Sitting of 24 October 2002

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

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October],
  That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

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

    Specialist Academy (Ramsgate)
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What provision he has set aside for the creation of a specialist academy in Ramsgate. [75264]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Before I answer that question, it is right that I put on record the deep shock and sadness felt throughout the education world at the resignation yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris). Her contribution to education over the last five years has been immense. Pupils are taught better, in smaller classes, by better-paid, better-trained, better-supported teachers, thanks to her outstanding efforts. That is her legacy. She pioneered important reforms in our education system, but she did more that that. She acted at all times with complete integrity, total dedication and one goal—not her advancement but the advancement and achievement of pupils. Everybody with an interest in education will deeply regret her departure, and the world of politics is a much lesser place as a result of her absence from the top table. Politics needs people like my right hon. Friend.
    386
    The House will also have gathered, from the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that the Prime Minister has appointed him Secretary of State for Education and Skills. My right hon. Friend is not known as a quiet man, and the House will have many opportunities to question him in his new role. For the next hour, however, he will leave the questions to me and my more experienced ministerial colleagues.
    As for the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), the Department has offered development funding to a partnership between Roger De Haan and Kent local education authority to draw up detailed plans for a proposed academy to replace Ramsgate school in Kent. We are determined to do all that we can to help deeply disadvantaged pupils in that area. All local interests will be fully consulted on the proposals.
    Dr. Ladyman: May I say that I very much share the sentiments expressed about my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris)? In view of the personal nature of her statement last night, may I ask on behalf of hon. Members, certainly on the Labour Benches, that our love and best wishes be passed on to her? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on his appointment; it is an excellent choice.
    As for the Ramsgate school, the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is potentially the most exciting prospect for education in my constituency in a generation. I say that not just as a Member of Parliament but as a father of a young girl who is keen—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a supplementary question.
    Dr. Ladyman: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the creation of this new school will not simply displace the problems currently experienced by the Ramsgate school elsewhere in the constituency?
    Mr. Miliband: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the proposed academy is designed to be of benefit to many pupils in the area. The development funding is offered on the basis that the LEA and the sponsor will come forward with a proposal to help raise standards across the area with coherent provision across selective and non-selective schools in his constituency.
    Mr. Roger Gale: I, too, welcome the involvement of Roger de Haan in local education in Thanet. Will the Minister assure me, however, that the proposal will not in any way be allowed to override his Department's duty to meet the needs of my constituents living in Cliftonville, Dane Valley and other areas of North Thanet, for whom the Ramsgate school might as well be on the moon?
    Mr. Miliband: We are determined to do all that we can for all pupils in Kent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, funding has risen substantially in the area, which will lead to the provision of more teachers and more equipment. The academy initiative is designed to raise standards across the board.

    Refugee Children (Mainstream Schools)
    Alan Simpson: What assessment he has made of the impact of inclusion of refugee children in mainstream schools. [75265]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The Office for Standards in Education published a report in October 2001 entitled "Managing Support for the Attainment of Pupils from Minority Ethnic Groups", which included information on the impact and inclusion of refugee children in mainstream schools. Its main findings were that many needed extensive support to help them to acquire English, and some required additional home-school liaison and pastoral care support. Evidence exists, however, that once new bilingual learners overcome their lack of fluency in English, many go on to achieve high grades at school.
    Alan Simpson: May I add my regrets at the forced departure of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills yesterday? It is a sad day for Parliament when someone of transparent honesty and integrity is required to stand down.
    In respect of the education of refugee children, will the Minister bear in mind the overwhelming view of head teachers in my constituency who are the recipients of refugee children that they add enormously to the quality of education in schools? They have a hunger to learn and an enthusiasm to integrate, and that enthusiasm reflects the comments in the Department's joint document with the National Union of Teachers that
    "the acquisition of English will be most rapid if new pupils engage and work with other children in the class…The host children are central to this solution".
    If that is the case, can we reflect on the importance of integration in mainstream schools rather than on the creation of separate schools in accommodation centres?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I certainly agree with him. It is my experience that, once settled, refugee children play a positive part in many of our schools. I see that in my constituency.
    The accommodation centres seek to deal with the turnover of new arrivals in schools. We are carefully considering our position following the vote in the other place, but we will seek to overturn the defeat that took place there. Nevertheless, there are great benefits from having in school children who have English as an additional language. Many of them do well and benefit the wider school community.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I genuinely regret the fact that the previous Secretary of State is no longer in her place, but I welcome her successor.
    Does the Minister agree that, when refugee children or their parents have no command of English, the priority should be to provide individual tuition so that those children readily integrate into schools and their parents integrate into society?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and very much agree with him. Our Department is working on the plans for education services for the children in
    388
    accommodation centres. Learning English will be an absolutely top priority, as will delivering the rest of the national curriculum.

    Secondary Schools (Normanton)
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What steps are being taken to ensure best value in educational standards in secondary schools in the Normanton constituency; and if he will make a statement. [75266]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Wakefield local education authority's educational development plan sets out the steps being taken to ensure best value in educational standards in the secondary schools in the Normanton constituency. In addition, the Ofsted inspection system also ensures that all LEAs and schools provide best value in educational standards.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept that, for more than two years, I have been pressing the Department to consider the quality of secondary school buildings in Normanton and, particularly, the quality of buildings at Freeston high school? Does he accept that those buildings are dangerous, with falling masonry, narrow corridors and a lack of natural light? Their general condition is appalling. I have requested funding to help to rebuild the Freeston high school, and have also asked Ministers to visit it. The previous Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), agreed at column 453 on 25 April 2002 to visit the school. He gave that assurance to me as the Member of Parliament for Normanton and to the House. Will the Minister agree to follow up the promise and arrange for a visit to the school, and will he make arrangements to ensure that this dangerous building is replaced?
    Mr. Twigg: I am aware that my hon. Friend has made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards as well as to previous Ministers. I am happy to give an undertaking that we are prepared to meet representatives from his consistituency and, if possible, will arrange for one of the ministerial team to visit that secondary school.

    Teacher Work load
    Linda Perham: What plans he has to reduce teacher work load in secondary schools. [75267]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): On Tuesday, the Department announced a series of far-reaching proposals, on which I am now seeking agreement with national partners, designed to create more time for teachers to teach. This includes proposals for contractual changes, reform of the role of support staff and a concerted attack on unnecessary bureaucracy. This will contribute both to reducing teacher work load and to raising standards for pupils.
    Linda Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I declare at the outset that I am married to a secondary school teacher. I welcome the package of

    389
    measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), and join in the tributes paid to her.
    Given the importance of classroom assistants in reducing teacher work load, is my hon. Friend aware of a survey conducted by my union, Unison? It found that 80 per cent. of classroom assistants earn less than £8,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that they and other staff supporting the excellent teachers in my borough of Redbridge and throughout the country deserve better recognition in their pay and training for the work that they do?
    Mr. Miliband: I am happy to pay tribute to the excellent work that is done not just by teachers but by the support staff in Redbridge and elsewhere. Pay and conditions are a local matter and are negotiated locally, but I assure my hon. Friend that, as part of the package announced on Tuesday, the Government made it clear that a qualifications and training framework that recognises higher-level tasks will now be developed in partnership with the relevant authorities. That will recognise the higher-level tasks classroom assistants will now be asked to perform.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In paying tribute to the frank, open and honest statement made by the former Secretary of State last night—a refreshing contrast to many other statements made by Ministers on both sides of the House in recent years—may I stress how essential it is that the paper load placed on teachers is reduced? Does the Minister agree that the amount of paperwork that teachers are expected to absorb and master is incompatible with devoting proper time to their teaching duties?
    Mr. Miliband: I think it is worth recording my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which some people may contrast with the comments made by other Conservative Members in the past 24 hours.
    I agree that we need a concerted attack on unnecessary bureaucracy. That is why on Tuesday we announced that a panel of 12 serving head teachers will have a unit of their own, reporting annually in public, with the power to summon Ministers and quango heads, to ensure that we tackle the processes as well as the symptoms of unnecessary bureaucracy.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): As Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, I associate myself with the tribute to the former Secretary of State. Public life will be poorer for the exit of that young lady from the office. I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) to the Dispatch Box.
    Will my hon. Friend look closely at the Select Committee's report on early years education which tackles the problem of support staff? Those talented people come into schools to work and should be encouraged to train and upskill so that they become a new talented resource that allows teachers to teach and the quality of education to grow in the classroom.
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The importance of a career path for classroom assistants
    390
    so that they move up the ladder in schools, perhaps to become qualified teachers if they want to, is an important part of the proposals that we are developing. I assure him that we will take on board the comments in his Select Committee report.
    Mr. Damian Green: First, may I welcome the new Secretary of State to his post? I understand his uncharacteristic silence and look forward to a constructive exchange of views in future.
    I agree with the Minister for School Standards that the former Secretary of State has many admirable personal qualities. Policy failures caused her resignation and changing those policies is a key task for her successor. The root cause of that failure is set out on page 11 of the Government's document on teacher work load. It states:
    "high levels of prescription and intense scrutiny can create bureaucracy, stress and increased workloads."
    That is exactly right and a precise description of the Government's policy. Will the Minister admit that his Government have spent years tying teachers up in red tape and that until they stop that, the failures that caused the right hon. Lady to resign will continue under her successor?
    Mr. Miliband: Many parents and teachers watching today may draw a contrast between the dignified way in which my right hon. Friend spoke last night and the hon. Gentleman's churlish comments this morning. They may even ask themselves whether the right person ended up resigning.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the amount of money delegated directly to the hands of head teachers has risen substantially under the Government by between 8 to 10 per cent. That stands in stark contrast to the position under the last Government. I am pleased that teachers and head teachers now have more power in their own hands, and we are going to add to that in the months ahead.
    Mr. Green: After that performance, the hon. Gentleman should learn not to write his answers before he hears the questions. If he does not agree that pointless form filling annoys teachers, perhaps he will agree with the remark later in the report that
    "Poor pupil behaviour is a major cause of teacher workload".
    In the spirit of generosity, I commend to the new Secretary of State our policies on home-school discipline contracts and the abolition of independent appeals panels. They would give power back to heads and teachers, remove much unnecessary work and give all children a chance to learn. Will the Government adopt those policies?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman should not write his questions before the sitting. He has just changed his policy again. Last week he said in the Chamber that the Opposition would not abolish independent appeals panels; they would bring in local education authority panels to countermand them. He has just said that he has reverted to the old position. He will have to do much better.
    Richard Burden: I know that as a former teacher herself, my right hon. Friend the

    391
    Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) cared passionately about the work load of teachers and its importance in motivating them. She had several run-ins with teacher unions, but does it not speak volumes for her integrity that they greeted yesterday's announcement with shock and sadness? Does my hon. Friend agree that there are lessons for all of us in her message last night about the way we do politics and about the way in which the Opposition go about their business, and a message for the media as well? I take this opportunity, on behalf of my right hon. Friend's Labour colleagues in Birmingham, to pay tribute—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the purpose of a supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman should sit down. I, too, have the highest regard for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), but we must go through the Order Paper. That is the purpose of our business here today.
    Mr. David Rendel: I hope none the less, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me, on behalf of my colleagues, formally to welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, and to say that we regret the fact that the previous Secretary of State has become yet another victim of the Government's target culture.
    On secondary school work loads, does the Minister accept that there are already a very large number of unqualified people in charge of our classes? Do not his new policies simply mean that there will be yet more unqualified people in our secondary schools taking charge of classes in future?
    Mr. Miliband: I am pleased to say that the proposals announced on Tuesday complement the Government's commitment to have 10,000 more teachers in our schools during this Parliament. We are not at all ashamed of saying that language specialists, sports coaches and musicians should be coming into our schools, not to substitute for teachers, but to work under their direction and to supplement the invaluable work that they do.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Teachers in Wales will consider that the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) this week were probably the most important thing that she contributed to their work, thanks to devolution. What conversations has my hon. Friend had with his colleagues in Wales to ensure that the full implementation of what was announced will apply to the whole of Wales?
    Mr. Miliband: I can reassure my hon. Friend that representatives of the National Assembly for Wales participate as full members in the forum that we have established with all interested parties to work through the package, and they will continue to do so.

    Student Support
    Matthew Green: If he will make a statement on student support for 2003–04. [75269]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): We have no plans to make widespread changes to the financial support arrangements for students entering or continuing in higher education in 2003.
    Matthew Green: Given that students entering university now and perhaps going on to a public sector job would face at least 15 years of repaying their loans at 9 per cent. of their earnings above £10,000, will the Minister take this opportunity to state that the Government will never introduce commercial rates on loans, which would add another five or more years to the repayment of those loans for the average public sector worker?
    Margaret Hodge: I am not in the business of pre-empting the higher education strategy document that we will be publishing at the end of the month. However, our income-contingent loan scheme is far superior to the old mortgage-style loan scheme that the previous Government introduced, as it ensures that people repay their loan according to what they earn.
    Mr. David Lepper: As a member of the National Union of Teachers, may I associate myself with the comments that have been made from these Benches about our former Front-Bench colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris)? Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's understandable comment about not pre-empting announcements which I am glad to hear are to be made later this month, will she take this opportunity to reaffirm what I understand has always been the Government's policy: their opposition to top-up tuition fees in universities?
    Margaret Hodge: My time is slightly ahead of me. We shall announce our higher education strategy document at the end of next month. I am not in a position today to make any statement about what will be incorporated in it. What I am happy to say is that we will ensure that debt and the fear of debt do not inhibit students from participating in higher education, and that we want to create not a social elite but an intellectual elite in which everyone, according to ability, is allowed to develop his or her full potential.
    Adam Price: The Minister will be aware of the Assembly learning grant which was introduced in Wales at the beginning of the current academic session. Can she tell me why grant awards to low-income students are being classed as income and therefore being clawed back by the Government from part-time students—a practice that I understand is not followed in the case of the English and Welsh universities access fund?
    Margaret Hodge: I understand that negotiations are proceeding as we speak between my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and those in the Department for Work and Pensions over whether the new grants should be classed as income for benefit purposes. I look forward to learning the outcome.
    Ms Meg Munn: May I too associate myself with the tribute to the former Secretary

    393
    of State for Education and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), and with the welcome to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)?
    Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important aims of student support should be to ensure that children from worse-off backgrounds can go to university, as they currently cannot, and not to continue to give unwarranted support to children from better-off backgrounds?
    Margaret Hodge: I have often said in the House that I think that in future we will be judged, in relation to increasing participation in higher education, on whether we have managed to change the socio-economic profile of those who enter it. I have also said, and will reiterate, that we have set ourselves a complex challenge. We need to raise standards in our secondary schools to ensure that more young people from lower income groups stay at school, and we need to raise their aspirations so that they aim higher and see university as an option.

    Criminal Records Checks
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What meetings he has had with the teaching unions to discuss criminal record checks on teaching staff. [75271]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Teachers/Union of Women Teachers, the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers on 4 September to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Djanogly: With thousands of applications still outstanding, Cambridgeshire county council alone still has some 40 checks outstanding, yet all the applications were put in before June. The situation is becoming serious. I have received a letter from the leader of the council, and the leaders of the Liberal and Labour groups, expressing deep concern about the new disclosure service. They complain about long delays in recruitment inevitably impacting on service users. They say that recruitment itself is problematic, and that existing staff are under increasing stress. Given that backlog of thousands, what will the Government do to sort out the shambles?
    Mr. Miliband: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about this important issue. I am pleased to say that the processing system has undergone significant improvement in the last four to six weeks, and that the throughput of disclosures has risen over that time. One assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that the Department has agreed on a special fast-track procedure where particular problems exist, so that the Criminal Records Bureau can deal with the issues as quickly as possible.
    David Burnside: In maintaining the highest possible standards in relation to criminal records, will the Minister, on behalf of the Department, have discussions with his opposite number in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that—at ministerial,
    394
    civil service and special policy adviser level—the Department of Education in Northern Ireland applies the same standards as we apply on the mainland in demanding no criminal record in the case of anyone involved in teaching, and in education generally, throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Miliband: In the new circumstances, we will have discussions with colleagues, and I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we will put that issue on to the agenda.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: The Minister will recall the debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), said that the most effective way of getting a prompt record check was to use the telephone service provided by the CRB. In that case, why are almost no schools or voluntary organisations aware of the service, even though it could have saved them many weeks in getting a check processed? What plans does he have to make it better known? He will also be aware that those who have to fill in the forms—the people who know most about this subject—are frustrated that they were never consulted about either the nature or style of the form? How does he intend to simplify the form and involve schools, voluntary organisations and their advisers in that process?
    Mr. Miliband: We take seriously the need to tackle the roots of this problem. The special team sent in by the Home Secretary under Mr. Patrick Carter is looking at every stage of the CRB process. It will also have discussions with a wide range of colleagues and interests to ensure that the form is as processable as possible. On the hon. Gentleman's point about publicity, my understanding is that a number of people have been using the phone line and other mechanisms of getting in touch, but I shall look into the concern that he raised.

    Disruptive Pupils
    Mr. Chris Pond: What further measures he proposes to deal with the problems caused by disruptive pupils in schools. [75272]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): We continue to invest in a range of measures to establish good behaviour and discipline in all schools. Teachers dealing with the most challenging behaviour have access to in-school support from learning mentors and others. We stand by the head teacher's right to exclude the most disruptive pupils in the best interests of the school community as a whole. Such pupils now have access to full-time education outside the school. We will set out shortly the next stages of our strategy to improve pupil behaviour, discipline and attendance.
    Mr. Pond: Will the Minister accept from me later a brief dossier from head teachers in Gravesham about the effects of disruptive pupils in their schools? The dossier includes a report of an incident yesterday in which a nine-year-old kicked his teacher, but could not be sent home because his parents refused to collect him.

    395
    Does my hon. Friend consider that we need special provision in primary schools for disruptive pupils and perhaps also wider use of parenting orders to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children's behaviour?
    Mr. Twigg: I will be very happy to receive the dossier from my hon. Friend, who highlights one example from a number of very disturbing cases. Much of the focus of the strategy has so far been on secondary schools, but he is right to emphasise that, tragically, many such cases are arising in primary schools. Staff in our schools have a right to work in an environment where they are not subject to violence, abuse and harassment, and parents have a duty to take responsibility for their children.
    Chris Grayling: Is the Minister aware that many head teachers find when they become caught up in issues of process in relation to appeals panels that they have no guidance about that process? When he modifies the appeals panel process this January, will he consider the guidance that head teachers are given about the specific processes that are needed to ensure that they are watertight in any legal discussions?
    Mr. Twigg: That is exactly what we are doing. We are saying that we want appeals panels to be more effective and want to ensure that somebody with practical classroom experience is included on every panel. We do not want the panels to overturn the decision made by a head teacher simply on the basis of a technicality. We want to balance the interests of the individual child who might appeal with the wider interests of the school community. We have listened to the concerns of head teachers and taken them on board, which is why we will issue the new proposals starting in January.
    John Mann: There is often a link between disruptive behaviour and experimentation with drugs. Can some changes be made to the guidelines on the national curriculum for secondary schools to ensure that every school has to have high-quality anti-drugs education?
    Mr. Twigg: I met my hon. Friend earlier this week, when he took the opportunity to present me with the report of his local inquiry into the use of heroin. The findings are extremely disturbing. I am considering the advice and guidance that is given to schools on drugs, alcohol and tobacco. We are listening to a range of people who work in the field and we will be looking to see that the curriculum meets those challenges.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the Minister recognise that many children who are excluded from school have disruptive behavioural problems not by chance, but as a result of medical disabilities? Such children already have special educational needs, but when their schools can no longer cope with their disruptive behaviour and they have rightly to be excluded to protect the education of other children, current policy means that they receive only a few hours' education a week. I know one little boy, Michael, who has Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome, which means
    396
    that he cannot help being disruptive. He has had almost no education for the last seven months. What will the Minister do to help children like him?
    Mr. Twigg: I want to ensure that people have full and equal access to education regardless of their disability or their special educational needs. That is why we legislated in the previous Parliament with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. That is also why we have extended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover schools. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, however, that this is a big challenge: services are not universally good and a lot more work needs to be done. I am working with many of the organisations in the field to try to deliver a general improvement in the quality of service.

    Surplus School Places (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assessment he has made of the proposals for the removal of surplus places from schools in Everton and Vauxhall in Liverpool. [75273]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The Department does not assess statutory proposals for changes to schools, as I think my hon. Friend knows. Such proposals are decided by the local school organisation committee or, if it cannot agree, by the independent schools adjudicator. I understand that proposals for the removal of surplus places in Catholic primary schools in Liverpool originate with the archdiocese concerned, in partnership with the city council.
    Mrs. Ellman: I accept that Liverpool city council has prime responsibility for decisions on school closures, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that insufficient attention has been given to the link between regeneration opportunities and educational provision in this inner-city area? Is he aware of the work of the parents action group in this regard, and would he be willing to consider its views on the link between regeneration and educational attainment?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend will know that I visited her constituency in June, and I was very impressed not only by the tributes paid to her and her work on regeneration and education but by the work being done by the city council in tandem with voluntary organisations in the city and, specifically, in her constituency. If her parents action group wants to come to London, I will certainly meet it here, unless I get back to Liverpool before that.

    School Transport
    Mr. Mark Todd: When distance limits on school transport entitlement were last altered; and if he will make a statement. [75274]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The statutory maximum walking distances were set in 1944. Local education authorities have the power to consider

    397
    applications for help with transport costs that are not covered by the statutory criteria, using their discretionary powers.
    Mr. Todd: In 1944, there were about 1 million vehicles on British roads; there are now 24 million. In 1944, footpaths were heavily used by people walking to work, and provided a safe means of transit. They are now much less safe in areas such as mine. Is it perhaps time for us to review the limits?
    Mr. Twigg: As I said in my answer, local authorities have discretionary powers, and there are some good examples of authorities that have chosen to exercise them. My hon. Friend's own local authority does so in a number of respects. The social exclusion unit is conducting an inquiry into the links between poor transport and access to key services, including education, and work. We are awaiting the unit's full report, but officials in the Department for Education and Skills have been working with the unit, and that may well provide a basis for us to take this debate a little further forward.
    Mr. David Heath: Traffic conditions have changed, but so have the circumstances of the schools system: we now have specialist schools and the concept of parental choice, for example. All those changes militate against the system that was set up in 1944. When we add to that the fact that, in rural areas such as my own in the county of Somerset, a huge amount of money is spent on school transport without any recompense—thanks to a ridiculous formula system that does very poorly for us and many other areas of the country—it becomes clear that it is time for a fundamental review of the school transport system. Will the Minister please put that into place at the earliest possible opportunity, to coincide with the change in the local authority funding system that we shall discuss later today?
    Mr. Twigg: I cannot promise to make it coincide with the new funding formula. This is an immensely challenging area. I have been taking a look at the matter and I will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman has a scheme in mind that would be workable and that I can sell to colleagues and to the House, I would be delighted to consider it.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Education Act 1944 also allows bus companies to permit three children under the age of 15 to sit on a double seat? That leads to gross overcrowding on scheduled bus services taking children to school in my constituency, especially from the village of Llandogo. Will my hon. Friend seriously consider this issue, and get rid of this rule?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must confess that I was not aware of that rule, but I will take a look at it, as requested.
    Mr. James Paice: In addition to the reasons given by two hon. Members for reviewing this legislation, will the Minister also take into account the fact that, because of deteriorating road
    398
    conditions and safety, young children often have to walk along verges—never mind pavements—and that countless parents are no longer prepared to let their children walk the statutory distance? Such parents have to use their cars to take their children to school, which causes immense congestion outside schools, and unnecessarily puts many extra vehicles on the road. Several of the Government's objectives could be met if they themselves were to take the lead. The discretion of local authorities is not adequate, because they are not funded and do not benefit from the environmental gain that could be achieved if the Government took action.
    Mr. Twigg: It makes a change for the Department for Education and Skills to be accused of not being centralist enough, but I will certainly look at the representations that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is clear that support exists in all parties for looking at this matter, but I repeat that any change would involve losers as well as winners, so I need to look very carefully at how such change would work. However, I certainly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about parents' concerns for their children's safety in the light of increased traffic volumes, pollution and the rate of crime.

    Higher Education
    Jane Griffiths: What plans he has to widen participation in higher education. [75276]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): We are firmly committed to widening participation in higher education, so that all our brightest students, whatever their background, enjoy the full opportunity to develop their potential. Through our secondary school reform agenda, we want to raise attainment levels. Through the introduction of the education maintenance allowance, we want to encourage young people from low-income backgrounds to stay in full-time education; and through our "Excellence Challenge" programme, we want young people to aim higher.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the staff and students of Reading university that action is needed not only to widen participation, but to enable universities in constituencies such as mine with a high cost of living to have a student body with the widest possible background?
    Margaret Hodge: Every university is enhanced by having a broad-based student population, from which every student can learn.
    Mr. George Osborne: My constituent Katy Smith was one of the students who took part in yesterday's lobby of Parliament on student debt. She made the powerful case that student debt deters people from poorer backgrounds from applying to university. Before the last election, the then Education Secretary—the current Home Secretary—promised not to introduce top-up fees for students. Would the current education team like to inherit that promise as well?
    Margaret Hodge: I, too, saw the people from the National Union of Students who came to the House

    399
    yesterday. The point that I made to them was that they should see their contribution to the cost of their education as an investment. Over their lifetime, people who are graduates will earn £400,000 more than those who are not. In that context, if they incur costs of up to £10,000, that is a good investment, not a cost.
    Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that debt is cyclical, and is it not time that we looked at the way that we pay students? They have the least experience and a small amount of money, so rather than giving them everything up front at the beginning of term, would it not be better to give them the choice of monthly payments? That would help them to manage their finances much better.
    Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend has made that suggestion to me on several occasions, and I am delighted to inform him that I have asked the Student Loans Company whether that is a feasible option for the future payment of loans.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Anthony Steen: When he will decide on option 5 funding for education in Devon. [75277]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The Government will carefully consider all the suggestions that are put to us in response to the consultation; indeed, we will be having a long debate on that this afternoon. We will announce decisions on the new funding system by early December, along with the provisional settlement for 2003–04.
    Mr. Steen: Of the four options for education funding proposed by the Government, none eliminates discrimination against Devon's children, who get a raw deal when compared with many of their county cousins. Will the Minister ensure that the new education funding formula, when it comes about, is egalitarian and eliminates the postcode lottery of funding for schools?
    Mr. Miliband: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman and I had a good debate in Westminster Hall at which I learned a lot about the particular problems of education in Devon. He and I are corresponding on some of the facts underlying the matter. Labour Members of the House are always happy to commit ourselves to an egalitarian solution.

    Support Staff (Further Education)
    Mr. Colin Challen: What plans exist to improve the pay of support staff working in further education. [75278]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): In September, I announced an extra £32 million for the teaching pay initiative in further education this year, including £12 million to allow colleges to extend the initiative to support staff.
    400
    Colleges have the flexibility to determine how they allocate their share of the £32 million between different groups of staff to meet local priorities. We have already announced that unit funding for colleges will rise by 1 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years.
    Mr. Challen: I welcome that answer and thank my hon. Friend for it. I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his post and express the hope that his predecessor will return swiftly to the Government. One of her legacies is that there is more integration in the further education sector between colleges and schools and other institutions. However, we need more parity in the rewards that people get in those places. In my constituency, we have the Rothwell partnership, in which Joseph Priestley college is working with three high schools. The staff involved need parity. Will the Government look at that issue and reward them appropriately?
    Margaret Hodge: I welcome the activities in my hon. Friend's constituency between Joseph Priestley college and a number of schools. Such co-operation puts the individual at the heart of the learning process and ensures that institutional silos do not inhibit that. We have a manifesto commitment to ensure that we raise levels of pay in further education colleges so that we get equal funding between the two sectors. We remain committed to that.
    Mr. David Kidney: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether industrial action in further education is still planned for November? Will she confirm that the dispute is about pay and say what she is trying to do to avert it?
    Margaret Hodge: It is my view that industrial action is not necessary, given our announcement of the extra £32 million that we have made available to the employers to ensure that they can negotiate and reach agreement with all the unions. That £32 million is the same as 1 per cent. on the pay bill, which is sufficient to prevent industrial action next month.

    Primary Education Targets
    Richard Younger-Ross: What progress has been made towards meeting the targets set for his Department for 2004 relating to primary school education. [75279]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Primary schools have made outstanding progress in raising standards over the last five years. This year, 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the expected level in English, and 73 per cent. did so in mathematics, maintaining world-leading standards of achievement. We believe that schools can achieve even higher standards, and have a challenging target of 85 per cent. by 2004. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are already working closely with local education authorities and schools to ensure progress towards that.
    Richard Younger-Ross: It is clear that the previous Secretary of State had not met her targets. In 1999, the right hon. Lady said that if she did not meet her targets, she would resign. She also said at that time that her colleagues would resign as well. If her colleague who is now the Secretary of State followed what his predecessor promised, could this be the quickest resignation on record?
    Mr. Miliband: I think that we have probably had enough of that for one 24-hour period. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will work closely with teachers, who have achieved outstanding improvement but can go further, notably in the primary education of boys, where there is a significant gap between them and girls. We are working on that already.

    Science and Engineering
    Michael Fabricant: What steps he is taking to promote the take-up of science and engineering places in further and higher education establishments. [75281]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): The Government are strengthening science education in schools and helping careers advisers and teachers to explain how science and engineering offer challenging careers. The Government are also implementing the recommendations of Sir Gareth Roberts's review of the need for people with skills in science, technology and engineering.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister may be aware that, over the last 10 years, there has been a significant decline in the number of students taking A-levels in physics and maths, with numbers falling by 30 per cent. In chemistry, the number has fallen by 20 per cent. What attempt will she make to encourage more people to study science subjects at A-level to enable them to do those subjects at university? Has she any plans to meet with the Engineering and Technology Board, which has been set up to promote that very end?
    Margaret Hodge: I frequently meet several professional organisations that represent engineering and science interests. I have to yet to receive a request from the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred and look forward to receiving that request. We have plans to try to encourage more young people, especially girls, to take science subjects through to A-level and on to university. The recent decline is very serious and we need to provide incentives and encouragement in the school system from the youngest age to try to reverse that long-term trend.

  SOLICITOR GENERAL
  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR GENERAL

    Police Custody Deaths
    Syd Rapson: What criteria are applied in deciding to prosecute where a death in police custody occurs. [75299]
    Shona McIsaac: If she will make it her policy to allow the views of the family of victims be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute following a death in police custody. [75300]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): In deciding whether to prosecute after a death in custody, the Crown Prosecution Service applies the code for crown prosecutors, as it does in all cases. First it considers whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction and, if there is, whether a prosecution is in the public interest. As with all cases, the CPS will start or continue with a prosecution involving a death in custody only if both tests are met. The CPS considers any information provided by or on behalf of the family in deciding whether to prosecute.
    Syd Rapson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and congratulate her on the 20th anniversary of her election to this House. She seems so young.
    In cases of deaths in custody, it often appears that no one is held to account. How can we build the public's confidence that such tragic cases are properly investigated?
    The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about my 20 years in the House. He makes an important point about relatives needing to have confidence that if a criminal act has been committed, people are held to account with no cover-ups behind closed doors. That is about good investigation and effective decision making in prosecution.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her answer, but she will appreciate that families need to know that someone is on their side, otherwise they will suspect a cover-up. What does the CPS do to liaise with families and reassure them that their views are taken into account and that matters are properly investigated?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done to reassure relatives that if a criminal act has taken place, someone is held to account for it. She may know that the Attorney-General, who takes these issues seriously, has issued a consultation paper that explores the prosecution of deaths in custody. In his consultation with the police, the Prison Service, relatives and the CPS, he has found that we have not done enough for relatives, and the CPS is well

    403
    aware of that. Prosecutions have to be public, not private, but that does not mean that relatives should be kept out of the picture and their views ignored.
    Mr. John Burnett: I hope that the Solicitor-General will acknowledge that her Department relies heavily on the work of coroners, who can refer deaths in custody cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the CPS. Another review is taking place of coroners services. Does the Solicitor-General agree that it is in the public interest that coroners courts have greater power at inquests, for example, to seize documents, to summon witnesses throughout the UK and to insist on full disclosure to the coroner in due time?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that there is a wide overlap between the work of coroners and of criminal courts in cases of death in custody. We need to be certain that there is complete openness and full investigation. He raises these matters at an opportune time, as the Lord Chancellor is consulting on the powers and procedures in relation to coroners. The two reviews that I have mentioned need to be looked at side by side, as we must make sure that deaths in custody are fully investigated.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that sufficient consideration has been given to the Christopher Alder case, in which the prosecution failed? Will the current review take account of all the circumstances of that case, so that the same problems do not arise in future?
    The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of the death in custody of Christopher Alder, of which the Attorney-General and I are well aware. The Attorney-General has been closely involved in the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and of the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case.
    Publication of the findings of the Attorney-General's consultation paper on deaths in custody has been delayed precisely because the Alder case threw up more issues of concern that must be considered. We have taken into account the Alder family's views about their experience of the prosecution. It is awful for people who have lost a loved one to feel that they have suffered an injustice.
    The good news is that the number of deaths in custody has fallen from 65 in 1998 to 32 in 2000. Holding people to account and prosecuting them is about more than securing justice for people who have died. It is also about preventing deaths in the future, because people will know that they will be held to account.

    Financial Crime
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the prosecution of financial crime. [75302]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): We consider the effective prosecution of financial crime to be very important. We cannot allow white-collar criminals to escape justice. The Serious Fraud Office and
    404
    the Crown Prosecution Service prosecute financial crime. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which comes into effect in February 2003, will mean not only that financial crime will be prosecuted, but that the proceeds of such crime can be prosecuted more effectively.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern at the low number of prosecutions carried out by the Serious Fraud Office, especially given the additional resources that it received two years ago? Can something be done to ensure that more cases are brought to justice, in line with the comments that she made in her further response to the previous question?
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend may know, the Serious Fraud Office prosecutes only those cases in which more than £1 million is at stake. The difference between the SFO and the CPS is that the former investigates a fraud as well as prosecuting it. Financial crime is linked with money laundering, terrorism, drugs and human trafficking, and it is very important that we recognise that the problem must be sorted out internationally as well as nationally. A working party involving all Departments has looked into improving the response to fraud. As international fraud grows, we must be sure that we improve our performance in tackling it.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I add my congratulations to the Solicitor-General on the 20th anniversary of her service in Parliament.
    In the light of her answers to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on the rather arbitrary limit on investigations by the SFO, will the right hon. and learned Lady say whether she proposes to encourage the SFO's excellent officers to make their skills available to other police forces? The SFO was set up by the previous Conservative Government, and such a move would enable its officers to share the expertise that they have developed over the years. The skills of SFO officers could then be used in smaller investigations. I hope that she will accept that even frauds below the limit of £1 million can have serious international implications, a point that was debated at length during the passage of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
    The Solicitor-General: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and welcome him to the Dispatch Box in his new role. As I said, the SFO investigates fraud involving more than £1 million, and the CPS prosecutes frauds below that level. There is a close relationship between the CPS and the SFO. Other police forces that are investigating crimes involving less than £1 million certainly work closely with the Serious Fraud Office and draw on its expertise. It is not clear when they start the investigation whether the figure is more or less than £1 million. We are talking about large sums of money—about £14 billion is estimated to be lost through serious fraud, which affects victims both rich and not rich. It is not a victimless crime; it is also about poor people being ripped off. We feel very strongly about white-collar crime and not allowing fat cats to get away with it.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [20th]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on implications of the Human Rights Act for UK law followed by a debate entitled "The Expulsion of Sinn Fein/IRA from the Palace of Westminster". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Debate on motions relating to the Modernisation Committee Report on reforming the House of Commons and the Procedure Committee Report on Parliamentary questions.
WEDNESDAY 30 OCTOBER—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Enterprise Bill
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER—Debate on defence in the UK on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 1 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
WEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Animal Health Bill.
THURSDAY 7 NOVEMBER—The House will consider any Lords amendments which may be received.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
Mr. Forth: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for letting us have the future business. Will he give a firm undertaking that the forthcoming report on foot and mouth will be given a full day's debate in its own right in the House early in the new Session? The Leader of the House knows very well the importance that everybody attaches to the report and the House will have to be given every opportunity to examine it thoroughly and completely. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us that assurance so that we can look ahead with confidence to dealing with that matter in the proper way.
The Animal Health Bill, to be considered on 6 November, has been almost completely redrafted in another place. Therefore, it will come to us with a large number of new clauses and schedules. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the House will be given adequate time to consider the measure? In fact, I would prefer an undertaking that there will be no time limit on its consideration at all. I would undertake that the official Opposition would treat it in a proper and responsible way. We would not want it to be the case—
406
and neither would you, Mr. Speaker—that the large number of changes that have been made quite properly to this important Bill in another place were somehow not considered in this place and were ever to be sent back to another place, voted on in some peremptory way without having been properly considered or debated. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that our role in this House, complementary as it is to the other place, requires that we spend a proper amount of time on that Bill in these circumstances.
The Deputy Prime Minister said on 22 October with regard to the firefighters dispute:
The House can be assured that I will, at every opportunity, keep it fully informed.—[Official Report, 22 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 127.]
Given the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister yesterday and the almost complete confusion that seems to be emerging from various sources in the Labour party, the Government and elsewhere, when does the Leader of the House next expect the Deputy Prime Minister to report to the House on such matters as whether picket lines will be crossed, and military personnel or other temporary personnel given access to the most modern equipment in fire stations in the pursuance of fighting fires? Just as important is whether military personnel who are required to act as firefighters during any strike will be properly covered, insured and protected in every way from hazard and from liability claims when we ask them to do this most hazardous and difficult job.
Those are just some of the questions that I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will come to the House early—ideally, before any dispute even starts—to answer, to reassure us and the people of this country that these matters will be dealt with properly and not brushed under the carpet, which is what the Prime Minister tried rather ineptly to do yesterday.
On Monday evening, one of my colleagues found a little note on the Treasury Bench. It looks as though it was written by a Government Whip—their writing is very distinctive, Mr. Speaker, as you know. It says:
"Hazel, Please speak AT LENGTH."—
the "at length" is underlined—
"We need this debate to run past 7.15."
In the spirit of modernisation, I ask whether the Leader of the House believes that that is a proper way for the Government and Ministers to conduct themselves. Does the right hon. Gentleman take any responsibility for that note from one Government Minister to another? Is he prepared to plead guilty on behalf of the Government to wasting the time of the House? I can only assume—perhaps he can confirm this—that the aforesaid Hazel was none other than the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was dealing with the debate at the time and appears in Hansard at some modest length. I hope that we will receive assurances from the Leader of the House that he will get a grip on his Whips and on Ministers and stop wasting the time of the House.
Mr. Cook: May I first say what a delight it is to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place. It was a source of great disappointment to Labour Members that he was not in his place for Prime Minister's questions

