DEFRA. It is fascinating that the Minister should describe his Ministry as one of focus and drive when I would regard it as wonderful if I could obtain answers to letters that I sent to Ministers many months ago. Let us forget the focus and drive, and have some answers to letters dealing with the problems that farmers have raised with me and other colleagues. The Ministry has a vastly long way to go before it can be called a Ministry of focus and drive.
The Minister's muddle was shown by the way in which he dealt with the role of the farming economy in the countryside. There is a continual misunderstanding about the fact that only half a million people are directly employed in agriculture and that its importance is small in terms of GDP. To see how the farming industry underpins the rural economy, however, we must consider what happened when foot and mouth struck in my constituency and Northumberland as a whole, in Cumbria and Devon and also in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). When foot and mouth struck, the whole rural economy came to a standstill, but it was not the precautions that brought other businesses either near or completely to bankruptcy. When the countryside is closed, the tourism industry and other businesses suffer hugely. The strength and importance of the farming economy in the countryside is underlined by those dreadful tragedies.
The Minister talked about farming incomes falling under the Conservatives, but he was completely wrong. In 1995, the income of British agriculture was £6 billion, but in 2000, the last year for which I have figures, it fell to £1.8 billion. That is a huge fall during the life of this Government.
Farm incomes in my constituency, which contains many upland farms, are under £5,000 a year. They are even lower in Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are in coalition government, and I think in Wales, where there is also such coalition. The subsidy provided to an upland farmer in Cumberland will now be about £30,000 a year. The bleak logic is that it would be better for the taxpayer and possibly the farmer to strike a deal
418
so the stock is slaughtered and they take half the subsidy each. They would be better off, but the uplands would suffer from not being farmed.
In a constructive spirit, I ask the Minister to consider a particular issue concerning farming and the rural economy: the confusion that now exists because of the plethora of different organisations that are involved in the countryside. There are pockets of money, but such organisations have different and often conflicting requirements. The plethora of organisations drives farmers to confusion, especially in upland locations that are sensitive environmental areas. That is incredibly confusing on top of all the regulations and other burdens that the Government have imposed on the farming community.
In the short time that remains, I want to consider the reform of the common agricultural policy. The Government have let farming down on that. I appreciate that Ministers are busy, but the reform is important. Ministers are happy to shuttle around the capitals of Europe to pursue matters that are interesting or important to the Government, but they make little effort to set about meaningful reform of the disastrous CAP.
Jim Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that when the Conservative party was in power, nobody in Europe listened to it? It was ignored on BSE, yet when the Labour Government held the European presidency, the Commission adopted our policy on CAP reform. We are making progress. I admit that it is slow, but at least our voice is heard in Europe, unlike that of the Conservative party.
Mr. Atkinson: A party can only be judged on results. The Government's results on reforming the CAP have so far been lamentable. Most of the reforms agreed in the medium-term review are potentially damaging to, for example, livestock farming. Proper reform, which Sir Donald Curry specified, is right. I hoped that the Government would pursue the recommendation of Sir Donald, who is a constituent of mine. However, they did not do that with any force.
Since the Government have been in power, they have gone to Brussels, banged the table and returned with less than they had. Every time they go to Brussels, they return with a disadvantage to British farming. Only yesterday, the Meat and Livestock Commission produced a report showing that the agreed proposals in the medium-term review of the CAP would mean a reduction of 17 million in this country's sheep flock and substantial reductions in our beef herd. That has been agreed.
It is no good Ministers coming to the House and claiming that they are fighting and batting for the British farmer: the British farmer simply does not believe it. A quick resolution of the CAP's future is vital. Every day, farmers must make decisions in a capital-intensive business about whether to buy more land or more machinery—whether to expand to survive or diversify. Yet their future remains unknown.
Will young men and women who want to go into farming do so if they do not know where their future lies? The Government must understand that farming is the bedrock of the rural economy and rural society. If farming does not emerge from the current depression, the future for the rural areas of this country is grim.
9.37 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and I thank Conservative Front-Bench Members for giving us such a useful platform.
Contrary to popular opinion, I represent a constituency that is partly urban and partly rural. I live in a small village outside the town and I love country sports, especially fishing and shooting. I was pleased to be recently appointed adviser to the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Rural Affairs on fishing and shooting. I shall speak later about the tremendous contribution of those important sports to the rural economy. However, another subject, to which other hon. Members have referred, needs further examination: the spurious town and country divide.
Many of the activities and tactics of the Countryside Alliance are objectionable, not least the lies and smears that it spreads about the Labour party's intentions for fishing and shooting and the failure of its stewards at the latest march and that held a few years ago to prevent the British National party from distributing racist, fascist and prejudiced literature. Not a single Conservative Member or Countryside Alliance steward prevented the attendance of the British National party at the so-called march for the countryside.
David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salter: I will not give way. I have only three or four minutes to speak.
Most objectionable of all is the entirely false premise that we have some kind of apartheid Britain: one country that is urban, another that is rural. MORI recently polled a substantial sample of people, both from urban and rural environments. What were the top six issues in rural Britain? No. 1 was transport—well, are we surprised at that? No. 2 was protection of the environment. No. 3 was conservation of wildlife. No. 4 was the need to improve our infrastructure and our road system. No. 5 was crime. No. 6 was unemployment. The fact remains that the issues that affect rural Britain affect this country as a whole, and the spurious divide between town and country has to be challenged.
A tremendous contribution has been made by shooting not only to the rural economy but to the country as a whole. I would like to pay tribute to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has certainly helped me and was kind enough to invite my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and me to address a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference in Blackpool. Incidentally, that conference was not disrupted by the provisional wing of the Countryside Alliance, due to the arrest of Janet George and other prominent Countryside Alliance activists by the Lancashire constabulary, to whom we should pay tribute for upholding law and order in Blackpool and elsewhere. Sadly, I believe that those people have now been released.
In the United Kingdom, 26,300 full-time jobs are directly dependent on shooting. Another 13,450 are indirectly dependent on it. That is many more than the 700 jobs that relate directly to hunting, as identified in the Burns report, and very different from the 60,000 jobs
420
that were supposed to be under threat if hunting were banned. Those were more lies and smears put about by the Countryside Alliance.
David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Salter: No, I will not.
I also want to pay tribute to the shooters' acknowledgment of the contribution that the Labour party has already made to enhancing and developing their sport. I quote from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation's document:
"BASC warmly welcomes the … commitment made by the Labour party in its General Election Manifesto 2001, which states an unequivocal support for the sport of shooting".
I thank the association for that truthful acknowledgement of my party's true intentions when it comes to shooting.
On angling, nothing gave me greater pleasure than to read last week in the angling press the whines and whinges of the foxhunters saying that there were not enough anglers on the Countryside Alliance march. Too right, there were not enough anglers! If every angler I know, having caught a prize specimen fish, had to throw it to a pack of hounds to have it ripped to pieces, and smear its blood on their forehead in the barbaric way in which foxhunters used to do, there is no way that they would ever fish again. Three million anglers in this country will not be conned, either by the Tory party or by the Countryside Alliance.
In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "More! More!"] You can have 20 more minutes of this! In conclusion, we are facing the threat of global terrorism. We live in a world that is interdependent. We are one people, one nation, one world. The idea that the pathetic divisions that the Conservative party and their allies in the Countryside Alliance—let us never forget that 82 per cent. of those on the march were going to vote Conservative—are trying to portray are entirely false. Never mind town and country—whatever happened to one-nation Conservatism?
9.43 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I certainly give the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) full marks for volume, although he perhaps ought to be reminded that the president of the Countryside Alliance is a Labour peer and its chief executive is a member of the Labour party. I therefore regard his attacks on that organisation as, at best, intemperate.
The countryside is in crisis. The desperate plight of the countryside is both tangible and deeply felt. On 22 September, people from every part of the country descended on the streets of London. The crowd was good-natured, but as their numbers multiplied it became apparent that something extraordinary was taking place: the biggest demonstration in Britain's post-war history. Perhaps more extraordinary still was the reason for this gathering of 400.000 people. It was not for some fashionable, liberal cause, but rather a cry from the heart for this nation's greatest treasure: the countryside.

421
Some people have tried to dismiss that event as an aberration. I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs is an honourable and generous man. I had hoped that he would come to the House today and refute his remark that the march was an incoherent muddle, but he did not do so. I am disappointed, because I thought better of him. However, perhaps he will dissociate himself from the following statement:
"In broad terms the countryside is prosperous, contented and reasonably well-served."
That was the Prime Minister's analysis in 2000. If he said that today he surely would be ashamed of himself. If he went to the countryside and said it, he would not receive a happy reception.
The countryside is in crisis at every level: economic, environmental and social. I make no apologies for saying that agriculture is at the centre of that crisis. Farm incomes have plummeted. Incomes are at their lowest level since the 1930s. To put it another way, incomes are just 61 per cent. of their 1995 levels. How does that compare with the other countries of Europe? In the Netherlands the figure is 84 per cent., and it is more than 100 per cent. in 10 EU countries.
The crisis in Britain's countryside cannot be excused as part of some global phenomenon. Farm gate prices prove the point. We have the lowest prices for eggs in the EU bar Belgium, and the lowest prices for milk, butter and pig meat bar none. At the same time, input costs are rising. Figures from the House of Commons Library suggest that in the United Kingdom they are rising by about 0.6 per cent. a year, whereas in the rest of Europe they are falling by about 1.2 per cent.
That is a disaster for the rural economy, and it affects not just farmers. The point that many Labour Members do not seem to grasp and are not prepared to accept, although many of them take these issues seriously and have genuine concerns about the countryside, is that when farming suffers, the whole rural economy suffers. There is a knock-on effect on rural businesses—rural suppliers and retail businesses. Recently, I was in the small town of Holbeach in my constituency where a clothes retailer told me that his business had plummeted since the agricultural recession. That is true of many retail businesses throughout the countryside.
The countryside is also under threat from overdevelopment. Bulldozers have been used to destroy thousands of acres of rural Britain, with the promise of much more destruction to come. Once that has gone it will never be replaced. Unlike cities, the countryside cannot be rebuilt. If farmers are driven off the land, there will be no one to look after it.
Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: I cannot give way, because time is short, and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) cut into the Minister's time. If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) writes to me, I will be more than happy to give him an appropriate reply or a short lecture.
The point about the countryside that we enjoy is that it is an environment manufactured by farmers over centuries and maintained by farmers. Just as the landscape has suffered, so have its people. Public services in rural areas have declined. I ask the Minister whether
422
there are more post offices in rural areas now than there were in 1997, or fewer. Are there more local village shops, or fewer? Are there fewer pubs or more pubs? Are there fewer resources and services in rural communities than there were in 1997? The answer is unequivocal. All those trades and services are in decline, and that is contributing to low morale, to the feelings of despondency and neglect and to the belief among people in the countryside that the Government do not care for them.
The local government settlement that we discussed yesterday has exacerbated that problem. Time and again we have said that, when the Government deal with public services, they should take account of the particular problems of sparsity, rurality and remoteness, but they have refused to listen. I do not take anything away from the concerns of people in inner cities and the declining suburbs, but only rural Britain perceives a threat to its very existence.
At the heart of the problem is agriculture. While it is important to emphasise the need for diversification and the stimulation of other employment in rural areas, agriculture is at the core of the economic, environmental and social character of the countryside.
There are no simple solutions to these problems, but I believe that there are two competing visions for our countryside.
There are those who place undue emphasis on the interdependence of town and country, and to some extent they are of course interdependent, but that must not be used to disguise the particular needs—the particular and proper demands—of rural areas.
There are those who emphasise the use of the countryside as a resource for the population as a whole, but the countryside is not an abstraction; it is composed of real communities. No one would suggest that a policy for any large urban community should be primarily in the interests of the people who reside elsewhere.
There are those who play down the importance of agriculture to the countryside, while simultaneously telling us to reduce our dependence on agriculture. Conservatives believe that farming is the foundation of a sustainable rural economy, and there can be no sustainable countryside without viable agriculture.
There are those who misrepresent the problems of social exclusion in the countryside as problems caused by the countryside. Conservatives believe that the hidden poverty in the countryside must be addressed, and that rural deprivation is in part the result of unfair funding arrangements.
Finally, there are those who stifle the debate on rural policy by accusing dissenters of setting town against country. We heard that tonight from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). Conservatives recognise that in some respects town and country have different needs, which should not be swept under the carpet; but above all we believe that town and country are united in wanting the countryside to be delivered from those who seek to ruin it.
Perhaps the Minister will answer some specific questions. We have heard this evening about the need for broadband to be made more widely available, to allow economic diversity. We have heard about the inflexibility of the 20-day rule, and about its more flexible application in Scotland. That was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon

423
(Mr. Curry). We have heard about the need to support diversification within agriculture, allowing the dairy industry, for example, to become involved in processing by giving it tax breaks and other advantages.
Let me finally say this:
"the Countryside Alliance did what the Chartists, the Hunger Marchers and CND had all failed to do. The turnout"—
for the countryside march, that is—
"was … exceptional … their peaceful presence in such numbers on the streets entitles the protesters to respect, both for their cause and for their engagement."
Those are not my words, but those of a The Guardian editorial.
It was G.K. Chesterton who wrote
"we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet."
He wrote
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget."
In 1998, a quarter of a million people marched for the countryside and said "Listen to us", but this Government were unmoved. Last month they returned in greater numbers. The people have spoken loudly and clearly; this time, surely, the Government must listen and not forget.
9.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to the Dispatch Box, where he is appearing for the first time with his new Front-Bench team. I am not sure that his grasp of the range of countryside issues has developed yet, but no doubt it will do so in due course.
I think it only courteous to respond to some of what has been said in the time remaining to me. The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made some very fair points about regulations on beef exports. We are trying to deal with that. The regulations are changing, which we believe will encourage more people to come into the market.
The Government have committed £30 million to broadband roll-out. We have also supported local initiatives such as "Act Now" in Cornwall, which is providing broadband access in rural areas. We currently have 67 per cent. access, which is one of the highest rates in the G7 countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) was right to point out that unemployment has fallen dramatically in rural areas. I would have thought that Opposition Front Benchers would congratulate the Government on the huge falls in unemployment in their constituencies under our policies, but surprisingly we heard not a word about that from them.
I strongly disagree with what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said about the Secretary of State. This country now has a great deal of support in Europe—which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, contrasts with the situation under the last Government, when we were completely isolated, our opinions counted for nothing, and we had no influence over anything.
424
Now, we have support from member states who back the kind of proposals that are in the mid-term review. The Commission's proposals have been very much influenced by the arguments from this country. We are very much at the heart of the European Union, and are driving forward the changes. There has been no agreement on the mid-term review as yet, so I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Meat and Livestock Commission relate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made an excellent point about those who wish to exploit a mythical divide between urban and rural areas. Most people in urban or rural areas have the same concerns and worries. We recognise those concerns and we do not seek to make false distinctions. My hon. Friend was right also to mention the importance of shooting and fishing and the fact that they are separate issues. He was right also that many who support shooting and angling do not support foxhunting. The distinctions ought to be made.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that there were serious problems in agriculture, and no one would dispute that. The hon. Member for Gordon was fair to point out that those problems did not begin with the election of this Government. The problems are deep-seated, which is precisely why the Government set up the Food and Farming Commission to address them. The commission has received £500 million and the Government have provided £1.6 billion through the England rural development programme. The money has led to the reinstatement of the sort of schemes that every Member has been talking about today, including the need to reconnect farmers with the marketplace and the need to support marketing and integration. The previous Government axed marketing and processing grants; so much for their concern about agriculture and about meeting those needs. We have reinstated those grants in relation to the rural development fund. One of the problems that we face is that our share of the European rural development fund is a pathetic 3.5 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] I will tell hon. Members; the amount is based on the historical record over the last 18 years of what was spent in rural areas. I thank hon. Members for the invitation to make that point. That was useful.
For all the rhetoric that we have heard tonight, the Conservatives, when they were in power, could have spent more in rural areas and on a rural strategy but nothing was done. We have been paying the price since. There has been selective quoting from rural advocates, as rural agencies have highlighted important successes with rural proofing, which was introduced by the Government.
Conservative policies for the countryside were summed up in the 25 new policies and initiatives about which we heard at Bournemouth. It is a pity that we did not play "Name that Policy" to see who could recite them all. In a desperate bid to find new policies, someone was sent into the depths of Central Office to a filing cabinet with a skull and cross bones and a sign saying "Danger: do not open". He pulled out a drawer and, after removing Edwina's diaries, found a file marked "Rejected mad policies". The policies date back to the 1980s, and include the selling of housing association houses in rural areas. How will that help

425
rural housing need and rural communities? How will charities, many of which finance rural housing associations, feel about the fact that the Conservatives are pledged to sell off those homes, many of which were built with donations from local landowners who donated land and money and put the houses into trust for the local communities to benefit? They will be sold off at a discount—
David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 283.

Division No. 322]

[9:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Doughty, Sue

Allan, Richard

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Amess, David

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Ancram, rh Michael

Evans, Nigel

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Ewing, Annabelle

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fabricant, Michael

Bacon, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Barker, Gregory

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Flight, Howard

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, rh Eric

Bercow, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fox, Dr. Liam

Blunt, Crispin

Francois, Mark

Boswell, Tim

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Brady, Graham

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Gidley, Sandra

Brazier, Julian

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Breed, Colin

Goodman, Paul

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grayling, Chris

Bruce, Malcolm

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burnett, John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John

Burnside, David

Grieve, Dominic

Burt, Alistair

Hague, rh William

Butterfill, John

Hammond, Philip

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hancock, Mike

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Cameron, David

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Harvey, Nick

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Heald, Oliver

Chope, Christopher

Hendry, Charles

Clappison, James

Hermon, Lady

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Horam, John (Orpington)

Collins, Tim

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Conway, Derek

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jack, rh Michael

Cotter, Brian

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Curry, rh David

Jenkin, Bernard

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Djanogly, Jonathan

Kirkwood, Archy

Dodds, Nigel

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

426

Lamb, Norman

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Salmond, Alex

Leigh, Edward

Sanders, Adrian

Letwin, rh Oliver

Selous, Andrew

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Simmonds, Mark

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Simpson, Keith (M—Norfolk)

Lidington, David

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

Lilley, rh Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Loughton, Tim

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter (M—Worcs)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

MacKay, rh Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Maclean, rh David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Malins, Humfrey

Spring, Richard

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Streeter, Gary

Stunell, Andrew

Maude, rh Francis

Swayne, Desmond

May, Mrs Theresa

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mercer, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Moore, Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Moss, Malcolm

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Thurso, John

Norman, Archie

Tredinnick, David

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Ottaway, Richard

Tyrie, Andrew

Page, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Waterson, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Pickles, Eric

Weir, Michael

Portillo, rh Michael

Widdecombe, rh Ann

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Wiggin, Bill

Wilkinson, John

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Willetts, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Randall, John

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Redwood, rh John

Willis, Phil

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Rendel, David

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Wishart, Pete

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M—Kent)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Young, rh Sir George

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Younger—Ross, Richard

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. David Wilshire and Angela Watkinson

Rosindell, Andrew

Ruffley, David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Bradshaw, Ben

Ainger, Nick

Brennan, Kevin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Allen, Graham

Browne, Desmond

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Burgon, Colin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burnham, Andy

Atkins, Charlotte

Cairns, David

Austin, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bailey, Adrian

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Beard, Nigel

Caplin, Ivor

Begg, Miss Anne

Casale, Roger

Bennett, Andrew

Caton, Martin

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Berry, Roger

Challen, Colin

Betts, Clive

Clapham, Michael

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Boateng, rh Paul

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

427

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Clelland, David

Coaker, Vernon

Hoyle, Lindsay

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coleman, Iain

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Connarty, Michael

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cranston, Ross

Hutton, rh John

Crausby, David

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cruddas, Jon

Ingram, rh Adam

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Irranca—Davies, Huw

Cummings, John

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jamieson, David

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jenkins, Brian

Curtis—Thomas, Claire

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Darling, rh Alistair

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Kidney, David

Dawson, Hilton

King, Andy (Rugby)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Denham, rh John

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Dhanda, Parmjit

Lammy, David

Dobson, rh Frank

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Doran, Frank

Lazarowicz, Mark

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lepper, David

Drew, David (Stroud)

Leslie, Christopher

Dunwoody, Gwyneth

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Linton, Martin

Edwards, Huw

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Efford, Clive

Love, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Etherington, Bill

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

MacDonald, Calum

Fisher, Mark

MacDougall, John

Fitzpatrick, Jim

MacShane, Denis

Flint, Caroline

Mactaggart, Fiona

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Mahmood, Khalid

Follett, Barbara

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Foster, rh Derek

Mallaber, Judy

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Foulkes, rh George

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Gerrard, Neil

Martlew, Eric

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Gilroy, Linda

McCartney, rh Ian

Godsiff, Roger

McDonagh, Siobhain

Goggins, Paul

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McFall, John

Grogan, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hain, rh Peter

McIsaac, Shona

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hanson, David

McNulty, Tony

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McWalter, Tony

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McWilliam, John

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Meacher, rh Michael

Merron, Gillian

Healey, John

Michael, rh Alun

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Milburn, rh Alan

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Miliband, David

Hendrick, Mark

Miller, Andrew

Hepburn, Stephen

Mole, Chris

Heppell, John

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hesford, Stephen

Morgan, Julie

Heyes, David

Morley, Elliot

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mountford, Kali

Hodge, Margaret

Mullin, Chris

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

428

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Soley, Clive

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Southworth, Helen

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Spellar, rh John

O'Hara, Edward

Squire, Rachel

O'Neill, Martin

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Steinberg, Gerry

Owen, Albert

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Stewart, David (Inverness E Lochaber)

Perham, Linda

Picking, Anne

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pickthall, Colin

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Stringer, Graham

Plaskitt, James

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Timms, Stephen

Prosser, Gwyn

Tipping, Paddy

Purchase, Ken

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Purnell, James

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Quinn, Lawrie

Trickett Jon

Rammell, Bill

Truswell, Paul

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Turner, Dr. Defmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Robertson, John Glasgow Anniesland)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Robertson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Robertson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Ross Ernie (Dundee W)

Vaz Keith (Leicester E)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Vis Dr. Rudi

Ruane, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Ruddock Joan

Wareing, Robert N.

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Watson Tom (w Bromwich E)

Watts, David

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

white Brian

Salter, Martin

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Sawford, Phil

Winnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sheridan, Jim

Short, rh Clare

wood, Mike (Batley)

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Woolas, Phil

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Singh, Marsha

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, David (Telford)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe Lunesdale)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 185.

Division No. 323]

[10:12 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Beard, Nigel

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Begg, Miss Anne

Ainger, Nick

Bennett, Andrew

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Allen, Graham

Berry, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Betts, Clive

Blackman, Liz

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Blears, Ms Hazel

Atherton, Ms Candy

Boateng, rh Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Austin, John

Bradshaw, Ben

Bailey, Adrian

Brennan, Kevin

Barnes, Harry

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

429

Browne, Desmond

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Bryant, Chris

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Buck, Ms Karen

Burgon, Colin

Healey, John

Burnham, Andy

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cairns, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hendrick, Mark

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Heppell, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hesford, Stephen

Caplin, Ivor

Heyes, David

Casale, Roger

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Caton, Martin

Hodge, Margaret

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Challen, Colin

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clapham, Michael

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Humble, Mrs Joan

Coleman, Iain

Hutton, rh John

Connarty, Michael

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Ingram, rh Adam

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Irranca—Davies, Huw

Cranston, Ross

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Crausby, David

Jamieson, David

Cruddas, Jon

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cummings, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Curtis—Thomas, Claire

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dalyell, Tam

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Darling, rh Alistair

Kidney, David

Davidson, Ian

King, Andy (Rugby)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lammy, David

Dawson, Hilton

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lazarowicz, Mark

Denham, rh John

Lepper, David

Dhanda, Parmjit

Leslie, Christopher

Dobson, rh Frank

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Doran, Frank

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Linton, Martin

Drew, David (Stroud)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Love, Andrew

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Edwards, Huw

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Efford, Clive

MacDonald, Calum

Ellman, Mrs Louise

MacDougall, John

Etherington, Bill

MacShane, Denis

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fisher, Mark

Mahmood, Khalid

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flint, Caroline

Mallaber, Judy

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Follett, Barbara

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Foster, rh Derek

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foulkes, rh George

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Martlew, Eric

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McAvoy, Thomas

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

McCartney, rh Ian

Gerrard, Neil

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McDonnell, John

Gilroy, Linda

McFall, John

Goggins, Paul

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McIsaac, Shona

Grogan, John

McKenna, Rosemary

Hain, rh Peter

McNulty, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McWalter, Tony

Hanson, David

McWilliam, John

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Meacher, rh Michael

430

Merron, Gillian

Skinner, Dennis

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Milburn, rh Alan

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe Lunesdale)

Miliband, David

Miller, Andrew

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Mole, Chris

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Morgan, Julie

Soley, Clive

Morley, Elliot

Southworth, Helen

Mountford, Kali

Spellar, rh John

Mullin, Chris

Squire, Rachel

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Steinberg, Gerry

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stewart, David (Inverness E Lochaber)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Hara, Edward

Stoate, Dr. Howard

O'Neill, Martin

Stringer, Graham

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Owen, Albert

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Taylor' Dari (Stockton S)

Perham, Linda

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Picking, Anne

Timms, Stephen

Pickthall, Colin

Tipping, Paddy

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Plaskitt, James

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Trickett, Jon

Pound, Stephen

Truswell, Paul

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Dr. Desmond Brighton Kemptown)

Prosser, Gwyn

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Purchase, Ken

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Purchase, James

Twigg Stephen (Enfield)

Purnell, James

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Quinn, Lawrie

Tynan Bill (Hamilton S)

Rammell Bill

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Raynsford rh Nick

Walley, Ms Joan

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Wareing, Robert N.

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Watson Tom (w Bromwich E)

Watts David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'ry NW)

White, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Ruane, Chris

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Ruddock, Joan

Winnick, David

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Salter, Martin

Woolas, Phil

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Savidge, Malcolm

Sawford, Phil

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wright, David (Telford)

Sheridan, Jim

Wyatt, Derek

Short, rh Clare

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Singh, Marsha

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Allan, Richard

Brady, Graham

Amess, David

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Ancram, rh Michael

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Breed, Colin

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Bacon, Richard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Barker, Gregory

Bruce, Malcolm

Baron, John (Billericay)

Burnett, John

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Burns, Simon

Bellingham, Henry

Burnside, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Burt, Alistair

Blunt, Crispin

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Boswell, Tim

Calton, Mrs Patsy

431

Cameron, David

Lidington, David

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Lilley, rh Peter

Cash, William

Llwyd, Elfyn

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter (M—Worcs)

Chope, Christopher

MacKay, rh Andrew

Clappison, James

Malins, Humfrey

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Collins, Tim

Maude, rh Francis

Conway, Derek

May, Mrs Theresa

Cotter, Brian

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Curry, rh David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Mercer, Patrick

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Moore, Michael

Dodds, Nigel

Moss, Malcolm

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Norman, Archie

Doughty, Sue

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Ottaway, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Ewing, Annabelle

Paterson, Owen

Fabricant, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Fallon, Michael

Portillo, rh Michael

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Flight, Howard

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Forth, rh Eric

Pugh, Dr. John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Randall, John

Fox, Dr. Liam

Redwood, rh John

Francois, Mark

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Garnier, Edward

Rendel, David

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Robathan, Andrew

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Gidley, Sandra

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M—Kent)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Goodman, Paul

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Grayling, Chris

Roe, Mrs Marion

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Rosindell, Andrew

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Ruffley, David

Greenway, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grieve, Dominic

Salmond, Alex

Hague, rh William

Sanders, Adrian

Hammond, Philip

Selous, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Simmonds, Mark

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Simpson, Keith (M—Norfolk)

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

Harvey, Nick

Hawkins, Nick

Soames, Nicholas

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Heald, Oliver

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hendry, Charles

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Hermon, Lady

Spring, Richard

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Streeter, Gary

Horam, John (Orpington)

Stunell, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Swayne, Desmond

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Jack, rh Michael

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Jenkin, Bernard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Kirkwood, Archy

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Thurso, John

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Tredinnick, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lamb, Norman

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Tyrie, Andrew

Letwin, rh Oliver

Viggers, Peter

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Waterson, Nigel

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

432

Weir, Michael

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Widdecombe, rh Ann

Wiggin, Bill

Wishart, Pete

Wilkinson, John

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Willetts, David

Young, rh Sir George

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Wilshire and Angela Watkinson

Willis, Phil

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the millions of British people dependent on the rural economy; welcomes the Government's support for the farming and food industry in meeting the enormous challenges of change; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper; applauds the Government's wider record on public service delivery in rural areas; welcomes the £239 million allocated over three years to 2003–04 for new and improved rural transport services; further welcomes schemes in place to provide affordable housing in rural areas, including the Rural Exception and the doubling of the Housing Corporation's Rural Target; commends the efforts to retain the rural post office network and expand services; further applauds the Government's commitment to invest more than £500 million extra over three years in sustainable food and farming, including £200 million in 2005–06 to implement the core recommendations of the Curry Commission; acknowledges the establishment for the first time of a rural PSA target for increased productivity and improved access to vital public services for all rural people; and calls upon the Government to continue pursuing a strategy based on long term policies to regenerate British agriculture, improve rural services and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Angela Eagle be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Mr Anthony D. Wright be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr Kelvin Hopkins be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PETITIONS

  Air Ambulance Services
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: This petition from the residents of the Boston and Skegness constituency declares that the
  Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance provides a vital community service; and that an annual budget of £1 million is needed to keep its helicopters flying.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to express his support for the work of the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance and to take the appropriate action to ensure the continued operation of this vital service.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Cliffe Airport
  10.25 pm
  Bob Spink: The Government's airport review sets out one option for a new hub airport at Cliffe, just 2,000 yards from my constituency boundary. It would cause unspeakable environmental damage and noise, air and light pollution. Therefore, Councillor Mark Howard of Canvey Island, Mr. Tony Thomas of Hadleigh and Mr. Adrian Roper of Benfleet, all of whose communities would be damaged by the proposal, have helped to compile a petition of about 10,000 signatures in the following terms:
  To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of concerned residents of South East Essex and surrounding areas sheweth that the Government's proposed Cliffe Airport option appears from the very scant details so far revealed by the Government to offer far more disadvantages than advantages to South East Essex and the Government has totally failed to consult the people of S. E. Essex on the question.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to rescind its Cliffe airport option and undertake substantial, informed and open consultation in S. E. Essex.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Podiatry Services
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: This petitition relates to podiatry services in the Gosport and Portsmouth area. Its origin is a circular from the national health service of October 2001 entitled "Improving podiatry services for local people". One might therefore reasonably expect services to improve. The truth is that, of the 900 people referred monthly for podiatry care, most will not receive it and existing patients will be denied it. As the circular says:
  "Many people with relatively low needs who have become accustomed to receiving foot care will no longer be able to do so … The podiatry service will provide shorter packages of treatment for conditions that can be improved. Ongoing care will only take place where the health of limbs is vulnerable."
  My constituents are baffled and angered by that and more than 200 signatures have been put to a petition that states that the residents of the area are
  distressed and alarmed by the reduction in podiatry services which will end the provision of foot care to the wide range of local residents, many of whom are elderly and infirm, and notes that many will have great difficulty or expense in making alternative arrangements for foot care.
  The petitioners therefore plead that the Secretary of State should
  restore services in Gosport and the other areas in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to their former level.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pension Funds
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I am most grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have given me this opportunity to discuss pensions and, in particular, the plight of workers at ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) also hopes to catch your eye.
  This has been our second day of lobbying Parliament. Fifty-two Members have already signed our early-day motion and, late last night, I handed in the ASW Sheerness petition to the House. I am most grateful to see so many Welsh Labour colleagues here to support me.
  Yesterday, the ASW pension action group from both Sheerness and Cardiff saw my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as well as Des Hamilton from the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and Mr. Geoffrey Norris at No. 10 Downing street. I know that from our debrief later on yesterday evening that the group found the meetings helpful, stimulating and thought provoking. Even at this early stage of our negotiations for a just settlement to the pension fund, I want to place on record my thanks to Ministers for their willingness to engage in this process.
  Three months ago, I was looking forward to a quiet weekend and was independently minding my business on the train home to Sittingbourne when I was called on my mobile just after 7.15 pm on Thursday 4 July 2002 by Graham Mackenzie, the then chief executive officer of the ASW Group. He told me that the company was likely to go into receivership.
  It took me some time to find all our Ministers and some of their Welsh equivalents. It was well past midnight before I reached the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was still up preparing her speech in a hotel in Cambridge.
  I should like to add a note of thanks and gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, who is responsible for manufacturing, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), as well as the First Minister for Wales and, again, Mr. Geoffrey Norris at No. 10, for trying to find a way of preventing the company from going into receivership. The blame can be squarely laid at the door of the dithering bankers representing a once-famous bank, NatWest.
  Unless we are in our 50s and beginning to think about retirement—that fantasy house we have dreamt about or that cruise we have always wanted to take—we rarely think about our pension and what it is worth. We pay into a scheme and expect it to bring if not rich dividends, at least a comfortable existence. I am beginning to think that a large majority of working people in this country are in for a nasty shock.

  435
  About 8.5 million people in the UK have a final pension scheme. They are also known as defined benefits schemes. In practice, they are a way that our people save for a second pension, knowing that the state pension will not always cater for all their needs. All Governments have encouraged employees to take out such pensions. I am also beginning to suspect that final pension schemes will become better known over the next few years as the pension virus that slipped under our doors at work and disappeared through the cracks in the window. I suspect that many final pension schemes are in deficit. Over the past few months, I have read that BT and Trinity Mirror's pension schemes are billions of pounds in debt. I wonder how many other FTSE 100 companies' schemes are in the same boat.
  The analysis by the TUC of the Government Actuary's figures suggests that 1.8 million fewer employees are in final salary schemes than a decade ago. Its figures show that there were 5.6 million employees in such schemes in 1991 compared to 3.8 million in 2001. Of those, only 200,000 have transferred to money-only schemes, some of which are inferior, leaving a net loss of 1.6 million fewer people with any form of occupational pension. So pensioner poverty—something that the Government are proud to be helping to solve—will be a growing problem unless we do something about it now.
  I am of course aware that the Government are preparing a Green Paper on pensions which is being drawn up by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. Green Papers are the slow burn of Governments. They take between three and five years to be enacted. FTSE 100 companies would never sanction Green Papers because none of the blue-sky thinking is ever costed. That is indicative of Whitehall culture, which finds doing basic sums difficult. How can politicians, stakeholders and our citizens and would-be voters ever understand what choices they have unless they know what the costs will be to both the Exchequer and, frankly, their back pocket? It is naïve of civil servants to maintain that absurd situation. I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Green Paper, which I hope will be published before Christmas, comes with fully costed models so that we can better understand the alternative packages that are before us. Not to do so would be a great mistake. I want to see an end for ever to pensioner poverty. At the same time, we all need to know the likely cost implications.
  Let me return to the grave issue of the ASW Sheerness pension problem. I have been made redundant twice in my life. The first time was a shock; the second time was shocking. The experience burns a hole in one's being. It burns doubly when a person has a young family and a hefty mortgage to pay. It hurts our closest relationships. Imagine then that at the same time as being made redundant, someone is told that their final salary scheme has been placed into administration and that, because of the arcane system, it may be three, four or five years before it is possible to know what it is worth and whether what that person has been saving for is worth anything at all. It is the worst kind of double whammy. That has happened to more than 1,000 workers at both ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff. They are powerless. They have been mugged by the pension virus.
  436
  It is not just ASW workers who have experienced that appalling problem. Nearly 300 final pension schemes have been wound up this year, affecting 40,000 people. Consider the case of Lister's in Haywood, Lancashire. Its workers were originally told that they would get around 75 to 80 per cent. of their expected pension, but ended up with nothing. The hard-cash figures were stunning. The fund value was £6 million. The independent trustee charged £400,000. The legal fees were £80,000. KPMG receivers charged £49,000. For setting up the pensioners' annuities, Abbey National charged £130,000. There were other miscellaneous costs of £140,000. That gave a total of £800,000 of costs to administer a failed pension scheme, which is nearly 14 per cent. of the fund value.
  United Engineering Forgings in Ayr, Scotland, went into insolvency and it was revealed that the employees' pension fund, run by Prudential, was underfunded to the tune of £12 million. Let us consider the case of Albert Fisher Group, which acquired Saphir Produce, whose pension fund was transferred to Albert Fisher. When Albert Fisher went broke, pensions from the original company, Saphir, were worth nothing.
  In our meetings yesterday with the Minister for Pensions, the ASW pension group left nine questions for him to answer. I shall spare his blushes by not reading them into the record because I know that he has promised to respond to them over the next few weeks. However, I want to tell him about three cases to show him the brutality of the system. At ASW Sheerness a man with 31 years' service was due to retire on 31 July 2002. He had a written statement of pension benefits for that date which he naturally assumed to be legally enforceable. He has lost £3,600 per annum through the pension fund being put into administration. Ironically the date of his retirement was originally agreed to suit the company's requirements, and had he insisted on taking his pension sooner he would have lost nothing.
  The second case concerns another man with 31 years' service who was due to retire on 31 August. He too had a written statement of benefits. After wind-up, the 30 per cent. reduction knocked more than £3,200 per annum off his pension. In this case it did not leave him enough to survive on and he has had to carry on working beyond his planned retirement date. The third case is that of a man who will retire at the end of November after 26 years in the pension fund. He has not even been advised yet of his reduced figures. He faces the prospect of retiring on an unknown but certainly heavily reduced retirement income without even the opportunity of continued working to offset the loss. Some of these people have worked 20, 25 or 30 years and paid £100 a month into a pension fund, and they have no rights over it. There are many more details of cases on a clever website, www.pensionstheft.org, which I urge Members to read.
  Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wyatt: I will not.
  I suggest to the Minister that there is a solution, which I hope will be included in the Green Paper. We need to take a lead from the USA and introduce a pension benefit guarantee. In the USA, when Polaroid and LTV,

  437
  ironically a steel company, filed for bankruptcy earlier in the year with serious shortfalls in their pensions, the guarantee came into play and the deficit was made good. Will the Minister consider introducing that scheme? However, instead of asking the financial markets to take the risk, could we consider funding it through the national insurance scheme that we all pay into? Will the Minister cost that option and show the figures in the Green Paper? That is the quickest and cleanest way to stop future workers being mugged.
  In ASW's case, however, my workers may have to wait between three and five years before they find out whether they have a pension because the independent trustee can more or less take as long as he likes. It is, after all, in his interest to do so because he takes his fees from the pension fund. There is a case to be made for an independent trustee organisation, akin to the current Pensions Advisory Service, to be paid for by the Government.
  While those workers are waiting, we would welcome the Government's commitment to right that wrong by making an ex gratia payment into the ASW pension funds at Sheerness and Cardiff. That would correct the appalling injustice and show our people, as we have done with the miners compensation fund and the Chatham dockyard workers, that this Government have proudly honoured their responsibilities, in sharp contrast to the Conservative party, which, on those two issues, sat on its collective hands for 18 years, refusing to budge. I implore the Minister to help us to secure that one-off payment to the ASW pension funds.
  10.39 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this debate. I apologise for my voice, which was over-exerted in cheering Wales in its victory tonight over Italy.
  This is a very serious issue, and I rise to speak as a Cardiff Member. The ASW plant in Cardiff is not in my constituency but in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), whose ministerial office precludes him from participating in this debate. I should also like to mention the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who are present.
  Yesterday, I went with representatives of the work force of ASW in Cardiff, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and representatives of the ASW work force in Sheerness to meet the Minister for Pensions, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers and advisors to discuss the plight of the ASW workers. It is fair to say that many of us did not realise the jaw-dropping injustice—that is the only way that one can describe it—of current occupational pensions law.
  I spoke yesterday to someone called Brian from ASW in Cardiff. He is one of many who have worked for the same company, man and boy. He paid 5 per cent. of his salary into the pension scheme for 24 years on the promise that he would receive as a final pension an accrual rate of one 60th of his salary for each year's service. He might have expected, at current values, to retire on a pension of about £12,000. He did not choose
  438
  to join the pension scheme; it was a condition of employment when he was a young man that he joined it. He did so in the expectation and on the promise that at the end of the day he would receive a pension. He never realised that if the company went into receivership he could lose everything—that he could end up with nothing.
  In fairness, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, the situation in Cardiff might be even more critical than in Sheerness because the workers in Cardiff have no idea whether they will receive any pension at all once the benefits of the pension scheme have been distributed to current pensioners and the independent trustee has taken his cut. That is another issue, because the independent trustee is allowed to set his own fees, write his own cheques and take whatever proportion of the pension fund that he wishes in winding it up. There is no incentive whatever to do the job quickly, efficiently or effectively.
  Julie Morgan: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the members of the ASW work force in Cardiff whom we met in Blackpool felt deeply aggrieved at the fact that every phone call that they made to the independent trustee cost an enormous amount of money—more than £300 per hour, I think. That emphasises my hon. Friend's point about the independent trustee being able to charge what he likes and take it out of the pension fund. Every phone call that the work force make reduces the amount of money that they are likely to receive.
  Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because she is absolutely right: the workers are frightened to phone or write to the independent trustee because they know that every time they do so they are robbing themselves. Every time that he is asked a query about their pensions he will charge it to the fund. They face that uncertainty for three to five years.
  The principles are all wrong. Pensions should be about security in retirement. It is completely wrong that the workers bear the risk when a company goes into receivership. I thought that shareholders were supposed to bear the risk of an investment, yet when a company goes under, their debts—those of the banks, anyway—are secured. The workers bear the risk not only of losing their jobs, as, sadly, many in Cardiff already have—some of them hope that they might get them back eventually, but many of them are out of work—but of losing their pensions. That cannot he right. It cannot be right that workers' pensions are put at risk when a company goes into receivership.
  Wherever there is a risk, there must be a system to spread it across the entire pensions industry in the form of some discontinuance fund—or whatever one wants to call it—to protect workers. I urge the Minister to consider that in the Green Paper and to consider legislation in that regard. In the meantime, I urge the Government to consider very carefully the possibility of assisting the workers in their current plight.
  Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Kevin Brennan: I will not be giving way. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the courtesies normally observed during Adjournment debates. I will not give way for that reason.
  I plead with the Minister to consider what legal means are available to help the workers in their current plight, and to consider the future when the Government next legislate on these matters.
  10.44 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): On behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is present tonight, and myself, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing the debate, although I offer no congratulations in respect of its subject matter. He has demonstrated a model of best practice in how Members of Parliament should act to protect the interests of their constituents. I know that in the past 24 hours alone he has lobbied the Prime Minister's office, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and myself; tabled an early-day motion with more than 50 signatures; and organised a petition, which was handed in to No. 10 yesterday. That has generated a huge amount of media interest, which I imagine will continue for some time.
  I was not only sorry to hear about the case in yesterday's meeting, but I became more frustrated, agitated and, not least, angered as the full details of the case were unravelled in front of me. It must be causing those affected considerable distress and concern, and I am concerned that many individuals feel isolated and are receiving insufficient information about their future financial arrangements. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the problems facing members of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme.
  The meeting that I attended with my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and representatives of the ASW pensions action group was constructive. We identified several practical ways forward. I undertook to address a number of technical pensions issues in a detailed note to the action group and my hon. Friends, and to discuss the issues raised and the Government's approach to them with colleagues throughout Government. I shall also write to the independent trustee and OPAS about the range of concerns listed yesterday by the representatives of the steelworkers. I shall also write to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the pensions ombudsman specifically about the circumstances surrounding the early retirement packages of the two former ASW directors. Furthermore, I will reflect on how we might be able to help, by, for example, providing support from our officials and working with my hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has called for the Green Paper to include costed models. I assure him that when we publish the Green Paper later in the year, it will include a financial assessment of the implications of our proposals—indeed, alongside the Green Paper we will publish a technical document that will set out that sort of detail and other material supporting our proposals.
  The case raises two important issues. One concerns the fairness, or otherwise, of the current statutory priority order. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced a
  440
  statutory priority order for occupational pension schemes that are subject to the minimum funding requirement and start to wind up from 6 April 1997. It sets out how the assets of the scheme are to be applied towards meeting the scheme's liabilities for pensions and other benefits.
  The rationale behind the statutory priority order was to produce an equitable distribution of assets when a scheme winds up. That does not mean that the current priority order is ideal or, indeed, immutable. In fact, Alan Pickering's recent report has proposed a change in the order that might go some way to helping deferred as well as existing pensioners. I am sympathetic to what was said to me yesterday and to what Alan Pickering had to say in his report. We will examine that extremely carefully when preparing the Green Paper on pensions.
  The second issue concerns the position of any debts due to the pension scheme in the overall priority list of creditors. Certain unpaid pension contributions may be pursued as a preferential debt in the event of insolvency of the employer. It seems to me that the issue is whether the contribution that employees have made—often over many years—to the success of their company and to the running of their pension fund, should enjoy a preferential status. I believe that the answer to that is self-evident, and I assure my hon. Friends that I will raise the matter with ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
  In the meantime, my hon. Friend will be well aware that the Enterprise Bill will abolish the Crown's preferential right to recover unpaid taxes, and those changes will mean that the position of the remaining preferential creditors will be improved in cases where there is insufficient money to pay them in full.
  It may also be possible under the provisions contained in the Pensions Act 1995 for members of the ASW pension schemes to have their state scheme rights restored, thus ensuring that they receive an additional pension under the state scheme in addition to their basic state pension. I will be writing to my hon. Friends and the group about this later.
  Some of the concern in this case has centred on the activities of the independent trustee. I received a number of complaints about the trustees yesterday. I asked for those to be made to me in writing, not because I do not believe them but because I want them to be set out accurately. As soon as I have received these complaints, I have given an undertaking to raise them directly with both the independent trustee and with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
  When a scheme like ASW is winding up, it is understandable that members have genuine concerns about the cost of trustees' fees. The law requires the independent trustee to disclose the scale of the fees that have been charged to scheme members.
  Independent trustees should also be able to demonstrate to OPRA that they are acting professionally and in the best interests of the members. If that is not the case, OPRA can replace trustees where it has evidence that those appointed by the insolvency practitioner are failing to carry out their duties in a responsible manner. As soon as I receive information and have confirmed what was said yesterday, I shall take steps to address the issues directly with the independent trustee and OPRA.

  441
  My hon. Friend has been in correspondence with me on issues involving additional voluntary contributions; he raised the issues with me again at yesterday's meeting. I have agreed to respond to specific cases that were taken up before yesterday. When I am sent further information, I undertake to write to my hon. Friend on the general issues of AVCs and how they relate to the various schemes in this context.
  Under Inland Revenue rules, people can now take AVC benefits at any time between 50 and 75, whether or not they have left employment and whether or not they have started to draw their main scheme pension. However, scheme rules must have been amended to allow this. Therefore, before I can give a detailed answer to my hon. Friend, I shall await the details of the schemes as AVCs relate to them.
  Having said that, I do not, unfortunately, know all the details of ASW's organisation of AVC arrangements. If there are additional problems in these areas, perhaps the best thing would be for my hon. Friend and his group to come back to me with fuller information. At each stage, we will see what we can do to assist the process of securing information and ensuring that the arrangements that are sought are available within the rules of the scheme.
  My hon. Friend has called for an ex gratia payment to be paid into the pension scheme. I would not like to give him false hope. Indeed, I cannot give him any hope. The Government are not able to assist schemes in wind-up that are underfunded. I am unaware of any legal basis on which Ministers can make such payments. However, my hon. Friend mentioned payments to the miners compensation fund and the Chatham dockyard workers. I shall certainly look into those instances to ascertain whether they offer any way forward, while acknowledging that there may be significant differences between them and the current situation. I do not draw any parallels but I shall ensure that no stone is left unturned to try to resolve the questions that my hon. Friend raises. I will look into these matters and respond to him directly.
  My hon. Friend called for the introduction of a form of pension benefit guarantee. The Government have previously considered putting in place measures to assist occupational pension schemes when the sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. Both issues of a central discontinuance fund and compulsory insurance were consulted on as part of the consultation process for the replacement of the minimum funding requirement. Both options received little support. That is mainly due to two factors. First, the majority of schemes are well run in this country. Those who are members of schemes and the trustees who represent them were not supportive of the idea that they should top-slice their well run schemes to assist the underfunding of poorly run schemes. Nor was there any great support for the idea of a fund linked to
  442
  an insurance-based system. An insurance system would have to be created to re-invest in the risk associated with it. There was little support when we consulted on that.
  A central discontinuance fund raises issues of affordability and sustainability, as well funded schemes would have to subsidise schemes that were less well funded or less well looked after. This option would also require, as I think my hon. Friend was hinting, an ultimate guarantor—that is, the state. The Government would be unable to take on this responsibility and the cost would ultimately fall on the taxpayers, including taxpayers paying into a well funded scheme and paying national insurance contributions, and taxpayers who have no other scheme at all and rely on the basic state pension scheme. There is therefore no possibility at this stage of the Government acceding to such a request.
  Further, the issue of compulsory insurance arrangements raises the potential for abuse and a moral hazard. Some schemes may neglect their responsibilities and obligations to their members, in the knowledge that their liabilities will still be met in the event of insolvency.
  I am aware that a number of concerns have been raised about the length of time that it can take to finalise arrangements when a scheme winds up. With this in mind, the Government introduced a package of measures in April this year designed to speed up the winding-up process. That legislation is part of the Government's continued commitment to enhancing the protection for pension scheme members. The legislation places greater visible accountability on those involved in winding up a pension scheme. The new rules mean that OPRA will have a more proactive role in facilitating the winding up of schemes and supporting the trustees.
  In the light of the concerns raised, perhaps my hon. Friends would like me to arrange a meeting with OPRA on that specific point. If they want that to happen, I will make the necessary arrangements.
  Finally, occupational pensions are an important part of the overall benefits or remuneration package offered by many employers to prospective and current employees. The forthcoming Green Paper on pensions will allow us to consult widely on how both employers and employees can be encouraged to acknowledge the value of this part of the remuneration package.
  I therefore look forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with my hon. Friend and will pursue the matter on behalf of his constituents. I will do so in an honest and fair way. Where I can help, I will say so and do so. Where I cannot, I will be strictly honest about that. If we can work on that basis, I hope that I can help my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the House in their efforts to resolve a complicated and difficult situation. I wish him well, and anything that we can do to assist will be done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Second Hub Airport (South East)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Prisk: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On 23 July, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made the most significant Government statement on air travel for a generation. Sadly, at the same time he gave us the shortest possible consultation period in which to reply. There is little time for hon. Members to debate or effectively represent our constituents' interests in this vital matter. That is one of the key reasons why I sought this debate almost immediately after the Secretary of State had sat down in July.
Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my constituents have a direct interest in the issue. They were shocked by the sheer scale of the planned development that was announced for Stansted. What is proposed is not simply another terminal or perhaps a few more routes, but the replacement of Stansted as a low-cost, point-to-point airport, with what could be the largest international airport in the world—effectively twice the size of Heathrow today.
In practical terms, for my constituents such enlargement would mean an eight-fold increase in passenger numbers, a five-fold increase in the number of planes, the demolition of more than 300 homes, the loss of two villages, the destruction of 64 grade II listed buildings and the loss of 1,200 hectares of green fields. It would also mean the blighting by noise of more than 28,000 more homes—the equivalent of a town the size of Bishop's Stortford. It would involve up to 300,000 new journeys per day on an already over-stretched road and rail network. In short, the Government's proposals for Stansted would irrevocably change not only our landscape—important though that is—but our community. The development would be wholly unsustainable in that location.
My colleagues here today feel as passionately about the issue as I do, and so we should. It is our duty to stand up and speak on behalf of the communities that we represent. I also feel that we must examine the wider question facing the south-east. Even if the Government can prove that a new hub is needed, how do we ensure that the investment delivers the maximum social, economic and environmental benefits for the region? Regrettably, the Government have failed to establish clearly to those of us who live in the south-east the positive reasons why we need a second hub. In the documents that we have seen to date, there is certainly a lot about the needs of air travellers and airlines, but precious little about the needs of the residents and the benefits to them. In his reply, I hope that the Minister
74WH
will set out clearly the social, economic and environmental case for a new hub and explain why he and his colleagues strongly support such an option.
I do not intend to engage in the argument about future demand for air travel or whether it is desirable for that to be constrained in some manner. Over the past 30 years, air travel has grown at approximately 6 per cent. per annum. As a result, in the south-east, the traffic in the air today is approximately five times greater than it was in the 1970s. The Government's plans for the next 30 years, which are based on average growth of a little more than 3 per cent. per annum for the south-east, do not seem wholly unrealistic. I am not an expert in the field, so I do not know whether the figures are right; they must be examined by the experts. I am sure that the Minister will allow an independent view of the subject. However, I suspect that those views on the numbers and the likely growth in air traffic for the south-east are about right.
Given the likely growth, and the limits of Heathrow's natural capacity, there is a danger that, in the long term, London and the south-east could fall behind their European competitors. If the need for investment is proven, we must ask how and where it should be made in order to maximise the benefits for the country and for those in the south-east.
Let us consider London and the south-east as an economic community. However we compare the two sides of London and the south-east—whether through jobs, literacy, family stability or crime rates—historically, there has been an imbalance within the region, an east-west divide. In the past century, London's money and decision-makers, and those who could get up and go, have got up and gone west. In the past 20 years, that behaviour has spread, and people have gone to the north and the south. However, there is still a sense that the area due east of London, along the lower east Thames, is being neglected, and that the decision-makers are facing west and have their back to the east. The result is an overheated, congested region that is struggling to cope.
We are all aware that house prices are rising in London and the south-east. The land values in the west and the east that underpin those house prices often differ by £1 million to £1.5 million an acre. In my county of Hertfordshire, for example, we are desperately short of key workers, and one of the critical reasons for that is that they cannot afford to live there. A hub airport, and all its attendant development, would simply exacerbate the problem if it were wrongly located, but in the right place, it could revive an area. It could act as a vital magnet for jobs, and could induce economic development. I hope that, in the consultation process, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a clear assessment of the attendant induced economic development, which I have yet to see mentioned with any clarity in the documents.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk). I follow his argument, and accept all that he has said. Would he care to reflect on the fact that if another hub airport were built elsewhere and there was no scope for two hub airports, taking hub status away from the existing hub airport could cause serious economic problems for the local community? Might not

75WH
the overheating to which he refers happen to an area simply because there is a hub airport there, and the difficulty to the east of London be due to the fact that there was no hub there? Would we not perhaps be switching around the problems and the advantages?
Mr. Prisk:I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is a danger. One need only see the congestion and the problems in the Heathrow area. The imbalance in the south-east is sufficient for there to be significant advantage in having a similar facility on the east side of London. I understand that those who live in and around the Heathrow area feel, as do many in my constituency, that the area has reached capacity.
If there is to be a new hub, we have to decide where it will be. Having thought about the subject, I think that there is a strong case for considering the lower east Thames and what is now known as the Thames gateway area. I am aware that the Government have chosen to highlight one site, the Cliffe site. I do not take that narrow approach; I believe that there are other options, although, of course, there could be some advantages to locating an airport at Cliffe.
Bob Spink: Given that the Cliffe site would be only about 2000 yd from the boundary of my constituency and would impose massive noise, air and light pollution, as well as environmental damage on my constituency, is it not extraordinary that the Government have not sought to consult my constituents on the matter? Does not that reveal the Government's total contempt for the people of Essex?
Mr. Prisk:I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend, not least because the consultation period is short and has been woefully prepared. Many of my constituents feel that the documents have been issued somewhat late. When the Government choose to hold an exhibition on the Stansted area on the Friday of the August bank holiday, and fail to inform either of the relevant Members of Parliament about it, it is clear that not only the hon. Gentleman's constituents are suffering; we all are. I hope the Minister will respond to that point later.
If we are to have such a hub airport in the lower east Thames area, we must consider the potential benefits, of which, I believe, there are several. First, it could provide a genuine hub for growth in the poorest part of east London. It could improve transport around London and to and from Europe. It could ensure that, for the first time in this country, we have a genuine 24-hour a day airport, with the significant benefits for freight traffic that that would bring. It could enable significant household development, especially for affordable and key worker housing, which, as I mentioned, is lacking. It would allow us economically to develop many brownfield sites and help to rebalance growth and development in the south-east, not least by reducing pressure on overcongested areas.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Sir Roy McNulty, has said unequivocally in public that the development of a new airport at the Cliffe site, and presumably any other site reasonably close to
76WH
it, would have an unacceptable impact on the whole air traffic control system? That must negate the benefits of any reasonable development in that location.
Mr. Prisk: As I said, I wanted us to have this debate so that we could air information. I have not seen that statement and I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend would bring it to my attention. However, contrary views have been expressed, which is why I believe that the consultation period should not be so short. If we are to make the right decision, we need a long period in which to consider the matter properly. Four months is inadequate.
Mr. Chris Pond: The assumptions behind the hon. Gentleman's propositions may be seriously flawed. He thinks that an airport at the Cliffe site could create extra regeneration for the Thames gateway. There is strong feeling, however, that the burden on the existing infrastructure and increased congestion in that whole part of north Kent would make it difficult for the gateway to operate effectively as a thoroughfare for prosperity between this country and elsewhere, with the result that his constituents, too, would suffer from the damage to the national economy that an airport at Cliffe would create.
Mr. Prisk: I have heard opinions on both sides, but when one considers such issues as employment and literacy, one sees that there is an imbalance, which I want to address.
Hon. Members have rightly focused on the Cliffe site, although, as I said earlier, that is the Government's option, not mine. A coastal or offshore airport would enable planes to fly over the water and not over our roofs. There are safety issues, although they can, perhaps, be overstated, but we should not ignore the importance of minimising noise pollution. Such an airport would fit in with the Government's regional planning goals, as well as with those of most London local authorities. Indeed, it is an approach already adopted by SASIG—the Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group—which represents 75 local authorities and 23 million people, so that option should not be easily dismissed.
I appreciate that an offshore or coastal airport is a more expensive option, although that is more an issue for the investor than for the Government. However, judging by what has happened overseas, that option seems to be the way ahead. In Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, they are building new airports on the coast or offshore. Indeed, we need look no further than Hong Kong and the new Chep Lap Kok airport, which was designed by a Brit—Sir Norman Foster—and developed with the direct support of the British Government. It is stunning airport to look at, only 23 minutes from downtown Hong Kong, and we helped to build it.
Mr. Wilshire: Is my hon. Friend aware that the success of the new airport in Hong Kong is based on the closure of the airport that served as a hub for some time?
Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend is a good representative of his constituents, because he is ensuring that his argument about Heathrow is reinforced. I commend him for that.