407
yesterday. I want him to understand that a large part of the fun of those questions for us is watching his face while his leader is speaking. I hope that he will not deprive us of that treat on future occasions.
On foot and mouth, we fully understand the importance of that. We set up the inquiry, we want a result, we shall give a response and there will be a statement to the House as soon as the result is available. I understand the interest of the House in wishing to debate that matter and it will be considered for future scheduling. I stress, however, that immediately after the debate on the Queen's Speech we will have a busy period in the House, with Second Readings of the many excellent Bills that will be announced then.
On the Animal Health Bill, I am well aware of the importance of giving adequate consideration to the amendments carried in the other place and we will ensure that there is a full day of debate for consideration of that Bill. I do not think that it will be necessary or desirable to go late into the middle of the night. I have done so on many occasions in my time in the House and, by and large, the House does not do itself sufficient justice in passing important legislation in the middle of the night when sensible people are in bed.
The right hon. Gentleman was not in his place for Prime Minister's questions yesterday, as I said—[Interruption.] If he was here, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend more than adequately answered all the questions put to him by the Opposition. While I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to ensure that he stays on the good side of his leader by repeating the questions that he asked yesterday, the answers are precisely the same. We will not want to inflame the dispute, but at the same time we will not let any doctrinaire ideology stand in the way of doing what is necessary to protect the public. The right hon. Gentleman cannot in one breath ask for consideration for the financial security of the service men by asking them to be clear of liability—of course we will ensure that they have no personal liability—and also that they should have access to the equipment and fire engines, without training in their use. Access without training would seriously endanger our service men and we are not prepared to engage in that sort of irresponsible act.
Lastly, as regards the note that an Opposition Member apparently retrieved, I am interested to know that someone from the Opposition crossed the Floor and wants to join us on the Treasury Bench. If he or she would like to make that application formally, we shall certainly consider it. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) cannot speak at too great length for my pleasure. She always does very well when she comes to the House and is well worth listening to, so I can fully understand why there may be demands from this side for her to speak at even greater length.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of my colleagues, may I endorse the representations made both about the foot and mouth investigations—there is not just one investigation but a whole series, including one by the European Parliament—and about proper scrutiny of the considerable number of outstanding matters on the Animal Health Bill?
408
Had the Leader of the House been with us during the whole of the previous hour, he would have been aware that there is considerable concern about the implications for education policy of the resignation of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Members on both sides of the House are concerned that important issues may be at stake, not least the frustration that the right hon. Lady appeared to express in interviews last night at intervention from both No. 10 and No. 11 in education policy. Given that the new Secretary of State was not able to contribute, for understandable reasons, this afternoon, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that there will be an early opportunity for a full debate on education policy, if not before the Queen's Speech at least on one of the full days of debate on the Speech?
Both you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House have expressed concern in the past about the arrangements for making statements to the House and for choosing which subjects deserve statements. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a remarkable occurrence earlier this week, when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was apparently prevented from making a proper statement on the outcome of the Johannesburg summit and instead produced an extraordinarily long answer to a planted written question? I refer to column 898W in Monday's Hansard, where the answer runs to three and a half columns. Is that not an abuse of the written answers system, because the House was unable to cross-examine the Secretary of State on what was clearly a statement? It was not really an answer to a written question.
May I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a similar question about Johannesburg, put earlier by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), was not answered by the Secretary of State? There was only a brief answer from the Minister of State. Is that not another abuse of the system? Will the Leader of the House look carefully at those arrangements, and may I have his assurance that the proposals from the Modernisation Committee will address that problem?
Mr. Cook: First, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's question about the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris).
My right hon. Friend is a decent, straight Member of the House and was a decent, straight and committed Minister. She was committed to the improvement of an education system in which she had a lot of professional experience. Many parents and teachers will regret the fact that such a sincere Education Minister was hounded out of office. I think that Members on the Opposition Benches will go quiet about their part in hounding her from office.
There was no reference whatever to No. 10 in my right hon. Friend's resignation letter. On the contrary, in the final paragraph she paid tribute to the support that she had received from the Prime Minister throughout. The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate. I have full confidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) will want to address the House on his stewardship of education at an early date. Indeed, given my confidence in my right hon. Friend,

409
I am sure that I would be unable to keep him from coming to the Dispatch Box to do so even were I so minded. However, I am keen that the House should hear from him fully as soon as possible.
We discussed Johannesburg last Thursday. That issue takes us back to the long absence of the House during the prolonged summer and autumn recess. Had we met in September, as we shall be proposing when the House meets on Tuesday, there would definitely have been an oral statement on Johannesburg. In the event, we met a long time after Johannesburg. There were three very full and urgent statements on our first day back—indeed, there were complaints about the consequences of that for other business on that day. It was simply not feasible to contemplate yet another oral statement on a major matter.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point about the rather odd device answering the planted question. As he is aware, part of the package that we shall be putting to the House next Tuesday is that we do away with the curious requirement that somebody has to ask a question before a statement can be made. After Tuesday, I hope that we will print such written answers in a separate section of Hansard, clearly labelled "Written Statements from Ministers"—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may vote against that if they want to do so, but it would be in the interests of everybody else that we should clearly identify what is a written statement; that we should be open and transparent about it; and that we should not pretend that it was an answer to a question asked by a Member.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House confirm that one of Parliament's key roles is to defend the rule of law and ensure that legality is adhered to by the House and the Executive? In that context, will he look again at the Attorney-General's habit—it is not even a convention—of giving advice to Her Majesty's Government and not allowing that advice to be published? I am obviously referring to the advice given on the legality or otherwise of declaring war on Iraq or any other country. Will my right hon. Friend discuss that matter with the Attorney-General and, in this instance, allow that advice to be put on the public record, so that the House can debate the matter in the full knowledge of the legal advice available to the Government?
Mr. Cook: No, I will not. It is very important that the Government's Law Officers should be free to give frank, open advice without weighing every sentence against the consequences of that advice entering the public domain. It is very important that the Government should be able to function with frank, open advice from our Law Officers, and I would not wish to do anything to inhibit that. However, I find it inconceivable that a democratic British Government would go to war in any circumstances if their Law Officers advised them that they would be acting illegally.
Sir George YoungFurther to the right hon. Gentleman's wish to bring more certainty to the parliamentary calendar, will he tell us
410
when the Chancellor will make his pre-Budget statement? Will he also tell us what statements Ministers are planning now for next week?
Mr. Cook: On the question of the pre-Budget report, no date has been finalised, but I would broadly expect this year's statement to be made at a similar time of year to last year's statement. At present, I do not have a final list of statements for next week, but I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be helpful to the House if statements, where planned, could be announced in advance. Of course, there will always be statements that necessarily respond to events and, therefore, are not planned.
Mr. David Chaytor: The Government have announced their intention to publish an energy White Paper early in the new year, but they did so before the recent crisis at British Energy, which has enormous implications for future energy policy. Notwithstanding the fact that the Liberal Democrats chose British energy as the topic for their Opposition day debate earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend accept that, as we are considering energy policy over the next 50 years, it is essential that there is the widest possible discussion in the House about all aspects of energy policy before the publication of the White Paper?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that there is great interest in the House in energy matters. The issue has been raised several times at business questions during the past year. Indeed, we arranged for a debate on energy precisely because it might inform the preparation of the White Paper. I would be reluctant, therefore, to agree to a further debate before the White Paper is published, but intense discussions on the White Paper continue apace, and I am sure that the House will wish to consider it fully and that my hon. Friend will wish to support it entirely.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a statement by the Fisheries Minister? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the advisory committee to the European Commission is proposing the closure of the North sea, west of Scotland and the Irish sea to the total white fishery. Such a move would cost thousands of jobs in Scotland and dismantle the fabric of entire communities. As the Fisheries Minister knows a great deal about the subject, I am confident that he would think that such an approach—closing an entire fishery in pursuit of saving a single species, however important—was lunacy. Will the Leader of the House give him the opportunity to spell out the Government's policy next week?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of that issue to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to many other fishing communities around the country. I am sure that he will accept that we respect the scientific community's advice about the very dangerous level of stocks, particularly cod, in those areas. Nothing is more important to the long-term health of the fishing industry than that we conserve the fishing stocks so that they are there in the long term. The present position is that we are waiting for a Commission decision in response to that

411
scientific advice, and I am sure that my colleague, in whom I have much confidence even more confidence—than the hon. Gentleman—will wish to keep the House fully informed of our response.
Mr. Tom Watson: In the aftermath of the Opposition day debate on sustainable energy, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing time for a specific debate on wind power? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would like to establish whether there is a single wind power project in the United Kingdom that is not opposed by the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.]
Mr. Cook: I will sit out this particular contest. The Government are thoroughly committed to developing renewable energy as a component of our energy strategy and that will feature largely in the forthcoming White Paper, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome and support. We will certainly look to the response of the Liberal Democrats and other parties to see whether they back the commitment in general that they so often oppose in the particular.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the firefighters' strike goes ahead —we all hope that it will not—it is important that this House has the opportunity to debate it? Would he, therefore, be prepared to consider rearranging the business set down for next Thursday or even arranging for the House to sit next Friday so that a debate can take place?
Mr. Cook: No; I have only just announced the business for next week. Next Thursday's business is the fifth day that we usually give to a debate on defence and the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, it is warmly welcomed by many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Therefore, I would not propose to disturb the arrangements that I have announced. The Government are fully seized of the gravity and importance of the situation with the firefighters dispute. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will wish to keep the House informed of our response and of developments in relation to it.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the recent 20-plus earthquakes in the city of Manchester? While I do not ask him to take direct responsibility for them, there is one issue that I wish to raise with him. I wanted advice and spent considerable time ringing round Ministries, only to be told by each one that it did not consider the matter to have anything to do with it. It may well be that the advice from individual Departments was accurate—that others are better placed to give advice. Indeed, the best advice came from the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh, which said that there was little to worry about. Should there not be a one-stop access point for Members of Parliament and the public so that good quality advice on natural disasters can be available without having to chase round the whole system of Government?
Mr. Cook: I am immensely relieved that my hon. Friend does not lay ministerial responsibility for
412
earthquakes at my door—[Interruption.] It is very kind of the House, but if hon. Members will forgive me I shall side-step that responsibility. In the first instance. the response to earthquakes rests with the local authority. I understand what has led my hon. Friend to ring round Whitehall and I concede that in the light of recent events we are faced with a development that we have not had to contemplate for many decades. It may be appropriate for the Government machine to consider whether there is any way that it can usefully meet the point that he raises. I will certainly consult my colleagues on it.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate or statement on the position of the alleged terrorists held by the United States Government in Cuba, especially United Kingdom citizens, of whom there are a number? The House needs to know by what authority they are held, what their legal rights are and to what extent they have been afforded those rights, and what steps the Government have taken to ensure that UK citizens will either be charged soon or rapidly released.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the British embassy in Washington has maintained consular interest in this matter and closely followed the case of British subjects at Guatanamo bay. Those who want to see progress will presumably welcome what has been decided in the past 24 hours in relation to the release of some of those there—[Interruption.] They happen not to be British citizens, but it is to miss the point not to recognise that there is movement, which should be welcome to all those concerned about the welfare of any of those in Guatanamo bay. Our position throughout has been and continues to be that if there are valid grounds on which those detained should be charged, they should be charged and brought to trial; if not, we expect them to be released.
Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that a very important debate is taking place this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the United Nations charter on the rights of the child. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that six children from Wales will be coming to the debate and will be meeting Welsh MPs to discuss their views on the charter. Does he agree that it is very important that Parliament is as accessible and as relevant to young people as possible? Will he undertake to do all that he can, as part of modernisation progress, to make sure that young people understand and freely come to Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I am very interested to hear of the events taking place in the precincts to which my hon. Friend refers. In the report of the Modernisation Committee, we deliberately put at the front of it our commitment to making Parliament more accessible to the public. In particular, we need to get across the message that this is not simply an interesting, historic building, but the functioning heart of British democracy. It is particularly important that we carry that message to young people at the present time, given the opportunity that is presented to us by citizenship education in schools, and given our

413
need as Members of Parliament to make sure that turnout among young people improves at the next general election.
Andrew George: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Government's proposals for devolution of power to the regions? A written answer to me last week from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which appeared at column 875W of Hansard, clearly demonstrated that there were many more responses to the Government's White Paper in favour of a Cornish regional assembly than there were for the whole of the rest of the country. I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand from his distinguished involvement in devolution issues that it would be wrong for the Government to feel that they can devolve to synthetic places created for bureaucratic convenience rather than to do so with the identity of the people of such regions clearly in mind.
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not step into the minefield of where we draw the boundaries on the map. The whole point of the regional White Paper was to leave it to regions to decide voluntarily whether they wish to proceed down the road of regional government. It sounds from what the hon. Gentleman says as though many of his constituents would wish to respond enthusiastically to the offers that we are making to them, from which they can develop regional government for their area. I am confident—I hope that this pleases him—that there will be opportunities in the next Session to debate this matter at some length.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, since 11 September, one of the consequences of that terrible day has been a sharp increase in insurance premiums across the world. Recently, I have been made aware by several construction firms in my constituency that their insurance premiums—especially for personal injury insurance—have gone through the roof. In the case of one personal injury policy for which a firm applied, the premium per annum increased from £19,000 to more than £100,000. The events of 11 September have been given as an excuse but, to me, this sounds like profiteering by the insurance industry. Can we have a debate on the matter or, failing that, a statement from a Treasury Minister, so that we can examine what the insurance industry is up to and what measures can be taken to make sure that firms are not put out of business by such actions?
Mr. Cook: I understand the concern of the businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Government have always placed great stress on the importance of making sure that there is free and transparent competition as a means of keeping down prices and avoiding excessive profiteering. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will be very interested in discussing with him the experience in his constituency to consider whether, in this case, the market is operating in a way that protects the consumer.
Mr. Roy Beggs: When the Leader of the House arranges future business, will he bear in mind the
414
fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly is no longer functioning, and endeavour to arrange more sittings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee than we have had in the past year, perhaps including a session of questions before the main debate, and allowing provision for an Adjournment debate at the end? I hope, too, that he will arrange at least one sitting in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to commit myself on how we might arrange the internal business of the Grand Committee, but I accept fully the hon. Gentleman's point that the cessation of the Northern Ireland Assembly means that we will be required to make sure that adequate opportunity is provided for Northern Ireland Office Ministers to be held to account for the exercise of the functions and duties that we have imposed on them. We will, of course, keep that under review. I very much hope that we will be able to restore the peace process and ensure that the current situation is a temporary interlude and not a new permanent arrangement.
Mr. Graham Stringer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the person charged with running the 2001 census should be able to count and that, to that end, Mr. Len Cook has failed miserably to get his sums his right? To take just one example, there are more people in Manchester who are registered to vote and who are registered to pay council tax and council rents than Mr. Cook counted when he carried out the census. That has profound implications for the planning of public services beyond those that will be considered in the next debate. Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate this important matter?
Mr. Cook: I am always distressed to hear that any namesake of mine has not satisfactorily mastered his arithmetic and mathematics. My hon. Friend has made his point, but I understand that the figures to which he referred relate to an interim stage of the process. I am quite sure that, before the final version comes out, both the points that he has made and others will he fully taken on board.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the situation in Zimbabwe is catastrophic and getting worse. We heard yesterday the tragic news that Learnmore Jongwe, a sitting Member of Parliament and spokesman for the Movement for Democratic Change, died in custody at the age of 28. More than 200 MDC officials, including a number of MPs, are still in custody. We heard today that, in order to appease the Mugabe regime, the EU has been bullied into moving a meeting with the Southern African Development Community from Copenhagen to Mozambique. Do the Government care about the tragic situation in Zimbabwe? If so, surely we should have a statement very soon.
Mr. Cook: Of course, the Government are fully seized of the deep gravity of the situation in Zimbabwe, about which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have, on many occasions, addressed the House. We have imposed all the sanctions that we readily can without deepening the suffering of the ordinary people of

415
Zimbabwe. Indeed, only last Tuesday, I presided over a meeting of the Privy Council in which we added another 57 names to those from Zimbabwe on the banned travel list. I am not familiar with the EU meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I do not see anything particularly sinister in a development meeting being held in a region where development is discussed.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the House should debate the growing anti-semitism coming from official Arab publications, some of which are available in this country? I refer to issues such as holocaust denial, the repetition of blood libels and the comparison of recent difficulties in Bethlehem with the crucifixion. Does he consider that this poses great dangers to civil liberties and has implications for our foreign policy?
Mr. Cook: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that we must condemn anti-semitism wherever it occurs and, wherever it occurs within British jurisdiction, we must make sure that the law is upheld and that no group has to witness statements that could inflame racial hatred or that might be an incitement to racial violence. I entirely concur that no such statement—whether it is against the Jewish or any other community—should be tolerated.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: In view of the suspension of devolution in Northern Ireland, how do the Government see Northern Ireland legislation being dealt with in the House? Such legislation would previously have gone through the Northern Ireland Assembly, so will he undertake that proper time will be given for due and adequate scrutiny and debate of such legislation? On Question Time, will he undertake that the amount of time allowed for questions to the Northern Ireland Office will be reconsidered so that we have more time to call Ministers in that Department to account?
Mr. Cook: If domestic legislation for Northern Ireland of the kind that previously went through the
416
Assembly is required, we must make sure that it is fully scrutinised in accordance with the procedures and customs of the House. However, the House cannot pretend that it can fully replicate the length and depth of scrutiny that is available through the Assembly. Therefore, the sooner we get back on track and get the Assembly back into being, the better for all.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the widely trailed suggestion that the Government are proposing to abolish the higher rate tax relief on pensions, which is over and above the annual £4 billion to £5 billion raid on pensions that has been under way for several years? We have heard much in recent days about the way in which the Government have failed young people—school students—at the start of their careers. Perhaps we need to hear more about what they are doing to pensioners at the end of their careers.
Mr. Cook: It is always good to end on the last question asked by the Opposition by trying to make an hon. Member happy, and I think I can relieve the hon. Gentleman of his anxieties. Treasury Ministers have made no decision on, and are not even considering, such a proposal. The hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the Conservative newspapers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended, its Members are being paid £29,000 for not going to work? Does he think that the firefighters should get the money instead?
Mr. Cook: There are serious issues relating to the firefighters' dispute, which is why we have urged them to go to a review that will consider pay and conditions together. As for those who are suspended and being paid, the same rule applies to Assembly Members as to firefighters: we are anxious to get back on track and end the dispute. The Government would not wish to take any action that we would inflame either situation.

Point of Order
1.6 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said about the refusal by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement on the Johannesburg world summit in response to my oral question last Thursday. She chose instead to make the statement in a written answer to a planted question on Monday. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to turn down the earliest opportunity to give a statement to the House and to take advantage of a planted opportunity initiated by a Labour Back Bencher? What advice can you give Back Benchers who were in Johannesburg and want to hold the Government to account on what they said and did there, on how we can debate the matter in the House or Westminster Hall?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister was in order. The hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate.

Local Government Finance
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
1.7 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am pleased that it has been possible to arrange more time to discuss the complex and important subject of grant distribution to local government. I look forward to a lively debate and we will listen carefully to all that is said. I must apologise to the House that in the light of other pressing responsibilities, I will not be present for the entire debate, but the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), will be here throughout.
1.8 pm
Mr. Don Foster: In the words of Magnus Magnusson, I have started so I will finish. In our earlier debate, I stressed that although we cannot remain with the current local government funding system and some changes are urgently needed, the full-blown changes should be delayed for a year to allow more time for reflection and consultation. I acknowledge that the consultation paper contains some good ideas. The willingness at least to change the area cost adjustment is welcome, as is the idea of minimum entitlement for funding per pupil or per head of the population. The Liberal Democrats have proposed that for a long time and we welcome the fact that the Government have embraced the idea, although they should go further.
We also welcome the greater recognition that is given to sparsity, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argued strongly and cogently, the sparsity element should be extended to apply to all service areas, not just to district council funding for environmental, protective and cultural services, for example.
The proposals raise many concerns. The options for change in the review paper were as complex as the old system. They were backed by scant information as to how weightings and other figures had been calculated. That was hardly conducive to good consultation. The various proposals have thrown up numerous anomalies in Government thinking, some of which are quite bizarre. For example, it seems that for the first time since Sir Robert Walpole and his excise Bill of 1733, we have a Government who are advocating the redistribution of resources away from the rural poor to the City of London.
There are already huge disparities in funding between one authority and another, yet in many cases the options will widen inequalities, not close the gaps. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, for example, languishes almost at the bottom of the league table of funding for education. It rightly and rather mildly comments in its response:
"It therefore seems strange that the suggested options would increase the disparity between the lowest and highest funded LEAs even further than it is now."
There are many other examples. Newham currently receives three times the funding of Kingston and more than double the funds given to Richmond or Sutton,

419
yet the review options generally leave those low-funded authorities with no extra resources, but will provide Newham with an extra £24 million for education alone.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: With reference to penalising the rural poor, penalising some areas and widening disparities, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in certain areas, especially in my county of Surrey, there will be particular problems where success is penalised? We have one of the most efficient police forces in the country and an extremely successful county council, yet under the Government's proposals, that success will be penalised further, to the advantage of inefficient Labour-run local authorities in inner cities. The Government are helping their friends in the north.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has made the case for his constituents well. The redistribution that is taking place is a matter of great concern to many people. The Minister will say, of course, that the floors and ceilings mechanisms will provide a degree of protection, but we have still to hear from the Government how those arrangements will operate and for how long.
Many other examples exist. Gloucestershire is about 130th down the league table of funding for education, yet it looks set to lose about £8.5 million—the equivalent of £100 per pupil. It appears that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the worst-funded authorities are being set up to be the hardest hit. Those that are successful and provide high-quality services will also be penalised.
Mr. David Drew rose—
Mr. Foster: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that earlier, in less than 10 minutes, I gave five opportunities for intervention. I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make rapid progress.
Other examples relating to the area cost adjustment show strange anomalies. Kingston, Merton and Sutton councils, for example, could not begin to figure out why they would be so badly hit by the proposals. It turns out that the Government had got their location on the map wrong and thought that they were in east London, when clearly they are not. I am delighted that, following representations, the Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem with the proposals, and I assume that he will agree to rectify them.
Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. In a private conversation after one of his excellent seminars, the Minister assured me that he was examining the matter. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that our labour market and labour costs in the borough of Kingston, and also in Merton and Sutton, are similar to those in west London? The simplest solution would be to place those three boroughs with the grouping in west London.
Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend has made his point admirably, so to save time I shall delete from my speech the remarks that I intended to make in relation to his
420
local authority, and turn to my own to demonstrating how the Government seem to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The Avon and Somerset police authority calculates that under the current proposals it will lose about £5.5 million, or 180 police officers. That contrasts oddly with the additional money—almost exactly the same amount—that it has been given through the crimefighting fund.
Other problems with the current formula are not being addressed. Deprivation, for instance, has not been dealt with as thoroughly as it should have been. As many hon. Members will know, the way in which the Government do their calculations means that pockets of deprivation in particular areas are not covered under the present mechanism, and will not be covered under these proposals.
Councils containing a mixed rural and urban community will often lose out as well. Kent county council is a good example. On the list of the 148 most deprived authorities, it is ranked 99th. It stands to lose between £10 million and £100 million, while other much less deprived authorities will gain.
Other anomalies are not being addressed. Of course we all welcome educational support for children from ethnic minorities, but according to the formula, it will be based on the total number of pupils whose first language is not English. In practice, the total number matters less than the number of languages spoken.
Many organisations and individual councils have expressed concern, including the Rural Services Partnership, the Most Sparsely Populated Councils Group and the f40 group, comprising the lowest-funded local education authorities. That last group is particularly concerned, and urges that the element of funding per pupil be greatly increased. I agree.
The real problem is that we are discussing equalisation arrangements relating to, on average, 80 per cent. of the money that councils will spend. Surely we all acknowledge that if the amount provided by Government were a smaller proportion, we would be less worried. If we want to reconnect the British people with their councils, and make them more interested and more involved in what their councils do, we must make them genuinely believe that their local councils are capable of meeting local needs. That surely means that we should increase the amount of councils' spending money that is raised locally, with a corresponding reduction in local income tax.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Foster: No, I want to make progress and finish my speech as quickly as possible.
The review has not even begun to address a number of other issues. One set of anomalies looks set to be replaced by another, and key issues such as local accountability, making the funding of services more transparent and making local taxation more progressive have been omitted from the agenda. The Government's proposals will lead to huge shifts of resources from rural to surburban areas. They are bound to raise the suspicion of pork -barrel politics.

421
There is certainly a lack of confidence in the options for change with which we are being presented. They are patch-and-mend proposals. Surely, even at this late stage, some modest changes could be made immediately. Surely the Minister could put off by one year the full-blown implementation of whatever proposals will follow.
The Minister knows of my high regard for the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who resigned last night. In terms of personal and political honesty, she knocks spots off many of us. Only a week ago, she told the House clearly that she accepted what Mike Tomlinson had said about the A-level fiasco, namely that there should have been a one-year delay in implementation. Had there been such a delay, many of the problems need not have occurred She went on to say that one of the reasons why she had not delayed implementation for a year was that she received no representations from any quarter asking her to do so. If things go wrong in a year's time, as I predict they will, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that at least we on the Liberal Democrat Benches gave him the opportunity to take action and warned him what would happen. One year's delay on the majority of the proposals would make a great deal of sense.
1.20 pm
Andrew Bennett: It is said that to have loved and lost is better than never to have loved at all. I am not sure whether the Minister will feel that having attempted to reform local government finance—and, I am afraid, having failed to do so—is better than not having tried at all. The cynic in me says that what he has done so far is unite almost the whole House in anxiety and worry about the proposals, so that they will be a little less bad than we expected and we will be relieved. However, I hope that he will consider the fundamental problem. I pay tribute to him for the huge effort that he has put into the seminars, the consultation and everything else. That is great, but I think that he is looking at the wrong position. He has considered the distribution of the grant, but I think that he must deal much more fundamentally with local government finance.
The trouble is that local councils have been starved of resources. It is that which starts the problem and explains why local government is now held in disrepute. Social workers are now rationers rather than helpers. There are problems of boredom among young people in almost all our constituencies, but the youth service is terribly underfunded. On recycling, we have the poorest record in Europe, again because of underfunding. Local authority spending is also pretty bad on roads, highways and rights of way. Too many parks are now icons of neglect rather than of civic pride. That has happened because almost all local government finance is now obtained from a grant and there is no opportunity to raise the money locally. It is that inability to raise money locally that people feel to be unfair.
I invite the Minister to come to the Bull's Head in my constituency. It is located just inside Stockport, but Tameside is visible from the front door and Manchester from the side door. If he could visit the Bull's Head and explain to my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) how the system is now fair, I would
422
think that he was wonderful. I am afraid, however, that he will find it very difficult to do so. When he considers the different amounts that people sitting next to each other pay—most in the area will come from band A properties—and sees the disparity between Stockport, Manchester and Tameside, he will understand why there is a feeling that things are not fair. The differences between those three authorities are not huge, but when local people find that people in Wandsworth pay half the amount that they are paying, they begin to think that something is going fundamentally wrong.
People then ask how much is being spent. They find that there are significant differences between the three local schools, which are situated within a mile of each other, but are located in each of the different authority areas. At primary level, £2,206 per pupil is spent in Stockport, £2,360 in Tameside and £2,623 in Manchester. That puzzles people, but when they find that a lot more is spent on schools in Wandsworth, they think that it is fundamentally unfair. At secondary level, the difference between pupils in Manchester and Stockport is more than £800 per pupil. Even worse, if pupils come from Manchester to Stockport for their education, they get mugged at the border because they do not bring that full £800 with them to a Stockport school, but will get only the expenditure in that school. I hope that that little anomaly can be altered.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Bennett: I shall not do so; with only eight minutes, it(is hard to get my points across.
I have to say to the Government that the present system is unfair and very difficult to understand, but we have to recognise that it is a legacy of the poll tax. That is when the spending started to come down, and when local authority control of spending changed so dramatically: local government finance changed from about 50 per cent. coming from local funds down to a very small proportion.
I pay tribute to the work done by Coventry in demonstrating that, of the extra money that has been going to London for education, about half seems to be spent on schools—which is great—but the other half is being spent on bringing down the council tax in London. That is grossly unfair.
My plea to the Minister is for a new, buoyant source of local government funding, and, until we have one, we will be in difficulty. I know that we have the business improvement areas, but that is earmarked money. It might also be possible to put a tourist tax in place, but if the Government cannot come up with a new form of funding, let them at least return the business rate to local authorities.
I also make a very strong plea for the Government to look at the council tax bands. I know that, if we have lots and lots of bands, we shall be going back to the old rates system, but the old system was far fairer than the present council tax system in areas such as mine. We need at least to have bands A, A-and A* at one end of the range, and we probably need more bands at the higher end as well. We need more frequent valuations, and we need to question how much money is going to the Audit Commission. There is no point in having huge numbers

423
of inspections if local authorities have not got the money to deliver good services. The Audit Commission is getting far too expensive.
I would also make a plea for us to think about taking education funding out of local government finance. It seems sad that we should have such a complicated mechanism, rather than a much simpler per capita payment. If we have a class of 30 children, for example, we need a substantial amount of money for that. The variations for particular education needs should be much smaller.
I would simply plead with the Government in these terms. We need to take a much more fundamental look at local government finance. We need to restore local government, as opposed to local administration. Only if we can get a full, fundamental review in place will we restore people's confidence in local democracy. I applaud the efforts that the Minister has made, but I fear that, so far, he has lost.
1.27 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: It is delightful that we have longer for this debate than we anticipated, but it is sad that it is still so short. This could have been an opportunity to explain to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), that competent authorities can get their expenditure down and the quality of their services up, and that that might be reflected in the differences in council tax.
The final figures will tell us whether the scheme works, and the final figures will be the real test over time. I hope that, after what he has said today, the Select Committee Chairman will agree that we need to launch an inquiry, presumably mid-way through next year after the grants have been confirmed and the council taxes settled, but before Ministers' minds are set on the following year.
Many Conservative Members smiled sweetly and knowingly when the Minister said that he was setting out on this venture. He has told us repeatedly that standard spending assessments were terrible, complicated and unfair, and he promised us a better, simpler system that would be more intelligible and based on formulae. Last week at the seminar, the brave man repeated that. I have not yet found a council treasurer, even a tame one, who agrees with him. Of course, the Minister will say that we need to wait for the result, and there is a measure of truth in that.
The Minister has made some personal progress. His bravado has diminished a little, and he said at the seminar that he recognised that not every council would be pleased; in fact, he said that it was possible that not a single council would be pleased. As many of us know, under the standard spending assessment method, the winners kept exceptionally quiet—except for the occasional moan to save face and set markers for the following years—and the losers complained. They said that the system was unfair, too complicated, and so on. That is exactly what we have been hearing from the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman this afternoon.
424
The Minister has accepted, however, that the basis of distribution must be ascertained using some form of need factors and, promisingly, he has assured us that there will be a reduction in the enormous proportion of subjective grants that have grown up under his Government. At least there is a veneer of needs, but it looks a little thin when we inspect the environmental protection and cultural services block that is so vital to district councils. It used to have an at least plausible link to expenditure, but not now. In this and several other areas, any link seems to have been abandoned in favour of subjective judgment—otherwise known as ministerial whim.
The Minister has almost always promised simplicity. That is a bold gesture, but as we heard from the Liberal Democrats, the problem is that, with so many variations nationwide, simplicity results in crude, ineffective and in some cases unfair decisions and judgments. However, as the Minister said last week, some rough justice is inevitable. Rough justice can be removed and fairness introduced only through more complexity. A scheme involving the division of funding by needs factors is either simple—with areas of perceived and perhaps genuine injustice—or fairer but consequently more complicated.
The Minister has more complications to deal with than we had when in government, because he has lost control of many of the levers to many other Departments: the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and goodness knows which others at the rate things are progressing. Each has its own indicators, and each, seemingly, its own floors. None appears to have any relationship to the other Departments; and sometimes there is not much relationship to the local area.
As everybody will know, many councils are panic-stricken by the options. Some anticipate huge—really huge—council tax rises, just to stand still. The Minister has helped. His promise that nobody will lose formed the basis for his reintroduction of the use of floors. That promise has brought some relief, but it is also viewed with some cynicism. Many are worried about whether specific grants will be taken into account. Last Wednesday, under pressure, the Minister helpfully explained that he expects the floors to be high enough next year to at least cover such losses. I hope that he is right. If this promise is not fulfilled, Surrey councils, the south-east and London will be hit hard. A floor involving a zero increase in grant to Surrey could mean a nigh-on 20 per cent. increase in council tax. That estimate ignores any little events such as the firefighters' pay rise.
Even though he has not been a councillor, the Minister will doubtless recognise that cutting budgets and adjusting services, especially through efficiencies, takes considerable time. This year, local authorities have been left at sea; they have been given absolutely no indication of floor levels, even when the Minister was pressed on the matter last week. However, the fact remains that, if his formula is as accurate as he says, the floor that protects loser councils this year will be progressively lowered. In some cases, potentially great pain will be caused to their residents and businesses. I accept that there are huge possibilities in terms of efficiency savings in local government expenditure, and

425
as a taxpayer and an ex-councillor, I wish that the Government and local government would exercise their minds much more in this direction. I am sick and tired of standards in public services being judged on the amount of other people's money that is spent on them.
The Minister had many complaints about SSAs, but they are coming back through his scheme. It is based on factors of doubtful definition, multiplied by weightings of dubious origins. It is further complicated by floors and ceilings, and although it is not called an SSA, it is rapidly looking like a sibling or twin.
1.33 pm
Mr. Neil Turner: My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly stressed the importance of getting the formula right. If we do not, the Government will not achieve their aim of tackling and eradicating the inequalities to which deprivation and social class give rise. I want to concentrate my remarks on the education block, not just because it is such a high priority, or because it constitutes a large amount of local authority expenditure, but because, if we do not get it right, we will deny the opportunities that a good education can give to all our children in terms of breaking the cycle of deprivation that scars so many of our communities.
The excellent Department for Education and Skills document "Investment for Reform" sets out the problems starkly:
"We continue to have one of the greatest class divides in education in the industrialised world. A socio-economic attainment gap is evident as early as 22 months and widens. In English, schools with under 8 per cent. of pupils eligible for free school meals see nearly 81 per cent. of their pupils achieve the expected level at key stage 3. The equivalent figure for schools with over 50 per cent. of disadvantaged pupils is 39per cent."
Later, it states that
"the stubborn link between social class and educational achievement persists. 70 per cent. of children whose parents are in unskilled occupations fail to achieve five good GCSEs, compared to 31 per cent. of children whose parents are from professional or managerial occupations."
Those quotes are apt descriptions of Wigan, and they are apt descriptions of many towns and boroughs in the north-west, the north-east and the midlands, where heavy industries have declined or vanished. But they could equally describe towns in the south-east, the south-west and London. This is not some sterile and divisive debate about town versus country or north versus south; it is about trying to make sure that we eradicate deprivation throughout the country and achieve a fair society for all our children.
Wigan has high levels of deprivation; 90 per cent. of its wards are included in the 20 per cent. most deprived in the country. We have low staying-on rates for pupils moving into further education. Crucially, we have had low levels of funding over many years under the existing standard spending assessment formula. The council and the local education authority have not used that as an excuse for poor performance. They have risen to the challenge, managing to produce better results than the socio-economic make-up of the borough would lead one to expect. The council has intervened successfully where schools have been seen to be failing, such as Kingsdown high school where support from the LEA, other schools and the council has resulted in a 400 per cent.
426
improvement in just two years in its GCSE results. It is small wonder that the authority achieved a three-star rating from Ofsted.
The solutions to such deprivation that are proposed in the consultation paper are all detrimental to Wigan, and to the north-west as a whole. How can one of the most deprived boroughs, which already spends £6 million more on education than the current SSA level to correct the faults inherent in that system, be deemed to be in need of less? It is bizarre, and it is perverse. The application of a simple "reality test" would have shown that each of the options failed to achieve the targets that the Government had set out to achieve, and therefore contained fundamental flaws.
We need to be absolutely certain that the proportions within the overall additional educational needs block accurately reflect the need to spend on those elements, and I would hope that serious questions will be asked about that and the possible consequences of getting it wrong. More specifically, I believe that that there are three areas where changes need to be made if we are to get a positive result to the application of that reality test.
First, we need a broader and more accurate definition of deprivation. The use of income support and working families tax credit alone does not pick up many of those in need. The Department for Work and Pensions investigations indicate that there are large regional variations in those claiming income support, as those on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance do not claim that benefit. The DWP basket of key benefits—including jobseeker's allowance, incapacity benefit, disability living allowance and severe disablement allowance—has a 95 per cent. correlation with child poverty, a much higher correlation than any other measure. The use of that as the basis—or a measure of the economically inactive—will pass the "reality test", as it will achieve what the Government set out to achieve.
Secondly, a radical rethink of the area cost adjustment is needed. Nobody doubts that there is an extra cost involved in employing people in certain parts of the country, or denies that those authorities need additional money to reflect that extra cost. The proposal in the initial consultation to use house prices would be wholly wrong; they are far too volatile and, in any event, people do not pay mortgage on the increase in value of their property. More importantly, fuelling the demand side of the equation without tackling the supply side merely adds to price increases, thereby leading to demands for more ACA money; and so the spiral goes on and up. Surely it would be more effective to use public and private sector pay, capped at the public service level, to ensure that the area cost adjustment bore much more relation to the amount required by the authorities, so satisfying the reality test better.
Thirdly, we need to factor in an element that affects the current lack of adult literacy and numeracy skills. I know the argument against this—that we need to have a measure of the problems of the children, not those of the parents—but that is an academic, angels-on-a-pinhead type of argument. Of course, there are children from working-class backgrounds who manage to break out and go to universities—many of my hon. Friends have done so—but we should remember what the

427
"Investment for Reform" document said about the link between social class and lack of educational achievement. It can be broken, but in most cases it is not.
The child from a home that is without books because the parents have weak literacy skills will always be at a disadvantage. We should set aside the intellectual argument and recognise the reality of life in many homes. Far too often, teachers have to start from scratch with children from such backgrounds and despite their best endeavours they never catch up. If the formula does not recognise that simple, self-evident fact, so well described by the Department for Education and Skills document, we will not achieve our objective of closing that great class divide.
The current options fail to deliver what the Government want. If the specific changes that I have outlined were incorporated—widening the definition of deprivation, ensuring the ACA properly reflects real costs, and recognising that parents with poor literacy skills will have children with poor literacy skills—we would give local authorities a fairer distribution and allow them to tackle the problems of despair, crime, and lack of ambition and opportunity that come from deprivation.
1.41 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo: I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) in saying that I think the Minister of State is very brave to search for a simpler and fairer system, albeit one that is not very wise and unlikely to be successful. As one who once held the same office, may I say that I hope he emerges from the process without being suspected of being merely partisan?
Today, however, I wish to make a narrower speech on behalf of my constituency, including the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which I share with the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who is in her place. No authority is more at risk from the Government's proposals. The Government's review puts 20 per cent. of the royal borough's grant funding at risk. In all, £39 million is at stake, which is the equivalent of 70 per cent. on the council tax or cuts in services.
For that reason, I have pressed the Minister of State on the question of floors and ceilings. He has said clearly that the floor will apply without any compensation for inflation for the first year. However, while there will be floors and ceilings in subsequent years, there are no guarantees about the level at which they will operate. One can expect a transition from the present position to the new position at a considerably higher rate than the effect of inflation year to year. That is why it is right for us to say how much is at stake and express our anxieties, and to refuse to take any great reassurance from what the Minister of State has told us so far.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has lost £13 million from its grant entitlement over the past two years thanks to the operation of a ceiling that is already in place. I thought that it would be right for the Minister of State to discuss that matter with me, as a Member of Parliament who represents a borough that
428
has been greatly disadvantaged. I am sorry indeed that it is the Minister of State's policy not to discuss those questions with Members of Parliament. When I held his office, that was regarded as one of the most basic courtesies. It was my principle—widely shared among those in the Government—that if Ministers were doing things that made life very difficult for our citizens, they had a duty to listen to the likely results of the policy. I learned much from that process, and the Minister of State would learn much if he followed that practice—not least, better inter-personal skills than he at present possesses.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: Will the right hon. Gentleman in give way?
Mr. Portillo: No, because I only have eight minutes. Otherwise I would love to do so.
My borough has received some huge accolades with which I am delighted, and I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to achieve them. For example, the Ofsted report on Kensington and Chelsea's education system said that the borough spends a lot of money very effectively. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish thought that some areas might use standard spending assessment money to reduce council tax, but we do not: we use the money to improve education.
The problems in central London are very difficult. Of our primary school teachers, 32 per cent.—very nearly one third—move on each academic year. That is not because we are a poor education authority. We are doing well, but mobility among teachers remains very high. That definitely needs to be recognised.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned the need to recognise the number of languages spoken in schools. In Kensington and Chelsea's schools, 97 different languages are spoken, 46 per cent. of pupils have English as a second language, and 35 per cent. of pupils are entitled to free school meals. We must maintain measures of our school population that relate to that population and which are not broader measures of economic deprivation. We need to focus on the schoolchildren themselves, and on the difficulties that they face. Pupil mobility in some of the borough's schools is as high as 40 per cent. That problem has been recognised by Ofsted, and should be covered by any future formula.
Kensington and Chelsea has the highest population density in England, and the borough receives 32 million visitors annually. There is a net inflow of 35,000 commuters a day, which places high demands on our services. For example, given its population, the borough has six times the usual amount of non-household rubbish, and traffic congestion makes rubbish collection much more expensive. The borough receives almost six times the normal number of noise complaints, because people live side by side with businesses.
The borough's social services gained a three-star assessment, a success achieved by only seven other local authorities in the country. Moreover, the borough was said to be serving people well, and to have excellent prospects for the future. Only two authorities in the country received that accolade. In other words, the borough is performing well, and using its resources well. It has been successful, and I echo the sentiment,

429
expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Bath, that success should be reinforced and not penalised. However, despite the borough's successes, the Government's options could cause it to lose up to £19 million for environmental protective and cultural services, £8 million for social services, and £3 million for education.
I shall close by saying that those problems could be dwarfed by the difficulties that arose with the census—a matter raised at business questions by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). There were extraordinary problems with this year's census. I consider them to be palpable errors, and believe that they will feed through into cuts in services for the borough's population.
I shall quote from a letter about the census written by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North to Mr. Len Cook at the Office for National Statistics. The hon. Lady states:
"Given the extremely poor performance of the census enumeration process in my constituency, I was not in the least surprised that the returns were so low."
In Kensington and Chelsea, the response rate was only 64 per cent. The error rate was nearly 5 per cent., and 31,000 inhabitants disappeared from the total suggested by the recent mid-year estimates. That is simply preposterous.
In her letter, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North went on to ask:
"Why would the Mid-Year estimates be accurate in Hackney, for example, but not in Westminster, Kensington and a few other areas, unless the root of the problem is the absurdly low initial contact rate, leading to an impossible challenge for the imputation process?"
I entirely agree with that. There has been an extraordinary amount of difficulty with what the Government propose in their formula changes. That has been compounded by what appear to be very substantial errors, which can only be put right with great difficulty, in the census enumeration process.
1.49 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: I welcome the Government's commitment to reviewing the local government funding formula, but I recognise that it will be difficult to achieve a solution that will satisfy a majority of authorities. Nevertheless, it is vitally important to use the one-off opportunity presented by the increased amount of finance available for local government to address the problems inherent in the current SSA system.
As a Staffordshire Member of Parliament who was previously a county and borough councillor, I know that there have been grave concerns about the relatively poor funding in Staffordshire for many years. Those concerns are not about education funding alone, but it is the perceived unfairness in the amount of money available for educating our children that has so outraged parents, governors and teachers in areas such as Staffordshire. That unfairness was clearly demonstrated by one head teacher in my constituency who, in response to the recent consultation, said:
"Until a year ago, I was a headteacher in a similar size comprehensive school in Sutton Coldfield and received £500.000 more per year than I do in Staffordshire."
430
Neither parents and teachers in Staffordshire nor I understand the reason for that difference in funding. We do not accept that there should be such a large gap between the amount of money available to educate our children in Staffordshire and that in some other authorities.
Along with the dozens of my constituents who have responded to the consultation, I support the option 5 proposal put forward by f40. I pay tribute to my colleague from Staffordshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for the work that he has done in this respect. Of the four options put forward in the consultation document, only option 2 begins to address fair funding. The other three options would leave Staffordshire worse off.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—of course, there is a little injury time. I should like to underline her comments regarding the tribute to our colleague the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the widespread feeling throughout Staffordshire, which crosses all party boundaries.
Mrs. Dean: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
On the specific points in the consultation, I believe that it is right that working families tax credit or its replacement should be used to recognise deprivation, not just in the education funding formula but in areas such as social services and EPCS. With the drive to get people into work, it is logical to use the working families tax credit as a measure of need to reflect the fact that those on low incomes have similar requirements to those who are unemployed.
With regard to the area cost adjustment, I support Staffordshire county council's view that to base the education area cost adjustment on house price variations would not accurately reflect increased living costs. It would also be unwise to base any adjustments on such a variable factor. Although I support ACA2, I am disappointed that all the options for the area cost adjustment are based on the general labour market theory. I believe that it would be better to recognise the average wages in the public sector, especially since large groups of local authority employees such as teachers, police officers and firefighters are on national pay scales. It has been said that it is difficult to use specific costs because of the difficulties for some authorities in recruiting and retaining staff. However, it should be recognised that the wage bills in authorities such as Staffordshire can be high because of the low turnover of staff. Some 72 per cent. of classroom teachers in Staffordshire are on the top of the main scale or have progressed through the upper pay spine.
The disadvantages faced by Staffordshire schools are demonstrated by the authority's pupil-teacher ratios. The average figure in primary schools in Staffordshire is 23.2, compared with 22.5 for England. Secondary schools are similarly disadvantaged, with pupil-teacher ratios of 17.3 compared with 16.9 for England.
I have grave concerns about the proposals for resource equalisation if the result is to reward authorities which have traditionally been high spenders and which have spent above the standard spending assessment. Others, such as Staffordshire, which have stuck to the rules in the past should not be penalised. We should be looking at need rather than historical spend.

431
I cannot overstate the strength of feeling in Staffordshire, particularly with regard to education funding. Many parents recognise the extra funding for schools; indeed, it is important to recognise that the above-inflation increases that we have received in recent years are reflected in improvements in our classrooms. Between 1992 and 1995, Staffordshire's teaching force fell by about 5 per cent., while pupil numbers rose by about 4.7 per cent. That situation was completely reversed between 1999 and 2002, with pupil numbers falling by 0.8 per cent., while teaching staff increased by 4.1 per cent. However, the gap between other shire counties in the south-east and authorities such as Staffordshire remains totally unacceptable. I hope that the strength of the arguments made by the f40 group, the northern alliance and authorities such as Staffordshire will be recognised and acted upon by Ministers.
Briefly, on the options for change for other services, I support the response of Staffordshire county council to the consultation regarding social services, fire and highway maintenance, as well as option 3 for EPCS, which is supported by both the county council and East Staffordshire borough council.
There is concern in Staffordshire that the great strides that have been made in recent months in improving policing may be jeopardised by several of the options put forward. Staffordshire police authority could lose more than £5 million in the worst-case scenario. While I recognise that any changes to the formula would be phased in, I hope that Staffordshire is not disadvantaged by a new formula. Therefore, I support police formula 1 and believe that the sparcity component weight should be increased to at least 1.4 per cent. to avoid losses to rural police authorities with the incorporation of the rural police fund into the main formula.
I hope that in their forthcoming consideration of the representations that have been made to them, Ministers will take into account the concerns of residents of Staffordshire.
1.56 pm
Sir George Young: Many of the contributions to this debate will understandably focus on the problems of individual constituencies, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). I will make some generic points that, I hope, have a wider application, illustrating them by reference to the impact on Hampshire, which will be deeply unpalatable. I see that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) are in their places.
My first point concerns the council tax. In the past 10 years, there has been a consensus that that tax is an acceptable way to fund local government. A similar consensus used to exist in relation to rates, but it evaporated when too much weight was put on them, and there was never any consensus for their successor. The council tax is rather like the rates—it is bridge with a weight limit. It can cope with a certain volume of traffic, but when some of the loads get big it begins to crumble. Although people accept that the council tax is fair at the
432
moment, it is a regressive tax. People on lower incomes pay a far higher share of what they earn than the better off, and the relationship between ability to pay and the value of the property in which one lives is imperfect. That does not matter as long as the sums involved are relatively small and there is broad confidence in the revenue support grant, but if these changes bring about major increases in the council tax in many parts of the country, and those changes are perceived to be unfair, the Government may find themselves confronted with a much wider debate. The genie may be out of the bottle and the consensus broken. The Government will then have to find a new way to fund local government.
Secondly, the Government have made it clear that they have a commitment to drive up standards in public service, particularly in education, but the impact of the more radical proposals for redistribution would make a nonsense of the Government's ambition not only in my Hampshire constituency but across huge swathes of the south-east. What the Chancellor bestoweth in his Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister taketh away in the revenue support grant settlement. Hampshire could be £80 million worse off, which is the equivalent of two teachers in every school. There is no way that Hampshire can invest in education and social services as the Government want if its financial foundations are eroded in that way. The Budget speech and the comprehensive spending review would be exposed as empty rhetoric.
Thirdly, it is not only the Deputy Prime Minister who plans to redistribute resources away from my constituency. The Secretary of State for Health is doing exactly the same. For every £100 spent by the NHS on the average constituent, my constituents get £83. The areas that stand to lose under these proposals are the same ones—all around London—where health trusts are struggling to balance their books. That means that in the key sector of community care where social services and the NHS meet, both are looking for economies. Health and education, the Government's top priorities, face a grim outlook in Hampshire and elsewhere.
Fourthly, what is proposed in the consultation document is a sensational redistribution of resources with the minimum of scrutiny and debate. The RSG is larger than the budget of many Departments and, indeed, larger than the budget of some countries. By changing the formula and presenting some of the changes as technical adjustments, a major and ill-targeted redistribution of wealth is taking place on the basis of the slenderest of intellectual justifications.
More than £304 million is being taken from a group of people who happen to live in one part of the country and given to a group who happen to live in another. Furthermore, that second group already lives in areas where spending levels are way above average. Public spending per head in the north-east of England is £1,148 more than in Hampshire. A Hampshire teacher will contribute towards 47 per cent. of the county council budget whereas a teacher in Durham will contribute towards 20 to 25 per cent. That is a geographical stealth tax.
Fifthly, the proposals will exacerbate the problems of public sector recruitment in the south-east, where it is essential to meet the Government's targets. Local authorities will be unable to afford competitive wages for the staff they need, in areas where it is already

433
difficult to recruit, and the public servants who are recruited, who already face high housing costs, will have to pay higher council tax bills. Yes, deprivation is one side of the coin and must be recognised, but the cost of service delivery is the other side and should have equal recognition if we are to have a fair system.
Chris Grayling: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir George Young: Briefly—there is a cap on my speech.
Chris Grayling: I am sure that head teachers in my right hon. Friend's constituency will share the concern of the head teacher in my constituency who wrote to me this morning. She told me that substantial council tax increases would have a "disastrous effect" on standards and morale and would make a difficult recruitment situation much worse. I suspect those sentiments are shared by people throughout the home counties.
Sir George Young: Indeed. Teachers in many constituencies could have written that letter.
Sixthly, the implications for police authorities have not been mentioned much in the debate but they will have a serious impact in Hampshire. We could lose £10.4 million, which would mean a tax increase of about 22 per cent. to compensate. That would make a mockery of the Home Secretary's ambitions on the law and order front. The chairman of the police authority wrote to me:
"There would be little or no chance of any increase in the provision of the policing service across the two counties"—
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—
"next year…We fear that this will reverse many of the initiatives funded from the crime fighting fund and the rural policing fund."
I should like the Minister to answer this question: whichever option is chosen, does he expect Hampshire to put up council tax to compensate for the loss of grant entitlement, or does he expect the authority to hold the increase to 6.2 per cent. and cut services?
May I make some helpful suggestions? First, the Government should validate current spending where the SSA is unrealistic—as in social services where everyone agrees that it is inaccurate. Secondly, they should fund the extra area cost adjustment from Government funds, instead of making the home counties pay for it. Thirdly, as far as possible, they should allocate grant by examining basic entitlements to standard services, instead of tweaking the formula with a whole lot of subjective judgments. Fourthly, they should remove the double counting of deprivation. Finally and crucially, they should leave the system as it is and reconsider it during the next year.
In conclusion, I have deep sympathy for any Labour candidate for a Hampshire seat at next year's local elections or at a more distant general election. These proposals are a serious mistake, which the Government may live to regret.
2.4 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell: I have listened with great interest to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, but the message that should come from the review is "The party's over." For those of us looking from the north at the current system it seemed that its architects, the previous Conservative Government, had told their civil servants, "Here are the results, now go away and come up with the formulas." That gerrymandering jamboree has been paid for, in my area of Leeds, with higher council taxes and fewer services.
It is tempting to cherry-pick the options in the consultation paper for the benefit of one's own authority. Leeds has resisted that temptation and has thrown its weight behind the proposals made by SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities outside London. Those proposals do not maximise the advantages for Leeds, but they are based on a sustainable series of arguments. The concern in Leeds is that it could gain about £12 million —a mere £18 per head in the best-case scenario—but lose up to £18 million in the worst.
The SSA system has long been riddled with flaws and anomalies. For example, we in Leeds find it amazing that some London authorities receive up to £2,000 more in education SSA per pupil than we do, yet Leeds has seven of the most deprived wards in the country. Indeed, its SSA is currently £79 per head less than the average for its class of authority.
SIGOMA has produced some cogent proposals and responses to the consultation paper and has made some sound arguments about how the system should he changed., and I wish to speak in favour of them.
On education, Leeds welcomes the proposal for unmet as well as met need to be included in the calculation. We certainly share SIGOMA's regret at the lack of a more sophisticated measurement of need, and support the arguments in favour of including the index of multiple deprivation.
On social services, large increases in SSAs were promised in the 2002 spending review, but unfortunately, under the consultation document, the benefit will be largely lost to Leeds. The Government will be only too aware that an increasing number of care homes in many areas—Leeds is a perfect example—are closing clown because of insufficient income, putting massive additional pressure on local authority services and finances. That, coupled with the Government's proposal to penalise local authorities in connection with bed blocking, puts local authorities in an increasingly difficult position. It is crucial, therefore, that the Government address that issue and do not simply give with one hand and take with the other.
There are other anomalies. For example, the present formula uses the proportion of children living in flats as a good measure of deprivation in working out social services SSA, but that indicator gives implausibly large sums of money to authorities in London. In fact, it gives Westminster £206 for every child but Leeds a mere £9 a child. Where is the factor that takes account of the large number of back-to-back and terraced homes in Leeds? It simply does not exist.
On highways maintenance, the Government have 10-year plan targets to halt the deterioration in the condition of the roads by 2004, and to eliminate the

435
maintenance backlog by the end of 2010. The resources available to authorities such as Leeds are insufficient to deal with the backlog of road maintenance. I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the consultation proposals will simply deepen the problem and the potholes. The new formula clearly needs to reflect population density. The cost of maintaining a densely populated area is demonstrably greater than the general cost of maintaining urban areas and is totally independent of traffic volume. SIGOMA, backed by Leeds, also believes that the threshold on traffic flows should be retained. Heavy vehicles clearly cause the greatest damage, and the more there are, the greater the damage.
The Government's fixed costs option—top slicing £300,000 for the cost of simply being in business and allocating that sum across the board to local authorities—is simply unjust and unfair. Unless the mechanisms by which it is calculated can be rationally weighted, the idea should be rejected outright.
Resource equalisation is another crucial element of the debate from the Leeds and SIGOMA point of view. The gap between local authority current needs assessment—SSA—and actual spending amounts to £3 billion, which has to be met locally from council tax. This year, Leeds will spend more than £10 million above SSA on education and £18 million more on social services.
We therefore support the measures required to introduce some equalisation into the system. We believe that the most appropriate way of updating is by using a fixed percentage increase to eliminate the gap between notional spending and actual spending. That is reflected in the consultation document's first resource equalisation option—RE1. However, specific funding is needed from outside the system to achieve fair equalisation; it cannot be achieved with the existing elements.
A number of colleagues have mentioned the area cost adjustment. That probably represents the single greatest cause of injustice and anger in the present system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] ACA—I am sure that this message will come from everyone, except perhaps the authorities that currently benefit from the system—needs to be clearly linked to real circumstances experienced by real local authorities living in the real world. It cannot continue to be based on a convenient mythology, which is the hallmark of the present system. It is extremely disappointing that such an option has not been included in the consultation document.
The ACA factor has been demonstrated through research to overcompensate authorities in terms of actual costs. Additional resources, despite protestations across the House, have been used to keep council tax down rather than to meet needs and improve services. Any new ACA option should take account of wage pressures not only in the south-east but on a regional basis. In addition, the present approach makes far too many assumptions about the impact of private or general market pay levels on what local authorities have to pay.
Options that include only private sector pay information are totally implausible and unacceptable. It is patently absurd that the calculations should include
436
all private sector pay up to the highest level. There must be a rational cap. London councils are not in a market competing for the services of people like the Governor of the Bank of England, Knightsbridge grocers, millionaire novelists, whether in or out of prison, or even novelists who are in or out of bed with certain people.
In conclusion, the message must be that the party is over. It is time to call it a day on a system that has cheated so many people and authorities for so long.
2.12 pm
Mr. John Burnett: I join other Members who paid tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for his sterling work on the f40 group. I commend to the Minister, if I can catch his eye, a work entitled "The Fiscal Crisis in the United Kingdom" by Professor Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan of Nuffield college, Oxford. It is an independent and extremely well-researched paper. It shows conclusively how badly the west country is treated in the apportionment of Government investment within the United Kingdom. I endorse, also, the comments made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on area cost adjustment and by the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on the matter of resource equalisation.
On 15 October we had an Adjournment debate on option 5 funding for Devon. We put forward the points raised by the f40 group. The Minister for School Standards, set out the additional expenditure that Devon and other local authorities have received. I recognise that. It is quite apparent in my constitutency, especially capital expenditure on the fabric of school buildings. Yes, there have been significant improvements. After 30 years of neglect our school buildings are getting better and there has been additional expenditure on education. However, I remind the Minister that Devon is one of the few local authorities with an expanding population. The funding review of local government finance is the most important for over a decade. It is of critical importance to the services that Devon county council provides, to the council tax payers of Devon and to the buoyancy of the Devon economy.
In the time available I want to cover some of the major points. On education funding, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said in his Adjournment debate, we in Devon receive about £195 per pupil per year less than the national average. Devon county council has to spend about £19 million a year on school transport. Effectively all four of the options in the Government paper leave us substantially worse off. We end up worse off than we are now.
There is a huge head of steam building up in Devon on this matter. I, like most other Devon Members, have received more letters from constituents on this than on any other matter. On 16 July I and other Devon Members took a delegation of head teachers, governors and others to 10 Downing street to present a petition to the Prime Minister. He listened to our points. I and hundreds of thousands of people in Devon hope that he acts on the evidence that we presented.
We support option 5 which is being proposed by the f40 group. There is a powerful all-party consensus of a great many Members who are promoting this option.

437
I believe some 200 Members are behind it. In a nutshell we want, first, to maximise the amount per pupil. Secondly, if the formula is to provide for deprivation, not just for education, but also for other services, working families tax credit should be included as a measure, as well as income support. The Government have indicated that they are predisposed to allow this change. The case is compelling. Working families tax credit in conjunction with income support is a far better measure of deprivation and should be used throughout the formula. Income support measures unemployment. Working families tax credit measures those on low pay. Deprivation affects those on low pay as well as the unemployed.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Is it worth pointing out that average wages in Devon are 20 per cent. below national average?
Mr. Burnett: That is an extremely good point and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I am going to make it. Low pay in Devon arises from seasonal work and poorly paid employment.
The use of working families tax credit within the grant distribution formula reinforces the Government's objectives of getting people into work and supporting those on low pay. The inclusion of working families tax credit also reflects the fact that low-income families are likely to have similar needs to those of the unemployed. Therefore, local authorities with a high number of working families tax credit claimants will have increased levels of deprivation.
In addition, there is the crucial matter of school transport and sparsity. A substantial amount of Devon county council's budget is devoted to school transport. In the schools block, which is over 80 per cent. of the education block, there is provision for primary school transport. I can assure the Minister that that is simply not enough. The vast majority of those travelling to secondary schools in my constituency and others qualify for school transport. That must be recognised in the formula. I see a great many heads nodding. I am delighted that there is a large degree of consensus.
Any changes in the distribution mechanism for social services must be seen in the context of the inadequacy of the quantum of resources available for those services. The Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services consistently state that nationally authorities are annually budgeting some £1 billion above social services standard spending assessments. As the Minister knows, many parts of the budget are demand led. Devon county council spends more than 10 per cent. above the social services standard spending assessments. Devon has two major concerns regarding the social services formula. Because of the concern about continuing reliance on past spending levels within the younger adults formula, we would welcome a separate formula for mental health within the younger adults sub-block. Secondly, we acknowledge that the distinction between residential and domiciliary care is becoming very blurred. That would point to the need for a combined formula in future. Devon has campaigned for several years for a total resident population rather than a household population to be used as the client group, and for a degree of weight to be given to sparsity in domiciliary care cases.
438
On police funding, the police options in the consultation paper show Devon and Cornwall losing some £2.1 million to £5.3 million. To give an example, £5 million is equivalent to 12 per cent. of our entire council tax receipts or the cost of 200 police officers—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).
2.20 pm
Mr. David Kidney: There is a keen interest in this subject around the House and among the public and councillors in our English constituencies, for very good reasons. First, local government is responsible for a quarter of all public spending. Secondly, we have waited 10 years for this change, and people reasonably fear that this will be a once-in-a-decade operation, so they are anxious to have their say now. Thirdly, local government depends on money that comes from the Government for 75 per cent. of its spending, so this is a vital subject.
I am a friend of the Government, and I want to point out that some of the criticisms of their position are unfair. First, on the criticism that there has not been enough effort to try to change the existing system, in 1997, the first year of the Labour Government, there were 35 changes to the existing formulae. What we found, however, was that the system was so complex that to change one piece in one place had unexpected consequences in other places. The Government therefore concluded that a totally new system was needed, and I approve of that decision. The Government then gave local government the opportunity to agree that new system—what could be better than a system to which everybody agrees and signs up? Because of the all the vested interests, which we are rehearsing today, it was not possible for those authorities to agree that system. When they complain about the effect of the new system on their finances, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister asks them what their position was when they had the opportunity to agree the system for themselves.
The Government also deserve credit for the extra funding that they have put into local government overall. I give special praise to the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Secretary of State for Education to introduce flat-rate payments to every school in the country in response to our complaints about the unfairness of the distribution system. As has already been mentioned, the Government deserve credit, too, for the thoroughly open way in which the process has proceeded—the Green Paper, the consultation document, the seminars for Members, and the meetings and delegations that have been seen.
The Government hope that the new approach will be simpler, easier to understand and easier to explain, of which we all approve. When we see the possible consequences for our local authority, however, we find a credible measure that we would like to insert into that simple system to benefit our area. People put up many different arguments, which was a fault of the previous system—It was overloaded with credible but partial systems that bent it to suit different authorities' areas, which made it complex and difficult to understand.

439
The Government must therefore be brave, resist all those blandishments and arguments and keep the system simple.
Of course, the new approach will not be an objective exercise that speaks for itself. The Government will make political decisions. They will decide where to draw the line between basic amounts and top-ups. They will decide what measures to use for the top-ups. They will even decide what evidence to use for those measures. We must recognise that those political decisions are the ones that we want to influence as Members of Parliament.
Some overarching aspects of the new system need to be pointed out because of their effect on the whole, such as the promise of no losers and the system of floors and ceilings. Between them, their operation means that there is significant loss of room for manoeuvre in the overall settlement. Nevertheless, it is a fair attempt to provide stability and security for those who worry about losing grant.
The next overarching issue that is worrying for areas such as mine in Staffordshire is the operation of area cost adjustment in the new system, and the proposal for resource equalisation, both of which threaten to overwhelm completely all the good work done for individual formulae for the service blocks. The final issue is the modern expansion by a Labour Government of the use of special grants and specific grants, all of which will be taken out of the money that is available through the system to distribute to local authorities equally.
I do not have much longer to speak, but I want to mention briefly the f40 campaign, with which I have been associated. First, the campaign relates only to education funding, but we are debating the whole of local government finance, which is an important distinction to draw. The campaign grew out of a collection of only seven or eight shire counties that, under the present system, constantly found themselves at the bottom of the funding league table, year after year. They wanted change, and they argued for it, but nobody listened because they did not have a big enough influence. A strategic decision was therefore taken that drawing a line at the bottom 40 authorities in the lowest-funded league table would provide some clout. The good thing about f40 authorities is that they represent all parts of the country, all kinds of councils—shires, metropolitans and unitaries—and all kinds of political control. The campaign therefore has a sensible balance. I hope that we are able to persuade the Government to listen to our non-partisan view—I admit that we come from a particular position, but it is the one at the bottom of the pile.
As for Staffordshire—and the reason why I feel so strongly about this subject—we are poorly funded. This year, the local education authority was inspected jointly by Ofsted and the Audit Commission. First, they found that our education attainment is at or above the national level, which is a tremendous tribute to the hard work of the teachers, governors, school staff, parents and the students themselves. They also found, however, that we are funded at a level that is 12 per cent. below the average for local authorities, which, given what we have achieved, is an incredible amount. We are 33rd out of 34
440
English shire counties in the funding table, the local authority spends above its SSA to try to compensate, and we are not eligible for major funding streams such as excellence in cities and education action zones.
My recent experiences demonstrate why I feel so strongly: a first school has asked two experienced teachers to leave because it cannot afford their salaries; an Ofsted report told me that a primary school had to choose between office staff and a special educational needs co-ordinator; and a high school had to ask four teachers to leave because the budget did not add up at the end of the financial year. Politically, I find that, whatever the good news about educational achievement or funding—I would hope that a Labour Government would be interested in this point—whenever I mention it, everyone says, "Yes, but what about the unfair funding system?" All the good news is lost to the area.
F40 supports option 5 because we thought that the Government were interested in closing the league table gap between the best-funded authority and the lowest-funded authority, and option 5 seeks to do that. I want a system that has the maximum proportion in the basic amounts and the least possible in the top-ups. I want the top-ups to be based as closely as possible on actual additional costs presently incurred. I want no major distortion of the new settlement by wholesale resource equalisation. I want a closing of the gap between the best and worst funded authorities. Finally, I want a reduction in the use of special and specific grants to pay for improving the finances of the lowest-funded authorities while keeping the Government's commitment to no losers and a fair system of floors and ceilings.
2.28 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I shall make some of the points that he has made in my own way.
One of the problems that the Government have found, whether they like it or not, is the build-up of the expectation—for which they are responsible—that once the new system was introduced everybody would be satisfied and happy. As we have found today, however, several concerns exist about the options that the Government have put forward in their consultation proposals. The expectation has been building up over five and a half years; in fact, it has been building up for longer. As the hon. Member for Stafford said, the original eight local authorities, which called themselves a G8, have grown into the f40 campaign. I shall comment further on that later.
I regret that we find ourselves today with very little time to debate something that will probably be in place for the next 10 years. We are talking about 25 per cent. of public expenditure and putting into operation the framework for local services for some years to come. It is a great pity that many of the people who want to speak today will not be able to do so because of the time allocated.
Sir Patrick Cormack: It should have been a two-day debate.
Mr. McLoughlin: As my hon. Friend says, a subject of this magnitude warrants not a four-hour debate on a Thursday afternoon but a full two-day debate.

441
I have heard people speak about the way in which local authority expenditure has been vastly increased, but the Government placed on Derbyshire county council the lowest cap on a local authority in the history of capping. Therefore, it is with a sense of irony that I listen to other people's perceptions of the changes made to local government.
There is no doubt that the system has become far too complex, with far too many grants dependent on local councils meeting Government targets and on the will and wish of Ministers. That is not perceived to be fair and we desperately need a system that is so perceived. I would be the first to accept that the system has fallen into serious disrepute. For example, when I was a member of the governing party, I never felt able to explain fully to my constituents the logic behind, and the fairness of, area cost adjustments. I am not sure that the new system will be that much easier for us to understand. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, when speaking in Derbyshire, described the system as "indefensible". If it was indefensible, one wonders why the Government have taken five and half years to come up with new proposals and are now rushing us in this way. Time is short.
I have heard the cries from the Liberal Democrats and others that we should delay the proposed changes for a year. I am not sure that that would be the best approach. It would certainly lead to much disappointment. For example, in Derbyshire in September 2001, the National Union of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers said:
"We were hopeful that the issue of Fair Funding was finally to be addressed by the present Government. We had hopes of a settlement at least bringing Derbyshire up to a median figure for this current academic year. We were disappointed that this did not happen and that we were to be left further behind again this year. We remained hopeful though that the issue would at last be tackled for April 2002. We are now angered to learn that yet again there is to be a delay in implementing the policy—until at least April 2003—with no obvious valid reasons given for the delay."
A further delay, as asked for by the Liberal Democrats, would not go down well in my constituency and in my county, and that is probably true elsewhere.
The Government have introduced four options, but allowed for a truncated period of consultation. To start consultation on education funding on 9 July and to end it on 31 December does not provide people with a great opportunity to participate fully in the consultation exercise. That might have been what was in the Government's mind.
I should like there to be a far greater shift of resources into the basic pupil allowance. That is what the f40 campaign wants, so that educational funding can be understandable and transparent. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said about local authority funding. Local authorities provide such a huge service that our constituents have a right to know, and to see, that they are treated fairly by the Government.
As the hon. Member for Stafford rightly said, the f40 group is a large organisation that has considered all the options for education. I accept that it has considered only education and that, when the Government make their recommendations, they will have to consider the whole sphere of services for local authorities. However, f40 has come up with option 5, which has a great deal of
442
support in my constituency. I should like to be able to tell my constituents that the Government have addressed what was a difficult formula to understand and that the new formula can be easily understood. That would mean that there would be no excuse for services that we look to local authorities to provide not being provided.
We need a much greater shift of resources into the basic allowance per pupil and a move away from the system calculated according to additional education needs. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, elements of the proposals are so awful to local authorities such as Derbyshire, which would lose under some of them, that I am pretty sure the Government came up with them on the basis that they would draw back from the worst of them and that everyone would be relieved as a result. However, if the changes are to result in long-term benefits for local government and in increased understanding by our constituents, the more transparent the system, the better.
2.35 pm
Paul Farrelly: Given your former constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I hope that the House does not feel that a Staffordshire mafia is in operation.
Like everyone else and on behalf of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I welcome Ministers' commitments that no area will lose out from the review. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that we should give praise where it is clearly due. The Government have been able to make the commitment because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's generous spending review this year.
In Staffordshire, we have no quibble with the extra resources that the Government have put into education and vital public services. We have no quibble with the extra ring-fenced resources that the Government are targeting where need is greatest. Newcastle-under-Lyme, which has some of the most deprived wards in the country, has benefited from sure start, neighbourhood management initiatives and, most recently, a massive pilot scheme for housing renewals.
Like many former mining and traditional industrial areas, Newcastle-under-Lyme faces particular challenges in education—in ambition, aspiration, achievement and staying-on rates after 16. We can therefore have no quibble with the Government's educational maintenance allowance scheme to encourage less-well-off children to stay on in further education. I called for an extension of that scheme in my maiden speech a year ago, and I am glad that we have had it in Newcastle from September, through the Newcastle achievement scheme. No fair-minded person could take issue with such worthy initiatives.
However, as my hon. Friends have already said, we take issue with the proposals for fair funding for Staffordshire and our relative position compared to other counties and areas. Whichever way one looks at it, Staffordshire loses out across the board under the current system. The needs in areas such as mine are equal to, if not greater than, those in areas that always do relatively well.

443
Let us consider education as an example. In 2001–02, out of 150 LEAs, Staffordshire ranked 146th in primary school and 144th in secondary school funding per pupil. I do not want to bandy about the names of better-off counties—I would certainly invite guerrilla interventions from the right hon. and hon. Members representing Hertfordshire if I did—but it cannot be right that schoolchildren in my constituency, where schools face great challenges, should be worth more than £300 less each per annum than pupils in many better-off areas. It cannot be right that primary schools in the most deprived areas in my constituency are £30,000 or more worse off than schools in more privileged areas in the south. It cannot be right that secondary schools, such as my old school of Wolstanton high where I am still a governor, are £400,000 worse off than schools in areas that do not have mountains of achievement to climb. That is why I add my voice in support of option 5 advocated by the f40 group for education.
I have received hundreds of letters from constituents following the f40 campaign, which has been so ably co-ordinated in Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I dare not think how many letters my hon. Friend the Minister has been deluged with. I hope that he will agree that f40 is an impressive and persuasive campaign, as is the campaign on issues across the board of the northern alliance group of councils.
I could go through a list of public services in Staffordshire one by one—police, highways, fire and environment—and show how badly we do across the board, but time is short, and the House will be glad to learn that I will not do that. However, I should like to refer briefly to social services, which is perhaps the most precarious service of all. Historically, the mining, pottery, iron and steel and industrial legacy of north Staffordshire has meant great challenges for health. Not before time, they are being addressed by the construction of a new £250 million hospital to replace crumbling old Victorian buildings and by investment in intermediate care and our community hospitals. However, we cannot fully meet those challenges when social services—the community side of the health equation—remain so stretched. That is especially the case when care for the elderly is transferred into the community, which is happening increasingly in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire.
While facing those challenges in personal social care, Staffordshire ranks 124th out of 150 for elderly domiciliary care and 118th for elderly residential care. Despite the best efforts of the education service, our low relative position in education makes it more difficult to address special needs for the most vulnerable children in our communities. Those difficulties are compounded by Staffordshire ranking 133rd out of 150 in children's social services, which rubs salt in the wounds. I welcome the recent speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health heralding a radical shake up of social services for elderly care.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman underline the fact that, throughout my 32 years in the House, Staffordshire has always had a prudent county
444
council, whether under a Conservative or Labour administration? Our cry is from hon. Members on both sides of House and from all parties.
Paul Farrelly: That is a valuable point.
We want a formula that better addresses need and deprivation so that counties such as Staffordshire and regions such as my own do not lose out time and time again. I will not repeat the points so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but having overwhelmingly elected a Labour Government in 1997 and 2001, my constituents and the people of Staffordshire want them to be bold in redressing the balance. To coin a recent phrase, we are at our best when we are bold. Like many areas represented in the House, we want fairer funding. I realise that the Minister is in an invidious position; he cannot satisfy everyone, but we call on him to be bold. Our constituents have spent a long time waiting for a change, and a change that changes nothing will not be good enough.
2.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Days before the 1997 general election, the Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition, said:
"We will review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year".
The first debate that I secured was in July 1997, in the previous Parliament, and it was on the area cost adjustment. Responding to that debate, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions told me:
"we shall study the further surveys carefully and discuss them, as a matter of urgency, with the local government associations. We shall not be precluded from taking decisions at the earliest opportunity". —[Official Report, 18 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 670.]
Five years and three months later reform of the area cost adjustment is long overdue. What the Government propose in their options could have been done five years ago because it is substantially based on the Elliott review methodology produced before the 1997 election.
If implemented, the five area cost adjustment options would increase Cambridgeshire's standard spending assessment total by anything from 2.5 to 6 per cent. During the past five financial years, Cambridgeshire may have lost £100 million from the Government's failure to act, and fairness delayed is fairness denied. Cambridgeshire has the lowest SSA—£647 per head—of any county, and schools suffer most, with a gap of about £270 per pupil between he school funding in my constituency and funding over the border in Hertfordshire. Although the Cambridgeshire police area has an average amount of crime, we have 250 fewer police than average. It is time for fairness.
Step one is to implement reform of the area cost adjustment. Only options 4 and 5 would provide an area cost adjustment factor for each county. I would go further and provide that for each authority. The labour market pressures in South Cambridgeshire and the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are substantially different from those in the fenlands in the north of the county. I would use option 5, which more accurately reflects underlying labour market pressures in the longer term, to which local authority services have to respond, particularly if district level authorities are involved. The same area cost

445
adjustment approach should be used for education. House prices are too volatile, too closely related to interest rate movements and too much of a current preoccupation rather than a long-term indicator.
Step two must be to reform the education grant. Many people have said that the capitation level—the basic entitlement per pupil—should be higher. That is true not only because it would deliver fairness in funding, but because the education funding strategy group is trying to build an activity-based level of funding so that we accurately fund the cost of providing the national curriculum to pupils. I am disappointed that the Government did not work with that group to produce an option on that basis. Likewise, as the formula does not provide for so many unmet needs, how can they be included in relation to additional educational needs? Additional educational needs factors apply in every authority to some extent, so it must be right to have a high threshold of 50 local education authorities. In addition, sparsity is inadequately reflected and should be included for secondary schools and the under-fives.
Step three must be to reject the proposed resource equalisation options proposed in the consultation. Those would reintroduce past spending into the formula, which the Government said they would not do. Worst of all, they would be based on validating high spending and penalising thrift. I do not suggest that we can do without resource equalisation and I accept that we may have to rely on the current system for the time being while we look for something better. However, perhaps the Minister should consider not using council tax and standard spending under the current system, but look instead to the median level of council tax as a proper intermediate measure on which to base our resource equalisation.
Step four is to take proper account of population growth. Those areas with a declining population are already compensated because of the lag between population data and grant calculation. Those areas with a large growth in population, such as Cambridgeshire, need a factor in the grant which is based on excess population growth. I was surprised that the consultation suggests £65 for a shire district. Although a shire unitary authority would receive £675, shire counties and districts would get only £560 when added together. The Greater London Assembly and an outer London borough would get £1,000 when added together.
Step five is to take proper account of sparsity. For example, a 1 per cent. weighting in the police service calculation is woefully inadequate.
The Government's proposals could be turned into a fairer system. It would mean kicking out the resource equalisation proposals and the idea that the business rate should be treated as a Government grant. The system would benefit from major changes in the education options, which other hon. Members and I have proposed, and, in the longer term, from using more direct and relevant data that relate to pupils' additional needs. I hope that on that basis we will see a much improved result later in the year. It is time for fairness and I look forward to that happening in the next financial year.
2.48 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I have sat through many such debates on local government finance and have participated in them for the 20 years or so since I became a Member of Parliament. They always reveal the problems that arise from an overcentralised Government system. It was the same under the Conservatives. I remember Margaret Thatcher extending to us the promise that she would take Whitehall off the back of the town halls. Of course she did precisely the opposite. Hearing various blasts from the past, such as the former leader of Wandsworth council, the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), complaining about the proposals, I am reminded of the way in which the Tories used formulas to give an advantage to their sweetheart authorities, such as 'Westminster and Wandsworth.
Things have got better under this Government. One still gets the feeling, however, that local authority finance is like the infamous Schleswig-Holstein question. Most do not understand the question, no one knows the answer, but everyone is affected by the outcome.
This is a whingers' debate. I have not heard anyone do anything other than whinge, and rightly so. That is the problem with local authority finance: we all come to the Chamber to complain about our own local authority being skint. No one is likely to come and say, "We have done very well." Those hon. Members who are not present are probably not interested, or prefer to read the collected works of Kim Il Sung, which are slightly more interesting, or their local authorities have done extraordinarily well out of the settlement, though I doubt it.
We know that very few people turn up to say thank you. There is little gratitude in politics, as we will all find out eventually. All our political careers are doomed to end in failure, as someone said. Mine just ended a bit sooner than others. However, I want to prove to the Minister that I am not wholly a whinging ingrate. Newham, my borough, has received much Government support, but mostly in the form of special programme measures, schemes and Government initiatives, all of which are time-limited. What we want in Newham, as all local authorities want, as a number of hon. Members have said, is a predictable core of Government funding, and much greater powers to raise our own revenue streams. We want to be able to use those revenue streams to spend on our locally determined priorities.
Government provide 75 per cent. of all local authority finance, but there cannot be effective local democracy with the Treasury controlling the purse strings to this extent. The Government have announced and implemented a genuine programme of devolution, but without greater financial independence, devolution will ultimately fail. It will not produce the local successes that people expect from it. That might be one of the reasons for the low turnout in the recent local elections, particularly those for local mayors.
It is an open secret that I hope to become Labour's candidate for London mayor. I am grateful for the support of a number of my colleagues. Why should I not be? I was the first to propose a directly elected mayor for London in 1990. The idea did not meet with universal acclaim or, as I recall, any acclaim whatever, at the time,