77WH
I return to the question of Hong Kong and the argument for offshore airports. I understand the point about proximity made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). Given that the Thames estuary occupies 400 square miles, there must be a case for considering the option. I hope that, in line with the Secretary of State's remarks of 23 July, the Minister will confirm that the Government's mind is not closed on the matter and that they are prepared to consider all reasonable options. If the British Government can contribute to the construction of an airport of that nature in Hong Kong, I cannot understand why they cannot do so here.
In conclusion, it is widely recognised that aviation policy over the past 30 years has been one of make do and mend. Indeed, many of the decisions cobbled together over the past 30 years by both Labour and Conservative Governments are constraining us today. The Government need to recognise how we went wrong in the past and that the decision about the type of airport that we build has as much to do with the social, environmental and economic well being of an area as with aviation policy.
We are all aware of the problems in the south-east. If the Government make the right decision on airport policy, they will have in their grasp a powerful tool, which could transform the poorest part of London, create a modern transport network and improve the lives of everyone in the south-east. That represents a wonderful opportunity, and I hope that the Government have the courage to grasp it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is possible that not everyone present with an interest in the matter will have an opportunity to speak, for reasons of time. I appeal to hon. Members to be as brief as they can so that as many different points of view as possible are represented.
9.47 am
John McDonnell: As hon. Members will know, Heathrow is in my constituency, so I have a heartfelt interest in the subject. Some people want to portray those opposed to a third runway at Heathrow or Stansted as opposed to the aviation industry, but that is not the case. Many of my constituents work at Heathrow; some of those at risk of losing their homes as a result of the third runway work at Heathrow and have a direct interest in the long-term development and viability of the aviation industry.
Our consistent view, which should also be the consistent view of the Government, is that aviation policy should be in the interests of the whole community and should focus on the long-term, rather than on short-term profit. It should balance the economic benefits with the environmental and social impact of any developments.
I shall speak briefly about the consultation process, which was seriously flawed and has excited some anger among hon. Members and members of the community. It is unacceptable to have a consultation period of only four months on a proposal that could have an impact on a population of 3 million people. The period was to be six months, but the Department for Transport, Local
78WH
Government and the Regions remembered that there were local government elections in London and curtailed the process. The consultation took place over the summer recess, and individual consultation exercises have not been advertised locally. Hon. Members have had to advertise them themselves. That is how the consultation has been carried out. The questionnaire is also dubious.
Mr. Wilshire: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been having the same difficulties as I have. Is he aware that the Department concerned said that it had sent letters, placed advertisements in local newspapers, and done all sorts of other things? If he is, has he discovered where it did all that, because I have not?
John McDonnell: Like the hon. Gentleman, I know of no such advertising. The only advertising of which I am aware in my constituency is that which local residents, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and I generated. Let us be clear: the roadshows were a farce. Even the experts sent to staff the roadshows had inadequate information and were not sufficiently expert to respond to many of the questions that my constituents put to them. May I suggest to the Minister and to the Secretary of State that, to make the consultation real, Ministers should be out in the constituencies convening public meetings so that they can hear the views of constituency MPs and local residents who will be affected. It is time for Ministers to get out on the stump to hear what people are saying. My constituents are coming to Parliament today to express their frustration at not being allowed to have their say. The debate on the future of airport strategy has been restricted, lacks transparency, and appears to be a charade.
We need a genuine and open debate. Is there a need for greater airport capacity in the south-east? Is there a need for a new airport rather than the incremental internal development of existing airports at the expense of our environment and communities? Arguments exist that challenge the need for expansion. There are questions to be asked about the growth figures. I would welcome the Government commissioning an independent and transparent study of the growth projections in the consultation papers. There needs to be discussion and an independent evaluation of the economic benefits provided by the proposals, as they have been contested for some time. It is also time that we revisited the debate about the subsidy that the taxpayer gives to the aviation industry. Estimates published this month identify a £7.5 billion subsidy in taxation exemptions by the Government to the aviation industry in 2000, which is projected to rise to £16 billion in 2020. That means that on average, my constituents and all those in the south-east are donating £550 a year to the aviation industry. That should be part of any long-term and sound debate from which a rational policy for aviation in the south-east would develop.
If we accept that there is a need to expand, there is a long-term need for a new airport. My greatest anxiety is that the Government will plant on us new runways at Heathrow, Stansted, and eventually Gatwick. They may tinker around with Cliffe, but I believe that Cliffe is a red herring. I will return to that point. They will come back for a new airport in 10 years' time, having imposed those new runways. It will end up being more expensive and

79WH
have a greater social and environmental impact because of the lack of long-term infrastructure planning. That is the nightmare. It is a nightmare for my constituents and the reason why we need a longer term plan rather than just another runway at Heathrow.
I hope that my colleagues will be able to outline the implications for their constituents. Despite what the consultation paper says, the implications for my constituents of the map in the consultation document are that the five villages surrounding Heathrow will be lost. Some 4,000 homes will go. Those figures are not mine, but are from the original Government consultation—the RUCATSE or Runway Capacity to Serve the South East study—in 1992. Some 10,000 local residents will be forcibly moved from their homes. Three primary schools will be closed and demolished, and two medieval churches will be flattened. The largest surviving medieval barn in western Europe will go. Village greens, community centres, swimming pools and children's playgrounds will be lost, as will green belt land. What is most offensive to my constituents is that the path of the third runway runs over Harmondsworth church and cemetery. My constituents are being asked to exhume the bodies of their relatives who are buried in Harmondsworth church. Some are in war graves and that is unacceptable at any price for the aviation industry.
My constituents believe that they have done enough for the economic benefit of the aviation industry and sacrificed enough for the economy of the country.
Dr. Howard Stoate: I am pleased to know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this matter. He is obviously representing his constituents very effectively. Does he appreciate that whereas increasing capacity at Heathrow would cause the problems he suggests, building an airport at Cliffe would cause significant environmental damage, albeit not on the same scale? It would certainly have a major impact on the local environment and on the local transport problems that we already face?
John McDonnell: I shall address that matter in due course. I certainly understand the concerns of hon. Members and constituents in that area.
I shall finish on the implications of a third runway at Heathrow. It will have an impact not only on my constituents, but on 2 million Londoners because of new flight paths, noise and pollution. It will not only destroy their environment, but will undermine property prices. Evidence is coming forward of links with cancer from air pollution and of teachers' inability to teach in west London schools because of noise.
Reference has been made to air traffic control. The skies above Heathrow are dangerously crowded. We have already heard expressions of concern from the air traffic control services about the potential risk from further development at Heathrow. That is why at successive inquiries my constituents were promised, "No more." I was at the terminal 4 inquiry when we were told not to worry because if terminal 4 was allowed, there would be no terminal 5. At the terminal 5 inquiry we were told that if terminal 5 was allowed, there would
80WH
be no further development. The inspector made that one of the conditions to be recommended to the Government.
The managing director of the British Airports Authority at Heathrow wrote to my constituents and me 12 months ago saying that there was no need for a third runway, that BA A opposed a third runway and demanded that the inspector at the inquiry should say no to a third runway. What happened six months later? The Government allowed terminal 5, placed a cap on Heathrow and then, within weeks, started consultation for a third runway at Heathrow. I shall raise with the Speaker the need for a correction to the Hansard record because the Secretary of State, when announcing the consultation on a third runway at Heathrow, said that a cap had been placed on Heathrow only for the period of terminal 5. That is not true. The terminal 5 inspector said in the context of the Government's review of future aircraft capacity that it should be assumed that no further major development would take place at Heathrow after terminal 5. The Secretary of State should return to the House and correct his earlier statement, which was inaccurate.
We no longer believe what the British Airports Authority or Governments tell us. It is not a party political matter because successive Governments have regularly betrayed my constituents. We are pleading with the Government for at least a proper and rational debate and open, transparent and independent consultation on the process. There is a rush to decision making, which gives the impression that the debate has been decided, constituencies are being stitched up and the aviation industry has a fast track to No. 10 and to Ministers that overcome any concerns of hon. Members and their constituents.
My view, which is shared by other hon. Members, is that there is a need for a rational process to look at where a new airport would provide maximum benefit. Most of us have come to the conclusion that that would be in east London. That is where my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is putting new homes, where the new work force will be and where jobs will be needed. The Government are already putting in new transport links with Crossrail and other developments.
No one believes that Cliffe is a viable option. It is a red herring. It would excite the interest of Greens throughout the planet if we asked them whether they would seek to put an airport on the largest bird sanctuary in western Europe. It is a red herring brought forward as a smokescreen by the Government at the behest of the aviation industry. The realistic option is Marinair. It may be more expensive now, but the Government may not be averse to private sector money being used to build it. I am not in favour of private finance initiatives but the Government certainly are, and the City is already interested in funding such a development.
The development would be in the Thames estuary and its environmental and social impact would be less than that of Stansted, Gatwick, Heathrow or Cliffe. It would generate jobs and, above all else, would increase public safety. Its cost would not be prohibitive because we will have to build it anyway. Let us bite the bullet and put in place a socially and environmentally acceptable new airport in the south-east to look to the long-term future of the aviation industry. The argument that it would

81WH
threaten Heathrow is fallacious because we need to develop a network of airports, each of which should develop its own speciality, to stand us in good stead for future European competition. A new airport would be part of that network.
I urge the Government to think again and, if it is necessary, extend the consultation period.
Mr. Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that a new airport, which he has described and I endorse, would provide an opportunity to look at competition not only among airlines, but in the ownership and management of airports?
John McDonnell: Such competition has already broken out between regional airports and airports in London and the south-east, given their competing demands for development. It will be interesting to see the role that competition plays in the development of new airport networks, which is how we should describe them.
Whatever decision the Government take, let us unanimously endorse a policy to set environmental limits on airports in advance of their development to ensure that we do not have an incremental incursion on the quality of life and environment in the communities that we represent. I welcome my constituents' coming to Parliament today and I am with them. The hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Uxbridge and I will deliver a letter to No.10 to ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest because the matter dramatically affects so many people.
10.1 am
Bob Spink: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Cliffe or any other Thames estuary airport would have a devastating impact on people not only in Kent, but in south Essex. I will not repeat my earlier comments about the lack of consultation, and say only that the Government showed monumental arrogance in not consulting the people of south Essex.
I held a public meeting in my constituency that was attended by 1,000 people. The DTLR told me that it was going to send a representative to the meeting, but it failed to do so—it did not even a send an apology. The meeting was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who helped to arrange it, and soon he will hold a similar meeting in Leigh-on-Sea.
Joan Goddard, the Kent campaign leader, attended the meeting. She is a remarkable lady who has done so much to bring the matter to the public's attention where the Government have failed so miserably. Following that meeting, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and I organised a petition, and I shall be presenting it on the Floor of the House tonight. I hope that I will be able to present it because it contains more than 10,000 signatures—signatures are still being collected—and is therefore very large.
I congratulate The Evening Echo, Yellow Advertiser and Island Times on their work in publicising the matter—they have done tremendously well. When the Minister sums up, will he say whether the fifth runway
82WH
shown on the maps of the proposed Cliffe airport has been withdrawn and confirm that it will not proceed now or at any time in the future? I should like an undertaking on that matter.
Cliffe airport would be a disaster for Essex and Kent. It would impose massive noise, air and light pollution, environmental damage and possible, but as yet undefined, flood risks for Canvey island and coastal areas of Kent and Essex. It would be massive overdevelopment in a region that already suffers from too much building imposed by the Government. The possible development of an outer M25 route using the A130 would be a disaster for an area that already suffers massive road congestion.
Without the efforts of local Conservative MPs and the local newspapers, the people of south Essex would not have been aware of the dangers to their environment. The proposal for Cliffe, or another Thames estuary airport, is not a red herring; it is a formal Government proposal and we must fight it as such. If we do not, and other people fight for their communities, we shall he failing our community. How will we be able to hold our heads up high if the Minister then decides to go ahead with his disastrous proposal? I have a final question for the Minister: will he come to Canvey Island personally to face the wrath of local people, or is he afraid to do so?
10.5 am
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on having secured this important debate. I am reminded of the opening paragraph of Paul Theroux' greatest travel novel. It begins:
"It is no accident that in all the 285 major languages of the world there is not one that contains a phrase, aphorism or clause even remotely approaching 'as pretty as an airport'."
That is the basis from which we all extend. Cliffe is in my constituency. It is the most beautiful part of my constituency and I have no intention of entering into a competition of horror. I can take on the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) field for field, SSSI for SSSI and village for village. The village of All Hallows, every bit as ancient as those in west London, would disappear forever together with its church and cemetery. The feelings of the people in that area are indescribable; there has not been so great a proposed destruction of community in the interests of planning since the building of the great reservoirs in the last century. We must understand the full portent of the matter.
I question the premise on which the proposal is advanced, which is that the south-east of England requires greater airport capacity. When one reads the document, one perceives that that premise has no basis in commerce, in common sense or in human nature. It is conceivable that it is grounded in theology, which is a poor start for a planning application, particularly one of this size. The Government's argument is that the future of that great commercial enterprise, Heathrow, the mighty epicentre of work and money, which provides 2 per cent. of our national income and a vast number of jobs, will be threatened if we do not expand further into the south-east. The idea is that if we allow the beastly foreigners in Schipol, Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt—all the usual suspects—free rein to take

83WH
over the unassuageable bucket-seat travel market, which is growing daily and exponentially, then Heathrow will be at risk. It will become a rotting hulk at the west edge of London and will become like the London and Liverpool docks if we do not expand in another area. I well remember when that extraordinary—and false—analogy was made in the Chamber. I was sitting next to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I thought that he would have apoplexy.
Can the Minister tell us what evidence he has of a need to build a new hub airport, or vastly to extend Heathrow with the phenomenal and fantastic level of environmental damage that that would cause? What study can we examine that suggests that failure to do that would adversely affect the existing provision at Heathrow?
The answer is very simple. People are not containers or goods to be shipped around the world; they make their own individual and commercial decisions about where they wish to travel. People will come to the United Kingdom if we succeed in making it a lodestone, and they will continue to come. If they are unable to come to the south-east because it has reached overcapacity, perhaps they will go to Charles de Gaulle and travel to London and the south-east by Eurostar or other methods—good luck to them. However, the massive destruction of our environment and communities in the south-east on a false economic premise is an unacceptable price to pay.
As I said, I do not wish to indulge in any form of nimbyism, but I cannot be part of the debate without drawing to the attention of the Chamber the environmental, economic and communal damage that would be done to the Cliffe marshes, Cliffe and the Hoo peninsula if ever the proposal were given life and air. On that site, we have the finest SSSIs in Europe, which are completely irreplaceable. There is no mitigation for the loss of such environments. We would lose entire communities including 1,100 homes in All Hallows, an ancient village in which people can trace back their membership to the community for generations. All of that would disappear.
On the issue of consultation, we had a consultation exercise, the chosen location for which was a hotel in my constituency. It would have been impossible to find an area or a site more geographically remote from the Hoo peninsula than that hotel. It has been suggested that that was deliberate. I do not suggest that, but it was an error.
I can tell the Chamber that my constituents are a sturdy lot. In history, no constituents have given more for their country than those who have lived in the area of Chatham, its dockyards and industries. They are not shy of making sacrifices in the national interest, but they will not tolerate the destruction of their lives and their much-loved environment on the basis of a false theology.
10.13 am
Mr. John Randall: I echo the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). We are all here in an effort to plead our cases, but we should not do so on the basis of not
84WH
wanting to be the ones to be sacrificed for development. I feel passionate for my constituents and the area of Heathrow. The demonstration there today and the petition will show their strength of feeling, and other areas will have the same strength of feeling.
The Minister must have heard that the period allowed for consultation is a sham. The Government must immediately extend it for the sake of fair play. I shall not reiterate the statements of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) or my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson); on this matter; we are all friends in Hillingdon. The pollution and destruction is, of course, dramatic, but I shall not ask for it to be dumped in someone else's backyard.
It is obvious that nobody wants the development and, in echo of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Medway, I should like to question whether the Government have made the case for such a dramatic increase. We should be managing demand and considering what must be done. What about making rail infrastructure more efficient to cut down the number of internal flights?
Most people would prefer to go by rail if it were efficient and cheap, rather than fly around the country. That must be looked at.
As many other Members want to speak, I shall cut my speech short. I would simply say to the Minister, and to people outside, that the time has come for us seriously to consider what we want. Do we want to put the environment and quality of life higher on the agenda? If no one wants these developments in their backyard, we must seriously consider drawing a line in the sand and looking at the alternatives, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway said. I am not going to say that the developments should be sited anywhere. I, too, feel passionately about Cliffe. As a bird watcher, I have spent many happy hours there and I shall fight for that as much as for Heathrow.
We do not want to enter a game of each trying to prove why we should not have an airport or expansion in our constituency. We all feel the same. This is an opportunity for the nation to look seriously at what it wants.
10.15 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this import ant debate. I shall endeavour to be as brief as other hon. Members have been.
I endorse in particular the remarks of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). There is nothing more undignified than saying, "Don't take me, take him." The speech that introduced the debate was balanced. I agree with some parts and disagree with others. I do not have the misfortune to represent a parliamentary constituency containing one of the sites, but mine is remarkably close to one, and villages in my constituency would be adversely affected were the Stansted proposals to go ahead.
I am a little concerned that arguments about Heathrow have been being made for years. They have been put eloquently, and Heathrow has suffered interminably. The arguments for Cliffe do not seem to

85WH
me to be arguments at all. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said so eloquently, if we really wanted to stir up a hornet's nest, or bring down a whirlwind upon us—he put it much better than I—we would propose the most important scientific and environmental site in the country so that all opposition would rage up against us. The danger for Stansted is that the arguments against the other prospective major sites are so strong that people will start to say that Stansted is the least bad option. I shall not, therefore, go down the route of saying that we should have an airport at Cliffe or expand Heathrow, or open up the arguments about Gatwick. That would be dodging the issue.
I must make it clear that there is a strong environmental case against expansion at Stansted. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford put the arguments very well. We already face a situation in which local people cannot afford to buy local houses. I do not believe that employment expansion is needed in our part of Essex and Hertfordshire. If we had airport expansion, most of the workers would not be able to afford most of the available properties in our area.
The countryside around Stansted has attractive villages set in wooded countryside amid low rolling hills and valleys. It is not, as some would picture it, flat and interspersed with concrete, but very attractive old English countryside. It has already been threatened by speculative house builders. Each time there is an airport expansion, the developer comes jumping on the back of that, to build houses that are allegedly for the work force but that in reality will be sold to those who commute down the motorway to London to work and return in the evening.
The consequence is not only the destruction of the appearance of the countryside, but a substantial undermining of village life and rural ways. I have been told that if one strolls of an evening in certain woods close to Stansted, one smells not honeysuckle on the air, but petroleum. A vast increase on the scale that is contemplated would have a devastating economic effect on our area.
On Cliffe, I propose to say only that I strongly oppose it as an alternative site. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge, I have been a lifelong watcher of birds and I know how important Cliffe is to anybody who is interested in nature conservation. That is evident when one hears that avocets and little egrets breed there—they were extinct as breeding birds in this land when I was a boy.
Way beyond that is the question of the effect that the proposals will have on the way in which we live our lives. We must start to challenge the figures that have been put forward, which are projections into the future based on what happened in the past, as though nothing ever changes. We were recently reminded that in the 1960s television shows attracted 28 million viewers; now they attract only half that number. As the world changes, people's tastes change. Is it really worth the price of destroying our environment and parts of our way of life just to have a cheap holiday in a country that is warmer for some parts of the year?
10.21 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: My constituency is getting it on both sides. Down in the south-east corner, just over the border, it is proposed
86WH
that Stansted should quadruple in size to double the size of Heathrow. Small villages such as Little Hadham will come into the 57 DB footprint. That means that villagers will live in an area where the average noise level is 57 DB, so that they are unable to sit out in their gardens or to live their lives against the background of a relatively unspoilt rural area with a low ambient noise level. Further north, rural areas will live with the constant background of a low hum that does not quite reach the 57 DB footprint. The proposal means that 80,000 new workers will move into our area and that 18,000 new houses will have to be built in an area that is already the most populated county in the country. On the south-east side, there will be a 10-fold, or possibly an eight-fold, increase in traffic. It is disaster for people in that part of Hertfordshire.
On the other side of my constituency, just a few miles from the border, is Luton airport, where a five-fold increase in traffic is proposed, with a realignment of the runway that would push traffic across Letchworth and Hitchin as it turns to land. Again, there will be a low hum all the time, not just intermittently, and 2,600 extra houses and 12,000 extra workers will be needed. One has to ask whether it is sensible to build airport capacity so that arrivals and departures fly over people's homes—surely a better solution can be found. I do not like the look of the Cliffe proposals, but, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we should examine options in the Thames estuary—perhaps Marinair.
What is proposed for Stansted is an outrage. Seventeen protest meetings have taken place, and I pay tribute to Norman Mead, who has been to every one. He is leading the campaign and understands the issues very well. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he lives in an area that is already badly affected by noise and pollution, and does not want it to be spread out over the whole area. I pay tribute to the Herts and Essex Observer for its "Stop Stansted" campaign. It has been reassuring to have the support of the local newspaper.
The Government must think again. The proposals are nothing less than disastrous for my constituents in north-east Hertfordshire and for the neighbouring areas in Essex.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I would like to remind the Chamber that it is customary for Front-Bench speeches to start at 10.30 am. I hope that everyone will respect that.
10.25 am
Mr. Chris Pond: The site of the proposed Cliffe airport is not in my constituency, but right next to it in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). Gravesend would be directly under the flight path, and the villages of Meopham, Higham and Shorne would be directly affected.
Last night, Gravesham borough council met to consider its view on an airport at Cliffe. It invited the public to the meeting, which was attended by 200 people. As with so many of the meetings that have been held in recent weeks in my constituency, hundreds of

87WH
people added their opposition to the thousands who have already expressed their concerns. Gravesham borough council last night resolved to oppose an airport at Cliffe. Medway council, Kent county council and every other representative body in the area have now decided to oppose the proposal.
It was perhaps surprising that the representative from the youth forum at last night's meeting stated the objection of young people in the area. One would have thought that the prospect of 50,000 to 80,000 long-term jobs would have been tantalising to young people. In fact, they believe that the environmental impact would be such that they, too, wish to oppose the airport.
Many hon. Members have said that they do not wish to engage in nimbyism or a competition as to who will suffer the greatest damage from the proposed airport. Certainly none of my constituents who have opposed proposals to site an airport at Cliffe have said that it should be put elsewhere. We all understand the devastation that it would create to our communities, and we are all determined to fight for our own communities, but to do so in such a way that we do not damage others.
Dr. Stoate: I am pleased that people in my hon. Friend's community agree with those in my community that this is a proposal too far. I do not wish to get involved in nimbyism either, because that would be wrong. However, it is important that communities work together, therefore, I reiterate that my community feels exactly the same as my hon. Friend's does, and we are working together on this very important issue.
Mr. Pond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are working very closely with other hon. Members in north Kent to oppose the proposal on behalf of our communities.
I want hon. Members to understand the scale of the proposal for Cliffe. We are talking about a four or five-runway airport, twice the size of Heathrow, which would operate 24 hours a day. It would cost a minimum of £11.5 billion, not counting much of the infrastructure costs. It would be built on marsh land and would have to stand on a 15 m platform to prevent its sinking into the Thames estuary. We are talking about a massive project.
As other hon. Members have made clear—I will not dwell on it because of the time—the site is of international importance because of its scientific value. That is why it is a concern for all of us. Other hon. Members have said that they too will oppose an airport at Cliffe because of the impact on the wildlife, especially bird life. The consultation document makes the point that there is also a very real safety concern. For thousands of years, the flight paths of wild birds have crossed the area, and they would not sit well with the flight paths of jet aircraft.
I shall not dwell on the issue, except to say that the Government are aware that they would be tied for many years in legal wrangling with the European Commission and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds if they were to choose the site. A decision was made under international agreements to go
88WH
ahead and set that site aside because of its scientific importance and natural value. There has already been considerable damage to the Government's environmental credibility. As far as my constituents are concerned, it will take many years to repair that damage. If we were to wrangle for many years with the European Commission over environmental issues to build the airport at Cliffe, the damage would be irreparable.
I want to dwell briefly on the economic arguments because the environmental arguments have been put very well. Cliffe and that part of north Kent are part of the Thames gateway. The Thames gateway is a thoroughfare of prosperity and employment between this country and continental Europe. Therefore, if we were to drop an airport of this size across the Thames gateway at Cliffe —let's not pretend that that is anything to do with the regeneration of north Kent or the Thames gateway—it would draw on the infrastructure investment that has already been made. If we were to drop the airport there, it would become not a gateway, but a blockade.
Paul Clark: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the case for regeneration, which has been referred to by many hon. Members in the debate, in the east of London and the Thames gateway area—jobs, affordable housing and so on—has actually been made in a balanced way through public and private work through the area investment framework, which will deliver a far more sustainable development than an airport being dropped on to it?
Mr. Pond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done in assisting the regeneration of that part of north Kent through the area investment framework. He will know that the matter under debate is not part of that proposal. I do not plan to dwell further on the matter, except to say that there are no economic arguments for it. It would do long-term damage to not only the prosperity of north Kent and the Thames gateway, but the nation as a whole, as well as having an environmental impact. We must consider alternatives to just meeting the projected demand. We must manage the demand and look at alternatives that will not do such damage to our economy and our environment.
10.32 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this topical and controversial debate. There have been useful and interesting contributions from many hon. Members who have eloquently set out the reasons why there should be no airport development on their patch. Some have eloquently set out why that development should take place in someone else's patch. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) expressed great concern about the consultation process. He described it as flawed, and I think that he is correct. The time scales are too short and the consultation was been leading, as I shall illustrate shortly.
Many hon. Members have argued against development of airports or runways in or near their constituencies, but with the possible exception of the

89WH
hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), no one has suggested how we could address the problem and manage the demand. Rail has a key part to play, and I will come onto that shortly. The starting point for any transport policy is that it should be sustainable. That means that the policy should reduce carbon dioxide emissions, noise pollution and congestion. How do the Government's plans measure up to those challenges? I am afraid that, so far, they do not. The approach is simply one of predict and provide, and that is not sustainable. Local communities do not think that it is sustainable.
The Government are consulting on the proposals. As I said, the consultation has been leading. That is apparent in the phraseology of some of the questions. For instance, question three states:
"Airport development can bring benefits to the local area".
That is probably true, but what sort of response would the Government have got if they had turned that question around, and said something like, "Airport development can bring disadvantages to the local area"? What would the responses have been? Question four asks:
"How important do you feel it is to consider the following environmental impacts?"
If one were to change the bias, that question would ask, "How important do you feel it is to consider the following economic benefits?" The whole consultation points to a presumption in favour of massive airport development, rather than in the other direction, as I think it should.
Where in the consultation document are the tough questions? The Government have admitted that if the aviation industry takes no measures to reduce emissions, the reductions achieved under the Kyoto protocol could be offset by 30 to 50 per cent. by 2012 due to increased aircraft emissions. Where does the document ask whether people want more CO2 emissions from aviation, as opposed to measures to reduce them? There are no such questions. Nor does anything highlight the fact that fast rail links create three times less CO2 than their short-haul flight equivalents.
Mr. Wilkinson: As a fellow London Member, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the possible development location that militates most against the sensible criteria that he has set out is that of the third east-west runway at Heathrow? It would do west London and the capital as a whole the greatest environmental damage. Will the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrat party say so explicitly?
Tom Brake: I am happy to respond. The inspector has made his position clear, and we support the view, which was put in very stark terms, that a third runway at Heathrow is environmentally unsustainable.
I come now to the Government options. The inspector has dismissed the proposals for Heathrow. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington highlighted, 4,000 homes would have to be demolished to construct the third runway. It is a pity that the consultation document does not spell that number out exactly; it simply says that a number of homes would have to be demolished. Let us include the facts and figures so that people know what they are being consulted on.
90WH
Then there is Cliffe. I think that it was Richard Everett, the chief executive of the National Air Traffic Services, who said that the £11.5 billion project was a non-starter. I also understand that the Environment Minister said at a SERAS fringe meeting at the Labour conference that Cliffe was the "joker in the pack". I am not sure whether that means that it can overrule all other options or that it can be completely dismissed; the Minister's position was unclear.
Other hon. Members have talked about the implications of the Stansted option. The airport is in an area with low unemployment and a housing shortage. If up to 80,000 jobs were created there, where would the people who were going to do them live and where would they come from? That has not been clarified.
The Heathrow and Stansted options would create yet more congestion in already crowded airspace. To what extent are the safety implications of airport and runway development being taken into account? Is it sensible to have yet more development and yet more aircraft flying over congested airspace? I have a nasty feeling—I suspect that other hon. Members do, too—that everything that the Government are doing points to the Stansted option; they are steering us inexorably towards such a solution.
Rail substitution can play a key role. We do not know whether it could resolve the problem of the massive projected increase in passenger numbers, for the simple reason that the Government have not advanced a policy of using rail substitution to tackle that increase.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions—he asked me whether I had any, and I would hate to disappoint him. First, what is the Government's target for substituting rail for short-haul flights? The Government expect 500 million passengers to be travelling by plane by 2030. By how much could the Government's target reduce that number? What percentage of domestic and international journeys does the Minister expect will be by rail rather than short-haul flight by 2030? To be more specific, what discussions has the Minister had, for example, about the potential for a fast rail link between London and Amsterdam? I met Eurostar representatives last week and they were adamant that they could create the potential for approximately 3 million passenger journeys if the link were established. Therefore, what role would it play in the Government's policy?
What percentage of trips to airports does the Minister expect will be on public transport by 2030? Congestion around airports is clearly also an important factor. If the Government had a sustainable transport policy, the Minister would be able to answer those questions.
The Minister now has the opportunity to confirm that the Government are not going down the slippery slope of predict and provide for airports and runways. Will they go for the joker in the pack option—Cliffe or Stansted—or the ace in the pack that is rail substitution? Communities throughout the country will be listening very carefully to the Minister's response.
10.41 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this timely debate and recognise the many eloquent contributions that have been made.

91WH
Let me first declare an interest. For 10 years I was a Member of the European Parliament, first for Essex North East and then for Essex North and South Suffolk and I still have a property in north Essex. Also, my husband works for Delta Air Lines as a sales director and I own personal equity plans in British Airways and the British Airports Authority.
Our guiding principles were set out by the shadow Transport Secretary in Bournemouth last week. We hope to put people first. We would ensure that transport policy would play its part in improving and safeguarding the environment of our communities and our world. Safety is of critical importance and we recognise the central importance of rail in developing any long-term transport strategy. Essentially, in putting people first, the Conservatives realise that a difficult balance must be reached. Airports are businesses, major employers and contributors to the local economy. Passengers increasingly want to fly on business, for holidays and to visit family, but we must never lose sight of those who live near airports. They may not travel often themselves, but they are exposed to environmental disbenefits such as noise, traffic pollution and the general intrusion of airport activity.
I curtail my remarks and put questions to the Minister. Following the strenuous representations made in this debate today and considering the impact that the proposals contain, does he now regret that the consultation period is so short and insufficient? The consultation procedure, as eloquently explained by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others, is seriously flawed in its brevity, lack of openness, transparency and the singular lack of publicity attached to it. The short time in which Ministers could make themselves available included a two-and-a-half-month recess.
How confident is the Minister that Government forecasts are accurate when page 19 of the summary of the consultation document states that:
"The rate of growth is predicted to decline, more so in the South East".
What guarantee can he give us that such forecasts are accurate? What studies and research can the Minister point to regarding the extent to which railways can eventually compete with airlines, especially on domestic routes and for short-fall European traffic using existing Eurostar services to Paris, Lille, Brussels and Cologne and now Avignon and Nice? It is unbelievable that the Government have not undertaken such studies because our partners in the countries in which those services operate will have done so. The information is freely available to the travelling public in those countries.
What estimate have the Government made of the potential of regional air services? Let us take Manchester airport as an example. In 1982 it was a largely domestic charter traffic airport. It is now recognised as a major international airport. The key to that development was access by public transport. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to improve public transport to existing airports such as Teesside airport and Leeds Bradford airport, as happened with Manchester airport, than to develop a wholly new airport, such as that proposed at Finningley in south Yorkshire?
92WH
Will the Government take the opportunity offered by the consultation to end a current anomaly by placing car parks closer to airports? That would reduce pollution. It has been put to me that car parks in Stockport serving Manchester airport are more than five miles away from the airport, and passengers are bussed there from the car park. They are listed in airport statistics as passengers "arriving by public transport". Will the Minister end another anomaly, referred to by several hon. Members today, whereby airport-related housing, such as that in the Uttlesford district, is anything but that, as those who work in the airport cannot afford the prices of those houses?
We recognise the need to increase airport capacity, but take a national view. The focus should not be on the south-east only. I would say that, because I represent a constituency in north Yorkshire that could be better served by having a greater choice of flights from existing airports and better public transport access to them. Could we focus on regional airports, and could we have some information from the Government on the studies that they have done into using rail as an alternative?
One conclusion is that we should think about the three Es: environment, environment, environment. That should be one of the driving factors in deciding where airport capacity should go. The Government must be seen to have an independent, transparent consultation period of sufficient length. Conservative hon. Members think that three months is a gross underestimate of how long that period should be; three months is simply too short. The consultation should satisfy the demands of those with competing interests. We must never lose sight of those who, often unwittingly, go to live near airports sites such as Stansted—one of the airport sites only developed in the early 1980s and late 1970s—and whose quality of life will be irreparably threatened by the proposals.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): As I was eating my cornflakes at breakfast this morning, I saw the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on the BBC morning news flagging up today's debate. I congratulate local BBC television on mentioning some of the debates that take place in Westminster Hall, which are too little reported. As I listened to the contributions made in that short part of the programme, I thought it was interesting how much they reflected the debate that we have had, in that there were a wide range of views on the matter.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford on securing the debate, and on the way in which he introduced his speech by supporting his constituency.
Mr. Prisk: If, as the Minister says, there is a wide range of views, why is the consultation period so short?
Mr. Jamieson: I can deal with that now. The consultation will inevitably raise concerns. The proposals will blight certain areas. We have had a considerable amount of correspondence—quite rightly—from hon. Members who say that their constituencies now feel blighted. They say that we

93WH
should be making decisions fairly rapidly, and should be reducing the time we take to discuss the issues. We must carefully balance getting proper consultation, and allowing the Government to consider views, with the fact that if we consulted for one, two or three years, we would in effect blight people's properties for long periods. Some are telling us that we should take decisions at an early opportunity. We will take those decisions in accordance with proper consideration of the points raised during the consultation.
Mr. David Amess: Despite what the Minister says about the length of consultation, will he accept that there has been no consultation as far as my constituents in Southend, West are concerned? To add to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, will he ensure that a representative from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will attend the public meeting arranged for 1 November?
Mr. Jamieson: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
To return to comments made at the start of the debate, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said that this was a significant statement on air travel. He said that in the past we had had to "make do and mend". I agree with him entirely, which is why the Government believe that, after almost 100 years of aviation in this country, we now need to present to the country some of the clear choices that we must make.
In this country, we have a desire to travel that would have been entirely unexpected 50 years ago. The situation is such that, last year, 50 per cent. of the population of this country travelled at least once by air. That would have been unimaginable even 20 years ago. One third of the value of the freight of the imports and exports into this country also goes by air. Some 180,000 jobs in the south-east alone depend on air travel and air transport. If we continue to increase people's desire to travel, whether internally within the country or to other parts of the world, for business or leisure, we must weigh against that the environmental concerns that hon. Members from various quarters quite properly have raised in the debate today.
We must also consider the effects of noise and pollution on environments and people, as several hon. Members mentioned today. Wherever we stand in this debate, and whatever our beliefs about where a development should take place or the importance of the environment and of noise on communities, the Government did not have the option of doing nothing. We had to place these matters before the public for proper open debate, and I assure hon. Members that we have done precisely that. I accept some of the criticisms that there may be inadequacies in our documents, but I must say that they were drawn up after long and careful consideration. We proposed what we believed were good options. We reduced them to a level that we believed was sensible so that people could make proper contributions to the debate. We had to have the debate. It is a difficult debate. There are many views, even among the 20 or 30 hon. Members in this Chamber today.
Mr. Randall: With regard to open debate, will the Minister explain why section 12.2 of the SERAS study
94WH
quotes a minimum of £15,000 compensation, but the compulsory purchase and compensation document quotes a maximum of £15,000? Was that just an unfortunate mistake?
Mr. Jamieson: I will jot the hon. Gentleman a note about that if he wants me to. I cannot give an answer straight away.
With regard to the comments made today, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford talked about the length of the consultation. I believe that I have covered that. The problems of blight would have been considerable if we had extended the debate. I must take him to task for using the phrase "planned development" at Stansted. There is no planned development, just options. It is important in our use of language that we appreciate that these are options, not proposals. On the other hand. I fully understand the important concerns of his constituents that he raised. I assure him that the Government are mindful of those considerable concerns.
Comments have been made about the consultation process, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) questioned whether it had been advertised sufficiently. I believe that it was advertised in the Evening Standard and Metro, and from the amount of interest that we received in response from people in local areas as well as wider areas around the country, it seems to have been well publicised.
John McDonnell: The interest generated in my constituency was initiated by us. It was not advertised in the local paper. The Evening Standard is not our local paper and Metro often does not reach my constituency. Our local paper is the Gazette, in which the consultation process was not advertised. According to the Government's figures, 35,000 of our constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide levels that go beyond European limits. There were no experts at the consultation meeting and no medical expert was present to answer questions about the effects on our physical capacity to survive.
Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I should be happy to discuss any deficiencies in the consultation process that he brings to my attention. This is the first time that I have heard about some of them, and if he had told me about them earlier, I could have dealt with them.
Mr. Prisk: The Minister has heard today our complaints about the consultation process and he has heard them before. The Secretary of State made the announcement on 23 July, immediately before the House went into recess, so for many weeks, we had no opportunity to debate the issue in Parliament. Surely, it is time for the Government to give us another two months, at least, to make sure that we have got it right. I am not asking for years, but surely six months overall is not too much to ask.
Mr. Jamieson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but other hon. Members are asking us to curtail the process and end the blight on their constituencies. We have to balance the two arguments.
Mr. Prisk: Who are they?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman asked about the consultation at Stansted, which he suggested was not

95WH
properly advertised. Apparently, there was huge interest in the exhibition and the Secretary of State will respond to the request for an extra exhibition in the next few days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, as always, argued powerfully the case for Heathrow, but some of his arguments illustrate the difficulties. My hon. Friend has rightly argued strongly in the past for jobs and prosperity in his constituency, but he also talks about the intrusion that would be caused by further development, which I also understand. That is the nub of the problem. We must consider jobs and development while reducing the detrimental effects on local people.
Alan Keen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman was not present for the whole debate, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way to him.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made several helpful points. He asked about the fifth runway at Cliffe, but it would be inappropriate at this stage for us to add any options to those proposed in the consultation document.
Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I will when I have answered his previous point. He said that that runway would only receive arrivals from the south-west and would not affect residents in south Essex.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said that he had considered the proposals, field for field and ancient site for ancient site. Of course, that is part of the dilemma because there are conflicting interests in each of the various developments. He questioned whether we need the extra capacity in the south-east, precisely the question that we asked in the consultation document. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was right to stress the importance of environmental considerations, but if we decide that there should be no more airport development, will he tell his constituents that we are restricting their ability to fly? That is the nub of the question. I think he said that he was in favour of a reduction in air travel, but if that is Liberal Democrat policy, he must answer the question whether we should reduce people's ability to fly.
Questions were asked about rail links and substitution, which are an important part of the consultation. Many of those who, like myself, represent a far-flung part of the country, would welcome better rail links, especially into London for international flights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now turn to the debate on corroboration in sex abuse cases.

Sex Abuse Cases
11 am
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: In 1998, I was holding one of my regular Saturday surgeries when two men came to see me to discuss their deep concerns about a friend. Their friend was a social worker in a local care home that had been established for many years and looked after young men who came from broken families or had misbehaved. For one reason or another, those young men had no one else to care for them except the council. The men's friend had been arrested for sex abuse, but they said that it was impossible that he could have committed the crimes of which he was accused.
Of course, that is a pretty normal response from anyone who learns that a friend has been accused of a horrendous crime. Sex abuse is one of those private things, and we now understand that the most vulnerable and innocent sorts of people can at one time be sex offenders. I told my visitors that they should be content with the outcome of the criminal proceedings and the jury's verdict on their friend, but I promised that I would ask some parliamentary questions about sex abuse crimes.
The answers that I received to my questions were alarming. It transpired that more than 40 police authorities had investigated cases of historical sex abuse, as opposed to one-on-one abuse, during the past two years. Police authorities receive two sorts of complaints about sex abuse—one about abuse initiated by an individual against an individual, and the other about abuse by an individual against many individuals. Those 40 police authorities were considering complex sex abuse cases involving hundreds and thousands of complainants and thousands of potential sex offenders.
Dozens of prisons hold sex offenders in this country. I have been to prisons that are exclusively the domain of sex offenders. Sex offending is a huge problem in the UK, and the associated costs of the inquiries are fantastic. When I asked a parliamentary question about Operation Rose, an inquiry by the police in the north-east, I was informed that the police costs alone for prosecuting those cases were £5 million. I estimate that £5 million must go to the Crown Prosecution Service and another £5 million on court proceedings, so each inquiry must cost about £15 million. I therefore suspect that the amount of public money allocated to the prosecution of cases is some half a billion pounds.
Armed with that sort of information, I received inquiries from other hon. Members whose constituents had come to see them. I decided that we should form an all-party group, but it was with some hesitation that I wrote to my colleagues asking for support. On the surface of it, we appeared to be a group who were generally in support of paedophiles, but that was certainly not the case.
I was very reassured when, after writing my first and only letter seeking support for the group, we received 60 responses from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The group was established one year ago. Our terms of reference were that we should not interest ourselves in individuals' guilt or innocence, but merely seek to identify and examine the processes used by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts

97WH
when prosecuting cases. We would focus not on people, but on the process—and that is what we have done ever since.
Last year we dealt with 3,000 letters and made dozens of visits, and I have been into more prisons than I care to recall. I have spoken to complainants, victims and people who have been accused of sex offences and incarcerated for 20 years. I have spoken to judges, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General—and, indeed, the Minister who is here today.
The group has had a significant amount of correspondence from many different people, although essentially it has come from two groups. First, there are those who have been accused by another person. Secondly, there are the friends and families of the accused, or "the damned", as I prefer to call them. This group has relatives who have been accused of the most horrendous acts against not just one, but dozens of people.
I also have many letters from social workers and care workers who have been arrested and released, but who are waiting for another knock on the door. I have letters from people whom the police have identified as suspects and who are desperately waiting to discover the outcome of the deliberations, which can sometimes take as long as three or four years. I have letters from people who have been arrested and who are waiting for the police to put together their case. I have letters from those who have been charged and who are waiting for their cases to come to court. Finally, I have letters both from those who have been acquitted and from those who have been convicted.
All those people discuss their grave concerns about the processes that the police use to execute their inquiries. I think that often, the only difference between those who are acquitted and those who are convicted is luck, which consists of little more than the calibre of the team that supports them and the climate in which the case is conducted on the day.
How do people such as care workers with an unblemished service history find themselves accused of sex offences? When do they know that their world, and that of their family and friends, is about to collapse? It happens in one of two ways. Some of them may be at work. Someone who has been working in a care home for 30 years may be summoned to their supervisor's office to be told that allegations have made against them and inquiries are being made. They must go home at once and wait—which is what they do. Some of them wait a long time before finding out the nature of the complaint against them. Other people, however, may have been retired for 20 years. There may be a knock at the door at six o'clock in the morning, and six police officers may be waiting outside to tell them that they are being arrested for sexually abusing 20 people, 30 or 40 years ago.
Those who find themselves in that position have two ways out. They can admit their guilt; contrary to popular myth, many do. Many sex offenders are glad that they have been arrested, because they were locked into appalling behaviours from which they were waiting to be liberated. I have met sex offenders in prison who never want to be released in any circumstances, because they are so afraid of what will happen to them when they get out, and because they know that they are still extremely vulnerable.
98WH
Other people with whom I deal profess that they are innocent, as one would expect, and I have come to believe that there is in fact every likelihood that some of them are. They then wait to go to court.
How do the police come by the allegations that place those individuals in such a predicament? Police use a number of processes, one of which is trawling, and they receive complaints from a number of sources. What is trawling, and where do the complaints come from? Some come from solicitors who manage compensation schemes. Their advertisements say, "No win, no fee," and, "Have you been subject to a traffic accident?" or "Have you been abused? If so, you may be entitled to compensation." People who have been abused or who are seeking compensation may come forward legitimately and the solicitor refers them to the police; that is one source. A second is the individuals who go directly to the police.
There are also cases in which the police go "cold calling" and realise complaints directly. What does that mean? In certain operations the police authorities have identified every social worker who has ever worked in a care home as an individual who might have committed a sex crime. They have to start like that; they seem to believe that sex abuse is rampant in care homes. I do not share that view—it is a damning indictment of the vast majority of people who give their lives to help those who are far more vulnerable than they are.
The police may write to all the individuals who have ever lived in a certain care home asking them to help with inquiries and advising them to make contact if they suffered any problem while in that home. That may identify an individual, who will then give a statement along the lines of, "I was sexually abused"—or perhaps physically abused—"But I can't remember when."
The police then have just one statement. If they present one statement in court against a man who might have had 40 years' unblemished service, they will not win. That has something to do with the majority of complainants in such cases; they are largely convicted criminals. I have visited such people in prison, and many have themselves been convicted of murder, grievous bodily harm or other horrendous crimes, including sex abuse.
Thus the police have a statement from somebody and there is every probability that that person is a convicted criminal. They know that they cannot take the case to court—they would never secure a conviction—so they need corroboration of the evidence that they have from that one person. Therefore, they seek others. They do so by telling the first individual that it is necessary to identify others who might be able to help, and asking whether that person can think of anyone else who was present at the time. The individual might offer a list of people whom the police can then interview—usually in prison, because most of those whom they seek to interview are in prison, on remand or on parole.
The police go to prisons, frequently unannounced—I know that because I have spoken to people who have been interviewed by the police in prison—and sit down with a complainant. They say, "We've come to see you today because we hope that you can help us with our inquiries in connection with an individual who has been accused of, and arrested for, sex offences." They normally offer a photograph at this point, and say,

99WH
"This is the man. He has done the most horrendous things to other people. Is there anything you can say to help us, because the statement that we have is not enough to convict him? We need something else. Is there anything else that you can give us?"
In a real case that came to court this year, the police had been to see an individual in prison. At the first interview, he said, "I've got nothing to tell you at all. This man has done nothing." But the police say that such people are hardened criminals, that they find it difficult to make disclosures so they have to be encouraged. So they went back to see that individual again and again and again. They went back to see him 15 times in 10 different prisons—then they got a statement. He was not the only person whom the police were seeing, because although they now had two allegations, two were still not enough, as the two people who had made them were convicted criminals, serving sentences for the most horrendous crimes. That is not enough; the police have to find others, and they do.
During the conversation the police can say, "There's compensation available; it's only right that you should receive that." Or they can say, "You know, you're coming up for parole," which may be in 20 years' time, 10 years' time, five years' time or next week. "How good will it look for your parole that you have identified the fact that you were abused as a child?" I have interviewed people, and for many of them money is not the issue. They have more to gain from helping the police than just money. They receive many visits from the police and see much activity. They become the centre of attention; they are not the baddy any more, but the goody. Some are very much persuaded by the opportunity to get a good report when it comes to parole time.
At the end of the day, the police may have 20 complainants. They need 20 to get to court because invariably, days before the case is to be heard, that 20 is whittled down, perhaps to 10. They know that statistically, they need at least eight to get a conviction. I can tell hon. Members that if anyone comes to their surgery and says that he has been accused of sex abuse, there is only one question that has to be asked, if he is a social worker: "How many complaints are there against you?" If it is eight, tell him to forget the judicial process and not to bother going to court, because he can go and see the judge and tell him that he can save the public purse a lot of money because he knows he is going down. He will go down. There is no way that eight people can be dispensed with, because the idea is that one can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. If someone is facing eight individuals accusing them of the same crime over decades—there may be 60, 80 or 100 different sex indictments—people will think that there is no smoke without fire. Someone in there must be telling the truth; they cannot all be telling lies. Therefore the person goes to court.
I attended court this summer, and on that day the newspaper that I am holding now carried the following headlines, with pictures: on page 1, "Dani, 15, killed by the uncle who lusted for her", and on page 2, "Dani's blood on stockings". Page 5 read, "Huntley's not mad, he's not depressed. He will be tried", and page 6, with a picture of bereaved parents, "We still have each other".
100WH
Then people found the accused before them and discovered a sex offender present in their midst. They had one of these people. They could not get the ones here in the paper, but they had another one in front of them. The list of indictments for him included: buggery, sometime in April 1983; indecent assault, 1984; indecent assault, 1983; buggery, 1984. There is page after page of dates: 1973, 1978, 1969. That is the kind of accusation that such people face.
In a case earlier this summer, an individual who went to court faced 10 complainants; he was summonsed with another chap on 58 counts not dissimilar to those that I have mentioned. Two of the people who were brought to court to give evidence against him were from Broadmoor and had serious psychiatric problems, so they were refused. The third person who came before the court had made a mistake in that he had applied for compensation before the court case—I wish that they had all made that mistake. He was subjected to a significant amount of cross-questioning, which eventually culminated in the defence lawyer saying, "You're doing this for the compensation, aren't you?" to which he replied, "Yes, I am." Then he said, "And everything that I've said is a complete pack of lies." Next morning he was dispensed with and was subsequently brought before the judge for perjury, for which he is awaiting trial.
On the following morning, the next person who was due to give evidence did not turn up. The judge called for them to come, and they sent a letter to the court—
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the law regarding sub judice matters. It may not be being breached, but I issue the warning at this stage.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Hurst.
The letter said something like, "I'm not coming to court today because all the statements I've given have been an absolute pack of lies." That situation is very commonplace. I do not want hon. Members to think that it is an exceptional case, because it is not—I could be talking about any one of the hundreds that are going on.
The judge discharged and exonerated the two men before him, saying that there was no case to answer. One man had lost everything, including family and friends. Of course, the police are law-abiding citizens who would never do anything remotely corrupt. They never have, have they? How does such a person recover his reputation? In fact, he has not been able to.
Social services have a right to instigate their own inquiries, and having been exonerated by the court, the men now find that they are the subject of an internal social services inquiry, which will last three weeks. At the end of it, they will be told either that they will be sacked from their jobs because people believe that they have committed a crime, or that they will not. They will never recover from the allegations, nor will their families and friends.
I am deeply concerned about the processes that the police are using. I do not think that they are actively engaged in some form of corruption, but like the rest of us, they feel a collective guilt for having done nothing for so many years. So many people who were locked into

101WH
the care system reported sex abuse crimes and were never listened to. Now the police feel that they can do something, and that is what drives them on to continue to pursue people even after they have been told, "No, there are no allegations; I wish to say nothing."
It cannot be right that the only evidence used to convict a man is that obtained by the police from a witness in privacy, with no independent witnesses to the interview. I have been told that complainants can talk among themselves, but that would be difficult or impossible, because most of them are in prisons in different parts of the country. It is not necessary for complainants to talk among themselves, given that the same group of police officers are going from prison to prison writing statements on their behalf. That is what creates the consistency that allows such cases to come to court—they have been corroborated by volume.
Dr. John Pugh: It is a very stark claim to say that the only distinction between those who are convicted and those who are not convicted is luck. I want to be clear about what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she claiming that some or many people who are innocent are convicted, or is she making the lesser claim that some people who are innocent are nevertheless investigated and suffer as a result of the allegations? Those are two different positions, and I should like the hon. Lady to clarify which she is taking.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I have had letters from people who maintain their innocence of the crime of which they have been accused. I do not know whether they are innocent. All I can say is that the processes employed by the police in the execution of their duty, which have been compounded by the Crown Prosecution Service, lead me to believe that opportunities exist for the judiciary and the criminal justice system to abuse those processes to deliver a result. Some people who are brought to court, as many people have been this summer, are subsequently acquitted of the crimes of which they were accused, but only through the largesse of the complainants on the witness stand, whereas others being prosecuted face complainants who are absolutely adamant.
I was told by one complainant that the compensation was the quickest £50,000 he had made in his life, and some of the people whom I have interviewed in prison have said something like, "I'll have nothing when I get out of here, but at least that person will still have his family"—if he ever gets out, that is. I am currently trying to get the Criminal Cases Review Commission to take 30 cases, all of which are similar to the ones that I have outlined today. Two of those cases will now be taken posthumously, because of the age of the people involved.
I have a set view on what must be done. All conversations that take place between the police and the victims must be video recorded. The cases are far too important for the evidence not to be video recorded. I have seen the Minister several times about that, and he keeps saying no—but I say absolutely yes. I have spoken to judges about it, and they say yes. They say that video recording makes matters much easier. I want to see all those interviews, and be able to tell my constituents that there was no way that the police could have persuaded,
102WH
encouraged or induced individuals to make allegations, but that they spoke of their own free will. I cannot do that at the moment.
People accused have very little recourse to appeal, because they need new evidence, for example about the incompetence of their team. There will be no new evidence for cases in which people believe there was no evidence to convict them in the first place. Such people are in the most horrendous position. I cannot give precise figures, but I suspect that about 100 people are locked up in prison for crimes of the most horrendous nature, which they did not commit. One man was given a severe beating just a couple of weeks ago; he now has a fractured cheek, a fractured nose and fractured eye sockets. He will stay in prison, because such people are not sent down for short periods. Eighteen years, when a person is 70, is a life sentence. I want interviews video recorded and, for the reasons that I have identified, the processes must be made utterly transparent. I will then feel more confident about the outcome.
The police have done something to try to minimise the abuse of processes. They introduced guidelines earlier this year, on the day that the Association of Chief Police Officers was due to give evidence in the Select Committee inquiries into the cases—but that is five years too late for the vast majority of people. The guidelines include a list of dos and don'ts, including the fact that there must be no talk of compensation. That advice is all too late for most people, and is not enforceable.
I have asked questions about who considers the processes that the police use. The answer is nobody. I asked judges whether, when cases come to court, the processes that the police use are ever discussed. They say that that is not under their jurisdiction. I asked the Home Office who reviews the processes and checks to ensure that they are not open to abuse. Is it, perhaps, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary? It is not. That provides some evidence to child protection teams, but it does not look at the processes, or question whether people are vulnerable and being abused when they are interviewed. Is it an abuse to interview someone 15 times to obtain a statement? I think it is. That must be reviewed.
We might see changes and have cases video recorded. Although such people may be considered the most disgusting people on the face of the earth, we might still think that it would be worth video recording conversations with them. That would be fine for those who are yet to be subjected to the process, but I am worried about the men who have already been through it—men such as those who went to court this summer. They could easily have gone down. The complainants could have said, "No, I'm not seeking compensation. I don't want anything out of it. I'm not getting anything out of it." I know dozens of cases of people who have gone down. It is a matter of luck, and I must try to find some way for them to get justice.
I have already referred to the man who was seeking compensation and admitted so in court, so was taken before a judge and charged with perjury. The police force which put that man in that position got off scot-free. When people complain to the police about the processes, they are told they cannot do that. While we

103WH
cannot do that, again and again the police use processes that are open and subject to abuse—for a good cause, but with the wrong outcome.
The criminal justice system is being prejudiced by those practices. Thousands of people feel vulnerable and open to the possibility of being accused with no hope of proving their innocence, because the evidence against them was gained in dubious circumstances with no independent witnesses. That must change. I must be able to face my constituents and say that in this country we operate to the very best standards—but at the moment, I do not believe that we do.
11.31 am
Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her initiative in raising the subject under discussion today and on achieving this Adjournment debate. My congratulations are reinforced by my recognition of her bravery in pursuing a subject that can do her no political good whatever, and may even puzzle some of her constituents. If anyone under investigation by the police has first call on public sympathy, it is unlikely to be those who sexually abuse others, particularly children and young persons in their care in children's homes, schools, young offender institutions and other places where there is expected to be a relationship of care, not abuse, between the adults in charge and the young persons living there.
The hon. Lady is concerned about something with which every hon. Member should be concerned: justice. There should be justice, certainly for the victims of abuse, but also, more controversially, for those who are accused by the police and victims of sexual abuse—foul crimes that naturally excite feelings of utter revulsion in right-thinking people. Justice is a concept that is widely spoken of, but from time to time we are all guilty of wanting to define it partially or tendentiously.
One of the hon. Lady's practical suggestions, which has been subject to much discussion among those who practise criminal law and sit as judges, and, I am sure, in the Home Office, is the video recording of the taking of statements in police stations. Many interviews are already voice recorded. I know about the resource implications for the Home Office, but I hope that following the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when tape recording of statements was introduced, the Home Office, with the assistance of the Treasury, will do all that it can to introduce widespread video statement-taking in police stations, because that will lead to greater justice in all sorts of cases, not just those involving sex abuse.
During the past two years, Leicestershire constabulary has investigated a number of allegations of sexual and other abuse of young people in the care of Leicestershire county council's social services department. The investigation—not Operation Rose, but Operation Magnolia—has been made more difficult than it might have been under different circumstances because the allegations relate to events that are supposed to have taken place well over 10 years ago, and sometimes as long as 20 years ago.
In addition, following the reorganisation of local government in Leicestershire in the mid-1990s, the city of Leicester became a unitary authority with a social
104WH
services department separate from that of the county council. Some employees stayed with the old county council department, while the new city council department took others on. Personnel and other records relating to individual employees of the two social services departments, and to the children and young people who had been in their care, have therefore been difficult to locate.
The allegations of criminal activity against members of staff appear to have been made by people who, although now adults in a chronological sense, are in some cases mentally unstable, possibly as a result of things done to them in their childhood. Allegations have been made by people who are abusers of their own children, by people who are in prison and by individuals who are not the most reliable witnesses of truth by virtue of their psychiatric or social problems, or because they have or may have an improper motive for making allegations against their former carers. Some of them may hope for early release from prison for helping the police with their inquiries. Some may hope for financial compensation for their mental or physical injuries, actual or imagined. Some may want revenge for the way in which they were rejected or neglected by their families or schools, or by society.
The picture is complicated, and I cannot attempt to unravel fact from fiction, not least because I am not privy to the nature or substance of the vast number of allegations that have been made and are being investigated. It is, of course, possible that some allegations made against the employees of the two social services departments are true and will lead to convictions in the Crown court. If they are true, I accept that it would be unjust for the perpetrators to go unpunished. It would not only be unjust but it would also destroy public confidence in the care home system and in the institutions that look after the mentally ill, the socially disturbed, the discarded, the abandoned and the young criminal. So far as I know—I may be wrong—no one has been charged with any offence arising out of Operation Magnolia, although two of my constituents were arrested in the summer of 2000, put in police cells, questioned and given the firm impression by the police that they were guilty of heinous crimes.
In one of those cases the crimes ranged from non-penetrative sexual misconduct with young boys to buggery. In the other case, that of a woman, the crimes ranged from criminal violence to unkind and unacceptable behaviour. Those allegations were not made clear to my constituents at the outset, but have been put to them serially and over time. They were not told who their alleged victims were and were not given sufficient detail to enable them to refute the allegations coherently. Furthermore, they were both summarily suspended by their employers, and it was only earlier this year that they were both, almost casually, informed by the police that they were not to be charged or prosecuted, and that they no longer needed to answer to police bail. There was, they were told, insufficient evidence for their cases to proceed.
Of course, by then the damage had been done. Those people had become pariahs. For more than 18 months they were unable to go to work, to explain to their friends and families why they were not going to work, to socialise and to go about their daily lives as they had in the past. They were prisoners in their own homes,

105WH
terrified that the day would soon come when they would again be summoned by the police to be interviewed, and on that occasion charged and imprisoned on remand while the investigations against them were slowly pursued. One of them became so traumatised by the experience that he became suicidal and is still under the care of a psychiatrist. The other had to receive professional counselling for the stress she has endured. Both of them have had their faith in British justice and in the police undermined if not totally destroyed. Both are incapable of offering their employers, the social services department, and their line managers the respect that they once had for the institution and for the people managing it.
My constituents feel that they have been trashed on the uncorroborated say-so of some damaged and ill-motivated people whose stories were accepted as gospel by their employers and by the police, and that their professional lives, which they had dedicated to the care of the young and the vulnerable, have been ruined. One of my constituents is in his mid-40s and sees before him a blank future without the work, the professional satisfaction and the esteem that he had expected would take him through to retirement at 60 or 65. My other constituent, a lady in her 50s, is now back at work but cannot work in the way and with the people with whom she had worked until 2000. My two constituents are like priests who have lost their faith. They are ruined people contemplating ruined lives and a future without hope. Not surprisingly, both are considering legal action against their employers for the way in which they were treated.
Those constituents provide me with stark and immediate examples of the problem highlighted by the hon. Member for Crosby. As she said, the massive growth in police trawling operations has become a danger in itself: it is different from the danger of child abuse but every bit as corrosive to our justice system as child abuse is to the public care system. Even on the limited information that I have concerning my two constituents, it is clear to me that the presumption of innocence that should have been made in their favour—both publicly as a matter of course until conviction and privately within the police and the social services department employing them—at least until evidence of probative value became available to warrant precise charges that would stand the scrutiny of the Crown Prosecution Service and independent prosecuting counsel, never existed. It was not just under threat; it never surfaced at all.
The police in the two cases appear to have been desperate to find any information with which to sustain the theory that they had convinced themselves was the right one. They set about trawling through the memories, real or reconstructed, of former residents of children's homes in Leicestershire and believed without question or corroboration the tales that they were told.
I have been very critical today of the conduct of Operation Magnolia, at least in so far as it has touched the lives of my two constituents. I have deliberately not named them. Enough people know their names and what they have been through without making their lives worse through further identification. Equally, I have not identified the officers on Operation Magnolia, although there may be some who hear or will come to hear what I say who will be able to identify them. I want to make
106WH
it clear that my purpose in taking part in this debate is not to vilify the officers on Operation Magnolia—none of them are actuated by malice—although I appreciate that they may see things somewhat differently. My purpose is to try to ensure that things are done better in future. I fully appreciate that the very small team that has been operating Magnolia is under-resourced and in desperate need of co-operation from other care agencies and police authorities, and that they are working within tremendous limitations.
We need to understand why the police investigation in Leicestershire has gone as it has and why the police officers concerned in it were—properly so—desperate to get to the heart of the crimes that they believed had been revealed to them. The key to the puzzle is one word: Beck. Frank Beck was a senior employee of Leicestershire social services. He worked for the department from 1973 to 1986 as the officer in charge of several children's homes, some in my constituency and some elsewhere in the city of Leicester and the county of Leicestershire. He later worked for the London borough of Brent, and Hertfordshire county council. He was arrested in 1990 on numerous charges of gross sexual and other abuse of children in his care while working in Leicestershire. He was tried and convicted, and received five life sentences from Mr Justice Jowitt in 1991. He died in prison in May 1994.
There is no better account of the terrible case of Frank Beck than that written by Mark D'Arcy and Paul Gosling in their book, "Abuse of Trust: Frank Beck and the Leicestershire Children's Homes Scandal", published in 1998. Anyone who is interested in the subject of this debate and the issues underlying it should read it.
The Beck case was not simply another case of a sexual predator operating undetected within an otherwise healthy competent institution. Leicestershire's child care services were subverted to such an extent that Beck and his followers were able sexually to abuse young children at will. This was possible partly because of Beck's remarkable personal qualities but also because of the weakness of the managers—and, to a lesser extent, the politicians—who were supposed to be in charge of him and his co-abusers.
Beck was a dominating and manipulative man, but had he been working within a stronger, better managed organisation or in an environment where children's complaints were taken more seriously, he would have been stopped much earlier. As it is, he is now known as arguably the worst child abuser in British criminal history, with a suspected toll of 200 children abused by him. He employed a potent combination of affection, shame, humiliation and domination, which mentally paralysed many of the children in his care and even some of the young men who worked at the homes.
Beck's is a story that has scarred the collective memory of the county and city social services departments, the Leicestershire constabulary and the local political establishment. There has been a criminal trial, and an inquiry chaired by Mr Andrew Kirkwood QC, which revealed massive shortcomings in the management of the county's social services department and the conduct of several key managers. I am happy to say that all that is in the past.