447
but it is now a fact and it was brave of the Government to introduce the office. However, they are holding back from making that office truly effective.
We in London must have our own revenue streams, free from the dead hand of Treasury control. I have made a number of suggestions recently, which I shall put to the young and handsome Minister. [Interruption.] He is young and handsome. It is quite scary, really. One suggestion is that city hall should be able to raise a bond issue for transport infrastructure investment in London, unless Treasury Ministers will give us all the money that we need for vital schemes such as crossrail 1 and 2, Thameslink and the river crossings. We know that they will not, yet they are preventing us from raising our own money.
I have suggested that London should be able to receive all the income from the airport tax, which would then be hypothecated for transport infrastructure projects. That could be done, if Gordon is prepared to let us do it. I notice that the Government propose to change the legislation relating to gambling. Why not have municipal casinos in London? That is an excellent idea. It is done in other parts of the world and raises large amounts of money, which could be used to improve services for London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) mentioned a tourist tax. We could have a hotel bed tax in London. What about a London lottery? I throw these ideas before the House so that they may be considered and discussed. A London lottery would be an excellent way of raising money. We do not want to rely on sticking the precept up more and more, as that simply impacts on the local authorities and borough councils, and we want to find independent ways of raising our own money in London. My hon. Friend also suggested that business rates should come back to local authorities. Absolutely correct. That would be of great benefit to London.
I know that when we call for more resources for London, there are many who say that London is already getting too much. That is not a fact. London is not just Mayfair, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea., where Opposition Members go for their enjoyment; it is also places such as Plaistow, Tottenham and Peckham. We have some of the most deprived local authority areas in the entire country.
I conclude with an extract from a speech made by the Chancellor on 11 October, in which he said:
"So we are introducing a range of new financial freedoms—new powers for local authorities to retain fines, develop new services and decide council tax exemptions and discounts, allowing responsible councils to innovate and respond to local needs.
We are making councils themselves responsible for deciding how much they can prudently borrow, providing greater freedom for councils to invest in local services."
I hope that when the Minister replies, he will dress that out a little more. It sounds very interesting and promising. We need some delivery.
2.55 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Who says the music hall is dead? I thought that I had blundered into some Labour party mayoral hustings.
Mr. Banks: You have.
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman confirms that. He must be crossing his fingers and hoping against hope that he does not have a monkey running against him.
In Eastbourne, my constituents are facing a council tax calamity of mammoth proportions. In fairness, though, it is not all the Government's fault; the Liberal Democrats have made their contribution. In record time, even by their standards, since taking control of the borough council earlier this year they have produced a black hole in the council's finances and are speaking of an increase of up to 30 per cent. in council tax under their regime. Of course, we must allow for a certain amount of spin in that figure. I assume that they will end up with a figure rather less than 30 per cent. in the coming year and then claim some sort of success.
I shall deal with the likely effect, beyond those effects on my council tax payers, of the Government's proposals. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Deputy Prime Minister has got it in for taxpayers in the south-east and, as was said earlier, is trying to give money to his friends in the north. In the immortal words of Kenneth Williams, "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!" That is the attitude of many councils in the south-east.
We have already had the formula fiddled once, so it no longer recognises sufficiently the number of older people living in East Sussex and in my constituency. Despite that, the new Conservative-controlled county council has made enormous strides in bringing the budget under control after the chaos of the Liberal Democrat years, and has finally scrapped the 800-people waiting list for social services care under the previous regime. Potentially, East Sussex is the worst hit of all county councils, yet it has the third lowest gross domestic product per head among all areas in the UK. It is not full of rich toffs of the sort that the hon. Member for West Ham mentioned in the London context. On any of the proposals, East Sussex will lose between £4 million and £44 million in a full year. In real terms, that equates to some 900 teachers, or it means social services being unable to give care to over 2,000 vulnerable elderly people. That would dwarf the problems that the current county council inherited from the Liberal Democrats when it took control.
As we have heard from speaker after speaker this afternoon, the net result of all this is a massive shift in resources from the south, particularly the south-east, to the north and the midlands. I have a copy of a letter to the Secretary of State for Health from Councillor Keith Glazier.
Mr. Andy Reed rose—
Mr. Waterson: I am not giving way, as time is short, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

449
Councillor Keith Glazier, the lead cabinet member for social services, refers to the promise of 6 per cent. real growth above inflation over the next three years for social services, but even taking the mid-point of all the options set out by the Government, he states:
"A loss of this scale would more than wipe out any gain from the growth in resources signalled in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review."
The changes, however, would affect spending throughout the county. I have also had a letter from the chief constable, Ken Jones, who says that according to the calculations Sussex police face
"a potential loss of grant of up to £17 million in a single year… we will need to recruit in the region of 250 new officers over the next three years, just to replace those that are due to retire."
The force is trying to reach it
"target of 3,100 police officers by the end of this financial year".
Incidentally, that is more or less the figure that the Government inherited in 1997. The chief constable goes on to say
"any standstill in our funding would be extremely damaging and set back the gains that we have made as a Force over the past year."
The area cost adjustment has been discussed. East Sussex is relatively close to London, and costs are high compared with those in other parts of the country; so some form of adjustment is obviously necessary. Many Members probably do not know, however, that East Sussex is one of the poorest counties. I have already given the GDP figures, but there are substantial areas of deprivation in my constituency and in the county as a whole. The effect of all the existing pressures—increasing school rolls, increasing numbers of old people and, in some areas, increasing deprivation—on county council expenditure is considerable.
There is, however, a double whammy. We have the highest proportion of people over 85 in the country. That puts enormous pressure on social services, as such people are likely to need residential or other care. Moreover, they are the people who will be asked to pay the mammoth council tax increases. Let us leave aside for a moment the incompetence of the Liberal Democrats in Eastbourne itself, and consider the enormous increases—dwarfing even those increases—that the Government's proposals are likely to bring about. The pressure on social services will be matched by extra pressure on the budgets of vulnerable people who do not have large disposable incomes.
I urge the Minister to address the concerns of my county council, and of many people throughout the county and certainly throughout my constituency, about the disastrous effects that the proposals are likely to have on my council tax payers, and the even more disastrous effects that they are likely to have on the services provided for my constituents.
3.3 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): I have considerable sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who has had to disentangle the mess left by the Tories when the poll tax was axed 12 years ago. Having said that, I must add that I wish the review could have been completed earlier, although I am very glad that it has been completed now. I was appalled to hear the hon.
450
Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) ask for a further year's delay, which in my constituency, and probably in all Cambridgeshire, would almost certainly ensure that the Liberal Democrats remained out of office for many years. It would be extremely unpopular.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) calculated that Cambridgeshire had lost £100 million under the present Government. On the basis of his calculation, during the years in which the Conservatives failed to reform their system the county would have lost £140 million. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would keep quiet.
Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: No. I have only eight minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has already had an opportunity to speak.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out, one of the problems created by the current system is the creation of huge disparities between authorities. That is bound to make people feel that the system is unfair. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, we in Cambridgeshire tend to compare ourselves with those in Hertfordshire, with whom we share a boundary. Education funding differences amounting to hundreds of pounds exist between pupils. In Cambridgeshire the funding for each secondary school pupil is £3,225, while in Hertfordshire it is £3,503. In a school with 1,000 pupils, the difference in funding between the two counties is £278,000. Ninety per cent. of that would be enough for six or more teachers to be employed over and above the allocation for a similar school in Cambridgeshire. Hertfordshire has always had a much more generous settlement under the current system, which is difficult—indeed, nigh-on impossible—to justify to parents, teachers and governors in my constituency.
I do not underestimate the difficult task faced by my right hon. and hon. Friends. During a debate on 15 October, I asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions considered reducing the disparities between authorities to be one of his criteria for success. He implied that he did not. I urge Ministers to think again. There will be continuing flak if those disparities are not reduced, although it may mean some reshuffling of cards. They are perceived to be extremely unfair, and I think that reducing them should be a priority.
I want to discuss two specific aspects of the proposals, the area cost adjustment and resource equalisation. I shall begin with the area cost adjustment, as I find it easier to understand. Cambridgeshire has argued long and hard that it should be able to benefit, in the grant distribution system, from allowances for higher costs, including wage rates, property and bought-in services. I was pleased to note that the review supports the county council's argument that counties outside the south-east also face high operating costs. It is interesting to compare house prices, for instance. I have a list from the Land Registry of the average prices involved in residential property sales between April and June this year. The average price in Cambridgeshire was £139,678, whereas the averages in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire were £131,263 and £136,541—both

451
lower than the Cambridgeshire average. Unlike Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire receive area cost adjustments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) said that house prices should not be a factor. I must tell him that they severely affect recruitment of teachers and other low-paid workers who cannot afford to buy houses in my constituency.
Data taken from the new earnings survey of full-time employees on adult rates in 2001 support the evidence that Cambridgeshire should benefit from the higher costs allowance. Average gross weekly earnings in Cambridgeshire were £453.40 in Cambridgeshire, higher than those in Essex, Oxfordshire and West Sussex. Cambridgeshire and Cheshire are the only counties in the top 10 in relation to average earnings not to receive the area cost adjustment.
The analysis in the consultation paper suggests that Cambridgeshire has been underfunded relative to other counties for the past 11 years, which has had a major impact on services. Cambridgeshire is spending £80 million over standard spending assessment on social services, but there are still significant pressures, especially on the provision of care for elderly people. That is largely because costs are on a par with those of authorities surrounding London. It is more expensive to provide home care and nursing or residential accommodation in Cambridgeshire than in neighbouring authorities, yet they receive significantly more cash per potential client than Cambridgeshire does. Hertfordshire, for instance, receives £2,360 more than Cambridgeshire for every elderly person who might need support. I do not see how that can possibly be fair. The criteria for deciding which authorities receive area cost adjustment should be based on evidence of relative input costs and not on an authority's geographical position in relation to London.
I want also to express my support for education option 2, which is the best approach. It recognises that deprivation includes not only people on income support, but children in families on low incomes who receive the working families tax credit. I believe that both groups are likely to have similar needs, so working families tax credit recipients should not be excluded from the calculation.
I am also attracted by option 5, which was so well expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. It was proposed by the f40 group, which comprises the 40 lowest-funded education authorities, and I understand that it would use the same basis for calculating top-ups as option 2, but make the basic allowance per pupil greater and the top-up smaller. I say to the Minister that the great advantage of that option is that it would reduce disparities and therefore the perceived unfairness, so I hope that he will seriously consider it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
3.11 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Much has been made of the strange name of my constituency. This diverse area contains one unitary
452
council, one county council and two district councils, one of which is part of the small group that does not receive any revenue support. In passing, may I say that I hope that the Minister is reconsidering the proposed merger of the revenue support grant and the redistributed non-domestic rate. The authorities, common factor is low funding, historically among the lowest in the south-west. To put that into context, the SSA per capita for the south-west is the lowest for any region. At £876, it is 12 per cent. below the English average of £995. As the lowest of the low, it is not surprising that the councils initially welcomed the idea of simplicity, transparency and ease of understanding. Obviously, there was a strong belief that the history of underfunding would at last be addressed.
I am heartened by the number of hon. Members who have mentioned the f40 group. The areas that it includes are situated throughout the country and the fact that so many people are talking about the issue represents the strength of feeling that exists. Not surprisingly, I support option 5. Poole unitary authority has the sixth lowest education funding in the country. Dorset is also well towards the bottom of the list of the lowest 40, although that is not reflected in its results. In the past few weeks, I have received hundreds of letters about the issue. Parents cannot understand why their children are allocated £100 less per head than those in Hampshire schools, for example. We have been hearing that they were not doing so well, but as many other hon. Members have said, the main issue is the size of the discrepancy between the highest and lowest funding, which causes great concern among parents.
Bob Spink: Does the hon. Lady share my curiosity about the Government's proposal to remove more money from education in counties where the results are good—the best in the country—and use it to reward counties where the results are much lower?
Mrs. Brooke: I shall move on, as I do not think that that is the main issue.
I was saying that we have excellent teachers despite the low funding, although I am afraid that we have been very disadvantaged in terms of physical resources. The basic allowance per pupil simply must be higher.
On social services in the south-west, a recent analysis shows that there is a £70 million care gap. Local authorities are warning that the social care safety net is not adequate for children, the elderly and the vulnerable. Poole is an especially small unitary authority. In the past few years, it has seen unbudgeted overspending on children's services. I do not think that anybody wants to address that issue. We cannot easily do so; children are at risk. The difficulty is that just one expensive placement throws the whole budget. I urge the Minister to take on board the fact that those are significant problems and that it does not matter how good the councils are or what their political flavour is.
This will be my third effort to speak about waste management. I keep getting the phrase, "Nobody wants more ring fencing" thrown back at me, but I have received many representations from all the major organisations involved, including the Local Government Association, saying that they would like an extra waste block to be established—I should call it a

453
separate waste block, in view of the merger within EPCS. I am not referring to targeted funding that is clearly identified—I want the resources to be identified for the much-needed recycling that we are all going to do provided that the funding is available. It is vital that those resources are clearly provided. That does not mean ring fencing; it means giving local councils the tools to do the job that they want to do and which out constituents want them to do.
Matthew Green: Is it not strange that while waste is in the large EPCS block, it should be affected by deprivation indices? It is hard to see why deprived areas need more money to collect waste. I would have thought that the waste should be accounted for on a per head basis—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is rather long for an intervention.
Mrs. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I should like to add my comments on resource equalisation, on which my feelings are very much the same as those already expressed. The proposed mechanism seems very crude. If it takes effect, it will reward historically high-spending authorities at the expense of those with a more buoyant tax base. I believe that it would direct funding from the south-west, which is already the lowest-funded area, to the north-east and north-west. In this case, enough is enough.
I share the concern expressed by an earlier speaker about what might happen to the police budget. There is great fear about the issue in my constituency. Dorset police authority is the second lowest funded in England and Wales, and predicts a shortfall of between £5 million and £8 million. On the other hand, I am receiving letters saying that people do not want more police as they cannot afford to pay the council tax increase.
We need more police and services, but wherever people live, the basic pension is the same. If some of the changes go ahead, resulting in massive cuts, the impact will be felt through that very unfair tax, the council tax. Year after year, pensioners in my constituency are seeing their pensions eroded. It is not the council's fault that there are large percentage increases in council tax. It is the wrong type of tax for funding local services. Some of the proposals in the new models for finance cannot seriously be considered without our addressing the fact that local authorities will have to raise the money for any extra burden that is imposed on them.
3.18 pm
Mr. David Watts: I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. As other hon. Members have said, we are talking about how 25 per cent. of public expenditure will be allocated. That has a major impact on all our constituents, so I am pleased to see so many hon. Members present.
I should like to be as brief as possible, and to begin by dispelling some of the myths that have featured in the debate. I understand the difficulty that the Government will have in making their decisions, as there will be some winners and some losers. Some authorities have got used to very low council taxes and high-quality services, while
454
others, such as my own and many members of SIGOMA, have had low-quality services and high council taxes. It was amazing to hear the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) say that tax rates were high in his constituency. He ought to compare them with the rates in some of the authorities that we represent; he would see the massive differences between one authority and another.
Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is to be a retention of the area cost adjustment, it should be based on real costs rather than notional costs? Part of the problem that he is describing is precisely the result of notional costs being used.
Mr. Watts: I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall come to that important issue later.
I want to set out some of the present problems, because we need to think about where we are today. I would' also like to consider some of the Government's options and to offer some brief ideas about how we can move forward. It is important to understand the present system. It is not a fair one. It was introduced by the last Tory Government in 1981 to target funds to Tory councils, to allow those councils to set very low council tax rates, and to give the impression that Tory authorities were more efficient and effective than Labour ones.
During that process, we saw millions of pounds being transferred overnight from Labour local authorities to Tory local authorities. In my authority, that involved a £10 million cut overnigh—within 24 hours, it had lost £10 million. That led to cuts in basic services, and has meant that, for the past few years, we have had to increase our council tax rates at well above the rate of inflation. It was Robin Hood in reverse: the system took money from the poorest communities and gave it to the richest members of our society.
The system transferred huge amounts of money from Labour authorities to Tory councils, and cut millions of pounds from the budgets of Labour authorities. It introduced a Tory tax on poverty and meant that many local authorities such as mine had to cut their budgets for vital services such as youth clubs, leisure centres, street lighting, roads and parks. Those services are crucial to my community.
I want to talk about the winners and losers. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister would have major problems if he transferred large amounts of money from one local authority to another. Because of the ineffectiveness of the Opposition, many of those areas are now controlled by Labour councils and I understand the political problems that would arise. The councils would be faced with the double whammy—as my local authority has been—of having to increase council taxes at the same time as cutting public services. That is a difficult task. I am pleased that the Government have not done what the Conservatives did, and will instead introduce a cushioning mechanism to ensure that budgets are not cut overnight as they were before. We shall take no lessons from the Opposition about how any changes should be introduced.
Many hon. Members—even Labour Members—would like to see only minimal change. They argue that, whatever change we make, we lose friends, and that that

455
is not worth doing politically. I would like to make it clear that I and other SIGOMA Members who represent many of the heartland areas believe that that is unacceptable. We want a fair and transparent system that allocates resources on the basis of need. There is consensus that we need to look at what base services should be provided and how much those services should cost. We then need to determine how we allocate extra resources when it can be demonstrated that there is a real need for them.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made the point that, unfortunately, at present, many of the deprivation factors are not transparent. We do not know why a particular resource is allocated in the way it is; it is not based on any real cost and does not relate to the services that are provided in an area. In many cases, some of those resources are being used to undercut the council tax.
Mr. Reed: Does my hon. Friend accept that people in Leicestershire, which already has the worst-funded education authority, will look at the four options and see that they take us backwards? We would see further cuts under each of them. It is difficult to explain need as a concept, when people see that they would be worse off in cash terms not only now, but under the formulae that are being proposed.
Mr. Watts: I understand my hon. Friend's problem. I would not support some of the options that have been put forward by the Government; there are so me real difficulties there. There is a need for more transparency in the system. The Government should set up an independent review body to consider all the different factors relating to the need for local councils to spend extra resources.
Mr. Burnett: There is a paper, to which I have already referred—Professor McLean's study—that makes it quite clear that the south-west is very seriously disadvantaged.
Mr. Watts: With respect, there are a number of reports knocking around, all arguing in favour of the different systems that the Members who commissioned those reports want to promote. I would not accept that that is the right one, but I would accept the need for a review to consider which factors determine the need for local authorities to spend more than the average amount. It should also consider the linkage between those factors. We have not yet talked today about the weighting that is given to each of the deprivation factors. For example, in relation to the ethnicity factor, £448 million—I think—is distributed to 12 per cent. of deprived children. That may be right, but in some cases it is not allocated according to need, and there seems to be no logical reason for that money being transferred to those children rather than to other local authorities with equal levels of deprivation, whose children are underperforming in schools, but which have no, chance of getting the level of resources that other areas receive. It is important to have a transparent system and that funding can be linked to the need to spend.
456
Let us consider some of the other deprivation factors. There are three areas in Great Britain that have objective 1 status—Cornwall, Merseyside and South Yorkshire—yet, ironically, each of those local authorities is disadvantaged by the system. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system in which Europe can allocate to areas massive resources that are not matched by the allocations for services by the Government. That is one of the reasons why we need a review.
I am not arguing that there should be no change this time. If we accept that there should be no change to the present system, that would mean that my local authority and many others—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Gregory Barker.
3.27 pm
Gregory Barker: At the outset of the debate, the Government insisted that the touchstone for their proposals for the reform of local government finance was, as they stated in their White Paper, to create a mechanism that would be
"simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangement for SSAs."
Few could dissent from such a sensible and reasonable ambition. Unfortunately, however, the practical effect on my county of East Sussex could not be further from their stated goal. Instead of simplicity, the proposed new formula offers complexity; instead of stability, it offers uncertainty; instead of creating a system that is robust, it will create a regime that is open to challenge and acrimony; and instead of fairness, it will create division and inequality.
The reality of the proposals is that the new formula would rob East Sussex of £4.1 million on a best-case scenario, and on a worst-case scenario the county council would lose £43 million. In a letter to all East Sussex Members of Parliament, the county chief executive described the proposals as "damaging and drastic". It is, therefore, rather a shame that neither the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) nor the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) is here this afternoon to fight the county's corner.
The negative effects of this reform will be particularly bizarre, given the Government's focus on creating a fairer system, and particularly perverse when we bear in mind that East Sussex is the poorest of the 34 English shire counties. Gross domestic product per head is, at just £7,847 a year, comparable to that of Tyne and Wear and Middlesbrough, which—unsurprisingly, and perhaps rightly—are net beneficiaries under these reform proposals. In April 2000, average full-time weekly earnings in East Sussex were £377.40—more than 10 per cent. lower than the average for Great Britain and 15 per cent. lower than the south-east regional average. Yet despite these low incomes, the property market in East Sussex remains in the orbit of outer London's. So although the average wage in East Sussex may compare unfavourably with that for London, its house prices are three times higher than those in the north-east.
East Sussex also has much higher levels of deprivation than any other shire county. With 25.7 per cent. of its population being over the age of retirement, it has the

457
second highest proportion of elderly people of any English county. Elderly people are predominantly dependent on fixed incomes, and it is they who feel the council tax increase most keenly. For many of my elderly constituents, the council tax is the largest single item in their household budget.
I have already mentioned that East Sussex stands to lose up to £43 million. That is the worst-case scenario, but let us consider the mid-point. Even a loss of £26 million would be equivalent to a 23 per cent. tax rise, or the loss of 900 teachers across the county. As a proportion of our current funding, ours stands to be the worst affected county council in the country. Indeed, even taking into account all 148 principal local authorities in England—county councils, metropolitan councils and unitary councils—we are still the second worst affected.
The loss of £26 million may sound paltry in comparison with a Government budget of £418 billion for this year, but it would eat up more than 80 per cent. of the entire road maintenance budget for a county that already suffers from the worst transport links in the south-east. Such a loss is equivalent to the cost of nearly 1,000 teachers, out of a total county teacher headcount of 3,700. Put another way, that loss is more than the budget of all the primary schools, secondary schools and special needs schools in my constituency. It would wipe out entirely the county's budget for both residential and nursing home care for the elderly. Of the 2,395 places currently provided for the elderly, all would have to go, and further savings would still have to be made. A figure of £26 million is more than three times the total budget for our entire library service, which is already facing significant pressure.
Given that it is the worst affected county council in the country, it is no surprise that East Sussex is not seeking to endorse any of the Government's proposals. However, there are three areas, accounting for 90 per cent. of its funding, that are of particular concern: education, area cost adjustment and resource equalisation. I do not have time to discuss them in detail, but I ask the Minister to look at the county's submissions to him. I cannot believe that a better and more equitable solution cannot be found to the problem with which the Minister is wrestling.
It is not just the county council and the essential public services that it provides that stand to lose out through these reforms. The effect of these changes on Sussex police could be catastrophic, involving the potential loss of up to £70 million, or 9 per cent. of its total funding, in a single year. Ministers have said that the changes may be achieved by effectively freezing grant at its current level, but the consequence of that to Sussex police would be substantial. It would mean a steady reduction in levels of service, or a massive increase in council tax.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gregory Barker: No, I am afraid that I do not have the time. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. [Interruption.] He has only just entered the Chamber and has not been here for the debate.
458
Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary like to talk tough on crime. How can they possibly square their tabloid rhetoric—
Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gregory Barker: No, I am afraid I will not.
Mr. Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it proper for an hon. Member to name another hon. Member and then refuse to allow him to intervene? The hon. Gentleman selectively named Members and criticised them for their non-attendance, failing to note that there are Conservative Members who are not present, but who have not been similarly criticised.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The conduct of Members in their speeches is entirely a matter for them. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Gregory Barker: What puzzles me is that the Government are not totally blind to the problems in East Sussex. We have a special taskforce—on which I sit, along with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—because our county contains some of the most deprived wards. The Government have recognised that fact, and I am grateful for that, but it makes no sense then to cut away the legs of the county council, which is the essential provider of transport and education.
I implore the Minister, who I am sure is setting out to be fair, to look again at the practical effect that the proposal will have on East Sussex. It cannot be right and it cannot be fair—please, please look again at the treatment of East Sussex.
3.35 pm
Mr. Frank Field: When we go into the next election, we will reflect on two entire periods of Labour government. Although Governments have to do many things, there are few opportunities and initiatives that they can seize to make a real difference to the country in which we live—particularly if we are interested in making it more equal and fairer. The reason why so many Members—particularly those on the Labour Benches—wish to catch your eye in today's debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that they realise that we have reached one of those points when the Government have within their grasp the opportunity to make a real difference to the life chances of many of our constituents.
I therefore thought it almost eccentric of the right hon. M ember for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to say that he would survey the Olympian heights, rather than indulge in the foothills of the interests that most of us will follow. Indeed, no sooner had he made that comment than, quite properly, he was making the best case that he could for his own constituency. So although I may not mention Birkenhead in my speech, I will, quite properly, represent the interests of my constituents to the best of my abilities.
In addition to the presentation made by other northern Members for the SIGOMA members—I know that the Government have looked at the document, and that they realise how robust the analysis is—I wish to

459
develop four themes. First, given that, this time, the Government are trying to make a fairer settlement, I ask them to look at the total budget at their disposal. It is limited, and we cannot expect Governments to keep pushing up the taxpayer's contribution. Members have spoken of "the Government's money", but the Government have no money—it is our constituents' money that we are talking about.
Once the size of the taxpayer's contribution to local authorities has been decided, I beg the Government to reconsider the amount that they pay out generally, and the amount that they keep back, to make good the unfairnesses in the system. I do not believe that we have got that total balance right. We should not be fighting one another, saying, "It is unfair that they get additional resources, because we have different circumstances that should be met." We have an opportunity to explain why our own local authorities may be unique in some instances, and hopefully to make that plea sufficiently effectively to persuade the Government to follow through with additional funds.
On the formula for compensating for inequalities and disadvantage, my first plea to Ministers is to consider whether they have got the balance right between the weight given to deprivation and to race. It is clear that local authorities with many immigrants, or with many first or second-generation black Britons, face costs over and above those incurred by the richer areas that have not had the advantage of receiving new arrivals to this country. My plea concerns whether the weighting for that is right when compared with that given to deprivation. I represent a constituency that contains the poorest area in the country. I doubt whether I have seen six black faces in my constituency since being elected. Examination of the way in which the formula operates shows that our budgets are far lower than those for areas that suffer equally from deprivation but are compensated both on race and deprivation. I am not arguing that the race element should be taken out of the formula, but that the deprivation weighting is wrong.
I also make a plea about how we calculate the deprivation index. I am pleased that the Government are moving towards a wider spread of benefits to work out whether they can devise a more sensitive way of measuring poverty. While it is true that most people on income-related benefits are genuine, some are not. I make a plea to the Government: if they cannot do so now, I ask them to consider later in the cycle the weighting of health as well as income deprivation in the overall deprivation index. People do not die early or have low birth-weight babies so that they can get on to tables to show that they live in an area of extreme deprivation. Health is a far more accurate way of measuring whether areas are poor than income figures alone.
My next plea is about the area cost adjustment, although I am not pleading for it to be abolished. Clearly, there are differences in costs for different local authorities. My plea is that the area cost adjustment should be based on reality, rather than on fiction. The Government ought to look at the excellent work of the Coventry authority, which shows that, for many authorities, a substantial part of the area cost adjustment goes not on services but on reducing the
460
council tax. That is not a tenable position. By all means there should be an area cost adjustment, but it should be based on reality.
The third area on which I shall touch is the additional costs suffered by areas with declining populations. There is a myth among some Members that it is an advantage to represent an area from which people are leaving, since at least costs fall in proportion to the numbers of those leaving. Those of us who represent such areas will know a different story. Not only is the infrastructure of those areas older, more decrepit and more decayed—therefore requiring greater investment and replacement—but many of the people who are leaving are the bushy-tailed ones; the people with abilities who have to go elsewhere to look for jobs.
The areas from which people are leaving are areas with higher dependency ratios; they have people who are dependent not in any wrong sense, but in a dignified sense. They have grown old and need looking after. They cannot always follow their offspring to areas of economic advantage. Far from our costs falling, they rise disproportionately My plea, adding to the overall case made by SIGOMA, relates to how we fine-tune the formulas that have been put forward.
I want to end with a note of thanks. The Government have opened up the debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
3.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Isle of Wight, which I am proud to represent, has much to be proud of. Vectians are robustly independent and provide a loyal and hard-working work force. However, we suffer, as do many constituencies, from relatively high and seasonal unemployment. Our gross domestic product is creeping above 75 per cent. of the national average. Some 25 per cent. of jobs are in tourism and 40 per cent. are dependent upon it. There are a huge number of small businesses that defy the classic small and medium-sized enterprise definition because a SME nationally is large in Isle of Wight terms. Some 26 per cent. of the population are pensioners who live on fixed or declining incomes.
The economy is looking up. Despite a recent halving of jobs at Westland, there are new jobs and new contracts at AMS, SP Systems, NEG Micon and GBR Challenge, which builds the United Kingdom's official entry for the Americas Cup, which is taking place now. I congratulate GBR Challenge on how well it is doing.
My constituents and local authority are greatly concerned at the Government's review of local government funding, because the proposals, in the worst-case scenario, will lead to a loss of 10 per cent. of Government grant, which is equivalent to a 30 per cent. rise in council tax. To a band D council tax payer, that would put an extra £366 a year on top of what they pay normally. Such an increase is unaffordable to many residents, whether or not it is dampened in the short term by floors or ceilings. The council has said that such a proposal would lead to impossible cuts in services.
There are two important issues that I would like to raise today. The first is the methodology for calculating the area cost adjustment and the second is my heartfelt wish that the Government would recognise the essential additional costs of providing services on an island.

461
The Isle of Wight is concerned that the data used for the area cost adjustment are not valid for the size of population of the island. At present we are aggregated with Hampshire to produce a robust enough earnings sample but, of course, Hampshire is a wealthy area and the Isle of Wight is a less wealthy area. The small size of the sample produces greater opportunity for error. This is not the basis of a fair distribution of grant or a basis that can be justified to my constituents.
On the island, we have a relatively low-skilled work force. That means that we need to recruit from a wider area than the island for many occupations. When we recruit one employee to the council, we often have a difficulty, in that they have to move and their spouse or partner can then be put out of a job, as we do not necessarily have two equivalent jobs available on the island or within easy travelling distance. We need the area cost adjustment to be calculated on a fair statistical basis and not built up from a hand-sized sample that is sub-divided, further reduced, weighted and reworked, as happens at present.
On the costs of providing council services on an island, the Minister will know that the Elliot review in 1996—the local government finance review of the area cost adjustment by Professor Elliot—recommended that a study be undertaken into the differences in non-labour costs affecting two councils only, those being the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly. Such a study was recently undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers and has been sent to the Minister's officials. It evaluates the costs solely attributable to separation by sea at £4.2 million, or almost 4 per cent. of the council's budget.
The report's terms of reference were to examine how the Isle of Wight council's costs of service provision were affected by severance by sea and to analyse and quantify the additional costs incurred. When the Minister sees the report, I am sure he will agree that it is robust and does not exaggerate. I have been through the report with a fine-toothed comb and it does not over-egg the pudding or exaggerate the case. Its robustness may be measured by the fact that it refers to a reduction in the estimated cost of severance by sea from £5.6 million in an earlier report in 1996 to £4.2 million today.
PricewaterhouseCoopers excluded many factors that result in higher costs but are not directly and wholly attributable to severance by sea, such as the cost of discretionary services; diseconomies of scale—because the island is a small authority—costs that arise from demographic factors such as the high population of elderly people; the costs of supporting or maintaining the economy of the island; and costs that are attributable to the physical geography of the island, such as the cost of coastal protection.
Even that robust report and its robust definitions came up with additional costs of £580,000 a year for special education, £827,000 a year for fire services, £400,000 a year for waste management, £655,000 a year for construction and £1.2 million a year for social services residential care.
I shall deal with one or two of those areas in more detail. In social services, the council pays for 1,750 residential care placements a year—not many for a large council, but quite a lot for a small one—and 350 nursing home places. The council must keep enough nursing and
462
residential care homes in business to ensure that places are available on the island. It is unacceptable to place elderly people on the mainland, because a journey by public transport from Ventnor to Basingstoke to visit an elderly person, or anyone else, would cost £27 for the round trip and take most of the day. PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that prices were higher because of less competition—it compared the island with Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton—with additional costs to the tune of £1.24 million.
We use residential places for 40 children with special educational needs, for services that it is not cost-effective to provide on the island. Some non-residential places are available in south Hampshire, but the additional time and cost of perhaps accompanied travel must also be taken into account. Such places sometimes cannot be taken up because of the disruption that weather conditions cause to travel. An additional £580,000 annual cost is incurred providing those residential places.
The fact that islands face additional costs has been recognised and reflected in grant systems in this country and elsewhere. The Scottish special island needs allowance is one example and the Danish grant distribution system is another—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
3.51 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: In one sense, I have waited 15 years for this debate, and I nearly missed it because I was dragged out to maintain the quorum in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Luckily, I have been able to return. The first Standing Committee on which I served dealt with the Local Government Finance Act 1989, which is the measure that got us into the situation we face today. It has caused the massive problems to which we need to respond. It might have been better if we had moved more quickly, so that fresh legislation could be put in place, but I am glad that we are now tackling the issue.
The 1989 Act introduced the poll tax, but that is the only element that has really changed since. The poll tax became the council tax, but that was only a minor shift in the Act's functioning and operation. It was, and still is, a flawed, fiddled funding formula that has created massive difficulties in many parts of the country. We need to adjust it to a more reasonable approach, but some councils have been granted moneys that they have spent and we cannot just automatically transfer funds from one area to another. Serious efforts have to be made to tackle the massive problems.
Since 1997, the Labour Government have taken several steps. They have increased the total percentage of revenue support, so that areas that were deprived have received money from the pot. Formula adjustments have been made, but some of those adjustments have been upwards and some have been downwards, resulting in great confusion. Some money has come from other sources to assist areas badly done to, such as the range of grants provided by the Department for Education and Skills for areas in greater need. Those have helped to adjust the picture slightly.

463
The overall picture can be hard to understand fully. If moneys come in from sources other than SSA provision, the Government should undertake research to show who gets what. That information is important to help us understand where we are going.
The consultation paper mentions top-up provisions. We must ensure that top-ups for some do not become take-offs for others. In one sense, any top-up in one area will be a take-off in another area, because top-ups will come from the general amounts available. However, in some cases under the present legislation, top-ups have been deliberately linked with take-offs. The enhanced population figure, which especially affects district council figures, creates problems in many areas.
In North-East Derbyshire, 4.8 per cent. of the SSA is lost because of that figure. People have moved out to work in Sheffield and other areas, or are only day visitors to the area for entertainment and other purposes. There is nothing wrong with some money being moved to cater for that, but the weighting given to the various factors needs to be revised. In practice, more than 4.8 per cent. of the SSA is lost, because the enhanced population figure—or reduced population, as it is in North-East Derbyshire—is used to calculate other factors, leading to further losses.
Under the EPCS provisions in option EPC3, North-East Derbyshire would gain a £1.7 million increase. It is difficult to understand all the provisions in the document, because although it tells us what factors were considered in drawing up the options, it does not tell us what weighting is given to them. We cannot calculate for ourselves the effect of the changes. It would be helpful if we knew what weight has been attached to what factor, because we could then detect any strange anomalies in the provisions.
Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Barnes: I shall carry on for the moment, but I may give way later if I have time.
Another element that I wish to stress is the area cost adjustment. It accounted for 1.8 per cent. of SSA in 1989–90, but now accounts for 4 per cent. That shows the excessive weighting given to the ACA, which needs to be taken seriously into account. If it is intended that no one area should lose in cash terms, that will seriously limit the gains that other areas should make.
We need to change council tax banding. The argument has already been made for extra bands at the lower and top ends of the scale. Extra bands at the top end would allow more money to be raised locally through taxation, and that could be taken into account when considering allocation of funds under the ACA. The value of properties at the top of the bottom band is eight times lower than that of properties at the bottom of the top band, but the taxation figure is only three times lower. That should be changed, as what was known as the Mates amendment sought to change the same problem with regard to the poll tax. Only a limited change has been made so far.
464
Fundamental review is necessary, and quickly. It would have been helpful to examine many other areas, such as education and police funding, but time has caught up with me. I was allowed only half a minute for every one of those 15 years.
3.59 pm
Mr. James Clappison: In the brief time available to me, I shall endeavour to correct the misapprehension that some people have about Hertfordshire, and about my constituency in particular. Labour Members should know that, although my constituency and Hertfordshire as a whole contain some areas that are affluent by national standards, they also contain poor areas. At least four wards in my constituency qualify for funding from the single regeneration budget. People there receive local government services as well, and they pay taxes. My fear is that the overall effect of the proposals for them and for my other constituents will either be a reduction in services for the same level of funding, or a very big increase in council tax bills.
Ministers have condemned the existing SSA system for failing to deliver a standard of level of service for a standard tax. However, from the outset it is clear that the funding to be made available for Hertfordshire will not provide a standard level of service—not least as far as the police are concerned.
The police service is one of the most vital social services. The effect of the proposals on policing in Hertfordshire is clear cut and stark. Hertfordshire loses out significantly under each of the five options set out for consultation.
In response to the formula grant distribution paper, the chairman of the Hertfordshire police authority wrote to Ministers to express his concern at
"the damaging effect that the proposals in the Formula Grant Distribution Paper will have on policing in Hertfordshire. In the worst case, Hertfordshire could lose some £8.8 million, or 7.2 per cent. of funding, which is equivalent to over 300 Police Officers. This would have a dramatic impact on our ability to meet local and national policing priorities."
My constituents share that concern about the results of the proposed formula. They emphatically do not believe that law and order problems deserve lower priority, in Hertfordshire, than elsewhere. My constituents who live in some of the areas that I described are the ones most strongly in favour of having more, rather than fewer, bobbies on the beat, and of achieving faster police reaction times in emergencies. They have full confidence in the Hertfordshire force, but they are increasingly aware of the recruitment problems that the force is experiencing, given that the neighbouring Metropolitan police force can offer a substantially higher allowance to recruits.
Moreover, police numbers in Hertfordshire have fallen since the last general election. They have barely risen since 1997, even though the Hertfordshire force has assumed responsibility for a much larger area. The last thing my constituents want is a reduction in the resources available to the police in Hertfordshire.
The same picture applies to other vital public services. Some hon. Members have described an overall shift of resources away from the south-east and counties such as Hertfordshire, and they are right to do so.

465
Ministers respond by saying that there will be a system of floors and ceilings, but the only guarantee given so far is that no authority will face a cut in grant. Account must be taken of the pressures of inflation and of the pay pressures that will be inevitable. The latter will include the effects of the increase in local authority employers' national insurance contributions. We shall wait and see whether the floor will be higher than has been set out, but the Hertfordshire local authority fears that if it is anything like what it forecasts residents will face a substantial council tax increase.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) mentioned previous systems of local taxation. I well remember what was said about the implications of having floors and ceilings when the community charge was introduced. I was a parliamentary candidate in a by-election in the part of the world that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) represents at the time when the poll tax was introduced. I tried to argue that the effects of the poll tax would be mitigated by the provision of a floor. If Ministers and their parliamentary election candidates want to go down that road, I wish them more luck than I enjoyed on Merseyside.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) took us back to 1734 for an example of the outcry that he thinks could arise as a result of the proposals, and he mentioned the excise tax. I hesitate to say so, but that tax was introduced by Sir Robert Walpole, one of the hon. Gentleman's spiritual predecessors. It was opposed by the Tories of the time, but the example shows what local outcry could go up as a result of local taxation changes. In its own way, this set of proposals could produce a similar outcry when its implications are realised by people in the worst affected counties.
One of those counties is Hertfordshire. A very substantial shift in resources is taking place. My constituents, and others, are faced with the prospect either of reduced services or of a considerable increase in council tax bills to provide a standard level of service. I warn Ministers that those people will be very interested in Ministers' view of the proposals. They will want to see how Ministers respond to the considered and proper concerns expressed by the Hertfordshire local authorities, including Hertfordshire county council.
4.5 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am from London. Although meetings of London Labour MPs might as well begin with a few rousing chants of the Millwall football supporters' chorus "Everybody hates us and we don't care". I promise the House that we do care. It is very important that there is some mutual understanding of the pressures facing local authorities in different parts of the country. I have always had huge sympathy for those local authorities in the north and elsewhere that faced great pressure in trying to deal with the devastating economic collapse as a consequence of Conservative policy. Those authorities have had to deal also with the effects of falling populations. All I and my colleagues in London ask is that there is a similar degree of recognition of the pressures and demands that face us.
466
I do not believe that the formula as currently structured gives us what we are looking for, which is a closer reflection in Government grant allocations of the need to spend. It is very hard to see how the need to spend is reflected in the options under consideration, essentially in the formula's personal social services and environmental services block. The reasons for that are many and diverse, but they are rooted in the impact of deprivation.
I hope that the House will accept certain facts. London has the highest level of child poverty in Britain, and the reduction in child poverty that has taken place in London is smaller than in any other region. More households are without work in London than in any other region. A quarter of the country's problem drug users are in London, and two thirds of all the homeless people in the country are concentrated in London. Local authorities in the city support 40,000 destitute asylum seekers. Twice as many children in inner London are eligible for free school dinners as in any other area of the country. My constituency of Regent's Park and Kensington, North sounds like an elysian paradise, but it has the seventh highest eligibility for free school dinners in the country. Those levels of deprivation need to be understood in the formula, and I hope that they gain some degree of recognition among colleagues in the House.
It is also extremely important that the complex pressures of ethnicity and deprivation, and their interaction, are understood My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke about that balance. I accept that ethnicity is not necessarily and always a proxy for disadvantage, but the complex ethnicity now appearing in London and elsewhere—including Slough—is completely different from the simple presence of an ethnic minority population. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that. There are 300 languages spoken in London's schools. That creates a demand for spending and support that is not recognised by deprivation indicators in general.
I turn now to personal social services. The education formula gives considerable recognition to the costs of meeting ethnicity, but that requirement is not always properly reflected in other service areas. Personal social services in London are overstretched precisely because they have to deal with 300 different languages, and with the related issue of high turnover and mobility. High turnover is a huge pressure on schools. In many primary schools in London, no pupil at key stage 2 was in the school for key stage 1, but high turnover also places huge demands and pressures on personal social services. London also has twice the rate of mental health admissions of other parts of the country. Many of these factors are related.
London is changing at a rate probably not seen by any western city in the past century. We are now absorbing 100,000 international migrants a year. Although that is exciting, challenging and probably necessary, it places a demand on all our health and local authority services. If we do not meet that demand properly, there will be serious consequences. Yet under the proposed formula, London councils, which spend £356 million above their standard spending assessment at present, could lose between £38 million and £140 million. I do not see that that is in any way a reflection of the need to spend. That is why I am arguing, as my colleagues would have done

467
if we had had more time, for London authorities to get a fair deal. I also want a fair deal for other communities. These are the ways in which I believe the Government could provide that.
Andrew Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recognise that almost all Labour Members accept that she should get a fair deal, but we are concerned that an awful lot of people in London still pay a lot less in council tax than people in other parts of the country?
Ms Buck: I accept that there are disparities which have historical roots, and that there is a need to change them. I am most concerned about the fact that the majority of London councils are Labour controlled and levy a high council tax. If we allow for the fact that there are fewer band A and B properties in London than anywhere else, our council tax levels are higher than elsewhere.
Mr. David Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way? It is on this point.
Ms Buck: I cannot give way any more; only two London Members have been called to speak from the Labour Benches, and I am sure that other people will have an opportunity to make their point.
We in London are asking for a fair deal; the floor that many authorities are likely to be on should be set at a level that ensures that services are protected. Secondly, we want all the options in the personal social services proposals to be reconsidered. I believe them to be technically deficient—they were designed to reflect higher levels of need yet, perversely, they seem to do the opposite. We do not believe that any of the options in the personal social services formulae are reasonable.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that the environmental services proposals reflect London's needs. Last year, more abandoned cars were removed in Merton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), than in the whole of Manchester. That is the scale of the environmental pressure in London. It should also be recognised that in the streets of the west end there are more visitors at 3 o'clock in the morning than at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, yet there is no specific weighting for this huge number of night-time visitors and the pressure that they put on services. We need an option in the environmental services block that allows us to provide a quality environment right across London. That effectively means the fourth option in the environmental services block, but weighted for visitors and commuters.
We also need the Government to recognise the impact of high population turnover and mobility, particularly on social services and education. It is correlated largely, but not entirely, with ethnicity. We need local education services to be funded on the basis of the school, not the resident, population. They are entirely different in London, although not necessarily in other parts of the country.
In my view, we need to be wary about the working families tax credit—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
4.13 pm
Matthew Green: I welcome this review, because we have waited a long time in Shropshire. During the past decade we saw services slashed year on year and large council tax rises as a result of the changes that the Conservative Government made to local government finance. As has already been mentioned, we are in with the f40 group and with the northern alliance. I pay tribute to both campaigns.
I want to be constructive in my approach to the problems. Resource equalisation is the almost invisible problem; I do not think that its implications have always been thought out fully. All the proposals equalisation would create quite perverse outcomes as they would take resources away from low-spending authorities with relatively buoyant local tax bases—largely shire counties—and direct them towards traditionally overspending authorities in areas of lower council tax value. The proposal would remove grant funding from shire areas that are already funding services above SSA to London authorities that are spending below SSA. The result would be to create massive turbulence in the funding of local government services. The revised funding formula already provides a system of resource equalisation. There should be no changes to the current methodology of resource equalisation.
The problems with resource equalisation are that the options are based on past spending patterns which the Government have stated that they wish to move away from as a matter of principle. High spending is rewarded, taking no account of policy decisions underlying such spending or the quality of service provided. The provision for deprivation in urban areas, already addressed in the needs-based formula, are double-counted. No detailed research has been undertaken into the case for any of the options.
If the Government accept higher needs to spend, they should make their own contribution and not leave council tax payers to foot the bill. The redistribution effect is anomalous and cannot easily be justified when compared with the pattern of existing budget and SSA variations.
We have heard a fair amount about the area cost adjustment, in the past decade, which grew from £500 million to around £2 billion. The increase has been twice that in local government funding as a whole. That has meant that in the past decade, money has been moving away from the areas outside the area cost adjustment.
Sparsity has also been mentioned. It has been recognised in the schools blocks for primary and for the local education authority block for transport. However, it has not been recognised for early years settings, the private, voluntary and LEA-maintained settings that are often on an even more geographically spread basis than primary schools. It has not been recognised for secondary schools nor for the additional costs of providing support services such as special educational needs specialist services or information and communications technology networks over sparsely populated areas.
Department for Education and Skills officials went on record at the Local Government Association education finance conference to say that they had been given no evidence of a need for sparsity beyond the levels in the

469
consultation model. However, I know that work done separately by Professor Ros Levacic and Rita Hale Consultants has come to different conclusions. A copy of the Institute of Education, University of London research outlining many of these matters was forwarded to officials at the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister during the consultation period.
The work of Professor Ros Levacic and Antonia Simon highlights a number of recommendations. For example, SSA for sparsity in the schools blocks should be revised upwards to ensure that LEAs are adequately compensated for the additional costs of small schools owing to sparsity. The increase required in the SSA is in the region of £74.8 million in this year's costs. LEAs should be funded for the greater costs of small secondary schools due to sparsity as well as the primary sub-block.
The formula proposed by the education funding strategy group for funding home to school transport should be reviewed to ensure that it correctly reflects the relationship between sparsity and expenditure on school transport.
I wish to add my voice to the calls for the inclusion of working families tax credit in the arrangements for recognising deprivation. Incorporating working families tax credit recognises the effect that low pay within the family can have on education needs. Ignoring working families tax credit excludes recognition of needs in low-income economy areas. Introducing working families tax credit would reduce the economy-related volatility in the distribution of deprivation funding.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does my hon. Friend realise that the working families tax credit is not taken up in London anywhere near as much as it could be compared with other regions? If WFTC is to be included, it should be on the basis of eligibility and not take-up.
Matthew Green: I agree. That is a fair point. The key is that real deprivation must be recognised—including people with low pay and with no pay. We need to find a proper way to recognise that.
The roads block has not been mentioned. The formula is being based on previous spend on roads. This has been raised in the seminars and I realise that Ministers have rightly said that they have struggled to find another formula that works properly for roads. I would like some more to be work done on the subject, however. In Shropshire and in many other rural counties in the past decade, county councils have rightly preserved their education and social services spending, but cut their roads spending. They did so because one can always repair a road later but one cannot repair a child's education or the results of a lack of care by social services.
If road spending is to be based on that of previous years, those areas in which such spending has suffered in the past and which have a huge backlog of repairs will not receive fair funding to maintain their road network.
4.21 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: I recognise that there is a perception that local authorities in the south enjoy an unfair advantage over those north
470
of Watford. That is not a universal truth, however, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be careful to ensure that in the process of rectifying perceived injustices he does not, even unintentionally, produce new ones.
I note, for instance, that one of the greatest perceived injustices has been the treatment of Wandsworth and Westminster. They are hardly touched by this review, so it has almost failed at the first fence if one uses that marker. There are authorities in the south-east where any external impression of prosperity masks areas of considerable deprivation, with consequent extra demand on council services, but which are set in a high-cost area. My own unitary authority, Brighton and Hove, is just such a case. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) wanted some justification for the existing area cost adjustment. My authority will give him that. I can show him the devastating effect that withdrawing such support as the authority has got under the formula would have.
I am not simply pleading for Brighton and Hove to be a special case, or having a good whinge as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) might say. If I did not have a bit of a whinge, however, I would be failing my constituents. My authority strikingly illustrates the problems that will also apply to a greater or lesser extent to some other authorities in the south-east.
Ms Julia Drown: This issue does not affect the south-east alone. As my hon. Friend will know, in Swindon, which is the worst-funded unitary authority and one of the four of the f40 group that fails to gain on any of the education funding formulas, high costs are a real issue. That area suffers similar deprivation problems to Brighton. Does my hon. Friend agree that the area cost adjustment formula needs to be changed so that the likes of Swindon are taken into account as well as Brighton?
Dr. Turner: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. I want us to come up with a just solution and I do not think that we have got there yet in the proposals that are out for consultation.
Brighton and Hove have some of the most deprived wards in the country—sufficiently so for two of them to have been selected as a pathfinder for the new deal for communities. There are 17 pathfinders in the country and only the most deprived areas have been selected. Of the rest of the wards, approximately two thirds are among the top 20 for deprivation. Those hon. Members who come to Brighton, look at the sea front and think, "This is great, I like it," might not like it if they lived in some of the more deprived parts of the city. They would see a very different side of Brighton and Hove there.
Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Turner: I cannot give way too often.
We also have extremely high housing costs in my area—some of the highest in the country, and among the fastest rising prices at present. In that respect, we are no different from most of London. Some of our key statistical indicators, such as the number of children in

471
care or on the at-risk register, could be superimposed on those for inner London boroughs. Our unemployment is 50 per cent. above the national average. We have grave difficulty in recruiting and retaining key workers in public services. For example, we have a 25 per cent. vacancy rate for social workers in child protection, which is a grave issue in Brighton as we have had some serious cases. That shortage is the last thing we want.
We have a general difficulty with recruiting to local government posts. Often, we get only one qualified applicant, if any. Some posts have to be readvertised. In common with the health service in the locality, the council has to spend more on recruitment and retention packages to get anyone. All those problems are a result of very high housing costs. A reasonably qualified and experienced teacher's salary will not finance the purchase of the cheapest one-bedroom flat in Brighton and Hove.
The council has been stuck for some time in a vicious circle of spending cuts and large council tax rises. Under the proposals as set out in the consultation paper, even allowing for the floor, Brighton and Hove will be dealt a devastating blow. It has some of the same characteristics as a London borough, but it is being treated much worse than the London boroughs under the options set out in the consultative document. When one reads the document that fact is glaring. We are listed next to Bristol and we always feel that we have a great deal in common with that city, but it is treated quite well and we are treated appallingly. There is thus a dramatic difference in the way in which two similar authorities are treated under the proposals.
Some of my hon. Friends have been highly amused when Conservative Members have pleaded poverty on behalf of East Sussex. I must tell my hon. Friends that, for once, those Conservative Members were right. I served my time on East Sussex county council as a Brighton member before local government reorganisation. I know the county well and I know its problems. There is much deprivation. It used to be a low-spending Tory-controlled authority, which has not helped it, as it started from a low base. Also, given the GDP per capita, the area would qualify for objective 1 status under European funding. That is another area that could be badly hit by the proposals because it already has some very under-supported services.
We are expecting an increase in the number of policemen in Sussex. The Home Secretary has promised that increase, but a 9 per cent. cut in funding for the Sussex police will clearly make that impossible. We suffer from the problem of being next door to the Metropolitan police who are poaching officers by offering them £5,000 a year extra and free travel. The Sussex police will not do well out of this proposal.
We are nowhere near getting this formula right. We must get a true picture of deprivation, but we must mix it with a real definition of the actual costs of providing a reasonable level of service in all authorities throughout the country. The proposals that are before us do not just need a little tweaking, they need rather a lot, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do that.
4.30 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a privilege to wind up on behalf of the Opposition in this highly important debate continued from 15 October. There have been about 27 speeches, in addition to the two or three on 15 October, which shows the widespread interest in this extremely important subject. There were probably as many people on the two days who did not manage to catch your eye because of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I must therefore protest to the Government that we should have had more time—in fact, a full day's debate—for these highly important proposals. As they cover 25 per cent. of all public spending, it is essential that we get them right.
The Government made the reform of local government spending a manifesto commitment in 1997. They have spent the last five years thinking hard about what to do and in July they came up with the big tome that we are discussing, yet they have given us and the general public only three months to consult on it, and two of those months were part of the summer recess when many people were on holiday. The Government have not given experts in the field or the general public much time to express their views on the subject, so I hope that Ministers will continue to receive representations sympathetically. I was especially touched by the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions had refused to discuss the matter with him. I hope that that will be put right.
The debate is important because only once every 10 years do we have the chance to effect changes to local government finance. The matter is highly complex. The present system covers 120 measures, many of which involve complicated maths, including regression analysis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) pointed out, if it is simple, it is not fair; and if it is fair, it is certainly not simple. Whatever Ministers say, the new system will not be simple.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that we should delay the whole matter for a further year, but I cannot agree. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post. I gather that he has been promoted to the transport brief, but I am sorry that we shall lose him on local government matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, the NAS/UWT believes that implementation should take place in the forthcoming financial year, and I have a great deal of sympathy with that view.
I cannot refer to all 27 speeches, but I shall take up some of the more significant points. The speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, was especially interesting His comments, like those of many of his hon. Friends, were almost universally critical of the Government's proposals. I was particularly impressed by his observation that there should be more discretion on local spending. We all say amen to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley made the same point: there should be less specific and general grant, less top-ups, less ring fencing and more discretion for local authorities to spend as they please. I wholly agreed with him.

473
We heard an erudite and articulate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, who made an interesting point about floors and ceilings, which amplified an intervention that I made on 15 October. Will the Minister give us a reassurance on that point? Will he guarantee that no authority will lose out in either cash terms or real terms in any of its expenditure blocks in this year's settlement under the new system compared with the present system? The consultation paper already gives that guarantee for education, but will the Minister extend it to all the other expenditure blocks? As the annual rate of local authority inflation, including pay settlements, is running at between 5 and 6 per cent., and I am asking the Minister for a real-terms guarantee in years one, two and three of the current rate of inflation of 2.5 per cent., perhaps he will be able to accede to my request.
The paper is highly complex. It covers all seven local authority expenditure blocks, each of which has between two and five options. It also deals with resource equalisation, fixed costs, sluggish costs and declining populations. We are dealing with a complicated subject, but my hon. Friends have made some telling points.
My right hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), referred to the real difficulties posed by changes in London, not the least of which is the large number of commuters and visitors who come into London every day.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made some perceptive remarks. He set out the fears of Opposition Members and of many people in local government that the proposals are a mechanism to transfer money from smaller, efficient and low-spending rural and shire counties to the profligate and less efficient northern and high-spending councils. He pointed out that as much as £80 million might be lost in Hampshire, which amounted to two teachers in every school.
My right hon. Friend also explained that if core funding is withdrawn by the Government, any increase will have to be borne by council tax payers. In my authority, Gloucestershire, the ratio of core funding to council tax is about three to one, so £3 has to be raised locally to make up for every £1 lost from central Government. My right hon. Friend pointed out that only a very imperfect system would rely on council tax increases, because property values do not necessarily reflect spending patterns, especially those of pensioners and people on fixed incomes. Such a system would act regressively on poorer and less advantaged groups in society. I hope that the Government will not take the line of forcing some local authorities to impose council tax increases that are greatly in excess of inflation. That would hit disadvantaged groups very hard indeed.
Judy Mallaber: The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility that money might be transferred to other parts of the country. I come from a rural coalfields area, which the Government want to help, and we cannot understand how some of the southern counties receive so much extra per pupil than our area? Can he explain
474
that? Does he agree that there should at least be a floor and that the lowest-funded authorities should reach that level?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady makes her points in her own way. I can only regret that she had no chance to speak in the debate. If her Government had provided more time for the debate, she might have had that chance. May I suggest that her points could be made in an Adjournment debate?
other Members spoke tellingly. I was especially struck by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I cannot discuss the contributions of every Member who has spoken about the f40 group, but I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the group. He has led an effective campaign, in which Gloucestershire was included. It would be wrong to introduce changes in this grant distribution formula that affect councils like Gloucestershire, which is likely to lose funding of as much as £135 per pupil, yet is already one of the lowest-spending authorities.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) who said that fairness delayed was fairness denied. He rightly pointed out that schools in Cambridgeshire already receive £270 less per pupil than those in neighbouring Hertfordshire.
The real joker in the pack was the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). I think he was issuing his new manifesto as putative Mayor of London. I always knew that old Labour was a gamble, but I had not realised that its supporters had a gambling policy and that they wanted to introduce municipal casinos. No doubt that will be part of the hon. Gentleman's manifesto, so the people of London can judge whether the proposal is a good one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made the perceptive point that his constituency has a particular problem owing to the high percentage of elderly people. Indeed, as I represent a constituency that has the third highest number of people aged over 85, I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. Personal social services will be especially affected in local authorities such as my hon. Friend's. Like other hon. Members, he pointed out that in his area health spending will also be affected, so the combined nutcracker effect of cuts in health and social services spending will be misery. There will be more bed blocking and more people waiting for treatment. Throughout the country, more people will suffer.
The new Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made an interesting contribution. She said that she has received representations saying that there should be no more police in Dorset because the people there could not afford the council tax increases. That is a sort of sideswipe at the Government, but, in my experience of elderly and vulnerable people, they will spend more if they feel that they can obtain more police and feel more secure in their own homes, so I am not sure whether I entirely agree with the Lady on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) made the telling point that his county council could be the worst affected in the country. He

475
gave some fairly horrendous figures—a wide band of between £4.1 million and £43 million—and said that that would particularly affect the police force in his constituency. I hope to return to the police if I have time, because that issue is of particular concern.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke very sensibly, as always, and made some telling points about the methodology used in the proposals. I should like to quote quickly the Rural Services Partnership's views on that because the methodology is very important, and I hope that it will be rigorous and soundly based when finally introduced. It says that
"relatively little independent research has been carried out into the factors that influence the need for or the cost of providing local government services."
It goes on:
"In addition, the RSP's technical case asserts that the work that has been carried out has been compressed into a short timescale and some of it appears to be lacking in rigour."
I hope that the Government will be able to attend to that. It concludes:
"All of this will result in a system, which is instable and could be subject to political interference in the future."
I have little doubt that it could be subject to political interference in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made the telling point that the island obviously has costs because of its geographical position. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that his local authority could lose 300 police officers, and he is not alone in the shire authorities. In particular, the proposals on the police are very worrying.
I think that I have covered the contributions of all my hon. Friends. There were telling contributions from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but I do not have time to deal with all of them.
I am concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley touched on this—that the Government have increasingly proscribed the way in which local authorities can spend their money with special and specific grants, top-ups and so on. There are also legal obligations as to the services that local authorities have to supply—for example, in education and personal social services. So if there is a shortage of money because of the Government's proposals, the areas of discretionary expenditure that remain—for example, highways—are likely to be particularly badly hit. That must be a real worry.
As I have said, there are seven blocks in the discretionary paper, and there are some worrying proposals. Most worrying of all is the resource equalisation proposal. As always, the devil is in the detail, and the resource equalisation proposals are right at the back in chapter 11. If hon. Members did not reach chapter 11 in this huge tome, they should look at the proposals in option RE2, which show that the shire counties and district councils could lose a staggering £328 million. Indeed, the south-east and south-west alone could lose a staggering £128 million.
It must be wrong that efficient low-spending councils' money is being redistributed, because of their tax base, to high-spending, often highly indebted, highly
476
inefficient, northern Labour councils. That cannot be fair and it cannot be right. Councils that have been prudent over the years should be allowed to provide a reasonable level of service.
The next particularly worrying block is that for the police, under which, for example, Devon stands to lose 200 police officers.
The third particularly worrying block is that for environmental, protective and cultural services. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea will be interested in the fact that one of the proposals—EPC3—does not allow for commuters and day visitors, so London would lose £272 million under that proposal. Under EPC4, the shires and districts would lose a staggering £259 million because the weighting for deprivation, commuters and visitors would be removed.
As my hon. Friends have said, this proposal is one of Labour's redistributive measures. It is unfair and unfounded, and the Labour party should take it back to the drawing board. When the people of this country realise that the Labour Government, with their tired brand, are delivering an unfair system, they will vote in the ballot box to remove the Government because of what they have done.
4.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): This has been a lively, interesting and detailed debate. There has not necessarily been the consensus that we usually achieve in the House, although I would not necessarily agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that this was a whingers' debate. That is not true; it was not a whingers' debate, and it has been well-mannered and well-argued in content.
Before I continue, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has asked me to apologise for the fact that he is unable to attend the debate to hear the winding-up speeches.
We are considering a very significant issue today—the formula grant review. We are talking about local authorities in England that currently receive grant via the SSA system. As many hon. Members have said, some 25 per cent. of public spending goes through local government, most of which comes from central Government, with the balance raised locally via council tax. For some time, the Government have been reviewing the fundamentals of how those resources are divided between authorities. Although it might be an obvious thing to say, we do not have limitless funds. A finite pot of grant is shared by reference to an authority's circumstances and to its ability to raise council tax.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) recognised in his contribution, three basic factors form the foundation of the system: the basic amount per head of population, an appropriate emphasis on the need to tackle deprivation and reflections of the variations in pay costs between areas. Of course there are other components.
Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend comment on two things? First, in relation

477
to deprivation, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report referred to unmet need as real need that should be addressed. Will that be given full weight in the Government's response? Secondly, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that the fact that there was no contribution today from the west midlands conurbation, which includes England's largest local authority, Birmingham, indicates not a lack of interest, but a lack of time. May I draw his attention to the letter that has been written on behalf of Birmingham MPs to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Leslie: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's contribution. I am certainly not taking the weight of contributions as a measure of how to make a judgment on this matter. There has been a long and extremely thorough consultation process.
Mr. Mark Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for commenting on the issue of how to adjust for variable costs in local government. Of the various formulae presented, surely the one that commends itself most obviously is that used in the national health service, which avoids the cliff edge, is already in place and is clearly a tried model used across the country?
Mr. Leslie: I shall come in a moment to issues in respect of area cost adjustments. I understand that there is a weight of differences of opinion. Today I want to underline the guarantee that we have been able to give so far about a no cuts arrangement in terms of authorities on a like for like basis for next year. Obviously, we wish to move further on that issue, but that is the state of play before we get into the details and the final decisions.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I challenge the Minister again to say whether it is cash for all seven blocks or, as the consultation paper says, in real terms for education? Can he confirm that it will be in real terms for education and all the other blocks? Will his cash guarantee apply for years one, two and three?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see when we come to the final decisions about the grant allocation. All I am saying is that at this particular time we can give that undertaking about no cash loss for any particular authority. Obviously, we hope to do more. The hon. Gentlemant seems to be making spending commitments on behalf of the Opposition. I welcome his conversion to a real terms commitment to growth for local government spending and I shall have to remember hat for a later date.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Leslie: I do not have much time. I should like to make some progress and then I may give way later.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested that it would be better to postpone the change in the system for a year or so, although on 15 October he said:
"We have waited in vain for five long years for a new formula to replace the current discredited one."
I am not sure that there is necessarily consistency in the Liberal Democrat arguments. I am glad that the hon. Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), for
478
South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) urged the Government to make progress in terms of implementing the results of the review. There is never a right time, but I think that we should make progress straight away.
Clearly, many hon. Members are concerned about deprivation, and rightly so. The factors reflecting deprivation need to be relevant in the particular services that are provided. They need to be relevant and applicable to all authorities. We need to avoid perverse incentives in the formula. For example, it would not make sense if we had a formula that rewarded school absenteeism. We need to reflect genuine need. Those are important issues. How much weight we give to those issues is of particular concern. My hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Turner), for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised important issues in respect of deprivation, as did the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) in terms of whether working families tax credit and income support come into the deprivation calculation.
Mr. Swire: The Minister referred to Devon county council's plea that working families tax credit be taken into account in an area that has a lot of low paid workers but is not too bad on unemployment. Will he give that his utmost consideration because it is a serious factor that will affect the outcome for Devon?
Mr. Leslie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall have to weigh up those factors in the process of reaching final decisions. A number of options look at incorporating working families tax credit into the calculations on deprivation.
A number of hon. Members raised the education allocations. Clearly, those are significant proportions of funding. The document for consultation had four cross-cutting blocks, including variables reflecting deprivation issues, additional educational needs, area cost adjustment and so on. The f40 group of authorities was well represented in the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), and many others. The Government will consider option 5 as submitted and the other suggestions. I understand the strength of feeling, but there is a need to balance the desire of f40 authorities for a high basic entitlement with the need adequately to tackle deprivation and educational under-achievement in certain areas.
Judy Mallaber: Will the Minister also consider a suggestion that I put in my submission but was unable to make today, which is that there is a floor, perhaps at the lower quartile level once the calculations have been done, so that the lowest funded education authorities do not fall below that level?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend helpfully moves the issue forward to floors and ceilings in general, and the guarantee that I mentioned earlier in terms of no cash cuts at this particular stage is relevant to her point. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea

479
(Mr. Portillo) questioned the guarantee. Of course we hope that we can do better than the commitment so far. Decisions on the levels of floors and ceilings are the next stage in the deliberations. We want to set those at realistic levels, taking into account the grant available and the range of outcomes for individual authorities. We hope that announcements will be made before early December—[Laughter.]
Sir Paul Beresford: I apologise for my levity. Does the guarantee apply to police authorities?
Mr. Leslie: No authority receiving grant will incur a cash loss. That is the guarantee that we have been able to give at this stage. Clearly, we hope to do better.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea—who has left in his taxi, unfortunately, although the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned him frequently, which was interesting and perhaps I will analyse that later—and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) also touched on the issue of the census. I understand the issue to which they refer, and, while we will use census information as the best available data, it will be covered by the floor guarantee that I mentioned.
Area cost adjustment is a big issue, which is very significant, and most Members accept that there are greater pay costs in different places, which is a difficult issue to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown argued that greater consideration needed to be given to area cost. My hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Pudsey and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), along with other hon. Members, were of a slightly different opinion. Whether area cost adjustment can reflect the true costs involved is an extremely important issue, and we need to make sure that we are as fair as we can be about such options.
Resource equalisation is another extremely technical issue, which is very difficult to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) all raised the issue. Basically, it is about taking account of an authority's ability to raise council tax when distributing the grant. The argument is whether it is fairer to take more account of an authority's relative council tax base. Again, I have listened carefully to the views expressed, and I hope that we will be able to take these matters into account.
Clearly, the grant distribution system is one of the most important issues affecting public services. Getting it right is absolutely vital. We have therefore taken great care to talk to local councillors, Members of Parliament and other local government representative bodies over recent months. Much of the work is extremely detailed and technical, and I would like to place on record my thanks for the efforts and energies put in to responding to the consultation process. In trying hard to secure the widest possible involvement of all stakeholders, we hope
480
that the eventual results prove more robust, reliable and authoritative. It has not always been possible to exploit every single avenue proposed, and we cannot promise that everyone will he ecstatic about the results. In my view, however, it is better to have approached the issue with an open mind, listening to concerns and basing decisions on the evidence before us, than to stick with the status quo or take the easy option of inaction and no change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) hit the nail on the head when he invited me to go to Bull's Head public house in his constituency to try to explain the formula—that might take an extra pint or two. In respect of the points made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, who urged greater transparency, those familiar with the intricacies of local government finance—they are few and far between—will have an instinctive desire for a simplification of the formula used to distribute grant. One of the reasons why we embarked on the review was to try to clear away the mass of complications and complexities that has tied up the system so much.
Mr. Mark Francois rose—
Richard Younger-Ross rose—
Mr. Leslie: We intend to simplify where we can, but if there are clear reasons why options need to be improved or made less crude, we will have to face up to those decisions. We do not want to oversimplify, but we do want to strike the right note to deliver confidence and understanding in the system.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Leslie: I am afraid that I do not have time.
Transparency must be our ultimate goal. If aspects of the formula can be seen as logical and rational, and based on clear reasons, that will be a major step forward.
Many former local government Ministers have participated in the debate this afternoon. At this moment, I feel a great deal of respect and affinity with what they endured during their tenure. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have met countless representatives, and we will try our best to strike the right balance in all these matters. What we see is a move forward from—and the demise of—the standard spending assessment. It failed because it tried to dictate centrally what local councils should be spending. That cannot be done by the Government. This Government want to invest more in local government services. Unlike the Conservatives, who cut council spending by 7 per cent. in real terms, we want to make sure that extra spending goes in. We have put in an extra 20 per cent. on top of inflation since we came to power, and a massive 5 per cent. real terms rise for the next financial year. Investing in local democracy and building quality public services is vital. We want a serious boost in services and a boost in investment. Giving councils a decent grant matters. That is the approach that we intend—
It being Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Asbestos
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
5 pm
The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): We have an opportunity in Government time, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition, to discuss important matters concerning health and safety. Three sets of regulations are relevant: the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999, the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1998, and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. All three sets of regulations amend existing legislation that was originally made in the 1980s, and which carried the full support of both sides of the House.
The Government are effectively doing two things. First, we are implementing a number of European directives, including the health element of the chemical agents directive that lays down minimum standards for the protection of workers from health and safety risks caused by chemical agents. The directive largely reflects the approach already taken by the three sets of health-based regulations, which since the 1980s have set out a systematic approach to the control of substances hazardous to health, including lead and asbestos, in the workplace. The directive and existing legislation require employers to assess risks, prevent or control exposure, provide information and training for employees and, in some circumstances, monitor employees' exposure to hazardous substances and place them under health surveillance.
Although the more prescriptive requirements of the directive have meant making many amendments to our existing regulations, the changes largely involve making explicit what is already implicit in our current regulations or their approved codes of practice. In transposing the requirements of the directive, the Health and Safety Commission has made every effort to make only those changes that are essential. It has taken care to produce a legislative package that will deliver high compliance while minimising the additional costs to industry.
The second thing that we are doing is addressing the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, which will be amended to introduce a new legal duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. Asbestos is the most serious occupational health problem in terms of fatal disease that the country faces.
Mr. David Laws (Yeovil): Has the Minister heard the concerns that many people have expressed about whether there is a difference between the health risks of white asbestos and those of the more dangerous blue and brown asbestos? Does he have evidence that suggests that white asbestos is as much a danger as the other forms of asbestos?
Mr. Brown: I shall come to that point but, if the hon. Gentleman allows me, I will deal with it in the order in which it appears in my speech.
In the 30 years between 1968 and 1998, 50,000 people died in the United Kingdom from asbestos-related diseases. The human suffering and misery behind those terrible figures continue today, and there is nothing that
482
we can do about those already exposed. However, we can certainly do a great deal to prevent exposures today and so prevent painful and prolonged illness and death in the future.
Andy Burnham (Leigh): My right hon. Friend refers to people who have contracted asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma. Many people in my constituency—former employees of Turner and Newall—still have outstanding claims against the company, but they are currently stalled because the owner, Federal Mogul, has gone into administration in the United States. Something could be done for people who contracted mesothelioma in the past if the Government could unlock the injustice of the situation in which those people currently find themselves.
Mr. Brown: The situation is complex and goes slightly beyond the regulations under discussion. However, it is serious. My colleagues and I met a Treasury Minister to see what we could do to make progress on a range of issues relating to legal actions that appear to be stalled. I have no announcement to make on that, but we are working across the Government, with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, to determine what more can be done. The situation is serious, as my hon. Friend said.
Since coming into office in 1997, the Government have progressively done much to strengthen the laws on asbestos in the workplace. We have widened the range of work that requires a licence from the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that asbestos removal work is carried out safely. Those measures have certainly had an effect on reducing the risks of asbestos. However, I share the concerns of the Health and Safety Commission that one issue remains to be addressed, and that is why a new proposal is before the House.
Research shows that more than 25 per cent. of those currently dying from asbestos-related diseases worked in building and maintenance operations. Although virtually all exposure routes have been effectively controlled by, for example, banning the use of asbestos products, it is estimated that something like 500,000 commercial and public buildings across the country still have materials in them that contain asbestos. In many cases, no one is consistently managing the risks from the thousand; of tonnes of asbestos in those premises. People working on those buildings, such as plumbers, electricians and other maintenance workers, often do not know that they are at risk from disturbing the material or whether their work is putting other users in the building at risk.
On the issue rightly raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), although the different forms of asbestos are often referred to by colour—blue, brown or white—in reality the colour of a material gives no indication of the type of asbestos it contains. It is not possible to detect asbestos by simply looking at material, which must be analysed to establish with any certainty whether it contains asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive is aware of numerous incidents in which workers have been exposed to asbestos. Those have often resulted in the construction projects being stopped and the premises evacuated, as well as in producing potentially serious consequences for the

483
workers involved. It is to deal with that unsatisfactory situation that the Government have proposed new legislation.
The new duty to manage asbestos will require those who have responsibilities for maintenance activities in non-domestic premises to assess whether there is any asbestos in their premises. If asbestos is present, they must decide either to remove it or to manage it, depending on its condition, while ensuring that subsequent maintenance activities do not expose the workers to avoidable risk.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help me with something. I thought he would mention the date on which a building was constructed. In my constituency, Eternit, which as he knows produces roofing materials and so on, incorporated white asbestos into cement and roof tiles from 1980 onwards until the practice was stopped in 1997 or thereabouts. The date of a building could give considerable guidance on what materials were used and compliance costs could be reduced on later buildings.
Mr. Brown: I thought that as well but I will go on to refute it. It was common practice in the industry to mix brown and blue asbestos with white asbestos to get what was thought to be a better product.
Tim Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulty of identifying the asbestos, which might be a mixture of the different types, from its colour, but surely it would be fairly easy to analyse whether an asbestos was white, blue or brown. Blue and brown asbestos are made up of iron silicates whereas white asbestos is based on a magnesium silicate. It would not be a difficult scientific test to detect the absence or presence of either type.
Mr. Brown: Perhaps it would be better if I dealt with the matter where it occurs in my address to the House. We are trying to get the duty to manage the problem to be carried out in a proportionate and easily handled way. The advice to me is that to require distinctions to be drawn between brown, blue and white asbestos on the basis of analysis is a rather cumbersome way forward. In any event, there would still be a remaining problem from white asbestos although, as I will tell the House, it is a problem of a lesser order albeit a real one.
Mr. Michael Clapham: On the distinction mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) between an iron silicate and a magnesium silicate, it is not so much the chemistry as the structure of the fibre that matters. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Mr. Brown: There is a range of uncertainties about the matter, and the Government must make their decisions on the best advice available to them. There is a risk from white asbestos. It is not a safe product.
Mr. Tom Watson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a certain amount
484
of mythology about the colour of asbestos? Exposure to white asbestos still gives one 150 more chances of contracting mesothelioma than not being exposed to it.
Mr. Brown: Mesothelioma is a terrible way to die. There are risks connected with white asbestos, even if it is pure white asbestos and not mixed with brown or blue asbestos. Those risks are real and present and the Government want to safeguard against them. I hope that the House will accept that the Government's position is proportionate. It is certainly based on professional advice.
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
Mr. Brown: I shall take the intervention, then perhaps I can make progress.
Mr. Salmond: I refer to the backlog of claimants. I suspect that all hon. Members have constituents who are affected. In Scotland there are 500 cases waiting at the Court of Session, and another 700 have not even reached the Court of Session, and we know that there is a similar situation south of the border. In the discussions between Departments, have the reasons for the backlog been identified? Is it merely a matter of appointing more judges, in which case why cannot that be done? Or is there some other blockage in the system, both in the Court of Session in Scotland and in the High Court south of the border?
Mr. Brown: I am not sufficiently familiar with the Scottish legal system to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer, but if it helps him, I will make inquiries of those who are able to give such an answer and write to him. However, the regulations that we are discussing today are designed to protect for the future, rather than deal with the tragic backlog of what are essentially common law cases seeking compensation for something that has already happened. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have done their best in this area. We are looking at what more can be done. If the responsibility lies on anybody, it lies on those who caused the injury to the worker and on their insurers. It is there that some of the difficulties in law lie. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and try to get a more professional clarification of the point from someone more familiar with the Scottish legal system than I am.
The duty to remove or manage the problem is designed to make sure that maintenance activities are carried out safely and that workers are not subsequently exposed to avoidable risk. There is an obligation to ensure that information on the location and condition of these materials is given to anyone who is likely to disturb them.
The Government are not alone in wishing to legislate to protect building and maintenance workers from asbestos in buildings. A similar duty is likely to be imposed by the asbestos worker protection directive currently under negotiation. However, the United Kingdom legislation will go further than that required by Europe in one important aspect. The legislation in the UK will not be triggered by the maintenance works starting, but will require that those responsible for maintenance work in premises assess the risk in advance

485
and properly plan how best to deal with it. Such an approach is essential if we are to prevent maintenance workers from being exposed to lethal asbestos fibres.
The regulations have been designed to be flexible, allowing a proportionate approach to be taken towards compliance. They require significant expenditure only when the risk justifies it. They are based on the sound business practice of establishing and managing risks efficiently, and closely follow current good practice in the workplace.
As the duty will apply to all non-domestic premises, sufficient time needs to be allowed for duty holders to comply, particularly those with many properties. The draft regulation allows an 18-month lead-in before the duty comes into force, but duty holders will be advised to start planning how best to comply as soon as possible.
Responses to consultation exercises on the duty to manage have been overwhelmingly positive. Those who responded positively include the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the British Property Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses, Government Departments with major property portfolios such as the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health, local authorities, national health service trusts, charities, trade unions such as the GMB, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Union of Teachers, retailers, banks, universities, building and allied trade associations, utilities providers and asbestos specialists.
The CBI welcomed the clear indication in the latest proposals that the resolution of asbestos risks is a team effort. The British Property Federation confirmed that the Health and Safety Executive had a good understanding of the operational requirements of landlords and managing agents, which is crucial to maximising the health benefits of the regulations. The Federation of Small Businesses indicated that the notion of a duty to manage was acceptable. The TUC supported the commission's proposals. A major property owner and leaseholder, the Royal Bank of Scotland—which now owns NatWest—agreed that any proposal involving removal of an unknown hazard would benefit workers.
Mr. Mark Francois: So far the Minister has not mentioned the National Farmers Union, although he may be about to do so. I have received a number of representations from farmers in my constituency whose barns contain white asbestos and who fear they could face a collective bill amounting to several millions of pounds. I hope that common sense will be used, that the regulations will not be policed too zealously, and that my farmers will not be financially disadvantaged because of a problem that some believe does not exist.
Mr. Brown: No one from the National Farmers Union has approached me directly. I would be unlikely to overlook any representations that had been made; I think I would have remembered.
Those most at risk from asbestos on farms are the workers, the farmers themselves and their families. It is in their interests that the risks, if risks there be, are properly managed. If the asbestos is stable, one way of managing it properly might be just to leave it alone.
Mr. David Heath: I have received a fax from the National Farmers Union. It says
"The NFU is encouraging its members to comply fully with these regulations and urging them to realise the importance of workplace protection from exposure to asbestos."
I think the Minister has the NFU on his side.
Mr. Brown: Not for the first time! I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a helpful intervention. I am sure that that was not for the first time either.
The list of supporters is pretty comprehensive, but let me now deal with our critics. The Government are aware of concerns expressed in some quarters about the need for a duty to manage asbestos on premises, including views expressed by a small but vociferous minority who claim that the inclusion of white asbestos—chrysotile—is unnecessary because it is no more dangerous than other commonly used materials such as talcum powder. That is dangerous nonsense. The experts are unanimous in saying that all asbestos types can cause cancer. All asbestos types are unequivocally classified as carcinogens by the World Health Organisation's international agency for research on cancer, and by regulatory bodies throughout the developed world.
It is true that most experts believe that the blue and brown varieties are more dangerous than the white, and the most recent review of the relevant evidence suggests that the difference is substantial; but there is a wide range of scientific opinion and a good deal of uncertainty. The vociferous and, I have to say, commercially interested minority take a position at one extreme of the scientifically arguable range, and then behave as though the uncertainty did not exist.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there may be a commercial interest in saying that white asbestos is not dangerous, commercial interests are lined up that will profit greatly from zealous policing in relation to a white asbestos risk? Therefore, the balance of commercial interests is not all on one side.
Mr. Brown: The Government's concern is to protect our fellow citizens in the workplace and act proportionately in dealing with the risk. I was asked earlier about the risk from white asbestos, and there is such a risk. I am being candid about the ratio of risk in relation to blue, brown and white asbestos. All the advice says that the risks are different. Although a range of assessments has been made, the risk is still there.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He acknowledged that there was some uncertainty about the issue. Although it is obviously wise for the Government to act preventively in respect of uncertainty and err on the side of greater health protection, is he now planning to take any action to reduce the uncertainty about health risk?
Mr. Brown: A research programme is in place, but there are obvious difficulties in getting absolute evidence of the relationship of risk between white, blue and brown asbestos. It would not be right to wait 30 years until the evidence shows up in people's ill health.