107WH
According to Mr Allan Levy QC, the leading child law silk who chaired the pin-down case inquiry in Staffordshire, the Beck case brought together all the main elements of other child abuse cases: sex abuse, excessive physical restraint, a punishment regime that contained elements of torture, denial of civil liberties for children in care and epic managerial incompetence. All that is true, and will have been in the minds of the social services department managers and of the police dealing with Operation Magnolia.
Never again, they must have thought, will this county and this city be caught out by a child abuse scandal. I suggest that, for the best of reasons—the desire to protect children in care, and to demonstrate that Leicester had learned from the Beck case—normally reasonable men and women lost sight of an essential in their pursuit of a dragon, and cast aside the proper professional caution and need for scrutiny that ought to have governed the conduct of Operation Magnolia, certainly in the case of my two constituents, if not in every case.
I will say no more about the case, or its handling by the authorities in Leicester, save to say that two people have probably been damaged irreparably by their experiences since their arrest in 2000. Had there been a calmer, more considered assessment of the allegations against them made at the time that they were received, their lives would not have been so cruelly changed. I do not say that in cases of child abuse there can never be a prosecution or an investigation in the absence of corroboration, for that could lead to huge difficulties and evil people getting away scot-free, but in this case, common sense and justice lost sight of each other in the rush to stop a Beck mark 2. Two of my constituents were presumed to be guilty when they had a right to due process and the right to expect that the allegations against them would be speedily, although thoroughly, examined.
There are lessons to be learned from Beck, but as a result of what I now know about the cases of my two constituents, I am left to wonder if we have so far learned the right ones.
11.47 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: I, too, express my thanks to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for initiating the debate with considerable passion, and for all the research that she has done during her leadership of the all-party group on abuse investigations, of which I am an officer.
I am anxious that others who wish to contribute may do so. Therefore, I do not wish to rehearse the powerful case made by the hon. Lady, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has added. I would say simply that, as far as I am concerned, there is no underlying agenda. I wish to reinforce, or recover, my general respect for the criminal justice system, and the conduct of the police in undertaking inquiries.
My own interest springs simply from the experience of two constituents, both of whom were accused of practices alleged to have taken place when they had care of children in south Wales in the 1970s. In the case of
108WH
one constituent, the charges were dropped. That person was not convicted, but the agreement was that one charge should be allowed to stay on the file. In the second case, the constituent was convicted and is in prison. The hon. Member for Crosby has rightly said that it is not the purpose of the all-party group, or of today's debate, to go into individual cases, and I pass no judgment, having not studied the evidence fully in any case. The individuals concerned and their families, in the examples of the released and the convicted constituents, declare their continuing innocence.
No less significantly, a local solicitor who is well known to me and highly respected, and interestingly, who does not normally practise in the defence of sex offender cases, has come to a case involving somebody whose family matters he has perhaps been dealing with. Suddenly, he became mixed-up in inquiries that they both regarded as ridiculous and inappropriate. That solicitor communicated to the hon. Member for Crosby considerable doubts as to the conduct of the case, in which the gentleman was convicted.
I emphasise again to the House that I hope that no one present holds a brief for paedophilia, or would not wish persons to be convicted of sex offences that they have committed. However, the process gives rise to concern. I am worried about the prevailing climate of a witch hunt, because it is the nature of witch hunts, from Salem onwards, to depress people's critical judgment. Such hunts allow conclusions to be reached that are prejudicial and that have, in many cases, been compounded by the great age of some allegations. I have referred to two cases known to me in the 1970s. It is the nature of those cases that there might be no forensic evidence, so they rely on individual testimony.
The hon. Member for Crosby and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough have mentioned their concern about the conditions under which that testimony may have been obtained and the inducements, whether in cash or in kind, that may be available to those who make those claims. Of course, that does not mean that evidence should not be taken seriously and dealt with by a court, but it must be handled very carefully and the circumstances in which it has been obtained are relevant to that.
To date, the incidence of cases reported is uneven across the country. The hon. Member for Crosby comes to the subject having considered a complete cluster in Merseyside. It seems extremely implausible that such activity, if it is on anything like the scale suggested by those inquiries, is not replicated across the country. Inquiries by other police forces may even the score, but the number of cases seems disturbingly different. Frankly, cases are also likely to cost some local authorities, whose employees are involved in such allegations, a fortune in compensation payments, as they have a general duty.
I am not a lawyer, as will, I think, become apparent, but I am concerned by the creeping extension of similar fact evidence. During the last century, we went a lot further than the famous brides in the bath case, which involved three strikingly similar successive examples of brides dying in the bath. From what I have seen, that extension is beginning to become prejudicial, for reasons that the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned.

109WH
I shall make a related point that does not bear on the strength of the convictions of those concerned. There are cases, which have been brought to the attention of our group, involving people convicted of sex offences who continue to deny their guilt. Many such convicted prisoners are not able to access large parts of the sex offender programme because of that, so they are likely to lose their opportunity of parole. Indeed, their sentences are increased as a result. There should be ways to handle that so as not to make it impossible for them at least to participate in activities that could be beneficial to them, and to be released at the appropriate time, given their general conduct.
From what I have seen of sex offender courses—I visited Rye Hill prison in my constituency only last week—there is a great deal of merit in them, but national moves are needed to ensure that such training programmes are available to all convicted prisoners on an equitable basis and that their outcomes are improved. There is work for the Home Office and the Prison Service to do on that subject.
May I draw on my experience of receiving such submissions when I was a Minister, although I was not at the Home Office? If I were confronted by anything like the concern uncovered by the hon. Member for Crosby and the all-party group, which has been expressed this morning, I would want to reflect on the submissions seriously, especially the safety of convictions.
We know that the case that we have been discussing is difficult, because of the widespread and perhaps proper national anger about the abuse of children. However, even if it is impossible to re-open cases or to establish separate machinery for so doing, I hope that Ministers are prepared to improve the central database that handles what has been going on and what the research of the hon. Member for Crosby has been instrumental in drawing out. The Home Office's approach to managing and monitoring the process has, frankly, got out of hand.
The matter is serious. Justice works both ways—for the victims of criminal activity and those accused of carrying it out. In this case, changes and a fairer process are urgently needed in the interests of justice.
11.56 am
Dr. John Pugh: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for securing the debate and for leading on a subject that is difficult for any politician to deal with and which will secure her no cheap votes anywhere. I do not say that the hon. Lady is totally averse to seeking cheap votes on occasion, but the contrary is true in this case.
I became aware of the problem when an individual who was under investigation came to my surgery and whose primary concern was the slowness of determination. He was convinced that he was innocent and that the process of deciding that would take a long time. I was a little uneasy. I did not know the circumstances and, to some extent, I went through the formalities, making inquiries in the appropriate places. I was somewhat discountenanced to find that more and still more people subsequently came to me with similar complaints and claims of innocence. They had been caught in some trawl. I began to take the issue more seriously in terms of its general principles.
110WH
Child abuse is a terrible, terrible crime—it destroys childhoods—but because it is such a terrible crime, to be wrongly accused of it is a terrible event for an individual. It ruins lives, just as the lives of the abused children are ruined.
In our society, there is immense concern, even panic, on the issue. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned Salem, witchcraft and the emotions that run high when there is a moral panic throughout society. Of course, there is an important difference: witchcraft did no real harm, but child abuse does considerable harm and must be taken absolutely seriously by everyone in society. However, there is a parallel danger: the double abuse of innocent people wrongly accused and innocent people abused. That will happen whenever common sense, fairness and the ordinary rules of evidence are ignored in circumstances in which investigators have too much pressure put on them to get an immediate conviction or when they become blind to counter considerations. A recent case in Newcastle, which is not identical to the one we have been discussing, shows what can go wrong. The lives of young professionals were pole-axed by the witch-finder mentality of a particular doctor and the slackness of a social services department.
I have no sympathy whatever, in any circumstances, with paedophiles such as those who do not seek help and prefer to normalise their perversion, desensitising themselves from the vulnerability of children. Precisely because I have no sympathy with paedophilia and find it horrendous, I do not want people to be accused without good evidence, which is the point on which the debate hinges.
Good evidence is not usually obtained when there is the prospect of compensation or any encouragement of malice or revenge. It is not obtained when we ignore circumstance, plausibility or contrary indicators. I may part company with some hon. Members in the Room on this point, but I am convinced that all those issues will come out in court during the judicial process.
I may be a little innocent or a little naïve, but if that were not the case, I have sufficient faith in British justice to think that if lawyers are up to their task and if judges are what they pretend to be, that will ensure that considerations such as the one to which the hon. Member for Crosby drew our attention will be properly aired in court. However, that is different from saying that such considerations are foremost in people's minds during investigation. There is evidence that that is not always the case. In certain areas, the ratio of suspects to prosecutions, for example, is a cause for concern. Leicestershire was cited as an example. We must ask ourselves whether the process is ideal when there is a large number of suspects, but a very small number of successful prosecutions.
A serious investigation that does not lead to a conclusion involves certain deeply distressing elements. As the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out, it can involve a police raid, often early in the morning, on the home of the person suspected. It will almost certainly result in suspension from work, gossip, stigma and shame for the individual, but may not result in a conviction and may not mean guilt. I accept that the two are different.

111WH
The hon. Member for Crosby alluded to the possibility that people who are not convicted may be guilty, but acting without proper evidence or without proper conduct and examination of that evidence, and not using the rules that would apply in ordinary investigations, causes problems. There is intense suffering for the innocent person, which has been drawn out in many cases, especially in Merseyside. People who are acquitted have been cleared, but none the less they have remained under suspicion for long periods. A likely corollary of that problem is that if we conduct investigations in such a way and do not reflect on how we conduct them, we shall create a general social anxiety about all relationships with children. Society is not noticeably improved if adults fear to talk to children, or if every contact is seen as some sort of sexual advance.
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must conclude shortly?
Dr. Pugh: I am coming to my conclusion now.
I cannot spot the child molester, and I have been surprised and shocked by people who turned out to be one. However, I do not think that we shall get back to a more wholesome world by encouraging false accusations, suspicions or malicious claims if the rules and procedures for investigating child abuse are different from those used in other serious crime investigations conducted by the police.
12.3 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has taken a valuable and courageous step in bringing the matter before the House. No one who listened to her arguments, or who heard the emotion in her voice, which is important in such matters, can fail to be moved by her concern that the conviction of a certain category of offender in sex abuse cases is turning into a lottery. The matter should be of grave concern to the House, because if that is happening, the quality of justice that we tend to take for granted in this country is being undermined. She raises a serious issue.
Justice is human and therefore fallible. This country has a system of justice that we hope operates well, perhaps better than those in other countries, but that does not mean that there cannot be miscarriages of justice. That is one reason why, historically, we have tended to weight the scales of justice in favour of the accused. We require the conviction of the accused only if a jury is satisfied and sure. Through our common law system, we have introduced a series of extra safeguards, designed by judicial interference, to protect the accused. However, we must face up to the painful but inevitable fact that the more safeguards there are in place, the more likely it is that, in addition to acquitting the innocent, on occasion the guilty may be acquitted.
That is one of the difficult balances to be struck, and I dare say that a reason for it is the fact that there were usually only two options available in the criminal justice system in England and Wales in the early 19th century: the accused was either acquitted or, for a serious offence, hanged. The fact that we have moved away from such a
112WH
system should not make us forget that the lives of those who fall victim to the criminal justice system, and who are innocent but convicted, as well as the lives of their immediate families, are ruined. As the hon. Member for Crosby, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) so eloquently described, that ruin is something from which they may never recover.
Over the past 20 years, the trend has been all one way. It is significant that the title of this debate refers to sex abuse cases and corroboration. Prompted by legislation from a Conservative Government—this is why I say that the matter is not party political—and in response to public concern, the House got rid of certain safeguards. For example, in 1988, we got rid of the safeguard that no one should be convicted on the uncorroborated statement of a child. In 1994, we got rid of the requirement for corroboration in sex cases, as well as in respect of accomplices. That meant not that someone could not be convicted, but that a judge had specifically to warn a jury in such cases. It is worth asking why that was done. I think the reason was societal pressure arguing that guilty people were being acquitted as a result of the safeguards used by lawyers in the criminal justice system—it was all a bit of a game and that it would be better if evidence were put before juries so that they could make up their minds. That raises important issues.
We cannot get away from the fact that although sex abuse cases constitute only 1 to 2 per cent. of convictions on indictment—it has rightly been said that an atmosphere of Salem witchcraft can so easily prevail in such cases—they constitute about 30 per cent. of referrals to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as a result of which there is growing disquiet about whether justice is being done.
We are shortly to embark on a criminal justice review—a massive piece of legislation—during which, once again, we shall be subject to exactly the same pressures, but in a widening field. For example, there will be pressure to allow previous convictions to be disclosed to juries and to allow much more hearsay evidence to be admitted in court. Such evidence is not from the person directly concerned with the case, but what they heard from someone else. Such provisions are all designed for the same laudable aim of trying to ensure that the guilty are convicted.
As the Home Secretary has said, we want the truth, but one problem that we face is that the truth is often elusive. Our justice system has, historically, tended to shy away from it and to say, "Let's concern ourselves not with the truth, but with whether we can be sure that somebody is guilty of an offence." The hon. Member for Crosby has rightly highlighted the fact that, in our concern to ensure the conviction of the guilty and their punishment for serious and horrible offences that right-thinking people believe should be investigated and punished, we are in danger of doing our society a grave disservice. We are making it much easier for the innocent to be convicted, both by the processes that we have set up and by the background pressure from the public to see something happening to prevent things that they regard as particularly horrible. That is an enormous challenge not only for the Government, but for the House.

113WH
We have to be the protectors of the innocent and we must always have regard to the consequences of legislative change. The hon. Member for Crosby has been very specific, so I hope that she will forgive me if I widen the scope of the discussion, because unless we examine the background, we shall not see the way forward. She said that it would be desirable for the taking of witness statements to be video recorded, but that poses problems. It would be desirable, but logistically, in view of the sort of areas in which it would take place, it would place great burdens on the police.
The process of taking witness statements, as I know from personal experience, can be extremely complicated and rather difficult. In the time we have, it would not be right to go into the detail. Suffice it to say that I realised as I gave a statement to the police about a burglary at my home that they were, for the perfectly legitimate reason of trying to protect my identity, distorting what I was saying while recording my statement. As I am a lawyer and I was not too concerned about my identity being disclosed, I did not want to have anything to do with that.
I mention the incident because it illustrates the sort of problem that can easily give rise to the desperately worrying situation that the hon. Member for Crosby highlighted. She has raised legitimate issues that are not popular at the moment; members of the public are not excited about them. However, they are excited by newspaper headlines over many pages that encourage them to believe that terrible situations exist that must be remedied, and the Government do their best to respond.
Consider the long-term trend in the House in terms of criminal justice legislation. We are subtly and consistently moving the goalposts and we are likely to do so again over the next 12 months, for reasons that I fully understand. However, in our desire to secure those convictions that satisfy the public, are we losing the quality of justice? That is the important issue that the hon. Member for Crosby has raised, and I am grateful to her for her courage in doing so. I hope that the Minister responds to her specific statements and that, in the coming year when we consider the many other criminal justice issues that so closely relate to these matters, he carefully bears in mind what she has said.
12.13 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I shall be brief. We all want to hear the Minister, so I shall concentrate on just two or three points. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). We have had a moving experience this morning, and many of us will think about it for a long time.
Child protection is so important, and I came to the debate thinking of three things: a report out this week says that many improvements are needed, that agencies should work together and that there should be better guidelines for the police. Then there is the issue of the innocent who are wrongly convicted. I have a statement from a professional in the field, which fills me with horror, as
"it may be that innocent people are being convicted but we ought to be more worried about the guilty who might get away".
When we hear such statements, we must be concerned about the actions of people working in the field.
114WH
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, reputations can be irreparably damaged. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that the picture is complicated. As we progress, I think that we shall find that that is a great understatement, because the issue is so complex. The Home Affairs Committee is carrying out a full investigation, and I urge the Minister to act on its recommendations. A vast amount of evidence was submitted to it, which will clearly be important.
We are talking about the present, and we need to take a holistic approach to getting child protection right and to how matters are investigated. There must be a well-publicised framework that everyone in the field accepts. In addition to carers, we should briefly mention teachers, many of whom have had their careers irreparably damaged, although very few convictions have been made. Some responsibility must rest with those who make accusations. They must be made aware of the seriousness of their claims, and we should perhaps make clear what happens when false accusations are made. It is not always easy to proceed with a private court case to clear one's name.
We have had an important debate, but we need to hear from the Minister, so I close on that point.
12.16 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on obtaining the debate. I also congratulate the other members of the all-party group who have contributed to this serious discussion. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, the Home Affairs Committee has been considering the issue, and the Government will want to examine its conclusions carefully. I must say, however, that the widespread use of expressions such as "witch hunt" does this complex and important issue no justice. I would not like to give credence to the idea that it is being dealt with in the atmosphere of a witch hunt.
Should we attempt to investigate allegations of sex abuse that took place some time ago? It is easy to suggest that events of 10 or 20 years ago are in the distant past, but we should remember that someone who was in his early 20s when he abused children 20 years ago is in his early 40s today. I doubt whether most members of the public and, indeed, most Members of the House would say, "That's too long ago. Let's forget about it."
We are discussing allegations of appalling crimes, which have a traumatic impact on victims. That trauma can be made worse for those who finally talk about it if they have the fact of their abuse denied. I doubt whether the House would accept that events should not be investigated because they took place some time ago. It is important that we ensure that complaints of serious crimes are followed up and that victims who show bravery in coming forward are treated justly and with compassion. The police must be able fully to follow up complaints and to pursue all lines of inquiry, whether they point to or away from the suspect.
We have had two different debates, and I want to distinguish between them. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby used a line of argument that invites us to believe that there has been a widespread and massive

115WH
miscarriage of justice, involving not only police inquiries, but the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) distinguished that position from a narrower concern about the possible consequences of a police investigation for the lives of people who are innocent, and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was probably taking a similar position. That is an important distinction, and I want to deal with both sides of it.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry for advising me on the basis of his considerable experience as a Minister. I can assure him that I take the issues raised by the all-party group, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in particular, very seriously. I have returned to them on several occasions, and some changes have been made as a result. Let me make it clear, however, that, as a Minister, I can act and can advise the rest of the Government to act only on the basis of facts that can be properly examined.
Many months ago, representatives of the all-party group referred to cases in which individuals were induced to give evidence by the offer of compensation. I did what I thought was the right thing for a Minister to do and asked for instances, names and cases that could be followed up. Many months later, despite a reminder, I have not been provided with an instance of a single case.
I am in a difficult position. Allegations have been made in the debate that that practice is widespread and that certain individuals have said X, but I have not been able to find an individual case as yet. We have heard allegations about the conduct of interviews.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: May I finish my point? Terence Grange, the chief constable who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on the matter, has sought details of cases in which abuse of investigations could he followed up. They have not been forthcoming. It is difficult to introduce a change of Government or police policy when there are no cases to investigate. I give way to my hon. Friend, but I want to make further points on the subject.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me intervene. I know that he receives thousands of letters from families of people accused of the crimes that we are discussing, and from the people themselves. He is aware that many of those cases are on their way to the Court of Appeal, and he will have been advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and other parts of the criminal justice system that they have received a considerable correspondence on specific cases that are being conducted throughout the country.
Mr. Denham: It is the case, however, that the all-party group has not been able to identify cases for me or, despite the offers, for the chief constable who speaks on the subject for ACPO. We must look to other sources of evidence, therefore.
On the allegation involving compensation and whether people have been induced to give evidence, we may turn to the Criminal Injuries Compensation
116WH
Authority, which reports that there has been no significant increase in applications for compensation for historical abuse, so there is another problem.
We can study the cases brought before the Court of Appeal, as a widespread miscarriage of justice on the scale alleged could reasonably be expected to show up in significant cases. I am not suggesting that a large number of cases would be involved, but some would have been thrown out due to the quality of evidence or because the investigative process was shown to be flawed. At the moment at least, evidence of such a miscarriage is not, in my judgment, forthcoming from the Court of Appeal.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The commission's chairman has said that although the number of cases reviewed involving sexual offences is relatively high, the number involving historical abuse is negligible. The hon. Gentleman was making a point about the conduct of sexual abuse cases, but significant numbers of historical abuse cases do not appear to be reaching the CCRC.
I am not at all complacent about these matters, and no Minister in my position could lightly dismiss allegations of a widespread miscarriage of justice. However, I have spent some time in the past year studying the indicators and signs that might make one believe that such an extensive miscarriage of justice has taken place. At this point, I remain unconvinced that such a miscarriage has occurred. Of course, we must continue to consider cases that are raised and any evidence that is brought to light.
I turn to a different point, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Members for Daventry and for Southport—one on which we have made progress this year. Innocent people may be caught up in such investigations, just as they may be caught up in any other sort of investigation. The damage done to an individual faced with such allegations may be marked, and the hon. and learned Gentleman made that case extremely well. Of course, justice is not served by the distraction of fraudulent or malicious claims. Indeed, the conviction of an innocent person will not help survivors of sexual abuse. We must remain vigilant for clear evidence of possible problems.
Over the past year, the Government have recognised that investigations need to take account of the damage that can be caused to the accused, who may be innocent. We made sure that that point was explicitly made in the guidance that was produced following a recommendation in the Waterhouse inquiry report and issued by the Government to all agencies involved in investigating complex child abuse cases. It builds on the guidance in "Working Together to Safeguard Children".
The issue was not explicitly addressed in previous guidance to those handling such cases, but now it has been. In parallel with that guidance, ACPO has developed and published an operational handbook for senior investigating officers based on the experiences of practitioners who have been involved in that type of police investigation. Again, the handbook directly addresses the need to take into account the position of those accused of that type of crime, who may be innocent.

117WH
Both sets of guidance have been developed from evaluated good practice. The awfully entitled but quite important inter-agency strategic management group, which consists of senior staff from the police, social services, health and local authorities, has set the policy and the terms of reference, and has created the protocols for that type of inter-agency working. One change from the position of a year or so ago is that we have two sets of guidance that are intended to provide a strategic policy framework and good practice guidelines within which the police, together with other agencies, should operate to deal fully, thoroughly and fairly with an initial complaint and the alleged perpetrators.
I hope that hon. Members who have raised concerns today about the position of the innocent accused feel that we have responded to some of them. It is also worth pointing out that, despite the lack of substantiated cases of abuse of the compensation mechanism, the guidance also puts beyond doubt how compensation issues should or should not be addressed in the interview process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield all raised the question of recording interviews and statements. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows for the video recording of interviews in police stations. Video recording is being piloted in five police force areas, and over the summer we made additional funds, which will enable an extension of those experiments, available for forces to bid for, but it will be some time before all police stations are covered. That, however, is different from recording interviews that take place outside police stations, which would cover millions of conversations that occur between the police and the public in the investigation of many different types of crime.
We have had to consider the issue, on which we are not yet persuaded, of whether an exception should be made on recording interviews, no matter where they take place, in historical sex abuse cases while not applying the same criteria to all other types of police investigation. Aside from the question of resources, I am not convinced that the case has been made for distinguishing between historical sex abuse investigations and other investigations that the police have to undertake.
The debate is enormously important. We have all remarked that the Home Affairs Committee will reach its own conclusions, which the Government are bound properly to consider at the appropriate time. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, and to give our commitment to ensuring that we can protect children and my commitment to ensuring that the justice system works properly.

Army Ranges (Essex)
12.30 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Beard. I should appreciate your guidance on whether it is in accordance with the customs and practices of the House of Commons for the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) to raise a debate on the testing and demolition of ordnance at Shoeburyness and on Foulness island, both of which are entirely in my constituency, without having notified me in any way. I wrote to him on 14 October to express my concern about that.
In a similar situation on 27 March 1995, Madam Speaker gave clear and specific guidance—first, that she deprecated any such practice and, secondly, that it was contrary to the customs and practice of the House of Commons. In view of the importance of the ranges to my constituency and to the nation's security, Mr. Beard, I would appreciate your views.
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. Madam Speaker's ruling on 27 March 1995 applies to such circumstances. It states:
"The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. When an hon. Member wishes to raise, especially in an Adjournment debate, the question of some development or project that concerns another Member's constituency, not only is it a matter of courtesy to let the other hon. Member know but it is a matter of good custom and practice. I deprecate the fact that the right hon. Member…has not been informed that that Adjournment debate is to take place".—[Official Report, 27 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 696.]
I endorse those sentiments, but they refer to good custom and practice and do not invalidate the debate.
12.31 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of considerable concern to my constituents and those of other hon. Members. I had not intended to comment on the background to the debate, Mr. Beard, but in the light of your comments I should make it absolutely plain for the record. I and several other Members of Parliament, properly representing their constituents, have expressed concerns over these issues for a long time, and a number of us have sought to secure an hour and half's debate in this Chamber. At the end of the last Session, frustrated at having failed to secure a longer debate, I applied for a half-hour debate, and learned only last Friday that I had been successful. I understand—although I have not had the opportunity to check—that my office notified not only the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), but all the other Members concerned.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Absolute rubbish. Totally untrue.
Mr. Gale: My understanding is that my office notified not only the hon. Gentleman but all the other Members, in writing, that the debate was to take place. I told the hon. Gentleman—and he accepted it before he raised his point of order with you, Mr. Beard—that I would check that. Only this morning, I received his letter dated 14 October. I replied immediately, and that reply is on the board. In my letter, I said that I understood that he had been notified and that if he had not been I offered my

119WH
apology. Because he requested time to intervene in the debate, I pointed out to him that several colleagues who knew that it was taking place, having been clearly notified, had expressed a wish to intervene. I have said that I am perfectly happy for any hon. Member with a constituency interest in the subject to intervene in so far as time permits. Moreover, I spoke to the Minister when he entered the Chamber this morning—the first opportunity that I had had—to verify with him that as far as I was concerned, and as long as it was in order with you, Mr. Beard, it would be in order for the hon. Gentleman to speak briefly when I had concluded my remarks. I cannot be fairer than that, and I am sorry that we have wasted three minutes on the matter.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise an issue that is of considerable concern to many of my constituents living along the north-east Kent coast between Herne Bay and North Foreland—that is, the testing of ordnance and demolition of time-expired munitions on behalf of the Ministry of Defence at Shoeburyness and Foulness island and on Maplin sands in the Thames estuary—which is the source of most of the problem, and which I believe is not technically in any Member of Parliament's constituency.
I am aware that this is a subject of interest for my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and that they have made representations on behalf of their constituents. Constituents represented by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) have also expressed concerns, as have several local authorities, including Tendring, Colchester, Maldon, Thanet and Canterbury district and city councils. Tendring and Canterbury have passed formal resolutions to
"seek relief for coastal residents and their properties from the noise and vibrations caused by the MoD use of their establishment at Shoeburyness".
They call for
"the immediate cessation of destructive explosions at this establishment and the examination by the MoD, as a matter of urgency, of an alternative site in a remote area of the country where the test and evaluation functions of the MoD can be undertaken without the severe disturbance currently imposed upon the population bordering the Thames Estuary".
Those are their words, not mine. The parish councils of Herne in Kent and St. Osyth in Essex have expressed similar sentiments.
Shoeburyness is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, and it is only right for me to say immediately that he has not endorsed the views that I shall express. I wrote those words before this morning's intervention, and I stand by them. I mean him no discourtesy in saying that it is the constituencies that bear the force of the shock waves emanating from Shoeburyness, rather than the site from which they are generated, that give rise to this brief debate. It is a peculiar fact that it is the areas to either side of the Thames estuary, along which the sound waves and shock waves rebound and reverberate, that suffer now, and have for many years.
The Ministry of Defence owns the site at Shoeburyness and QinetiQ—formerly the Defence Evaluation and Research Establishment—now operates
120WH
part of it under licence. As the Minister said in a response to my constituent Mr. Woollett of Beltinge, Herne Bay, in a letter of 21 August, Shoeburyness has been operating for about 150 years. The Minister will forgive me, however, if I say that his assertion in the same letter, referring to a lack of
"conclusive evidence that Qinetiq's activities are the cause of damage to people's properties"
was less accurate. I could take up the whole of my remaining time with a litany of reported cases of cracked walls, fallen ceilings, rattling windows, shattered conservatories, broken ornaments and eventual compensation paid to claimants against the MOD—presumably not for no good reason.
It is really since the late 1980s that the size of ordnance tested and volume of munitions disposed of on the mud flats of Foulness island have escalated to the point at which they have become intolerable for residents along the Thames estuary.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In endorsing the time scale that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, I suggest that it is surely no accident that that was precisely the time at which the disposal of old explosives was moved to the site. While many of us recognise the vital testing work done at the site, we nevertheless ask why the destruction of old explosives cannot be carried out somewhere else.
Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall come to that point in due course.
I have before me a letter written by my noble Friend the Earl of Arran, dated 19 March 1990, in response to letters sent by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East on 15 January 1989, 9 January 1990 and 16 January 1990. Those letters referred to
"concern expressed by constituents at the level of noise emanating from the Yantlet (on the Isle of Grain) and Shoeburyness ranges".
Lord Arran wrote:
"It seems likely that Shoeburyness was the originator in this case".
He added:
"The MOD and Service personnel using the ranges are well aware of the sensitivity of their situation and I am satisfied that they are doing all that they reasonably can to minimize the effect of their activities".
My representations on behalf of my constituents living in Herne Bay, Birchington, Westgate on Sea and Margate have led me to visit Shoeburyness on several occasions, once as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the MOD in the company of the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Viscount Cranborne, and on other occasions with parties of constituents. I have been out on the mud flats to watch controlled explosions, I have been given assurances of new incinerators that would smoke out and burn explosives, obviating the need for detonation and I have seen trials using water beds to deaden the sound of shock waves—all to no practical avail.
In 1995, my parliamentary colleague Roger Freeman, now Lord Freeman, then the Minister for Defence Procurement, wrote to me stating that
"since the particular difficulties of the first few months of 1994 the establishment has taken a number of steps to reduce the effects of its activities … for example large quantities of sand are used to

121WH
tamp detonations. This has proved particularly useful in reducing noise and vibration associated with the disposal of unsafe or unwanted munitions".
However, with his customary honesty he then let the cat out of the bag, saying:
"There is no doubt that there has been an increase in activity at Shoeburyness which has been caused by an increase in the demilitarisation work as we can no longer dump ammunition at sea and as a result of transferring trials work to Shoeburyness which was formerly carried out at the Inchterf Range near Glasgow."
In all my dealings with Shoeburyness, Sir John Chisholm, chief executive of DERA and subsequently of QinetiQ, his staff at Shoeburyness—in particular, Peter Honey and John Denyer—and most Ministers, including the present one, have been the soul of courtesy.
However, the problem has become worse and worse. In January 2000, the Herne Bay Times reported:
"Windows cracked and animals ran in terror when Herne Bay was rocked by a massive explosion at the military testing site at Shoeburyness. The blast on Thursday afternoon was so severe that shockwaves cracked windows at Beltinge Post Office and the nearby village barber shop."
A local chartered civil engineer commented:
"The vibrations coming from Shoeburyness are a problem. Last Thursday's explosion was louder than usual and our office certainly shook. Already people have problems with plaster coming off their walls and if this continues it could get much worse. Older buildings aren't designed to take vibrations like that."
On that occasion, the DERA spokesman said:
"Due to the nature of defence trials it is difficult to guarantee that there will never be large explosions. However, it is important to note that Thursday's was uncharacteristic."
So uncharacteristic that on 1 March 2001 the Herne Bay Gazette reported:
"A terminally ill woman suffered distress and anxiety this week after being woken by early morning blasts from the Shoeburyness testing ranges."
Understandably, Ralph Mitchell vented his anger on behalf of his late wife, describing the complaints phone line as
"as much use as a chocolate fireguard".
Throughout that period, my hon. Friends and I pressed the case with the then Minister of State, Baroness Symons. We were again told that part of the problem stemmed from the MOD's Yantlett establishment on the Isle of Grain. The MOD personnel at Yantlett vehemently denied that suggestion. The MOD commissioned a firm, Vibrock, to carry out a monitoring exercise. Unsurprisingly, after months of delay and, no doubt, much expense, the consultants concluded that the vibrations and shock waves experienced by so many of our constituents did not exist.
An attempt to offer early warning of explosions through local media led to headlines such as "Get your earplugs out for tomorrow", "Gunfire Warning", "More Gun and Blast Testing" and "Explosive Weekend", and prompted Baroness Symons to write to me saying:
"I do not believe that this media coverage is helpful to the efforts we are all making to investigate the noise and vibration caused by the DERA site and I have therefore agreed that DERA can revert to the previous arrangements whereby the media are notified only in the case of unusual events."
122WH
Notwithstanding the unwelcome publicity, the then Minister, in another letter, said:
"There remains no demonstrated correlation between the activities at Shoeburyness that might be expected to result in more complaints and actual number of complaints received."
I am not entirely certain how many complaints she felt were necessary to demonstrate a link between cause and effect, but correspondence and signatures on a petition now run into hundreds on my own files alone. In that context, I should thank my constituent Tony Wilkinson and his friends for the many hours that they have spent helping me to ensure that those living in Whitstable, Tankerton, Chestfield, Herne Bay, Minnis Bay, Birchington, Westgate on Sea, Westbrook, Margate and Cliftonville have been kept informed of ministerial observations.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Like my hon. Friend, literally hundreds of constituents have approached me about the disturbance caused to them by the activities at Shoeburyness. According to figures that I obtained from the Minister, the number of official complaints received is running at just below 1,000 each year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is only a small fraction of the actual number of complaints? I have often had reports of people who have been unable to get through on the complaints telephone number—and it is not very widely publicised. Furthermore, 10 times that number will not be aware that there is an official line on which they can register a complaint.
Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from general parliamentary experience that most people do not complain. However, walk down the high street in any of the towns along the north Kent coast that I have mentioned—I am sure that the same is true in Essex—and people will ask, "Did you hear the bang?" My own home is nine miles inland from the coast. On a good day—or a bad day, depending on how one cares to think about it—we can hear the explosions, and they shake our house.
So what can be done? My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is the shadow Secretary of State for Defence; my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford is on the board of visitors of the military corrective training centre at Colchester; my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has had a distinguished career with the Territorial Army and I am a postgraduate of the Parliament and armed forces scheme. I have also served as parliamentary private secretary to two Ministers of State for the Armed Forces. I hope that we may claim that, collectively, we are reasonably well informed.
We recognise that at all times and never more than at present our armed forces need the best support and facilities available, that ordnance must be tested and that munitions must sometimes be disposed of. However, we are not satisfied that the densely populated Thames estuary is the best or most suitable site for the location of what is clearly a necessary facility. Having discussed the matter some months ago with the Minister, who received me most courteously, I am not even sure that he believes that Shoeburyness is any longer the right location.

123WH
It is claimed that Shoeburyness is in some way unique. Sir John Chisholm in a letter to me dated 5 December 2001 stated:
"The facilities at Shoeburyness are regarded by the Ministry of Defence as being unique, partly because of the size of the danger area and partly because of the facility that the shallow water offers for what we call 'over water recovery'. This involves firing munitions when the tide is in and then recovering them, in an undamaged state, when the tide goes out".
That is nonsense. It is a myth that must be laid to rest. Are we seriously saying that teams of military beachcombers armed with metal detectors paddle around in the mud of the Thames estuary picking up shells that are probably already deep in silt? I shall not embarrass the Minister by asking him to tell us how many shells have been recovered during each of the past five years because both he and I know that the answer could probably be provided without greatly taxing the fingers of both hands.
Next, let us touch upon security. This is a sensitive subject, but it is no great secret that, given the much-vaunted shallow water referred to by Sir John Chisholm, explosives for disposal arrive not by sea but by rail. Those trains, inevitably, must travel through densely populated areas of east London. I do not want unduly to alarm the good souls living along that line, but we live in uncertain times. Should a terrorist get his hands on the right wagons, I have a feeling that the earth might move more than a little in one or two of those towns. Surely, we should seek a remote coastal site where the necessary explosives can arrive by sea and be guarded immediately in secure berths.
Then there is the question of cost, which I have always believed is the sticking point. Until now, the thought has been that we have a location at Shoeburyness which, although by no means ideally suited to the military needs of the 21st century, is at least there. The acquisition of an alternative, assuming that the MOD does not already own one, and the equipping of it with the necessary storage bunkers, firing ranges and incinerators, and perhaps with dedicated port facilities, might cost millions of pounds that the Chancellor is not persuaded should be spent. He might think differently if an Essex town were flattened by an exploding train, but, that aside, a parliamentary answer from the Minister stated:
"Since the DERA PPP was announced in … 1998 as part of the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence has spent some £7.2 million on advice from consultants and other fees."—[Official Report, 8 March 2002: Vol. 381, c. 577W.]
I hope that the Minister will not consider me frivolous or unduly mischievous if I suggest that if the Chancellor can find that sort of money to pay consultants, finding a few million more to secure a state-of-the-art munitions testing and demolition facility for our armed forces might not prove too difficult.
We have a real and unacceptable problem and I believe that the Minister accepts that. We have a military need that must certainly be provided for and we all accept that. We have an opportunity. The Government have embarked on a review of all their defence estates to determine value for money and to establish whether there are ranges and sites that could be better used militarily or returned to public use for development or recreation.
124WH
On behalf of my colleagues and our constituents, I ask the Minister simply to give an undertaking. Will he take the window of opportunity afforded by the review to consider an alternative location that will allow QinetiQ, owned by the Government, the Carlyle group or whichever preferred bidder finally takes on the job, to provide for the vital needs of our armed forces while at the same time removing from both banks of the Thames estuary an unacceptable environmental intrusion that has persisted for far too long?
12.49 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has left 11 minutes for the Minister and Back Benchers to express their opinions on the subject.
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Does the hon. Gentleman have permission to intervene?
Mr. Gale: I said in my opening remarks that I was perfectly happy for the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) to intervene, and the Minister has conceded that as well.
Sir Teddy Taylor: hope that the Minister will appeal to my hon. Friend to disengage from what I regard as an irresponsible, irrational and damaging campaign. Of course we know that there is noise from Shoeburyness—I live a mile from there myself. Of course I know that my house shakes. I know that we undertake dangerous work there, but let us get across some of the facts.
First, how valid are all the complaints that we hear from the hon. Gentleman? The Government have spent a lot of money on two surveys, as he well knows, and there is a third survey about to come because of all the complaints. What did the surveys, which were by independent people, actually find? They found that some 80 per cent. of the complaints received about noise and vibration, were not related to Shoeburyness in any way. Only one in five of them was related to Shoeburyness. It seems that some were associated with explosions at the Ministry of Defence range at north Yantlet in north Kent, and others were from sources that could not be identified.
Secondly, what about the number of complaints? Are people marching in the street? There are about 2.5 million people in the area. A tiny number, about 10 people, have sent in 256 complaints. The total is less than 1,000. As regards the volume of noise, we should bear in mind that the monitored levels give readings for Shoebury of about 1.5 mm per second or less, and a maximum of 1.7 mm. By comparison, a quarry is allowed 12 mm. Although I appreciate the real complaint, of which I am well aware, the idea that it is something extraordinary is ridiculous. The plain fact is that most of the complaints have nothing to do with Shoeburyness at all.
Shoeburyness is a desperately important facility. It is one of the world's leading test stations that serves the MOD and other allied defence organisations in vital testing and security. It is also used for the decommissioning of dangerous explosives, which otherwise could kill or maim civilians. It is the custodian of 8,000 acres of beautiful land, and manages its site of scientific interest standards at the highest level. It also

125WH
contributes to the local economy, with 380 people working there. The unique facility has shallow water that allows us to fire munitions into the water when the tide is in, and to recover them when the tide is out. We cannot run away from that, and I hope that the Minister will confirm it. It allows us to test the strength of the design of the munitions and ensures that they will be safe and effective for our armed forces.
The environmental test centre is also based there, in which live munitions are environmentally tested and safely disposed of. All munitions have to undergo environmental testing before they can be accepted into service. Because of the huge area, the range offers the opportunity for the Army to carry out explosive ordnance demolition training, and that helps to prepare the forces for dealing with unexploded bombs. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is irrelevant, we should remember that one vital task carried out in Shoebury related to work on the Rolls-Royce Olympus engines following the tragic Paris airport crash of Concorde. Shoebury was involved in the testing of those engines, and the aircraft are now flying again.
I am well aware that we often get complaints from constituents about many things. I am aware of the complaints about the noise from Shoebury, because I live about a mile away, and I know what the position is. The situation honestly reminds me of those who call me on my mobile and say, "Will you do something about these telecom masts, Mr. Taylor? It's an outrage." We have to face up to our responsibilities. Shoebury provides unique facilities, and many tests have taken place.
I am sure that the Minister will announce today that there will be another test, but does he accept the fact that the tests already carried out by independent people showed that most of the complaints were a load of codswallop and had nothing to do with Shoeburyness at all? It is very disappointing that we should have such irresponsible action on a matter of importance and national security. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the complaints I made to him about comments in the local press about what happened in Foulness. It was appalling—
Mr. Nigel Beard (in the Chair): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the need to leave time for the Minister to respond?
Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall, therefore, sit down and allow the Minister to respond. I hope that he will say what I have said: the complaints are ones that we should not take as seriously as presented.
12.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I shall do my best to reply to the points raised in the relatively limited time left to me. I recognise that this is an important issue for hon. Members' constituents, however difficult it may be objectively to fit them into what takes place at Shoeburyness. I recognise that were I to set out to build a new test and evaluation range, I probably would not build it at the mouth of the Thames. However, we have been using that range for 150 years, and there are several reasons why QinetiQ and the MOD feel that they have no option but to carry on using it.
126WH
Shoeburyness is one of the world's leading test sites and delivers services that make a vital contribution to national security. We are all agreed that our armed forces must have safe, effective and reliable weapons and equipment to do their job. The comprehensive testing regime to which all munitions entering, or already in, UK service are subjected is designed to ensure that they are as safe as possible. Some of that testing, particularly on the larger calibre weapons, can be done only at Shoeburyness because it is the only site in the UK that is big enough to conduct those activities.
The primary role of Shoeburyness is the testing and demolition of ordnance and explosives. Testing comprises accident simulation and environmental attacks on weapons to assess their safety and suitability for services, and proof firing of munitions to prove by sampling that they meet the specification that we require. Trials work is undertaken to determine weapon effects on structures and equipment and equipment vulnerability to various weapons. The weapons tested may be manufactured for UK or other NATO services. Shoeburyness also undertakes work to ensure that protection of national assets remains viable against attack by an aggressor using ever more sophisticated weapons. Occasionally, testing is conducted on the types of weapons that potential aggressors or terrorist organisations might use.
Disposal by detonation is undertaken on obsolete items if it is unsafe or otherwise inappropriate to break them down for disposal in any other way. I have no doubt that hon. Members have seen the kilns that we use for that. We try to conduct that part of our work with little noise pollution.
I shall now address the cost of the activity in Shoeburyness in environmental terms, in particular noise and vibration. QinetiQ is not exempt from noise legislation as some local residents believe, nor is it flouting the law with the scale or the number of detonations. Health and safety legislation sets a maximum acceptable level of noise pollution at 130 decibels, weighted for the audible range of the human ear. The decibel scale is logarithmic, which, as hon. Members know, means that roughly every increase of 3 decibels is a doubling in power. QinetiQ has a self-imposed noise limit of 125 decibels at the range boundary, which is well within the law.
The noise level limit is managed through the use of meteorologically based computer prediction equipment and through six monitors that provide real-time measurements from selected sites in north Kent and Essex. There is also a single monitor on site. If predictions show that activity is likely to exceed the limit, it is prevented from going ahead. However, a few safety tests are undertaken during the year that are lengthy and once started cannot safely be stopped. If unpredicted changes occur to the weather conditions, thus affecting noise propagation through the atmosphere, the resulting impact on local communities may marginally exceed the limit. Similarly, there have been a very few occasions on which, for national security reasons, a trial has been undertaken regardless of the QinetiQ imposed noise limit.

127WH
During the past year, some 35,000 individual explosive and gunfire events have taken place at Shoeburyness. The total number of complaints of noise nuisance and alleged damage to property during the most recently measured 12-month period was 919. Of those, 326 were from Essex, 103 were from the immediate vicinity of the site and 484 were from north Kent. Of the 919 complaints, 253 came from 10 individuals. It being reasonable that a single significant event is liable to generate several complaints, it is a fact that well over 97 per cent. of Shoeburyness demolition and explosive test activities generate no complaints at all. Furthermore, during one study period, there were regular recordings of complaints that related to sound and vibration levels at times when the site was either shut down for the weekend or closed for the evening. That may be difficult for hon. Members to accept, but it is true.
The MOD recognises that there can be implications from trials activities and the facilities management contract, placed upon QinetiQ as the site operator, expects it to manage activities in a manner that reduces the impact of generated noise. QinetiQ conducts its detonation activities within the statutory and site imposed limits and there has been no significant increase in either scale or frequency of such detonations during the past few months. The site manager has arranged for residents to visit, which has proved popular and useful. Many visitors have consequently declared a better understanding of what is going on.
Independent reports are being conducted to determine whether there is any correlation between the site's activities and the ground shock being experienced by residents in Essex and Kent. There is no clearly demonstrable link, but a more comprehensive study will be carried out to try to prove conclusively what effects our activities have.
In conclusion, I recognise people's concerns. I say in mitigation that Shoeburyness performs a valuable function, and, where we can, we try to move the noisiest activities to areas where they will cause residents fewer problems.

Kevan Sloan
1 pm
Mr. George Howarth: On 15 May 2001, my constituent, Kevan Sloan, was in Tenerife, visiting his mother who works and lives there. He was arrested and charged with involvement in five robberies. Subsequently, he was acquitted of three of the charges and the prosecution dropped a fourth altogether.
Several of the allegations made against Kevan were, frankly, ridiculous. Indeed, well before the trial, he was able to demonstrate conclusively that he was not even on the island on some of the relevant dates. I shall comment on the evidence shortly, but first I want to make some general observations.
Kevan is a 26-year-old man from Kirkby in my constituency. He has no previous criminal record and has been in continuous employment at a local builders' merchant since leaving school. Indeed, his employers have been very supportive of him throughout and were able to provide firm evidence that he was at work in the United Kingdom on the dates of some of the alleged incidents. All of that indicates that he was a man of good character and standing.
It is astonishing that a young man of previous good character should suddenly turn into a one-man crime wave. People who rob supermarkets are generally hard-nosed criminals. It is highly improbable that, having never been in any trouble with the police, Kevan should arrive in Tenerife as a fully formed criminal. However, the impression given by the authorities at his trial was precisely that. I have pondered why that might be. The Fair Trials Abroad Trust, a British-based human rights charity that helps EU citizens who face miscarriages of justice abroad, has taken a close interest in Kevan's case. It has described the trial judge's conduct during the hearing as "questionable" and "xenophobic".
If that was the case, we must ask whether it resulted from a lapse of objectivity or a character flaw on the part of the trial judge, or whether there is some other explanation. It is a difficult call to make, especially as I was not present at the trial to witness the judge's behaviour at first hand. However, a parliamentary answer to me on 2 July 2001 from the former Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), threw some light on the issue. It explained that, in Tenerife, there are some 4,000 cases a year in which people seek consular assistance. That figure is far higher than the figures for some other popular foreign holiday destinations, such as Ibiza, where there are 2,000 such cases, Corfu, where there are 450 cases, and Benidorm, Majorca and Malaga, which, between them, produce some 550 cases a year.
That might provide a clue to why Kevan was dealt with so severely when the evidence for his conviction was, as I shall demonstrate, so unreliable. Even allowing for the fact that not all requests for consular assistance in Tenerife come from UK tourists in trouble with the police, many do. Given the obvious problems of lawlessness from UK tourists in Tenerife, it seems likely that Kevan was made a scapegoat for crimes committed by others. As judges in this country often put it, he was made an example of for others who might transgress in the future. Had he been guilty, that would not have been

129WH
so unreasonable. However, to make an example of an innocent man is an unforgivable corruption of the basic principles of justice. I am not usually considered to be a bleeding heart liberal in relation to law and order issues; indeed, I suspect that many of my colleagues see me as even more hard line than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I am convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the case of Kevan. I base that conclusion on the evidence as well as on the unacceptable conduct of the trial judge and of the appeal judges who heard the two subsequent hearings.
Kevan was convicted of robbing the La Familia supermarket opposite his mother's flat, which he used occasionally as a customer, on 15 May 2001. The only witness to the robbery was the woman serving in the shop at the time. Initially, she stated that she was not sure whether she would be able to recognise the perpetrator again. Three days later, she made a positive identification of the alleged robber from CCTV pictures. The pictures related to other incidents that did not go to trial and do not resemble Kevan at all. However, the witness then changed her mind again and, having previously been shown photographs of Kevan, picked him out in an identity parade. None of the others in the parade bore any resemblance to Kevan. That is hardly the behaviour of a reliable witness, nor is it the proper use of identity parades. It bears all the hallmarks of somebody manipulated into choosing one person, irrespective of guilt or innocence. Given that Kevan was staying across the road from the supermarket and was an occasional customer, it is highly likely that the person serving in the shop might recognise him, albeit in a different context to the robbery.
The witness gave evidence that the robber spoke in colloquial Spanish. Kevan does not speak Spanish at all, and even if he had some knowledge of the language, it is most unlikely that he would speak it with a colloquial accent. I have spoken to some colleagues with a knowledge of linguistics and of the languages concerned and they tell me that it would be inconceivable for somebody with a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish to speak it with a colloquial accent. It is obvious; consider the English of people who visit this country and speak with a foreign accent—it is not at all colloquial. Despite the fact that six reliable witnesses had stated at the pretrial hearing that Kevan could not speak Spanish, and that the judge at the original trial acknowledged that no evidence had been produced that he could speak it, the judges at the appeal in 2002 concluded that he could have conducted the robbery in that language. Fair Trials Abroad believes that the judges at the appeal might have misread one of the defence witness statements referring to her own limited proficiency in Spanish as meaning that Kevan could speak it.
At the appeal, Kevan's defence produced five witnesses who provided the substantial alibi that, at the time of the robbery, he was with them in a bar some 270 m from the supermarket. Moreover, they gave evidence that the bar had only one door, so Kevan could not have left or returned without their having seen him do so. Finally, the robbery of which he was convicted, according to Fair Trials Abroad, bore a remarkable resemblance to the other four robberies with which Kevan was originally charged. As it put it:
"The judges made no comment on the fact that there was a clear series of robberies with the same pattern in all five cases."
130WH
Since Kevan was not even on the island when most of them occurred, it seems highly likely that all five were committed by the same person but that it was not Kevan.
Following the initial trial and an appeal, both of which were questionable and which produced unsafe verdicts, Kevan has served slightly more than 17 months of a three-and-a-half-year sentence for a crime that he did not commit. The appeal to the constitutional court in Madrid is pending.
In the past few weeks, Kevan has been moved to a part of the prison that holds prisoners on long sentences and he must share a cell with a non-English-speaking inmate. He has lost the support that he previously had from the network of English-speaking inmates. He is determined not to learn Spanish, because he believes that he does not belong in a Spanish jail and that doing so could compromise his defence, pending a further appeal to the court in Madrid. I appeal to the Spanish authorities to reconsider the decision to move Kevan from the prison's remand module to his present location, which is unsuitable and in which he feels entirely isolated.
Together with Kevan's family, Fair Trials Abroad and the Liverpool Echo, I have been part of a campaign to free Kevan. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary kindly met me, together with Kevan's father, Tommy Sloan, and his mother, Eileen Forrester, who is in the Gallery today. My right hon. Friend recently raised Kevan's case with his Spanish opposite number, and I place on record my thanks and gratitude for his efforts.
Through his lawyer in Tenerife, Kevan has applied for a deportation order, which, if successful, could secure his release. He has gone to great lengths, however, to make it clear that, in so doing, he in no way accepts any guilt. My plea, and that of his family, is that Kevan's application for that order and his further appeal to the constitutional court in Madrid should be dealt with speedily and that he should be allowed to come home, where he belongs. In the meantime, I again urge the Spanish authorities to put him in a more friendly part of the prison with other English speakers.
Kevan has suffered far beyond anything that could be considered remotely reasonable for a crime that he did not commit. I hope that the Spanish authorities will take due note and act accordingly. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will ensure that those very real concerns and the details of this debate are passed to the Spanish authorities and that they take proper note of them.
1.12 pm
The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) for bringing Kevan Sloan's worrying case to the attention of the House. He is a former Home Office Minister and a highly respected, senior Member of the House, and I hope that his passionate advocacy on Kevan Sloan's behalf will be heard loud and clear in Madrid. I shall certainly ensure that the full record of this debate is passed to the appropriate authorities in Spain.
Before responding in detail to my hon. Friend's speech on the case, however, I should refer briefly to the weekend's terrorist outrage in Bali. Our consular staff in

131WH
London and Bali have been working round the clock to do all that they can to help the relatives of British citizens who were killed or injured, and they will continue to do so. The Minister responsible for consular matters, Baroness Amos, will travel to Bali this evening. I express my condolences to all those affected, both in this country and in Australia.
I welcome the opportunity to highlight the assistance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided to Kevan Sloan and his family and to explain what consular assistance we can and cannot provide to him and other British nationals abroad. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are committed to supporting Mr. Sloan and, indeed, all British nationals who are detained overseas.
Since Mr. Sloan's detention, his family and supporters have campaigned vigorously for his acquittal and release. They believe that he is innocent, as does his Member of Parliament. They all believe that he has been the victim of an unfair trial, and Fair Trials Abroad has also been involved in the case. My hon. Friend's powerful speech today and detailed criticism of the prosecution's case will, I hope, give the Spanish authorities cause for further thought. I especially noted the points that he made about the paucity of identification evidence, Mr. Sloan's inability to speak Spanish, the robber's accent being quite different from his own, the alibi that he provided, and so on.
The House will confirm that MPs do not lightly speak with such power and conviction about such cases unless they are strongly persuaded of the issues involved. However, the British Government cannot make judgments on the innocence or guilt of British nationals detained abroad. Our consular staff provide the same service to those detained abroad irrespective of innocence or guilt. The role of our consular staff is, in essence, humanitarian. Consular staff are responsible for looking after the welfare of British nationals overseas, including those who are detained or imprisoned. They can ensure that British nationals have access to a lawyer, know their legal position, have information about the legal and prison systems, receive the same treatment as other prisoners and are not discriminated against because they are British or foreign, and that any medical problems are dealt with quickly. We take any complaints of ill treatment very seriously, and raise them immediately with the relevant authorities.
We are fully aware of the pressures and frustrations that having a relative detained abroad can place on a family. Consular staff can help to keep families in regular contact with those detained in a foreign country, and can assist in updating them on the progress of any court hearings. Staff can also pass on messages from family members to detainees, and forward money for prison comforts. Clearly, circumstances and conditions vary, but consular staff aim regularly to visit British nationals detained abroad. Those held on remand can usually expect three or four such visits a year.
Since Mr. Sloan's arrest in May 2001, our consular staff in Tenerife and London have been in regular contact with Mr. Sloan and his family. Our vice-consul visited Mr. Sloan within 72 hours of his detention, and consular staff have visited him a further 10 times since
132WH
that date. Our staff have also facilitated visits by family members outside the usual visiting hours and at weekends by liaising with the prison authorities on behalf of the families. When Mr. Sloan expressed concern about his transfer to another part of the prison in September this year, our vice-consul contacted the prison authorities straight away to determine the reason for the transfer. She then contacted Mr. Sloan's lawyer to inform him of these developments and to ensure that family visits were not cancelled due to the transfer.
We have also maintained regular contact with Mr. Sloan's lawyer during significant periods such as his trial and more generally throughout his detention. We have therefore ensured that the family in the United Kingdom has been kept informed of any developments. Our consular staff are not legally trained; they cannot offer legal advice, and under international law neither they nor we can interfere in the judicial process of another sovereign country. We would not tolerate any interference in our own legal proceedings, although I know that my hon. Friend is not asking for that.
However, we have sought information regarding Mr. Sloan's trial through our consular staff in Tenerife. His lawyer has stated that although he is very unhappy with the outcome, he is entirely satisfied with the way in which the court handled proceedings. Mr. Sloan must follow the guidance of his lawyer and, of course, he was convicted under Spanish law. His family and supporters have pointed out what they believe are several deficiencies in the prosecution's case; my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about those this morning. However, those are entirely legal issues and as such must be addressed by Mr. Sloan's lawyer, who is best placed to offer professional legal guidance and to take up any concerns with the appropriate local and judicial authorities. All avenues are currently being considered, including the possible referral of this case to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office pro bono lawyer panel for review. I understand that this is a difficult and frustrating time for Mr. Sloan and his family. They are convinced that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and, with my hon. Friend's active support, are campaigning vigorously for his release. We have been asked many times to intervene on Mr. Sloan's behalf and have been pleased to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was able to meet Mr. Sloan's parents on 30 May. He made it clear that, as I have said, we could not interfere in the legal process of another country, but agreed to make formal representations to his Spanish counterpart. He subsequently met the Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Piqué, in June and his successor, Ana de Palacio, in September. On both occasions, my right hon. Friend raised Mr. Sloan's case and put the arguments that my hon. Friend has put today. Mrs. de Palacio agreed to look into Kevan Sloan's case and I am sure that, as a lawyer herself, she will have a particular understanding of the arguments that my hon. Friend has made today.
Meanwhile, we shall ensure that Mr. Sloan's family are kept fully informed of any developments. We shall continue to provide Mr. Sloan with all possible consular assistance. Our consular staff in Tenerife will continue to visit him and maintain frequent contact with his lawyer. I shall happily take any questions from my hon. Friend if he has further points to make, but I understand that Mr. Sloan's mother has travelled here to be present

133WH
at this debate. She has my sympathy in her quest for justice. We—our consular staff, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I—will stand ready to help in whatever way we can, given the constraints that are obvious to all when the independent judicial system of another country is involved.