487
We know that there is a risk and it would exist even if the white product could be separated from the mix that was commonly used in the building trade. It is a risk from which the Government have a responsibility to protect their citizens. We must take a decision in the presence of that uncertainty, in the knowledge that the results of a wrong decision would not be apparent for 30 years or more. We also know that a wrong decision would involve death from a particularly nasty disease. The Government's best estimate is that exposure of maintenance workers exclusively to chrysotile fibres—this relates to white asbestos—would give rise to an uncertain but actual risk of cancer.
In addition, excluding chrysotile from the duty to manage would make no practical sense. As recently as the 1970s, blue and brown asbestos were routinely added to white asbestos products during manufacture. In particular, that was done to improve the drying characteristics of the product. Applying different measures to the different fibre types could increase the costs of the duty to manage, as more analysis of the products in place would be needed to determine which regime should be applied. Even if the exclusion of white asbestos were desirable—it is firmly the Government's view that it is not—it would not be a practical way forward.
Concern has also been expressed by small businesses that some surveyors and asbestos removal contractors will use the legislation to oversell their services. We need to prevent that from happening. We have embarked on a five-year implementation programme, working closely with a number of organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to ensure that the duty is properly understood and complied with. A crucial element in the campaign will be the need to advise duty holders to take a proportionate approach. In particular, that will involve leaving asbestos materials in place rather than having them removed when they are in good condition and are unlikely to be disturbed.
I seek to encourage the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House in ensuring that asbestos risks are properly managed without unnecessary expense. While extravagant claims have been made in the media about the cost of the proposals, the Health and Safety Executive calculates that the cost of full compliance with the duty will be about £1.5 billion discounted—in other words, at current values—over 50 years. Although that is a significant sum, it should be borne in mind that the costs will be spread among an extremely large number of duty holders whose individual costs will be significant only when the risks to health justify it. The Health and Safety Executive also calculates that the cost of completely eliminating all current risks from exposure to asbestos, including that of fully complying with all other asbestos regulation, would be £3 billion—a level that is again discounted. The elimination of this risk, together with savings arising from the better planning of maintenance and demolition work which will follow the introduction of the duty, is equivalent to total benefits exceeding £3.3 billion.
488
If current levels of exposure to asbestos are allowed to continue over the next 50 years, nearly 5,000 people will die from asbestos-related disease. These regulations should go a long way towards preventing that human suffering and misery, and they deserve the full support of the House.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. He was talking about practice in the 1970s, but I am not sure that he has answered my earlier question. The burden of my point to him was that there was a time—from memory it was 1980, but one could be more precise—when known manufacturers, such as Eternit in my constituency, were not including blue or brown asbestos in the mix. They were using white asbestos in concrete for roof tiling, and so on. Why is it not possible to reduce the burden of compliance costs on those who own and manage buildings that were constructed after that date?
Mr. Brown: We are proposing a practical way forward. The risk has to be assessed by the person who owns or manages the building, and the best way of managing the risk—or what is assessed to be the risk, as it may not be necessary to test the materials for their composition—might be to manage the material where it is, if it is inert. It would be necessary to ensure that people coming in to perform maintenance tasks, who might disturb the material in some way, understood what the risks were. I do not think that it is possible to draw a distinction between white asbestos and the more dangerous forms of asbestos—although I accept that scientific theory suggests that such a distinction exists—in the clear-cut, practical way in which the hon. Gentleman is urging me to do. Moreover, if it were possible and less burdensome to do as he suggests—I do not accept that it is—there would still be a risk. It is a mistake to say that there is no risk from white asbestos. Although we can argue about the proportion of risk between blue and brown asbestos on the one hand and white on the other, we know that the risk is there, and the Government have a duty to protect against it.
Mr. Lansley: I was not suggesting that there was no risk associated with white asbestos, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is admitting that there is a lesser risk. If that risk is substantially less, but the costs imposed on the owners of buildings containing only white asbestos is likely to be similar to that imposed on other buildings, the balance of costs and benefits in relation to that part of our property estate is different from the risk that applies to the property estate countrywide. The purpose of the risk assessment is to ensure that we focus on dealing with the greater risk, and do so in a way that is proportionate to the cost.
Mr. Brown: I think that the proposal that I have put before the House is proportionate. These issues have always commanded consensus in the House until now, and I hope that they will continue to do so. Way back in 1983, when the then Minister, the right hon. Member

489
for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), had responsibility for these matters, he said this to the House:
"It is not a substance for which one can set a level below which there is no risk but a substance about which we do not know the lowest level of risk. We must therefore assume that a single fibre could do real damage which may not be seen for 20 years or more."—[Official Report, 28 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 1411.]
That is what the official Conservative spokesman said, when in government. Those are his words, not mine. I do not think that the House should wait for 20 or 30 years to make a more balanced assessment of the proportion of risk between white, brown or blue asbestos. With that, I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion.
5.29 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I welcome this debate, and I begin on a consensual note. The Minister for Work is a person of unimpeachable integrity, and I have the highest regard for him. He wants to protect the public, and we all have a responsibility to do so; indeed, I take mine every bit as seriously as he takes his. However, to discharge that responsibility, and to ensure that only necessary costs are incurred, regulation must be based on sound science and on credible assessments of risk. It would be a grave dereliction of parliamentary duty if regulation based on flawed science were forced through this House without adequate scrutiny, and at the cost of billions of pounds.
It is because a fear exists that the Government might be about to make a colossal blunder that it is my responsibility to flag up legitimate concerns. To that end, I should like to look at the root of the problem—the different types of asbestos—to consider the merits of the statistics bandied about, to focus on the commercial interests that are lobbying for these regulations, and to highlight some of the problems contained in them and in the code of practice. I should also like to ask the House at least to consider, for that must be our purpose today, an alternative way forward to that which the right hon. Gentleman—entirely sincerely, and on the basis of advice from others—is proposing.
First, let us consider the root of the problem. It is nearly 50 years since scientists first established that exposure to the sharp metallic fibres of blue and brown asbestos—amphiboles made from iron silicate—were a serious cause of lung disease, including the form of cancer known as mesothelioma. The reality is that many participants in the public debate have in recent times blurred the distinction between those metallic amphiboles and the much commoner white form of asbestos. The latter is a wholly different mineral—magnesium silicate. The fibres of white asbestos are soft, silky and biodegradable. Theoretically, intense long term exposure to these fibres, which occur naturally in the air—typically, each of us inhales 20,000 of them a day—can cause health damage, just as intense exposure to any form of dust can injure healthy lung tissue.
However, the only hard evidence of which I am aware for such damage derives from studies of workers who were heavily exposed to white asbestos in its raw state—for example, in a large and unregulated asbestos mine in China. My concern is that the Health and Safety Executive—which originally proposed a glitzy publicity launch for these new regulations on 3 October, but hastily cancelled the event upon the legitimate complaint of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the
490
Opposition—is basing the proposed regulations on research into asbestos undertaken by Professor Julian Peto in 1985. That research was conducted on workers in a Rochdale asbestos factory that was owned by Turner and Newall, to which reference has been made, and subsequently bought by Eternit. The study appeared to show that exposure to white asbestos had caused mesothelioma. That came as a bombshell, for until then no one had suspected that white asbestos might be dangerous.
A decade later, in 1995, Professor Peto's evidence was re-examined by other scientists—in a study, commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive itself, by Dr. Alan Gibbs and Professor Fred Pooley. The lung tissue of the exposed workers studied by Professor Peto unmistakeably showed damage by amphiboles, but the lung damage that the professor was examining had been caused not by white asbestos, but by residues from blue and brown asbestos. Furthermore, I am advised that at least 19 other scientific research projects concluded that white asbestos is a low-risk substance. As the Minister will be fair enough to concede, most of these studies have apparently been commissioned by the HSE. Indeed, the HSE reported to the World Trade Organisation less than a decade ago that white asbestos had a risk to health
"too small to be measured."
As recently as June 2000, the HSE published a report, by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton, about the risks to health from asbestos exposure. They concluded that the risk from white asbestos was theoretically zero, yet they were criticised by some scientists for exaggerating its risks.
The House will be aware—and if it is not, it should be—of the US court decision in 1991 that overturned the 1989 total ban in the United States on all asbestos. The judge in that case said that
"more people would die of the inhalation of toothpicks in the United States than they would from asbestos fibres".
Both the Health and Safety Executive and the European Union have—
Mr. Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like and respect, that I will give way to him once, but this side of the argument and the concerns that it embodies need to be heard. I am keen to hear his case later. I shall give way once, because I am a generous and a public-spirited fellow, but no more.
Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the proposed ban in America was overturned. The situation today is that corporate America is facing an enormous problem from asbestos, and many of the section 11 cases—those companies seeking administration—have been caused because of asbestos liabilities. Had the law in America been retained, corporate America might be in a different position.
Mr. Bercow: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observation, but it does not cohere with the professional judgment of the Environmental Health Agency in the United States, to which he has tempted me to return in

491
a matter of moments. If he is able to contain himself, I will say something further about that matter of legitimate and academic debate.
Both the Health and Safety Executive and the European Union describe white asbestos as a class 1 carcinogen. However, as I am sure Members know, oral contraceptives, alcohol and nickel compounds all fall into the same category. Furthermore, I understand that the only tests conducted on white asbestos show its carcinogenic potential for humans to be about 160 years at levels of exposure approximately 200 times those at which the Health and Safety Executive recommends regulatory action.
The advice that I have received is that most raw materials, including so-called safer alternatives to asbestos, are all carcinogenic, but that the finished products containing the fibres are not. All of the above findings are significant and, under the Health and Safety at Work, &c. Act 1974, the Health and Safety Executive is statutorily obliged to take full account of conflicting scientific opinion and new evidence as they become available. Yet despite the apparent evidence of its own scientists that the Peto study was fatally flawed and what I gather to be private intimations from Health and Safety Executive experts to this effect, the HSE has never changed its public line, but rather continues the campaign to demonise white asbestos.
The House should also know that the recent UK representation briefing to Members of the European Parliament referring to proposed amendments to the asbestos regulation observed that they are
"likely to incur significant costs for British businesses in remedial measures, including possible liability for compulsory building surveys of 'all' commercial property in the UK."
Significantly, it goes on to add that
"similar proposals were rejected in the USA as 'unnecessary'. There is also strong evidence that both EC directives and Health and Safety Executive regulations on this issue are based on flawed research."
I wish to refer to the statistics. The Health and Safety Executive and opponents of white asbestos claim that it causes deaths from mesothelioma. This is extremely questionable, and the conclusion appears to have been reached by a scarcely credible three-stage process.
First, the HSE took the total number of deaths each year attributed to mesothelioma. Then, because it had been established that exposure to blue or brown asbestos was a cause of mesothelioma, it took an arbitrary percentage of that figure and ascribed it to asbestos in general. Finally, because of its belief—apparently without evidence to support it—that some of these deaths must have been due to white asbestos, it went on to make the fanciful and, some would say, intellectually disreputable assumption that 10 per cent. of asbestos-related deaths must have been caused by exposure to white asbestos.
Since Health and Safety Executive officials began citing these figures, they have been supplied with extensive evidence by Dr. Gibbs and others showing that white asbestos cannot be identified as a cause of any mesothelioma death in the United Kingdom. However, all that actual evidence—as opposed to guesswork—has been ignored by the HSE, apparently in breach of its
492
statutory obligation to take account of such evidence. Its fictitious figures have become a mantra that continues to be solemnly intoned by the anti-asbestos lobby on every occasion—Labour Members will no doubt prove my point conclusively this afternoon even though in reality there appears to be no evidential basis for them.
What about the commercial interests? The campaign for the new regulations has been actively promoted, at a cost of millions of pounds, by the two major multinational companies, Eternit and Saint-Gobain, that are now the market leaders in providing asbestos-substitute materials. Those materials have never been subjected to proper safety tests despite recent evidence from Edinburgh university that one of them—cellulose—may be carcinogenic. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. In Britain those companies have carried out their lobbying through such bodies as the Association of Manufacturers against Asbestos and Westminster Advisers.
Since 1999, when the HSE finally dropped the clear regulatory distinction it had earlier made between blue or brown asbestos and white asbestos, the HSE has generally spoken of all forms of asbestos as if they were interchangeable. In that way, the anti-asbestos campaign has created the potential for immense public alarm. No one has been in a better position to exploit the resulting confusion than a new class of some 800 specialist contractors, called into being by the HSE to carry out asbestos-related work under a special HSE licence.
Mr. Lansley: Lest my hon. Friend continue further on that line of argument, perhaps he could tell me what evidence he has for a lobbying campaign by Eternit. I have an Eternit plant in my constituency, and I have approached the company for its advice. It has at no time sought to initiate contact with me or taken the line that my hon. Friend suggests. I find it curious that he should ascribe such lobbying to that company.
Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend knows, I invariably understate my case, and today is no exception. My distinct understanding is that that company has made representations—as it is entitled to do—to the HSE. Certainly, the people with whom I have been in contact have the distinct impression that the company is a leading advocate of the regulation that the Minister is commending to the House today. I would imagine that my hon. Friend will hear in due course from the company or part of it. We shall have to see.
Most of the contractors to which I refer belong to ARCA—the Asbestos Removal Contractors Association. In recent months, a nationwide investigation, involving more than 700 examples, has shown that those contractors and surveyors, who often work in close collaboration, have been using their privileged position to tell property occupiers of every type, including farmers, small shopkeepers, householders—to whom the regulations are not supposed to apply—residents of blocks of flats, local authorities and NHS hospital trusts, that their premises contain asbestos which the law requires to be removed and which can be done only by a licensed contractor at an exorbitant cost. However, when the details have been checked by independent experts, it has turned out in

493
almost every case that the work is either not necessary at all or can be carried out legally and safely for a fraction of the cost quoted by the contractors.
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is probably aware that banks and building societies are now using that as an excuse not to grant mortgages, especially on flats in affected blocks. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial institutions are acting irresponsibly in the matter?
Mr. Bercow: I am as alarmed as my hon. Friend by that phenomenon, to which I intended to refer. It compounds difficulties, increases anxieties and threatens ballooning costs, and both the Government and the Opposition have a responsibility to take it into consideration.
Cases are legion in which companies have been told that asbestos is contained in their premises and that removal will cost a large sum of money. In those cases, it has subsequently transpired either that there is no problem at all or that it can be satisfactorily tackled for a fraction of the cost. There is a well known case in south Wales, and an extremely alarming one in west London, into which investigations continue. There is another case at Dulverton in Somerset. I am anxious about them.
In fairness to the Minister—this is another rare note of consensus, and I propose that we all enjoy it—he did refer to such cases. However, I should have preferred greater evidence of real and steely determination to crack down on the cowboy contractors who take citizens for a ride and risk bringing the Government into disrepute.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right, that we can make common cause on this matter. If he gives me a list of the cowboy contractors who are behaving as he alleges, I shall report them immediately to their professional association. It has a disciplinary procedure to deal with such matters. I shall personally make sure that it is enforced.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that. I undertake to provide the details that he needs. He has increased my work load, but that does not matter as I can now increase his.
However, the Minister should not be so coy. The Health and Safety Executive, for which his Department is responsible, has all the ammunition it needs. It is aware of the facts and details involved, and mutters its irritation, but it has failed to deal with recalcitrants. If the HSE is not robust enough, I hope that the Minister is.
The cases described all occurred before the new regulations requiring all workplaces to carry out a full asbestos survey, risk assessment and monitoring programme were considered. On the evidence of confusion and sharp practice that is now available, the risk is that regulations that are not soundly based will merely provide the more unscrupulous surveyors and contractors with a field day. They will be unwittingly aided and abetted by the Health and Safety Executive at
494
a cost to the UK economy that is far greater than the HSE's estimate of the cost of compliance with the proposed new regime.
Rob Marris: I have heard the hon. Gentleman suggest, in the Chamber and elsewhere, that business is burdened with too much red tape. Is he now suggesting that there should be statutory regulation of contractors who remove asbestos?
Mr. Bercow: I am not arguing for that. I am saying that there is a problem with a number of members of ARCA that are behaving irresponsibly and costing innocent citizens and businesses a great deal of money. I am critical of excessive regulation but, equally, it is important to emphasise that regulation to protect the public is necessary in a civilised society. I am glad that there has not been too much moralising in the debate so far, although I do not expect that that will continue. I care about safety as much as the hon. Gentleman does, but a legitimate democratic debate should take place about the level of regulation that is required, based on scientific assessment and not emotive theorising.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I shall give way for the last time to the hon. Gentleman, who has been patient.
Mr. Jones: All hon. Members will sympathise with any business that has been unscrupulously hoodwinked into contracting for unnecessary work, but would not the right approach be to regulate those errant contractors, or to track them down and expose them? Would not that be better than attacking regulations that would be welcomed by good businesses that manage their properties to a high standard?
Mr. Bercow: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is conflating and confusing two issues. One issue concerns whether there is scientific and intellectual justification for the regulatory regime that the Government propose. Opposition Members are raising legitimate questions about that, on our own account and on behalf of others. We are not clear that there is such a justification. If a regulatory regime for white asbestos is needed, and we are not persuaded that it is, there is a separate issue that concerns the behaviour of individual contractors.
I am certainly sympathetic to a policy of naming and shaming those who use privileged status and corporate power to make other people's lives more difficult and expensive than would otherwise be the case. I am on the side of the underdogs, of whom there are a great many around the country. If the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) wants to join me in championing the cause of the downtrodden, the underdog, the oppressed and the unduly burdened, I will welcome him to the campaign.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: We can make common cause on this. I have a letter from Terry Jago, the chief executive of ARCA, who says:
"We are extremely concerned about these allegations, particularly since at no time has any contact been made with the Association with regard to them."

495
I really think it important that the hon. Gentleman gives us the names and enables me to pursue the matter, probably on behalf of the whole House.
Mr. Bercow: I am genuinely flabbergasted that despite the profuse material supplied on the cases to the Health and Safety Executive, the right hon. Gentleman, whose Department is responsible for and effectively the parent of the Health and Safety Executive, is woefully ignorant of the substantive arguments that are being advanced against those contractors. Is the right hon. Gentleman semi-detached within his Department?
Mr. Brown: Actually, I think that "semi-detached" was a term of abuse used against a former Conservative Minister by his own side. The person making the allegations, according to ARCA, is the hon. Gentleman. The letter says:
"We would there fore suggest that in your response to Mr. Bercow, it may be appropriate for you to ask him to provide details to the Association, giving the names of the member companies about which the allegations are made, to enable these complaints to be investigated."
The hon. Gentleman is making the accusation—give us the names and we can investigate them.
Mr. Bercow: This is extraordinary. I said that I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman. He really deserves a better status in life than that merely of unrewarded and unappreciated lackey of ARCA. That will not do at all. The right hon. Gentleman should have some regard for his own status. It is not his job to go taking from me material that is requested by a third party. The material has been provided to the Health and Safety Executive, the cases have been well publicised and the individual victims are well known. I am not proposing to go through all the detailed cases now for the simple reason that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I have already referred to the examples. I stand by them, I will elaborate on them, further and better particulars will be provided, the details will be given to the Minister and the hon. Member for North Durham, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, will have nothing about which to complain. He will be the first to complain if a detailed dilation on those cases causes me to take longer and to stop him making a contribution to the debate. I am a just fellow, and I do not propose to subject the hon. Gentleman to that disadvantage. It is simply not fair.
I want to focus on the cost of the regulations, because the right hon. Gentleman made an important point. He talked about a cost of £1.5 billion over a 50-year period. I thought that he had the figures the wrong way round and had misread his text. Previously, the Health and Safety Executive said that its estimate was not £1.5 billion but £5.1 billion. It then came up with a lesser figure of £3.4 billion, but the TUC, upon which the right hon. Gentleman is happy to rely when it suits him, previously suggested a potential cost of £80 billion.
Mr. Brown: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. The figure of £80 billion that is attributed to the TUC is simply wrong. I contacted the TUC because I wanted to get to the truth. It says that
496
this is not a TUC figure, it never has been and the TUC has never worked out the cost. I do not know where the figure comes from, but it is nothing whatever to do with the Health and Safety Executive or the TUC.
Mr. Bercow: On this occasion, on the Floor of the House, as I do not have the paper in front of me, I note what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Tony Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: No, I will not.
Tony Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: No, I have made the point clear to the hon. Gentleman and I do not intend to dilate on it further.
I emphasise that the Health and Safety Executive's previous estimate of £5.1 billion represented the largest cost compliance assessment ever given for a new law. Even if we exclude temporarily and in the name of cordiality on the Floor of the House the figure of £80 billion, that earlier proposed by the Health and Safety Executive was the largest ever cost compliance assessment given for a new law. Now we are told that the figure is £1.5 billion; previously we were told that it was £3.4 billion. I believe that there is a serious concern that the regulations could prove much more expensive, and the Minister is not in a position conclusively to rebut that suggestion for the simple reason that the only figures that he has to go on are those supplied to him by the Health and Safety Executive. If the HSE has changed its mind twice, what is to stop it changing its mind a third time when the regulations have been given effect, the cost is being borne and it is too late to reverse or mitigate some of the damage thereby inflicted?
As if that were not bad enough, there are other potential scandals to consider. There is the evidence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) referred that surveyors, estate agents and building societies are erroneously advising homeowners or prospective purchasers of the damage to the properties that has been sustained and their reduced value. Also, the alarm generated over asbestos is provoking an ever-rising tide of insurance claims. So large are the sums involved in this sort of compensation that it has now become the fastest growing area of liability.
The reality is that in those circumstances we have a legitimate reason to raise our concerns. I hope that Labour Members will not be gleeful at the thought of multinational insurance companies such as Sun Alliance having to make such massive and unjustified payouts. That company is already proposing to put aside £385 million as a contingency, principally to cover asbestos-related claims. We have to remember that ultimately everyone, including ourselves, will pay the bill in higher premiums.
Ministers, Labour Members of Parliament and trade unions must take care not to allow themselves to become front men and cheerleaders for what could turn out to be one of the most shameless public rackets of our time.

497
In the first five substantive pages of the regulations I saw no fewer than 25 areas of ambiguity. A colleague has seen no fewer than 45 areas of potential error and uncertainty in the first 15 pages. So, there are real grievances. Questions need to be posed and answered in relation to the proposed code of practice as well as the regulations. The Government are seeking to ram through the House highly detailed and controversial regulations, which hon. Members are not equipped technically to evaluate and upon which, plainly, there is not a scientific consensus.
In the end, it seems obvious that in these circumstances we cannot just rest content with the view of the Government. We have to take account of what the environmental experts in the United States think, and of the fact that the World Health Organisation remains of the view that the controlled use of white asbestos is appropriate. It maintains that asbestos cement products are totally safe. We should also consider that the health and safety and risk management policy spokesperson for the Federation of Small Businesses, Dr. Jacqueline Jeynes, has stressed that
"white asbestos cement based and hard encapsulated products pose a negligible risk, and do not need to be treated in the same way"
as blue or brown asbestos.
The FSB has called for a Select Committee inquiry into the subject. John Bridle, an experienced south Wales surveyor, qualified chemist and unpaid consultant to the Asbestos Cement Product Producers Association, believes that such a study is essential and that a judicial review is likely without it.
The most important point of all is that these regulations appear to take no account of the disposal of the removed asbestos material. The waste regulations are even more ridiculous than the HSE's control of asbestos at work and approved code of practice may prove to be. The total results could be a gold-plated set of bureaucratic impositions that will promote an epidemic of illegal tipping and removal that could create a health hazard where none previously existed.
The HSE has neither the manpower nor the expertise to police these new regulations. The Minister wants to protect public health. Members on both sides of the Chamber share that objective. No one has a monopoly on concern for safety. I yield to no one in my determination that we and our fellow citizens in the workplace should be free of avoidable risks. Equally, however, there is not the slightest merit in legislating on the basis of science that we should not believe at a cost that need not be faced. The public interest demands a thorough debate and the readiness to consider alternative opinion, which the HSE has heard but which it currently chooses to ignore rather than to answer.
The Minister has set out his case. My responsibility is not to parrot the Government in the interests of a quiet life, but to give voice to the concerns of others and to raise questions that Ministers must address. There is still time for a Select Committee inquiry speedily but effectively to hear all the evidence before Parliament acts. That is the right course. To legislate hastily, ignorantly and expensively only to repent when it is too late would be the wrong course. I appeal to the House to endorse the case for expert debate and to resist the temptation to press the panic button.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I point out to the House that 60 minutes are left for the debate and that there are nine hon. Members seeking to occupy it, including one Front-Bench spokesman? I hope that hon. Members will feel good will one to the other.
6 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend the Minister approached the matter in a balanced way. He explained that regulation was necessary to give people protection in the workplace. The record should be put straight.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the ILO—[HON. MEMBERS: "WHO"]. Indeed. The hon. Gentleman said that the WHO had produced no evidence that white asbestos posed a danger. I refer to a recent statement issued by the WHO. Its latest review of the health risks from chrysotile asbestos states as one of its conclusions:
"Exposure to chrysotile asbestos poses increased risks for asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in a dose dependent manner. No threshold has been identified for carcinogenic risks."
That statement is based on the scrutiny of studies carried out throughout the world, from Japan to France and the UK. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about two years ago the HSE commissioned a study from Leicester university. After that study concluded that there was a carcinogenic risk from white asbestos, the HSE began to address the matter.
There have been two consultation exercises over a four-year period.
Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman could have made an identical statement in which the WHO referred not to white asbestos but to hot alcoholic beverages, contamination by nickel-based coins or contraceptives—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). If no threshold is given, such statements are almost meaningless.
Mr. Clapham: The statement referred to chrysotile asbestos. As the debate proceeds, the hon. Gentleman will hear evidence presented by my hon. Friends, some of whom in another life were personal injury lawyers. They will explain that they have dealt with cases of mesothelioma caused by white asbestos.
The record needs to be put straight. Last year, 5,000 deaths in the UK resulted from exposure to asbestos, and there were 1,700 new diagnoses of mesothelioma. Many of those cases were probably caused by white asbestos.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clapham: I cannot give way at this point.
The hon. Member for Buckingham should also be aware that when chrysotile is mined, a dangerous and carcinogenic form of asbestos—tremolite—can become

499
mixed with it. The two cannot be separated, so mined white asbestos is highly polluted. Tremolite is even more dangerous than blue or brown asbestos.
Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clapham: No, I have let the hon. Gentleman intervene once, and I want to make a little progress.
Given the figures that I have cited for the number of deaths and mesothelioma diagnoses in the past year, it is obvious why we need the regulations: we need to be able to reduce the number of deaths in the workplace. Unless we take action now, we are likely to face the kind of situation in the future that we are facing now, which stems in many ways from the workplaces of the 1960s, when blue and brown asbestos was used without any real consideration for the health problems caused. As a result, we are picking up many of the mesothelioma cases that were caused by exposure in those times.
Let me give the House an idea of the incubation period using a case that I dealt with personally. One of my constituents—a miner—was exposed to asbestos. I represented him at a tribunal and obtained a mining engineer's report. It was proved that there was asbestos in brake linings that that man had used in the latter part of the 1950s. In other words, it took from 1958 or 1959 until 1997 for the tumour to develop. The asbestos had been in his lungs for all that time. So there is a long incubation period, and the fact that we are now dealing with dangers from the 1960s shows that it is necessary to take action now to prevent problems in the future.
Mr. Francois rose—
Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clapham: No, I shall not give way now; many of my hon. Friends want to intervene.
We are saying that the regulations are necessary because we need to reduce the number of deaths in the workplace. Under the regulations, employers simply have to identify the deadly material and work out a plan to deal with it. That is all we are requesting.
The hon. Member for Buckingham said that the present situation in America results from massive asbestos claims, which are causing multinational companies to face going into liquidation. I understand that, at present, the majority of chapter 11 bankruptcies in America are being caused by the asbestos problem. For example, Federal Mogul, which took over Turner and Newall, has gone for administration under chapter 11. We are now faced with an enormous problem.
SunAlliance has been mentioned, and I understand that it is to appear in court next January in connection with the Turner and Newall cases. There is an argument which says that, although it provided employer's liability insurance, it tried to exempt asbestos cases, and it will be proven in the courts whether it was correct to do that.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is being a trifle gullible and credulous in relation to the behaviour,
500
in the United States and our own country, of insurance provokers on one hand and lawyers on the other. He is a little unwise to take all that at face value. I simply ask him this question: if he is going to slate the record in the United States and to talk about companies going bankrupt because of asbestos, will he identify a single case of company in the United States facing a successful claim because of an incidence involving white asbestos? Name, date and details, please.
Mr. Clapham: I will have experts provide the hon. Gentleman with the information that he requires. I cannot give that information now. We know that white asbestos was widely used in the United States, so many of the claims being lodged against companies will be for exposure to white asbestos. I now come to the reason why the hon. Gentleman has objected to the regulation. He referred to Mr. Bridle of Bridle Associates, who is an apologist for the asbestos industry. The hon. Gentleman said that this man was not in receipt of payment, but I refer him to the "British Asbestos Newsletter". I ask him to read it carefully and follow through Mr. Bridle's linkage to the Canadian asbestos industry. The hon. Gentleman may well find that his statement proves to be untrue. He could contact the editor of the newsletter who will provide him with a great deal of information about Mr. Bridle. It appears that the hon. Gentleman has based much of his case on expertise provided from that direction. I advise caution, if that is what he has done.
Mr. Bercow: My thesis was based on evidence from a number of sources, to which I referred in some detail, and individuals were named. If the hon. Gentleman thinks his case is so strong, why has he refused to debate these issues with John Bridle? Mr. Bridle is not scared of the hon. Gentleman, so why is the hon. Gentleman scared of Mr. Bridle?
Mr. Clapham: I can assure the House that this hon. Gentleman is not afraid of Mr. Bridle or of many other people. Mr. Bridle has made certain accusations in writing that are wholly untrue. He alleged that my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and I are in the pay of groups who would benefit by manufacturing substitutes for asbestos. No such payment has been made to me, and I think I can speak with honesty for Tom Cox when I say that no such payments have been received.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should refer to colleagues by their constituency and not by name.
Mr. Clapham: In conclusion, information shows clearly that white asbestos is a carcinogen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clapham: No, I am not giving way. There are 5,000 deaths a year in this country, and the number is increasing year on year as a result of exposure to asbestos. Dr. Peto's work suggests that the number may well reach 10,000 by 2015. We must take the action set out in the regulation now if we are to protect people in the workplace for the future.
6 13 pm
Mr. David Heath: This is an interesting and, I hope, useful, debate despite its rather curious provenance. Apart from anything else, it gives us an opportunity to address matters of health and safety which have newly become the province of the Minister for Work. Under normal circumstances it might have been a good opportunity for him to dilate further on exactly what that means in terms of his work load and responsibilities in the Department. I am aware of the small industry that comes along with the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, and the wide range of interests that run from dangerous pathogens to nuclear installations, railways and so on. At some stage, probably not today, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to set out exactly what he is responsible for, and whether next time there is a rail crash—I hope that this does not apply—he will come to the Dispatch Box to explain the circumstances.
I also hope that the move to the Department for Work and Pensions will enable the Government to pursue two areas more actively. One is a single inspectorate for many of the purposes of health and safety and other matters that fall within the Government's province, as we have urged for a long time. The other is the role of rehabilitation, as, clearly, the Minister is in a good position now to examine the responsibilities of employers in terms of rehabilitation after health and safety events and seeing that through to a conclusion that gets an individual back into work.
The genesis of the debate has been referred to by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)—it is the dichotomy between the experience in the United States and in North America generally and what is happening in the United Kingdom. Largely, it is a legal differentiation. As hon. Members know, the Fairchild, Fox and Matthews case has come to the House of Lords, and a helpful interpretation has been given of the rules of causation in this country. In America, the reverse is happening—there is a move away from responsibility. For instance, Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has made a very unhelpful comment suggesting new legislation to reduce the liability of companies in the United States for asbestos-related injuries.
Part of the reason for that change of attitude may be the differences in scale in judicial terms. I note that, last month, a jury in the United States awarded damages of $53 million. That is a colossal amount of money, albeit in a case based originally on 8,000 claims against 250 defendant companies. Nevertheless, it is a huge award. In comparison, the United Kingdom average award is about £100,000. The legal situation and the parameters are therefore totally different.
We also know, however, that the number of claims in this country is growing—1,500 claims per year and rising—and is likely to go on increasing. That alarm, coloured by the United States experience, has transferred itself to some hon. Members and some people outside the House, who are trying to influence the legislative framework on asbestos within which we work. It is a complicated matter, as the latency of the disease—30 or 40 years—means that it is very difficult to establish the causative factors. Often, it is very difficult
502
to identify the particular companies in question, especially when someone has been employed by a series of companies or when companies have simply changed their corporate structure or disappeared completely. The legal position is therefore murky.
Having listened at length to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I think his argument boils down to three points. First, he maintains, on the basis of his judgment, that there is no risk from white asbestos—chrysotile. Secondly, he argues that, in the absence of risk, the regulation is excessive and would involve excessive cost. Thirdly, he adduces the existence of unscrupulous operators who are profiting from a situation that he believes is contestable. I shall deal with those points in turn.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's science training is adequate to support some of the comments that he made in terms of the nature of iron silicate and magnesium silicate—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that mine is not either. I do not claim to be a top scientist, but I do claim to have a science degree. I have a degree in physiological sciences, as it happens, but no matter—[Interruption.] I have no problem with the hon. Gentleman making fun of my background and training. I simply adduce the fact that he seems to think that one salt, iron silicate, is metallic and that another salt, magnesium silicate, is not. That suggests that he has not understood the evidence before him.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the carcinogenic effect of various substances. He said that other carcinogens, such as nickel and alcohol, should be dealt with in the same way. I challenge him to name a single mesothelioma that has as its causative agent anything other than asbestos or a similar fibrous material. If he can find someone who has a mesothelioma that is caused by nickel, alcohol or contraceptive pills, I will yield to him on that point. However, I do not think that he will be able to do that, because mesothelioma is exclusively the result of a particular type of fibrous substance.
Tim Loughton: Perhaps I can turn the hon. Gentleman's question round. In response to my question, the Minister previously responsible for this issue said:
"Individual cases of mesothelioma or of lung cancer caused by asbestos are not pathologically or clinically distinguishable from those due to other causes…Since every member of the population has been exposed to asbestos from multiple sources, the definitive linkage of individual cases to a particular source is not possible."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 33W.]
The hon. Gentleman said that that is rubbish, but a Minister made that statement in a written answer.
Mr. Heath: I have not seen the context in which that Minister made that statement. He may have been misled. However, the way in which the hon. Gentleman uses that quote now is grossly misleading. Mesothelioma is not caused by the ingestion of nickel or contraceptive pills. It is caused by the inhalation of fibrous material. That exclusively causes cancers of the pleura and the mesothelium. He must accept that.
No one contests the fact that chrysotile is a less effective agency for the disease than others, and thank goodness for that. Nevertheless, we have already heard