Disability Living Allowance
1.21 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When the present Government came to power in 1997, I asked the Minister then responsible whether the disability living allowance forms could be examined urgently to make them more user-friendly. More than five years later, nothing has happened, despite the assurances then given.
The forms are long and complex but do not provide adequate space for applicants to add to tick-box and one-word answers to illustrate their cases further. Often, that is why they are turned down. For example, if an applicant can walk 100 m unaided, the mobility claim will almost certainly fail. What of sufferers of myalgic encephalopathy—ME—and multiple sclerosis, who sometimes have reasonable days but more frequently have bad days when it is not possible to walk 100 m? I have come to realise that many constituents who appeal have to do so because, in all honesty, they did not present their case very well on the form, and failed to qualify statements or add to the basic questions. They therefore failed to reach the golden threshold of the number of points required.
A recent survey by the Motor Neurone Disease Association, published in June 2001, showed that 52 per cent. of those questioned received help to complete the claim form. Respondents described the form as "very confusing" and "a nightmare" and said:
"the forms are too long and the questions asked are the same over and over again."
There is, to my mind, a glaring conflict of interest in the way in which medical assessments are carried out. General practitioners are paid more than £100 for the visit and for completing the form. I could name one or two doctors in Gwynedd who fail everyone initially, regardless of their condition. It does not take rocket science to see that a GP could feel under pressure to turn down applicants and preserve the status quo, in order to preserve that rather lucrative sideline, rather than supporting the applicant. I raised that matter on the Floor of the House recently, and interestingly, not a single medical practitioner contacted me to suggest that I had got it wrong. GPs' services are secured through a third-party agency, but I repeat my contention that that obvious conflict of interest compromises them.
The MNDA supports what I have said. I shall quote from some responses that it received. One said that the appointments with doctors were made at very short notice, and another that the doctor
"was very rude and unhelpful. It felt like I was a scrounger."
Another said:
"He could not understand me very well because of my speech and had no idea of the severity of MND or its progression."
Another said:
"The assessment was totally degrading. My husband was totally humiliated. If we had known what the assessment was like we would not have gone through with it."
Furthermore, 58 per cent. of those questioned said that they had to wait for a month for such an assessment. The report says that only 46 per cent. of claimants received notification within one month that

135WH
their claim had been successful, and 11 per cent. of respondents reported having to wait more than three months for notification.
Over the past six to seven years, an increasing number of constituents have come to my advice surgeries seeking assistance to proceed with an appeal. They invariably begin by feeling overawed at the prospect of conducting a quasi-judicial appeal without assistance. Frequently they must rebut evidence from a medically qualified person. Many decide that they are not up to it and want to forget the whole thing, which is the last response that anyone would want. Others decide to battle on. As a respondent to the report recently said,
"The appeal was hard work for a person feeling unwell."
I am legally qualified and have conducted countless appeals, and I can see clearly that the appeal procedure is very difficult for appellants in person. Despite the fact that tribunals are invariably staffed by three caring individuals who are patently independent and go out of their way to put appellants at ease, the procedure is daunting, not least because at the back of every appellant's mind is the awful financial prospect of failing in their appeal.
Since 1992 I have conducted appeals five or six times a year, and only one of those 60 or so appeals failed. I should like to think that that success rate was due to the quality of my advice and advocacy, but I suspect that the real reason was that the appellants should not have been refused in the first place.
A layman such as I can often see that a person's condition is deteriorating and will deteriorate further. A tribunal recently took a few seconds to decide a case in favour of a constituent of mine, and made the benefit "for life", as it was before the benefit integrity project. Back in November 1998, the Minister then responsible told me,
"We shall continue to improve the process so as to ensure that the right benefit is paid to the right people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we recently announced that, in due course, we wish to replace the benefit integrity project with a fair and sensitive system for ensuring that DLA cases are correct."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 587.]
To that I would say, "Hear, hear." However, the targets for savings achieved by the benefit integrity project were based on a belief that almost £499 million per year was involved, and that more than 12 per cent. of claimants were fraudulent. Both those ideas were found to be totally unjustified. In fact, the savings achieved by the BIP—£8 million for 1997–98—have been totally wiped out by the administrative costs of £8.27 million for the same period. The cost of the new system of periodic review has yet to be estimated.
Little has happened to aid the sick and disabled, and they continue to be subjected to degrading treatment every three years or so. The project was supposed to be replaced by something that was fairer, but I fear that the periodic review is no fairer and is just the benefit integrity project under another name.
I shall give some brief examples of cases that I have conducted. A Mr. Roberts in my constituency had his left leg amputated after a road accident in 1995. He received high rate mobility from September 1995–96, which was cut down to middle rate from September
136WH
1996–98. He asked for a review in March 1997, received nothing until August and wrote back with the paperwork in November, only to be turned down on the grounds that he was out of time. I complained on his behalf, and the disability benefits director said that it was clear that Mr. Roberts had not received the standard of service to which he was entitled. The appeal went forward in August 1999, and his claim was allowed fully on appeal, nearly three years after it was refused.
A young woman from near Bala in my constituency was awarded the highest rate mobility component because she was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. She received the high rate from April 1994–98, reapplied in January 1998 and was refused. She asked for a review in February and was refused again. She sent in some other details, and eventually won an appeal—again, more than two years later. A lady in my constituency from Corris made her first application in March 2000 and was refused. She was suffering from severe arthritis. We appealed on her behalf, and the appeal came through in February 2002, nearly two years later.
A man called Patrick Breen in my constituency had his disability living allowance discontinued in October 1998, having suffered an unsuccessful knee operation in 1997 and further surgery in 1998. He partially lost his sight in 1994. He has recently had confirmation from doctors that he also had osteoarthritis. His doctor expressed surprise that the personal care element was disallowed, and said:
"at this current time I feel that a high level of personal care is of the utmost necessity".
I wrote on Mr. Breen's behalf on 27 October 1998 and did not receive a reply until 10 January 1999. The case went to appeal—in April 2002, believe it or not—and it succeeded on all points. That is another example of a few years wasted, anxiety created and so on.
A young man from Trefriw in my constituency, who suffers severely from myalgic encephalomyelitis, was turned down. He, too, had to appeal. While he was appealing, he was unable to heat his home properly or look after himself because of lack of finances. That is a disgraceful catalogue. Time does not permit me to deal with other cases that I could mention.
The Government have made some movement. The Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 will affect between 40,000 and 50,000 claimants. The new rules relate to lower rate mobility component, which is paid to people who can walk, but cannot walk outdoors in unfamiliar places unless they have someone with them—because of a visual impairment, for example. The alterations relate to claims based on fear and anxiety. A new provision, regulation 12(7), was inserted into the DLA regulations, stating that people who cannot take advantage of the faculty of walking outdoors without guidance or supervision from another person because of fear or anxiety will not be eligible for lower rate mobility component.
A second paragraph, paragraph (8), will state that regulation 12(7) is to be ignored if the fear or anxiety is

"(a) a symptom of a mental disability; and

(b) so severe as to prevent the person from taking advantage of the faculty in such circumstances."

137WH
The intention is that people who claim on the basis of fear or anxiety—because of agoraphobia, for example—will still be able to do so, but people who cannot demonstrate that their fear or anxiety is a symptom of a severe mental health problem will not be eligible for lower rate mobility component.
The Government claim that they are simply clarifying the law, rather than making changes. However, the new rule means that the often severe psychological effects of physical impairment must in future be ignored for the purposes of lower rate mobility component. That is an entirely new rule.
A growing number of voluntary bodies are becoming greatly concerned at the operation of the DLA—not surprisingly, perhaps, given what I have already said. The Headway Association recently wrote to me. In essence, its concern is about the DLA assessment process. It believes that the DLA is too fixated on finding physical or mental health problems and does not allow the recognition of cognitive difficulties, often the result of a head injury, which can cause problems as severe or worse than physical or mental health impairments.
As for the unfairness of the DLA assessment process, the Headway Association says that the DLA assessments place heavy reliance on independent fixed format medical assessments. They will often require the brain-injured person to explain convincingly in the interview how their condition impacts on their care and mobility needs. However, due to their cognitive impairment they might be unable to explain that to the medical examiner.
The Headway Association's experience of clinicians, particularly general practitioners, is that their professional knowledge of brain injury and its impact on the individual is sparse. Additionally, Headway Association members have experienced a range of attitudes from examining medical practitioners. Some are very mechanical in following the medical assessment script, while others are more discretionary, and we must query what assessment training is given.
Individuals with a brain injury may be deemed mentally competent yet suffer impairment of their cognitive abilities that directly impacts on their care and mobility needs. Even medical examiners who are enlightened on the subject of brain injury point out that they are required only to assess mental competence, not cognitive ability. As it is the province of clinical neuro-psychologists, it is unrealistic to expect cognitive ability to be reliably assessed by a non-expert medical examiner, typically a general practitioner, during a routine medical interview and examination, which, as I have said, often takes place swiftly and at short notice.
Hywel Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the gap in the training of doctors who assess the DLA leads to wide variations, even in small geographical areas? That is widely seen as being entirely unfair.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely. The DLA is, unfortunately, like postcode prescription. Cognitive ability is often the crux of the matter but it is not addressed, which is a haphazard way of doing things.
I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations made by Headway:
138WH
"A separate section on cognitive ability should be included within the DLA questionnaire and medical interview.
For the EMP following the DSS assessment script, and where brain injury is claimed or diagnosed, a supplementary sheet of specialist questions could be devised to assess the cognitive and executive reasoning difficulties. There could be a number of them to target a particular neurological condition. In cases of alleged mental problems for those applying for incapacity benefit there is the opportunity to complete additional questions on how their condition affects their ability to work. Medical examiners are obliged to consider this when the problem becomes apparent during the interview. Where there is doubt, and to guard against the possibility of fraud, EMPs, Adjudication Officers and tribunals should be authorised to refer applicants who claim brain injury to a suitably approved clinical neuro-psychologist. They could produce independent reports on the cognitive difficulties of the applicant and how they have impacted on the care and mobility needs of the applicant.
The medical assessment procedure should be more flexible to allow the input of the carer. To give a complete picture of a person with a brain injury during an assessment it is often necessary to have their main carer present. This will help where a person's self image is at odds with their actual abilities."
I reiterate my call to the Government to review the application forms and make them more user-friendly. The periodical review procedure should be ended for cases in which a recipient of DLA has already succeeded once on appeal. I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 10 years and I am going through the third appeal with some applicants. Their condition worsens with every appeal, for which we have to wait through months of anxiety to present. I do not mind doing it—I am proud to do it—because it is part of my function. However, I say to the Minister that it is a waste of the tribunal's time and is grossly unfair and hurtful to people who feel "done" by the system.
It is also time to speed up the system. The examples that I have given are typical of the length of time an appeal takes. The system is currently failing the most vulnerable in our society, which will not do.
1.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on choosing the subject for today's debate. The matter is of great interest to all hon. Members. He has raised a number of issues on which I shall do my best to comment.
First, I want to say a little about the DLA because there are some misconceptions—I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has misconceptions—about what the benefit does and does not do. I shall set out the aim of the DLA before answering some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. It is a non-contributory, tax-free benefit that is not income related. It is there to contribute to the extra costs incurred by severely disabled people because of their additional mobility and care needs. It is not an extra payment for people with a particular condition. That is one of the things that most confuses people about the benefit; some think that because they have a certain condition, they should receive it. That might explain the point about variations that was made in an earlier intervention. It is possible for two people to have the same condition, but for their care

139WH
and mobility needs to be very different. The system is designed to try to assess what those needs are on an individual basis.
Hywel Williams: Is the Minister claiming that decisions are entirely consistent from one assessment officer to another? I have encountered examples of people with very similar conditions seen by different doctors; Dr. Nice has allowed it but Dr. Nasty has not.
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has identified one of the problems of trying to administer the benefit: it has a large subjective element. That is partly because it is trying to deal with the effects on a particular person in a particular situation of a particular condition or disability. There is bound to be a certain amount of subjectivity, whether of the decision maker or the doctor.
Our job in administering the benefit is to try to be as consistent as possible, but it is not to achieve equality in benefit between two people with a particular condition. Because of the way in which it is designed, the benefit has to deal with the effect on the individual of the health condition or disability. There are difficulties in terms of consistency, and in terms of the many issues raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and his colleague, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Williams).
For the record, I accept that there are sometimes difficulties in accessing the benefit. Every Member of this House has had constituency cases in which things have gone wrong. We try to minimise errors and to put things right when they go wrong, but there is an inherent difficulty in administering this benefit. In the last five years, expenditure on DLA has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms, to some £6.5 billion, and 2.35 million disabled people are in receipt of it. That is an increase of some 15 per cent. over the last five years. There is no evidence that the difficulties of claiming are preventing people from accessing the benefit. The trend is upwards; we are getting the benefit to people who are eligible for it as best we can.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will accept that the need for care and help with mobility is a personal matter and varies between individuals. The affects of a particular disability can vary from person to person, according to circumstances. It is therefore difficult to be objective. The diversity of cases for which the benefit has to cater makes it inherently difficult to administer. We have embarked on a programme of improvements, but the hon. Gentleman says that he has not seen much evidence of that. I shall go through some of the things that we have done, and some of the things that we are hoping to do, now that we are introducing a proper IT system into the disability benefit unit, which we have not had until now. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of our difficulties in respect of the benefit is that it has been clerically administered. That has its own difficulties, because there are inefficiencies in clerical administration, especially when files are sent to Blackpool and have to be sent back.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a predecessor of mine who said that the Government's aim was to get people's benefits right at the outset and keep them right. That is
140WH
indeed our aim. We are trying to develop processes that will make the system simpler, more straightforward and more responsive to the needs of disabled people who claim disability benefits. We are trying to remove the need for a single "catch all" claim pack, the difficulties of which were referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The claim pack must enable people to set out the effect of their condition or disability on their care and mobility needs, so we need more than a form that asks people what condition they have. The claim pack is bound to be long and more complex than we would like, but we are currently developing a new claiming process both for attendance allowance, which is being trialed, and for disability living allowance. In tests, we have managed to reduce the claim pack for attendance allowance from 44 to 16 pages. We are hoping to be able to replicate that for disability living allowance, although DLA is slightly more complex because of the mobility component. The trials on the AA claim pack for very elderly people have been fairly successful and we hope to apply the lessons that we have learned from that to DLA.
Features of the first stage of the process include a shortened interactive claim form completed through discussion with the customer on the telephone. I accept that people with impairments of various sorts can find it very difficult to complete forms, but the benefit inquiry line should be able to help them. Customers can talk to someone on the telephone, text phone is available, and there are other ways in which customers can access the service. We hope to be able to tailor questions to the customer's needs rather than them having to answer all the questions that might be useful. We hope that medical evidence relating to previous claims, already held by the Department, will be used to speed up the decision process. That might answer some of the hon. Gentleman's points about repeat claims. At the moment, all the information is held in files in Blackpool and is not immediately accessible. Once the IT system is up and running, we should be able to access such information instantly.
Mr. Llwyd: I appreciate the fact that the Minister is responding to the subject in a thoughtful and helpful way, something that does not often happen in such debates. I follow her arguments, but there is a problem with the helpline, because many people have difficulty speaking about their private affairs and some have speech difficulties. Does the Minister agree that it seems ridiculous that a person who has a degenerative disease and who has succeeded on appeal the first time around, should be put through the hoops two or three times subsequently? Surely that is wrong.
Maria Eagle: I shall come to the latter point in due course because there are particular issues relating to chronic and deteriorating conditions.
In respect of the helpline, if customers find it impossible to get the help that they need, we do our best to arrange home visits. We try to make arrangements that will suit the customer. It is not in our interests for inadequate claim forms to be returned because that just extends the process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we want to administer the benefit, which has inherent difficulties, as well as we possibly can, with the aim of getting to eligible people the money that they

141WH
need as soon as possible without the hassle that they might have previously experienced. We are all on the same side in that we all want to get this right.
On IT, we are beginning to acquire the capability to access information relating to previous claims more quickly. We are not there yet, but we are introducing IT in disability benefit units where initial claims are handled. We hope that, in due course, we shall see significant improvements as a result.
At every stage, development proposals on claim forms are presented to a forum of disability organisations, the modern service working group, to ensure that the changes meet the needs of and are in the best interests of disabled people and are not just administrative expedients. Those organisations can tell us whether we are on the right track. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we are doing our best to improve the administration, although I accept that there are still problems with it.
The hon. Gentleman more or less said that there is a continuation of the benefit integrity project and that periodic inquiry is no fairer than the benefit integrity project. Periodic inquiry was designed to do something very different from the benefit integrity project. Whereas the benefit integrity project appears to have been designed by the previous Administration to meet targets, periodic inquiry is a random check. Cases are chosen randomly from the case load and a visiting officer is sent out to complete the form. The idea is to try to ensure that people receive the right benefit. In fact, it is far more frequently the case that the benefits of someone who has gone through a periodic inquiry are increased rather than decreased, which gives the lie to the idea that periodic inquiry is the same as the benefit integrity project.
Annabelle Ewing: Does the Minister have any statistics to back up her assertion that periodic reviews result in great news for people who are receiving benefit?
Maria Eagle: I do indeed. In fact, the hon. Lady has anticipated my next remark.
Results from the first two years of periodic inquiry have identified that in 75 per cent. of the cases where care or mobility needs changed, the inquiry led to higher entitlement. That gives the lie to the idea that periodic inquiry is the benefit integrity project with a different name. In fact, customer reaction to it has generally been very positive. When I visit those of my officials in disability benefit units who do periodic inquiries, I always ask them what reaction they get when they knock on people's doors. Generally, I am told that they and the process are welcomed. One might understand why that might be the case, as 75 per cent. of the cases result in increased benefit. I do not recognise the description of periodic inquiry as some form of rehashed benefit integrity project. Its aim is to ensure that people get the right benefits for their needs.
The hon. Gentleman complained that sometimes people have to reapply for their benefits. Sometimes people on indefinite awards do not have to reapply. It might become clear that their needs have increased when we visit them on a periodic inquiry. Our aim is to try to get people on the right level of benefit so that they get the support to which they are entitled, not to cut the costs on a targeted basis, which I understand was the purpose of the benefit integrity project.
142WH
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has come across examples where periodic inquiry has seemed to operate like the benefit integrity project. If he would provide me with individual examples—obviously, not today—I would be more than happy to review them. It is certainly not our general impression from what comes back to us or from our statistics.
The hon. Gentleman rushed through some points about GPs at the beginning of his remarks, and it was not clear to me whether he was referring to the GP reports for which a decision maker might ask if they need more evidence because they are not sure about a form that has been returned, or whether he was referring to the examining medical practitioner or some combination of both.
Mr. Llwyd: It is the EMP.
Maria Eagle: The EMP is someone to whom our decision maker can resort if they do not feel that they have enough information to make a determination of the claim. It is certainly true that some of them are GPs. It is also true that our contractor SchlumbergerSema has been strengthening its management of the contracting doctors, at our behest. They receive significantly more training than they used to on appropriate behaviour.
I know that there are complaints about individual EMPs. I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to complain if they have come across any EMP whom they believe is behaving in an offhand way, making assumptions or not treating them with due respect and dignity. Arrangements are in place with SchlumbergerSema to deal with complaints in a way that can result in an EMP, a GP, or whoever is doing the report, being thrown off our lists, as people are. If there are sufficient numbers of complaints, we will investigate them. Some doctors are retrained.
Mr. Llwyd: The Minister has been generous in the debate. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon is here. He and I have a complaint in common. I will not name the person here despite privilege, but he has been reported to the General Medical Council and remains on the books of the third party—the contractor.
Maria Eagle: I should be happy to have further details from the hon. Gentleman if he would like to forward them to me. Under the new contract with SchlumbergerSema, strengthened procedures are in place to ensure that doctors who do not do their job appropriately do not do it at all. It is not our intention to subject disabled people and people with health conditions to degrading treatment or to make them jump through hoops to receive benefit. That is not what we are about. The hon. Gentleman must surely agree that we sometimes need more evidence than that provided on the form, and that sometimes there is no alternative to an examining medical practitioner. However, there is no reason why people should experience what he has described as happening to his constituents. We want to stamp that out. If he would like to send me details of the individual in question, I will look further into what he has said. I am aware that there are EMPs who have been removed from the lists and

143WH
who no longer receive instructions to deal with this sort of case. It is not the case that removal never happens; it does, but we need to have the complaints to ensure that we pursue the bad eggs.
The hon. Gentleman made some important points about what Headway had to say to him about cognitive impairments and brain injury. We want to ensure that our procedures get to the nub of the issue and that those people who are eligible for the benefit receive it.
We are always open to representations about such issues, and I encourage Headway and other organisations to contact us. We have training and guidance for our decision makers about how such issues should be dealt with, but I do not pretend that it is perfect. We can always improve it, but we do set out to ensure that it is as good as it can be. I have some problems with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about referring to clinical neuro-psychologists. We are not in the business of trying to medicalise the benefit beyond the degree to which it has already been medicalised—there are doctors' reports. Disabled people would not like that. They do not want the benefit to be turned into an assessment of how bad their condition is. The benefit is about dealing with care and
144WH
mobility needs, and the person best placed to tell us what those needs are is the person concerned or their family and friends. That is the basis of the benefit, so we must be careful not to go too far away from that. I therefore have some concerns about the idea of bringing in clinical neuro-psychologists if it can be avoided. It would also be bound to lead to more delays. However, I am happy to take up issues and points that some of my officials raised about particular problems. The issues that Headway raised with the hon. Gentleman are also important.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the changes to the lower rate mobility benefit. There have been debates in the other place about that issue, but I reiterate that the aim of that change was to keep the benefit true to its original intentions. It is not the case that people who have fear and anxiety and a physical impairment cannot receive the lower rate mobility benefit. We hope that the change will affect only a very small number of people, and I hope, given what I have been able to say to him today, that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is by no means all that we have been doing to try to improve the administration of DLA and to ensure that those who are eligible for the benefit receive it, receive it quickly, and at the level to which they are entitled.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competitiveness Council
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Competitiveness Council on 30 September. [74945]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I represented the UK at the Competitiveness Council of Ministers in Brussels on 30 September. This was the first meeting of the new Competitiveness Council, which is an amalgamation of the Internal Market, Industry and Research formations.

  The five specific programmes of the sixth R&D Framework programme were adopted and there was political agreement on legislative dossiers covering public procurement (the utilities directive) and fertilisers (fertilisers regulation). In addition, there was political agreement on two company law dossiers: the updating of the First Company Law Directive on filing and disclosure of company documents in the light of new technology; and the modernisation of the EU Accounting Directives to take account of the adoption of International Accounting Standards as the reporting regime for the EU's listed companies.

  Council Conclusions were adopted endorsing the Commission's Action Plan on Better Regulation and its rapid implementation.

  There was a Presidency report on the proposed discussions at the Nyborg informal, of the methods of working of the new CC formation and a progress report on the proposed 25 amendment (including some overlap with the 23 amendment) to the marketing and use of dangerous substances directive to include controls on further carcinogens, mutagens and substances toxic to reproduction.

  There were Commission presentations on the streamlining of the annual economic and employment policy co-ordination cycles and two reports: the State of the Internal Market for Services and Second Biennial Report on Mutual Recognition in the Internal Market.

  The Commission also reported that bilateral talks with Korea had failed to reach agreement, and the Commission confirmed that it would now implement the decision as agreed by the Council in June—namely to launch the WTO case against Korea together with the reintroduction of the limited and temporary shipbuilding subsidies.

  Over lunch Professor Jaap Winter reported on the consideration by the High Level Group on Company Law of corporate governance issues in the light of large-scale corporate collapses in the US. The Group's approach was to explore ways in which to improve standards of corporate governance, where necessary,
  848W
  and strengthen the role of shareholders within a flexible EU framework. When the formal session resumed conclusions supporting the development of an EU Action Plan were adopted without debate.

  The UK voted in favour of political agreement on the public procurement directive and fertilisers regulation as well as the updating of the First Company Law Directive and the modernisation of the EU Accounting Directives. The UK was also in favour regarding the adoption of the five specific programmes of the sixth R&D Framework programme and the Council conclusions, on the Commission's Action Plan on Better Regulation and on the development of an EU Action Plan on corporate governance.

  Energy Council
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy Council on 4 October. [74946]

  Mr. Wilson
  I represented the UK at the EU Energy Council held in Luxembourg on 4 October.

  Discussion at this Council centred on the issue of liberalisation of the EU's electricity and gas markets. There was also a short presentation of the European Commission's proposals for directives for Community-level oil and gas stocks.

  The majority of Member States agreed that full legal separation of transmission and distribution system operators was essential for the creation of a genuinely competitive electricity and gas internal market. A minority maintained reserves as they had doubts about the necessity of legal unbundling, arguing that there were other ways to guarantee transparency and fair access to the networks.

  Supporting the majority, the UK said the current proposed exemption threshold of 100,000 customers for distribution operators was too high, because it would exclude a large part of the market in some Member States. The UK could not accept the postponement of legal unbundling for those operators until 1 January 2005, since unbundling was as essential for non-household customers as it was for household customers. The UK emphasised that the need for political agreement was particularly important in the light of the increasing consolidation across Europe. If we did not put in place the conditions needed to ensure nondiscriminatory access to networks for all market players, and this meant legal unbundling, there was a danger that incumbents might be able to use their dominant positions to thwart competition. The Commission agreed that legal separation of both transmission and distribution network operators was essential, reminding delegations that this need not imply any transfer of assets.

  On public service obligations, there was split between those preferring the universal service provisions to apply to all final customers and those, including the UK, wishing to limit them to household customers only.

  On energy labelling, most delegations agreed that any labelling system should be simple, cost-effective and accurate.
  849W
  Discussion on access to gas storage generated strong support for a UK-inspired compromise whereby noncompetitive segments of the market would be subject to regulated third party access, while competitive segments could use negotiated access. But some Member States maintained a preference for negotiated access only.

  Nearly all Member States emphasised the need to complete the full internal market as soon as possible, supporting the dates of 2004 for opening the non-domestic sector and 2005 for the domestic sector. The Commission agreed on these operative dates, but signalled the possibility of flexibility to achieve consensus.

  The Presidency concluded that the EU remained on course to reach political agreement at the next energy Council meeting on 25 November.

  A progress report on the electricity cross border Regulation was noted without discussion. The Commission emphasised that it was an essential part of the package.

  The Commission presented proposals for two directives containing new arrangements for stocking oil and gas within the Community, explaining that the main objective was to improve security of supply of oil and gas. The Commission argued that the EU's arrangements for emergency oil stocks needed updating to take account of the current political situation; and that the development of gas as a fuel of choice for electricity generation meant that special arrangements were needed to guarantee security of supply, particularly in view of the rising proportion of gas imported into the EU.

  The UK disagreed, arguing that the existing oil arrangements of the International Energy Agency had proved to be both flexible and adequate, and that the gas measure was premature until the internal market was functioning properly.

  UK Structural Funds Programme
  Candy Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what steps his Department has taken to simplify the application process for accessing funding from UK European Structural Funds programmes; and what discussions his Department has had with UK and European partners on the simplification of the application process for accessing funding from UK Structural Funds Programme. [74396]

  Alan Johnson
  The DTI, in co-ordination with other Government Departments, has been at the forefront of discussion with other Member States and the European Commission on all aspects of simplification of Structural Funds administration. The UK has drafted papers on this issue for consideration by the Structural Funds Management Committees, and as a result of this work, Commissioner Michel Barnier called a meeting of Regional Policy Ministers on 7 October during which the Commission proposals for simplification were discussed. The UK gave its support to these proposals and will be working with the Commission and other Member States on their practical implementation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sir Desmond Morton
  Paul Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if an official biography of Sir Desmond Morton is being commissioned. [75045]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, I have appointed Mrs. Gill Bennett who is a visiting Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, as the official historian to write the official biography of Sir Desmond Morton.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what archaeological surveys have been conducted by(a) her Department, (b) the County Archaeological Office and (c) English Heritage in respect of the sites identified for development as asylum accommodation centres; if the Government will publish the reports; and what further plans the Government have to commission such surveys. [74520]

  Dr. Howells
  It is for the developing agency, not the DCMS, the County Archaeologist or English Heritage to undertake archaeological surveys to inform proposals for development.

  From the outset of the Accommodation Centre project, archaeology has been dealt with in accordance with government guidance as set out in PPG 16 "Archaeology and Planning". At the site option screening stage, archaeology was one of many factors used to identify sites where an Accommodation Centre might be developed without significant adverse impact to heritage interests, to preclude other sites where unacceptable impacts would occur and to identify those possible sites where desk studies, field evaluation or other archaeological measures would be necessary.

  Archaeological desk and field evaluation studies have been commissioned by the Home Office for the Accommodation Centres proposed at Newton, Bicester and Pershore. Field evaluation trenching has also been undertaken at Newton and Bicester, and is under consideration at Pershore.

  At Newton and Bicester the results of the desk and field studies have been submitted as part of the planning notification process, and documentation for Pershore will similarly form part of the planning submission. In due course, if development goes ahead any archaeological investigations in advance of development will be published in accordance with government guidance and archaeological best practice.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the final report of the English National Stadium Review to be published; and if she will make a statement. [75044]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am today publishing the final report of the English National Stadium Review led by Patrick Carter and placing copies in the Libraries of both
  851W
  Houses. The report reflects the detail of the agreements concluded by all principal parties on the National Stadium project on 26 September.

  I set out on 19 December 2001, Official Report columns 291–3, four tests which I expected the Football Association (FA) and Wembley National Stadium Ltd (WNSL) to meet before the offer of Government support to the National Stadium project could be confirmed:
  First, an independent assessment of the Multiplex stadium construction contracts. This was undertaken by Cyril Sweett Ltd and copies were placed in the House libraries in May. Since May the contract has changed from a Design, Construct and Finance arrangement to a Design and Construct contract. Cyril Sweett Ltd have therefore reviewed the new contract and produced an addendum report that concludes the new contract remains value for money. I am placing copies of the addendum report in the House libraries today.
  Secondly, as I explained in my 7 May statement, Official Report columns 21–2, WNSL have made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General papers relating to the project.
  Thirdly, corporate governance changes to be made to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project within procedures acceptable to the public sector. In addition to the significant strengthening of the WNSL Board, already announced, a range of improved procedures are now in place.
  Fourthly, confirmation that financial support was adequate and fully committed. As Patrick Carter's report sets out, this is now the case.

  Having reviewed the steps the FA and WNSL have taken since December, last year, and Patrick Carter's assessment of the progress made by WNSL, including his view that on balance my four tests have been met, I have confirmed the Government's support to the National Stadium project which I had first offered in December. I have however also ensured that the public interest in the new National Stadium is protected by stronger safeguards than those secured at the previous project's failed syndication in 2000.

  The time has come for Government to stand back as the project moves into the construction phase and is taken forward by the FA and WNSL. But, as Patrick Carter has noted, to safeguard the public interest, the project as a whole will require careful monitoring and with Sport England and the London Development Agency we shall be putting in place new arrangements as recommended by the Office for Government Commerce.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what advice she has received from the Football Association about progress in concluding the financing of the proposed redevelopment of Wembley Stadium; [74298]

  (2) what advice she has received from the Football Association about changes in costs, including legal and professional fees, of the proposed redevelopment of Wembley Stadium; [74300]

  (3) when she expects the final contracts for the proposed redevelopment of Wembley Stadium to be concluded; and if she will make a statement. [74299]
  852W
  Mr. Caborn
  The contracts relating to the construction of the English National Stadium at Wembley were signed on 26 September. My right hon. Friend has published today the final report of the English National Stadium Review team which included Wembley National Stadium Limited's data on changes to the costs of the project including fees. Copies of the report are available in the House libraries or from my Department's website www.culture.gov.uk.

  BBC
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the BBC curriculum online proposal; and when she expects to reach a decision on the proposal. [74314]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the BBC's application for a digital curriculum service, together with the responses to the public consultation, against the criteria set out in the Department's published guidelines on proposed new BBC public services. My right hon. Friend will announce her decision on the application as soon as possible.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what changes she proposes to the working of the concessionary scheme so that eligibility for concessionary TV licences is not lost when someone under 60 years moves into the beneficiary's sheltered housing; [74538]

  (2) how many representations from (a) members of the public, (b) charities and (c) hon. Members she has received regarding sheltered housing schemes being charged for a television licence because a resident is under 60; and if she will make a statement; [74540]

  (3) when the proposals she has to change the working of the concessionary scheme so that eligibility for concessionary TV licences is not lost when someone under 60 moves into the beneficiary's sheltered housing will be published. [74539]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government proposes to introduce preserved rights for beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary television licence scheme when the social mix or the level of warden cover in their sheltered housing change, so long as the accommodation continues to be provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation. We intend to publish amending regulations as soon as possible, but the ARC scheme is complex and it is important that, in amending it, we avoid creating any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  Information about the number of representations received on different aspects of the concessionary television licensing arrangements is not recorded separately.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Senegal
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the supply of general purpose machine guns to Senegal, for use as part of a UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [74948]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following consultations with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export general purpose machine guns to Senegal. These arms will be used by the Senegalese Armed Forces in the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

  DRC is subject to an EU arms embargo, imposed by a Declaration of 7/4/1993. The embargo was put in place mainly to ensure the safety of international troops and civilian personnel deployed in the DRC. The decision to grant an exemption does not affect HMG's continued support for the EU arms embargo on the DRC.

  The decision to permit export was made on the basis that the equipment is needed by bona fide UN peacekeepers and is proportionate to the humanitarian needs of the Senegalese peacekeepers.

  HMG fully supports the Senegalese troops deployed to the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC. The decision underlines our continued support for the work being done by peacekeepers within the country.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods on the Military List have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [74949]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export de-mining equipment to United Nations Office for Project Services in mine clearance operations in Northern Iraq. The export included an electronic hand held exploder that appears on the Military List. The conclusion that this export does not represent a proliferation threat has been reached after careful assessment.

  The UN Iraq Sanctions Committee approved this export to Iraq under the Oil for Food programme (OFF). Under OFF Iraq is allowed to export unlimited quantities of oil to fund the purchase of humanitarian goods. The export is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Belize
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress to resolve the territorial dispute between Guatemala and Belize. [74950]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Organization of American States (OAS) concluded its two year process to help the Governments of Guatemala and Belize settle their territorial dispute on 30 September. Detailed proposals 854W
  drawn up by independent Facilitators appointed by both Governments were presented to the Governments on 16 September, provide the basis for a fair and honourable settlement to this long-standing dispute. We hope both Governments will now seize this historic opportunity.

  The Facilitators have recommended some adjustment to the land border, and proposed new maritime limits giving Guatemala an Economic Exclusion Zone and Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Honduras of some 2000 square nautical miles. The Governments of Belize and Honduras have each agreed to contribute 1000 square nautical miles to this zone.

  The Facilitators have also recommended the establishment of a tri-national ecological park covering coastal, insular and maritime areas of Belize, Guatemala and Honduras and a substantial Development Trust Fund. Details can be found on the Belize Government's website www.belize.gov.bz/.

  At a ceremony in Washington on 30 September marking the end of the facilitation process, Dr. MacShane spoke of the UK's full support for the OAS process. He welcomed the proposals highlighting the potential for investment and economic growth that will result if the referendums that are now due to be held simultaneously in both countries are successful.

  HMG believes that the Facilitators have worked patiently and meticulously to produce proposals that are fair and honourable to the Governments of Guatemala and Belize. They represent the best chance yet of settling the dispute. Settlement would also have a global significance, demonstrating that with good will and determination even the most intractable problems can be resolved by negotiation. A settlement would open a new chapter of peace and harmony between the two countries and reduce the risk of potential conflict along the border.

  We urge the Governments and civil society of both countries to enter into constructive debate on what a settlement would mean to their populace before putting the proposals to referendums.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the UK will continue to uphold the OSCE embargo on the export of weapons and military equipment to Azerbaijan. [74951]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMG remains committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which we interpret as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (commonly known as the military list).

  In September 2002, the Government approved an export licence application for demining vests for the Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Actions.

  In January 2002 the Government approved a similar request for protective jackets for demining operations to Azerbaijan.
  855W
  The decision was made in accordance with our practice occasionally to make an exemption to our interpretation of the embargo by approving exports of non-lethal military goods to humanitarian, media or peacekeeping organisations where it is clear that the embargo was not intended to prevent those exports and there is a strong humanitarian case for them.

  Date

  Location

  Business

  October 2002

  1

  Brussels

  GAERC

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary: Subsidiarity & Legal Personality working group conclusions; interim reports on Charter & National Parliaments working groups

  3–4

  Brussels

  Transport & Telecommunications Council

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  10

  Copenhagen

  EU/India Summit

  11–12

  Nyborg

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs & Industry Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs & Civil Protection Council

  16

  Brussels

  EU Commission: Annual Report on Candidate Countries

  17

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  17

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  20

  Luxembourg

  EU Trade (Ministers Informal)

  21–22

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  28–29

  Aalborg

  Patent Protection: Ministers & EU Commissioners

  28–29

  Brussels

  Convention plenary: Giscard to release his constitutional text; Charter working group conclusions; preliminary reports on conclusions of Economic Governance and Complementary Competences working groups.

  November

  4

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  7

  Brussels

  Health Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary—Complementary Competences and Economic Governance working group conclusions; preliminary reports on conclusions of Simplification, National Parliaments, Security and Justice working groups.

  11–12

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs & Tourism Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council ( Defence)

  21

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  25–26

  Brussels

  Budget Meeting

  25–26

  Brussels

  Industry & Energy Council

  28

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs & Civil Protection Council

  December

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting On Macro Economic Dialogue (Ministerial Trokia)

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  2–3

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  5

  Brussels

  Transport & Telecom Council

  6

  Brussels

  Transport & Telecom Council

  9

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12–15

  Copenhagen

  European Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  19

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  20

  Brussels

  Justice And Home Affairs & Civil Protection Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary-External Action and Defence working group conclusions

  January

  9

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  9

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  16

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  20

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  20

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  European Union Events
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for October; and if he will list the major European Union events for the period between 31 October and April 2003. [75046]

  Peter Hain
  The information requested is in the table.
  857W

  Date

  Location

  Business

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  24

  Nafplion

  Employment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council

  28

  Brussels

  EU-ASEAN Ministerial

  30

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  February

  5

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  6–7

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  10–11

  Brussels

  AGRICULTURE & FISHERIES Council (to be confirmed)

  13

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  17

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  20

  Brussels

  EDUCATION, YOUTH & CULTURE Council (to be confirmed)

  22

  Thessalonika

  Energy Council (Ministerial Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council Agriculture & Fisheries

  26

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  27–28

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  March

  3

  Luxembourg

  Competitiveness Council

  6

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  6

  Luxembourg

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  7

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  7

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  14–15

  Athens

  (Informal Defence Meeting)

  17–18

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations Council

  21

  Luxembourg

  European Council

  27

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  27

  Veria

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council)

  28

  Athens

  EU-Rio Group, EU-MERCOSUR

  28–29

  Veria

  Informal Justice & Home Affairs (Veria)

  31

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  April

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  5

  Lisbon

  Europe-Africa Summit

  5

  Ioannina

  Ministerial Meeting on Education (Informal)

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  11–13

  Chania

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  14

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries

  16

  Brussels

  Signature Of The Accession (Provisional Date)

  23

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  Georgia
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the appointment of a UK Special Representative for Georgia. [74952]

  Mr. Straw
  I am committed to finding a way to help Georgia become prosperous, stable and able to live in harmony with its neighbours. This is why I am glad to have appointed Sir Brian Fall as the UK's Special Representative for Georgia, with effect from 1 October. In this capacity Sir Brian will also be the UK Senior Representative on the Group of Friends of the UN Secretary General on Georgia. Sir Brian was formerly 858W
  H.M. Ambassador to Moscow (1992–95). His experience of the region and his diplomatic skills will be invaluable in helping him fulfil this role.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mohammad Aamrk Iqbal. [74562]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am informed that due to an administrative error, my right hon. Friend did not receive a reply to his letter of 16 August. I apologise for this. A reply was sent on 7 October.

  East Timor
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement, with reference to the documents made public by the Australian Government in September 2000, on the attack at Balibo, East Timor on 16 October 1975. [73697]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In September 2000, the Australian Government published a volume of documents taken from their archives on their relations with East Timor from 1974–76. A number of these documents refer to the deaths of the journalists in the attack on Balibo.

  The British Government gave the Australian Government clearance to publish a number of official documents which referred to information obtained from British diplomatic sources.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Harmony
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies he is planning to improve racial harmony in Britain. [74445]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Community Cohesion Unit, part of the Home Office, is committed to improving community cohesion—which will contribute to improving racial harmony. It supports local authorities and other public bodies to tackle immediate problems in communities; integrating community cohesion into mainstream policy and practice; and developing and disseminating knowledge, experience and expertise to local authorities.

  It is, for example, funding a programme of community facilitation to encourage dialogue and tackle local grievances or misunderstandings that threaten good community and race relations. A Ministerial Group has been established from across Government whose role is to ensure that their policies promote community cohesion, and it is working with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), Local Government Association (LGA) and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) to produce practical guidance on community cohesion for local authorities. A draft of this guidance was made available earlier in the year.

  The new Government PSA target on race equality, on which the Home Office leads, will deliver improvements in race equality and community cohesion over the next three years,
  "bringing about measurable improvements in race equality and community cohesion across a range of performance indicators, as part of the Government's objectives on equality and social inclusion" (Home Office PSA 9).

  The EC Article 13 Race Directive, which should be transposed into UK law by 19 July 2003, establishes, for the first time, a minimum standard of legal protection from racial discrimination across Europe. The UK's domestic legislation already conforms to most of the provisions of the Directive. However, some technical amendments to the Race Relations Act 1976 will be required in order to implement it. The Government is
  860W
  considering a range of legislative options for achieving this. The Government intends to issue another public consultation exercise on the detailed proposals. This will take place in the autumn.

  Crimes Against Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to ensure that overseas-recruited(a) health workers and (b) social workers who are working with children have not been convicted of an offence that relates to crimes against children. [74319]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith).

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in his speech to the Labour Party conference on 2 October that forthcoming legislation on sex offenders will include a new order to make those convicted of sexual offences abroad subject to the registration requirements of the Sex Offenders Act if they come to the United Kingdom.

  Devolution (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-ordination he has undertaken of Departments' assessment of the implications of the entitlement card proposals for the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. [71964]

  Beverley Hughes
  Home Office officials met with counterparts in the Scottish Executive to discuss issues of particular relevance to the devolved administration, prior to the publication of the consultation paper on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud. These contacts will continue during the consultation exercise.

  The consultation paper states that any legislation to establish an entitlement card scheme would be enacted by the Westminster Parliament, as any scheme would need to operate on a UK-wide basis if it was to be effective as an immigration control measure.

  One of the detailed options for the scope of any legislation would allow organisations to link services to a card scheme via their own legislation. Under these arrangements, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive and Parliament to decide whether to link the services they are responsible for to a card scheme. However, they could not prevent the issuing of a card for purposes which are outside the scope of their powers, for example, the UK card as a travel document in Europe.

  Departmental Bodies
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many jobs under the remit of his Department in(a) the core department, (b) non-departmental public bodies, (c) executive agencies and (d) independent statutory bodies, organisations and bodies financially sponsored by his Department and other such organisations, are located in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, excluding Greater London, (iii) Greater London, (iv) Wales, (v) Northern Ireland and

  861W
  (vi) overseas, broken down by (A) whole-time equivalent jobs and (B) the percentage per individual department, body or organisation. [72728]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 July 2002]: The Home Office's central personnel systems do not track jobs only staff. As staff may share a job, and as a job may be vacant awaiting the posting of staff it is not possible to provide an answer in the form requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Scotland

  London

  Rest of England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Overseas

  Dept/Body/Organisation1

  No. (FTE)

  %age

  No. (FTE)

  %age

  No. (FTE)

  %age

  No. (FTE)

  %age

  No. (FTE)

  %age

  No. (FTE)

  %age

  Total (FTE)

  Core Home Office including Immigration and Nationality Departmenta

  112.8

  0.9

  8163.9

  66.3

  3921.0

  31.8

  54.8

  0.4

  9.6

  0.08

  57.6

  0.5

  12320.5

  Fire Service Collegec

  0

  0

  0

  0

  152.8

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  152.8

  Forensic Science Servicec

  0

  0

  722.6

  32.9

  1,322

  60.34

  146.4

  6.7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2191

  Passport & Records Agencyc2

  200.76

  7.32

  544.48

  19.84

  1,623.3

  59.16

  258.64

  9.43

  116.76

  4.26

  0

  0%

  2743.94

  Prison Servicec

  1

  0

  6,400.6

  15.3

  34,785.9

  82.9

  777.5

  1.9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  41,965

  Notes:

  KEY

  a"Core department (excluding agencies)

  bNon-departmental public body

  cExecutive agency

  dindependent statutory body, organisation or body financially sponsored by the department

  1Permanent Staff (fte) by Region as per MANDATE figures 31/03/01

  2Data from Passport & Records Agency is as 8 October 2002

  Asylum Seekers
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what contact his Department has had with the Chief Executive of the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the potential impact of establishing an asylum seeker accommodation centre at RAF Turnhouse on council services in Edinburgh; [74184]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the Director of Education of the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the provision of educational facilities for asylum seekers in RAF Turnhouse; [74185]

  (3) what discussions his Department has had with the Director of Social Work of the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the provision of social services for asylum seekers at RAF Turnhouse; [74187]

  (4) what discussions his Department has had with the Director of Housing of the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the provision of housing facilities for asylum seekers (a) during their stay in and (b) after their departure from RAF Turnhouse: [74186]

  (5) what consultation his Department has had with the Chief Constable of the Lothian and Borders Police regarding the policing of the area near to an asylum accommodation centre at RAF Turnhouse. [74181]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following the announcement of the shortlist of eight sites in January, my officials conducted initial consultations, including with the Leader of City of Edinburgh Council and other officers. Detailed consultations will be undertaken if it is decided to submit a planning notification in respect of the Air West Edinburgh site.
  862W
  Home Office staff figures in each region and nation of the United Kingdom are published in "Civil Service Statistics" year on year and placed in the Library. Staffing Figures for non-departmental public bodies are published in "Public Bodies 2001".

  Home Office Staffing figures as at 1 April 2001 are set out in the table. Information is provided, as at that date, to enable comparisons with other Government departments.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the measures taken to deter bogus asylum seekers in the last two years by the EU. [74450]

  Beverley Hughes
  In December 2002 Council adopted the EURODAC Regulation establishing a computerised central database of fingerprint images, as well as the electronic means for Member States to transmit fingerprint images to the central database. Once operational, expected to be early next year, EURODAC will enable the fingerprints of asylum applicants and certain other third country nationals to he compared to support the application of the Dublin Convention and its successor. This will enable the rapid identification of those seeking to abuse asylum systems by making multiple and differing claims throughout the European Union.

  In December 2001 the Laeken European Council called for urgent action to combat illegal migration, itself linked to the making of fraudulent asylum claims. In February 2002, Member States adopted a comprehensive Action Plan, which included measures on border management, readmission agreements and co-ordinating work in source and transit countries. The Seville European Council in June 2002 agreed a range of further measures to combat illegal migration.

  Immigration
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people resident in Reading, East became UK citizens in 2001. [74759]
  863W
  Beverley Hughes
  90,2951 persons were granted British citizenship in the United Kingdom in 2001. Corresponding information on grants to persons in particular constituencies is not available, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Note:

  1Provisional

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have entered the UK for the purposes of(a) visiting, (b) study,

  Passengers, given leave to enter the United Kingdom by purpose of journey, excluding EEA nationals, 1997 to 2001

  Purpose of journey

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001P

  Visitors

  7,760,000

  8,040,000

  8,370,000

  8,930,000

  8,170,000

  of which: Business visitors

  1,530,000

  1,530,000

  1,600,000

  1,770,000

  1,610,000

  Students

  278,000

  266,000

  272,000

  313,000

  339,000

  Employment related

  145,000

  161,000

  173,000

  179,000

  186,000

  of which: Work permit holders (including dependants)

  62,975

  68,385

  76,010

  91,825

  108,825

  Working holidaymakers

  33,300

  40,800

  45,800

  38,400

  35,800

  Au pairs

  15,295

  15,880

  14,645

  12,870

  11,985

  Domestic workers

  15,640

  15,825

  14,890

  14,290

  10,465

  Commonwealth citizens with a UK-born grandparent, who are seeking or taking employment

  8,350

  10,220

  11,785

  10,930

  10,635

  Seasonal agricultural workers1

  9,275

  9,450

  9,760

  10,105

  8,390

  Investors

  25

  15

  25

  50

  25

  Family reunion

  28,570

  34,705

  32,780

  36,065

  33,410

  of which: Admitted as a spouse or fianceé(e)

  26,385

  32,165

  30,320

  32,970

  29,100

  Dependants2

  2,185

  2,545

  2,460

  3,095

  4,310

  Notes:

  PData are provisional

  1May be an underestimate of those who work as seasonal agricultural workers as they may enter through other admission categories.

  2Excludes those children granted settlement on arrival as it is not possible to separate those travelling independently for family reunion from those travelling with their parents. However, in each of the five years shown these total no more than 1.800.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five or to three significant figures

  No data are currently available for the number of
  persons who have entered the UK for the purpose of humanitarian protection. It is not possible to provide information on how many asylum seekers entered the UK in any given period, because some arrive clandestinely and subsequently apply for asylum in-country rather than on arrival at UK ports. Others may enter legally with visas as visitors, or under another immigration status, and subsequently claim asylum.

  The table below shows the number of applicants who applied for asylum in the UK, both at port and in-country, in each year between 1997 and 2001.

  Applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1997 to 20011

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001P

  Applications received

  32,500

  46,015

  71,160

  80,315

  71,365

  Applied at port

  16,590

  23,345

  29,455

  25,935

  25,210

  Applied in-country

  15,915

  22,670

  41,700

  54,380

  46,160

  Notes:

  PData are provisional

  1May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000. Excludes Kosovars evacuated from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under the humanitarian operation which began in April 1999 who were granted exceptional leave for 1 year, and a number of grants of temporary exceptional leave given to Kosovars who arrived in the United Kingdom outside the evacuation programme, other than those who applied for asylum whilst in the UK. As at July

  864W
  (c) economic activity, (d) family reunion and (e) humanitarian protection in each year since 1997. [73748]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested on how many persons have entered the United Kingdom (UK) as visitors, students, for employment related and family reunion purposes are given in the table. The figures given exclude passengers who are not subject to immigration control, i.e. European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the UK.

  2000 the majority of those Kosovars who had arrived under the humanitarian evacuation operation had returned to (FRY) Former Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Ronald Biggs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the marriage of a prisoner to a foreign national has on the rights of(a) the marriage partner and (b) existing children to (i) remain in the United Kingdom, (ii) hold a British passport and (iii) obtain British citizenship. [73533]

  Beverley Hughes
  If the prisoner is not, himself, a British citizen or a person settled in the UK, then his status would not confer any entitlement on his spouse and children to remain in the UK. Providing that adequate funds were available, his spouse and children could seek leave to enter the UK for short periods to visit him in prison.

  If the prisoner is a British citizen or person settled here, a foreign national marrying him would be able to apply for leave to remain here on the basis of the marriage. The application would be considered on its merits, taking into account the following factors:
  the length of the sentence;
  whether the marriage is subsisting and the sponsor (that is the prisoner) supports the application and intends to resume co-habitation on release;

  865W
  whether the spouse is able to maintain and accommodate herself and any dependants without recourse to public funds, given that the sponsor is in prison.

  Any dependent children (under 18) could apply for leave to enter or remain in line with the conditions of the spouse.

  Marriage to a British citizen does not confer automatic British citizenship on a foreign national. The requirements for naturalisation must still be met, although they are less demanding than for naturalisation of someone not married to a British citizen.

  A legitimate child born overseas to a British citizen father and non-British citizen mother may be a British citizen from birth, whilst an illegitimate birth overseas to such parents would usually mean that the child was not a British citizen. However, if the parents of an illegitimate child subsequently marry, and the law of the country in which the father is domiciled legitimates a child of the relationship upon the parents' marriage, the child will be treated as having been born legitimate. The child would then be regarded as a British citizen from birth and would be entitled to enter and remain freely in this country.

  A person would not be entitled to hold a British passport without first obtaining British nationality.

  Passport and Records Agency
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Passport and Records Agency intends to publish its annual accounts for 2001–02. [75393]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Passport and Records Agency Accounts 2001–02 has been published today and copies of the Report have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by him and his predecessor since June 1997, stating in each case(a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged. [43377]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding reply 25 March 2002)]No unpaid advisers have been appointed by Defence Ministers since June 1997.

  For details of unpaid appointments made by the Ministry of Defence to task forces, review groups and other ad hoc advisory groups, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer provided by my hon. Friend for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 16 November 2001, Official Report, columns 895W–96W.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many overseas visits have been undertaken by 866W
  parliamentary private secretaries in his Department at departmental expense in each of the last four years; and at what cost to public funds. [36810]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]Parliamentary Private Secretaries supporting Ministers in this Department have travelled overseas on Government business on three occasions. As military transport was used no additional costs were incurred. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42581]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence integrated age into its equal opportunity policy some years ago and the Department has a commitment that there should be no unfair discrimination on the basis of age. Action on diversity has and will continue to tackle any negative attitudes, particularly through the training and development of managers and through the monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics.

  The Ministry of Defence, like other Departments, has reviewed its age retirement policy in light of the Government's commitment to tackle ageism in the workplace as set out in the Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment published in 1999 and in the Performance Innovation Unit's Report "Winning the Generation Game". The review concluded that there should be no change. In the MOD, some two-thirds of the workforce have the option to retire anytime between the age of 60 and 65.

  Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) date, (b) location and (c) purpose was of visits by ministers in his Department to Wales since 1997; and when he next intends to visit Wales. [62074]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding reply 17 June 2002]Defence Ministers have made the following visits to Wales since 1997:

  Dates

  2 March 1999

  Clwyd

  Visit to RAF Sealand/Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  7 March 1999

  St Athan

  Visit to Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  5–6 June 1999

  Cwmbran

  Rededication of War Memorial

  9 June 2000

  Chepstow

  Visit to Royal Anglian Regiment

  9 January 2002

  St Athan

  Visit to Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  7 August 2002

  St Athan

  Visit to Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to visit Wales in early November.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list external(a) public relations/ communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms,

  867W
  (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74678]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, information on expenditure on external assistance, categorised by type of work and Top Level Budget Holder, is contained in the Ministry of Defence's annual return of expenditure on External Assistance. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House since 1996.

  Equipment (Heat and Desert Conditions)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance criteria and testing procedures relating to possible use in extreme heat and desert conditions were utilised during the procurement processes for(a) the Challenger II Tank and its related AS90 self propelled gun, (b) items of military clothing, (c) C17 transport aircraft and (d) radio communication and information systems. [74649]

  Dr. Moonie
  Performance criteria and testing procedures during the procurement of any equipment or materiel are those required to ensure that the operational requirements set at that time are met. Amongst the criteria used is the Ministry of Defence series of Defence Standards (DEFStans). The performance of equipments that have been in-service for some time is routinely monitored to ensure that they continue to meet operational requirements.

  Both the Challenger II Tank and AS90 were procured against a requirement to operate in Northwest Europe. Following the experience of Exercise SAIF SAREEA II, the ability to operate more effectively in Desert conditions is being enhanced through logistic improvements and for AS90, a Desertisation Upgrade Pack.

  Military clothing must meet or exceed the relevant European and British quality standards and performance characteristics. Garments are tested for conformity and, for operational clothes, trials are conducted by the user in the required environmental conditions.

  The UK C-17 aircraft is an Off-the-Shelf solution to meet the Short Term Strategic Airlift Requirement. The aircraft has been designed, developed, tested and cleared by Boeing and the United States Air Force to operate in a wide range of environments including extreme heat and desert conditions.

  The main tactical radio communications system currently in use in the land environment is the Clansman family of radios and ancillaries. Designed for operations, over a temperature range of - 40 to + 55 degrees centigrade, in combat zones anywhere in the world, Clansman remains just as capable as it always has been to meet the requirement it was delivered against. The Design Authorities provided the temperature operating range when the equipment was procured in the 1970s.
  868W
  Ptarmigan has been the army's deployable trunk communications system since 1985 and was designed to operate in North West Europe. The three major installations, which provide the backbone of the system, operate primarily within a temperature range of - 32 to + 45 degrees centigrade. The Ptarmigan system was not designed for the desert environment, but the purchase of additional Generators, Air Conditioners, Thermal Screening Panels, when required, has enabled the system to operate adequately in the desert environment.

  The Personal Role Radio (PRR) was first deployed in July 2001. It is designed to meet any environment in which individual soldiers could realistically expect to operate and survive. In particular within a temperature range up to + 55C and in dry and desert conditions. The National Audit Office report on Exercise SAIF SAREEA II (paragraph 2.8) states that the PRR performed very well.

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made to increase the numbers of(a) engineers, (b) signallers and (c) medical services in the armed forces. [74413]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Armed Forces undertake numerous and varied recruiting and retention initiatives designed to improve the manning levels of all trades and specialisations which are experiencing, or which are predicted to encounter, shortfalls. Those undertaken to boost levels of engineers, signallers and medical services personnel are bearing fruit. In the Army, in the first six months of 2002–2003, RE enlistments are up 33 per cent., REME enlistments up 24 per cent., R Signals enlistments up 24 per cent. and AMS enlistments up by 7 per cent., over the corresponding period last year. These specialist groups are amongst those that are subject to close scrutiny because of the potential impact that any shortfalls might have on operational capability.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the performance targets for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2002–03 will be revised following the appointment of a new chief executive. [74942]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department and the new Chief Executive have reviewed the targets set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2002–2003. As a result, it was decided that there was scope for further tightening of the already high standards of service provided by the Agency since its formation in 1996. The Key Targets are now as follows:

  1. To make a progressive reduction in the unit costs of output for bills and invoices of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. by March 2004; specific annual targets to be agreed with the Owner.

  2. Produce accounting and financial information to the ISO 9001–2000 quality standard and to the times set out in the 1999 Service Level Agreement with MOD Centre.

  3. To pay 99.9 per cent. of correctly presented bills within 11 calendar days of receipt as part of the Department's 30-day payment target.

  4. To raise 97 per cent. of invoices accurately within 4 days of receipt of a correctly authorised claimable document.

  869W

  5. Reduce the overdue collectable debt to 35 per cent. of total collectable debt (based on a 6 month rolling average).

  6. To make a progressive improvement of at least 2 per cent. in the overall level of customer satisfaction compared with the targets set in 2000–2001.

  The change to key target number 3 is an effective increase in the challenge to the Agency since previous performance was rounded to the nearest per cent.

  Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much military service personnel housing is owned by his Department in(a) the UK and (b) overseas. [54643]

  Dr. Moonie
  pursuant to his reply, 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 316W. The figure for housing in England, Scotland and Wales was incorrect. This figure should have read 52,600 not 2,600 as printed in the Official Report. Similarly, the number of Quarters owned or leased by the Ministry of Defence under PFI arrangements should read 7,600, not 7,000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the assistance pledged for Afghanistan at Tokyo in January has been provided; and if she will make a statement. [74947]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo conference in January 2002, bilateral and multilateral donors pledged a total of $4.5 billion (about £2.9 billion) over five years, for both reconstruction and continuing humanitarian needs. The UK pledge was £200 million (about $285 million) over 5 years. Of the $1.8 billion pledged at Tokyo for 2002, the UN estimate that just over $1.3 billion (60 per cent.) has so far been disbursed. Humanitarian appeals are currently funded at between 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. for the larger UN agencies; however, initial estimates contained in the UN Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme document are now widely perceived to be an underestimate, as needs are likely to increase with the coming winter.

  I have increased our commitment from £1.8 million to £55 million this financial year for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Afghanistan. Of this amount, about £21.5 million has already been disbursed, mainly through UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs, for humanitarian and early recovery assistance. We have also channelled £10 million through the World Bank's Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. Of the additional £15 million recently made available for this financial year, £11 million will help meet immediate needs, including support for the ongoing refugee return programme and humanitarian requirements throughout the forthcoming winter. I have also placed a Briefing on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equality Commission
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decisions he has reached on appointments to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. [74939]

  Mr. Browne
  The reappointment of sixteen of the existing Commissioners, including the Chief Commissioner, Joan Harbison, and the Deputy Chief Commissioner, Bronagh Hinds took effect on 16 August 2002.

  The other Commissioners reappointed are:

  Jeremy Bryson

  Harry Coll

  Paul Donaghy

  Alan Henry

  John Heron

  Ann Hope

  Ruth Lavery

  Stephen Livingstone

  Margaret Logue

  Harry McConnell

  Robin Mullan

  Bob Osborne

  Monica Wilson

  Noreen Wright

  The reappointments are for varying terms of up to three years. In addition, the Secretary of State proposes to advertise for new appointments to the Commission in the next few months. In this way we hope to ensure the optimum balance between continuity and fresh thinking on the Commission as it continues its important task of promoting equality of opportunity.

  Oversight Commissioner Report
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the latest report received from the Oversight Commissioner. [74940]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Oversight Commissioner's second statutory report for 2002 was published on 10 September and a copy was laid before the House in accordance with section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

CABINET OFFICE

  The Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will issue guidance to Government Departments requiring them to keep records of every decision taken using the Royal Prerogative and to place such records in the Library every 12 months. [71682]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 802W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  National Forest Company
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will report on the National Forest Company's progress in creating the National Forest in the East Midlands. [74943]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have arranged for copies of the National Forest Company's Annual Report and its Accounts for 2001–2002 to he placed in the House libraries.

  Habitats Directive
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes are planned to improve implementation of EC Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) where European-protected species are found on development sites in England. [74944]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has decided it is necessary to make improvements to the arrangements for the implementation of the Habitats Directive in respect of European protected species and the land-use planning regime in England.

  We are proposing, with the agreement of my noble Friend, Lord Rooker, Minister for Planning, to improve the protection afforded to these threatened species by integrating the requirements of the Directive within the land-use planning process, ensuring consideration of all the relevant issues within the planning process rather than in two separate regimes. Officials in Defra and the

  Slaughters that have occurred on dangerous contact premises since the last case of foot and mouth disease on 30 September 2001

  Date individual seropositive animal bled

  Reason for testing

  Initial Result

  Rebleed requested

  No. of animals at time of sampling

  No. of animals slaughtered

  Method of disposal

  Location of disposal site

  Probang sample and Final result

  01/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  57

  57 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  04/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  653

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  09/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  100

  95 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  12/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  402

  387 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  16/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  176

  2 goats

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  20/10/01

  Pre-movement

  Seropositive

  Yes

  266

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  24/10/01

  Pre-movement

  Seropositive

  Yes

  105

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  26/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  1280

  I sheep

  Mass burial

  Tow Law

  No virus detected by probang

  30/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  148

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  31/10/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  407

  360 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  4/11/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  2067

  9 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  05/11/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  129

  129 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  05/11/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  2000

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  872W
  ODPM have worked closely together in drawing up the proposals and a public consultation will be published shortly.

  The proposals should improve the implementation of the Habitats Directive by ensuring that planning authorities take the Directive's provisions relating to European protected species, such as great crested newts and bats, fully into account in considering development applications. The proposals will also reduce the regulatory burden on business by integrating the two regimes and thereby removing the need for a separate consent to be sought following grant of planning permission. It will therefore be a quicker, more streamlined and effective process.

  In the interim period, our Department will continue to operate the licensing system for developments affecting European protected species but with some administrative improvements.