503
that pollution from white and other forms of asbestos cause the same effects, which are, in any event, an innate effect of asbestos in the first instance. The hon. Member for Buckingham rubbished the work of Professor Peto, and he did not mention his collaborator, Sir Richard Doll, who happened to be the regius professor of medicine when I studied under him. Professor Doll was the greatest clinical epidemiologist not only of his time, but possibly of all time. I prefer to take his word rather than that of the hon. Gentleman in assessing the evidence before me.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger rose—
Mr. Heath: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly an expert on the subject.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I do not claim to be an expert, but my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made the point that at least 19 other studies have been carried out. He is not the only one to have examined the issue.
Mr. Heath: There is a great deal of scientific evidence on both sides of the argument, and some hon. Members fail to understand that one cannot establish the absence of risk. It is part of the scientific illiteracy of this place that people want to have it proved that there is no risk. If there is evidence of risk adduced by proper scientific experimentation—which there is—the Government are right to take it seriously. They are there to protect the population. It would be a dereliction of duty to assume that there is no risk from white asbestos when the evidence clearly suggests that there is.
The next question is whether the regulations are excessive. I have considered the draft regulations—we have not had an opportunity to do more—and my judgment is that it is not excessive to ask people in a workplace to identify the areas of potential risk. That is not asking for a full structural survey or asking anyone to remove anything. It is merely asking people to identify where there is asbestos in a building. That has been accepted by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TUC and the National Farmers Union. All of them have sensibly been consulted and think that the regulation is about right. The argument that it is excessive cannot be sustained.
The hon. Member for Buckingham has one point. He was right to raise cases where asbestos is encapsulated, such as concretised asbestos. A case can be made for further study of that to determine under what circumstances such substances pose a risk. We should reconsider the fact that there is no requirement to remove such a substance that is in place and intact.
The hon. Gentleman also made a good point about cellulose, which is an alternative to asbestos and a potential carcinogen. We know that it causes farmer's lung, which often makes Joe Grundy cough in Ambridge. That disease is a result of cellulose getting into the lungs. There is an argument that more work should be done on that product.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned unscrupulous operators. If he is right—I am sure he is—that people are abusing the fact that the regulation will be
504
introduced and the lack of knowledge about it, the Government should act to deal with that. They need to ensure that everyone knows the circumstances behind the regulation and what they must do and have no need to do.
The hon. Gentleman's argument about the companies involved was seriously damaged by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). His comments in respect of ARCA and its members lacked courtesy. The leader of his party managed to pick up a phone and call the Fire Brigades Union. Why did the hon. Gentleman not call ARCA to explain that unscrupulous operators were at large and to ask what action it was taking?
Mr. Bercow: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be misinformed. It is not a state secret. The evidence is available. The cases have been publicised. ARCA cannot claim nescience in the matter. It is well aware of the facts and has a responsibility to study them.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is, as always, sesquipedalian in his tone. He is really saying that he did not get in touch with ARCA. That is clear from its letter, which states that it is extremely concerned that the allegations were not put to it, as the Minister pointed out. ARCA has a disciplinary committee to consider complaints. However, it appears that no complaints were received so it could not take action. I find that extraordinary, especially as the hon. Gentleman also mentioned members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Chartered surveyors have a professional standing and a duty of care. They should not abuse the trust of their clients and evidence of that should be put before the responsible authorities at the earliest opportunity.
I have four points to put to the Minister. First, he did not address the decision to leave out the previous provision of due diligence. That is interesting. If a company can show that it has acted with due diligence in attempting to identify asbestos within the workplace, that should be an appropriate defence. It is not in the new regulations and there is a strong argument to suggest that it should be.
Secondly, clear guidance from the Health and Safety Executive is essential to determine what is and what is not needed so that people do not spend money unnecessarily removing parts of buildings or on complicated and expensive surveys. Such surveys are not needed when it is possible to identify parts of a building that clearly pose a risk or that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that there is asbestos in the fabric of the building.
Thirdly, the Minister, the commission and the executive need to work with responsible undertakers to make sure that they are not taking steps that are excessive and will involve extra costs to industry.
Finally, I should like the Minister to commission more work on encapsulated or concretised asbestos and on the potential dangers of other fibrous materials being used as asbestos substitutes. I would hate our successors in 30 years' time to be making the same arguments about a different scare, the latency of which is such that people are now inhaling the fibres that will cause them horrible illness and potential death at a later stage in their life.
6.30 pm
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which was initiated by the Opposition. It allows us to expose a crime that has been perpetrated on thousands and thousands of workers in the UK by unscrupulous employers. The extent of the problem of asbestosis-related deaths is revealed by the area that I come from, Tyneside, where two people die each week from that illness.
Tyneside has a history of heavy industry and shipbuilding, so we have a legacy of workers who have used asbestos in the past, largely through ignorance, and who now have asbestosis, which is causing their death. In Jarrow, 109 men are waiting for compensation through the compensation courts. Those are basically 109 dead men walking. They ain't going to recover. They ain't going to get any better. Even though they will die in agony, all they want is to get their compensation. But the problem will not go away once those men have got their compensation and, unfortunately, died. The problem will get worse. It has been estimated that it will not peak until 2010.
The men who have been suffering from asbestosis have had to worry not only about the illness and the fact that they have had to live through the illness with their family, but about the compensation. I have raised the issue twice in Parliament—and I will be brief and take your guidance on the length of speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am reminded once again of the unfairness of the way in which those men have been treated, of the scandal of those rogues at Chester Street Holdings, who potentially robbed 10,000 people on Tyneside of their compensation, and of the ludicrous Fairchild judgment, whereby the person suffering from asbestosis had to prove which employer at which time and in which place was the source of the single fibre that caused his illness. That is an absolute nonsense. I had a constituent, William Cuskin, whom I have mentioned in Parliament before. He was a painter who worked for numerous employers up and down the Tyne throughout his career. How on earth could he say which single employer gave him the disease?
Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of his constituents, and many of the people whom I dealt with when I handled asbestos claims at the GMB union, were told when they were working with asbestos that it was safe? Many of them are now dying a horrible and cruel death. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) also spoke of a safe type of asbestos.
Mr. Hepburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must realise that we cannot save those people who are dying of asbestosis. We can do nothing about the people who will get the illness in years to come because of their past exposure to asbestos. We can do nothing to relieve the stress caused by Chester Street Holdings and the Fairchild judgment. What we can do is reduce, if not eradicate, the risk of people getting asbestosis in the future. That is exactly what the asbestos in the workplace regulations are about. They are commonsense measures. All they say is that an employer must identify where the asbestos is in his workplace so that if any contractor comes to do any sort of work, the contractors and workmen are protected.
506
I have heard the arguments about white asbestos. One Opposition Member said that it was no more dangerous than talc. If it is no more dangerous than talc, let him put it under his arms for the next 12 months after he has had a wash. I hope he will not contract the disease from which people are dying a terrible death week in, week out in my constituency.
It does not matter what colour the asbestos is. It does not matter whether it is white, blue or brown. It is a killer. Yes, it is a killer to varying extents, but would we ask a person whether he would rather be run over by a mini or by a 10-ton truck? At the end of the day, the person will die; it is only a question of how long it will take.
I welcome the regulations, which I hope will be introduced sooner rather than later to protect people in the workplace.
6.35 pm
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Having been in the building trade in the area where the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) lives, I know that one of the first things to look for when entering a building is where the asbestos is. If someone finds asbestos, they must do something about it. I saw more building projects held up because asbestos had been found than for any other reason, and they were held up for longer than any other projects. As a result, sub-contractors went bust. That happened many times on Tyneside.
The regulations refer to a duty to
"identify…where asbestos may be present in buildings".
That is fine, if the asbestos can be found.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned Federal Mogul, which is included in chapter 11. It is in my constituency, and it is a big employer. It may continue to be; we will see what happens in a month's time. I know that the factory has major problems, but I also know that whoever goes in to change things will have a problem with asbestos. It will take a long time to clear the site.
Bridgwater is 100 acres short of industrial land. We desperately need land. If the regulations are introduced and we have to explore every part of every building to make them watertight, building and regeneration will be held up. That applies to other areas as well as mine. especially parts of the north-east, which is still changing from a heavy-industry to a light-industry area.
Another problem is the requirement to keep records of location and condition. "Condition" means condition today. Buildings are intended to have a considerable lifespan. Many factors may change their condition, such as water or air. Will it be necessary to re-regulate every five years because checks have to be made again? How will it be possible to make certain that part of a building has not deteriorated to the extent that it must be removed earlier?
Then there is the risk to workers. Those exploring a building to establish where asbestos is must take samples, which disturbs the asbestos. Someone carrying out such a process for a surveyor's report, through the Institution of Chartered Surveyors or any other organisation, might cause a problem while trying to find out where the asbestos is, and the material might have

507
to be removed anyway. I may be putting this in a rather longwinded way. What I mean is that the regulations may result in more problems than positive results.
I do not dispute the fact that we must know where asbestos is, but most buildings are that sort of age. White asbestos in particular dates from a time when there was a massive amount of industrial building, and mostly concrete, tin and asbestos were used for the roofs.
The regulations prescribe a duty to establish where premises are, and their condition, before any maintenance work is begun. How will those going into the building know about its condition? Someone examining lengths of piping covered in asbestos will have to establish whether a percentage, or the whole amount, is damaged, whether it can be re-used and whether it can be left. I do not understand how the regulations will regulate that. It must be in the interests of specialist firms to have the stuff pulled out if any of it is not in good condition before rebuilding starts.
If such matters are not addressed, the regulations may be unenforceable. As the Minister knows, there are one or two cowboys in the building industry. We do not want to create a problem because they are looking for ways of getting around the rules.
6.39 pm
Tony Worthington: I welcome the regulations, which should have been implemented many years ago. I also very much welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), who treated the issues under discussion with the seriousness that they deserve. They are a serious concern in our constituencies.
Clydebank in my constituency has had the highest rate of asbestos deaths in the country for many years because of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry and Turners asbestos factory. These are serious matters. People have died because of the material and the regulations seek to prevent people from dying in future. Anyone who turns this place into a public school debating chamber in which we make party political points when deaths are involved is not doing anyone a service.
We all anticipated that the main objection would be made in terms of white asbestos. In such circumstances, we can only look at what scientists have said. Asbestos is one of the most investigated materials ever and it is very difficult to investigate whether something causes disease over a period of 30, 40 or 50 years. In 1998, the World Health Organisation concluded that white asbestos caused asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, so it is clear that this is not only about mesothelioma. Many diseases, including lung cancer, are affected by asbestos. In 2002, the United Nations ruled that all forms of asbestos should be added to an international list of chemicals subject to trade controls. The international chemical review committee said that such controls were another big step towards eliminating the risks associated with asbestos. A prestigious scientific body concerned with occupational health, the Collegium Ramazzini, called for an international ban on all mining and use of asbestos, including chrysotile, and concluded that it causes cancer.
508
The International Programme on Chemical Safety, which is sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation, concluded that exposure to chrysotile posed increased risks for asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. The French medical research council established that all asbestos fibres are carcinogenic. The World Trade Organisation, adjudicating on a trade war between France and Canada on the issue, concluded that chrysotile was an established carcinogen and that there was no safe threshold.
Those judgments are not from Select Committees. but from controlling bodies, and they are based on research such as that of Smith and Wright, which says that chrysotile is the main cause of pleural mesotheliomas in humans. Research conducted by Mancuso found that chrysotile is far more hazardous in the induction of mesotheliomas and asbestos cancer risk much higher than was previously thought. The findings of Yano and others show that heavy exposure to white asbestos alone can cause lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma in exposed workers. The conclusion of Chaturvedi and Chaturvedi is that chrysotile asbestos cannot be used without risk.
I am very grateful to Robin Howie, a distinguished Scottish scientist, for writing to me about the issue. He said that the critical study on the effects of chrysotile on health was that initiated in 1966 by the McDonalds and co-workers on Quebec white asbestos miners—people working only with white asbestos. By 1992, those authors had observed 108 deaths from pneumoconiosis, 657 lung cancer deaths and 38 mesothelioma deaths. There were 174 more lung cancer deaths than one would have expected in such a population. Robin Howie tells me that the critical fact is that Canada exports more than 95 per cent. of the chrysotile that it produces. If chrysotile is so safe, why do the Canadians not use more of it?
Many people have pointed out that we should also take into account the evidence heard in courts across the continents. Court after court around the world has concluded that all forms of asbestos have caused thousands of deaths. An article in the Financial Times this week showed that ABB was going down because of asbestos claims. Two hundred and fifty of the largest firms in the world are now approaching the United States Supreme Court because they, in turn, are being killed by asbestos. They have been found guilty over and over again, and white asbestos has been involved in those judgments. If they believed that white asbestos was harmless, surely they would have mounted an intensive collective research project to prove it, so that they could win in court. They have not done so because they could not. Now, they are protesting about the level of damages.
There is very little time left, and I am sorry that I shall be unable to respond to any questions about any of those pieces of research. On white asbestos, I would simply say to the hon. Member for Buckingharn (Mr. Bercow): "Don't stay in Buckingham. I do not know what the rate of asbestos-related death is there. Come to Clydebank and see what misery and death tins substance has caused." The regulations will prevent further deaths, and that is rather more important than the points that the hon. Gentleman was making.
6.46 pm
Angela Watkinson: The important thing about this debate is that it is taking place before the Government have signed the statutory instrument relating to the new regulations, which are likely to involve organisations throughout the country in costs exceeding £5 billion. The new regulations encompass all types of asbestos—blue, white and brown—and treat them in the same way. That is why they are fundamentally flawed.
The use of blue and brown asbestos was finally made illegal in 1985, but a study in the same year marked the onset of the confusion that lies at the root of all our present problems. Scientists, lobbyists and, finally, legislators began—through what originally stemmed from a misreading of the scientific evidence—to blur the distinction between the different types of asbestos. The encapsulation of the fibres of white asbestos in cement is by far the most common use of the material. Asbestos cement is used in such products as roofing slates, and accounts for 85 per cent. of all asbestos in use in the United Kingdom. It presents no risk to human health at all. Not a single case of health damage has ever been scientifically ascribed to exposure to asbestos cement products. There is simply no mechanism whereby such damage could occur.
Only a decade later, when Dr. Peto's evidence was re-examined by other scientists, did it emerge that he had made a fundamental error. If there is one point of consensus in the Chamber this evening, it is that there is a plethora of contradictory scientific research evidence, and I endorse the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that that evidence should be heard in Select Committee. Determined attempts have been made to find fresh evidence for the dangers of white asbestos. Further studies have emerged, based on workers exposed to raw asbestos in China, Italy and elsewhere, which seem to indicate that there is a very slight risk from prolonged and intensive industrial exposure.
In recent years, we have seen a deliberate policy to blur any distinction between the different types of asbestos and their uses, and to suggest that all types of asbestos material can be equally dangerous. In this way, the Health and Safety Executive has helped to create the potential for immense unnecessary public alarm, not least because by far the most widely used form of asbestos in the United Kingdom is asbestos cement, which poses no risk to human health.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Watkinson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I am short of time.
Millions of commercial and domestic properties in the United Kingdom include some form of asbestos in their construction. The commonest of all is white asbestos cement used in roofing materials. No one has been in a better position to exploit the confusion and alarm resulting from the blurring of the differences between the various forms of asbestos than the specialist contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive to carry out asbestos-related work. A recent nationwide investigation has shown that property occupiers ranging from farmers, householders and shopkeepers to local
510
authorities and NHS hospital trusts are vulnerable to commercially motivated advice, and can become involved in unnecessarily costly asbestos removal that could be carried out at a fraction of the cost by an unlicensed building contractor.
The HSE's proposed new regulations increase the likelihood that the public will continue to be exploited in this way. The chief purpose of the new law will be to impose on all workplaces—some 1.5 million collectively—the duty to carry out a written risk assessment of all asbestos materials on the premises, combined with a continuing programme for their safe management. According to the consultation paper published by the HSE earlier this year, the new requirements alone will cost the organisations involved £5.1 billion. Other sums have been quoted today, but this figure takes no account of the fact that hundreds of thousands of organisations, bewildered by confusion over the dangers of asbestos, will be reluctant to take responsibility themselves for assessment of the risks posed by asbestos, and will therefore call in the HSE's licensed contractors.
There is too much doubt about the integrity of the scientific research on which new regulations on the control of asbestos have been based for any confidence to be placed in them. I urge the Minister to re-examine the evidence.
6.51 pm
Rob Marris: I should begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. Also, as has been registered, I was formerly employed by Thompson's, the trade union solicitors, which gives money to my constituency Labour party. I should further inform the House that I am a Canadian citizen, so I have some idea of the asbestos industry in Canada.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said, white asbestos is produced in Quebec. In 1988, Thomas Mancuso concluded a study on American railway machinists of the steam locomotive era, which was published in the "American Journal of Industrial Medicine". The machinists used white asbestos, or chrysotile. According to the study, one mesothelioma occurred for every 13 machinists hired. Chrysotile kills people. I accept that there is a scientific dispute as to whether it is as deadly as brown or blue asbestos. From what we know, it probably is not, but it certainly kills through the inhalation of fibres.
The World Trade Organisation—a body not easily swayed, as my hon. Friend said—dealt with a case brought by Canada, against France, relating to the introduction of a ban on white asbestos. That case was lost, as was the subsequent appeal. The WTO does not readily restrict trade, but it will do so when there are health and safety implications. It did so in respect of the chrysotile from Canada because it is dangerous and kills people. Conservative Members should move on in respect of this issue. Enough scientific evidence has been published to justify moving on and supporting measures such as the Government's proposed draft regulations.
According to Library note SN/SC/1641, dated 5 February, there were two consultations on the draft regulations, not one. The first ended on 20 October

511
2000, and the second was published a year later, on 21 November 2001. The critical comments arising from the first consultation related to two areas: clarification of the phrase "duty holder"—relating to the occupier of premises and the question of who has the duty in respect of asbestos—and widening the scope of the 1987 regulations. Nothing in the Library document suggests that either consultation raised the question of the non-dangerousness of white asbestos at that stage. It is being raised very late in the day, which seems strange.
The draft regulations themselves do not place a great burden on occupiers of premises in which people are employed. Such an occupier simply has to make an assessment of the risk of those premises based on whether there is asbestos in there and, if so, what, if anything, the occupier proposes to do about it at that stage or in the future. It does not put an obligation upon the occupier at that stage to do anything; it depends on the nature of the findings. Regulation 4 is quite clear on that.
On the compliance costs of the regulations, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) talked about building works being held up when asbestos is found. However, the regulations will stop that. If the regulations come in, we will know whether asbestos is in a building, so if a development is proposed five years later, it will not catch people by surprise when the building is pulled down.
Mr. Bercow: Why has the Health and Safety Executive already changed twice its estimate of the prospective cost of the regulations and, in the circumstances, what is to prevent it from doing so a third, a fourth, a fifth or even a sixth time?
Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman knows that estimates are estimates and are open to change. The fact that a body changes its estimates does not automatically mean that the underlying regulation is wrong. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues talk about contractors. He spent about a minute and half in a short debate saying why he would not do what he urged be done—name and shame. He is protected by absolute privilege in the Chamber, but he would not name and shame any of these unscrupulous contractors.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Select Committee should look into these matters. However, as a member of the Committee, I can tell him that when we discussed a programme of work in October, no member of the Committee said anything about looking at the regulations or at asbestos, even though the matter now comes under the remit of the Committee. That seems contradictory and reinforces my view that action is always taken late in the day.
It is too late. Let us move on from this debate. White asbestos kills people; let us regulate.
6.57 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply. This debate, in Government time, must come to a conclusion at seven o'clock, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
512
The debate, perfectly properly, has concentrated on the dangers of white asbestos, chrysotile, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is entitled to his doubts. As the Minister, I must listen to the debate and the views of Members on both sides of the House, but I must also take careful note of the advice available to the Government. That advice is that the best estimate is that exposure exclusively to chrysotile fibres by maintenance workers would give rise to an uncertain but actual—and so unacceptable—risk of cancer. The Health and Safety Executive believes that all types of asbestos present a degree of risk, and, therefore, all are included in the regulations as part of a precautionary approach.
Hon. Members are entitled to make points about uncertainty. I acknowledge that there is uncertainty, but I cannot accept—this is not the advice available to the Government—that there is zero risk. It would be something like 20 or 30 years before we were able to gel. to the truth of this as far as maintenance workers were concerned. My hon. Friends the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for Wolverhampton, South West (Rob Marris) have spoken movingly about the impact of this terrible disease on their constituents.
The hon. Member for Buckingham made the same point in a slightly different way. He spoke about the massive payments that are paid in compensation in asbestosis cases and the dangers of the insurance institutions being put under severe pressure if they continually make these massive payments.
Surely the rational thing to do, as a united House, is to bring in regulations that work on a proportionate and precautionary basis to prevent such massive cases from ever coming about for future generations. It is a terrible thing, but there is nothing we can do for those who already have this condition, except to look to financial compensation. But surely, for future generations and those who might be affected in the future, we should prevent such cases from happening. It is the Government's contention that the propositions before the House are proportionate. Incidentally, there is a defence of due diligence—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered
That at the sitting on Monday 28th October, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords relating to the Enterprise Bill shall have been received.—[Mr. Caplin.]

PETITIONS

  Post Office Closures
  7 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: This petition is from the residents of Chesham and Amersham, and in particular the residents of Chesham Bois. The petition is presented by more than 500 people from Chesham Bois.

  513
  The petition states:
  The Petition of the residents of Chesham Bois and others declares that the post office in Chesham Bois is in the process of being closed thereby resulting in considerable hardship to the elderly, infirm and mothers with children who wish to use their local post office and not a post office one mile down the road.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take appropriate action to ensure the continued operation of this vital service.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Health Choices
  Mrs. Gillan: I wish to present a petition from more than 300 constituents in Chesham and Amersham about the health choices of consumers in the constituency.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters from Chesham and Amersham and others,
  Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and the range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the Petitioners remain. etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Indonesia (Detention of Dr Lesley McCulloch)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Alan Reid: I wish to start by thanking Mr. Speaker for selecting the important issue of the detention of Lesley McCulloch in Indonesia as the subject for this Adjournment debate. Lesley's parents are also grateful to Mr. Speaker and are present in the Public Gallery tonight. I would also like to thank the Minister for responding to the debate tonight and for agreeing to meet Lesley's parents later.
  Lesley has been held in detention in the province of Aceh since 10 September. The only charge brought so far has been one of visa violation. Six weeks detention in terrible conditions is out of all proportion to the charge.
  Aceh was an independent state for centuries prior to the Dutch invasion of 1873, and its people fiercely resisted the Dutch forces. When the Dutch left in 1945, the province was incorporated into the Indonesian state. Since then, the Acehnese people have suffered terribly at the hands of the Indonesian army and police, and that has served to reinforce their demand for the restoration of their independence. There is an armed conflict going on between the GAM—the Acehnese independence movement—and the Indonesian army and police.
  Dr. Lesley McCulloch works at the University of Tasmania. She is an academic specialising in the politics of the province of Aceh. She currently holds the position of principal researcher for a project on Aceh sponsored by the Honolulu-based East-West Centre as part of its series on internal conflicts in Asia. Her articles on the situation in Aceh have been published extensively in the Australian press. The articles have attracted extreme criticism from the Indonesian Government. In part, that was caused by a public seminar that Lesley gave at the Australian national university on 24 July. As part of the presentation, Lesley showed a map that revealed all the military checkpoints in Aceh and explained how they were used by the military for the purpose of extortion.
  The Indonesian embassy officials at the seminar were furious. In particular, their chargé d'affaires in Australia has made a number of public statements condemning Lesley and her work. Lesley, an American nurse named Joy Lee Sadler and an Acehnese student acting as their interpreter were detained at a military checkpoint in south Aceh on 10 September. They were originally held by the military. During that time, they were beaten and subjected to sexual harassment and to long interrogations, during which a knife was held at Lesley's throat. The purpose of that treatment was to try to coerce them into signing false confessions.
  I have been told by Lesley's friends that they informed the Foreign Office of her arrest on 12 September. They also provided contact numbers for the police station where Lesley was being held and information about her whereabouts as she was moved. Despite that, no British consular official visited Lesley until 17 September. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House why there was that long delay while Lesley was being held in very dangerous circumstances. Also, what actions were the Government taking during that time to make contact with Lesley and to make known their concerns for her safety to the Indonesian Government?

  515
  Lesley's parents live in my constituency. They telephoned the Foreign Office repeatedly over the weekend of 13 to 15 September to try to speak to an official who had knowledge of Lesley's case. However, although they left their telephone number with the duty officer, no contact was made with them over that weekend.
  The Foreign Office switchboard played a recorded message saying that it was only open from 9.30 am to 4 pm on Mondays to Fridays. When Mrs. McCulloch called on the morning of Monday 16 September, all the lines were engaged—presumably because everyone who tried to call over the weekend was trying to get through at the same time. Eventually, Mrs. McCulloch got through and was given some information, but will the Minister explain why no attempt was made to give her information over the previous weekend?
  Subsequently, Lesley and Joy were transferred to police custody in Banda Aceh. On 16 September they were charged with misuse of a tourist visa, allegedly through carrying out research. That charge carries a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000. Lesley and Joy maintain that they are innocent of the charge. All the research and academic materials found on Lesley's laptop computer were from previous trips, which had been carried out under an appropriate research visa. Much more worrying than the visa violation charges are statements from the Indonesian military that they want Lesley and Joy to be charged with espionage. That is clearly ludicrous, as there is absolutely no evidence for it.
  Lesley is in poor health. She suffers from acute back pain, but the only exercise that she is allowed is in a small courtyard. The Indonesian authorities are not giving her enough food, but perhaps most difficult to bear is the psychological pressure. Lesley has been subjected to long interrogations. On a daily basis, she has to listen to the screams of local Acehnese prisoners being tortured for confessions. Lesley's lawyers in Jakarta raised the possibility of requesting house arrest for her and Joy, but decided not to go through with the request as the police were concerned that the military would try to assassinate the pair if they were out of police custody.
  Lesley received a consular visit on 17 and 18 September, and another two-day visit in early October. However, that compares very poorly with the actions of the US embassy, which has sent consular officials to see their citizen on four occasions, and for up to four days at a time. The contrast between what our consular staff are doing for Lesley and what the US consular staff are doing for their citizen is striking. While in Banda Aceh, US consular officials have lobbied the police commander for their citizen's immediate release. They have brought medical supplies and food. They have arranged for all of Joy Sadler's personal luggage to be sent home. Much more importantly, however, they have helped to arrange for adequate legal representation. UK consular officials have lagged far behind. On his last visit on 10 October, a consular official brought medication for Lesley's back pain but it only lasted a fortnight. The fortnight is now up, Lesley has run out of medication, and we do not know how she will get any more because no other consular visit has been scheduled.
  516
  Even more worrying is the lack of help with legal assistance. The British Foreign Office appears to take the view that it is unable to recommend lawyers and perform checks on any lawyers to verify their competence or independence from the Indonesian Government. Can the Minister tell the House why the UK Government take this view? If one is imprisoned in a foreign country, surely access to competent and reliable legal advice is of extreme importance. Surely our Government should help their citizens in foreign jails to get legal assistance instead of leaving it up to the prisoner and her friends to arrange it. The lack of consular advice is also sending the wrong signal to Lesley's jailers. The soldiers guarding Lesley keep telling her that they can do what they like to her because the lack of consular visits indicates that her Government do not care.
  Lesley's life is clearly in danger. The Indonesian army clearly regard her as a supporter of the Aceh rebel movement and could at any time take the law into their own hands and have her assassinated. In view of that, I ask the Minister to ensure that Lesley receives more consular visits in future and is given the same level of support that the US Government are giving to their citizen.
  Lesley managed to send out some text messages giving brief details of the abuse to which she has been subjected and the conditions in which she is confined. However, I am concerned that our consular officials in Jakarta rely too much on the word of Lesley's lawyers and interpreters in Aceh, who tell them that the conditions are not as bad as she claims. Those local lawyers and interpreters cannot be considered independent; they have to live in Aceh and could well be scared of the consequences if they tell the truth.
  Many reports have circulated about the abuse that Lesley has suffered and the poor conditions in which she is being held. Friends of hers are naturally concerned when they hear these reports. It is clearly difficult for her friends to find out whether the reports are true or exaggerated. They naturally get in touch with the Foreign Office, but are rebuffed with a statement along the lines of, "Sorry, we can't tell you anything, it's all confidential." I understand that the Foreign Office has to work within the data protection legislation, in the same way as everybody else, but surely the details of the conditions in which Lesley is being held are not confidential. By not revealing accurate information, the Foreign Office has caused Lesley's friends to believe that the worst rumours are true. I think that the Foreign Office needs to revise its policy and give out more information to friends and relatives of detained persons about the conditions under which they are being held. A lot of stress and worry could be avoided if they did.
  I hope that the Minister will take advantage of this debate to tell us about the conditions of Lesley's confinement that the consular staff found when they visited her earlier this month. What protests have the Government made to the Indonesian Government about Lesley's treatment, particularly concerning the beatings that she received in the early days of her imprisonment? What are the Government doing to try to persuade the Indonesian Government to improve these conditions?

  517
  The Foreign Office's standard response to requests from Lesley's parents that it should be doing more to persuade the Indonesian authorities to release Lesley is generally a bland statement that the British Government cannot interfere in the legal process of another country. However, it is patently obvious that the rules of independence of government and judiciary which apply in the UK do not apply in Indonesia.
  A fair trial is clearly impossible. The Indonesian Government have already issued press releases stating that Lesley is guilty. These can be found on Indonesian Government websites. It is clear that any trial will be a political show trial. How can it be otherwise, when the Indonesian Government have already declared Lesley guilty? I hope that the Government will put in the strongest protest about the Indonesian Government finding Lesley guilty without a trial. It is clear that the Indonesian Government want to punish Lesley not for any alleged visa violation, but for the earlier articles that she wrote for the Australian press about the Indonesian suppression of the people of Aceh.
  I have noted that the website of our Department for International Development contains a paper stating that the Indonesian judiciary is corrupt. As any trial will be political, political pressure is needed from the United Kingdom Government to help Lesley. If our Government show no interest, the Indonesian authorities, like their soldiers in Aceh, will assume that the British Government do not care about Lesley and that they can do what they like to her. British Government pressure is Lesley's only hope of an early release. Our Government should be making it clear to the Indonesian Government that if Indonesia wants to be part of the international community certain standards of behaviour are expected, and those do not include beating up suspects and declaring them guilty before the trial.
  I do not understand why the Government have taken the attitude that they cannot exert pressure on the Indonesian Government. Certain people have suggested to me that the Government are soft-pedalling because they want to maintain good trade relations with Indonesia, particularly with regard to arms sales. I sincerely hope that that is not the case and that the Minister will take the opportunity to refute such suggestions.
  I hope that now the Minister is fully aware of Lesley's dire situation he will tonight commit the Government to exert pressure on the Indonesian Government, first, to improve the conditions of Lesley's detention; secondly, to ensure her safety; and thirdly, to release her quickly and allow her to return home. I hope that the Government will act promptly and decisively. Lesley's life may well depend on it.
  7.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing this Adjournment debate and bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.
  I welcome the opportunity to set out the assistance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided to Dr. Lesley McCulloch and her family and to explain what consular assistance we can provide to her and other British nationals detained abroad.
  518
  On 12 September, the consular division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was first advised by Lord Avebury of Dr. McCulloch's arrest the day before. We immediately informed our embassy in Jakarta by e-mail. Consular staff in Jakarta tried to contact Dr. McCulloch on 13 September at the police station at Tapak Tuan. They were refused permission to speak to her without the consent of the head of the station, who was apparently unavailable. Consular staff spent considerable time trying to follow that up with the head of the provincial police headquarters and other senior staff, but continued to be refused contact.
  Our honorary consul in Medan managed to speak briefly to Dr. McCulloch on 14 September. I understand that details of her arrest were relayed to her mother on 14 September, which was a Saturday. After repeated requests, on 17 September, FCO officials were able to see Dr. McCulloch. We have continued to update Mrs. McCulloch regularly and, more recently, consular staff have spoken to her on a daily basis. Since the initial difficulties in contacting Dr. McCulloch, our consular staff have had better access and have visited her on four occasions, not two—17 and 18 September and 7 and 8 October—and remain in weekly telephone contact with her.
  Banda Aceh is the capital of a dangerous Indonesian province where a separatist movement is active and where we advise against travel. There is a four-hour flight service to Banda Aceh, but despite that, British consular officials have visited Dr. McCulloch on more occasions than any other British prisoner in Indonesia.
  We are also aware that Dr. McCulloch is experiencing problems with her back and will eventually need an operation. When our consul visited her on 7 and 8 October, he raised her back problems with the police commandant. I am told that medication for her back has been obtained, and that she is able to take it.
  I am aware that Dr. McCulloch is a vegan and I am told that it has been possible to purchase locally the foodstuffs she requires. We understand that she is not being denied access to food of her choice.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that Dr. McCulloch was arrested on 10 September. We need to confirm that, as my information is that her arrest was on 11 September. At the time of her arrest, Dr. McCulloch is said to have been carrying out research. She travelled on a short-visit visa in an area where a special permit is required. Dr. McCulloch stated that she had applied for a social-cultural visa—a research visa—from the Indonesian embassy in Australia but had not collected it as research visas are single entry and she favoured a short-visit visa.
  At the time of her detention, Dr. McCulloch is alleged to have had in her possession details of military installations within a restricted area. She reportedly explained that a colleague had written the article in question and that she had been asked to edit it, which explained why it was in her possession.
  On 17 September, Dr. McCulloch was charged with violating Indonesian immigration regulations. She is currently being held in a room in the police station at Banda Aceh, where she sleeps on a mattress and has access to her own bathroom. I am told that the door to the room is unlocked. She can walk freely and has access

  519
  to a courtyard where she can exercise. Unlike other prisoners, including British prisoners, Dr. McCulloch is not being held in a cell.
  On 30 September, Dr. McCulloch's case was handed to the district prosecutor, who, on 2 October, passed the case back to the police, requesting further evidence. I understand that the police have 40 days before the case must be handed back to the district prosecutor. Dr. McCulloch's lawyers believe that the first trial date is likely to be in November, and consular staff hope to visit Dr. McCulloch at the time of the trial. We hope to be able to be present during some or all of the trial.
  I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, since January, our travel advice has advised against all travel to Aceh. A separatist movement is active in Aceh, and shootings and mortar attacks happen almost daily. As from 27 August, the same travel information advised British nationals who were working in the province to review their need to stay; in other words, the advice was that British nationals should leave if they could do so.
  From the events of the past week, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the terrorist bombing in Bali has caused us again to revise our advice. We are advising against all travel to Indonesia, and that all British nationals in Indonesia should consider leaving.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also authorised the withdrawal of some dependants and non-essential staff from the British embassy in Jakarta, but remaining consular staff will continue to monitor Dr. McCulloch's welfare closely and will try to provide all proper consular assistance.
  Dr. McCulloch has further stated that, after her arrest, she was threatened, sexually harassed and made to sign a document with which she did not agree. We have raised those matters with Indonesian officials, as we are of course extremely concerned by them. Our ambassador and our consular staff in Jakarta have also raised their concerns about Dr. McCulloch's allegations of ill-treatment and the problems experienced in contacting her soon after her arrest. Those concerns have been raised with the head of provincial police in Aceh and with the head of criminal intelligence in the national police and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Indonesia. They have undertaken to investigate the allegations and we await a response.
  Dr. McCulloch's case has also been raised with the Indonesian embassy in London. Furthermore, on 19 October, during her visit to Indonesia after the devastating events in Bali, my noble Friend Baroness Amos raised Dr. McCulloch's case with the Indonesian Foreign Minister Mr. Wirayuda. Baroness Scotland, my noble Friend in the Lord Chancellor's Department, has also raised concerns about Dr. McCulloch's treatment with the Minister of Justice and Human Rights during a recent visit to Jakarta.
  Dr. McCulloch was given a list of lawyers when we were able to see her for the first time on 17 September. It is not possible for consular officials to advise on particular lawyers, but we have been able to provide a list of lawyers who, as far as we are aware, can deal with this sort of case. It is clearly not possible for consular staff to travel around Indonesia—or, indeed, all the many countries in which we deal with consular cases—
  520
  to identify which lawyers are good and which are not. It simply is not possible or feasible for us to do that on that scale.
  Obviously, if the case were in Jakarta, we would have had dealings with certain lawyers and might have been able to advise on particular ones, but Aceh is not the capital. It would simply be very difficult for consular officials to provide detailed advice on which criminal lawyer is the best to deal with a particular case in towns such as Aceh. However, we were able to provide a list of some lawyers on the first visit on 17 September.
  Under international law, we cannot interfere in the. judicial process of another sovereign country, but we. have urged the Indonesian authorities to deal with Dr. McCulloch's case as quickly as possible. Dr. McCulloch also has English-speaking legal representation and an interpreter, and our consular staff are in contact with her legal representatives. I understand that Dr. McCulloch has had direct contact with friends and family. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will know about that, so I will not go into it now; we can deal with that issue when we speak with the family afterwards.
  In a recent telephone conversation with our honorary consul in Medan, Dr. McCulloch asked that we let friends and family know that she is fine and well, and that they should not worry about her.
  There is a clear discrepancy between the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman tonight and what I have been told. I am very concerned by that, and I want to investigate those discrepancies. If Dr. McCulloch is telling us one thing and the hon. Gentleman is presenting the case as being entirely different, I shall be seriously concerned about that matter. I am told that Dr. McCulloch is saying something entirely different to us, and I will make investigations to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman's version of events is true or whether what I am being told is correct.
  I was frankly flabbergasted by the allegation, which the hon. Gentleman made during his speech, that the Government are soft pedalling on Dr. McCulloch's case because we wish to maintain good trade relations Indonesia, especially to sell arms. That is frankly the worst sort of cheap shop party politics on a serious issue. I flatly deny the allegation. I am very angered by it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously he should stop pandering to such conspiratorial nonsense. We deal with a lot of consular cases across the world every day.
  Mr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.
  I regret to say that the detention of British subjects is far from unique. The officials in the Foreign Office—civil servants, who do their job with utmost dedication and integrity—do not deserve to have that sort of allegation made against them. We certainly would not make that sort of instruction to officials. Indeed, they would not accept it if that sort of instruction were given.