  Slaughtering
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates slaughters have occurred on dangerous contact premises since 30 September 2001; if she will list(a) the number of premises and animals involved on each occasion broken down by type, (b) the numbers tested, with details of the types of test carried out and the results on each occasion, (c) the locations of the disposal sites of carcasses and method of disposal and (d) the number of premises and animals that were additionally slaughtered out on other premises as a result of the identification of infection of premises relating to these activities; and if she will make a statement. [74699]

  Margaret Beckett
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  873W

  Slaughters that have occurred on dangerous contact premises since the last case of foot and mouth disease on 30 September 2001

  Date individual seropositive animal bled

  Reason for testing

  Initial Result

  Rebleed requested

  No. of animals at time of sampling

  No. of animals slaughtered

  Method of disposal

  Location of disposal site

  Probang sample and Final result

  6/11/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  584

  68 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  17/11/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  591

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  04/12/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  1539

  1 sheep

  Render

  Lancaster

  No virus detected by probang

  18/12/01

  Serosurveillance

  Seropositive

  Yes

  2067

  2067 sheep

  Render

  Bradford

  No virus detected by probang

  03/01/02

  Pre-movement test

  Seropositive

  Yes

  332

  2 sheep

  Render

  Bradford

  No virus detected by probang

  17/01/02

  Restocking

  Seropositive

  Yes

  156

  1 sheep

  Render

  Widnes

  No virus detected by probang

  15/02/02

  Restocking

  Seropositive

  Yes

  170

  1 sheep

  Incineration

  Stratford-Upon-Avon

  No virus detected by probang

  05/03/02

  Restocking

  Seropositive

  Yes

  424

  1 sheep

  Incineration

  Stratford-Upon-Avon

  No virus detected by probang

  Notes:

  The tests used was the Competitive ELISA test.

  Seropositives had probang tests carried out after slaughter. This was to try and isolate virus rather than just antibody.

  All probangs returned negative results.

  If a positive result had returned the farm would have been designated an Infected Premises.

  No premises were slaughtered out as dangerous contacts as a result of these cases.

  Timber
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she provides on the timber procurement strategy. [74602]

  Mr. Meacher
  Advice on the timber procurement strategy is currently given in Section 3 of the Green Guide for Buyers. A copy is on the "Sustainable Development in Government" web site, which also includes other guidance on the subject. URL:http:// www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/ contextf.htm.

  My officials have also provided Departments with a model specification clause for inclusion in contracts for timber procurement. Ministers do however recognise that better guidance is required if buyers are to be fully equipped to resolve the complexities involved in procuring timber and timber products from legal and sustainably managed sources. This is one of the issues addressed by consultants in their report on the timber scoping study that was commissioned by Defra in October 2001 and is currently under consideration. A copy of the report is on the Tropical Forest Forum's web site. Look in Forum activities/Trade/Timber Trade at http://www.forestforum.org.uk.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many educational maintenance allowances are available; and at what annual cost. [74631]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]Education Maintenance Allowances are available to all those young people who are resident in a pilot area, who meet the relevant eligibility criteria for that particular pilot and who meet the conditions of their Learning 874W
  Agreement. The actual amount the young person receives also depends on the particular variant being piloted in their area. Take-up of EMA varies from one LEA area to another depending on the variant being tested and on the level of marketing carried out by the LEA and other local partners. In the last academic year over 120,000 young people benefited from EMA across all pilot areas. This figure will increase again this year when the pilot scheme reaches steady state with two cohorts of young people in all 56 areas. The cost of the scheme, including evaluation and other related pilot activity, was slightly over £99 million for the last financial year.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she has completed evaluation of the pilot education maintenance allowances. [74630]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]The evaluation of the EMA pilots began in Spring 1999 and is scheduled for completion next year. The evaluation was designed with two purposes. The first was to determine how effective an EMA approach was in increasing participation, retention and achievement amongst young people from low-income families. The second was to provide evidence on the most effective aspects of the various models being tested.

  Evidence from the first two years of the pilots shows that EMAs increased participation in full-time education in Year 12 by 5.9 percentage points among eligible young people. The participation gain was further increased to 7.3 percentage points in Year 13. On this basis we decided to extend EMAs nationally from September 2004. We are now looking to further evidence to inform the development of the most effective model for national implementation.

  Full-time Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the definition which she uses of full-time education. [74788]
  875W
  Mr. Miliband
  There is no legal definition of full-time education for state maintained schools. In providing full-time education to pupils, LEAs should look to DfES Circulars 7/90 and 11/99 as to the number of hours recommended for pupils at each key stage. Neither circular imposes a statutory requirement on LEAs, but provides guidance only. Circular 7/90 establishes a general guide to good practice on lesson time, which OFSTED echo in their guidance. The suggested weekly lesson times are as follows:

  Age

  Hours

  5–7

  21

  8–11

  23.5

  12–14

  24

  14–16

  25

  Information on Circulars 7/90 and 11/99 can be accessed at www.dfes.gov.uk/guidanceonthelaw/

  For further education purposes, students classified for statistical purposes as full-time are defined as those enrolled on programmes of at least 450 guided learning hours per year, or for at least 150 guided learning hours per tri-annual period or more than 16 guided learning hours per week for shorter courses.

  For higher education, the Higher Education Statistics Agency's definition is:
  "The Funding Councils have agreed that a common definition of full-time is that the years of programme of study must involve a minimum of 24 weeks study."

  Student Loans
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will provide monthly loans payments to higher education students. [73971]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have no plans to do so for 2003/04. Nevertheless, we are looking at what flexibility on payments might be introduced later as part of our programme to modernise student support.

  16–19-Year-Olds
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of full-time students stayed in education in the Huntingdon constituency after the age of(a) 16 and (b) 18 years in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [74224]

  Margaret Hodge
  Data on the percentage of students staying on in full-time education are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs as reliable estimates cannot be made. Participation rates at sub-national level are only available for 16 and 17 year olds. The latest available data are for end 1999 and are published in the annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region. England".

  Huntingdon constituency is part of Cambridgeshire LEA. Prior to 1998/99 Cambridgeshire LEA was included in the aggregated Cambridgeshire and Peterborough LEA, therefore two sets of figures are given below. The first columns set out the participation rates for 16 and 17 year olds in full-time education for
  876W
  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough LEA at end 1997 and end 1999; the second group for Cambridgeshire LEA at end 1998 and end 1999:

  16 and 17 year olds in full-time education

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough LEA

  Cambridgeshire LEA

  Age

  end 1997

  end 1997

  end 1998

  end 1999

  16

  71

  75

  71

  75

  17

  62

  59

  58

  60

  Local Initiative Fund Scheme
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what allocations of funding were made by the Greater Manchester Learning Skills Council to each of the boroughs under the Local Initiative Fund Scheme for 2001–02. [74190]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood the Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  British Educational Communications and Technology Agency
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency Quinquennial Review. [75392]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the review is being carried out in two stages. I am now in a position to make an announcement about the outcome of Stage 1 and the basis on which work will be taken forward on Stage 2

  The Government has today published the report "Quinquennial Review of the British Educational and Communications Technology Agency (Becta)—Stage 1 October 2002", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The report underlines Becta's key role in working with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that schools and colleges take full advantage of every opportunity to exploit the transformational impact of ICT. The work they do is vital in ensuring that schools and colleges are provided with the best possible advice on a range of ICT issues from procuring value for money equipment to managing websites and, most importantly, ensuring that ICT is embedded in every aspect of teaching and learning.

  Many of the recommendations made in the report have already been acted upon by both Becta and the DfES and have been reflected in Becta's Corporate Plan, 2002–05. It provides valuable pointers on the direction in which Becta should be moving. Stage two of the Review will take forward the issues in this report. It will concentrate on the future of Becta, providing greater emphasis on looking at how services and functions could be provided more effectively.

  I am looking forward to continuing to work with Becta on our challenging objectives on ICT in schools and ensure that pupils leave education with the ICT skills necessary for the modern workplace.

  Disability Rights
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on actions taken by(a) her Department, (b) other Government departments and (c) education providers in connection with the introduction of disability rights to post-16 education. [74667]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) exempted educational institutions from its provisions. Through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, my Department has plugged an unacceptable gap in the DDA to include all bodies responsible for Further and Higher Education and LEA-secured adult and community education, within its provisions.

  We are implementing the new duties in three stages:
  From 1 September 2002 it is unlawful to discriminate against disabled students by treating them less favourably than others. In addition, responsible bodies have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to provision where disabled students might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged.

  Number of Three and Four Year Olds1,2 in Maintained Nursery and Primary Schools January 2002 (Provisional)

  Pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes

  Pupils in infant classes in primary schools3

  All pupils under 5 in nursery and primary schools

  ENGLAND

  341,221

  357,496

  698,717

  NORTH EAST

  28,990

  19,452

  48,442

  Darlington

  1,214

  798

  2,012

  Durham

  5,279

  3,686

  8,965

  Gateshead

  1,837

  1,422

  3,259

  Hartlepool

  1,248

  740

  1,988

  Middlesbrough

  2,166

  1,185

  3,351

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,488

  1,860

  4,348

  North Tyneside

  2,336

  1,499

  3,835

  Northumberland

  2,880

  2,410

  5,290

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,031

  1,077

  3,108

  South Tyneside

  1,821

  1,184

  3,005

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,330

  1,451

  3,781

  Sunderland

  3,360

  2,140

  5,500

  NORTH WEST

  54,226

  53,532

  107,758

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1,363

  1,358

  2,721

  Blackpool

  428

  1,094

  1,522

  Bolton

  2,721

  2,215

  4,936

  Bury

  1,527

  1,390

  2,917

  Cheshire

  3,073

  4,999

  8,072

  Cumbria

  3,314

  3,520

  6,834

  Halton

  815

  937

  1,752

  Knowsley

  2,438

  1,309

  3,747

  Lancashire

  5,817

  8,737

  14,554

  Liverpool

  4,756

  3,390

  8,146

  Manchester

  5,368

  3,448

  8,816

  Oldham

  2,198

  2,075

  4,273

  Rochdale

  1,904

  1,778

  3,682

  Salford

  2,442

  1,863

  4,305

  Sefton

  2,566

  2,118

  4,684

  St. Helens

  1,479

  1,414

  2,893

  Stockport

  2,378

  2,164

  4,542

  Tameside

  2,173

  1,820

  3,993

  Trafford

  2,120

  1,620

  3,740

  Warrington

  1,253

  1,558

  2,811

  Wigan

  1,986

  2,342

  4,328

  Wirral

  2,107

  2,383

  4,490

  878W
  From 1 September 2003 responsible bodies will have a duty to make adjustments involving the provision of auxiliary aids and services.
  From 1 September 2005 responsible bodies will have a duty to make adjustments to physical features of premises where these put disabled students at a substantial disadvantage.

  My Department is working with the Disability Rights Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, the Higher Education Funding Council and other partners in the post-16 sector, to support providers in implementing the new duties with additional funding and guidance. £172m has been allocated over the years 2002–04.

  Infant Classes
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children under the age of five years are being taught in infant classes in primary education, broken down by local education authority. [74282]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information for maintained primary schools is shown in the table along with, for completeness, figures for under 5's in maintained nursery schools and classes.
  879W

  Number of Three and Four Year Olds1,2 in Maintained Nursery and Primary Schools January 2002 (Provisional)

  Pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes

  Pupils in infant classes in primary schools3

  All pupils under 5 in nursery and primary schools

  YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER

  48,330

  35,763

  84,093

  Barnsley

  3,010

  796

  3,806

  Bradford

  6,333

  4,130

  10,463

  Calderdale

  1,678

  1,652

  3,330

  Doncaster

  3,225

  2,412

  5,637

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,012

  1,838

  3,850

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  3,285

  1,359

  4,644

  Kirklees

  3,463

  3,348

  6,811

  Leeds

  7,224

  5,532

  12,756

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,700

  949

  2,649

  North Lincolnshire

  1,283

  921

  2,204

  North Yorkshire

  2,460

  4,188

  6,648

  Rotherham

  2,667

  2,048

  4,715

  Sheffield

  4,502

  3,770

  8,272

  Wakefield

  4,458

  1,635

  6,093

  York

  1,030

  1,185

  2,215

  EAST MIDLANDS

  30,966

  27,738

  58,704

  Derby

  2,708

  1,709

  4,417

  Derbyshire

  5,611

  5,355

  10,966

  Leicester

  3,898

  1,750

  5,648

  Leicestershire

  224

  4,746

  4,970

  Lincolnshire

  2,461

  5,003

  7,464

  Northamptonshire

  3,281

  5,051

  8,332

  Nottingham

  4,671

  774

  5,445

  Nottinghamshire

  8,009

  3,126

  11,135

  Rutland

  103

  224

  327

  WEST MIDLANDS

  42,930

  42,478

  85,408

  Birmingham

  10,047

  9,236

  19,283

  Coventry

  2,677

  2,439

  5,116

  Dudley

  2,959

  2,481

  5,440

  Herefordshire

  570

  1,177

  1,747

  Sandwell

  4,086

  2,578

  6,664

  Shropshire

  1,333

  1,064

  2,397

  Solihull

  2,127

  1,737

  3,864

  Staffordshire

  3,665

  7,284

  10,949

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,492

  1,883

  4,375

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,527

  665

  2,192

  Walsall

  3,911

  2,225

  6,136

  Warwickshire

  2,054

  3,774

  5,828

  Wolverhampton

  3,411

  1,934

  5,345

  Worcestershire

  2,071

  4,001

  6,072

  EAST OF ENGLAND

  28,564

  38,233

  66,797

  Bedfordshire

  2,564

  2,713

  5,277

  Cambridgeshire

  1,715

  4,112

  5,827

  Essex

  3,770

  8,569

  12,339

  Hertfordshire

  10,198

  8,523

  18,721

  Luton

  1,631

  1,527

  3,158

  Norfolk

  2,703

  5,563

  8,266

  Peterborough

  427

  1,437

  1,864

  Southend-on-Sea

  769

  1,283

  2,052

  Suffolk

  3,746

  3,548

  7,294

  Thurrock

  1,041

  958

  1,999

  LONDON

  70,921

  51,725

  122,646

  INNER LONDON

  30,812

  19,887

  50,699

  Camden

  1,270

  988

  2,258

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  2,254

  1,571

  3,825

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,762

  540

  2,302

  Haringey

  2,736

  1,959

  4,695

  Islington

  1,778

  1,358

  3,136

  Kensington and Chelsea

  891

  611

  1,502

  Lambeth

  2,635

  1,718

  4,353

  Lewisham

  2,698

  1,894

  4,592

  Newham

  4,771

  2,779

  7,550

  Southwark

  3,109

  2,116

  5,225

  Tower Hamlets

  3,209

  1,958

  5,167

  880W 881W

  Number of Three and Four Year Olds1,2 in Maintained Nursery and Primary Schools January 2002 (Provisional)

  Pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes

  Pupils in infant classes in primary schools3

  All pupils under 5 in nursery and primary schools

  Wandsworth

  2,208

  1,587

  3,795

  Westminster

  1,491

  808

  2,299

  OUTER LONDON

  40,109

  31,838

  71,947

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,150

  1,635

  3,785

  Barnet

  2,577

  2,244

  4,821

  Bexley

  1,925

  1,822

  3,747

  Brent

  2,480

  1,962

  4,442

  Bromley

  342

  2,337

  2,679

  Croydon

  2,902

  2,646

  5,548

  Ealing

  3,590

  2,293

  5,883

  Enfield

  1,928

  2,427

  4,355

  Greenwich

  3,273

  1,078

  4,351

  Harrow

  1,076

  1,533

  2,609

  Havering

  948

  1,764

  2,712

  Hillingdon

  3,383

  2,002

  5,385

  Hounslow

  2,205

  1,708

  3,913

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,311

  989

  2,300

  Merton

  2,037

  1,234

  3,271

  Redbridge

  2,491

  1,940

  4,431

  Richmond upon Thames

  840

  1,121

  1,961

  Sutton

  1,844

  53

  1,897

  Waltham Forest

  2,807

  1,050

  3,857

  SOUTH EAST

  23,843

  52,900

  76,743

  Bracknell Forest

  767

  243

  1,010

  Brighton and Hove

  1,127

  1,577

  2,704

  Buckinghamshire

  1,364

  3,661

  5,025

  East Sussex

  775

  3,433

  4,208

  Hampshire

  785

  9,278

  10,063

  Isle of Wight

  158

  894

  1,052

  Kent

  1,914

  10,573

  12,487

  Medway

  589

  2,202

  2,791

  Milton Keynes

  783

  1,670

  2,453

  Oxfordshire

  3,567

  1,765

  5,332

  Portsmouth

  611

  1,379

  1,990

  Reading

  1,759

  156

  1,915

  Slough

  1,740

  736

  2,476

  Southampton

  473

  1,575

  2,048

  Surrey

  3,568

  7,312

  10,880

  West Berkshire

  840

  752

  1,592

  West Sussex

  1,169

  5,194

  6,363

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1,045

  97

  1,142

  Wokingham

  809

  403

  1,212

  SOUTH WEST

  12,451

  35,675

  48,126

  Bath and North East Somerset

  385

  1,199

  1,584

  Bournemouth

  350

  1,019

  1,369

  Bristol, City of

  3,553

  2,787

  6,340

  Cornwall

  1,652

  3,637

  5,289

  Devon

  1,899

  4,628

  6,527

  Dorset

  290

  2,482

  2,772

  Gloucestershire

  124

  4,102

  4,226

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  15

  15

  North Somerset

  262

  1,334

  1,596

  Plymouth

  984

  1,837

  2,821

  Poole

  131

  925

  1,056

  Somerset

  655

  3,694

  4,349

  South Gloucestershire

  473

  2,144

  2,617

  Swindon

  605

  1,610

  2,215

  Torbay

  661

  857

  1,518

  Wiltshire

  427

  3,405

  3,832

  Notes:

  1Headcount of children aged three and four at 31st December in the previous calendar year.

  2Includes two year olds.

  3Includes reception and other classes not designated as nursery classes

  … Not available. Data not reported by City of London Local Education Authority.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much university tuition fees are what they will be next year; and what plans she has to increase this amount. [73382]

  Margaret Hodge
  In the academic year 2002/03, the maximum student contribution towards tuition fees for full-time undergraduates in England and Wales attending courses at publicly funded institutions of higher education is £1,100. This represents a 2.4 per cent. increase over the corresponding fee rate for the previous year. Fee rates are uprated annually on the basis of price inflation; those for 2003/04 are due to be announced in December.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, when she will publish her review of student finance. [74668]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: We plan to publish our review of student finance later in the Autumn, as part of the strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education.

  Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what plans she has to create a sector skills council for the voluntary sector [74638]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: The Sector Skills Development Agency is responsible for discussing and assessing proposals for Sector Skills Councils made by employers. The Agency then advises government about the award of a Sector Skills Council licence having fully considered the strength of the proposal in meeting the rigorous Sector Skills Council standard. Discussions are currently taking place between voluntary sector representatives and the Agency about the prospect of a strong proposal for a Sector Skills Council or what alternative arrangements might better serve this broad sector.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Court Service
    Mrs. Humble
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she intends to publish the Court Service Annual report and Accounts for 2001–02. [75192]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Court Service Annual Report and Accounts for 2001–2002 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Pensions (EU Objectives)
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made against the 11 EU objectives for pension systems. [75389]
    884W
    Mr. McCartney
    A copy of the UK National Strategy Report on pensions was placed in the Library on 19 September 2002. The Report is the UK's contribution to the exchange of information and best practice on pensions between Member States agreed by the European Council at Laeken in December 2001. It contains information on current pensions policy.

    Major Accident Hazards Directive
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the European Commission proposal to amend Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. [75391]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Seveso II Directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances aims to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences for human health and the environment. Pressure to amend the Directive follows a number of recent accidents involving dangerous substances.

    The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee recommended that the UK's handling of two of the provisions within the European Commission proposal should be subject to a debate by European Standing Committee A. This was due to take place on 15 October, but has been postponed.

    Political Agreement to a Council Common Position on the proposal will be reached at the Environment Council on 17 October.

    Social Security Advisory Committee
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for reviewing the Social Security Advisory Committee. [75390]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    In line with normal practice for periodic review of non-departmental public bodies, I have asked that a review be conducted of the Social Security Advisory Committee which begins today. The review will look at the rationale for establishing the Committee, its past performance and its organisational structure. It will consider the role of the organisation in the future and may make recommendations for change.

    I have appointed Professor Hazel Genn to act as independent reviewer. We will be taking views from interested parties through a consultation exercise. I am sure the review will produce interesting and helpful results.

    State Retirement Pension
    Mr. Ruffley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the value of the basic state retirement pension if the retirement age were raised to(a) 70 years and (b) 75 years of age and if the pension tax credit were abolished in its first full year of implementation and the savings used to increase the basic state retirement pension; [71575]

    (2) if he will estimate the value of the basic state retirement pension if Government spending on the basic state pension for 2002–03 were kept constant but the retirement age was raised to (a) 70 years and (b) 75 years of age; [71576]
    885W
    (3) if he will estimate the saving in expenditure on the basic state retirement pension in 2002–03 if the retirement age were raised to (a) 70 and (b) 75 years of age. [71578]

    Mr. McCartney
    [holding answer 24 July 2002]Currently, State Pension Age is 60 for women and 65 for men, but this will be equalised at age 65 from 2020 with gradual introduction from 2010. It will not be possible to raise the State Pension Age further until 2020. Assuming the same phasing in period (ie ten years to raise the SPA by five years) then at 2030, if the State Pension Age was raised to 70, the Basic State Pension could be around £120 in today's prices. Similarly, if, by April 2040 the State Pension Age was 75, the Basic State Pension could be around £190 in today's prices.

    The Government Actuary's Department estimate that if the state pension age were raised gradually from 65 in 2020 to 70 in 2030 around 1.9 million people who are alive today would reach age 65 in the future but would not be expected to reach the relevant revised state pension age.

    If the state pension age were raised from 65 in 2020 to 70 in 2030 and to 75 in 2040 around 4.4 million people who are alive today would reach age 65 in the future but would not be expected to reach the relevant revised state pension age.

    These figures assume that a change in the state pension age is fully phased in by 2030–40 and that all savings from not paying State Pension prior to these ages, including money allocated to the Pension Credit, are used to pay the Basic State Pension. In addition, these figures ignore the effects on other benefits.

    Notes:

    1 Figures are for 2020 in 2002 prices.

    2 The calculations are based on the scenario 1 costs of the Pension Credit in 2020 set out in the DWP publication "The Pension Credit: Long-term projections".

    3 Figures take account of current uprating policy.

    4 Note 4 Source: 2000-based population projections for Great Britain.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many stakeholder pensions have now been taken out; and what their distribution is by convenient income bands of(a) the participant, (b) their spouse and (c) their parents. [74642]

    Mr. McCartney
    [holding answer on 15 October 2002]: Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) show that up to the end of June 2002 1,011,934 stakeholder pension policies had been sold. A breakdown of distribution by income bands is not available. However figures published by the ABI in March 2002 show that in cases where earnings of policyholders are known to providers, then the majority of them (60 per cent.) have earnings of between £10,000 and £30,000 a year. Official figures from the Inland Revenue showing the earning bands of policyholders in the 2001–2002 tax year are expected to be available by the end of the current tax year.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,886W
    Official Report, column 96W, on disability living allowance, how many applicants whose initial claim for disability living allowance was rejected in Portsmouth, South appealed against the rejection in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [73996]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants for disability living allowance were(a) granted, (b) unsuccessful, (c) granted on appeal and (d) granted on review in the Portsmouth. South constituency in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [73882]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available.

    Ageing (Madrid Plan)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Regional Implementation Strategy for the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002, adopted by EU ministers on 13 September; [74322]

    (2) If he will publish an action plan to take forward the recommendations of the Regional Implementation Strategy for the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002, adopted by EU ministers on 13 September. [74323]

    Mr. McCartney
    The Regional Implementation Strategy for the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002 was adopted by UNECE Ministers on 13 September. The Government believes that existing policies for older people will provide the basis for progress towards the ten priorities of the Regional Strategy.

    The Strategy aims to support member states' response to the challenges and opportunities of population ageing, in order to achieve a society for all ages. It does not set mandatory requirements, nor does it require member states to produce action plans to take forward the recommendations. UNECE member states will determine follow up arrangements in line with decisions made by the Commission for Social Development of the UN.

    New Deal 50-plus
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 97W, on the New Deal 50-plus programme, how far his Department has extended its use of the New Deal 50-plus programme to support its staff recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [74546]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    In July 2002 the New Deal 50-plus programme was extended across the whole of the Department for Work and Pensions. Guidance was issued to encourage managers to employ participants from across the New Deal programmes including New Deal 50-plus.

    Participants on New Deal 50-plus will receive training and support to help them compete effectively at Fair & Open competition to become a permanent employee. It is therefore hoped that many of our New Deal

    887W
    employees (including those from the 50-plus category) will secure permanent employment with the Department.

    By next summer we aim to recruit sufficient people across all our New Deal programmes to reflect the Department's proportionate share in the labour market. Data will be available on our progress towards this later this year.

  HEALTH

    Generic Medicine Prices
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statutory maximum price scheme covering generic medicines supplied for use in the NHS in primary care. [74941]

    Mr. Lammy
    We are today announcing a review of the maximum price scheme. A copy of the consultation letter setting out the Government's proposals and timetable to roll the scheme forward, unchanged, has been placed in the Library.

    Elective Hospital Spells
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the activity levels were in the quarter to(a) March 2000 and (b) March 2001 for (i) general and (ii) acute elective hospital spells. [61440]

    Mr. Hutton
    There is no distinction made between general and acute elective hospital spells. All elective spells are acute other than geriatric medicine. The figures requested are available on the Department's website at www.doh.gsi.gov.uk/hes.

    Reservists
    Jon Trickett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact upon the NHS of the call-up of military reservists during the Gulf War; and how many(a) nurses, (b) GPs, (c) medical consultants and (d) other health care professionals were subject to call-up as reservists. [74648]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department has not made an assessment of the impact on the National Health Service of the call up of military reservists during the Gulf War, and did not collect information about the number of reservists who were subject to call up.

    Delayed Discharge and Energy Readmission
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level the fines for(a) social services and (b) NHS trusts will be for (i) emergency readmissions and (ii) delayed discharges; and if he will make a statement. [74535]

    Jacqui Smith
    The consultation on reimbursement for delayed discharge closed on the 18 September. In the consultation document it was suggested that the reimbursement for delayed discharge should be £120 per day in London and the South East and £100 throughout the rest of England. The consultation document also suggested that there should be no charge for emergency readmissions since these would be treated as part of the 888W
    same episode of care under the new financial flows regime due to be implemented from 2004. If a National Health Service trust discharges a patient too early, they will face the risk that the patient will be readmitted, and the hospital will face the additional costs it incurs for this readmission.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the delays in Criminal Records Bureau checks on(a) social workers, (b) other social care staff and (c) voluntary health organisations working with children; and if he will make a statement. [74537]

    Jacqui Smith
    I am aware of the current delays in processing checks by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). The Department is working across government with the CRB to minimise the effect this has on workers in all sectors who require checks.

    Ethical Foreign Nurse Recruitment
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number and percentage of(a) recruitment agencies and (b) overseas nurses that are part of the ethical nurse recruitment code of practice. [74321]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department has written to 92 agencies informing them that it is compiling a list of recruitment agencies. So far 30 recruitment agencies have been placed on this list who are complying with the code of practice.

    All nurses from abroad should be recruited into the National Health Service in accordance with the code of practice.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 148W, on mental health, if he will list the additional financial resources that are planned for the appointment of mental health workers for the next year; and if he will make a statement. [74712]

    Jacqui Smith
    Decisions on funding for mental health workers for next year will be made later in the Autumn as part of the work on primary care trusts allocations and central budgets.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many graduate primary care mental health workers trained in brief therapy techniques, as outlined in the NHS Plan have been employed in each of the last years; and if he will make a statement. [74541]

    Jacqui Smith
    The NHS Plan set out that one thousand new graduate primary care mental health workers trained in brief therapy techniques of proven effectiveness will be employed by 2004 to help general practitioners manage and treat common mental health problems in all age groups, including children. Funds to support the appointment of 1000 such staff will be allocated in 2003–4. Central information on the number appointed is not yet available. This year, £2.5 million has been made available to establish new training
    889W
    programmes to support the new workers when they are employed. This initiative is being led by Trent workforce development confederation and information about the process is due to be placed on the web site very shortly.

    Care Staff
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential child care staff were qualified at GNVQ level 3 by March; and how many still needed to be qualified to NVQ level 3 as per the requirement set out in The Government's Objectives for Children's Social Services. [74531]

    Jacqui Smith
    The application forms for the training support programme grant that local councils completed in April 2002 provide the following data about residential child care staff and national vocational qualifications (NVQs):

    Number who have achieved their NVQ Level 3

    2,020

    Number who need to obtain their NVQ Level 3

    7,592

    However, the above figures do not include all the residential child care staff in the voluntary and private sectors as we do not collect data from these sectors.

    The National Minimum Standards for Children's Homes includes a standard stating that "A minimum ratio of 80 per cent. of all care staff have completed their Level 3 in caring for children and young people NVQ by January 2005." This standard will be monitored by the National Care Standards Commission during their inspections of all children's homes.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees were working in(a) social services departments, (b) residential care, (c) domiciliary care and (d) intermediate care in each of the last five years. [74533]

    Jacqui Smith
    Data on the numbers of employees working on intermediate care services, and the numbers of staff working in the independent care sector are not available centrally. The whole-time equivalent numbers of staff employed by local authorities in social services departments, residential care services and domiciliary care services between 1997 and 2001 (the latest date for which data are available) are shown in the table.

    wte

    Year (as at 30 September)

    Social Services Department

    Residential Care

    Domiciliary Services

    1997

    229,400

    65,400

    53,600

    1998

    223,500

    62,100

    50,500

    1999

    221,700

    59,200

    47,200

    2000

    217,500

    56,600

    42,900

    2001

    212,000

    53,800

    40,200

    Source:

    Form SSDS001.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many statistical tables requested by hon. Members in parliamentary questions have been placed in the Library and not been published in the Official Report in the last five years. [74545]
    890W
    Mr. Lammy
    The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    The Department places in the Library any attachments to answers, such as statistical tables or published documents, whose excessive length or complicated format precludes their inclusion in the Official Report. This is standard practice across Government Departments. Such documents are also routinely made available on the Department's website wherever possible.

    Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many CA MHS in-patient beds were provided in each year since 1997(a) in total, (b) in England and (c) in each local authority; how many are planned to be provided in the next two years; and if he will make a satement. [74315]

    Jacqui Smith
    This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The table gives the average daily number of available beds in wards classified as children: mental illness, in National Health Service trusts in England for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01.

    The provision of child and adolescent mental health in-patient facilities is being considered as part of the development of the new children's national service framework, on which work is proceeding. We will be increasing the number of secure adolescent mental health beds by 24 in a new unit in Birmingham by autumn 2003.

    Average daily number of available beds in wards classified as children: mental illness, NHS trusts in England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

    Year

    Mental Illness

    1996–97

    538

    1997–98

    522

    1998–99

    538

    1999–00(1)

    482

    2000–01

    531

    Note:

    Beds in wards classified as children's mental illness do not cover all the child and adolescent mental health services provision available. Some facilities designed for older adolescents may be included in "other ages" mental illness.

    Source:

    Department of Health form KHO3

    (1) 1999-00 data were incomplete.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) amount and (b) proportion of mental health expenditure has been on child and adolescent services for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the adequacy of this expenditure. [74316]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not available for the last five years. However our estimate for the likely mental health expenditure in 2001–02 and the proportion spent on child and adolescent mental health services is shown in the table, with an estimate on the personal social services (PSS) expenditure.
    891W
    We appreciate that child and adolescent mental health services still need to be developed further. The work being taken forward by the child and adolescent mental health external working group of the children's national service framework will do much to inform our future expenditure.

    Estimated Mental Health Expenditure 2001/2 £ million (per cent.)

    CAMHS

    Adult MH

    Elderly

    Total

    HCHS

    289

    3171

    194

    3654

    (8%)

    (87%)

    (5%)

    (100%)

    PSS

    269

    678

    376

    1323

    (20%)

    (51%)

    (28%)

    (100%)

    Total

    558

    3849

    570

    4977

    (11%)

    (77%)

    (12%)

    (100%)

    Notes.

    1. Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) costs exclude the costs of primary care and drugs.

    2. Personal Social Services (PSS) costs include Children's Social Services (CSS) costs where appropriate.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 129W, on CAMHS innovation projects, what the publication date is for the overview report of the CAMHS innovation plan; and if he will make a statement on its launch at the national conference. [74610]

    Jacqui Smith
    The report will be published on 4 December, the day of the National Conference.

    Older People's Taskforce
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) former members of and (b) new appointees to the Older People's Taskforce; and if he will make a statement. [74317]

    Jacqui Smith
    The former members of the older people's taskforce are:

    Mr. Harry Cayton, chief executive Alzheimers Society

    Dr. Peter Melton, general practitioner, Lincolnshire

    Mr. David Panter, then Chief Executive Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

    Mr. Chai Patel, Westminster Healthcare

    Mrs. Beth Taylor, pharmacy manager, South London Community National Health Service Trust

    Mr. David White, then chief executive Suffolk Health Authority

    The new appointees to the older people's taskforce are:

    Ms Wendy Harris, pharmacist

    Mr. Stan Davidson/Mrs. Jean Wormwell (alternates), Older People's Reference Group

    Mr. Richard Humphries, director, Health and Social Care Change Agents team

    Ms Diana Whitworth, chief executive. Carers UK

    The older people's taskforce plays an important role advising the Department on the implementation of policy for older people's services across the NHS and social care.

    Health and Social Workers (Overseas Recruitment)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place to ensure that overseas-recruited(a) health workers and (b) social workers who are working with children have not been convicted of an offence that relates to crimes against children. [74318]

    Jacqui Smith:2
    Health Service Circular HSC 2002/008, Pre and Post Appointment Checks for All Persons Working in the NHS in England, instructs National Health Service bodies through the Secretary of State's power of direction to carry out a comprehensive range of pre and post appointment checks before appointments are confirmed. This includes the appointment of staff recruited from overseas. Where the post involves care of children within the terms of the Protection of Children Act, employers must check the Protection of Children Act List before making the appointment. In addition, before taking up such a post, applicants must inform the appointing NHS body if they have been convicted or charged with a criminal offence in the United Kingdom or in any other country. Failure to do so may be a dismissible offence.

    The Criminal Records Bureau will soon be launching an advisory service to employers about the availability of criminal record checks in a variety of countries.

    Equally it is the duty of individual social care employers to carry out necessary checks to ensure that employees recruited from oversees are fit to practice.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue a code of practice for social services departments recruiting social workers from other countries; and if he will make a statement. [74532]

    Jacqui Smith
    There are no current plans to issue a special code of practice covering recruitment from other countries. The onus is on the employer to ensure that all recruits meet appropriate standards, wherever they originate from.

    At present the general social care council offers an "international recognition service" which can provide advice to employers on the status and standing of qualifications gained in other countries, for example that a certificate is or is not a professional qualification in social work in its country of origin. It is then for the employers to complete the usual recruitment checks verifying the information given by the applicant.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the conclusions of his assessment of the performance of the Director for International Recruitment in the year 2001–02. [71733]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding reply issued on 22 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 22 July 2002,Official Report, vol. 389, column 875W

    Hospitals (Smoking Ban)
    Mr. Greg Knight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a ban on smoking in hospitals and in hospital grounds. [71683]

    Ms Blears
    Many National Health Service trusts have already banned smoking in their hospitals and hospital grounds and the government have set milestones for
    893W
    implementing smoking policies across the NHS as part of the national service framework on coronary heart disease.

    The government is currently considering a comprehensive survey to provide a clear and up to date picture of the current situation across the NHS and to assist in determining what further action should be taken.

    Any decisions on further action will need to be taken against the background that the purchase and smoking of cigarettes is not illegal in this country.

    TRANSPORT

      Lighthouses
      Dr. Naysmith
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport into which of the north/south implementation bodies established as part of the British-Irish Agreement the Commissioners for Irish Lights has been incorporated. [73396]

      Mr. Jamieson
      The Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland establishing Implementation Bodies of 8 March 1999, provides that one of the North/South Implementation Bodies, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, will exercise the existing functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights in respect of providing and maintaining aids to navigation along the coast of the whole of the island of Ireland and its adjacent seas and islands. The Agreement provides that the legislation required to transfer those functions to the Body will be brought forward as soon as possible.

      However, following consideration of the matter by a working group of officials from my Department, the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and relevant Irish Government Departments, it has become apparent that complex issues surround such a transfer. The North/South Ministerial Council has asked the relevant Ministers and Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to examine the alternative possibilities and bring back proposals to the Council.

      Cliffe Airport
      Bob Spink
      To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of additional houses that would be needed if the Cliffe airport option is adopted as(a) two runways and (b) four runways. [74066]

      Mr. Jamieson
      Our analysis suggests that with forecast housing growth, relatively high rates of unemployment, in and out commuting from the relevant catchment areas, the airport's employment needs could be met with fairly limited additional housing development.

      A more detailed assessment of the housing implications (including an assessment for 2015—at which stage only two of the four runways are assumed to be in place) is set out in the SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation study (section A7). Copies of all the above reports are available in the House libraries.

    DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

      Homelessness
      Dr. Lynne Jones
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets he has set for decent housing and reducing homelessness. [71955]

      The Deputy Prime Minister
      As a result of the 2002 Spending Review, we have a Public Service Agreement target to bring all social housing into decent condition by 2010, and to increase the proportion of private housing occupied by vulnerable groups that meets the decent homes standard.

      We are working with local authorities to ensure that by March 2004, no homeless family with children is housed in B&B accommodation other than in an emergency.

      Rural Communities
      Mr. Todd
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what planning guidance is given to local authorities to permit the maintenance and development of small rural communities. [71956]

      Mr. McNulty
      National Planning Policy Guidance encourages local planning authorities to promote healthy, viable rural communities and advises that most new development in rural areas should be focused on accessible local service centres, which may include a group of small villages.

      European Structural Funds
      Helen Jackson
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to ensure the efficient delivery of Objective One European programmes to support local economies. [71957]

      Mr. McNulty
      Structural Fund programmes are delivered through formal Managing Authorities working directly with local partnerships. In England the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is the Managing Authority for all Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes but devolves implementation to the Government Offices (GOs).

      Officials provide policy guidance and advice in order to aid effective delivery of the financial and physical programme targets.

      Programmes are frequently evaluated and best practice arrangements are in place and extend beyond Objective 1.

      Regional Government
      Mr. Andrew George
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has had in response to the Government's White Paper on Regional Government, Your Region: Your Choice. [71958]

      Mr. Raynsford
      To date, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received around 1,100 representations on the White Paper, of which around 200 commented on stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies.
      895W
      In addition, we have received around 1,500 postcards as a result of a campaign organised by the Cornish Constitutional Convention, which seeks a referendum on establishing a Cornish Assembly.

      Mr. Stephen O'Brien
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Regional Government White Paper. [71975]

      The Deputy Prime Minister
      The White Paper Your Region, Your Choice takes forward our Manifesto commitment to allow the English regions the opportunity to choose whether to establish an elected assembly. We intend to introduce a Bill to provide for regional referendums and associated local government reviews as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

      Housing
      Mr. Stewart
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to tackle housing abandonment in the North West. [71959]

      The Deputy Prime Minister
      I am determined to help areas where the housing market has collapsed. That is why this Government has established nine Pathfinder projects dedicated to providing lasting solutions for communities blighted by abandoned homes. Four are located in the North West.

      Mr. Hugh Robertson
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plans for new housing in Kent. [71960]

      Mr. McNulty
      It is the responsibility of Kent County Council to decide on housing provision in line with Regional Planning Guidance for the South East issued in March 2001.

      The review of the allocation of housing in the South East, which in the first instance is a matter for the South East England Regional Assembly, will be progressed through the next review of the Regional Planning Guidance.

      John Mann
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for tackling slum housing in coalfield communities. [71961]

      The Deputy Prime Minister
      We are determined to tackle housing market failure wherever it occurs. Low demand Pathfinder projects will provide lasting solutions for communities blighted by derelict homes through investment and innovation. Three of the recently announced Pathfinders include coalfield communities. More generally, Local Authorities have a vital role in producing comprehensive housing strategies together with action plans to tackle the problems identified.

      Mr. Lamb
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. [71962]

      Laurie Quinn
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the provision of social housing in rural areas. [71976]

      Mr. McNulty
      We recognise the importance of affordable housing in sustaining inclusive and thriving rural communities. We have taken substantial measures to help alleviate housing pressures, as outlined in the 896W
      Rural White Paper. We expect to deliver around 9,000 affordable homes annually in rural areas by 2003–04, including 3,000 in small rural settlements.

      Mr. Robathan
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on his housing policy in the South East. [71965]

      The Deputy Prime Minister
      Policy on housing in the South East, is set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, which was issued in March 2001.

      I made a statement in July 2002, which covered housing, including London and the South East, and I stated that I would return to the House by the end of the year with a comprehensive long term programme of action.

      Ms Oona King
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many(a) detatched houses, (b) semi-detatched houses, (c) terraced houses, (d) maisonettes and (e) flats have been sold by local authorities in London under the right-to-buy scheme since 1980; [74266]

      (2) how many council properties with (a) one bedroom, (b) two bedrooms, (c) three bedrooms, (d) four bedrooms and (e) five bedrooms or more have been sold by local authorities in London under the Right-to-Buy Scheme since 1980. [74265]

      Mr. Tony McNulty
      The precise information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Summary information reported by local authorities only distinguishes sales of houses (including bungalows) from flats (including maisonettes). By the end of March 2002, it is estimated slightly more than 246,000 homes had been sold by London boroughs under the RTB scheme, consisting of some 121,500 houses, and 124,500 flats.

      Margaret Moran
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he intends to take to bring empty private sector houses back into use. [71969]

      The Deputy Prime Minister
      We will shortly publish comprehensive guidance on unlocking the potential of empty properties; we intend to give local authorities powers to end the council tax discount on long-term empty homes; we are giving local authorities a range of new freedoms to assist private housing in poor condition; and we are targeting a package of measures on nine areas of low demand where the problem of abandonment is most acute. In addition, we are considering a range of measures recommended by the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee in its recent report on empty homes.

      Standard Spending Assessment
      Mr. Plaskitt
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on responses to the consultation on reform of the standard spending assessment. [71963]

      Mr. Leslie
      The formal consultation on options for the Formula Grant distribution system closed on the 30 September. We will consider the evidence, the pressures and the points made before we take decisions. Those decisions will be announced in the 2003/04 provisional settlement in due course.

      Urban Land
      Paul Flynn
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what change has taken place since 1997 in the percentage of land in England that is used for urban purposes. [71966]

      Mr. McNulty
      In 1997 and 1998 land classified as urban increased by around 5,600 hectares a year, which is less than 0.5 per cent. of the land used for urban purposes and about 0.04 per cent. of England. The information is drawn from the Department's Land Use Change Statistics which in rural areas have a 5-year revision cycle so a complete picture is not available for more recent years.

      Mobile Phone Masts
      Mr. Amess
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received on planning applications for mobile phone masts. [71968]

      Mr. McNulty
      The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a wide range of representations on planning applications for telecommunications masts over the last year.

      North-West Regional Assembly
      Mr. Osborne
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing an elected regional assembly in the North West. [71970]

      Mr. Raynsford
      Costs will vary from region to region, mainly because of the different sizes of their electorates. But we expect them all to fall in a range around £15–30m a region. This estimate includes all costs necessary to establish an assembly, including the cost of a referendum and of the first elections to an assembly.

      Local Government
      Mr. Casale
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on comprehensive performance assessments for local authorities. [71971]

      Mr. Leslie
      The Local Government White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services, published in December 2001, introduced a requirement for local authorities to be assessed and categorised on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of their performance. This Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) is intended to cover performance across an authority's full range of service areas. The Audit Commission is tasked with taking the lead in coordinating and delivering the new assessment process.

      Planning
      Mr. Swayne
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the planning procedures for major infrastructure projects. [71972]

      Mr. McNulty
      We are considering the options for taking this forward. As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement on 18 July we have accepted the Select Committee's arguments that Parliamentary Procedures for major infrastructure projects are not the best way forward.

      Park Homes
      Mr. Burgon
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he plans to take in response to the Park Homes Working Party Report. [71974]

      Mr. McNulty
      We are already acting on those recommendations not requiring legislation, and will shortly publish research into the economics of park homes. We are developing other measures that require legislation, and will consult on these as soon as practicable.

      Rental Homes
      Mr. Corbyn
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many affordable rental homes will be built by(a) local authorities and (b) registered social landlords in the current year. [71977]

      Mr. McNulty
      Central government does not make forecasts of affordable housing build. We expect local authorities to plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable housing.

      However, from information available through the Housing Corporation's monitoring of its Approved Development Programme (ADP) and support via Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG), it is broadly estimated that RSLs will be complete between 16,000 and 17,000 new homes by for rent (excluding shared ownership) during 2002–03.

      RSLs remain the principal providers of new social housing. Local authorities build very few new dwellings, generally only in special circumstances.

      County Councillors
      Ms Merron
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to support improvements in standards of conduct of members of county councils. [71967]

      Mr. Raynsford
      From May this year, a new Code of Conduct has been applied to all councillors—including members of county councils. The new Code makes very clear the high standards of behaviour that are expected of all councillors. Alongside the introduction of new Codes, the Government has established the Standards Board for England to support councils in raising standards of conduct, and to investigate allegations of misconduct.

      Huntingdonshire District Council
      Mr. Djanogly
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate for Huntingdonshire District Council the effects of each of the options set out in chapter 9 of Formula Grant Distribution: A Consultation Paper. [74228]

      Mr. Raynsford
      The effects on Huntingdonshire DC of the options in chapter 9 (which relate to the Area Cost Adjustment) are set out on page 118 of the consultation document. They are as follows, showing in each case the increase both in actual and percentage terms compared with 2002/03.
      899W

      Local Authority

      2002/03 Total SSA

      Change from 2002/03 Total SSA

      Option ACA1

      Option ACA2

      Option ACA3

      Option ACA4

      Option ACA5

      (£)

      (£)

      (%)

      (£)

      (%)

      (£)

      (%)

      (£)

      (%)

      (£)

      (%)

      Huntingdonshire

      14.0

      0.3

      2.4%

      0.3

      2.1%

      0.4

      3.0%

      0.6

      4.4%

      0.7

      5.1%

      Local Government Staff
      Mr. McGrady
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he will take to improve the salary and conditions of service of local government staff; and if he will make a statement. [71948]

      Mr. Raynsford
      Negotiations on local government pay and conditions of service are carried out by local authorities and the trade unions.

      Area-Based Initiatives
      Claire Ward
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Review of Area Based Initiatives. [74805]

      Mrs. Roche
      I am announcing the outcome of the Review of Area Based Initiatives today. The Review sets out a number of important changes which will significantly improve the co-ordination of area based initiatives. I am placing copies of the report on the outcomes in the libraries of both Houses.

      Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
      David Wright
      To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to publish the Government's consultation document on a national alcohol harm reduction strategy. [75042]

      Mr. Alexander
      I have been asked to reply. It has always been the Government's intention to undertake an extensive process of consultation with stakeholders and relevant groups as part of the development of a National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. Yesterday jointly with my hon. Friend Hazel Blears we published a consultation document "National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy: Consultation Document" setting out the areas on which the Government would welcome views. Copies of this have been placed in the libraries of the House. The consultation period will run until 15 January and responses are sought directly to the Strategy Unit and Department of Health. We will also be holding a series of joint consultation events to seek the views of a range of stakeholders including local

      Excess winter deaths* by age-group and Government Office Region of usual residence, 1991/1992–1999/2000 and 2000/2001**

      1996/19971

      1997/19981

      1998/19991

      1999/20001

      2000/20011

      England, Wales and elsewhere

      0–64

      3040

      1700

      3100

      3770

      2300

      65–74

      6970

      4200

      6950

      7440

      3300

      75–84

      17540

      7870

      16340

      16840

      8400

      85 +

      20140

      9130

      20450

      20390

      11000

      All ages

      47690

      22900

      46840

      48440

      25000

      North East

      0–64

      130

      110

      90

      280

      100

      65–74

      500

      360

      470

      480

      300

      75–84

      920

      530

      890

      1030

      600

      85 +

      680

      550

      920

      880

      500

      All ages

      2230

      1550

      2370

      2680

      1500

      900W
      authorities, police, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), NHS/ medical services (eg PCTs), education (schools sector), academics (university sector), voluntary sector, non-government organisations, the alcohol industry, users of treatment services and employers. Once the consultation period has closed the Strategy Unit will produce an interim analysis taking account of responses received.

    TREASURY

      Excess Winter Deaths
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many excess winter deaths occurred in 2001–02, broken down by(a) English region, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Great Britain by age band; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for each of the last five years. [74536]

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

      Letter to Mr. Burstow from Len Cook dated 16 Oct 2002:

      As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the excess winter deaths for each English region, Scotland, Wales and Great Britain, in each year 1996–1997 to 2001–2002, with a breakdown by age for each year. (74536)

      Figures for English Government Office Regions and for Wales for 1996–97 to 2000–01 are provided in the attached table. Please note that the figures for 2000–01 are currently provisional. Comparable figures for Scotland are not produced routinely. Available figures were published in a GRO Scotland occasional paper in April 2002.1

      ONS will be releasing final figures for 2000–2001 and provisional excess winter mortality figures for 2001–2002 on 24 October 2002. I will be placing a copy in the Libraries of the House at that time.

      Notes:

      1Bowie, N., Jackson, G., 2002. Occasional Paper No.7: The Raised Incidence of Winter Deaths. General Register Office for Scotland
      901W

      Excess winter deaths* by age-group and Government Office Region of usual residence, 1991/1992–1999/2000 and 2000/2001**

      1996/19971

      1997/19981

      1998/19991

      1999/20001

      2000/20012

      North West

      0–64

      510

      280

      630

      420

      200

      65–74

      1070

      500

      1230

      1090

      600

      75–84

      2260

      980

      2600

      2060

      1300

      85 +

      2520

      1010

      2880

      2520

      1600

      All ages

      6360

      2770

      7350

      6090

      3800

      Yorkshire and the Humber

      0–64

      240

      210

      260

      350

      200

      65–74

      700

      480

      810

      680

      500

      75–84

      1810

      860

      1800

      1690

      800

      85 +

      1800

      910

      1890

      1900

      1000

      All ages

      4540

      2460

      4760

      4620

      2600

      East Midlands

      0–64

      250

      130

      310

      350

      200

      65–74

      470

      360

      550

      590

      300

      75–84

      1280

      700

      1560

      1270

      800

      85 +

      1540

      820

      1680

      1620

      1000

      All ages

      3540

      2000

      4090

      3820

      2200

      West Midlands

      0–64

      410

      250

      470

      440

      300

      65–74

      740

      510

      750

      950

      400

      75–84

      1650

      800

      1730

      1810

      1000

      85 +

      1740

      900

      1920

      2090

      900

      All ages

      4530

      2460

      4860

      5290

      2600

      East

      0–64

      240

      170

      130

      330

      100

      65–74

      710

      410

      640

      670

      200

      75–84

      1720

      930

      1590

      1800

      1000

      85 +

      2320

      1030

      2440

      2070

      1200

      All ages

      5000

      2540

      4800

      4880

      2400

      London

      0–64

      430

      150

      420

      470

      300

      65–74

      870

      320

      670

      930

      300

      75–84

      2240

      930

      1690

      2050

      800

      85 +

      2390

      1120

      2160

      2430

      1400

      All ages

      5940

      2520

      4940

      5870

      2800

      South East

      0–64

      420

      250

      370

      630

      300

      65–74

      870

      570

      890

      1050

      200

      75–84

      2770

      990

      2190

      2470

      1000

      85 +

      3600

      1410

      3260

      3530

      1600

      All ages

      7650

      3210

      6710

      7680

      3200

      South West

      0–64

      300

      120

      230

      310

      300

      65–74

      600

      400

      420

      620

      200

      75–84

      1830

      700

      1380

      1580

      500

      85 +

      2320

      1020

      2100

      2220

      1200

      All ages

      5060

      2240

      4130

      4730

      2300

      Wales

      0–64

      120

      90

      230

      220

      200

      65–74

      490

      360

      540

      420

      200

      75–84

      1050

      480

      930

      1090

      600

      85+

      1220

      350

      1200

      1150

      600

      All ages

      2880

      1290

      2900

      2880

      1700

      England

      0–64

      2930

      1660

      2900

      3570

      2100

      65–74

      6520

      3890

      6430

      7070

      3100

      75–84

      16490

      7410

      15430

      15770

      7800

      85 +

      18910

      8770

      19250

      19250

      10400

      All ages

      44850

      21740

      44010

      45650

      23400

      England and Wales

      0–64

      3050

      1760

      3130

      3790

      2300

      65–74

      7010

      4260

      6970

      7490

      3300

      75–84

      17540

      7890

      16360

      16850

      8400

      85 +

      20130

      9120

      20450

      20400

      11000

      All ages

      47730

      23030

      46900

      48520

      25000

      Note:

      *Excess winter deaths are defined by the Office for National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July)

      **provisional

      1rounded to the nearest 10

      2provisional, rounded to the nearest 100

      National Insurance Numbers
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the rules are regarding obtaining work without the possession of a national insurance number. [72126]

      Malcolm Wicks
      I have been asked to reply. Employers can offer employment to a person who has not yet registered for National Insurance purposes. A
      902W
      person without a National Insurance number is not precluded from starting work and then obtaining a National Insurance number later.

      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers were prosecuted for employing people without national insurance numbers in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001; and what penalties were imposed. [72125]
      903W
      Malcolm Wicks
      I have been asked to reply. There is no requirement in law to have a National Insurance number before starting work. Therefore no employers have been prosecuted for employing people without National Insurance numbers.

      Mr. Willetts
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many National Insurance number applicants have waited four months or more for an interview in each of the last 24 months; and what has been the average time between a person's original application for a number and a number being issued in each year since 1992. [74708]

      Malcolm Wicks
      I have been asked to reply. The information is not available in the format requested.

      Earlier this year, applicants were experiencing delays in some parts of the country for up to 6 months. That figure has reduced considerably, and indications are that no one currently has to wait more than 4 weeks for an initial National Insurance number allocation interview.

      FTE Count

      June 01

      July 01

      Aug 01

      Sept 01

      Oct 01

      Nov 01

      Dec 01

      Jan 02

      Feb 02

      Mar 02

      Total

      Casual

      Administrative

      41.89

      50.57

      -26.19

      -53.25

      -0.84

      6.70

      -2.93

      4.89

      1.48

      3.73

      26.04

      Executive

      -1.00

      -1.00

      0.00

      -1.59

      0.00

      -1.00

      0.00

      0.67

      -0.61

      1.00

      -3.54

      Total change +/-

      40.89

      49.57

      -26.19

      -54.85

      -0.84

      5.70

      -2.93

      5.56

      0.87

      4.73

      22.50

      Permanent

      Administrative

      59.85

      78.97

      45.16

      25.10

      38.88

      27.26

      10.03

      24.43

      16.77

      -11.78

      314.67

      Executive

      4.00

      1.39

      6.14

      10.55

      25.99

      15.66

      -.53

      0.92

      -2.06

      -15.60

      45.47

      Total change +/-

      63.85

      80.37

      51.30

      35.66

      64.88

      42.92

      8.50

      25.35

      14.71

      -27.38

      360.14

    SOLICITOR-GENERAL

      Recruitment
      Dr. Julian Lewis
      To ask the Solicitor General how many net additional staff her Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level.[52427]

      The Solicitor-General
      [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The figures for the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible are as follows:

      Serious Fraud Office
      Record keeping by the SFO does not allow the breakdown of the creation of new posts on a month by month basis without incurring disproportionate costs. However, during the year 1 April 2001 to 1 April 2002, the SFO created 24 additional executive officer posts and 18 additional administrative officer posts.

      HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
      In the period June 2001 to April 2002, HMCPSI created three additional posts, two at executive officer level and one at administrative officer level.

      Treasury Solicitor's Department
      In relation to the Treasury Solicitor's Department (including Legal Secretariat to the Law officers), no additional posts were created in the period June 2001 to Apri 2002.

      Crown Prosecution Service
      The number of net additional staff recruited since June 2001 by the Crown Prosecution Service is set out in the attached table. The figures are Full Time equivalent figures, reflecting the fact that some posts are part-time.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

The Lord Bishop of Truro
William, Lord Bishop of Truro—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth and the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Influenza Immunisation
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are making any special preparations to counter possible epidemics this winter of influenza or other illnesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, immunisation offers the best protection against flu. The influenza immunisation programme is being run again this year, offering free immunisation to everyone aged 65 and over and to people in clinical risk groups.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. However, are the Government concerned about a recently identified virus known as hMPV—its full name is long and unpronounceable—which produces symptoms similar to those of flu, but which does not respond to the influenza vaccine?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to RSV. He is right in saying that it has flu-like symptoms but is not prevented by vaccine. Scientists and vaccine manufacturers are still trying to develop an effective vaccine against RSV—respiratory syncytial virus. Unfortunately, we are still some years away from achieving success.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister may be relieved to hear that I do not propose to challenge him on N1, H2 or anything else of that sort. Can he explain why the Government have chosen not to fund younger at-risk subjects; for example, those who suffer from heart disease, diabetes or asthma? They are at risk in the same way as the over-65s.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, it is wrong to say that we do not fund them. If GPs provide vaccines to those at-risk groups, the vaccines will be free—that is, they will be paid for by the Department of Health. The point is that in that case GPs do not
850
receive an extra payment, as they do for older people, although they do receive a fee of approximately £1.75 for the administrative costs. We are examining this matter and shall seek to review it in the light of our current discussions on the GP contract.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the availability of special treatment is not well known to significant groups in the community? I refer, for example, to those in the minority communities and am concerned particularly about women. Will he assure the House that there is targeting to make sure that those communities are made aware of the availability of such treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. Such a campaign is presently being undertaken. My noble friend is right. If we examine performance in different parts of the country, we see huge differences. The lowest performance is in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster—where there is only a 50 per cent uptake among at-risk groups, which is disappointing. Among some parts of our community we have to redouble our efforts to get this message across.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister make the flu vaccine available in this House for Members and staff, if they so wish, as it is difficult to obtain it here in Westminster when one's GP is out of London?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have many responsibilities in the Department of Health, but I do not think that we go that far. That must be a matter for the House authorities, and I am sure that they would be delighted to look at it.
Lord Chan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one measure would be the vaccination of all front-line clinical and other staff in the health service? If that is the case, to what extent is that now mandatory for NHS staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, taking the NHS as an example, we have made it clear that NHS employers should offer influenza immunisation to employees directly involved in patient care. We have also encouraged local authorities to do the same for social care employees. The figures that I have for last year show that an average of around 12 per cent of staff in acute hospital trusts have taken advantage of that. I find that figure disappointing and I want to encourage NHS employers to do more to encourage their employees to take advantage of the vaccination.
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm my understanding that the flu vaccination campaign aims to achieve a vaccination rate of at least 70 per cent among people aged 65 and over? If that is so, what additional mechanisms have Ministers put in place

851
since last winter to ensure that the Government achieve this rate? Only very few health authorities achieved that level of coverage last winter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is fair to say that with the passing of each year of the campaign the health service learns from experience. In fact, last year we reached 68 per cent of people aged 65 years and over. Obviously, we hope to build on that this autumn. We have mounted another campaign, and Sir Henry Cooper is again the figurehead for the media. That is backed up by other TV adverts and publicity material. We hope that primary care trusts, as the principal public health authority at local level, will work very closely with individual GP practices to see what they can do to encourage their patients to attend for vaccination.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is the Minister aware that people can obtain a prescription from their doctor and then ask the nurse in this building to administer the injection?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that noble Lords will take advantage of the provision.
Lord Elton: My Lords, why does the Minister assume that when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy refers to hMPB he really means RSV? If there is a dangerous organism that goes under the former description will he place his answer in the Library please?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise if I misheard the noble Lord. If he is referring to H1N2, which is a new subtype of flu that the Public Health Laboratory Service has detected, I am glad to inform the House that our experts consider that it is covered in the vaccine strains that we are using this year, which are A/New Caledonia, A/Moscow and B/Hong Kong.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may explain that the letters I mentioned stand for human metapneumovirus. I can quite understand initials being used instead of the full name.

Clean Energy
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I wish to declare an interest in small-scale electricity generation.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what efforts they are making to promote clean energy, in addition to renewables.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government believe that it is important to promote clean energy as well as renewables and we are therefore supporting a £17 million programme of R&D and technology transfer for cleaner coal technologies as well as developing a project to support retrofitting of a supercritical boiler in an existing power station. In this year's Budget we exempted both good quality combined heat and power and coal-mine methane from the climate change levy. Following on from the Chief Scientific Adviser's review of energy research and the PIU's energy review, we are also investigating the feasibility of CO2 sequestration, which should benefit all forms of power generation using fossil fuels.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he accept that the amount of support given to renewables is much more than is given to other means of producing clean energy? Is he aware, for example, that new projects in combined heat and power have recently dried up because of lack of sufficient support, even though the Government favour that type of development? Is he also aware that more effort could be put into the recovery of methane from coal mines and into small-scale combined heat and power, all of which can contribute substantially to cleaner energy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as regards energy, we need to look at the whole range of options. With the review that has been undertaken by the Chief Scientific Adviser on the R&D side, we are beginning properly to align larger amounts of support and R&D with the opportunities which exist in each different kind of energy resource.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, welcome though it was, the exemption from the climate change levy for coal-mine methane did no more than cancel out the effect of the reduction in electricity prices? Is he also aware that if there is to be any significant increase in the entrapment of methane from that source, contributing massively to the Government's environmental objectives, the equivalent of the renewables' obligation must be extended to the operators of coal-mine methane extraction?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we made the exemption from the climate change levy because we were asked to do so. It seemed to me entirely right that we should. The electricity price has gone the other way, but that means merely that the market price for energy has gone down, and rightly so.
We have debated previously whether coal-mine methane is a renewable and it is quite clear that it is not, under any of the definitions. Therefore, it is not appropriate that we should put it in the same category.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister says that coal-mine methane is not a renewable, but why is it not exempted from the climate change levy when landfill

853
methane is so exempted? Furthermore, why in Germany are both types of methane exempted? Why do we not follow the same pattern?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the simple answer is that the Germans have got it wrong. There is a clear distinction between methane that is produced by landfill, which is entirely renewable, and methane that is produced by coal, which is not renewable. Therefore, if one included methane from coal, how does one keep coal from being renewable? Clearly, on that ground the position is in danger of becoming ridiculous because we would put everything in the category of renewables. That is why a line must be clearly drawn between those two sources of energy.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's replies, in which he stresses the importance of clean energy, will he explain to the House the logic behind the decision of his colleague, the Secretary of State, not to exempt British Energy from the climate change levy when British Energy, as a nuclear generator producing about one-fifth of the nation's electricity, makes no climate emissions at all?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to the Front Bench.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, after his distinguished performance in the House last night, I am sure that he will be equally distinguished on the Front Bench. The answer is that we have taken no final decision on British Energy; we have simply given it a loan up to a date in November. Those issues will be covered in the White Paper.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that methane is at least 20 times more noxious than the normal gases which people associate with power stations and with the clean technology that the Government are pursuing?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is correct, and that is why we made the change which I have mentioned to the House. However, I still do not believe that it makes a difference to the question of whether it is renewable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the Minister's answer in regard to Germany make one wonder whether other countries in the European Community are better at getting it wrong than we are? Perhaps we should sometimes get it wrong in our own favour, too.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always nice to hear praise from that side of the House of any country in the European Union.

Zimbabwe: Dispossessed Farmers
2.56 p.m.
Lord Carrington Lord Carrington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are prepared to use the money, which under the Lancaster House agreement was to have compensated Zimbabwean farmers who sold their farms on a willing buyer-seller basis, to support those who have now been evicted without compensation and have lost all their possessions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Lancaster House agreement did not establish a specific fund to support land reform in Zimbabwe, nor did it commit the United Kingdom to pay compensation to dispossessed farmers. The UK Government have honoured the commitments they made. Those were to encourage international donors to help fund land redistribution; to provide technical assistance for resettlement schemes; and to provide aid for agricultural development projects and infrastructure.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, to use the time-honoured phrase, I am grateful to the noble Baroness—but only fairly grateful—for that disappointing reply. Under the Lancaster House agreement, it was envisaged that we would help the Zimbabwe Government and the farmers on a willing buyer-to-seller relationship. Does the Minister agree that in the present circumstances the Government are not depriving the Zimbabwe Government of anything, but are depriving the farmers of proper compensation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord chaired the Lancaster House conference, so he will know the detail that was agreed at that time. We rallied donors to support the new Zimbabwe at independence and we were instrumental in setting up the Zimbabwe conference on reconstruction and development in 1981. At that conference, more than £630 million of aid was pledged. The first phase of land reform in the 1980s, which was partially funded by the United Kingdom, successfully resettled around 70,000 landless people on more than 2 million hectares of land.
The British contribution in terms of aid to Zimbabwe now stands at some half billion pounds in support since independence. Furthermore, £47 million of that was specifically targeted for land reform and approximately £100 million was budgetary support which could have been used for land reform.
I agree with the noble Lord about the need for further land reform. We want to see further reform, but we want to see a process that is transparent and meets the rule of law.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have many close relations who have lost their homes and their farms in Zimbabwe? Is she aware that

855
my relations and other commercial farmers are dreadfully concerned about the future of the 350,000 farm workers and their 1¾ million dependants who now face being homeless and jobless and who will face hunger and even starvation? Will the Government bear the farm workers in mind and reassess the amount of humanitarian aid Britain gives to Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before I answer my noble friend's question, I should like, on behalf of the whole House, to extend our deepest condolences at Sir Garfield Todd's recent passing. Sir Garfield was a tireless campaigner against minority rule in what was then Rhodesia and a principled opponent of the tyranny now affecting the Zimbabwe that he worked so hard to help to build.
My noble friend Lord Acton is right in saying that we need to be concerned about the farm workers—many of whom are Zimbabwean but have not been able to claim Zimbabwean nationality—and their nearly 2 million dependants. The famine in Zimbabwe means that their situation will become even worse. We have pledged £32 million in humanitarian support, but we shall of course reassess that depending on the information we receive from the World Food Programme. My noble friend is right. The situation of those farm workers needs to be at the front of our minds.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not my noble friend Lord Carrington entirely right, as one would expect? Did not the original independence constitution for Zimbabwe recognise that under-utilised land could be compulsorily purchased provided that adequate compensation was paid? That may have been under a previous government, but given that Zimbabwe is now under an illegitimate regime, full of atrocities, how can the present Government just wash their hands of that obligation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may wish to go back and look again at the Lancaster House agreement. The willing buyer, willing seller agreement covered the first 10 years, and the British government made very specific commitments. I have outlined to the House the amount of money raised at the 1981 donors' conference and the amount that successive British governments have given to the Government of Zimbabwe in bilateral support, some of which was in the form of budgetary aid that could have been used for land reform. What we have to remember is that we are dealing in Zimbabwe with a regime that is ruthless and does not care what happens
856
to its own people. This is not about land, but about the breakdown of the rule of law and a regime that wants to stay in power whatever.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Hughes is first.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that if we followed the line proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, we would in fact be giving comfort to President Mugabe? President Mugabe's argument is precisely that he does not care about the law or compensation, responsibility for which he feels sure rests with the British Government. If we go down that line, it will become more difficult to reach reasonable solutions entailing proper land reform, proper compensation and proper land transfer.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I have said many times in this House that we will not support a fast-track land reform process that breaks all the rules, which is what is going on at the moment. We said that we would support a transparent land reform process within the rule of law, but we have yet to see that in terms of fast-track land reform in Zimbabwe. The United Nations Development Programme has said exactly the same.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on these Benches agree strongly that the rights of all Zimbabwe citizens—not simply whites or landowners versus those who work on the farms—need to be considered by the Government? Can the Minister tell us how many current Zimbabwe residents or citizens have the right of entry into this country and whether we expect a surge of refugees from Zimbabwe if the situation continues to deteriorate? How will the Government differentiate between those with the right of entry and others who have suffered very badly from the current political situation in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right. I agree that we need to be concerned about the rights of all Zimbabweans. Some 26,000 British citizens are registered with our High Commission in Harare, but we think that there are 40,000 British citizens there. I would have to look at the figures again to see whether there are additional numbers who have a right of entry but who do not carry a British passport. We are constantly examining and thinking through the implications of the current situation in Zimbabwe, and I am in constant discussion with my colleagues across government

857
departments and in international organisations about a potential influx were the situation to become much worse.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have cousins in Zimbabwe who have lost their farm. May I remind the House that there are white Zimbabwe citizens as well as black ones, and that if we are to see the situation under Mugabe's rule righted eventually we are going to have to reconstitute in some way the commercial ability of the country to earn money? Many white farmers would gladly stay—they want to stay because it is their country—to help to achieve that. In doing that, they would be providing precisely the employment for the black workers that they provided before. Those people have lost everything. I remind the House that, under ZANU-PF, nothing is being done for them. If we were to compensate those farmers, it would be an immensely sensible investment in the human future of the country.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that the whole House is aware of the havoc wreaked by the Mugabe regime through its economic mismanagement.

Glyn Technology School
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they considered it appropriate to intervene in the exclusion decision at Glyn School, Epsom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was concerned about the effect of an exceptional set of circumstances on the education of pupils at Glyn Technology School. She pressed the local education authority to take urgent action in the best interests of all concerned. She was in no doubt about the legal position.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, would it not have been more appropriate for the Secretary of State, and within her powers, to work with schools to develop a clear, non-negotiable code of conduct for pupils and a properly managed transfer system to high quality alternative provision? If the Government are determined to keep these independent panels, should they not always have a serving teacher on them? Should they not also have the power to impose some type of restorative justice solution to the problem, rather than the simple "exclude or not exclude" alternatives that are open to them at present?
Finally, will the Leader of the House perhaps try to ensure that the fourth Question is not squeezed in future?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is very important to understand that, by the time the
858
Secretary of State heard about this case and became involved, the school was already under siege from the media, the teachers were being balloted on strike action and the pupils were being taught in isolation. I feel that the House would like to know the exceptional circumstances in this case. The efforts we have been making have certainly involved working with the head teacher and the education authority to try to resolve the situation as swiftly as possible for all concerned. Noble Lords will recall from our debates on the Education Bill that, from January onwards, one panel member will be a teacher.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the Secretary of State knowingly breached her legal position—which is what the noble Baroness has just said—did she do so with or without legal advice?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not breach the legal position. I shall be very specific. When the situation came to her attention, on Thursday, the Secretary of State asked officials to speak to Surrey local education authority to ensure that it was being handled with the necessary urgency and to ensure a rapid return to normal education for all pupils at Glyn School. The education authority was encouraged to meet the parents of the boys concerned to discuss alternative ways for them to receive full-time education and meanwhile to make arrangements for them to receive independent tuition. The Secretary of State talked to the head teacher to express her concern at the difficulties being faced by the school and to emphasise her wish that the LEA and the school should work together to find a solution in the best interests of all involved.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, did the Secretary of State have the power and the authority to overrule the panel?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Secretary of State did not do so, neither did she attempt to do so. She did what I believe was common sense. The school that we are discussing is besieged by the press; a ballot is taking place on strike action; the situation of two young people is not resolved and there is deep concern. On that basis the Secretary of State asked her officials to talk to the relevant education authority to try to ensure that the situation was speedily resolved. I believe that the House would agree that that is the way in which a Secretary of State should behave.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this Question underlines the need for alternative education for excluded and suspended pupils. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that this is now, or soon will be, available throughout the whole of England?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we understand that every education authority is now able to provide the education that we would wish to see for

859
our children. Noble Lords will have heard me say a number of times in your Lordships' House that there is little value in excluding children if we do not provide them with alternative education. Indeed, one could argue that that could exacerbate their situation. Therefore, we have made clear that we wish all pupils who are excluded to be provided with full-time education. That might be undertaken in other schools, through tuition or pupil referral units, if those are appropriate. It is very important that we move swiftly to that position.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what happens now that the teachers have voted to strike?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I understand it, at the moment the two boys are not in school and tuition has been arranged for them. The issue for the teachers needs to be resolved in the context of what should happen in the best interests of all the pupils at Glyn Technology School, the teachers and, of course, the two boys.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the appeal panel at Glyn School operated according to guidelines set down by the Secretary of State herself and that if the parents were not content with the decision of the appeal panel the right course was through judicial review rather than through the Secretary of State intervening in this decision?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that it was not a matter of the parents being unhappy with the decision but rather the school. Noble Lords will remember that we have an amendment to the guidance that we published which makes it clear that appeal panels should not normally recommend the reinstatement of pupils where there has been serious actual or threatened violence to a teacher or fellow pupil. In the exceptional circumstances I have described I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it is in the best interests of all children for the local education authority to move swiftly to resolve the situation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister has said that all local authorities are able to provide satisfactory out-of-school education for excluded children. Can she assure us that that does not include home study with two or three hours only of tuition?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the key to the education being satisfactory is that it is full time. It is important that students receive full-time education. As regards excluded children, a period of time may elapse before alternative full-time education commences as obviously negotiations have to take place with the family to consider what is best for those children. In many cases a move to another school can resolve the issue for a particular child. We need to be
860
clear that that is one of the options. However, in some cases behavioural issues may result in a need to consider a pupil referral unit for the young person.

Employee Share Schemes Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Adoption and Children Bill
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report. Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 39 [Step parents]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43:
Page 25, line 8, leave out "step-parent who" and insert "partner of a parent and the partner"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 43 and the other amendments in the group as I believe that the House would find it helpful to consider the issue of principle in relation to unmarried couples. Depending on the outcome of today's debate, I may bring back some further consequential amendments on Third Reading. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Recovery orders]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 25, line 38, after "section" insert "31(4),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Child to live with adopters before application]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 27, line 16, leave out from "them" to end of line 17 and insert "at all times during the period of six months preceding the application"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 brings us to an important issue relating to intercountry adoption. When intercountry adopters return to the UK with their adopted child they have to make a subsequent adoption application to a UK court unless the state of origin is a designated country whose adoption orders are recognised in the UK.
At present, where an application is made to a UK court, an adoption order cannot be made unless the child has had his or her home with the applicant for 12 months, or 13 weeks with relatives, as defined by the Adoption Act 1976. When implemented, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will provide for an

861
adoption application to be made in convention adoptions after the child has had his or her home with the applicants for six months.
The Adoption and Children Bill, however, seeks to change that position. I have to say that I regret greatly that the Bill will not consider intercountry adoptions as agency adoptions even though they will be conducted to the same standard and with the same level of official oversight as domestic adoptions. Indeed, I argue that that is inconsistent with our international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention,
"to ensure that safeguards and standards equivalent to those which apply in domestic adoption should be applied in intercountry adoption to protect the welfare of the child".
If our ratification of the Hague Convention is to have the full weight that is intended, adoptions conducted within the prescribed procedures must be agency adoptions.
One result of intercountry adoptions being treated as non-agency placements is the impact of the time-scales within which an adoption order can be made. Where an adoption application to a UK court is required, unless the application is a convention adoption, the child will have to have had his or her home with the applicant for three years out of a five-year period before an application can be made. That is how I read Clause 42(5). There is provision for the application to be made sooner but only if the court gives leave. This introduces an additional and unnecessary hurdle, in my opinion, which will be a further drain on court time and resources.
This change is of concern. To begin with it cannot be considered to be in any child's best interests to wait for over three years for its legal position within its adopted family to be secured. In domestic adoption the thrust is towards shortening the period for the adoption process to be concluded. So it is totally unacceptable that the adoption process for many children adopted from abroad will be prolonged by at least two years. Besides that, states of origin, perfectly understandably, wish to see the future of the children they place settled in a timely fashion. Many countries will find these new provisions unacceptable because the child's adoption status will remain undetermined for more than three years after placement and, as a result, the child will have to wait until then to acquire the same nationality as the adoptive parents.
I have a further concern. My understanding is that when a child is brought into the UK for adoption and notification of intention to adopt has been given, regulations may impose functions relating to the child's placement on the local authority to which the notice was given. I refer to Clause 83(6)(b). Because these placements are not to be considered agency placements there are real concerns that the supervision of the child may be given low priority in the light of competing demands for social work resources. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the regulations will place local authorities under a strengthened duty to supervise and review these placements as if they were agency placements until the adoption order is granted. The ideal solution, of course, would be for
862
intercountry adoptions to fall within the definition of agency adoptions. However, I understand that that is something that the Government are not prepared to contemplate. If that is true, it would be helpful if the Minister could say why.
Therefore, my amendment seeks to specify the same six-month period before which an adoption order may be granted in respect of all intercountry adoptions, whether they are convention designated or non-convention, non-designated adoptions. I hope that the Minister will be able to look sympathetically at the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I also take the opportunity to remind the House of the debate that we held in Grand Committee. In relation to people who bring children to this country from abroad, we discussed whether they should undergo the same level of assessment as do those involved in domestic adoptions. We received from all the organisations that are active in this field evidence that obtaining an assessment from social services departments was nigh-on impossible. That led to a great deal of distress and unnecessary uncertainty for those concerned and for their families.
We also discussed at some length in Grand Committee the need for there to be confidence in the system of registration of intercountry adoptions. Therefore, I want to follow up the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and to ask the Minister to respond to suggestions that the reason for the Government's stance is resources. If that is the case, can the Minister explain it to the House in some detail?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Earl knows that I am always sympathetic to his amendments. We have approached the Bill in very much the same spirit throughout its entire proceedings. Because his amendment has implications for both domestic and intercountry adoptions, I shall, if I may, set out the background and deal with the matter of intercountry adoptions as soon as I can.
The amendment is concerned with the minimum period that a child must have had his home with prospective adopters before an application to adopt may be made in cases where an adoption agency has not arranged the adoption placement. As the noble Earl explained, by implication, in this country the subsection would include adoption by a grandparent, an aunt or an uncle and so on. But that involves a very small number of cases—fewer than 100. Nevertheless, each one is extremely important because of the situation of the child.
The amendment suggests that the time period involved is reduced from three years to six months. We have difficulty in supporting the amendment in that sense. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the noble Earl has emphasised the finality of adoption, its seriousness and the need to be careful about how we approach it. That is why I believe it to be firmly in the interests of the child that we ensure that in this situation, in particular, there is a proper and genuine

863
opportunity for the child and the family involved to establish a relationship which would justify the making of an application to adopt.
In non-agency cases, none of the safeguards relating to placement through an adoption agency applies. That is obviously the first reason for our concern. The differences are, for example, that, when an agency is involved, the adoption panel will have approved adoption as being in the child's best interests after thoroughly examining the issue. The assessment will be rigorous; the birth parents and the adoptive parents will be checked; and the match will be assessed and considered.
In a non-agency case, the prospective adopters have the opportunity to inform the local authority that none of that extra scrutiny is in place. We believe that the law needs to provide sufficient time to be able to test that what has emerged is a very loving and lasting relationship. We need proof of that.
We intend to bring the Bill into line with the Children Act, which introduced very useful changes. At present, in the case of relatives, adoption orders may be made once the child has been with the adoptive applicants for 13 weeks and, in the case of non-relative, non-agency cases, 12 months.
The change from 12 months to three years may seem rather significant but there are good reasons for it. The 1976 Act pre-dates the Children Act. At the time of that Act, alternative means for facilitating placements—residence orders, for example—were simply not in place. Now, relatives and non-relatives can automatically apply for residence orders for children who have been living with them for three out of five years.
Finally, we are particularly concerned about the issues raised when a member of the family adopts a child because the implication is that all the relationships within that family change. If a grandparent adopts, for example, the changes can spread over two generations. Therefore, again, we want to be careful that we are allowing sufficient time for those changes to be worked out. That is why we set out in the Bill other alternatives for families in relation to adoption. Those include not only residence orders but special guardianship orders and also the ability of a step-parent to acquire parental responsibility. Therefore, the Bill deals with the safety and security of the child; it ensures consistency with the existing law; and it provides a range of alternatives to adoption.
Perhaps I may offer the noble Earl one final assurance. While we hold firmly to the general provisions, given the complexity of family circumstances, we have not completely closed the door. We have made provision in Clause 42(6) for any exceptional cases so that prospective adopters may, within a three-year time period and if the circumstances justify it, apply to the court for leave to make an application. That is the background and the domestic context in which the specific questions raised by the noble Earl apply in terms of intercountry adoptions.
864
In the interests of brevity, Clause 83 enables us to modify arrangements for intercountry adoptions. There may well be a case for a different time period to apply in respect of intercountry relative adoptions when the alternatives in UK legislation are not available.
In general, the intercountry provision currently allows modification of residence periods set out in Chapter 3. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness about confidence in resources. Perhaps I may write to her about that. We had a very important debate in Committee on the question of the confidence that must obtain between countries where we are dealing with such delicate matters. It is our intention to use those powers to provide that, where the proper procedures are followed, an application can be made in the UK to adopt a child brought from overseas after the child has lived with the applicants for six months. But where the proper procedures are not followed, we intend to extend the period to 12 months.
As the Bill is drafted at present, those modifications would not apply to intercountry adoptions by relatives. However, we have gone through a consultative process on the new draft intercountry adoption regulations which are needed to implement the Hague convention. We have also received correspondence from intercountry stakeholders, and we have treated that seriously. We are currently considering how relative intercountry adoptions should be dealt with.
I am willing to include in those considerations the issue of the appropriate residence period for intercountry relative adoptions. I hope to be in a position to respond at Third Reading to the time-scales and to the other issues raised by the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply. As she will know, my concern focused exclusively on the inter-country adoption issue rather than on the domestic one, although of course that, too, is of significance. I am sure that her undertaking to provide further and better particulars at Third Reading is welcomed on all sides of the House. I believe that it is probably best if I do not comment further at this stage. I shall obviously read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said today but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Suitability of adopters]:
3.30 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 51:
age 28, line 38, after first "a" insert "married"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 51 and in speaking to the other amendments grouped with it, I am conscious that we have reached a set of issues which, it is fair to say, did not succeed in generating unanimity during our Grand Committee proceedings. Therefore, I begin by making

865
the same plea as I did then; that is, that noble Lords should examine dispassionately and with an open mind the arguments that I am about to present.
I believe that I can say fairly to the House that I have done the same in reverse. The issue of whether unmarried and same sex couples should be permitted to become adoptive parents is one to which I have devoted a great deal of thought over the past few weeks. I have read and reread the thoughtful contributions made from all sides in Grand Committee. Having done so, I am absolutely convinced, as is my party, that the other place was wrong to amend the Bill as it did. I shall explain why.
There is one matter on which I think all of us are agreed when it comes to adoption. Indeed, it is a theme which permeates the Bill; that is, children who are adopted need to have stability in their lives. I shall go so far as to say that they are entitled to expect stability. Adopted children almost axiomatically come from troubled and unstable backgrounds. Adoption holds out the hope of love, security and stability.
Clause 45 sets out the basis upon which prospective adopters will be considered suitable. It flags up the issue of stability to the exclusion of all other matters. It refers to the need to ensure that in determining the suitability of a couple to adopt a child, proper regard is had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship. In other words, if there is a sine qua non for stability in a child's life, it is stability and permanence in the relationship of the parents.
What are the measures of stability and permanence, and how will we recognise them in a couple who apply to become adopters? The Government state that those qualities will become apparent through the assessment to which all prospective adopters will be subject. It is that assessment process which will allegedly ensure that couples who are likely to make good parents are separated out from those who are not.
I have no quarrel with assessments; they are a vital part of the role of adoption agencies. They must carry out assessments in a rigorous and professional way. The assessment is our means of identifying the key skills and attributes necessary for successful adoption, by which I mean parenting skills; soundness of character: an absence of selfishness; the ability to love children and to enjoy their company; the ability to provide for them in a material sense, and so on.
However, the proponents of unmarried and same sex adoption would go further. They maintain that the assessment will also be a sure test of the stability and permanence of a couple's relationship. I simply do not believe that. Yes, an assessment can sometimes detect personality traits in an individual which can put a question mark over the durability of the marriage. What it cannot do, and never has done so far as I am aware, is to act as a reliable predictor of the stability and permanence of any particular relationship. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if there were a test which could do that. We can say with hindsight that there are many unmarried couples who stay together for a long time in a loving and stable relationship. I am
866
sure that we all know such couples. But if we try to argue that an assessment will tell us in advance which couples they are, I believe we are deluding ourselves.
So what are we left with? We are left with the indicator of stability that is most obvious. Two people who choose to commit themselves to each other in marriage are making a public statement about their commitment to a permanent and stable relationship. By contrast, two people who live together but are not prepared to marry are implicitly signalling that they regard their relationship as something which may be less than lifelong. I recognise that couples of the same sex are not in a position to marry. Their case is different; I shall speak more about them in a moment.
My point for now is that if we imagine an unmarried man and woman putting themselves forward as potential adopters, any assertion from them that they are committed to one another for life is contradicted in one major respect. That element of uncertainty does not begin to arise in the case of a couple who are married. Why does that worry me so much? It worries me because of what we know about the impermanence and instability of unmarried relationships. I was chided and rather made fun of in Grand Committee for quoting statistics. However, the validity of those statistics has not seriously been challenged.
If the statistics showed that in practice there was little difference between married and unmarried couples in terms of the durability of relationships, I do not think I would be standing here arguing this case today. What they actually show is a very substantial disparity between the two groups. Eighty-three per cent of cohabitations break up within 10 years. The average length of a cohabiting relationship is two years. Where children are involved, the figures are particularly telling. Cohabiting couples are more likely to split up after the arrival of their first child than married couples; not just a little more likely but six-and-a-half times more likely.
The Office for National Statistics presents the figures even more starkly. Among couples who are married and have their first child, eight per cent are no longer together after five years. Of couples who cohabit and later marry, 25 per cent—three times as many—split up within five years. Of unmarried couples who never marry, 52 per cent split up after the arrival of their first child. I should like to hear from those who disagree with me why they think those findings can be dismissed as being of no importance. To dismiss them is to say that statistical risk does not matter. It is to say, as many noble Lords did in Grand Committee, that we can rely on the assessment of particular individuals without worrying too much about the generality of unmarried relationships. However, as I have tried to show, that position is based on a fundamental misconception. If we are looking for a solid indicator of stability, the real question is whether we feel safer in placing our reliance on the subjective judgment of social workers or on the evidence of a social contract that is long established and recognised by society.
I defy any social worker, however experienced in his field, to identify unfailingly couples of the same sex who are likely to remain together in a stable and permanent relationship. If we think that unmarried heterosexual couples are statistically a poor bet from that point of view, gay relationships are even less stable. The average length of a so-called closed gay relationship is 21 months. "Closed" in this sense means that sexual fidelity has been maintained for the past month.
In saying all that, I am not passing or implying any moral judgment. I hope that noble Lords will accept that. However, I ask why should Parliament consciously and deliberately allow some of our most vulnerable children to be adopted by couples whose relationships are much more likely to fall apart than are those of married couples. I say, as I did before, that it is not that there will be no unmarried couple whose relationship will endure; many do so supremely well. If the Bill is passed as it stands I have no doubt that a number of unmarried adopters will prove to be ideal parents. However, we cannot be confident about the generality; quite the reverse. If we cannot be confident, Parliament should not take that big a risk. It is irresponsible for Parliament to do so.
I shall cite an analogy. The law states that no one in this country under the age of 17 may legally drive a car on a public road. It is not that there are no 16 year-olds who would be safe driving a car; of course there are. Some might be even better drivers than a few people of 17 or 18 who hold licences. But Parliament has taken the view that for the general good of society the law has to contain a cut-off age. The reason for that is that on average children are not to be trusted behind the wheel of a car.
Perhaps I was guilty a moment ago of glossing over the reasons why stability and permanence are so important in a child's life. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Russell, remarking in Grand Committee that he was the child of divorced parents and that it did not seem to have done him any harm. Happily, that is so. He also cited some instances known to him, which I would not seek to dismiss, of unhappy children living with unhappily married parents. However, I humbly suggest that as legislators we cannot afford to be anecdotal.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl has just quoted me. It is not to my recollection exactly what I said. I did not say that it did not do me any harm, I said I did not think it did me any more harm than if my parents had stayed together while desperately unhappy. The points are distinctly different.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that clarification. To cite individual cases is, by definition, to be anecdotal. To be anecdotal tempts us to ignore the generality. That amounts, I believe, to being blasé over the future welfare of children in this context who come from troubled, disruptive and often from loveless backgrounds.
868
All the evidence shows that the best predictor of a child's well-being, whether we are talking about educational attainment, health, employment, avoidance of drug taking, teenage pregnancy, crime or whatever, is that the child has parents who are married.
Marriages of course do fail. But when a couple divorce it is for the matrimonial court to decide how best to protect the welfare of any children in the division of the couple's property. The law of property, as it relates to marriage, is well-established. Children of unmarried couples do not enjoy the same protection. This summer the Law Commission published a report, Sharing Homes, examining the property rights of people who live together outside marriage. It makes sobering reading.
If one shares a flat or a house with someone who legally owns it and one then parts from that person on less than amicable terms, the law deals one a very poor hand of cards as regards claiming a share of the property value. Resorting to the courts is fraught with uncertainty. When it comes to any other assets of your partner which one previously shared, one has no cards in one's hand at all. An adopted child caught in the middle is placed in an extremely vulnerable position. Where will the child be housed? How will he be supported if he stays with a parent without means?
The Law Commission concluded that in many respects it would be impossible to amend the law to ensure fairness in this area. The Civil Partnerships Bill introduced this year by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, might have held out some remedies. But it is not on the statute book, or anywhere near. I was chided in Grand Committee for raising the issue of property rights as if it were of minor importance. It is not of minor importance, and I make no apology for so doing. It is yet another reason why the stability of marriage as a socially-recognised contract is to be preferred above informal types of relationship in the context we are now debating.
That leads me to my final point. My greatest objection, if the Bill were to pass as it stands, is that for the purposes of adoption the law would place marriage, cohabitation and gay partnerships on a platform of legal equivalents. The fact of a couple being married would carry no weight at all in any choice between alternative sets of adopters. That defies common sense. Its consequences would be perverse. We can easily envisage a situation in which social workers felt that a particular child's needs were best met by a married couple but were inhibited from saying so because of the fear that this might lead to an accusation of prejudice against unmarried or gay people. I cannot see how we can possibly guard against that.
The same difficulty manifests itself in the assessment work of adoption agencies. Adoption agencies will come under pressure to have an overtly even-handed policy towards married, unmarried and same sex couples in the way they operate their assessment procedures. The end result will be that instead of 95 per cent of adoptions being with married couples, as they

869
are at the moment, married adopters will be increasingly, and unreasonably, sidelined in favour of the other two groups. In those circumstances there would effectively be a bias operating against marriage.
When I hear people say, as I have recently, that the debate is about equal opportunities for married, unmarried and gay people, I truly despair. This debate has nothing to do with equal opportunities for adults; it is about doing what is best for children. I say to the House that the cause of children's welfare is gravely damaged by those who champion the Bill in its present form. I hope noble Lords will not be tempted to follow them. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak at this stage of the debate. I begin with an apology to the House that the amendment I tabled came so late; the fact is that other amendments were tabled some days ago. Amendment No. 51 A, which appears in the next group to be voted on, is by its nature a paving amendment to those others.
My noble friend Lord Howe will find that I agree with a great deal of what he put to the House in a powerful speech. I intervene at this stage because I want to make only one speech and not two, one on this debate and another on the next group. I suspect that that will have the general approval of the House.
Not having attended the Grand Committee held in the Moses Room, but having gone into the issue at some length, I am depressed—but not surprised—to be confronted by two ideological camps ranged against each other: those who argue, like my noble friend, with great passion that the only possible source of adoptive parents is married couples, and those who have, as it were, forced their way into the Bill in another place who would add unmarried heterosexual cohabitees and same-sex cohabitees.
This polarisation is very evident, not only in the many letters noble Lords will have received in recent weeks, but also in the considerable volume of social science literature with which the Library research department has furnished me. If I add to that the articles and pamphlets which have been sent by the various organisations which take one side or the other in this argument, I am left with an indelible impression of armies of committed researchers determined to make the facts fit their prejudices.
I do not believe that the solution to the problem we face lies in this "all or nothing approach". The specific case that I seek to put to the House is that to confine adoption to married couples only—even in the existing law it is not so confined because single people may adopt—in today's changing society is much too restrictive. I also take the view that to extend adoption to allow it by same-sex couples would be a very grave mistake.
To make it lawful for heterosexual couples in long-term stable relationships who choose not to be married to adopt would, most important of all, widen the circle of prospective adopters at a time when the agencies
870
and local authorities find it difficult to find enough parents prepared to adopt, particularly the more difficult children in the older age ranges.
Secondly, it would give more disadvantaged children the chance of a secure family life with two legal parents. Thirdly—and here perhaps I take a marginally different view from that of my noble friend—the careful assessment procedures recommended in the Department of Health's admirable consultation paper would still ensure that the risk of family breakdown could be little higher than in the case of married couples.
I am glad to agree with my noble friend—I am sure that every noble Lord does—that it is the interests of the child that must be paramount in all adoption procedures. Concepts such as political correctness, social engineering and gay and lesbian rights should play no part in that process. Interestingly, I felt myself agreeing word for word with the former Home Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw, who said on the "Today" programme in 1998:
"I'm not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies".
That is absolutely right.
I warmly welcome the statement made in the department's consultation paper at paragraph 5.16:
"Prospective adopters should never be excluded from the adoption process because their wish to adopt stems from a religious conviction".
I am sure that I am not alone in having received several letters from people who have sought to adopt but have been refused on the grounds that they are Christian. That is utterly intolerable and indicative of a culture that has grown up in social service departments—and, one must say, in some adoption agencies—that is specifically anti-Christian. I am glad that the Government have grasped that nettle and, on the evidence of the report, seem to rule that attitude to be illegitimate.
I turn to the figures cited by my noble friend, which I shall not repeat. I have no difficulty in accepting that adoption into a stable and secure family where the parents are married remains by far the best solution. My guess is that it will remain the most popular solution. I am not sure that I go along with my noble friend's suggestion that if we open the door a little wider, married couples will be disadvantaged. But I must ask: is that to be the only answer to the problem?
We all recognise that we live in a period of great social change and change to the patterns of family life. I venture to guess that there are few Members of your Lordships' House in whose extended family there are no examples of cohabitation without marriage. That represents a great change of attitude in our society. A national survey article stated three years ago:
"The once pervasive social stigma associated with living together without marrying has diminished continuously over the last three or four decades, and has now all but disappeared…first the pretence of, and then all reference to, marriage was finally dropped; informal unions have become recognised as a social institution in their own right".

871
Equally, I agree with my noble friend and accept that most cohabiting unions last a short time; they are either dissolved or the couple marry. That stimulated a wry headline in the journal of the Royal Statistical Society:
"Cohabitation in Great Britain: not for long but here to stay".
I further agree with my noble friend that far more children born within marriage live with both parents up to the age of 16–70 per cent of those born within marriage compared to 36 per cent of those born to cohabiting unions.
However, having said all that, I can find no evidence that bears on the crucial issue in the present context. If the assessment process were to be carried out as thoroughly and effectively on a stable and apparently secure unmarried couple as they are on a married couple, would there be much discernible difference in the outcome? It is wrong to take the generality of cohabiting couples and project the figures into particular adoption cases. As we all know, regrettably, an increasing number of marriages fail. Where there has been an adoption, are failures fewer than where there has been an adoption by an informal union? I doubt it. Despite what my noble friend said, the very thorough searches that are carried out would draw clear lines as to where children should be placed.
We all know that under the present law, a single person may adopt. Of course, such a person may already live in a secure informal union. But for the child, that means there is only one adopter—one legal parent. Only the adopting parent can stand in a legal relationship with the child. That is not in the best interests of the child. If adoption into families with a stable, secure informal union already happens—and it does—should not the Bill recognise that and make the position more explicit? That would give the child—which is our overriding concern—the advantage of two legal adopters, a father and a mother. I therefore find it difficult to agree that we should confine the law to married couples and single people. We should recognise the changes that have taken place and continue to take place in society.
I turn to same-sex adopters, with whom I can deal much more briefly. Just as a child must have both a father and a mother to come into the world, it is right that a couple adopting a child and becoming its adoptive parents should consist of a father and a mother. Here we need to use common sense. There is a plethora of so-called learned articles approving of same-sex adoption. I find them wholly unconvincing. One of those who advocates that cause, Sara Scott, who is a Barnado's research officer, admitted that the truth is that there,
"has been no research specifically on outcomes for children adopted or fostered by lesbians or gay men".
That is a leap in the dark of which we should have no part.
872
I find it impossible to believe that a child who has two mothers or two fathers will not be regarded as a bit of a freak at school. It is well known that children who go from local authority homes already suffer stigma. Should we add to that, by creating the stigma of having two parents of the same sex?
Many of us will have received an interesting letter from Mrs Gillian Barker. She writes:
"As a former lesbian who has raised a daughter in lesbian and gay households, I am writing to urge you to vote against adoption by homosexuals.
"Up to the age of 14, my daughter was brought up by myself and other lesbians. My daughter never had a father to relate to. She was in a constantly volatile situation, as were other children I knew brought up within homosexual relationships.
"It was only in 1990, when I married my husband, that my daughter began to experience the sort of home life she should have had all along. Sadly, it was too late. The damage of the previous years could not be undone".
I have also had a letter from a former constituent—a clinical psychologist who lives in South Woodford. He wrote:
"It is surely wrong to put 'gay rights' before the legitimate best interests of children. The traditional lifestyle of children living in a family with a mother and a father may, for children in care, already have been foregone, due to their circumstances—but is that an argument for placing them into an 'alternative' lifestyle?".
Thus writes Dr Martyn Baker.
I come back to Jack Straw: children are not trophies. I find it impossible to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as it is too restrictive. Nor can I support the provisions of the Bill, and I have given my reasons for that. The case that I make has, I have discovered, been referred to by the House authorities as a middle way. We should say yes to adoption by stable and secure informal heterosexual unions and no—very firmly—to adoption by same-sex unions. I hope that, when I move Amendment No. 51A, I will have the support of the House.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, in the other place and in your Lordships' House—at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and, at times, this afternoon—attention has been drawn to Clause 1(2), which states:
"The paramount consideration…must be the child's welfare".
That is properly so. However, many who made that reference did not quote the sentence through to its end. It says:
"The paramount consideration…must be the child's welfare throughout his life".
If we take those last three words at their face value, we will see that they require your Lordships' House to support the amendment and those grouped with it, which have been tabled in my name and those of others.
The three words "throughout his life" put a clear premium on the greatest possible assurance of the permanence of adoptive parental relationships. I cannot see how Parliament can responsibly—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, used that word too—allow the committing of children and young people for a

873
relationship for life to couples who have not committed themselves to each other, publicly and in law,
"till death us do part".
Those of us who have had the privilege of growing up through any substantial part of our life with our parents living and those of us who have the privilege to be parents, whether natural or adoptive, will know that parenting goes on and on, right through the lives of parents and children. We also know that the family relationships of which parenting and being a child are part are more widely transgenerational. They include relationships of all kinds, such as more distant blood relationships and friend relationships. Those relationships too, at their best and most supportive, are lifelong.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has amply shown—I shall quote no statistics—the statistical evidence is only too strong that, notwithstanding the rates of marriage breakdown, heterosexual relationships short of marriage are much less secure and much more prone to dissolution than are marriages. Same-sex relationships are more so still. Those are strong arguments for the proposition that the Bill should remain as it was when first printed for the other place. In it, adoption by couples was limited, as at present, to couples made up of a woman and a man who are married to each other. There are strong arguments for the amendment and the related amendments. There are also strong arguments against Amendment No. 51A, notwithstanding the attempts at persuasion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The case still stands, and my convictions were not one whit altered by the speech that we have just heard.
The case for the amendments is bolstered by a different consideration, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a brief reference. I continue to believe that a responsibility lies on government to sustain the unique, particular position of marriage as the fundamental reference point for family life and adult relationships and to withstand the pressure to equate other couple relationships with it. I am in no doubt that the effect of this element of the Bill in its present form will be to contribute to the undermining of marriage. Undermining marriage is, as the Chief Rabbi has said, like destroying a precious ecosystem, on which the security, the maturing, the well-being and the wholesomeness, not only of countless individuals but of our society, now and in the future, depends.
There is a proposal in the Bill as it stands that adoption should be open to same-sex couples. I draw the House's attention to the second part of Clause 1(6), which says that,
"the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so".
I must say something similar to the points made in the latter part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. My reading of the slight research evidence that exists about the effects on children of parenting by same-sex couples and letters that I have received from people with first-hand experience of those effects, as parents or as social workers and other
874
specialists, make me doubt the regularly made claim that children are unlikely to suffer damage if they are brought up by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the probabilities seem to me to lie the other way.
On all those grounds, I invite your Lordships to support the amendments in the names of other noble Lords and in my name. The amendments will ensure that adoption by couples is limited to couples who are married.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I have read much in the newspapers today about this debate. To be honest, I feel ashamed of the way in which the debate has been conducted. It should have been about finding homes for the 5,000 or so children currently in institutional care awaiting adoptive families. But it has taken on an unhelpful tone. It has set married couples against unmarried couples and married couples against, gay couples. All that any of us want in this debate is to find homes for children in institutional care.
I happily agree with many noble Lords that married couples should have priority over unmarried couples. I also agree that unmarried couples should have priority over gay couples. But I cannot agree that a child in institutional care is better off there than in a loving, caring home. We need to think long and hard about the issue.
There are 50,000 children in institutional care; 5,000 are waiting for homes. Thirty-nine per cent of the prison population under 21 have come from institutional care. Between 14 and 25 per cent of women leaving care are pregnant or have a child already.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I put to the noble Lord a question that I was minded to put to my noble friend. If the circle of people qualified to adopt increases in size, how can one say that more children will be adopted? What evidence is there that unmarried or gay couples would be more likely to take on the children who are most difficult to place? It is most likely that all you will do is increase competition for the children who are the easiest to place.
Lord Alli: My Lords, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, perhaps I may use anecdotal evidence. I would consider adoption with my long-term partner if we did it together. With the commitments of this House, I could not give the time necessary to a child. As we have heard, a child is not an accessory; one has to find time. So in my case, maybe there would be one extra.
I do not know whether noble Lords remember the television comedian Frankie Howerd. I believe he used to say, "Something funny happened to me on the way to the Forum". Well, something funny happened to me in Grand Committee. I found myself in agreement with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. In my memory I have never been in agreement with the

875
noble Lady, except on this one point. I would like to quote my noble friend—perhaps that is extending it too far—I mean, the noble Lady:
"It seems to me that the Bill is not about propping up the institution of marriage, but about getting these wretched children out of care and into families".—[Official Report, 11/7/02; col. CWH 238.]
What are the arguments used against letting unmarried couples and same-sex couples adopt? The first is that couples who are not married cannot demonstrate that they are in a long-lasting committed relationship; if they were—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, says—they would have married. That argument falls flat for two reasons: first, all prospective adoptees are fully vetted. If they are in a long-term relationship, their partners are also vetted. Secondly, it seems nonsensical that if a couple have been together for 10, 15, or like myself, 20 years, the relationship can be called "casual". At what point does it look casual?
Those who deploy that argument are suggesting that a marriage of one, two, or three years is more stable than a committed, loving relationship of 15 or 20 years. The logic flies in the face of good common sense.
The second argument that is deployed was used in Grand Committee. It was suggested that if married couples felt that the adoption process was easier, then more would come forward and there would not be a problem. That is burying one's head in the sand. It is a hypothetical solution that does not help the real problem.
There are children in children's homes waiting for families and there is a shortage of people to adopt. That is particularly true of ethnic minority young children, particularly ethnic minority boys. To wish away the problem is to live in an unrealistic world.
The third argument, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, deployed, relates specifically to same-sex couples. It goes something like this: how will they cope? What will they say at school? How will the children explain same-sex partners? Or indeed, are they at greater risk of sexual abuse in same-sex couples?
I cannot guarantee that children will not be teased in the playground. I cannot guarantee that children will not be teased for being black or for having ginger hair, or for that matter, having single parents. But I return to the remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, in Grand Committee:
"I do not believe that adoption by an unmarried couple or a homosexual couple is in any way the optimum. However, the alternative to adoption in the case of a child who has been in care is so infinitely worse than adoption into a home which is less than ideal that I believe that the risk is justified even if it results in only a handful of children being adopted who otherwise would remain in care".—[Official Report, 11/7/02; col. CWH 232.]
Finally, when all the other arguments are defeated, we can always rely on our learned colleagues. We shall hear them later; they can revert to a discussion of definition. How can we define unmarried couples: is it a legal precedent? Let us look at Erskine May or
876
perhaps turn to Rumpole and Pommeroy, because if we speak a different language we may obscure the real issues.
I refer noble Lords to the definition of unmarried couples on page 84. It is non-precedential and it may not be perfect, but let us keep the definition of unmarried couples as drafted and wait for a bigger debate when we can fill hours in the House discussing it.
I do not believe that allowing unmarried couples and same-sex couples to give children in care a loving home does anything to undermine the position of marriage. All it does is to give children greater security in their future and a home. It gives them security that if anything should happen to one or other of their adoptive parents, the other will be there to care for them. I ask noble Lords who seek to support the amendment to think again carefully about its implications; to think of it as an act of kindness and humanity towards children and not as a decision for individuals. For no one has the right to adopt, but every child has the right to a loving home. It is the right of the child that I seek to promote in this debate, not the right of the adult.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it is often dangerous to prepare a speech when one follows such an erudite speaker as the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I shall not give the speech I had prepared, but I shall try to be brief. I speak from a belief in the sanctity of marriage and having children through the sanctity of marriage. However, I support the Government's valuable amendments. I speak to them because I have the experience—which I believe to be rare in this House—of having, not adoptive children, but foster brothers, who would have been adopted but remained fostered because they fell into the category of having many problems.
My parents had seven children but they took it upon themselves to foster two more. I believe that that was a good thing to do, but it was not easy. I speak as someone who has suffered the trials and tribulations of having a foster brother come to the family when he was eight and cause so much trouble that he had to leave at 10. My brother James went through 10 foster families. Eventually social services said to my mother, "The only successful family was yours. Can you try again?"
At the time, James was glue sniffing and stealing regularly. He had many problems from birth. His natural mother's boyfriend had beaten him so badly that his skull had caved in and he was left partially paralysed down one side. James had problems, but he came back to us. Through my parents' work he managed to put right his life for the short time he was with us. The important part of fostering and adoption is the right of a child to have parents. James was lucky. I have seen many cases where children end up in the system and never come out of it.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to predictors and how long marriages would survive. I have been up since ten to four this morning with a teething child.

877
Perhaps the noble Earl can give me an indication of how long my marriage will survive after that. He seemed quite certain of the average time marriages will survive, but none of us who live in the real world can ever say how long our marriage will survive. There is nothing like a teething child to test your marriage. But that, is not the point. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. If two people adopt a child, that child has two parents. Even if the marriage breaks down, for whatever reason, the child will still have two parents. This is vitally important.
The noble Earl referred to predictors. One of the strongest predictors is the large number of people sleeping rough who have been in care all their lives. And the noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the large number of people who have been in care who end up in prison. Without the support of a family when leaving care, life can be very difficult. I am fairly sure that my foster brother, Paul, would have ended up in prison because he was having so many difficulties in managing his finances in situations he did not understand; the problems were beyond him. He needed the support of his foster family.
Foster families have no legal obligation to maintain contact. Adoptive parents do. It is important that adopted children, if possible, should have brothers and sisters because they will be there for them for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, my foster brother, James, is no longer with us, but I cannot turn round to Paul and say, "If you have a problem, do not phone me". He is still my brother. It is a fundamental right. The right reverend Prelate referred to adopted children receiving loving support for the remainder of their lives. That can be given through families.
Perhaps we should look at the other aspect—that is, remaining in care. What have those unlucky children who remain in care throughout their childhood got to look forward to when they leave care? I have heard of people leaving care who have been given the statutory £500 resettlement grant and a goodbye note from their social workers—and that has been it. We are then surprised by what happens to them.
I support the sentiment that in a perfect world a married couple would provide a loving, caring family for those children who do not have a home. However, such people are not queuing up. As many of the children often have multiple problems of their own which are very difficult to deal with, the pool of those who are prepared to provide a loving environment should be widened to include all those parents set out in the Bill. This is particularly important. As has been said, it should be the right of the child to have a loving parent. It is not the right of the parent to have a loving child, but the right of the child to have a loving parent.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I suspect, I have had a huge postbag in relation to this issue, more than I have ever had before. So it is clearly a matter of great general public concern. All the letters have come from individuals, and almost all of them are hand-written. I tend to give much greater weight to those who have taken the trouble to write their own letters. All the letters make the same two
878
points. They say that children are best brought up in a normal family, and they have the same concern about children being brought up by homosexuals.
As to the first point, there can be no dispute: we all agree that children are best brought up in a happily married family and we all agree that if there were enough happily married couples to adopt all the children who need adopting, there would be no problem. I am not talking about babies but about children of the age of 5 years and upwards. It is sadly the case that there are not enough married couples who want to adopt all those who need adopting. There is an acute shortage, in particular, of those who are willing to adopt what one might call the more difficult children. By "difficult" I mean the severely disabled, those who have been seriously traumatised by their upbringing, and even children who happen to be one of siblings. The question before the House is whether we should exclude their chance of being adopted by insisting that all prospective adopters should be married. My answer to that question is a simple no. It is not the case, as the noble Earl was half inclined to suggest, that there is another married couple in the wings waiting to adopt. I wish it were the case, but it is not.
I have had some experience of adoption cases as a judge, but never in the Family Division, which is where all the difficult decisions are made. But the picture I have is, I believe, accurate. One has the prospective adopters there sitting in court. The child will not normally be in court but the judge will have a great deal of information about the child from the social workers, the family welfare officer and various other sources. If he wants more information he will always be able to get it.
What does the judge do in such a case? He is not concerned with what is best for children in general; he is not concerned with the kind of statistics given by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He thinks—and thinks only—about what is best for that child in relation to those prospective adopters. That is exactly what he is required to do under Clause 1(1) of the Bill.
Let us now suppose that the prospective adopters are a man and woman who are suitable in every kind of way to adopt. They love each other, which is one of the most important things; they intend to stay together; and they mean to love the child. Now suppose the judge takes the view that it is in the child's best interests that there should be adoption by that couple and that the child has a permanent home with them rather than, which may be the only alternative, spending the rest of his childhood in a children's home or with a succession of foster parents. The judge should surely not be prevented from making the adoption order he would want to make simply because the two are not married. He could of course get round the difficulty. He could make the adoption order in favour of one or other of those two people living together—but surely, in passing the Bill, that is precisely the kind of artifice we should get away from and not encourage. It is said that, in some ways, this would undermine the institution of marriage. I do not believe that to be the case for one moment.

879
Why so many young people choose to live together and bring up children together without getting married, I do not profess to understand. They may have many reasons, none of which, I suspect, I would share. But we cannot compel them to get married, and we cannot—or should not—tempt them to do so by holding out the prospect of being able to adopt if they do get married. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said on this aspect of the matter. Unless we allow unmarried couples to adopt, as time goes on we shall find that the gap gets ever wider. There will be more and more children, many of the kind I described—
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, comment on the fact that adoption involves the process of law? Why should a couple be prepared to become involved in the process of law in adopting children but not for themselves as a couple?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am afraid that I may not quite have heard the noble Baroness. Even if I had, I am not sure that I would have been able to answer. Perhaps I could try to answer the question later.
As I said, there will be a gap: there will be more and more children in need of adoption who will not in fact be adopted. That is basically the reason why it seems to me that if unmarried couples are willing to adopt such children they should be allowed to do so. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said on that.
One then comes to the more contentious question of adoption by homosexuals. It is more contentious but, in the end, I do not believe it to be more difficult. I suspect that not many people realise that it has been lawful for single persons to adopt for nearly 100 years, since the Adoption of Children Act 1926. No one suggests that we should change the law in that respect. Still fewer people realise that it is lawful for single homosexuals to adopt, and that actually happens. If you talk to any Family Division judge, you will find that he has made just such an order. Such orders regarding adoption by a single homosexual have been upheld by the highest courts in the land, notably by the Scottish Court of Session as recently as 1997 when the judgment was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope.
No amendment has been tabled to add words to the end of Clause 51(1)—the clause dealing with single persons adopting—stating,
"provided that he or she is not homosexual".
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, does not even purport to cover the single homosexual adopting. So if single homosexuals can and do adopt, what is the precise objection to homosexual couples adopting? It cannot be that they are more likely to abuse the child—if anything, one would think that it was less likely in the case of a homosexual couple.
880
So far as I understand it, the only objection is the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin; namely, that the child will have two mothers or two fathers, as the case may be. As that child grows up and goes to school, I readily accept that that is likely to cause him or her difficulties. But if that difficulty is sensitively handled by the adopters, it could be overcome in practice. If the judge is not satisfied that the prospective adopters will be of the kind who are able to handle that question in the way that it should be handled, it is perfectly simple: he will not make an adoption order. The backstop in all these cases is that you have a judge. He is the one who decides whether the adoption is in the best interests of the child, whether the adoption is by a married couple, an unmarried couple, or a homosexual couple.
I now turn to the question of how we should all vote. Until the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was tabled, there was no amendment to exclude homosexual couples as such from the adoption process. Therefore, unless that amendment is adopted, it is really a case of all or nothing. The arguments in favour of allowing unmarried couples of different sex to adopt are overwhelming. In my view, those arguments should not be displaced by a concern—I accept that there is a concern, but it is unguarded, ungrounded concern—in respect of homosexual couples. I say "ungrounded" because if the judge has any doubt at all about the suitability of the homosexual couple, he will not make the order.
It is always good to return to the facts of an actual case. So, to conclude, perhaps I may give your Lordships the facts relating to the Scottish case to which I referred earlier. It concerned a very seriously disabled child. The prospective adopters were two male nurses living together in a homosexual relationship who were very experienced in dealing with that child's disability. The court held that adoption by that couple was that child's, not best, but his only, chance in life. It seems to me that we should not deprive such children in the future of adoption by such adopters by passing the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he can help me on a small point. He has sought to adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. Does my noble and learned friend believe that that amendment would stand up to the challenge in our courts in relation to the human rights legislation?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I fear that my noble and learned friend has misunderstood me. I am sure that it was my fault. I was not supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in my remarks; I was simply saying that all the arguments that he advanced in favour of allowing unmarried couples to adopt seem to me unanswerable.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, many noble Lords will be aware that I am taking part in this Report stage of the Bill despite the fact that I did not take part in either the Second Reading debate or in Grand

881
Committee. I do so because, the evening before she died, our late noble friend Lady Young asked me to do so. She had been feeling frail and wished to ensure that the cause of children would not go by default if she had not recovered before today. Your Lordships should note: "the cause of children". Sadly, within 12 hours of my being able to take that concern off her shoulders, she died. It is, without doubt, the most difficult task that I have undertaken in more than 11 years in your Lordships' House. I am so burdened by the determination not to let down that wonderful woman, yet so conscious that, however well I put the case, I shall never be able to do it as well as she would have done. Although I feel burdened, I also feel passionate about the imperative shared by every noble Lord in this House, so ably described by my noble friend Lord Howe, that children in institutional or foster care should be given the chance of being loved and cared for in a stable, secure, safe and permanent home.
This Bill is about children—damaged children, who have had a horrible existence for the first few months and years of their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that he was ashamed by the treatment of the Bill in the media. I impress upon him that the only interest for me in this Bill is the security and protection of children.
I remind your Lordships that this Bill is the result of a strong personal commitment of the Prime Minister, who introduced the review on adoption with the words:
"It is hard to overstate the importance of a stable and loving family life for children. That is why I want more children to benefit from adoption".
I agree with every single word. I am sure that all noble Lords will know what happened then. The review of adoption resulted in a White Paper, Adoption: A New Approach, which was followed by the Bill that we are debating today.
The interest of the Prime Minister and the production of the publications that I have just listed have already borne fruit, even though the Bill has not yet completed its progress through Parliament. The fact that the Prime Minister drew attention to the belief that,
"too many local authorities have performed poorly in helping children out of care and into adoption",
has resulted in a very big increase in the numbers of children currently being adopted. From a total of 1,900 in 1997—out of the 5,000 children who are available for adoption each year—the number of those adopted increased to 3,100 in 2001.
As Lady Young said in her powerful Second Reading speech on 10th June (at cols. 30 to 33 of Hansard), the Government's own target is almost certain to be reached. This was confirmed to me by the noble Lord the Minister only yesterday, and it could well be that the target of 3,800 in 2004–2005 will be met this year. I stress that that is out of a total of 5,000 children seeking adoption each year. That is a significant and welcome development.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin said that the solution to the problem of getting more children out of care and into adoption is much too restrictive in the original
882
Bill. But following the procedures set out in the Bill, and following the interest generated by the Prime Minister, it seems that there is not the same concern about so many children remaining in care. In a few years' time, there could well be no children left for adoption each year.
Prior to the Prime Minister's intervention, over 90 per cent of the would-be adopters were either turned down or gave up the process because they had such dreadful experiences of the immensely long drawn-out process lasting up to three years or more. Those who were turned down were sometimes given reasons such as: you are too rich; you are too poor; you are too fat; you live in too big a house; you have too many books; you go to church. When the Bill becomes law, the Government hope—as do we all—that these ridiculous attitudes will be a thing of the past as the processes being put in place should guarantee that many more of those 90 per cent would-be adopters who are either turned down or give up in despair will have their wish fulfilled, and that many more children will be adopted. It is not too far-fetched to envisage a situation where there could be a shortage of children to be adopted.
There is certainly no need to extend the range of would-be adopters beyond the current situation; namely, married couples and single people. Yet that is precisely what the amendment introduced in the other place seeks to do.
I state as an aside that the UK is a signatory to the 1967 European Convention on Adoption, whereby only married couples and single people can adopt. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that homosexuals have no right to adopt. Are the Government aware of those two points, or are they just ignoring international law?
By extending the category of would-be adopters to include homosexual couples of both genders and cohabiting heterosexuals, I contend that the Bill is now being used as an implement of social engineering. Under the Bill, adoption agencies would not be able to give preference to married couples. That removes the status of marriage, no matter what people say, and reduces it to the equivalence of "couples" of the same gender or couples who do not make a permanent commitment to each other. I shall not dwell on the point further as it has been so ably dealt with by my noble friend Lord Howe.
I find it quite amazing that the extension of the range of would-be adopters to include the groups I have just mentioned was not in the Labour Party manifesto, not in the Prime Minister's review, not in the White Paper, and not in the Bill when it was first introduced in the Commons.
What is the justification for amending the Bill in the other place? Is it political correctness? Is it social engineering? Or—perish the thought—is it the permanent downgrading of marriage and the family?
I repeat that it is the children I am concerned about. I am certainly not concerned about political correctness or social engineering. These children do

883
not have a voice. They cannot object to being a pawn in the political correctness game or being a means of achieving social engineering.
The Adoption and Children Bill is a Bill for the protection of children. It up to us—every one of us—to protect them. Let us remind ourselves that these children have never had a chance. Now, as a result of the Bill, they will have a much better chance of being brought up in a loving family situation with both male and female role models. They can begin to experience, enjoy and benefit from a family who love them and treat them as their own. Minority adult groups have a voice. Children do not have a voice.
There are five documented instances of government statements opposing homosexual adoption. Indeed, only last November, the Health Minister, Jacqui Smith, rejected amendments in another place, saying that they would create complex legal problems for children which the Bill could not address. In May this year, the Government did a complete U-turn. Suddenly, the whole process of the Bill has been hi-jacked.
So far as I can establish, no lobby organisation for cohabiting heterosexual couples exists. They certainly do not seem to be pressing for the law to be changed. Most cohabiting couples marry in any case, and if a cohabiting couple feel that they wish to adopt and thereby make a permanent longstanding commitment to a child, why not make a permanent longstanding commitment to each other—thereby offering more permanence and security to the adopted child?
What does the government U-turn mean for the protection of children? All the research shows that children do best when they are raised by married couples. I fear that the Government are ignoring that research.
I wish to refer briefly to two different findings of research. An assessment of primary school children in Australia showed that scores in language skills and mathematics for the children of homosexual couples were 29 per cent and 30 per cent lower respectively than for those with married parents. The scores for the children of cohabiting heterosexual couples were 12 per cent and 11 per cent lower than for those with married parents.
Secondly, married parents are statistically much less likely to abuse their children. A British study found that the incidence of child abuse was 33 times higher among children living with their mother and her boyfriend compared to children living with their biological, married parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, gave a searing example of how his foster brother, James, had his skull damaged by James's mother's boyfriend. I know that, for some people, opinion polls set the blood racing—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? Can she add to the information, to which I am listening intently? Can she say what was the score for children who were in care?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord means in mathematics and language skills. I do not have that information. I shall try to obtain it.
884
I said that for some people opinion polls set the blood racing. So I shall set the blood racing for about 20 seconds. A recent opinion poll carried out in a very safe, strong Labour-held constituency was taken over a sample of 500 people. Most national opinion polls are taken over a sample of 1,000, so 500 is quite a respectable figure over a small area. The question asked was:
"If you died would you like your children to be adopted by two homosexual men?".
The answers were quite revealing: 71 per cent of the Labour voters said "No"; as did 81 per cent of the Conservative voters; and 65 per cent of the Liberal Democrat voters said "No".
Damaged children need both male and female role models. They need a mother and a father. Homosexual adoption would deliberately place—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness cited the example that I gave. Perhaps I did not make it clear that the boyfriend of my foster brother's natural mother damaged him, which was why he was given up for fostering and taken on by the state in the first place. I do not see how that situation would have changed if the couple had been married.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, because I thought it a fairly obvious point—obviously, it was not—I did not state that if a cohabiting couple are allowed to adopt a child, abuse could occur, as happened in the case of James's mother and her boyfriend.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I find it interesting that James's mother went on to have five more children, all by different fathers. Most of them ended up in care, but she was never assessed for her suitability as a parent.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, you would say that wouldn't you?
Damaged children need both male and female role models, a mother and a father. Homosexual adoption would deliberately place some of the most damaged children in a home without either a father or a mother. Is that in the interests of the child? Is it right that we should forget about the interests of the child in the interests of political correctness? These children know that they are different anyway. Do we want to make them feel even more different? How would they feel if their friends knew that they had either two dads or two mums? It is likely that they would be mocked and made to feel even more different. Of course that is not right, but should we put damaged children in this position?
I also wish to use the quotation used my noble friend Lord Jenkin. On the "Today" programme in November 1998, Jack Straw said:
"I'm not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies".

885
But, my noble friend Lord Jenkin did not give the whole quotation. Jack Straw continued:
"Children, in my judgement, and I think it's the judgement of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There is no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not".
It is not a case of increasing the number of adoptions by extending the field of would-be adopters. The Bill as it went to the House of Commons in the first place, following the intervention of the Prime Minister, gives us the solution by making adoption processes more transparent and easy. I support the amendment.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill as it stands and oppose the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. My arguments apply to both heterosexual and homosexual unmarried couples.
Nobody would deny that children thrive best when they are cared for in a loving environment by parents who have a successful and long-term commitment. However, co-habitation is now a normal and prevalent factor. We must face the reality that it is not only unmarried couples who split up; unfortunately, a growing number of married couples do. Every day 650 children see their parents separate or divorce. Today more than 2.5 million children are growing up in a step-family.
It cannot be stated too often that nobody has the right to adopt, be they married or unmarried. I was disappointed by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about assessment, because I genuinely believe that proper assessment is the key to ensuring that only suitable people can adopt.
It is a pity that more people did not listen to the debate in Grand Committee, during which there was an important and thoughtful discussion on the criteria for providing an adopted child with a loving and caring home. The stringent criteria that agencies, social workers and the courts must apply should be based not on marital status but on the ability of adoptive parents to provide stability and permanence for a child or children, just as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said. However, I disagree with the noble Earl's suggestion—we seem to disagree across the Chamber frequently—that social workers take a subjective view. They do not take a subjective view. The criteria and the adoption process mean that they must take a very objective view before they reach a decision. We must consider the amendments against that background and the guiding principle that the welfare of the child is paramount.
This debate is about the vulnerable child, who would benefit from adoption now, not in some years' time when there may be enough adopting families—I make no apology for repeating statistics and the problems of vulnerable children, because we need more families now. It is about finding a permanent home for older children who are in desperate need of loving care. It is about doing something for the 14,000
886
children who have been in care continuously for more than five years. It is about providing security for the 5,000 children nationwide, to whom my noble friend Lord Alli referred, who are waiting for a suitable adoptive family.
In all our deliberations we must be concerned for the large number of boys aged five to 10 whom nobody has been prepared to adopt. We cannot ignore the difficulties in placing large sibling groups. It is interesting that nobody mentioned that problem and the fact that 50 per cent of children waiting for adoption need to be placed together with their brothers and sisters, with whom they have close bonds. It is not easy to find families for such children.
Like my noble friend Lord Alli, I shall refer to the comments made in Grand Committee by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. She said that remaining in care is one of the worst fates that can happen to any child. How right she is. As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to ensure that those children can find a loving, caring home as quickly as possible. The problems with local authorities and their bureaucratic procedures were discussed. Of course we want to put those right, and the Bill is designed to make adoption easier. However, that will extend only marginally the number of married families willing to adopt. We must take into account the interesting fact that all the adoption charities believe that the Bill is now right. They believe that there must be a joint legal commitment to an adopted child. That view was reinforced by a recent MORI poll.
5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Perhaps I may draw her attention to the Catholic Children's Society, which does not support that view.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon—with the exception of that society.
The view of the other adoption organisations was reinforced by a recent MORI poll which showed that cohabiting couples who are not married are more likely to adopt than married couples; 41 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. However, only 6 per cent of cohabiting couples do so because only one of them can be the legal guardian. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked about evidence which shows that unmarried couples are more willing to take on difficult children. All the evidence shows that that is the case and there is evidence to show that unmarried couples are more willing to adopt. Surely, an environment in which a child is placed where only one partner can be the legal guardian and the other can have no say about the responsibilities of the child cannot be a good one in which to bring up a child.
The situation is even more anomalous for unmarried foster carers who are jointly assessed and found to be suitable to foster a child with joint responsibilities—the law recognises that joint

887
responsibility—and then find that if they want to adopt, only one parent can do so. Let us look at the effects of that on the child—not on the parent and not on us, but on the child. The child may have been living in foster care with loving and caring parents and in a stable environment. Suddenly they find that because they want to provide the child with a permanent home, he or she will have only one legal parent. That cannot be right.
Reference was made to certain matters being perverse. I believe that there is nothing more perverse for the child than suddenly to find that he has lost one of his loving parents because of the law. It must have a destabilising psychological effect. Nor can it be in the interests of the family. Can one imagine the conflict that would occur in those changed circumstances? It is a farcical situation and the child will ultimately lose out.
If a child or young person has only one legal parent and that parent dies, he can be left in legal limbo. The consequence can mean being taken away from a caring and loving environment and being returned to a care home, losing not only the permanent home but one parent from death and the other parent because of the law. Again, that cannot be right. The traumatic effect on the child goes completely against the thrust of the Bill; that the welfare of the child is paramount. I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone can accept and perpetrate such devastating trauma on the child which will almost certainly stay with him for the rest of his life.
There are many occasions in the life of a child where parental consent is required, be it consent to medical care, to schooling, to school trips and other day-to-day but important decisions on behalf of the child. Those decisions should be made collectively as a family. However, if the amendments before us are carried, that will ensure that those decisions remain with only one legal guardian. That cannot be good for family life.
I listened with interest both today and in Grand Committee to points made about the lack of financial protection for the child if unmarried people were allowed to adopt. There is a legal framework that provides protection. Schedule 1 to the Children Act provides considerable protection and gives the High Court and the county court powers to make orders for financial provision and property adjustment orders against either or both parents of the child. Surely, it must be to the benefit of a child to have two legal parents, both of whom have financial responsibility.
In conclusion, I do not believe that all the children's adoption charities—apart from the Catholic Children's Society that has been mentioned—which are urging opposition—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to all the children's adoption societies. Does she
888
not accept that if the Bill remains unchanged, the work of the religious-based adoption societies will become unlawful?
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot respond to that point. However, if it does become unlawful, we have a responsibility to ensure that we change the law to make it lawful. I do not believe that one adoption organisation should prevent children from having a stable, loving and caring home. We have the opportunity today to increase the number of vulnerable children who do have that opportunity, but we will lose that opportunity if we support these amendments.
The choice for me is simple: is it not better and right that a child should have constancy and security and the opportunity of a real home than remain in care? The amendments before us will ensure the second option. I am not prepared to accept that and I hope that House will not either.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, there is a deep unease among many people in the public domain about the possibility that cohabiting, and especially same-sex, couples might be granted the legal right to adopt a child. Like many noble Lords, I have had more letters about this issue than any other, including hunting!
The Judaeo-Christian ethic clearly emphasises that it is within the context of the committed heterosexual relationship of marriage that the paramount interests of the child are best served. All of us emphasise that it is the children who must be our paramount concern and that has emerged repeatedly throughout the debate. Children are not pawns or trophies. They need and deserve to be cared for and nurtured ideally within a home environment in which the complementarity of the sexes is expressed by a male and female parent.
Having children is one of the three purposes of marriage, universally recognised by all the Christian Churches. The intention is for parents to be as committed to the nurture of their children as they are committed to each other as husband and wife. The "pick and mix" family, now so often advocated, where any configuration of adults will do, is a clear rejection of the very Judaeo-Christian beliefs which pioneered adoption and fostering in the United Kingdom.
I have had long experience of adoption issues. An adopted child has inevitably an inbuilt vulnerability and not infrequently struggles at different points in his or her development with the deeply human questions of identity and belonging. To be adopted into a situation where the couple are not rooted in a commitment to each other, or are both of the same sex, creates all the potential for the child to be even more confused and insecure. It is with that so clearly in my view that I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will not misunderstand me if I join her in deeply regretting that we will not have the opportunity to hear Lady Young today. Lady Young was a

889
parliamentarian to her fingertips. She was as devoted to the procedures by which we reach our decision as she was to her own principles. And that is saying something.
I want to put two questions to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. First, will she concede that those of us who oppose the amendments today are quite as devoted to the interests of children as those who propose them? We merely see the interests of children in very different ways—in many more different ways than time will allow me to expound today.
Secondly, will she concede that as regards Members on these Benches and, as far as I know, everyone else, this is nothing to do with political correctness or social engineering. Those are things I despise. People, not the state, are generally the best judges of their own interests. That is a fundamental principle behind the philosophy of these Benches. Were I not convinced on those grounds, I would not be saying what I am saying now.
Parliamentary measures tend to get shorthand nicknames. There was a Bill that constantly occupied another place, in the 1580s, which became known as the Bill Against Wednesdays. I know that today is a Wednesday, but I have nothing against that. However, these amendments should be known as the amendments against couples. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, explained very clearly, it is perfectly legal for a single homosexual to adopt or for a single member of a cohabiting couple to adopt, but not for the two of them to do it together. That can only cause confusion.
I remember, when I was about 10, being struck down by appendicitis. The doctors decided that it was necessary to operate that night. They flashed a message on the screen at the nearest cinema—which, being in north Wales, was 40 miles away—to fetch the surgeon. The operation took place at midnight. I was assured the next morning that I would have been dead by then had the operation not been carried out. Medical people are rather careful about falling into legal traps. Had there been any doubt whether either of the people in charge of me was entitled to sign a medical consent form, I might not be addressing your Lordships now.
It is, I know, possible for the partner of an adoptive parent to apply for a parental responsibility order under Section 8 of the Children Act. However, that is a temporary order that may be withdrawn. Moreover, parental responsibility is governed by case law, which means that it is subject to change at any time. It is, I think, very much better to have two people in charge who are both clearly in a legal position of authority. Otherwise, we may find someone saying, "I'm sorry, darling, you know I cannot sign it, and Mummy is on the Front Bench". That is going to cause a good many problems.
I was interested in an article in this Sunday's Observer by Maureen Freely. She remarks:
"In 1974, when I left university, it still raised eyebrows to live with someone before marriage. Now it's the norm, and the norm most people accept".
890
She further said:
"If marriage is not the all-defining and confining institution it once was, it's not just because a generation of Seventies upstarts decided to change the rules. It's also because the legal and economic underpinning have changed beyond recognition. When marriage ceases to be the only way a woman can find her way in a world, when men no longer can or wish to treat women and children as chattel, when the penalties of divorce are no longer as cruel and inhumane as they used to be, relationships become defined by the degree and the quality of the personal commitment".
I heard what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester had to say about the ecosystem. I think that the ecosystem was changing before the changes in the habit of cohabitation came in. I think that contraception changed sexual relations as permanently and as inevitably as nuclear weapons changed the nature of war. I think that there is no going back on that.
When I talk to my female pupils, I realise that there is nothing in the world harder to understand than the time just before the time when one was born. I simply cannot bring them to conceive of a world in which women have the sort of total economic dependence on a man that used to be normal even when I was young. This means that there must be an element of choice in marriage which was often not there before. It also means that there must be, as Maureen Freely remarks, a concern about quality. That is why I make no apology to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for using anecdotal evidence—because one cannot measure quality by quantitative evidence.
I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had to say about the virtue of permanence: it is very great. However, it is not the only virtue. According to John Chamberlain—the Matthew Parris of the 17th century—James I and his wife lived together "as well as a couple who do not converse can do". They gave their children permanence; it did not seem to do Charles I very much good. As well as permanence, we need love and we need peace; not only love for the child, but also the example of love between the parents. Where those things are absent, the child is losing something which is in my view quite as precious as permanence.
Many statistics have been produced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I think that the question between those who marry and those who cohabit is whether we think it better to have a bad marriage or none at all. That is a question on which there may be two opinions, but I do not see a research method of testing them. How is one to collect the sample of bad marriages on which to do one's research? Who is going to admit to belonging to it? I grant that people brought up in happy households are likely to do better than people brought up in unhappy households, but I do not understand how one brings that to bear on the evidence on whether the ceremony of marriage is in the interests of children.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, alleged that there was no research at all on the effect on

891
children of homosexual couples. That is not in fact the case; there is a fairly considerable body of research. It was reported by Professor Gottman in 1999:
"Studies on children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers report no negative effects on children relative to their parents' sexual orientation. Children did not appear deviant in gender identity, sexual orientation and social adjustment".
Being gay is not contagious. The fact that, by definition, all gay children are children of straight parents would seem to me to be evidence to support that point of view. In so far as there is trouble, it is the result of stigma. Those who complain of the effect of stigma and use it as an argument against change are showing the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork. I except the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from that—he has not used that argument today; but others have. It seems to me that it is inevitably a disadvantage to have a type of loving relationship that one cannot avow proudly and in public. If one thinks that children brought up by homosexuals are at a disadvantage, the way to remedy it would be to allow their parents to avow their love proudly and in public.
We have had opinion polls quoted. I do not believe that I am the only person in this Chamber who was brought up on Burke's address to the electors of Bristol. He said that a Member is not a delegate but a representative and that he owes his constituents not only his attendance but his judgment. If that is true in another place, of which Burke was speaking, then a fortiori it must be true here.
Finally, children need to be brought up by somebody or something that can hear them. There are two cases, at least one of them fictional, of children brought up by wolves: Mowgli in The Jungle Book and Romulus in Rome. We are not proposing anything as shocking as that.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments from this side of the House. I do so in the knowledge that there are many on these Benches who will think that I am guilty of offending what is described as political correctness, a concept that I have never fully understood. I have always been driven by what I understand to be right and wrong.
I start by stressing—as many other noble Lords have done—that my sole concern in the Bill is unequivocally the interests of the children who are the subject of our deliberations. My only interest in adults, whatever their status, concerns the way in which their circumstances will serve or not serve the interests of children who will benefit from adoption.
This Bill was primarily introduced by the Government for the purpose of removing obstacles and unnecessary difficulties that married couples confront when preparing to adopt. That bureaucracy and red tape have meant, unfortunately, that far too many children have been left in care homes when they could otherwise have been settled into a family environment which, as we all know, is most likely to be
892
to the children's ultimate benefit. However, what the Bill, when originally drafted, did not do was to extend the rights of those entitled to adopt. That right has been introduced by Back-Bench amendments in the other place, as we all know.
It is significant that the Government, when introducing the Bill, saw fit to continue to apply the current provisions whereby adoption is largely, although not exclusively, limited to married couples. In the 1998 Green Paper on the family, the Government stated:
"Marriage is the surest foundation for raising children".
With that I agree. However, because of the changes made in the other place, the Bill before us makes it permissible for homosexual partners and unmarried heterosexual partners to adopt on the same basis as married couples. It is those provisions that I wish to challenge, not because of those adults' status with regard to one another—that is their business—but because of the way in which their status will impact on the interests of the children with whom we are all concerned.
I stress that I have no quarrel with the principle of the other place carrying amendments as it has done—that is its democratic right. But I also believe that it is the democratic right of your Lordships' House to return the Bill in that respect to what the Government originally proposed, and that will be done by supporting the amendments we are discussing.
I am sure that we all appreciate that whatever we do there is always a risk to these children. Indeed, unfortunately, we read every day of the risk and danger faced by far too many children born naturally to married couples. But, as I see it, our job is to reduce, as far as is humanly possible, the extent of risk that the children with whom we are concerned are likely to be confronted—I refer to physical and psychological danger—and perhaps above all to ensure that when a child is taken from care he or she does not jump out of the frying pan into the fire. We may not always get it right but we can certainly do our best to limit as far as possible the extent of risk to be faced, not by us in this House, but by countless already deprived and underprivileged children. It is because of the degree of risk which I believe to be involved that I support the adoption provisions being limited in the main to married couples. I shall try to explain why.
First, I shall deal with the question of heterosexual partners who are unmarried but living together in what appear to be very stable relationships. Indeed, it will be observed that many such relationship are as stable, if not more stable, than many marriages. I have no doubt that that is true in some cases. However, what does the evidence tell us? The Office for National Statistics has found that cohabiting couples are six-and-a-half times more likely to split up after the birth of a child than are married couples. The study found that 52 per cent of cohabiting couples had split up five years after the birth of a child whereas only 8 per cent of married couples had done so. I refer to a six-and-a-half times greater risk factor as regards cohabiting couples. If that is the evidence concerning naturally born

893
children, what would be the level of risk for an adopted child in those circumstances? I suggest that it would be much higher. In my view that is a risk to which adopted children should not be subjected.
The evidence from the Office for National Statistics convinces me that in the main those couples who demonstrate a commitment to each other through marriage are likely to have a much stronger commitment to an adopted child than would cohabiting, heterosexual couples. So why take the risk? If a couple are sufficiently committed to each other, they can marry and be entitled to adopt. But why should we risk the future of a child if such adults are not prepared to demonstrate such a commitment?
I earnestly and deeply believe in family life. Until my wife and I married 43 years ago, she worked as a trained nurse in children's care homes. Since we married, we have, fortunately, had four daughters, all of whom are married and were married before they had children. Each daughter has two children and therefore I have eight grandchildren. I observe at close hand how much my grandchildren benefit from a stable family environment. I have no doubt that marriage is the foundation for a stable family environment. I believe that an adopted child is entitled to no less than that and that that is what our laws should provide for.
From the evidence before us I know that it would be wrong to take unnecessary risks. It would be unwise and cruel to take the risk of placing already hurt and sometimes damaged children into circumstances where they are more likely to suffer even more hurt. Therefore, I shall vote for the amendments that remove that possibility.
I turn to the part of the Bill which makes it possible for homosexual and lesbian couples to adopt on an equal footing to married couples. From what I have said, your Lordships will know that I find such a provision wholly unacceptable. However, I wish to stress that this Bill is not, and should not be, about the rights of homosexuals and lesbians; it is exclusively about the interests of children born of men and women and who for one reason or another have been deprived of that family unit. It is our task to try to return them to a stable family unit. Many children in care homes, some from a very early age, will have become confused by their experience of the unfortunate circumstances they have had to face. It seems clear to me that placing those children with homosexual or lesbian couples can only add to their state of confusion.
Many others can quote chapter and verse, and have done so, on why the provision in the Bill should be removed. Therefore, I shall limit my comments to two aspects. First, I believe that the best possible environment for a child is with a father and a mother. I understand that there are 11 million married couples in Britain today. Of course, we cannot legislate for every child to live with a father and a mother, but where we can I believe that we should. We can do that in respect of adoption. A small child understands the concept of a "mummy" and a "daddy". In my view both the mother and father have important roles in
894
forming a child's development. Over the weekend I read an interview conducted with a homosexual couple in America, one of whom had fathered a child by artificial insemination with a surrogate mother. When one of the homosexual partners was asked what the child called him, he replied, "mummy-daddy". It seems to me clear that in such circumstances that child will grow up feeling very confused, particularly when among his or her friends or classmates.
Secondly—it is perhaps a secondary issue—there is the question of sexual discrimination. If the Bill is not amended, there will be law in this country in the field of adoption which makes married couples and homosexual couples equal. Therefore, they should be treated equally under the law.
Let us imagine that a married couple and a homosexual couple make applications to adopt and that the married couple are given the child on the grounds that marriage is the best environment in which to bring up a child. Is not the homosexual couple entitled to claim that they have been sexually discriminated against? Such a situation may need to be tested. But should we not guard against the likelihood of a child being caught up in such a mess? We should support the amendment, which removes the entitlement of homosexuals and lesbians to adopt. By doing so, we should certainly avoid such a difficulty.
In conclusion, I was going to quote what the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said on 4th November 1998. I support all that he said, and I believe that his comments support my argument. However, as those words have been quoted time and time again today, I shall not do so.
5.30 p.m.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for being so slow on the draw. I was anxious to ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, just how much confidence he had that his amendment would not be fatally challenged in our courts under human rights legislation. However, I missed the opportunity to do so because someone set out on a speech. Therefore, I use the excuse with my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick to ask him, since he embraced forensically the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He did not seem to be able to answer that question or wish to answer it. In any event, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will have time to reflect on the matter and we shall have the benefit of his view. He has obviously considered the problem deeply because he addressed us at some length.
The key to resolving the issues raised by this debate is surely to be found in Clause 1(2), which reads:
"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare"—
I stress the final three words—
"throughout his life".

895
Therefore, we are all concerned—or should be—that, beyond all else, we must safeguard and advance the security and stability of the children who seek adoption.
In my submission, it is terribly important to keep in focus the legal position as it existed up until May of this year, when the amendment was introduced on Report in another place. As the law then stood, no one is legally excluded from consideration for adoption. Whether one is married or unmarried, cohabiting or single, gay or lesbian, young or old, or black or white, one is legally entitled to adopt. That was, of course, fully appreciated by the Government and clearly set out by the right honourable Mr Lilley, who had been Secretary of State for Social Security in the Conservative government. I refer noble Lords to col. 991 of Commons Hansard for 16th May.
In 1967, Britain signed up to the European convention on the adoption of children, which permits only married couples and single people to adopt. In the Adoption Act 1976, joint adoption could be carried out only by a married couple. Some 95 per cent of all adoptions are by married couples. The 1976 Act provided that single people could also adopt, and they made up the remaining 5 per cent.
The Government were also doubtless aware that the majority of European countries allowed joint adoption only by married couples. Some countries have introduced partnership schemes to recognise unmarried couples. However, most of those schemes specifically exclude joint adoption. For example, in the past decade Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Sweden have legalised same-sex domestic partnerships, extending to registered partnerships many of the social and economic consequences of marriage.
However, while all those countries have a reputation for being "progressive", in sexual and family matters they are certainly not permissive when it comes to child rearing by same-sex couples. Adults are not free to do as they wish in regard to children or to subject children to the effects of atypical adult sexual preferences. In Iceland and Denmark, same-sex couples may not in general adopt a child but, if one partner already has children, his or her registered partner may adopt them. In Swedish law, adoption and joint custody for registered same-sex couples are excluded. In Norway, same-sex registered partnerships may not adopt.
The Government's adoption review concluded that joint adoption should be limited to married couples because adoption by a married couple is more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needs since married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised legal commitment to each other. It also concluded that marriage provides for mutual, legal and financial obligation, and, importantly, in the event of divorce, the couple must be prepared to have plans for the future of their children scrutinised by the court. It is of course vital to bear in mind that there is currently no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate.
896
Cohabiting couples can, of course, marry at any time and some 60 per cent of cohabitees go on to marry. The red-hot figures are that the relationships of only 4 per cent of cohabitees are expected to last for more than 10 years. I refer noble Lords to the latest British household survey, covering 10,000 persons.
Although, according to the general household survey, homosexual couples make up only 0.2 per cent of households, there is never-ending pressure to equate cohabitation with marriage and homosexual relations with heterosexual relations. The homosexual lobby seeks not merely to obtain tolerance of what to some of us appears to be an unpleasant perversion, but positive approbation. As Jack Straw pointed out, we are not concerned with homosexual rights, and there is no question of children being treated as trophies.
We must always bear in mind that we are concerned largely with the adoption of older children in care, who are highly vulnerable; we are not concerned with babies. For those children, a stable relationship and a secure environment are essential.
It is not at all clear why the Government have performed a U-turn on this issue; I hope we shall hear why. On 23rd April 2000 a Downing Street spokesman, presumably speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, said:
"There are no plans to change the law to allow gays to adopt. This is about finding loving families to adopt children".
As recently as November 2001 the Health Minister, Jacqui Smith, stated that:
"joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that…a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed".—[Official Report. Commons Special Standing Committee, 29/11/01; col. 383.]
Last year 300 single people adopted children. There is no evidence to support the idea that a significant number of people are put off adopting by the legal position which existed before the amendment, or that the Commons amendment will significantly, if at all, increase the pool of intending adopters.
I should like to conclude my observations by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, for whom I have a special regard and, indeed, as a fellow Bencher of the Middle Temple a special affection. She said in the debate in Committee on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill:
"we are wary",
that is the Government,
"about putting through Parliament legislation that commits us to an idea that has not been tested. One of the duties of government is critically to assess changes that are proposed by interested groups".—[Official Report, 11/6/02; col. CWH 7.]
The Commons amendments we have been discussing do not pass that test. As has been pointed out, they will result in married couples losing their priority because in order to hold the balance even and prevent litigation there will be occasions when homosexuals—I use that term to cover lesbian and male homosexuals—and those who live together without being married are given priority to ensure that there is no allegation of unjustified preference.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that we should be wary of putting through

897
Parliament ideas that have never been tested. That argument has been used against every major change from the great Reform Bill onwards. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is sense in the observation of Edmund Burke that whatever now is established once was innovation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be brief. My noble friend Lord Howe opened the debate with an excellent speech. He dealt with statistics to support his case, which I shall not repeat. I share with my noble friend his reservations about any assessment that could possibly declare an unmarried couple as having a long-term, enduring, loving relationship.
I am also concerned, if the Bill extends adoption of children to gays, lesbians and unmarried couples, about the consequences for many of the church and other religious adoption societies. Despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, there is no putting this right after the Bill is passed. If it remains unchanged the work of those societies becomes illegal. What of a conscience clause for those who do not agree with such an extension of adoption rights? Would they be forced to accept the legal position or walk away from the field of finding placements for these vulnerable children because their conscience was not allowed for in the legislation?
Dr Joy Holloway made a contribution to this debate from her position as a specialist in paediatrics. She has had much experience of adoption in her professional capacity by producing a paper entitled Homosexual Parenting: does it make a difference? A re-evaluation of the research with adoption and fostering in mind. Dr Holloway has shown great courage, for which she has been subjected to unacceptable criticism and harassment from her employers for simply exercising her right to free speech when she made the case, supported by much scientific evidence, which supports the amendments of my noble friend Lord Howe.
I agree that a heterosexual unmarried couple who wish to adopt a child should make a legal commitment to each other through marriage which in turn would offer a more secure future to the adopted child. Too many of those who oppose my noble friend Lord Howe do so on the basis of the right of gays and lesbians to adopt and/or the right of unmarried heterosexual couples who are not prepared to make a legal commitment to each other, let alone to the child. They choose to ignore all the evidence, some of which my noble friend cited today to support his case.
So many of the children available for adoption are already emotionally bruised and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford stated, very vulnerable. It is therefore essential that they are given the best possible chance of a long-lasting, secure and loving relationship with a mother and a father.
Finally, I missed the tributes in this House to my noble friend Lady Young. I am proud to follow in my noble friend's footsteps. I shall try to bear any derision or ridicule, to which my noble friend was subjected by some of her opponents for holding strong and particular views of marriage and child protection, with
898
her dignity and determination. My noble friend's work remains a beacon for many of us. It is in her memory and because I support the case made so powerfully at an earlier stage of the Bill by my noble and late friend Lady Young that I support my noble friends Lord Howe and Lady O'Cathain, who only a few hours before our noble friend died undertook to carry on her great work.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, we have been deliberating today as if adoption by single-sex couples does not currently exist; it does. Knowing that, and knowing that some councils have policies in relation to adoption by single-sex couples, I want to share briefly with the House the findings of one council.
Gateshead Council has been recognised for its work in relation to the adoption of children by being awarded the Beacon status, which is given for successful placing of children for adoption. Its placements have trebled in the past three years. Gateshead Council does not place emphasis on the sex of those applying to adopt, but on the stability of a couple's relationship. If any couple applying have had a series of short-term relationships, they would not be considered appropriate to adopt. The council would want to know, for example, how couples see their commitment to each other, how decisions are made within their partnership and whether partners support each other and meet each other's needs.
Gateshead Council has already approved adoptions by single-sex couples whereby one of the couple has adopted and the other has taken out a parental responsibility order under the Children Act. However, Gateshead Council believes it would be far better for all concerned for the single-sex couples to be equal partners sharing their commitment to the child equally from the beginning.
Like other councils, Gateshead is short of those wishing to adopt. It believes that single-sex couples in a stable relationship and single people should be able to adopt. As Jane Gray, the team leader of the family support services, told me:
"We need to attract more adopters. We have a wide range of children needing parents and therefore we need a wide range of adopters. The most important thing is not their sex but the commitment to the child".
I believe that those words, from someone closely involved with adoptions day by day, are both wise and worthy.
Lord Hooson: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that there is any purpose in both your Lordships speaking at the same time because we shall lose the benefit of both. I think that it probably is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. There is a feeling—I do not know whether or not it is accurate—that there has been a good deal of discussion and that after the noble

899
Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Campbell of Alloway, we could perhaps move to the three concluding speeches. I do not say that in any way to curtail debate—it is not within my gift—but I think that there is a general feeling that most points of view, if not all, have been amply ventilated.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, although I took an active part in the Adoption Act 1976 in another place, I had decided that, following early discussions on the Bill when I was convinced that events had so changed between the passing of that Act and the introduction of the Bill, I did not have a contribution to make. I had been much more concerned as a family with an immediate family and a much wider family, which, between us, had a great experience of adoption. I decided that really the problem at the present time was something different.
I want to point out that I think we may be getting the worst of all worlds with the Bill. The main objective is to deal with those unfortunate youngsters in care. Anyone who has read, for example, the Waterhouse report realises what an enormous problem it is. But this is not just a Bill about children in care and how to deal with them, it is about adoption. This Bill deals with the whole concept of adoption—for example, the adoption of the very young child—which will be governed by the Bill in the future.
I therefore want to ask the Government whether they have given proper consideration to what really happened when their proposals were derailed in the Commons. Although I disagree with much of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, I think he was right about the danger of the Bill creating a platform of legal equivalents. It is not limited to the immediate problem of dealing with children in care and rescuing them from their terrible state; it also deals with adoption in the longer term. There is a serious problem if it is not spelled out in the Bill that we in this House and indeed elsewhere in the country do not regard these concepts as legal equivalents.
I think everyone is agreed that an adopted child needs exactly the same as a child of any other family—love and security. The security part of it is very important. What is happening here is that enshrined in this legislation will be the idea that married couples, unmarried couples and homosexual partners are on an even plane so far as concerns the Government and the community. Whereas we are all agreed—or nearly all agreed—that it is much better if a child can be adopted by a happy, settled family and given love and security. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if that cannot be secured of course the child should be adopted by an unmarried couple who live together and who have a good relationship.
I would not exclude the homosexual pair. For example, in the case in Scotland referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, it would be terrible if the two people of great individual standing, having great compassion for a permanently injured child, had not been allowed to adopt. So there are certain circumstances where there should not be total
900
exclusion. On the other hand, it should not be spelled out in a Bill of this kind that these three statuses are legal equivalents. That is the weakness of the Bill.
I was hoping that I would not have to speak at all on this matter. But I am convinced that we are letting ourselves in for a great deal of future trouble. Experience tells us that pressure groups are bound to use the actual spelling out of these powers in the Bill. And, if I have any experience of pressure groups, they will eventually insist on a quota. I do not think that we should allow this circumstance to occur.
At the same time, the Government have to deal with the short-term problem of the disadvantaged in care. I believe that this is best dealt with by encouraging parents to adopt and making sure that they have financial and local government support in their areas. Many people in straitened economic circumstances, who would often make good adoptive parents, are afraid of the financial implications. I believe that the Government need to think out the matter more clearly before the Bill returns to the Commons.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I oppose these amendments for the reasons—tight, authoritative and stemming from a knowledge of what goes on at the coalface—given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Loyd of Berwick. Few other speakers have that advantage or experience. I suggest, with respect to your Lordships, that they carry a peculiar weight and authority.
Before we enter the Lobby there is a matter that has not been mentioned. The status of unmarried couples, in context with adoption, was judicially recognised by the Court of Human Rights in the Republic of Ireland case in 1994, albeit the relationship had been dissolved. The other matter which your Lordships might take into account is that last September the constitutional court of South Africa made an adoption order in favour of a lesbian couple of good standing who had lived together in a stable relationship for 10 years.
Your Lordships may also wish to take account of the fact that the exclusion of homosexuals and unmarried couples as adopters is discriminatory and incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention on Human Rights; it would be read down by the judiciary. And if these amendments were to commend themselves to both Houses, Parliament would have acted in vain.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords—
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, with respect, the Leader of the House made it clear that after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, we should hear from the Front Benches. I believe that we should respect that.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have heard a number of thoughtful and indeed moving speeches. It

901
is a subject on which many Members of this House feel passionately; hence, the quality of the debate. We are not disunited completely about the aims. We may disagree about some of the means. However, the fundamental principle which I believe is common ground, for the purposes of the Bill, between all Members of the House is that in adoption cases the welfare of the child should be paramount. Indeed, that is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. No one in the debate suggested disturbing that, or impugned anyone's good faith as regards that intention.
At the same time, it is agreed that large numbers of children presently in care would benefit from placement with a family. As we have heard, there are currently some 55,000 children in care, and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering reckons that at any one time there are up to 5,000 children waiting for new families.
I strongly support the Government's target of increasing the number of children adopted from care by 40 per cent by 2004. But I am not as optimistic as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. This will be achieved only if we widen the potential pool of adopters. In fact, the BA AF survey last year established that unmarried couples are twice as likely as married couples to consider adopting.
The Law Society, of which I am a member, pointed out cogently in its letter to Peers that the Bill improves the life chances of more children by widening the pool of potential adoptive parents. Although we can bandy about surveys, about 2,000 people were covered in those I mention. The polls are far more authoritative than any single constituency poll. Research carried out last year by MORI for the BAAF showed that 68 per cent of those surveyed agreed that unmarried couples in stable long-term relationships should be eligible to adopt jointly. Just today, a sample of 1,800 people surveyed in England and Wales demonstrates that 44 per cent of adults believe that the law should be changed so that gay and lesbian couples in stable and long-term relationships should be allowed together to adopt a child. That is the current state of authoritative opinion polls.
That is precisely the view of the overwhelming majority of adoption organisations. However, under the current law such unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or same sex, are denied the right to adopt as a couple. Only one of the couple may do so with all the disadvantages that that brings. The key issue for those debating these amendments is whether or not it would enable more children presently in care to come out of care and enjoy the benefits of living in a family relationship.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of discrimination against marriage and married couples. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, has been quoted by a number of noble Lords. In Committee—I wholeheartedly agree with her; she has been a rich source of quotation today—she said that,
"the Bill is not about propping up the institution of marriage, but about getting these wretched children out of care and into families".—[Official Report, 11/7/02; CWH 238.]
902
I do not believe that anyone in this House could put it better. It is not about discrimination against married couples.
Let us take point by point some of the issues raised today. In his extremely authoritative speech today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lord Russell drew attention to the present law on fostering and adoption. Some noble Lords present today may object to a lesbian or a gay man adopting a child. But for many years the law has not made that objection and this position has been confirmed in two significant recent cases in the Court of Appeal in England and Scotland.
Guidance under the Children Act on fostering placement also makes clear that same sex couples may apply to foster and further recognises the needs of "gay young men and women in care". I have here a letter from a gay couple who are fosterers themselves. They say that as a gay couple and as experienced local authority foster carers they have always been puzzled by the distinction made between adoption and fostering as far as concerns their suitability as carers. That puzzlement is shared by a large number of people in this country.
The sexuality of potential adopters is not, therefore, the issue. The major childcare and adoption agencies now accept same sex adoption. Those include Barnardo's, NSPCC, NCH Action for Children, BAAF, and the Children's Society. How would joint parental status assist the welfare of the child? There are some who believe—we have heard today from many of them—that the status quo should remain: that single people adopting is preferable to couples adopting where they are unmarried or a single sex couple. But the paradox is that if the status quo remains it would inevitably at the very least lead to a child having a lopsided view of those caring for him or her. At the worst, it would seriously disadvantage that child.
There are a large number of occasions in the life of a child where parental permission is required. My noble friend Lord Russell mentioned one. Most significantly they relate to medical treatment, schooling, school visits, bank accounts and religious instruction. Where only one parent is legally entitled to make those decisions how can the child be expected to understand? Indeed, how can the child be protected? Perhaps even more important, the member of the couple who is not the adopter will not have any legal and enforceable financial responsibility for the child. Furthermore, if a child or young person has only one legal parent and that parent dies they can be left in a legal limbo. How can any of that be preferable to adoption by a same sex couple?
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question about whether children placed with unmarried couples lack financial and other protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, dealt cogently with the issue. It is sometimes assumed in the debate that there is no legal framework to protect the financial or other interests of children who have been adopted by an unmarried couple. That is not the case. As the noble

903
Baroness mentioned, Schedule 1 to the Children Act provides a perfectly satisfactory framework for that to take place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked whether a specialised voluntary adoption agency—whether Christian or other denomination—would be forced to accept unmarried applicants. Voluntary agencies can, of course, have their own policies and cater to particular sections of the community. The national adoption standards regulations make clear that adoption agencies can cater to particular sections of the community and have a preferential policy according to religious beliefs, provided that those policies are explained to prospective adopters and that applicants not falling within the criteria can be referred to another agency. There will be no requirement for any agency to accept, for instance, applications from same sex couples if that is contrary to the practice and principles of that organisation.
How can the long-term stability of a relationship be assessed? I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was deeply pessimistic about the eligibility and assessment process. It is common ground that children thrive best when cared for by parents who have a successful long-term commitment to each other. The high divorce rate, however, demonstrates that a marriage certificate cannot be used in every case as evidence of such a long-term relationship. Whether or not those who argue that married couples are more likely to stay together are correct, the question that the courts and adoption agencies must consider is whether the particular couple applying to adopt have, and will continue to have, a stable relationship.
Therefore, I welcome the proposals in the Government's consultation paper, Adopter Preparation and Assessment and the Operation of Adoption Panels. We believe that it may be helpful to have a benchmark concerning the minimum length of a relationship. However, the proposals on assessing relationships in the BAAF form are extremely helpful. The proposals set out in the consultation paper provide good grounds for being able to assess that suitability.
Is there any evidence that children growing up in lesbian and gay families experience social or educational disadvantage? The question was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Blatch. We could trade research back and forward, but the most recent research—my noble friend Lord Russell referred to some of it—does not show such disadvantage. Of course, there may be some discrimination in the schoolyard, but we no longer accept that racial abuse can be tolerated in schools and we should insist that children are brought up not to talk about gay people or lesbians in derogatory terms in the schoolyard. We have a responsibility to ensure that we have the right culture in our playgrounds. We should certainly not use that as an excuse or argument for not allowing adoption by gay couples.
My final point in response to the debate concerns the European Convention on Human Rights. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner,
904
would deal with that in his speech and answer his question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Our information is that to exclude same sex couples from the opportunity to adopt would breach the principle of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 8 of the convention. Indeed, a recent case in the South African Constitutional Court, which applies a similar convention to ours, has found that that would breach the equality guarantee. So, if the amendment—and certainly the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—is passed, we will have problems under the convention.
In conclusion, adoption law should not used as a cover to promote the importance of marriage. If we succumb to that temptation, the effect will be to deny children the opportunity of an equal relationship with both of the people who are caring for them and to discourage couples who would otherwise come forward as adoptive parents. We should not tar every unmarried couple with the same brush on the grounds of some statistical, discriminatory precautionary principle. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, they should have that chance. They must be assessed as suitable, but they should have that chance.
In assessing eligibility, it is not couples' legal status that matters but the quality of their relationship with each other and with the child. It is a question not of whether they are married but whether they will be loving, supportive, committed and responsive to the adopted child and provide a stable family background. Those are positive qualities. Other countries in Europe, notably Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, have woken up to the benefit for potential adoptive children of allowing adoption by unmarried couples—both heterosexual and same sex. We should follow their example, and I hope that your Lordships will not support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that we have already agreed.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke with eloquence of Lady Young. I echo her tribute and deeply regret that Lady Young is no longer with us to debate the Bill. On Second Reading, she spoke of her views on the question of unmarried couples. I doubt that any noble Lord who was present for that debate can be in any doubt as to what those views were.
The noble Baroness also spoke of the importance of the Bill and in favour of the core principle at its heart: that adoption offers much to many vulnerable children. As she said on Second Reading, we can all welcome the principle that there should be more adoption as being in the best interests of children.

905
There should be no doubt that the Bill presents the opportunity dramatically to improve the life chances of many thousands of vulnerable young people in years to come. As several noble Lords said, the outcome for children in care compared to other children is at best poor and at worst catastrophic. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put his finger on that point. Half of under-18s in prison and 26 percent of all prisoners have been in care at some stage. Up to 20 per cent of care leavers experience some form of homelessness within two years of leaving care. Between 25 and 30 per cent of rough sleepers have been in care. More than half of all young people leaving care at the age of 16 and over are unemployed—some estimates put that proportion as high as 80 per cent. Fewer than 1 per cent go on to university.
Of course, that suggests that we need to do much more for our children in care. But I have no doubt that one immediate action that can be taken that would at a stroke immeasurably improve the lives of young people is to increase the number of adoptions. Historically, we know that the performance of local authorities has been patchy at best. In some councils, 10 per cent of looked-after children are adopted; in others, shamefully, the figure is less than 2 per cent. Overall, the system is slow and cumbersome. The average time taken to adopt a looked-after child is two years and nine months—an eternity in a child's eyes.
In January 2001, more than 2,000 children for whom adoption was planned did not have an adoptive family matched with them and had been waiting longer than six months. That is why our debate and the Bill are so critical. In our excellent debates in Grand Committee, surprise was expressed by some Members of the Committee that it was said that insufficient adopters were coming forward, but that is the reality.
The British Association for Adopting and Fostering examined responses to children featured in the March edition of its newsletter, Be My Parent, in which 431 children waiting for adoption appeared. The association received more than 1,200 inquiries about those children but, none the less, 65 single children and 64 sibling groups received no inquiries. Only two of those single children were under the age of one—both with significant developmental problems; 12 were between the ages of one and two; 20 were aged between three and five; and 24 were aged between six and 10. Approximately half of all of those children were from minority ethnic groups. Two-thirds of them were boys. That is the point. It is evident that it continues to be difficult to place boys, black and minority ethnic children, and large sibling groups.
It is essential that we widen the pool of families who can be considered as appropriate adoptive parents. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that local authorities are beginning to get their act together. I rejoice in that, but all the advice that I have received from adoption agencies is that we still need to widen the pool. Enabling unmarried couples, whether of the opposite or the same sex, to apply to adopt jointly, will help to widen that pool. All will be aware that a free vote—at least on the Government Benches—on a Back-Bench amendment to allow unmarried couples,
906
whether of the same or the opposite sex, to apply to adopt children jointly was held on Report in another place. Members of the other place from both sides voted in favour of that change.
At present, only married couples may adopt jointly. Single people may adopt regardless of sexual orientation. That obtains under the Adoption Act 1976. Adoption by single people was accepted practice under the previous government as much as it is under the present one. Some single people who adopt will be in a long-term, stable relationship—whether heterosexual or homosexual. If a person in such a relationship applies to adopt, the couple are currently assessed jointly, but only one person may adopt the child. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, that can cause confusion but, much more, it denies the child the permanence and security of having two parents.
I have always welcomed the constructive approach taken by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to our debates on the issue throughout the Bill's passage. He suggested that placement with a married couple should be the automatic first choice for adoptive placement. I recognise the strength of marriage; there is no question about that. However, I also recognise that not all children are born to married parents. In 2000, around 40 per cent of births were outside marriage, compared with 30 per cent in 1990. Whether we like it or not, family life has changed dramatically since the last adoption legislation. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, our laws should reflect the diversity of the society that they seek to govern.
The figures for divorce rates for some years ago show that 56 per cent of divorced couples had children under 16. Thirty-one per cent of those children were under five. Some marriages may not provide a suitable environment in which to bring up children, just as some unmarried couples can succeed in providing a loving and stable family environment. In that context, can we really say that, in every case, a married couple should take precedence?
Judgments about a couple who have applied for adoption cannot be made on the basis of a general hierarchy of relationships. Surely, the critical issue is the suitability of the couple to take on parental responsibilities. The starting point is that the adoptive placement of choice should reflect the needs and interests of the child.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, spoke authoritatively about the judgment to be made by the judge of suitability to adopt. That is how it must be. The adopter assessment process is crucial. Any couple who wish to become adoptive parents must prove not only that they can provide a child with a loving and stable family relationship but that their own relationship is sound and likely to last.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to the consultation paper that we issued last week about a fundamental review of the adopter assessment process. I commend it to the House, as the noble Lord did. It is clear that the robustness of the adopter assessment process is a critical factor in ensuring that we have a robust system. That process will be tough. It

907
will often seem to parents and people who have applied to adopt children that it is intrusive. That is how it must be. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether the adopter assessment process was reliable. I hope that he will recognise that the document that we issued last week is a genuine attempt to make the process as effective as possible. The reliability of the assessment process is a judgment that stands or falls not on whether the couple to be assessed are married or unmarried but on the effectiveness of the process itself.
I turn to the issue of gay adoption, which was the subject of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The debate is not about gay adoption: gay men and lesbians can already adopt. If the amendment tabled by the noble Lord were accepted, we would risk denying children the security of having a permanent, legal relationship with two parents.
We do not have figures, but all informed commentators agree that the number of children who are adopted by openly gay people is small. We know that more lesbians than gay men adopt. A recent book, entitled Lesbian and Gay Fostering and Adoption, tells the stories of 17 gay households, comprising 27 adults caring for 40 children or young people through fostering or adoption. To the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I say that from that book comes some anecdotal evidence that gay adopters might be willing to take on particularly challenging children.
I shall make it clear: nobody has the right to adopt. I repeat: nobody has the right to adopt. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, if single gays can adopt, what objection can there be to gay couples, particularly given the back-stop provided by the assessment process and the judge? As the noble and learned Lord said, if the judge has any doubt, the order will not be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, dealt with many of the issues raised about the risks of gay adoption that were described. Noble Lords who raised those objections made no comparison between single and couple gay adoptions; their objections seemed to be to gay adoptions in themselves. Such adoptions are legal and take place under the current arrangements. There is no evidence to suggest that the children of gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely than children of heterosexual people to become homosexual, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said.
Research has not singled out stigmatisation as a significant problem for children growing up in same-sex households. However, all difference can be stigmatised. If people are fat or thin, short or tall, black or white, they can be stigmatised. We must not give in to stigmatisation; we must fight it on all fronts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked about legal equivalence. The wording of the amendment tabled in another place introduced a tailor-made definition of "couple" that would apply for the purposes of this Bill only. By avoiding terms such as "cohabiting" or "living as husband and wife", the new definition avoided any confusion with the position in existing
908
legislation. The definition in the Bill does not attempt to define the legal relationship between the two adults and does not, therefore, encroach on or pre-empt the wider work on civil partnerships being done across government.
The issue of quotas was raised. They do not exist. No one has the right to adopt. Each case must be decided on its merits through the adopter process with final agreement by the courts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked whether faith-based voluntary adoption agencies might be required to assess unmarried couples. I understand that concern, but I have received clear advice on the matter. They will not be required to assess unmarried couples. That is not the case now; it is already possible for a single person in an unmarried relationship to apply to adopt. It will not be the case if joint adoption by unmarried couples is allowed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, as far as it goes. However, I shall put my question in a different way. Would a Church adoption society, for example, be allowed to reject a couple on the grounds that it was a same-sex couple and place children for adoption exclusively with married couples?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may quote from the draft national minimum standards which, when we have concluded the consultations, will be issued as Section 7 guidance, colloquially known as statutory guidance—although I tempt fate by saying that in front of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The standard states:
"Where the adoption agency has a specific eligibility criterion, e.g. because it has particular religious beliefs, or the prospective adopters do not meet the needs of local children waiting for an adoptive family, the prospective adopter is told what these are at the beginning of the process and, if necessary, is referred to another adoption agency".
I am happy to write further to the noble Baroness, but from my inquiries I am satisfied that the reputable agencies to which she referred should not be at risk if the Bill is passed as it is.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that this is not political correctness. The majority of legal, childcare and adoption organisations, such as the Law Society, BAAF and Barnardo's, agree that enabling unmarried couples to adopt would improve the life chances of more children. Those are not irresponsible organisations. They are serious organisations with years of experience in dealing with child issues.
At the end of the day we will each make individual decisions on the matter. It is a free vote as far as the Government are concerned. I believe that there is a strong case for accepting the Bill as it stands. I reiterate that it is legal for adoption to be undertaken by single people who nonetheless are in stable relationships, whether of an opposite-sex or same-sex nature. It is also clear that where such a single person is in such a

909
relationship, the current adopter assessment process involves assessing both people in that relationship, even though only one person can adopt.
Surely the logic of that argument is clear. We would provide greater stability for an adopted child in those circumstances by allowing both parties of the couple to adopt. I am convinced that as a consequence we should enable more young people to be adopted; often young people who in the current circumstances have great difficulty in finding suitable adoptive parents. In doing so, we will improve the lives of countless young people both now and in the years to come.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a debate of high quality. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, but particularly to those who have supported my amendment. We have collectively covered the ground on both sides of the argument and I do not propose to say much more.
I firmly believe that my amendment and not that passed in the Commons represents the best attainable deal for children. Anything else would represent a substantial risk; it would amount to social experimentation. That is why I maintain that it would be irresponsible of Parliament to take risks of this order with children's lives. Nothing that has been said against my position today has refuted the validity of the statistics that I quoted on the lack of durability in unmarried and gay relationships; all that has been said is that those figures are irrelevant because of the assessment procedure.
One cannot talk about the assessment—as the Minister did—as if it were established procedure. It is no such thing; the matter is currently out for consultation. It is wrong to assume that therein lies the vindication for proponents of the present Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for example, is in no position to know what the assessment procedure will amount to; nor are any of us.
It is plain common sense that unmarried couples of whatever sex are different in one major respect from married couples: if they want to leave the relationship, all they need do is pack a suitcase and walk out of the door. We should not consciously allow children to be placed at heightened risk of family breakdown.
The Minister referred to the shortage of adopters. I question that. The White Paper on adoption contained no proposals to change the eligibility criteria for adopters. A shortage of married couples did not appear in the list of problems facing the adoption service. That is because there is in practice no shortage of married people wishing to adopt. It is true that there is a waiting list of children looking for adopters, but as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain pointed out, when the Prime Minister's review of adoption was published, it found that 90 per cent of married couples inquiring about adoption were either deterred from pursuing their application or rejected.
That finding suggests that there are large numbers of married people who, if the system were friendly to them, would enter the pool. It has been said, particularly by the Minister and the noble Baroness,
910
Lady Gould, that cohabitation is now a normal feature of our lives and we should accept that. It is indeed a normal feature of life, but please do not be tempted to vote for the Commons amendment in the belief that to resist is somehow to row against the social tide.
If the Bill is approved in its present form, the UK will have gone out on a limb as regards other countries in the western world. The majority of European countries allow adoption only by married couples. Some countries have civil partnership schemes but these specifically exclude joint adoption.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is grouped separately, although he spoke to it with mine. His amendment places heterosexual cohabitation on the same legal plane as marriage. As he knows, I cannot accept that for the reasons I have given. Furthermore, he did not address the argument I advanced on the absence of property rights for unmarried couples. That is a serious aspect of the debate. Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 is, I am advised, nothing like the kind of protection needed in these circumstances.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I do not with to interfere with my noble friend's argument. No noble Lord has supported my amendment. Therefore, I do not propose to move it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that point, as I am sure the House will be. In testing the opinion of the House I ask noble Lords to bear in mind one factor above all: the terrible damage done to vulnerable children by family instability and disruption and the risk we would be taking if we were to approve the Bill in its present form.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 196; Not-Contents, 162.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ackner, L.

Bridges, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brookman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Burnham, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Byford, B.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Carrington, L.

Blackwell, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Chalfont, L.

Boardman, L.

Chan, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bowness, L.

Coe, L.

911

Colville of Culross, V.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cox, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathorne, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monson, L.

Deedes, L.

Moran, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Naseby, L.

Donoughue, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Dundee, E.

Noakes, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nolan, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Elton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Emerton, B.

Orme, L.

Erroll, E.

Owen, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Oxburgh, L.

Feldman, L.

Palmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fitt, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Fookes, B.

Peel, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Freeman, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glentoran, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Prior, L.

Greenway, L.

Pym, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Quirk, L.

Hanson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rogan, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Saatchi, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharples, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hylton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Inge, L.

Simon, V.

Islwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Slim, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Jopling, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkham, L.

Strange, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Swinfen, L.

Laird, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lane, L.

Tenby, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Liverpool, E.

Tombs, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Luke, L.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Uddin, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Vinson, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Waddington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wakeham, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

912

Walpole, L.

Wilcox, B.

Weatherill, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Addington, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Avebury, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Best, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Biffen, L.

Laming, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Borrie, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brett, L.

Listowel, E.

Brightman, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lucas, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Chandos, V.

McNally, L.

Christopher, L.

Maddock, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Marsh, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Condon, L.

Methuen, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Newby, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Northover, B.

Dholakia, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Eatwell, L.

Patel, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Radice, L.

Flowers, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Razzall, L.

Gilbert, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Rennard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Richard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Goudie, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Roper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Greaves, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Greengross, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grocott, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sandwich, E.

Harrison, L.

Sawyer, L.

Haskel, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hayman, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

913

Sheldon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warner, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Taverne, L.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilkins, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thornton, B.

Winston, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Tope, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 51 A not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 28, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may make provision for securing that, in determining the probable future stability of a relationship, proper regard is had to whether or not each of the two partners is willing to sign a "declaration of commitment" which includes a commitment by each partner to do his or her best—

(a) to create and sustain a stable lasting relationship with the other adopting partner; and

(b) to create jointly a home for the adoptive child and to give that child the love, care and support it will need until it reaches the age of majority."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53. I am afraid that the amendment now before the House will not prove quite as exciting as the previous one. It is about the nuts and bolts of the Bill—the assessment procedure that is being talked about on all sides of the House.
The vote that has just taken place does not affect the relevance of these two amendments because they apply to all couples who want to adopt as a couple. Therefore, they apply to married couples and, if another place were to reverse the vote that has just taken place, they would apply equally to unmarried couples of both types.
When couples adopt as a couple, I would argue that the stakes are higher for two reasons. First, a couple gives the child a father and a mother, as well as giving the child the experience of living with two adults who have to learn to get on together. Thus he has appropriate role models. Secondly, and against that, if the couple break up the catastrophe is much greater. If the child is adopted by a mother and father and the father goes away, he loses a father. If he is adopted only by the mother and the mother's boyfriend goes away, that is not terribly important. I am suggesting that the standard of proof needs to be higher for couple adoptions than it does for single adoptions. Provision for that needs to be made in the Bill or in guidance.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for sending me the Adopter Preparation and Assessment consultation document and also for his kind and helpful letter. It seems to me that the consultation paper is an excellent
914
document. I hope that all noble Lords have seen a copy of it. Manifestly, we cannot tell whether the contents of that document will ever get into regulations, but we must hope that they will.
However, that document does not deal with the special importance and commitment required in couple adoptions. In different ways, my two amendments attempt to help social workers and adoption agencies to address those issues. In that context, it is also worth noting that at paragraph 5.1 of the consultation document the Government stress their intention to improve the consistency of assessment. I believe that my proposals would also help to do that.
Amendment No. 52 suggests that a social worker should encourage applicants for adoption as a couple to develop a mutually agreed memorandum of commitment. This would not be a legally binding document, but would help to ensure that both partners have thought seriously through the key issues and that they have been able to hammer out an agreement.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships a little story. About three or four years ago I met an Australian priest who carries out a good deal of work on marriage preparation. He told me that he had a rather good system. When couples came to him for marriage preparation, he would talk to them a little. He would then say, "I would like you to fill in a questionnaire. But, no, not together". He would then suggest that each of them fill it in separately while sitting in opposite sides of the room. When the couple came together again, he said that often the differences in their answers to the questions were absolutely staggering—especially on major issues such as how many children they would like, financial matters, and so on. He said, rather wisely, "It isn't what I say to them, it is what they say to each other on the way home in the car that makes a difference".
It is important that couples who are going to adopt should go through such a process so that they really have to think through what they are saying. In that way, when they find that they have differences they can try to thrash them out effectively. That is the intention of Amendment No. 52. However, Amendment No. 53 is a horse of a different colour because this would encourage couples to enter into a legally-binding agreement about financial arrangements before the adoption.
If, regrettably, divorce and separation take place, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that experience shows that it is very often the financial settlement that causes the most bitterness and anger. It also does the most damage to the child. I am told that it is quite common in America to have a pre-nuptial agreement, which covers what financial arrangements will take place should the partnership break down. Clearly, it is slightly depressing to enter into a loving relationship for life and then sign a document stating what would happen if it comes to an end. We have heard a great deal this evening about the modern world in which we live. In this day and age we have to face the fact that a great many relationships do break down. It may be

915
very much better to make provision for what happens under those circumstances, rather than to leave the matter to chance—
Lord Elton: My Lords, in order to obviate a rather longer intervention later, perhaps the noble Lord might consider a different phrase from "pre-nuptial" for Third Reading, given that the couples concerned may already be married and "pre-adoptive", or something of that nature, might be better.
Lord Northbourne: Yes, my Lords. I think that the word "pre-nuptial" is rather symbolic. The word "pre-adoption" might be better under these circumstances. However, I accept that there are difficulties with such wording. These and other amendments have not been entirely easy to draft because of the threat of proposed radical changes, which will, indeed, be taking place in the Bill.
I do not believe that either of these two amendments should be mandatory upon couples seeking adoption. However, if they indicate a willingness to enter into such agreement, I believe that that should be taken into account by the adoption agency in prioritising their potential as adopters. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. Quite clearly, they would come into effect only if there was any form of reversal of the decision that has just been taken in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I think that they should—
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may just make the point that I said at the beginning of my remarks that they would apply to married couples and, therefore, they would come into effect in any event.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am so sorry. I stand corrected. I meant that they would come into effect as far as concerns unmarried, cohabiting couples. However, I should have thought that this would give some comfort to those who have overturned the current existing provision that was before the House because it would be a verbal assurance—a commitment—on the part of the two people who were making this very definite move to adopt children. I would argue that, quite often, the commitment to adopt is even more considered and more worked over by the individuals concerned than perhaps is the case with a married couple where children appear, which is lovely, and so on. It might be an additional comfort should a reversal of the reversal take place.
There is also another reason why I would support Amendment No. 53. Quite honestly, I am not entirely certain why it should not be compulsory. Married couples enter into a vow of lifelong fidelity. Sadly, as we all know, it does not necessarily end that way. There are also financial obligations on married partners to help support any children of the marriage if they are dependent children when and if separation and divorce occur.
916
A similar commitment to look after the financial side of the relationship if things go wrong would surely enhance the acceptance by both those partners of the specific commitment into which they are entering. Alas, all things in life do not always go according to plan. I strongly suggest that that happens among married couples as well as among cohabiting couples. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will find favour with your Lordships and with the Government.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, a few years ago, in the library of Cambridge University, I read a series of manuscript sermons by Archbishop Ussher on the subject of predestination. The archbishop insisted firmly on condemning those who believed that it was possible to know who was predestined to salvation. He described them as behaving as if they had stood at God's right hand.
John Calvin himself and all the best Calvinist scholars have insisted that the question of who is predestined to salvation is one which it is a presumption for any human being to attempt to know. I am rather inclined to take the view that attempting to decide which unions will be permanent is a similar kind of presumption.
Last Friday, I was speaking to the party's annual dinner in Stroud. My host happened to be someone who had lived with us for a year when I was 14 while his parents were abroad and whom I had not seen since. He told me the many different things that had happened to his siblings. Only one had had a marriage that had survived—and he was the most improbable. His bride was 16, and pregnant—not, I think your Lordships will agree, the kind of situation from which stability in marriage usually results.
When one considers the prospect of a marriage licence—indeed, when one contracts a marriage oneself—one cannot speak out of knowledge; one can only speak out of faith. Attempting to produce external texts for the measurement of faith is a very difficult thing to do.
Amendment No. 53 is, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, a horse of a different colour. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that it would be much better if the word "pre-nuptial" were removed—because we shall be interested at some stage in the question of unmarried couples.
I cannot help feeling that there must be a large body of statute and case law into which such a provision would need to be fitted as one piece of the jigsaw. I fancy that the Minister may be about to tell us what those pieces of the jigsaw are. My response to this proposal would depend heavily on how well it would fit into such a jigsaw. I believe that it would fit much better into a Bill dealing with civil partnerships such as that introduced by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. By itself, it looks like one horse pretending to be a cavalry regiment. I am not sure that one can do that.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, it is making too much of myself to say that I support the

917
point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but it was the point that I had intended to make—although I should have done so without his erudition and charm. It seems to me that this is not the way to introduce a provision that is very similar to the civil partnerships proposals—on a side-wind in a Bill dealing with quite a different matter. Having participated in the debate in this House in January, it seems to me that this would to some extent have that kind of effect. I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting that so beautifully. That would be one reason why I should regret it were the amendment to be accepted.
The second reason is that, as the Bill stands, the amendment seems to relate to matters on which married couples have already made a commitment. In addition, given the terms of the Bill as it stood before the vote on the previous amendment, again we return to the question of civil partnerships.
My third and final point is a matter of detail. I am sure that if the noble Lord were to table this amendment again, he would reconsider the last words of paragraph (b):
"until it"—
an unfortunate word—
"reaches the age of majority",
in the light of Clause 1(2), which refers to,
"the child's welfare, throughout his life".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree strongly with the point made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord go much wider. Discussions are currently taking place in government in relation to partnership registration. Civil partnership registration and the associated rights and responsibilities raise a number of complex issues.
Work is going on in government to carry out an investigation into the implications of establishing a partnership registration scheme. It is presently comprised of cross-departmental work. The Cabinet Office is leading in terms of following up the issues identified. I cannot give a date as regards the conclusions of the review, but work is under way. Some of the wider issues raised by the noble Lord fall much more to be dealt with in that context.
A further substantive issue is that some of the principles referred to by the noble Lord in terms of attempting to assess whether a couple or a single person—in this case, couples—should be approved as adopters enter into the adopter assessment process.
In terms of a joint application to adopt, I recognise that, following the vote on the previous amendment, the noble Lord is suggesting that this proposal will now relate to married couples, and I accept that. There is no doubt that the regulations falling within the scope of Clause 45, accompanied by guidance, will aim to ensure that in the interests of children only couples in stable and lasting relationships will be approved as suitable to adopt jointly.
Similarly, whether the prospective adopters are single or whether they are couples, they will not be approved to adopt unless they can demonstrate that
918
they can provide a stable and loving home for a child. For any couple to become adoptive parents, they will need to prove not only that they can provide a loving and stable family relationship, but that their own relationship is sound and is likely to be lasting. As part of the fundamental review of the adopter assessment process which we published last week for consultation, we are consulting on the criteria that should be used by adoption agencies in assessing relationship stability.
Amendment No. 52 seeks to insert a subsection addressing the issue of a legal commitment to be signed by prospective adopters. The noble Lord's amendment does not cover the detail of such a legal commitment or whether it would be binding on the parties. In any event, I am advised that it is unlikely that such an agreement could be binding on the court.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes child welfare the paramount consideration for a court or an adoption agency in coming to any decisions relating to the adoption of a child. If the noble Lord's amendment seeks to ensure that prospective adopters have signed a legal commitment to each other, I want to reassure him that the adopter assessment process will examine all aspects of the commitment between prospective adopters, including any form of legal commitment that they have made to each other. The powers in Clause 45 would enable us to make regulations to require adoption agencies explicitly to consider any legal commitments between the prospective adopters should that be considered appropriate following consultation.
Only prospective adopters who can demonstrate that they have a stable and lasting relationship will be approved to adopt jointly. But in debating this issue we must ensure that the commitment of prospective adopters is considered only in the context of their suitability to adopt jointly. As I have said, we need to be careful not to pre-empt the outcome of the work being carried out across government on civil partnerships more generally.
Amendment No. 53 concerns the issue of financial security. We are clearly interested in the legal relationship between the child and each of his or her adoptive parents, and the adoptive parents' intended provision for the child, rather than the formal and legal relationship between the adoptive parents themselves. Even if the adoptive parents split up, the child will still have a legal relationship with each of the adopters, and the protection that goes with it. The provisions on financial relief in Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, which provide for courts to order maintenance or lump-sum payments by parents, will apply. That will help to protect the child in many ways.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I apologise for not being present earlier. Will not the drafting of Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 have to be revised in the light of the previous decision?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, must respond to that point in his winding-up speech. In fairness to the noble Lord,

919
whatever the technical merits or otherwise of the amendments, he made the point that his proposal should apply to married couples and unmarried couples. He will no doubt wish to reflect on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
In conclusion, many of the substantive issues raised by the noble Lord fall to be dealt with under general discussion on civil registration and partnership. However, some of the issues concerning an evaluation of the couple's suitability to adopt children are best addressed in the adopter assessment process. As part of the consultation, I shall make sure that his views are considered to see whether we need to reflect them in the final document that we produce.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I am in a strange position, because the argument should really be between the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl said that it was unreasonable of me to assume that it was possible to identify relationships that would be successful in the future. However, the whole gravamen of what the Minister said throughout this afternoon's debate has been that assessment is key. Either an assessment works or it does not. It can be made to work, but only to a point; and it must not be relied on entirely. Furthermore, anything that can be done to strengthen that assessment must be in the interests of all the parties including the children.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister's comments and mine were not entirely incompatible. I said that one could never be certain; the Minister said that one could calculate the odds. Many bookies appreciate the distinction.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, that seems fair enough. The amendment was drafted some time ago, before the noble Lord sent me the consultation document, therefore it certainly would need to be reworded.
The arrangement that I envisaged in Amendment No. 52 was not necessarily legally binding, and it was certainly not a legally binding agreement. It was aimed at creating a meeting of the minds between the two partners, because it is easy when entering such a project, or even a business project, to try to be agreeable, optimistic and to avoid looking at the difficulties. The noble Lord has probably assured me that during the assessment process the respective adoptive parents will be forced to go through the snags, the difficulties and the problems, to make sure that they have openly discussed them, and to come to an agreement.
As regards Amendment No. 53, there is a difference between a contract between, on the one hand, a couple agreeing certain arrangements in the event of a breakdown of their situation, and, on the other hand, arrangements set by statute, which would involve going to court. The need to go to court and the horror that often arises in divorce cases are reasons why young people do not get married. A personal
920
commitment between the two people in advance of trouble starting is an alternative that should be explored in the context of adoption and perhaps during marriage preparation. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 52.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 28, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Grand Committee I emphasised my belief that Clause 45 is pivotal. It is only two subsections long, but its contents have the potential to affect how the entire adoption process operates and how successful it is. Despite the importance of the subject matter, the rules and considerations governing the suitability of would-be adopters are not spelt out. They are to be left to regulations, so we cannot debate them. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I appreciate that the laying of appropriate regulations depends in this case on the results of the Government's review of the adoption assessment process. Like other noble Lords, I regret that we do not have even a draft set of regulations before us as we debate the Bill. It was for those reasons that I suggested in Grand Committee that if ever there was a case for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to a set of regulations, this was surely it.
Parliament as a whole ought to have the opportunity to debate the matters that this clause encompasses. They are the criteria that will govern an adoption agency's exercise of discretion about the suitability of prospective adopters and how they are matched. The need for stability and permanence in a couple's relationship is a central issue, but other factors are of prime importance also. When all are taken in combination, we must satisfy ourselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out during an earlier debate, that the regulations include nothing that would serve to encourage anything other than clarity and objectivity of decision-making.
The Minister expressed sympathy with my position when we debated the question previously. He was kind enough to say that he would think about the matter. I hope that he has reached a favourable conclusion, and, at the very least, I hope that he can tell us in a little more detail about the likely scope of the regulations, bearing in mind his wish to maintain a balance between prescriptiveness and flexibility. I am sure that we understand that wish, but we do not necessarily understand where the Minister regards the balance as lying.
I cannot predict what the other place is likely to do with the amendments that the House agreed to earlier. They may reject them, and with that possibility at the back of my mind I hope that the Minister will allow me

921
to express some concerns. One concern arises from the Government's consultation document Adopter Preparation and Assessment and the Operation of Adoption Panels. On page 30, paragraph 5.34, that document states:
"a minimum of 2–4 years in terms of duration of relationship is often used as a benchmark by agencies".
Do the Government believe that period to be reasonable? If so, why? Why, for example, should there not be a longer period?
It is interesting, not to say a little disquieting, that in paragraph 5.38 the list of crucial factors to be used to assess couples leaves out one simple question, "Are you married?" Why is that question not there. The answer could only be—I should be glad to hear this from the Minister—that the document is based on the presumption that the amendments that we have just debated would not be carried and that in the assessment process as envisaged by the Government the fact of a couple's being married would carry no weight whatsoever. That is because all applicants, whether married, unmarried or of the same sex, would have to be treated equally. I should be grateful for clarification of that. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we return to the hierarchy of relationships, as I like to call it. It is not a question of the married status so much as the judgment about the strength of the relationship which surely must inform the adopter assessment process.
In relation to that, the consultation document states:
"It is currently common practice among agencies to require any marital or cohabiting relationship to be of sufficient length to demonstrate stability".
It states merely that the minimum of two to four years is often used as a benchmark for agencies. The question that is put in the consultation paper is whether there should there be a specific benchmark set down in regulations about the minimum length. We welcome views and thoughts on that and I do not want to be drawn further on the matter. It is one on which we want views to be expressed and in the light of the consultation we will decide on the final set of assessment criteria which should be included in the final adoption assessment process.
I undertook to give careful consideration to the arguments made in favour of applying the affirmative resolution procedure. I agreed with the noble Earl that he had made an important point and I have in response tabled my Amendment No. 154. It will ensure that regulations made under Clause 45 concerning the matters to be considered in determining the stability and permanence of a couple's relationship—be they married or unmarried—will indeed be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Whatever the ultimate conclusion in relation to unmarried couples, it is right that Parliament should debate the matters to be considered in determining the stability and permanence of a couple's relationship.
922
That is why I hope that the noble Earl will accept, that my Amendment No. 154 meets the needs of that requirement.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and wholeheartedly welcome his amendment. I did not want to pre-empt him; it was right that he should speak to it first. It is good news and I thank him.
I was a little surprised by what he said in answer to my specific question about a consultation document because it implied that in the assessment process the fact of marriage would not be relevant. Indeed, he said that the strength of a particular relationship would be assessed in other ways. I find that extraordinary and I hope that in practice it will not be the outcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we risk going over the ground that we have already covered. I sought only to say that it would be wrong if in the adopter assessment process simply the fact of being married was regarded as of a higher status than that of two couples who were not married but were in a successful relationship. Ultimately, one must come back to an individual judgment about a particular couple.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand that and I am grateful to the Minister for repeating his point. However, it is strange that whatever form a couple have to fill in will not contain the question, "Are you married?" I should have thought that that was a relevant fact in any assessment, but I shall not labour the point further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Adoption orders]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 29, line 10, leave out ", the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 129 and 138. I want also to make favourable reference to Amendments Nos. 128 and 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
These amendments have been brought forward in recognition that the orders that can be made under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 are not the same as those that can be made under the Children Act 1989. In particular, the 1995 Act contains a statutory scheme for dealing with children's property. An order can be made to administer the child's property or to appoint a court official to carry out that task.
Following consultation with the Scottish Executive, we do not believe that such orders should be automatically extinguished by an adoption order being made in respect of the child in England and Wales. The equivalent Scottish legislation contains no such provision.
We believe that the correct course of action is that an application should be made to the court that made the order to vary or discharge it. The court can then

923
consider the adoption in making a decision in the best interests of the child. The amendments provide that orders made under the 1995 Scottish Act concerning a child's property will not be extinguished by an adoption order in England and Wales. The amendments also provide that exclusion orders under the 1995 Act should not be extinguished.
These orders exclude named persons from the child's family home if the child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm from the conduct of the named person and that making an order is better than removing the child from the home. The orders are applied for by the local authority. They are intended to protect the child and are likely to be less appropriate if the child has left the home in Scotland and is now placed for adoption in England or Wales. However, the 1995 Act contains provisions to deal with this situation. After consultation with the Executive, we have decided that this should remain the case.
As the effect of these orders is not directly on the child's legal relationship with an adult, they are not part of the adoption process itself. Other orders made under the 1995 Act, concerning residence, contact and other specific issues, will be extinguished on the making of an adoption order in England and Wales, as the equivalent orders under the 1989 Act will be by the rest of this clause.
Amendment No. 129 inserts a new Section 56 into the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Scottish local authorities cannot currently make an application for freeing orders as they are expected to apply for freeing under the equivalent provisions of the 1976 Act in England and Wales. As the Bill replaces freeing orders with placement orders, there would be a legislative gap where a Scottish adoption agency wishes to place a child in England and the agency needs to apply for a freeing order.
The amendment would allow Scottish local authorities to apply for freeing orders for children who are placed for adoption from Scotland to prospective adopters in England or Wales. However, the child may still require to be freed before an adoption order can be made in England or Wales and that can be done only through this amendment. It also allows flexibility in those cases for the adoption to be applied for in Scotland or in England and Wales.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. They do not change the effect of the provisions. Existing freeing orders made under the 1976 Act will continue to be recognised in Scotland after that Act is repealed. The argument for the amendments is that it is clearer to leave this intention on the face of the relevant Scottish primary legislation rather than rely on transitory provisions in this Bill.
The amendment would ensure that the Scottish adoption legislation—that is, the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978—continues to say in its text that freeings from England and Wales, granted before the Bill comes into force, are recognised.
It is the clear policy of the Bill that although freeing is to be abolished in England and Wales, orders in existence up to the implementation of the Bill will still be recognised in England and Wales and in Scotland. However, as drafted, the Bill deletes the recognition of these freeings in the 1978 Act so that on its face that Act will look as though there is no recognition of them.
The fact that recognition is continued by reference to Schedule 4 (transitional provisions) will not be of direct assistance to the Scottish courts and Scottish legal advisers. Scottish legal practitioners and courts will not have in front of them, in the normal course of events, a copy of the Bill as passed. However, they will have access to an up-to-date version of the 1978 Act. Following consultation with the Scottish Executive, we accept the argument and we are prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 128 and 149.
Amendment No. 138 is aimed at paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989. Paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 2 provides that where a child is subject to a care order, the court must approve his being moved by a local authority to live outside England and Wales. In the case of any other looked-after child, paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 2 to the Act provides that the child may only be moved outside of England or Wales with the consent of all those who have parental responsibility for him. It would therefore be possible for cross-border placements—in other words, between England or Wales and Scotland—to be blocked.
Let us take the example of an English adoption agency which has been authorised to place a child in England for adoption under Chapter 3 of the Bill, and the child's parents have consented to placement or a placement order has been made. Let us say that the agency considers that a placement with Scottish adopters is in the child's best interests and wishes to do that. Any person with parental responsibility for the child could then, under paragraph 19, block that by objecting to it, even though the conditions for placement in the Bill have been complied with and the placement is considered to be in the child's best interests.
The amendment therefore disapplies paragraph 19 so that where a child is looked after by a local authority, and the authority has already been authorised to place the child for adoption under Chapter 3 of the Bill, it will be able to do so outside England or Wales into another part of the United Kingdom without the need to have the consent of all those with parental responsibility. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 128 and 149, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 29, line 11, after "1995," insert—
"( ) any order under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36) other than an excepted order,"
Page 29, line 15, at end insert—
""Excepted order" means an order under section 9, 11(1)(d) or 13 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36) or an exclusion order within the meaning of section 76(1) of that Act."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Conditions for making adoption orders]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60:
Page 29, line 34, after "made" insert "if the child has a parent or guardian"
Page 30, line 11, leave out from "order" to end of line 13.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Applications for adoption]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 30, line 42, after "a" insert "married"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Adoption by couple]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Page 31, line 17, after "a" insert "married"
Page 31, line 19, after "a" insert "married"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51 [Adoption by one person]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Page 31, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) the person is married to a parent of the person to be adopted,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Parental etc. consent]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 32, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"( ) there is a risk of significant harm to the child that requires the consent to be dispensed with."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Grand Committee we had a most useful and enlightening debate on the provisions of Clause 51, now Clause 52, which deal with the sensitive issue of parental consent. I seek to return to those issues with my Amendment No. 66. My concern relates to the circumstances in which the court will be able to dispense with the consent of a birth parent to the making of a placement order or to the adoption order itself.
We need to have at the front of our minds, once again, what it means for a family to be subject to adoption proceedings. Adoption stands apart from any other plan for the child because it involves lifelong consequences; it leads automatically to an irrevocable severance of the legal ties between a child and his or her parents and wider family. For that reason, it amounts to the most fundamental interference with the right to
926
family life that there is. Subsection (1)(b) of Clause 52 specifies that the court may dispense with parental consent if it is satisfied that,
"( ) the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with".
I listened with care to the Minister's comments in our earlier debates, as I did to those of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway whose experience in these matters has been such an asset to us. Both the Minister and my noble friend tried to reassure me. What troubles me, however, is that we appear to be envisaging here a provision that is too loose. I say this particularly in the context of European law, which on this issue is very clear and specific. European case law has established that there must be exceptional circumstances to justify permanently severing the parent-child relationship.
I seriously question, even with all the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, whether it is enough to allow a court to dispense with parental consent purely on the strength of a judgment about the child's welfare. My approach previously to the issue was to try to put a stiffer type of test before the court, a higher hurdle for it to cross than a judgment about the child's overall welfare. That approach was flawed, and I accept that.
What I am now suggesting is that we ought to narrow down the circumstances that might enable the court to dispense with parental consent. It could do so when the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent, as set out in subsection (1)(a). I suggest that the only other situation in which the court could do so is where it is satisfied that the child is at risk of significant harm, which requires the consent to be dispensed with. In other words, it is a very much more specific test which, if passed, would then trigger the consideration set out in Clause 1. If the test is not met, then the court would be able to consider protecting the child's welfare by another legal route, perhaps a residence order or a legal guardianship order which does not involve the finality that I have spoken about.
I should remind the House that this part of the Bill as it stands has given rise to consider able disquiet among professionals in the field of adoption, including the BAAF and the Law Society. I think that that disquiet is well-founded. We have to tread very carefully before allowing the state to impose on a set of parents an irrevocable severance from their child. Where there is a question mark, as I believe there is, on the availability of effective community support for birth parents, it strikes me that we would do much better to concentrate our efforts on providing support of that kind, with a view to minimising the need for unconsented placements or adoptions being mooted in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to look constructively on this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have to speak on this matter because I was counsel in that leading case. With respect to my noble friend Lord Howe, I do not think that he begins to understand, or that many people begin to understand, the real issues

927
at stake here unless they read those judgments. There are five of them and they are unanimous. What my noble friend is saying is that he wants a specific test. What the court was saying unanimously is that we must have an unrestricted general test, and the court gave its reasons. I shall not bore the House with reasons; they are all there to be read in Appeal Cases if anyone wants to read them.
My noble friend said that he wants a restricted, narrowed down approach. The unanimous decision of the court, all the opinions, said that that is precisely what should not happen in the welfare and the interests of the child. My noble friend seeks to say that the measure will in some way satisfy those who wish to restore the blood tie argument. However, the whole essence of the decision was to strike down the series of decisions of the Court of Appeal which favoured the blood tie. I am not going into details of law; I am merely telling your Lordships what happened for the sake of the record as there are not many noble Lords present. It is important that what happened should be recorded.
Whether we like it or not, we have entered a veritable no man's land strewn with unexploded ammunition. Walking out of this Chamber I was reliably informed that the advice that I gave to the House about the amendments we discussed being wholly unenforceable was dead right—I shall not say who told me that but it was a noble Lord of great authority; I do not know which way he voted. If that is so, we must be careful. What will happen? First, the measure will go to the other place. What will the Members of the other place do? We do not know. If they defeat our amendment and send it back, what shall we do? We do not know. We are faced with potentially unenforceable legislation.
It is against that background that I urge the exercise of considerable care as regards interfering with the leading decision of In Re W, which this measure is designed to do. Let us not mince the question; that is it. Those who propose the measure want to restore the blood tie; they do not like the welfare approach; they want a different, more specific approach. However, we must think carefully about that because In Re W still stands and is binding on the Bill. The amendment covers married couples only. Assuming that the amendment becomes law, it will affect only married couples. On that basis, In Re W still stands as regards married couples. It is crucial that it should not be defeated by an amendment such as this.
It is even more important that my noble friend and the House should realise what is happening. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for taking time to explain the matter. In Re W was a hard fought case. It took a lot of effort to win. The decision was unanimous and it is binding on this Bill. I thought that your Lordships should know that.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell
928
of Alloway, for exploring the amendment on behalf of the House in such an extraordinarily authoritative way. We shall all study his contribution. The noble Lord played a leading role in the determination of our case law. Therefore, I can certainly dispense with some of the comments that I intended to make.
Amendment No. 66 follows on from the debates we had in Grand Committee about the legal test for dispensing with parental consent to adoption. This is one of the most central, weighty and important issues raised by the Bill. As the noble Earl said, it constitutes an irrevocable step. If we are going to interfere with family rights in this way, we must have good reasons and good tests in place. The matter has exercised stakeholders for some years. One of the reasons we are swinging back and forth trying to find a definition is precisely because of the difficulty of doing that.
I am grateful that the noble Earl responded so positively to the points that we raised in Grand Committee. We agreed that the term "significantly better" was far too loose as regards determining the ability to intervene. However, I hope that the noble Earl will understand that I cannot accept the amendment as I consider that it has swung to the other extreme. It is extremely narrow and we believe that it constitutes too restrictive a test. I wish to reiterate the importance of the paramountcy principle in Clause 1. It underpins our thinking and the whole Bill. It makes the child's welfare the absolutely fundamental paramount consideration. It is a great step forward. It builds on case law and it has universal support inside and outside the House. Clause 1(4)(f) ensures that the views, interests and capabilities of parents and relatives are essential elements in the decision.
The second principle that has shaped our approach—I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said in this regard—is the need to set out in the legislation a clear, broad framework. However, we do not want to constrain, fetter or reduce the discretion of the court in any way. The term "test" is not used in the Bill but that is what we are talking about—a welfare test.
In Grand Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, raised an important question, which I hope that we can answer, about whether the relevant test will be as full and as sufficient as it needs to be. The noble Earl also referred to that matter. As the clause is currently drafted, the court can dispense with the parent or guardian's consent under two circumstances: first, when they cannot be found or are incapable of giving consent; and, secondly, when the child's welfare expressly requires the consent to be dispensed with. Those provisions will apply in contested cases. The relevant test is different from that set out in the 1976 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, did not take us through the 1976 Act. However, under the current legislation the court may dispense with the consent of the parent where it considers that that consent is being withheld unreasonably. Obviously, the question has been asked: what would a reasonable parent do? In the In Re W case and in subsequent

929
judgments to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred, in determining what a reasonable parent's attitude would be, the welfare of the child was a leading consideration. The parent is the focus of the decision but the welfare of the child is the critical factor, as it would be for any reasonable parent.
We are moving forward positively from that position. There are, I believe, three safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was concerned about the simple welfare test. That is neither a light nor trivial matter. The factors to be considered in Clause 1(4) are wide ranging and comprehensive. However, that does not mean that they are loose and vague. We are taking into account not only the child's wishes, feelings, needs and characteristics but also the life-long effects of adoption. These are not short-term fixes. We are looking at life-long effects. That is what concentrates the mind. We are considering harm, or risk of harm, to the child. We are considering the relationship of relatives and other relevant people to the child and the value that is placed on that.
I shall now move from the whole picture and weigh up the various parties' convention rights. The point is that the court will decide whether the child's welfare requires that the parents' consent should be dispensed with, bearing in mind all the considerations in Clause 1 and despite the weight that must be attached to any objection from a parent.
Finally—I emphasise this point to the noble Lord—it is also worth remembering that under Clause 1(6) the court will still have to consider the full range of alternatives. The noble Lord referred to that matter himself. The court must not make a placement or adoption order unless it considers that that would be better than not doing so. It must consider whether, for example, a residence order would be better.
In contested cases, the court will have the discretion to weigh up the facts in each case and consider all the factors in coming to any decision to dispense with parental consent. In contested placement or adoption order cases, within the framework that I have set out, the court will exercise its discretion in line with the Human Rights Act and ECHR law.
I reiterate what I said in Grand Committee about case law under the ECHR. The leading case of Johansen v Norway in 1996 makes clear that deprivation of parental rights and access should occur only in exceptional circumstances. It would be justified if motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests. I believe that that reinforces our case that this is the opposite of a trivial test. We must abide by those requirements as well.
We come to the effect of the amendment and the narrowing down of the focus. I appreciate the intellectual struggle that has taken place in trying to find something that will satisfy the noble Earl. At present, the court would be able to dispense with parental consent only if it considered that there was a risk of significant harm. If there were not, no adoption order could be made. That is far narrower than the current ground for dispensing with consent.
930
Put very simply, my problem is that the amendment reduces the question of whether it is right to dispense with parental consent in terms of significant harm to a question of child protection. However, we argue, as expressed in Clause 1, that, in considering the making of an adoption order with a lifelong impact, we should look positively at what the child requires for a full and happy life with a new family. We should do that more thoughtfully, more carefully and more widely, and of course, by considering the risk of harm.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Baroness has reached the nub of the argument. Can she accept that the position is this? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, would have confirmed it if asked. If there is any hint of harm to the child, there will be no order for adoption. This provision is used as a bar to adoption. It is quite a different concept.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I absolutely accept that. As I said, here we are considering a threshold which is normally used in cases of child protection. I believe that there is another complication which follows from that. While, on the one hand, we were anxious that the Bill should be consistent with the Children Act, and we have tried to ensure that throughout, the Children Act threshold should also be present in order to protect families from compulsory intervention in the context of adoption. That is why Clause 21 already applies the significant harm threshold to the making of placement orders. Obviously, local authorities will use those orders in the first instance in seeking to place children for adoption, often at the same time as they apply for care orders.
However, the question of whether final adoption should be made comes later in the process. In adoption cases, either the parties will have given consent to placement or a placement order will have been made, in which case the significant harm threshold will already have been triggered by definition. By the time of the final adoption hearing, the child is likely to have been placed with prospective adopters for several months and, at that point, strictly speaking, there should be no question of significant harm to the child.
While the decision to move to the final stages of adoption will require that point to be revisited—obviously it will form part of the consideration—the courts will also have to take into account the wider expectation. Of course, the additional safeguard for parents is that, if the circumstances change, they can change their mind about the final adoption order. Therefore, I believe that the court should be able to weigh up the two alternatives. It should be able to consider the whole picture and all the relevant factors in this positive, safe and constructive manner and not simply take into account harm of the child.
These are not straightforward matters, and I sincerely respect the way that we have all wrestled with them at various stages of the Bill. We have been most grateful for the advice that we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, given that we have put into the Bill the paramountcy

931
principle, I believe that it would be inconsistent, to say the least, to try to undermine or condition it in this way. The courts should have the discretion. Where a court considers that welfare requires that parental consent be dispensed with, then I believe that that is what should happen.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may say that that was an extremely illuminating reply. As I sat listening to it, the pieces fell far more securely into place than they did in Grand Committee. Perhaps that was a reflection on my level of concentration in Grand Committee as compared with this evening. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I shall obviously read again what she said. I believe that she put the whole matter into its broadest context. I also want to thank my noble friend for the light that he was able to shed on this question.
I understand the need to refer back to the key provisions of Clause 1 in this context. Earlier, I felt that the Bill needed to refer in terms in this clause to the kind of exceptional circumstances that are required under European law. However, from what the noble Baroness said, I take it that it is not so much the language as the practice that matters. A decision by a court—if it is ever challenged—will rest upon the reasonableness of that decision in the context of Clause 1. I accept that.
Obviously I shall not press the amendment today. However, I believe that it has been useful to raise this matter again as I believe that the noble Baroness's reply will be a reference point for the writers of legal text books; at least, it deserves to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 32, line 25, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"(6) "Parent" in this section means—

(a) a parent having parental responsibility for the child,

(b) a parent who has applied to the court for parental responsibility for the child and is awaiting a determination by the court, or

(c) a parent who does not have parental responsibility for the child until he has been notified in writing that he has the right to apply to the court for parental responsibility and has either declined or failed to do so within a period to be stipulated in regulations."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns parental responsibility. It seems to me that there may be a danger of injustice, in particular, to fathers. Clause 52, as drafted, provides, in effect, that if a birth father wants to have any say in the adoption process, he must have parental responsibility. Your Lordships will all know that parental responsibility is granted automatically if the father is married to the mother or if his name is on the child's birth certificate. Noble Lords will also know that a birth father can apply to the court for parental responsibility. I do not believe that Clause 109 alters that position.
The problem is that, in practice, a great many birth fathers today are simply not aware of the importance of parental responsibility and, for that reason, have not bothered to apply for it. The amendment is intended to allow such fathers time to apply for parental responsibility if they are suddenly confronted with adoption proceedings in relation to their child. It would allow them to have time to apply before it was too late and they were caught by Clauses 9 and 10. I am not certain but I do not believe that Clause 10 materially affects the usefulness of what I propose in the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his amendment, in particular paragraph (c), and to make one point relating to absent fathers.
There is an almost automatic assumption that a father who absents himself from the care of a child or from living with the mother of a child does so for bad reasons. That is not always the case. I know of a couple of cases where fathers have absented themselves from the family home because they believed that it was in the best interest of the child to do so as the quality of the relationship between the child's mother and father was bad. One such father subsequently discovered by an indirect route that his children were being put up for adoption and could have gone without him knowing.
Therefore, the point which has been raised before by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, concerning the strength of the effort to find birth fathers is one which deserves to be underscored. I accept that the majority of cases will not be as I have described; but there are some such cases. For those people I believe that we should go the extra length to ensure that they are fully consulted.
My resolution to support the noble Lord was strengthened by the experience of talking to a birth father who has gone along to relinquish parental responsibility and subsequently to sign for his child to be adopted. I was extremely moved as he described going to the court and queuing alongside people who were paying parking fines and fines for non-payment of bills, rates and so forth, to sign away his children.
I believe that that is an indignity through which we should not put people. Those responsible for making the decisions have a duty to try as best they can to ensure that such people have been fully informed. I understand the difficulties experienced by care agencies in trying to find fathers and trying to make them responsible. However, some people deserve not to be categorised or treated in that way. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am well aware that both the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, speak from long experience and a deep concern for the cases they visualise when they describe the implications of the amendment. I appreciate and respect that.

933
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke of the danger of injustice. In the amendment, matters turn on who counts as a parent for the purpose of consent to placement. We are keen not to perpetrate any injustice in the Bill and to put right what we can. As regards unmarried fathers, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the position under the 1976 Act, and that the provisions in Clause 52 concerning consent to placement and adoption orders provide that the people whose consent is required are the parents or guardians of the child. That is straightforward. In this case "parent" means parent with legal parental responsibility within the meaning of the Children Act. That is exactly the same position as applies now under the 1976 Act.
I believe that the noble Lord is mainly concerned with the position of unmarried fathers. To reiterate, under the Children Act an unmarried father does not automatically have parental responsibility for his child, so does not automatically have the right to consent to the adoption of his child. He can obtain parental responsibility by reaching an agreement with the mother, by marrying the mother or by obtaining a court order giving him parental responsibility.
I am pleased to state that in Clause 109 there will be in future another route. Unmarried fathers will have parental responsibility automatically where they jointly register the birth of the child with the mother. I am sure that over time that will mean that this other route will open up the prospect of shared responsibility in the way we hope.
However, the noble Lord's amendment focuses on what should happen where, for whatever reason, an unmarried father does not have parental responsibility and how he should be involved in any court proceedings.
In addressing the amendment I go back to much earlier in the adoption process. We discussed the issue of placement orders on Monday. I explained that where an adoption agency is considering placing a child for adoption it has to abide by its obligations under Clause 1(4)(f), which requires it to consider the wishes and feelings of the child's relatives, including both parents.
We would expect the agency to consult and involve members of the child's family, including unmarried fathers, in all circumstances unless it would be contrary to the welfare of the child. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that there are cases, which I presume are rare, in which fathers have absented themselves willingly because they feel that they would be an embarrassment or obstruction or may cause a difficulty to the child.
The explicit duty on adoption agencies exists at present under Regulation 7(3) of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 to contact and involve the unmarried father of the child where he is known to them and where that is practicable and consistent. We expect all reasonable steps to be taken within that framework of consistency to find the father.
934
In another place my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health, Jacqui Smith, gave an explicit commitment that that obligation will be repeated and expanded upon in the new regulations and guidance to accompany the implementation of the Bill. It will also take account of recent ECHR-related case law, which places further emphasis on the importance of informing, involving and consulting unmarried fathers. I believe that that extra dimension will make the commitment and our resolution to follow it much clearer and stronger. Therefore, that will be an improvement.
Moreover, when the agency is in any doubt as to whether or not to consult the unmarried father, as I said on Monday, we envisage providing in court rules for it to be able to make a direct application to the court for guidance on this matter. Therefore, there are two ways in which that will be strengthened.
The intention is that in the vast majority of cases the unmarried father without parental responsibility will be aware of the proposed plan for the adoption of his child well before any application for an adoption order. He will then be able to take the action anticipated in the noble Lord's amendment. It will be open to him to apply for an order giving him parental responsibility under Section 4 of the Children Act.
However, I also know that the noble Lord wants to widen the window. That is the intention of his amendment. I assure the noble Lord that there is such an opportunity. Under the Bill, where a child has been placed for adoption with prospective adopters, there will be a period of 10 weeks when the child is living with the adopters when it will be possible for the unmarried father to make arrangements to apply for parental responsibility.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment concerns what should happen when such an application is pending. Here, we run into a few difficulties. When there is a pending application for a parental responsibility order from an unmarried father and at the same time an application for a placement order or an adoption order, we would expect that the court would ensure that the matter of the parental responsibility would be resolved first. Therefore, the father will not be in a state of limbo. He will be able to assume parental responsibility if the conditions are right before the next steps are taken. That is in line with the approach adopted by the courts when there have been doubts in the past. I hope that it is a more appropriate solution than that proposed by the noble Lord.
We also have concern about the uncertainty of the amendment. Paragraph (b) would mean that a parent who did not have parental responsibility but who had applied for it would be treated for the purposes of adoption as if he already had it. However, the corollary of that would be that if his application was unsuccessful he would be treated as if he did not have parental responsibility.
In our interpretation, there is a slight inconsistency. Two people without parental responsibility would be treated differently. I do not think that the noble Lord wishes that. While we are concerned about the

935
uncertainty, I suggest that our provisions will provide what the noble Lord wants. A court might find it difficult to know for certain whether the father had received the notice of his ability to apply for parental responsibility, and when he received it. It may be difficult for the court to know whether his consent was required.
I know that the noble Lord will agree that there needs to be absolute certainty at every stage of the process. That is what we aim for. That is why we have difficulties with the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I feel much comforted by what she said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Offence]:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Other provision to be made by regulations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 38, line 12, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 68A omits subsection (5) of Clause 64. In the context of government Amendment No. 96A, which I have agreed should not be grouped with this amendment and to which I shall come shortly, we now also consider that adoption support agencies should be able to apply for information on behalf of a birth relative or an adopted person for adoptions made after the Bill comes into force.
By omitting subsection (5) of Clause 64, we make clear that the powers in Clause 9 may provide for anyone—that is, not only the adopted person—to authorise a third party to receive information on his or her behalf. The intention is that under the powers in Clause 9 adoption agencies will be required to obtain information from the third party to ensure that the applicant for the information has authorised the third party to receive it on his behalf. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Meaning of adoption in Chapter 4]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 70:
Page 39, line 27, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 28 and insert "But references in this Chapter to adoption do not include an adoption effected before"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not move Amendment No. 70 because it is consequential on Amendment No. 51. It may help the House if I put on record the other amendments that I shall not move. They are Amendments Nos. 71 to 73, 77 to 85, 92 to 96, 122 to 127, 130 to 134, 139 to 143, 145 to 148, 150 to 154,165 and 167. It will be observed that I have not included Amendments Nos. 157, 170 and 171 which
936
are in this group. They will be moved when we return to the Bill next week. I am not moving Amendment No. 70.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Minister referred to Amendment No. 154. We spoke to that in an earlier group. I had hoped that it would be moved.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is right. I doubt that we shall reach Amendment No. 154 today but I shall be moving it.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 67 [Status conferred by adoption]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 40, line 1, at beginning insert "subject to paragraph (c)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this issue has come to my notice only since Grand Committee. I apologise for not having raised it in Grand Committee.
It has been represented to me that adoption legislation as it now stands, and as it will remain if the clause as drafted stands part of the Bill, may not always operate in the best interests of the child. It may also face the birth father of the child (it usually is the father) with an agonising decision as to whether to reject the proposal for adoption or to agree to it in the best interests of the child knowing that if he does so he will cut himself off from the child for ever. The situation is unnecessary and would be remedied by the amendment which may need rewording.
Let us consider an example. A and B are married. They are the birth parents of a child. They find that the marriage is not working out for reasons of incompatibility. They separate. The mother (A) subsequently forms a partnership with, or marries, another man. The child lives happily with them but continues to see his father. After a while A and C decide that they would like to adopt the child in order to confirm the stability of their commitment to her.
As the law stands at present, if B, the other birth parent, usually the father, agrees to the adoption the court has no alternative but to cause him to cease to be the parent of that child and the child loses a father. It is argued that this may not be in the best interests of the child and may face the birth father with an agonising and unnecessary choice.
I am informed that it is a quite common situation under the law as it stands today. I have set down the amendment to draw attention to the situation because I am informed that in some continental countries the law provides that under appropriate circumstances the birth father may retain the status of father despite a step parent adoption. The child then has three parents. If all three are good parents, it will be in the best interest of the child. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have serious difficulty with the amendments. They seek to create a new type of what has been called a simple adoption order where a child is adopted by the spouse or partner of one birth parent but the legal relationship between the child and the other birth parent has not been severed.
Adoption seeks to secure a permanent home for a child by transferring the child for virtually all purposes from the birth family to a new adoptive family and severing the legal links with the first. The amendments would result in the child having three legal parents: the natural parents and the spouse or partner of one of them. That undermines fundamentally the principle of adoption. It could cause uncertainty and distress for all concerned, especially the child. What happens, for example, if a birth parent disagrees with the way the adoptive parents are bringing up a child? The birth parent can apply for a Section 8 order under the Children Act whether or not he or she has parental responsibility. That could include applying for a residence order. Surely that is inconsistent with providing for children a secure and permanent future with adoptive families.
I fully accept that there are cases when adoption is not right. Adoption is not right for all children. That is why there are the alternatives of residence orders. The court must consider in each case what is in the best interest of the child. When a family splits up, it must be right that a spouse or partner of the parent with care should be able to apply for parental responsibility to help to share fully in the day-to-day care of the child. However, where there is an interested and caring birth parent, it is unlikely that the court will consider a step parent adoption to be in the best interest of the child.
The adoption review considered the option proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, but did not favour it. The responses to the review were overwhelmingly in favour of the approach in the Bill. Given the range of options open to the court to make an order in the best interests of the child, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I understand the Minister to say that the solution to the problem is that the child should not be adopted by the step family. I should like to take advice on that and to read what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Adoptive relatives]:
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Rules of interpretation for instruments concerning property]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Insurance]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Registration of Adoptions]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 88, line 35, at end insert ", or
( ) adoption, whenever granted, which the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction orders to be registered in the interest of the adopted person."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 86 returns us to an issue that I raised in Grand Committee with which the Minister dealt most helpfully on that occasion. I have tabled the amendment again, however, because there are some outstanding matters of detail on which I should be glad of clarification.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of the issue. Under current rules, recognised overseas adoptions cannot be entered on the adopted children register. Children whose overseas adoptions cannot be registered cannot be issued with a birth or adoption certificate and have to rely throughout their lives for day-to-day purposes on their foreign birth or other certificates. These certificates mark them out as different from other citizens and can contain negative references such as "abandoned" or "without parents".
There is provision under the 1999 Act and under the Adoption and Children Bill for such adoptions to be registered where necessary information is available. In Grand Committee, the Minister indicated that the term "overseas adoption" includes adoption made under the old designated list, thereby giving registration of overseas adoption retrospective effect.
That was a most helpful clarification for which I was grateful. However, the Minister made clear that,
"it is possible that when an old overseas adoption was made, the adopters were not provided with the information or documentation that the registrar-general applies to register the adoption".—[Official Report, 1:5/7/02; col. CWH 299.]
The largest single group of children who potentially stand to benefit from this change in legislation are the 800-plus children who have been adopted from China. We cannot, though, be certain how many of those adopted children will benefit from the change, because it is unclear what will constitute "sufficient information".
I hope that the Minister can reassure me. My fear is that it is precisely the most vulnerable children and those for whom an English adoption or birth certificate is vital who will find that they have too little information for their adoption to be registered; for example, those children whose various Chinese certificates do not record the name they were given at the time of their adoption and by which they are now known. Their disadvantage would be further compounded as, without: the registration of their adoption, neither they nor their birth family members will be eligible to access the adoption contact register.
Where an overseas adoption is not capable of registration, adoptive parents will continue to turn to the English courts to readopt their children as their only route to adoption registration and acquisition of an English birth or adoption certificate. Not every court has been willing to consider such applications. Where courts will, it will be at the expense of court time, and, I suggest, unnecessary involvement of local authorities and CAFCASS.
For this reason, my amendment proposes a safety net. The safety net would permit the High Court to determine in appropriate cases that an overseas adoption can be entered in the adopted children register where that is found to be in the child's best interests.
This is not a trivial issue about procedure. It addresses itself at real human need: the need to have an identity, and the need to be able to prove that identity easily throughout one's life. I hope that the Minister will be able once again to reassure me that the system will not be stacked against these very vulnerable children. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I, too, ask for considerable detail as to what the words "other information" are likely to mean. I believe that that would cut down a great deal of present fear and doubt for children and their parents. It would also spare us the extended attention of lawyers and courts, which is always a good thing in my view.
I should like to take the opportunity to say publicly that in Grand Committee the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I were deeply critical of the department and its handling of inter-country adoptions. I believe that there has been a considerable amount of clarification and improvement on that matter, much to the satisfaction of people who are users of the department's services. That is evident in some of the changes that have been brought forward to the Bill.
This is not churlishness on our part; it is simply trying to make a difficult judgment clearer for all concerned. As we said in Grand Committee, the last thing that any of us wants is to in any way give any quarter to those who would traffick in children or seek to bring in children and get around the necessarily robust systems. I thank the department for the effort that it has made so far. I ask the Minister for a little more clarification.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure both noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. I start by setting out what we think the amendment achieves. It is aimed at the provision in Schedule 1 that enables an entry to be made in relation to a registrable foreign adoption on the adopted children register, which is maintained by the registrar-general. The amendment would widen the meaning of registrable foreign adoption to include those adoptions where the High Court so orders, irrespective of when or where the adoption order was granted if it is in the interests of the adopted person. That would mean that the registrar-general would be under a duty to make an entry in the adopted children register where the High Court so orders. I believe that that is common ground.
It is clear that the amendment has been tabled out of concern about the particulars or information that adopters must supply to the registrar-general in order for a foreign adoption to be registered. It is clear from
940
what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that in some cases it may be difficult to provide the information. He gave the example of the birth name of a child coming from China.
I hope to be able to reassure both noble Lords that the information requirements are both reasonable and essential. The registrar-general has a duty to maintain an accurate record of an adoption. His ability to fulfil that function rests on the quality of the information passed to him.
The particulars required for the registration of foreign adoptions by the registrar-general will be set out in regulations which are currently being developed. He will need to be satisfied that he has enough information to make a registration in the adopted children register. But, in order to make a registration, he needs basic information only. The minimum requirements are the child's date and country of birth, his adoptive names—in other words, not necessarily the birth name, which was what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was worried about—the adoptive parents' names and occupations, which will clearly be available, and the name of the court and the date on which the adoption took place.
Almost all this information should be readily available to genuine adopters. It is perfectly legitimate to request it from them. Even if the precise date of birth is not known—that seems to me to be the only difficulty in the list that I have given—the registrar-general is prepared to accept an approximate date of birth. He does this now for domestic adoptions and in all cases of general registration where these details are inadequate, such as where the child is a foundling.
If the registration is for a foreign adoption, the registrar-general also needs evidence that the adoption is either a convention adoption or an overseas adoption, as defined in Clause 86. The information which identifies the court and the date when the adoption was made should be sufficient for the registrar-general to establish these facts.
Other information which would be helpful, but which is not essential for a registration on the adopted children register, includes the place or the locality of the child's birth, the full names of the natural father and mother, and any previous names for the child. The information about the birth family name could be needed if an adopted person wanted later in life to have an entry registered on the adoption contact register. Information about the birth family would be necessary so as to link an entry on the register for the adopted person with an entry for a relative.
There are a number of problems with the amendment which would extend the registration of foreign adoptions to adoptions from countries where we are not satisfied that the procedures safeguard the needs of children, birth parents and adopters. However, it is not clear that the High Court, which would be the deciding body, would have any more evidence than the registrar-general to suggest that an adoption should be registered. The amendment also appears to interfere with the registrar-general's function as custodian and administrator of records and registers.

941
The intention of the provision in Schedule 1 is not to restrict the registration of legitimate overseas adoptions but to facilitate it. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is now reassured that only basic information is needed for registration on the adopted children register, and that he will not pursue the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am reassured and thank the Minister for setting on the record how the provisions will operate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl decides what to do with the amendment, I did not respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for which I apologise. She talked about delays experienced by applicants. We very much regret those delays and are working hard to overcome them. There is now a settled, experienced workforce in place that processes applications quickly and provides information about procedures in other countries and advice about the process.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am happy to note that and thank the Minister for that observation.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, am pleased to hear what the Minister said. He will appreciate that my amendment was intended primarily as a probing device to elicit from the Government the answers to some real and pressing queries on the issue from several quarters. For my part, I was satisfied by what the Minister said; I hope that I am right to be satisfied; if not, no doubt I shall be advised accordingly. With thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Connections between the register and birth records]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 45, line 7, at end insert—
"(7A) The Registrar General shall maintain and make available a list of adoption support agencies registered under section 8 undertaking to provide intermediary support services between adopted persons and birth relatives in accordance with regulations under section 9(1)(b).
(7B) On an application made in the prescribed manner by a registered adoption support agency for information relating to a person adopted before the appointed day, the Registrar General shall provide such information held by the Registrar General necessary to obtain a certified copy of the adoption entry relating to a person.
(7C) The Registrar General shall not be responsible to any person to whom a list of adoption support agencies is provided for any arrangement made to provide intermediary services between an adopted person and birth relatives or any failure to make such an arrangement.
(7D) An adoption support agency which obtains information in accordance with subsection (7B) shall not disclose the identity of the adopted person to any other person or body without the consent in the prescribed manner of the adopted person."
The noble Baroness said: We now come to a slightly odd group of amendments. I shall speak to Amendment No. 87 in a moment, but expect to be able
942
to withdraw it later and to support Amendment No. 96A in due course. While Amendment No. 96A looks rather different from Amendments Nos. 87 and 88, which stand in my name, it is in fact the Government's version of a solution to meet the same, real problem: namely, giving birth relatives retrospective access to information about adoptions to assist them in searching for an adopted person.
The Government have prospectively recognised the human misery that that lack of access to information entails. In Grand Committee, we were all affected by the stories we heard about how lives have been blighted by the inability to contact a son, daughter or other relative lost through adoption. Clause 61 allows information to be given about adopted persons once they are adult, but it will not have retrospective effect, so it will have no effect for several years to come until future adoptees are at least 18 years of age. The Bill contains no information rights for adoptions before the Bill comes into effect, but that is where the need is greatest.
We are not necessarily discussing adoptions that took place in the recent past but those when social attitudes to illegitimacy resulted in a large number of adoptions which mothers, in particular, came to regard as forced on them: during the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1960s. Those adopted children may themselves now be in their 60s; they may have unknown siblings of much the same age; and their birth parents may easily be in their 80s or older. So, for many, the Bill is the last chance to open up the possibility of tracing their lost family members.
That is why, in Grand Committee, we pressed amendments that would have given retrospective rights to obtain information. They had the full backing of the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and their Parents and the Children's Society—indeed, I pay tribute to their valiant efforts to find an appropriate formula—but our arguments fell on stony ground. For Report, I first tabled Amendment No. 87, which is similar to an amendment considered in Grand Committee, which, briefly, is a modest amendment to empower adoption support agencies to get information about adoption from the Registrar General. The adoption charities then drafted a further amendment, Amendment No. 88, which sought to address some of the Department of Health's concerns—in particular about the Registrar General's duties, fees, interactions with local authorities and adoption agencies and phased implementation.
I shall not pretend that Amendment No. 88 is perfect in legal terms. I had expected the Minister to chide me on its deficiencies—indeed he may still do so. But that will not be necessary, because last Friday the Government found themselves on the road to Damascus and tabled Amendment No. 96A, which deals with the problem. I know that adoption charities have welcomed that new clause and so do we on these Benches.
I shall of course leave it to the Minister to explain in detail how the new clause will work in practice and do not rule out returning to the detail at Third Reading

943
if necessary. But I hope that he will deal with several questions of mine about the new clause contained in Amendment No. 96A. First, as with so much of the Bill, we know little of how the provisions will work in practice, because the new clause is one long regulation-making clause. Will the Minister tell us when the draft regulations are expected to be available and will he commit to wide and thorough consultation on them?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us when he expects regulations to take effect and whether he expects a phased implementation of the new provisions? In particular, does he expect pre-and post-1975 adoptions to be dealt with differently and, if so, how?
Thirdly, the new clause allows fees to be charged. There is clearly concern about fees charged to adoption support agencies facilitating contact. Their costs must be covered by fees for those who are searching or, as is likely, by charitable funds. Will the Minister undertake that fees charged will be limited to the costs reasonably incurred by those making the charges? Fourthly, will he say something about the availability of Section 64 money to adoption support agencies to enable them to gear up their infrastructure to deal with the new provisions?
Lastly, can the Minister explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a power of veto over regulations affecting the Registrar General to be made under new subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the new clause? I can understand why he should have a power of veto over fee levels set by the Registrar General, who is in the Chancellor's own empire, but not over the basic regulation-making powers. If the Minister considers the corresponding provision in Clause 65(4), he will see that the Chancellor's powers are there restricted to the matter of fees, not to other regulations.
I am well aware that the Chancellor now thinks that he controls policy in the Department of Health. His Wanless funding review and, more recently, his control of the foundation hospital agenda are proof of that. But I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is not healthy for the Chancellor's powers to creep yet further into the Department of Health's legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to give the weakest support to Amendment No. 88 and the warmest of welcomes to Amendment No. 96A. I do not want to steal the Minister's thunder, but I have to speak now.
Today is a really good day. I thank the Minister and his department for listening to the arguments that we made with a great deal of conviction and with a great deal of information at our disposal from people who have worked to achieve this change for many years. It would not have come about in the right way without the technical input from the department. On behalf of the charities, I thank the department for finding a way to make a good idea work well and, in particular, for coming up with the safeguards for people who are adopted, which are, perhaps, the most important parts
944
of the amendment. In particular, it is good to see a right for people who have been adopted to give pre-emptive notification to the courts, to the registrar-general and to the adoption agencies that they do not wish to be contacted or wish to be contacted only in certain circumstances.
I do not want to cover in great detail the ground that we went over in Grand Committee. However, I believe that people who gave children away for adoption prior to 1976 have suffered from being unable to break through a barrier erected by the state and gather information about people with whom they have a blood relationship. At Second Reading, I said that that was wrong, and I am glad that we have managed to find a way to enable them not to bring about contact but to try to bring about contact.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I have only a couple of questions. I understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets a look-in on this matter, although I stand to be corrected. I have a practical question. How will this be publicised? I have a particular reason for asking that. Noble Lords may remember that, at Second Reading, I talked about birth fathers. I have no doubt that birth mothers will get to hear about the change in the legislation. I do not wish to be sexist in any way, but I imagine that the change will be picked up, in particular, by women's journals and programmes directed at women. However, birth fathers and siblings also have the right, and I am concerned that they should be able to exercise the right to approach an intermediary body.
It has been a strange night. Not only have I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I am about to say something that I rarely say. I believe that, in this case, it is right to use regulations to bring the measure into effect. It is right because there is still some uncertainty about how it will work in practice and what best practice will turn out to be when we are dealing with the most complex personal cases. We need the flexibility to change practice if it becomes apparent that that would be best for all concerned.
I offer a suggestion about funding. One of the reasons why many of us lobbied hard for the change was the expensive and Byzantine process that people seeking to make such searches must go through, from adoption agency records to bits of historical information that may be incomplete. The key to the measure is the information held by the registrar-general. That should make the process more efficient, and I wonder whether there will be efficiency savings that could be put towards the cost of the real implementation of the measure. I have no doubt that that will be done by people who care passionately about the subject.
All along, we have said that the measure would not bring about a happy ending for everybody. We cannot guarantee that. We are not here to play God; we are here to make a legislative framework in which people can make their own decisions. However, it is a good move. On behalf of the organisations that have worked for this, I give a heartfelt welcome to Amendment No. 96A. It is a just move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am relieved to learn that I need not attack Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 in detail. I had not prepared to; I thought that Amendment No. 96A would be welcome.
When the proposal was debated in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath acknowledged that it sought to tackle the Government's concerns about opening up information on tens of thousands of past adoptions. As the Bill made its passage through, we argued that adoption agencies should not be burdened with the work, as it would draw away their resources for arranging and supporting adoptions for today's children. That was proposed in the previous amendments.
Many adoptions were arranged privately. In such cases, there were few records other than the report about the placement that the adoption agency may or may not hold. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right to say that there will not be a happy outcome in cases for which records simply do not exist. Before 1984, the obligations on adoption agencies to keep and record information were not as comprehensive as they are now. Monitoring and performance management was not as rigorous: I do not think that anyone had heard of monitoring and performance management in the public sector.
If records have been lost or if the adoption was a private one, in which no adoption agency was involved, the only probable source of identifying information is the sensitive information contained in the adopted children register maintained by the registrar-general since the Adoption of Children Act 1926. Clause 77 places a duty on the registrar-general similar to that imposed by Section 50 of the Adoption Act 1976 to maintain the adopted children register and provide certified copies of entries as evidence of adoption. We have already discussed the content of those registers.
Subsection (2) provides that the register itself is not open to public inspection or search. The index is open, but the register itself is not. Opening up access is a radical step and should not be considered lightly. In Grand Committee, we pledged that we would consider the role of adoption support agencies in the disclosure of the information. It is sensitive, but, in cases for which there are no other records, it may be the only way to trace an adopted person to seek their consent for disclosure. We have considered the matter carefully, and we have consulted people involved with adoption. We have decided that, on balance, adoption support agencies should be able to get access to information on past adoptions, provided that there are robust safeguards to ensure that the information is protected and is disclosed only if the informed consent of the adopted adult is forthcoming. Amendment No. 96A builds on Amendments Nos. 87 and 88.
At the weekend, there were stories in the press that the Government's scheme would provide a right for birth parents to make direct contact with the adopted person, even with adopted children. I must reassure
946
adopted people, for whom it could be a worry, and the adopters that that is not the case. The new scheme requires that contact be made by an adoption support agency that is registered to provide intermediary services. The identity of the adopted adult cannot be disclosed without their informed consent. There is no prospect of adopted children being asked that question.
The Government's amendments do not mirror the text of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but they build on it. Amendment No. 96A inserts a new clause after Clause 96 that amplifies the powers in Clause 9 to make regulations for the disclosure of information about adoptions made before the Bill is enacted. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for saying that the regulation-making power was the right route. We intend to use the regulations to establish a scheme that provides for registered adoption support agencies to operate an intermediary service for contact between adopted adults and their adult birth relatives. On receiving an application from the birth relative, the ASA would establish the identity of the adopted person, seek to trace him and, if he consents, disclose his identity to the birth relative and facilitate contact between them. An adopted adult will be able to ask an ASA to provide the same service if he wants contact with a birth relative. The provision would apply only in cases of adults adopted before the appointed day.
That builds on Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 by enabling a registered ASA to use information from the adopted child register and the adoptive contact register maintained by the registrar-general. But it goes further. It enables the ASA to obtain tracing information and advice from the adoption agency. The three key elements are: first, an ASA can approach an adoption agency or the registrar-general on behalf of the applicant who wishes to have contact with the subject of the application. Secondly, an adoption agency and the registrar-general will have a duty to provide information to the ASA which may be used to trace the subject and to provide counselling to him and inform his consent decision.
Thirdly, the ASA will be prohibited from disclosing any information about the subject of an application to the applicant without the informed consent of the subject. The intention is to set out the details in the regulations after consultation with the adoption stakeholders. That brings me to the first question of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The regulations will appear some time next year. The consultation period will probably last into 2004. It has to be carried out properly.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, we have recognised throughout the debate that many of the people for whom the measure is particularly important are very old. For them until 2004 may be too long. I therefore ask the Minister whether the department will consider,

947
in exceptional circumstances—and we can imagine what those might be—making exceptions before the regulations are finalised.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not see how one can do that. Of course I shall take that back and I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about it, but she herself made clear the need for regulations to get the matter right. That is why we cannot write it into the Bill. We plan that the regulations will come into effect with the Bill; we are not deliberately delaying them beyond the Bill's implementation, but I cannot see that it can be done quickly. I do not see how there can be exceptional cases without potential injustice.
I do not know whether the House wishes me to go through the provisions of Amendment No. 96A. I shall do it rapidly. Proposed subsection (1) provides that the power in Clause 9 can be used to make regulations to provide for,

"(a) assisting persons adopted before the appointed day who have attained the age of 18 to obtain information in relation to their adoption, and

(b) facilitating contact between such persons and their relatives".

To achieve those ends, we intend to use the power in new subsection (2) to provide for regulations to place functions on registered adoption support agencies, the registrar-general and adoption agencies.
New subsection (3)(a) will provide us with the power through regulation to set out the circumstances where registered adoption support agencies, the registrar-general and the adoption agencies are to be able or required to disclose information. New subsection (3)(b) provides us with a power through regulations to require the court to disclose information to an ASA. That will enable the ASA to contact the adoption agency involved in the adoption to ensure that it is aware of any information the agency holds that is relevant to the case with which it is dealing.
It is essential that the sensitive identifying information that the adoption support agency will be able to obtain from the registrar-general or the adoption agency is properly safeguarded and disclosed only in certain circumstances. New subsection (3) also makes provision to provide for conditions to be attached to the disclosure, including the further disclosure of information.
I turn to the third question of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The resource implications for adoption agencies of assessing and providing information to adoption support agencies are difficult to predict. No one knows how many applications there will be. It is important that the service does not reduce the resources available to adoption agencies. I confirm that we have already committed ourselves to the use of Section 64 money for that purpose. We shall be consulting on the detail.
The noble Baroness asked me whether the fee levels would be limited to costs. They will be limited to reasonable costs; I am grateful that we are in accord on
948
the matter. Regulations that will place requirements on the registrar-general will be subject to the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as provided for by new subsection (6). The reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is involved is that the registrar-general is the national statistician and reports to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Department of Health.
New subsection (7) provides definitions for the appointed day, for a registered adoption support agency and for a relative in relation to an adopted person. The use of regulations, coupled with the powers in Clause 136, will enable the scheme to be phased in to help registered adoption support agencies, adoption agencies, the registrar-general and the courts to manage the demands from applicants for the new service. That will allow for the scheme to apply first to adoptions made before 12th November 1975—the older people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred. The second phase would then apply the scheme to all adoptions made before the appointed day.
The Government will consult on any proposed phasing-in of the scheme. This is a balanced, workable scheme with safeguards to protect information that adoption support agencies will be able to obtain. It provides for the flow of information between one agency and another, for it to be passed to the subject of an application but not to the applicant, and for information to be disclosed only if consent is forthcoming.
We need to ensure that the adoption support agency can pass certain information back to the applicant, such as where the subject of the application has died. In those circumstances, others could be identified by the disclosure of identifying information, so we need to consider, for example, providing for the adopters to be asked for their views. Through regulations we will make provision for such circumstances and others where a person is not able to give informed consent.
We will consult fully on the drafting and accompanying guidance and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we will be looking to give publicity to the scheme when we have something definite to say.
I turn to efficiency savings. We are enabling and requiring adoption support agencies to do things they do not do at present. Section 64 money will be available to them for restructuring. Some public expenditure will be involved; whether there are efficiency savings remains to be seen.
Amendment No. 169A seeks to insert in Clause 144 a reference to the new clause for pre-commencement adoptions information to enable the appropriate Minister to appoint a day when it shall commence. In connection with the new clause we will also be tabling at Third Reading a number of consequential amendments. I am grateful to the favourable reception

949
that has been given to the clause and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will not press Amendment No. 87.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive description of the new clause. I associate myself with the rather more forceful welcome to it given by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. The societies have worked hard on this for many months and I know that they are delighted with it and look forward to meeting the challenges in its practical application. I therefore have much pleasure in withdrawing Amendment No. 87 and look forward to Amendment No. 96A when we reach its place in the Marshalled List. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the privilege amendment was considered and agreed to.
HSBC Investment Banking Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Police Officers: Retention
  Police Officers: Retention
  Passport and Records Agency Annual Accounts
  Passport and Records Agency Annual Accounts
  MigrationWatch Report
  MigrationWatch Report
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Sri Lanka Asylum Seekers
  Sri Lanka Asylum Seekers
  Major (Retired) Christine Lloyd
  Major (Retired) Christine Lloyd
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  A400M Aircraft
  A400M Aircraft
  English National Stadium Review
  English National Stadium Review
  Cumbrian Foot and Mouth Inquiry
  Cumbrian Foot and Mouth Inquiry
  Meat and Livestock Exports
  Meat and Livestock Exports
  Rural Poverty
  Rural Poverty
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Habitats Directive
  Habitats Directive
  East Midlands National Forest
  East Midlands National Forest
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Generic Medicines: Maximum Price Scheme
  Generic Medicines: Maximum Price Scheme
  Coastal and Inland Yacht Harbours
  Coastal and Inland Yacht Harbours
  Guide Dogs on Ferries
  Guide Dogs on Ferries
  Marco Polo Programme
  Marco Polo Programme
  National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
  Brixham Marina
  Brixham Marina
  Sir Desmond Morton
  Sir Desmond Morton
  Car Parking Spaces for Peers
  Car Parking Spaces for Peers
  Court Service Annual Report and Accounts
  Court Service Annual Report and Accounts