  521
  We pursue such cases in a proper manner and will continue to do so. We cannot force the Indonesian Government to free Dr. McCulloch. We need to monitor the legal procedure and negotiate with them. Seeking to frighten relatives with untrue allegations, such as the hon. Gentleman's, is simply very wrong. We
  522
  will continue to provide all proper consular assistance to Dr. McCulloch and will ensure that her family are kept informed of any developments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I am delighted to open this debate on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Obviously, it follows the General Assembly's special session in May, which I attended as head of the United Kingdom delegation. The session was originally planned for September last year, but it would have taken place just after the terrorist attacks in New York.
We were accompanied by two young delegates, who joined me and many other delegates in bilateral meetings with Ministers from other countries. We greatly value the participation of those young people. Indeed, a hallmark of the Government's approach to the convention is our commitment to increasing young people's opportunities to have a voice in and be consulted on policies affecting their lives. I am pleased that we are meeting in Westminster Hall, because we can have a fairly lengthy debate on children's and young people's issues.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the Modernisation Committee report published on 7 September, which the House is due to discuss in the near future. For those who have not read it in detail, it says that
"for an experimental period there should be an occasional question session in Westminster Hall on cross-cutting issues to junior Ministers from different Departments."
It is perhaps no secret that, as Minister for children and young people, I have pressed for youth affairs to be included in an experimental Question Time, to enable Members from both sides of the House to ask about children's and young people's issues. Who knows, they might be able to ask questions raised by their young constituents as well as ones that they have thought up themselves. I am keen for us to use Parliament to debate such issues.
I should underline the Government's commitment to the convention and to making every effort to apply its principles and spirit to all our work with children and young people. The convention enshrines a broad range of children's rights, which extend to virtually every sphere of society. Our priorities are to ensure that every child has the right to education, health, housing, safety, freedom from poverty and participation in decisions that affect them. The Government can be proud of their record of achievement as regards children and young people over the past five years.
We agree with the UN that every child has the right to a good education. Education is the foundation for social and economic security later in life. There has been significant financial investment since 1997, as well as hard work and a great deal of commitment from
140WH
teachers, and parents and children are now getting a better deal in the classroom. Teaching standards are improving, and national and international data show that standards of student achievement are rising across the schooling system, year on year. In 1997, only 62 per cent. of 11-year-olds reached the expected standard of literacy and numeracy, compared with 73 per cent. today. Ten years ago, only 36.8 per cent. of teenagers got five good GCSEs, compared with 50 per cent. today. The number of teachers has hit a 20-year high. We have come a long way, but we must make further progress, and we are committed to doing that.
School is not the be-all and end-all of a child's world. The UN convention states that we should recognise the right of every child to an adequate standard of living. One of our first priorities on taking office was to begin to reverse the legacy of one of the worst child poverty records in the industrialised world. Child poverty levels in the UK were unacceptable, which is why the Prime Minister made a commitment to eradicate child poverty within a generation. We believe that the only lasting way to tackle poverty is through policies that ensure, wherever possible, that children do not grow up in workless households, that they receive all the essential opportunities to acquire skills for themselves and that they are able to participate fully in society.
By any measure, we are making progress through, for example, the introduction of working families tax credit and the 25 per cent. increase in child benefit since 1997. We have implemented successful programmes to enable lone parents, in particular, to re-enter the labour market, so that their children can be brought up in homes with an income from work. As a result, compared with the situation in 1996–97, almost 1.5 million fewer children are now living in absolute poverty, over 500,000 fewer children are living in relative poverty and 250,000 fewer children are growing up in homes where no one has a job.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Minister refers to the reduction in child poverty. Of course, the figure that he quotes—about 500,000—is welcome, but is it not the case that, in the run-up to the last general election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that some 1.2 million children had been taken out of poverty? In fact, documents published by the Office for National Statistics in April 2002 showed, disappointingly, that the figure was much lower than the Government expected.
Mr. Denham: We have always recognised that there are several measures of poverty, which is why I quoted two—one of absolute poverty and the other of relative poverty. The Chancellor certainly quoted a figure lower than the number of children who were taken out of absolute poverty, so we have nothing to retreat on. In the Government's wider poverty strategy, we believe that it is better to use several different measures rather than to decide that one figure is the sole definition of poverty, because there are so many different ways to consider the issue. Therefore, everyone can see what progress we have made. By any assessment, the Government's record on taking children out of poverty stands pretty good comparison with that of any other country. No other industrialised country has reduced its

141WH
numbers of children living in poverty by so many during the past few years. Indeed, poverty has increased in many countries during that time.
We have continued our commitment to children, and the sure start programme is the cornerstone of the Government's drive to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. It focuses on the under-fives and aims to improve the health and well-being of families and children, both before and from birth, so that children can fully benefit from the programme before they go to school. Sure start programmes are concentrated in neighbourhoods where a high proportion of children live in poverty, and the initiative can help them to succeed by pioneering new ways of working to improve services. By 2004, there will be at least 500 sure start programmes helping up to 400,000 children living in disadvantaged areas, including one third of all under-fours living in poverty.
The Government are also committed to ending the scandal of families and children who are homeless or living in temporary accommodation. This year, we will invest about £125 million to ensure that, by 2004, no child, or their family, is placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, except in an emergency. This year alone, between April and June, more than 30,000 households were accepted for rehousing, including many families with children and others, including a pregnant mother.
Since taking office, we have managed to reduce the number of rough sleepers, many of whom are young people, by more than two thirds. We shall focus on giving our children more protection through the social exclusion unit's ongoing review of young rough sleepers and runaways.
I hope now to set out fairly the achievements of the past few years. However, I do not intend to imply that the work is done or that further progress does not need be made. I hope that we can approach the debate in a balanced way, recognising real achievements, but redoubling our commitment to do more. As Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, I also do a lot of work with children and young people, and I am aware of their concerns about their personal safety and protection. Issues of which we are all aware—for example, fear of being assaulted in public places—are as real for young people as they are for older people, which is why reducing and preventing youth crime and reforming the youth justice system are a major part of the Government's efforts to build safer communities and to tackle social exclusion of children.
For example, the youth inclusion programme ensures that some 3,500 13 to 16-year-olds engage in a variety of purposeful and challenging educational and recreational activities, which can radically reduce the risk of their turning to crime, and that 375 holiday schemes ran during the summer, which meant that 60,000 to 70,000 10 to 17-year-olds were able to participate in stimulating activities in safe places. Early results show that there was a significant impact on crime and antisocial behaviour in those areas during the summer.
We have worked hard to speed through the youth justice system the young people who are already in it—for their own benefit and for that of the community—by
142WH
halving the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. In some cases we have no option but to detain young people, so we are improving the conditions for young people in custody. For example, facilities at Feltham have been upgraded, educational facilities are being improved and the guaranteed periods of education in young offender institutions will be extended significantly next year.
One benefit of the many things that we have done on young offenders through the youth opportunity programme, the youth inclusion programmes and the work in young offender institutions is a 14.6 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates for young people in the past two years. The Government set themselves a target of reducing reconviction rates by 5 per cent. by 2004, so to have managed nearly three times that two years early is a significant achievement by the police, social services, probation and other services involved in youth offending teams. I emphasise the point because, while the Government have made it clear that we will not tolerate youth crime, those figures show that neither will we tolerate writing off young people and not working with them to ensure that they do not continue with a life of crime. I hope that everybody welcomes the achievements of the past two years on reconviction rates.
Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister might be planning to come to this point shortly. The concluding comments and recommendations of the report of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child note the Government's reservations in respect of article 37(c), which concerns the separation of detained children from adults in prisons, and observe that that appears to be due solely to resource considerations. Have the Government reconsidered? Have additional resources been made available through the comprehensive spending review so that the reservations do not apply?
Mr. Denham: We are certainly increasing the availability of spaces in purpose-built or dedicated young offenders institutions, which will help to move us in the direction in which we all want to go. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we are not in a position today to promise a date on which we can remove that reservation, but we are making progress.
Mr. Grieve: That is a difficult issue. The Minister will be aware that at least one adult prison—High Down—has recently had a wing dedicated to young offenders as a result of the extent to which the young offenders institution system has been overburdened. Is that a satisfactory long-term solution or merely a temporary measure?
Mr. Denham: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I do not want to predict the contents of the Queen's Speech, but when a new criminal justice Bill is presented, whether in the distant or the not-too-distant future, we shall introduce measures for a more sensible approach to sentencing. Those will affect young and adult offenders.
One way in which we need to manage both the young and the adult prison population is by adopting a more rational approach to sentencing, particularly through

143WH
avoiding the current, largely unproductive state of affairs whereby short sentences are given to large numbers of people. We could have better community-based supervision, which would help us to manage the prison population and, whatever the size of the prison estate, give us more flexibility and increase our ability to provide dedicated facilities for young offenders.
We are also keen to extend the range of community-based punishments available for young people. I am thinking particularly of the quite rapid extension of intensive surveillance and supervision programmes, which usually combine a measure of curfew and electronic tagging with structured, 30-hour programmes each week. For some young people concerned, such programmes represent the first time for many years that someone has brought 30 hours of structure to their lives, and they are already producing positive results. We are all, I think, committed to a vision of detaining only those young people who must be detained for the protection of the wider public. As we expand intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, a wider range of options will be available to the courts to enable young people to be kept from offending, to reduce their chance of offending again, as we have already been doing, and to avoid the need for young people to be placed in custody.
The Government should continue to pursue that positive strategy. I am not able to say when we might be able to raise the reservation, but, equally, I expect that the House will accept that we are doing the right things to avoid detaining young people who do not need to be detained.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: As my right hon. Friend pursues his current line of argument, will he consider the views expressed recently at a meeting in the House by Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons? She said that inspectors try to pay close attention to the requirements of the Children Act 1989 when inspecting young offenders institutions. Given the intention to continue to keep children and young people in prison custody, is not it time to ensure that all the protections provided by that Act are applied to young people, who are vulnerable in those difficult situations?
Mr. Denham: First, I pay tribute to the work of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, who, like her predecessors, does an important job in inspecting the Prison Service and drawing issues to the Government's attention. I assure my hon. Friend that, whether or not the Children Act applies to young people in the relevant institutions, the welfare, care arid needs of young people in young offenders institutions are central to what the Government want to achieve.
One way to fulfil the requirements of the UN convention would be to spend very large amounts of money building more young offenders institutions. I prefer to balance a necessary increase in places with an increase in the type of non-custodial sentences that we are, increasingly, making available. That means pursuing a strategy of trying to minimise our dependence on the use of young offenders institutions. No doubt my hon. Friend will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to expanding on the points that he made, which I can return to in my winding-up speech. I do not want to take too much of the Chamber's time with my opening remarks.
144WH
I want to mention a few other key points, beginning with participation. Article 12 of the convention accords to
"the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views".
As Minister for children and young people, I am committed to enabling them to participate in the development of Government policies and services. About this time last year, we published core principles for involving children and young people in government. Eleven Departments have developed and published plans showing how they would involve children and young people when designing and implementing policies. It will take a little time for the culture of every Department fully to take on board all those principles. Many Departments are not used to such consultation. I can assure the House, however, of my and my fellow Ministers' commitment to ensuring that those principles are turned into action. We should do that because it will make a difference to the quality of services that the Government deliver.
The quality protects programme, which was launched a few years ago, is a prime example of a project in which children's participation has brought a significant change to, and improvement in, Government policy for looked-after young people. Many issues and targets in that programme arose from the consultation undertaken with young people. Listening to the views of young people in care is a central part of the quality protects programme, in which we have invested about £885 million so far.
We will continue to ensure that Departments live up to their promise to consult young people on major policy issues. The Home Office, for example, recently worked with the Children's Rights Alliance to publish a young people's consultation on the entitlement card. Hon. Members will remember that the Home Office published a discussion paper on the entitlement card last summer. We have deliberately ensured that young people can participate in that discussion, and there will be many more such examples.
There are probably two main points of interest—last summer's General Assembly session and the report published a couple of weeks ago by the UN observers on our compliance with the UN convention. I turn to the comments of the UN committee. We are pleased that the committee recognises the considerable advances made by the UK since the last report in 1995—an acknowledgement that a lot has been achieved by this Government since 1997. The Government have introduced most of the initiatives of which I have spoken.
The observers praised the changes in the machinery of government, acknowledging, for example, that we have set up the children and young people's unit, which supports me as Minister responsible for children and young people. They also praised the development of child-focused structures across government and the development of participation. They praised, too, several new pieces of legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
The Government are committed to the spirit of the convention, and we do not believe that anything in UK legislation contradicts any of its provisions. There are, though, elements of the convention that the UK has

145WH
interpreted differently from the committee. Smacking is one example. The Government are absolutely opposed to child abuse and violence against children. The law allows only what is reasonable in terms of the physical punishment of children—it does not permit child abuse. We do not believe that Government policy contravenes the UN convention, which refers to the protection of children from physical violence and maltreatment. The Government are satisfied that UK law accords with that.
It is not only wrong, but dangerous, to link smacking, in the sense in which many parents would understand the term, with child abuse, as it diverts attention and resources from those children in genuine danger who most need our protection. Parenting can be difficult, but we must avoid bringing the police and criminal law into family life. The Government's approach to reducing dependence on smacking is to help parents to do so by promoting positive parenting, through programmes such as sure start, the work of the children's fund and organisations such as Parentline and the National Family and Parenting Institute.
No doubt interest will be expressed during the debate in the concept of a children's commissioner. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each take different approaches to the idea of a children's commissioner. There is, in fact, no definitive model of a children's commissioner, either in this country or abroad. Those who exist cover the whole gamut, from a legally-based organisation, or a concept much closer to a children's ombudsman, to a system that is almost like a permanent standing commission of inquiry into things that have gone wrong.
There are many issues on which the public would certainly not be content to allow a person such as a commissioner to define the strict interpretation of the UN convention, and thus to define policy on issues such as smacking. On some of those issues, it is properly the right of elected Members of the House to determine legislation and its interpretation. It is worth noting, however, that we have many structures in place to promote children's rights.
In our manifesto, we gave a commitment to support a national children's rights director to act as champion for children in need and, in May 2002, Roger Morgan took up the role as part of the National Care Standards Commission. We shall continue to listen to the debate on a children's commissioner, and I look forward to hearing comments on that matter, but we need to be convinced that a new structure would add value to the existing mechanisms for addressing children's concerns.
Since 1997, we have made significant strides to improve children's lives. We are gathering much of that work into the overarching strategy for children and young people on which we began consulting at the end of last year and which we are finalising at the moment. We must bring together our achievements since 1997 and set out our vision for all our children and young people for the next 10 years. The overarching strategy will take the convention on the rights of the child as part of its framework and use the convention's principles to inform all our future work with children.
146WH
I hope that the overarching strategy sets out for the people of this country, the Government, local authorities, families, communities, the voluntary sector and business our vision of what we want to achieve for our children. I hope that it also plays the role of an action plan on implementing the rights of the child, which was one proposal made at the General Assembly last May. I hope that bringing all the issues together in an overall strategy for young people, rather than a separate free-standing document, makes sense to the House and that people can see how the issues fit together.
2.56 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the opportunity for this debate, which allows us to make a wide-ranging survey of children's issues. As I want to leave an opportunity for others to speak, I do not intend to take up too much of the Chamber's time.
I hope the Minister will forgive me for what I am about to say. Perfectly properly, he painted a reasonably optimistic picture, with which I would not on the whole disagree. The standards for children in this country, and the environment in which they develop, are far better than for children in many other parts of the world. Despite the problems that children have in this country, they are offered an opportunity at birth of a fulfilling life, which is greater in its duration, expectation and opportunities than for many others in the world.
One must compare the Minister's words with the NSPCC's statistics on child abuse in Britain. however; the bare facts are worth repeating. At least one child a week dies as a result of an adult's cruelty. A quarter of all rape victims are children, and abuse is often committed by someone whom the child knows and trusts. Three quarters of sexually abused children do not tell anyone at the time when the abuse is happening. More than 30,000 children are on the child protection register and some 600 children are added to that register every week. A recent NSPCC survey of 2,800 children suggested that one in 10 suffers serious abuse or neglect in childhood.
It is an interesting feature of the Minister's job— commend him for his approach to it in his speech—that he speaks with two hats on, as Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, and also as Minister for children and young people. I am sure that he will agree that a causal link exists between the level of child criminality and the level of neglect and deprivation. The evidence appears overwhelming to my party and me. One need only go to places such as Camberwell, where one would see the Kids Company project, to be aware of the extent of the problem. There an ad hoc organisation, charitably supported, deals with some 200 children and young people who come to its premises. Most of them have no efficient parenting structure and exhibit clear signs of deprivation, sometimes of abuse and often of drug addiction. Those young people commit many of the crimes that make that community difficult for others to live in.
Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points, and properly using information from the NSPCC. Do he and his party also support the NSPCC's campaign to end the use of the Victorian

147WH
concept of reasonable chastisement, which there is good evidence to suppose that abusers of children can hide behind?
Mr. Grieve: The short answer is no, broadly for the reasons given by the Minister. I intend to deal with that subject a little later, but now I shall return to the basic theme.
I sympathise with what the Government seek to achieve. Nevertheless, a serious crisis remains in relation to a percentage of young people in this country who move through a cycle of deprivation and abuse, and proceed to be the young criminals who will cause problems in future. That will also lead to the overcrowding of young offenders institutions, which were commented on in an earlier intervention, and in turn to adult prisons having to be adapted and wings turned over to accommodate those young people.
The challenges are serious. I do not want to consider all the detailed solutions in such a broad debate, but rather one or two aspects on which the House and the Government might do well to concentrate. The first problem with abuse, deprivation and crime is that they are cyclical in nature. The problem of one generation is moved on to the next. As I visit projects for children and young people, the point is made again and again that the lack of parenting input appears to be a key factor in leading to those children's problems. In turn, that leads to those children producing another generation that has serious difficulties.
We must try to break that cycle if we are to continue to aspire to all that is set out in the UN convention. Like most conventions, it is rather like motherhood and apple pie. It has some mutually contradictive clauses, which could be dealt with. However, its intentions are honourable and good, and we would seek to match its aspirations.
I want to take the Minister up on what is being done now. I should say at the outset—I hope that he will accept it—that I have no problem with the Government's good intentions on the issues. I think that I understand their strategy for breaking the cycle. They have set out the sure start scheme to try to achieve change. I accept that it is rather early to make a good audit of its impact, some of which may not be manifest for 10 or 15 years. I do not blame the Government for that, but the ability to identify correctly the groups of children—and, potentially, the parents—who need support, and to provide the service universally and consistently, must be the key to the success of the intiative.
The Minister will know that the subject has been of concern to my party. Indeed, although they follow similar lines in trying to achieve the same as sure start, recent papers produced by the party on early years intervention suggest that we should be a little more focused when trying to identify the areas of problem behaviour in young children that will be a serious handicap for them in their future lives, and a serious problem for the communities in which they live.
The Minister may be able to touch on the subject in his closing remarks, but to what extent does he feel that sure start is fulfilling its expectations? Anecdotally, one hears that the schemes may be somewhat variable; indeed, it is suggested that some people have been
148WH
deterred from taking them up by a degree of bureaucracy in the way in which they are offered. I would be grateful to hear his comments.
Mr. Denham: I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to the sure start project in Weston in my constituency and, with me, knock at random on the doors of some of the people in the tower blocks who have used the programme. Hand on heart, I can say that it has changed people's lives and given to parents who would otherwise have nowhere else to meet, a space to meet others. Programmes may vary in quality, but that is my personal experience.
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Opposition would move away from the current basis of most sure start projects, which are based on geographical areas, to smaller groups of children? That would radically change the nature of the programme from one that supports the children of an entire community to one that supports only a few.
Mr. Grieve: First, I would welcome the opportunity of such a visit. I hope to have a further opportunity to visit such programmes, and I will continue to do so. I have seen many examples of excellence. The problem is that although Governments come up with ideas and set them in motion, delivery is not within a Minister's day-to-day control. Indeed, if the Minister were to tell me that he was trying to control things like that, I would have to tell him that he was wrong. He should take such criticisms in good part.
My party believes that there should be universal provision, and that the scheme should not be restricted to certain geographical areas. There may be a degree of difference in our approach; although I accept that as our ideas develop they are open to response and thus to change, we believe that there are some clinically proven methods of dealing with problem behaviour in young children, both in the nursery and in the first years of primary school, which needs to be tackled as a priority. All kitties are finite, so the allocation of resources must be carefully considered.
It is, of course, desirable that entire communities should be supported, but the key issue is whether we are succeeding in getting to the children and parents most in need of support. Otherwise, although the wider benefits may be good in certain communities, there will be big holes where needs are not being met. That does not necessarily seem a huge difference between us, but we would not be doing our job as an Opposition if we did not express our concern that there remain huge areas of unmet need, and that schemes of proven clinical evidence appear capable of addressing them.
The Minister did not say much about the future funding position of the sure start programme. There appears to be slight uncertainty about that, and he may be able to provide reassurance. He may agree with me that a three-year pump-priming programme will not solve the problems of a scheme targeted towards young children showing serious behavioural problems. The Government will have to be willing to provide a sustained programme, either themselves or through the voluntary sector—the voluntary sector would be better—to try to make an impact.
Uncertainty about the future funding of successful programmes may ultimately be a source of demoralisation and failure, as we have seen before. The

149WH
Minister will be aware of our schemes, which suggest that the Government should set up a universal programme targeted at a narrower group than sure start, and should also be prepared to sustain it. If he has views on that, I would be happy to hear them.
I am conscious of the time, and the fact that I am taking longer than I intended, because I have taken interventions, but the Minister also touched on the issue of older children with problems, such as drug addiction in their teens. They may come within his orbit in that they are young offenders and they often come from precisely the backgrounds that we have identified.
The Minister mentioned the rough sleepers initiative. Given that, as I have seen for myself, many rough sleepers have drug addiction problems, what is being done to ensure that there is an adequate number of places for drug rehabilitation? It is said, and it is true, that in Britain today if someone is wealthy or in a custodial environment they can get drug rehabilitation, but that outside that the number of places is fairly restricted.
Let us compare ourselves with Sweden, for instance. I think that we would have to provide 10 times as many places to achieve the Swedish number of treatment and rehabilitation places available per 1,000 head of population. That is quite a big challenge. It may be slightly outside the Minister's remit, but given that his remit is so wide in this debate, it would be helpful to know whether he has any views on that.
Mr. Denham: We are doubling the number of treatment places for drug offenders over the coming years. I accept that we must ensure that they are accessible to younger people as well as older people, but there is a significant expansion in the number of places.
Mr. Grieve: I am pleased to hear about the Government's commitment, but I still say that if we are to tackle the problem of hard drugs and hard drug addiction in the young, we may need rather more places, and to be willing to invest to achieve that.
Mr. Stephen Pound: I understand the attractions of the Swedish model for the hon. Gentleman, but if he reconsiders the statistics he will see that despite the capital expenditure, which is laudable, the amount of diversion and prevention of return to addiction is very low. The Swedish model looks good but is, sadly, not very effective in terms of numbers.
Mr. Grieve: That raises an interesting issue, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. My information and impression was that the Swedish model had been remarkably successful compared to those of other western European countries in achieving reductions in long-term drug addiction. We will have to have further debate, but I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's basic factual premise.
When talking about children in a custodial environment, the Minister emphasised the need for a greater range of community-based punishments. We agree with him, and it is widely accepted, that with young offenders it is vital to break the cycle of reoffending.
150WH
If the Government are having some success in lowering the reoffending rates, and if that can be sustained, that is enormously welcome. However, we have anxieties about whether we are using the best methods to achieve that. The Minister will know from several representations that there are several models and programmes in England and Wales, such as C-FAR in Devon, which we believe have remarkable success rates. Their reoffending rates appear to us rather lower than the overall statistics, yet they do not receive Government funding. They receive funding from the European social fund, local authorities and charities, but they do not receive direct support from the Government. The Government even seem to be slightly hostile to them, yet here is a programme that takes young offenders out of young offenders institutions and gives them an 11-week residential programme, and mentoring. As I have seen so often all over the country, it is ultimately the human contact with young people that seems to be the best hope, whether that happens through mentoring or through projects such as the Camberwell project, Kids Company. I hope that the Government will reconsider that idea.
I could go on at great length, but I want to conclude my remarks. I promised that I would discuss smacking, so before I sit down I will do so. It is noteworthy that the convention places great emphasis on the need for the state to respect the rights of individual families and communities in providing guidance to children. Ultimately, the best hope for the future of our children is in the quality of the parenting that they receive. This is national parenting week. There have been a great many debates in this House about that, and I welcome the initiatives that have been taken to promote it.
Early years intervention is not some abstract state function: it seeks to involve the parents in providing a better future for their children and giving them the skills that they need. In those circumstances, the state would be barmy to start to intervene and tell parents that they are in a straitjacket as to how they guide and discipline children—provided, of course, that that discipline is not abusive. I must tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who raised the issue, that criminalizing smacking would not reduce the amount of child abuse one iota, but would make parents increasingly unwilling to take the necessary steps to provide that guidance. If anything characterises the malaise of modern society, it is our unwillingness as individuals not to smack but to intervene to provide guidance to children. We have almost entirely given up intervening in public spaces—with serious consequences—and there is a danger that we shall give up intervening in our own families.
Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he is tilting at windmills? All that anyone is proposing is the removal of the old defence of "reasonable chastisement" and nothing more? Does he also accept that in countries that have introduced laws against the physical punishment of children, there have been none of the consequences that he suggested?
Mr. Grieve: I simply repeat that I do not accept that it is necessary to outlaw reasonable chastisement to achieve the end, which I believe the hon. Gentleman wants, of preventing child abuse. One is not a corollary

151WH
of the other. The outlawing of reasonable chastisement is a form of state interference in parental decision taking. I do not accept that the consequences of ordinary smacking will be seriously harmful to the child, so I cannot support him.
I am grateful to the Minister for providing the House with an opportunity to debate these important issues. Much more needs to be done. The Opposition will continue both to scrutinise the Government and to put forward our own ideas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): About half a dozen Members want to speak. We shall sit until 5.30 pm and we usually allow those on the Front Bench a winding-up speech towards the end. Several experts on the subject before us want to contribute, so I hope that they will be mindful of the need to allow ample time for everyone to speak in the debate.
3.20 pm
Ms Meg Munn: Thank you, Mr. Pike.
"The eyes of the children are the visions of the future".
That phrase, which I noticed on a board outside a school that I recently visited, summarises the importance of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Children are the future and their experiences as children will have a fundamental impact not only on them as individuals but on the future of us all and the society in which we live over the next 20 to 30 years. The experiences of our early years— whether we receive enough to eat or enough love, the level of schooling that we receive and whether we are protected from violence, abuse and exploitation—make huge differences to our life chances and the people we become.
The UN convention not only sets out the basic human rights that children should enjoy without discrimination, but sets standards whereby the dignity of children should be ensured and their development promoted.
I am proud that my party in government has given priority to many children's needs, has appointed a Minister for children and established a children and young people's unit. That recognition of the importance of children and young people at the heart of Government, and the value given to considering their needs across Departments, must be warmly welcomed.
The need to tackle child poverty has been given a welcome and unprecedented high profile with the Government setting a target to halve child poverty within 10 years and abolish it within a generation. It came as a shock to find that in one ward in my constituency 70 per cent. of children are currently deemed to be living in poverty. The Government's commitment cannot be realised too soon.
I especially welcome measures to help parents into work, the significant increase in child benefit, initiatives such as sure start, which was discussed earlier, and the investment in child care, enabling more parents to work. Those are crucial building blocks in helping families out of poverty.
152WH
Quite rightly, the convention sets out the rights of all children without discrimination. I want to talk briefly about children in the care system who, having been subject to abuse and neglect and living apart from their family of origin, are often the most vulnerable children in our society. The life chances of children in care are usually significantly worse than those of other children. Many of them leave school with few or no qualifications, and they suffer from a high incidence of homelessness and unemployment and an increased risk of mental health problems or even imprisonment.
I worked in social services for nearly 20 years before entering Parliament, and I know that these issues were not accorded the priority that they deserved until the Labour Government were elected in 1997. In 1998, the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), seriously grasped the problem. He wrote to all councillors demanding that they take responsibility for these children. He told them that they should know what the council's children were doing in the same way that they should know what their own children were doing. He said that they should know how they were doing at school and what their health was like, but that the reality was that most—probably all—councillors did not. He demanded that they should receive the same level of care and support as other children and that they should be given extra help and support to try to compensate for the problems that they had experienced and significantly improve their life chances.
By putting in place the quality protects programme with additional funding, the Government recognised that the rights of children in care had not been given sufficient priority, and they were determined that the situation should improve. Although there continues to be a need for further progress, the early improvements for many children and young people in care are warmly welcomed. Young people are starting to succeed in school, and their successes are being celebrated. They are engaging in work, perhaps even being given work by the very councils who are legally their parents. They feel valued by those who care for them, rather than feeling increasingly marginalised, which was the situation previously.
I especially welcome the Government's inclusion in the Education Act 2002 of a requirement to consult children and young people in the school. That complies with article 12 of the convention, by allowing children to express their views on matters affecting them, and I firmly believe that it will be beneficial to schools, and in the long run to the whole of society. Schools that have mechanisms in place for consulting children and for involving them in decision taking generally experience less disruptive behaviour and the children perform better academically. I met school councils at Meersbrook Bank, a school in my constituency, and spoke to children who had mechanisms to raise their concerns. Surprisingly, they found ways of resolving some of those concerns, which was an enriching experience. Ensuring that children have such experiences will enable them to become better citizens. They will understand the processes that they need to go through in order to have their grievances considered, and that must be supported.
However, despite the considerable and welcome progress in promoting the welfare of children and their rights, changes are still required in some areas. The

153WH
convention on the rights of the child recognises that children are different from adults—they require support and protection during their childhood while their characters are developing—so I cannot accept that it is right for newspapers to be allowed to name children and young people who are subject to antisocial behaviour orders. The purpose of such orders is to seek an improvement in behaviour and the rehabilitation of the young person concerned. Naming the young person in the press is likely to inhibit rather than encourage that process. Today of all days we see all too clearly what the pressure of the media does to adults; we should protect children from that. The young person may feel that they have to play up to the image while the label will, in itself, put off other people who might otherwise assist in ensuring that the young person has a meaningful education or work.
I, too, am disappointed that the Government do not intend to change the law and will retain the defence of reasonable chastisement for parents who assault their children. It is important for the Government to have a clear position that the physical punishment of children is something to be avoided and that there should be an emphasis on more positive, non-violent forms of discipline.
We live in a society where almost every week someone is murdered by someone they know: often a husband or ex-husband kills his wife and sometimes also their children. We urgently need to promote a less violent society. How can we teach our children not to hit out if we continue to say that there is a defence of reasonable chastisement? How can we even teach them not to hit their friends if we continue to support physical punishment of children by adults?
I want to raise the issue of children and young people in prison. However it is done, it is time to move to separating children from adults. While we are doing that, we must ensure that the proper protections are in place for those children and young people who find themselves in prison. That was not the case a few years ago and I seek the Minister's reassurance that, where there are children in prison, those prisons have proper child protection policies, and a link to the local child protection agencies. In that way, any concerns about bullying or violence, particularly by adults in the prison environment, can be properly dealt with.
Mr. Grieve: Far be it from me to speak up for the Government, but I do not believe that the hon. Lady will find instances of young people being held in adult prisons without special facilities having been provided for them. Can the Minister enlighten us further on that
Ms Munn: In my experience, it is not just a matter of providing special facilities, but of the whole way in which the prison is managed.
It is difficult, especially within small environments—I have experience of New Hall prison in Wakefield, which is relatively small—to keep young people entirely separate from adults. Even when young people are held separately from adults, it is possible for older or bigger young people to abuse others. We need to be clear that proper child protection policies and procedures are in
154WH
place while we move to the situation—outlined by the Minister—of either placing children in secure accommodation or, more desirably, applying interventions that take place within the community.
The UK Government have been criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for not engaging sufficiently with the children's rights agenda. I believe that, in many aspects of legislation and budgetary spending, the Government clearly demonstrate a commitment to the welfare of children not only in this country but overseas. We are in a good position to build on that by improving public awareness of children's rights. I would like to see greater exploration of the possibility of appointing children's rights commissioners in whatever form they might take, to promote that agenda. I believe that the Government are committed to that agenda.
It is encouraging that we are increasingly beginning to recognise the value of children's voices. That has happened at school level in school councils, and in towns and cities, where local authorities are engaging with young people about their views on local services. It has also happened at national level, through initiatives such as the UK Youth Parliament, and through the young people who attended the UN special session in New York, in May.
I welcome this debate. It is high time that we talked more about children and young people, and listened more to them as well. I endorse the work that is being done by the Minister, and I urge the Government to take that work further by addressing the concerns highlighted by the UN committee.
The children of today are our future. As Nelson Mandela said:
"We cannot waste our precious children. Not another one, not another day. It is long past time for us to act."
3.33. pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Thank you, Mr. Pike, for the opportunity to take part in this profoundly important debate.
The way we treat children is a measure of the quality of our society. It is important that we use the debate to celebrate children and young people, and I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) about how children and young people are now using the greater opportunities available to them to influence the world around them, whether locally or nationally. It is also important to recognise that children from even the most awful circumstances, who have endured appalling experiences that, often, bring them into care, can surmount those experiences.
I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: once a month, all hon. Members have the opportunity to attend the all-party group on children and young people in care, where they may often meet young people with substantial experience of the care system. Last Wednesday, we were addressed by a young woman who spent much time in foster care and who has just obtained a doctorate. The meeting was attended by a number of young people who are working in highly responsible positions with national organisations and who are in higher education. In emphasising the issues of children and young people and the difficulties that some of them

155WH
experience, we should not overlook the fact that they are a huge asset to the country, and we should celebrate their achievements.
I do not propose to reiterate all the facts about children in the United Kingdom or to read the conclusions of the UN committee into the record. They are well set out, and other hon. Members have made important points about some of the circumstances of children in this country. Nor will I go over this Government's achievements on children's policy. Without doubt, we have a good Government for children. We could have a great one, however. We have a thumping Labour majority, which is reflected in this afternoon's attendance, as there are only two brave souls on the Opposition Benches. If we miss the opportunity that that majority and a major UN report provide to transform for ever how our society deals with its children, we will have failed not just a generation, but ourselves.
It was said a couple of weeks ago that we are at our best when at our boldest. We need to take those words to heart. While we have a very good Government for children, in some ways we have not advanced the cause of children enough because we have been far too timid. We know what to do. Early-day motion 4 of the Session that will soon draw to an end was tabled on 20 June 2001, only days after the general election. It says:
"That this House acknowledges the progress that has been made since 1997 and urges this new Labour Government to re-double previous efforts on behalf of children by working consistently throughout this Parliament to establish an effective Ministry for Children and Young People, to support the development of children's rights commissioners across all parts of the United Kingdom, to overhaul child protection, to continue to improve the care system, to give children the same legal protection from assault as adults, to ensure that all childcare legislation applies to all children seeking asylum, to enable the participation of children in decision-making at all levels, to face up to the huge problem of bullying, to guarantee access to good mental health and therapeutic services, to provide excellent standards of education and health care for all children, to make real progress on ending child poverty and to assist the implementation of the UN Convention on Childrens Rights across the world so that in four or five years time it will be able to bask in the warm glow of approbation from all those who will be able to justly say that this has been a great government for children."
I want my right hon. Friend the Minister to enjoy some justified acclaim, so I hope that he announces later today, or very soon, that he is at his best when at his boldest. I also hope that he acknowledges that this debate is about not simply the implementation of a list of worthy measures, but the need for a cultural change that accepts and incorporates children's rights within our national life.
Some of us have grown accustomed to and welcomed the linking of rights and responsibilities, which we have discussed today. For children, responsibility is acquired as they grow older. It is a function of developing maturity, not something to be forced on them too young. After all, children should be allowed their childhood.
The position on adult responsibility is much clearer. Parental responsibility, not parental right, is enshrined in the Children Act 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley paid tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who set out the corporate responsibility of local government for children in care in a stunning
156WH
speech only a few years ago. The Government's responsibility to some 13 million children in the United Kingdom is the subject of this debate.
Only when we base our approach to children's lives on children's rights as set out in the UN convention on the rights of the child will we achieve the required transformation in our attitude to children. Living free from poverty is every child's right. Having access to first-class education and health care is every child's right. Participating in the decisions that affect their life is every child's right. Being protected is every child's right. Being part of a society where policy, legislation, procedures and practice operate in the best interests of every child is every child's right.
The excellent concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child point the way forward to what we should do if we are bold enough. We must cast aside the sad dross of appeals to a common sense that, if evaluated, is not that common and contains little sense and no logic. We should stand up to the rubbish in the media that sanctifies some poor bairns and vilifies others, and challenge the parts of our society that do not like children. A truly great Government, which I believe ours can become, would listen to what the UN committee is saying. They would use the UN convention on the rights of the child and incorporate it in UK law.
That convention should become as widely known and used as the highway code. The Government should recognise, as the UN committee does, that we need a central mechanism such as an easily identifiable and permanent body to achieve a comprehensive and coherent children's rights policy. We need a developed Ministry for children. It is a good that we have a Minister with responsibility for children and young people, but, with respect, I have to say that he should not also be Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. Furthermore, children's services should not be divided among the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, the Lord Chancellor's Department and other arms of government.
We should give the welcome innovation of the children and young people's unit real teeth and give the wonderful developments and proposals for children's trusts real backing. The organisational ethos of children's groups should be child centred and the necessary dividing lines between organisations and functions should be drawn at the recognisable, verifiable, understandable and common-sense age of 18.
Those who have no vote used to have no voice. Under this Government, they have a quiet voice, but we must recognise that it can often be stifled. We need to introduce children's rights commissioners—an independent human rights institution, as the UN says—in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We need, also, to strengthen the voice of children and young people and use organisations such as the UK Youth Parliament. We should take further steps to promote the systematic and meaningful participation of all groups of children in society.
We need to recognise that parenting children well is a hard task that requires learning and support and that working with children is an honourable profession—it should be properly rewarded and recognised. We need

157WH
sustained investment in children's services and we should commend the Government for their inspirational aim of ending child poverty. We should also encourage them to be similarly bold in embracing children's rights.
If we do that, we shall be able to challenge the absurd idea that we can oppose domestic violence, bullying, street violence and child abuse while retaining a 160-year-old concept of reasonable chastisement, behind which child abusers hide. We could also be bold in raising the age of criminal responsibility and abolishing the scandal and disgrace of locking children away in prison custody. We could recognise that children are children are children, the world over. There should be no differential treatment of children who are seeking asylum. For goodness' sake, we should set our face firmly against the deployment of children in armed conflict.
What I have talked about is, I believe, the best work that a Government can do, so we could look forward to a future generation building a better world than we can, because of how its members have been treated. That requires massive cultural change, but we can do it. We can transform the lives of children and our society, if we are prepared to be bold.
3.47 pm
Vera Baird: The Joint Committee on Human Rights heard evidence a few months ago from a group of British children. We asked them whether they thought that their rights were adequately protected in this country. I believe that it was the first time that children had ever given evidence to Parliament, and if that is correct it gives the event historical significance.
The children did not think that their rights were properly protected. They spoke fluently about issues ranging from the grave matter of adequate protection from bullying at school, through the unavailability anywhere of information about their rights, to the fact they are never consulted about their facilities. It seems that the adult idea of consultation is to ask what colour the youth club walls should be painted, whereas any kid would have said that they did not want the youth club there in the first place.
I commend the evidence that those young people gave to anyone who wants an education in the various obvious ways in which children's rights are neglected. Obvious as they are once children have spoken of them, they are not obvious to us at all. It is pretty tragic that those young people felt that their rights were not given real consideration, and that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has set out numerous criticisms of the way in which our standards fall below those to which we have committed ourselves by international treaty.
The committee, as well as the children, made a point about the lack of a rights-based approach to current structures. With the JCHR I have met children's rights commissioners from places as far apart as New Zealand and Wales—as well as, of course, many human rights commissioners. It is my view—although not necessarily that of the JCHR—that although my right hon. Friend the Minister's serious attempts to change departmental culture are excellent, there should be a human rights
158WH
commissioner in this country, and also, as part of that initiative, a commissioner for children's rights. I am convinced not by abstract arguments for children's rights, but by arguments about the practical benefits that such a person can bring, especially to some of the most vulnerable children in society. Without help, such children go on to become the most vulnerable adults in society.
Let me exemplify how a commissioner could help. Hon. Members have alluded to child poverty, but let me add a little to what has been said. If we use the measure of households below 60 per cent. of median income after housing costs, we find that 31 per cent. of children were living in poverty last year. The UN committee was very concerned about that figure. Clearly, the Government are working hard to lift families out of poverty, which the Conservative Government never did. Conservative Members here today have the temerity to argue about the figures, but their party was responsible for the depth of the poverty in which so many children were trapped for many years.
Mr. Grieve: The statistics showing that the number of children in poverty has fallen to 500,000 take us back to the 1994 position. I acknowledge that the figures rose in the last three years of the Conservative Government, partly for economic reasons, but for a long time they were better than they are today.
Vera Baird: There would have been no need for us to get 1 million children out of poverty after the Conservatives' period in government had they not been in poverty in the first place. The facts speak for themselves, and no amount of statistical sophistry can change that.
I applaud the success of the working families tax credit and the higher rate of child benefit, but children, in particular, are slipping through the net at one or two points. If a parent getting a job is the main route out of child poverty, difficulty in getting child care is the main obstacle, particularly for one-parent families. Although the risk of poverty in such families has declined by almost 10 per cent. since the Government came into office, 55 per cent. of children in one-parent families are still poor, compared with less than a quarter of children with two resident parents. Child care is critical to ending that problem. Despite increases in recent years, the Day Care Trust estimates that there is still only one child care place for every seven children under eight in England.
The recent spending review contained the welcome announcement that children's centres would be established in disadvantaged areas by 2006. That should provide expanded, improved and integrated children's services, and, I hope, training and other services for parents. However, the Government must build on that, and the aim must be to establish children's centres in all areas as quickly as possible. Child care would then become part of the social infrastructure and could be taken for granted, just like primary schools and GP practices. It would be available to all sectors of the community.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said that we had made progress on youth justice, and the Government certainly have an excellent record. However, will he consider the position of young defendants who are

159WH
charged with a serious crime? The criminal justice system recognises that some witnesses in Crown court trials, such as children, are vulnerable. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 introduced a range of measures to protect and support child witnesses, including, in some cases, those up to the age of 17. For instance, a child witness first gives evidence soon after the event to a police officer trained in child protection. That is done in a pleasant room a bit like a sitting room, and every attempt is made to take the stress away. Their evidence is then used in court, and they do not need to go into the witness box.
A child witness can now be cross-examined soon after the evidence-taking process. That is done by what we might call plain-clothes barristers, long before the trial. It happens in an informal room, in the presence of a judge, but without the public or the jury, so there is no pressure. The child has then finished, and his or her job as a witness is over. The video of the cross-examination is shown to the jury at the trial, which could be months away. At worst, the child may need to be cross-examined at the trial, but that can be done by video link from a room well away from the pomposity and tension of the court. Those are all good and important protections.
However, a few children—the numbers run into double figures every year—are tried for serious offences such as murder, or offences committed with an adult who is entitled to trial by jury. That happens in the Crown court, not in the youth court, where most children are tried. The defendants could be as young as the 11-year-old boys who killed Jamie Bulger or, as in a previous case of mine, as old as 15. None of the witness protection measures applies to child defendants. They must give their evidence in court before 12 jurors, barristers and solicitors, and before both the public and the press, although the judge has discretion to limit the presence of the latter two groups.
In one trial, which made the point forcefully for me, 58 people were in court when my client, aged 15, who was charged, with a school friend, with murdering an old lady, should have gone into the witness box to give evidence to try to save herself from a life sentence. My client had read the early publicity about the case and knew that the press had applied to publish her name and were her enemies. The voyeurism in the public gallery was palpable and unavoidable, because people wanted to see the horror of young children who were said to have done horrible things. Compare her situation with that of the prosecution witnesses, also children of about 15, who had witnessed pretty small events of no great importance to them. They came to court, went straight to a room with their parents, chatted to a nice usher and watched their video on TV. They were then questioned in a quiet room by people grinning at them from the TV, just like being interviewed on a Saturday morning breakfast show. One lad had his lunch pail with him in the room. How does that amount to equality of arms between a child defendant and the prosecution?
The system accepts that child witnesses are vulnerable and need support, but not if they are defendants. How are we protecting the rights of the child defendant? That case was post-Bulger, and we did all the right things. The court was small and fairly modern. The children were not in the dock, but sitting with friends. We did not wear wigs and gowns, but fairly ordinary clothes. We did our
160WH
best not to speak in Latin and, as kids cannot sit still, they were allowed to go in and out of court as they wished. All those arrangements have been replicated many times. However, it would be a rare child who could give evidence in their own defence in the atmosphere that I have described, which would certainly make it impossible for them to put their best foot forward, as they need to.
What possible justification can there be for excluding child defendants from all the witness protection measures available to everyone else? The problem is that there has never been a children's champion saying, "Just a minute. Think about the rights of that child." Undoubtedly, youth court trial should be available to all young people, with a senior judge brought in to try serious offences. The usual formula is that youth court trial is available unless the child is charged with an adult and the interests of justice require that they be tried together, in which case the child must go before a jury. I have never understood why it should not be the other way around. The youth court provides special measures to protect children, but otherwise, has the same aim of a fair trial, so why cannot we try the adult in the youth court on such occasions?
I shall add a few points to the excellent remarks that have already been made about the detention of children. Prison is ineffective in reducing youth crime and rehabilitating child offenders. Almost 90 per cent. of children sentenced to custody reoffend within two years. Despite that depressing statistic, we in Britain continue to imprison more children than are imprisoned in almost any other country in Europe—24 in every 1,000 10 to 18-year-olds, compared with six in every 1,000 in France, which has a higher juvenile population. The general rule is that imprisoning children exacerbates and prolongs the problem, so society must deal with it again and again. Prisons do not have the facilities to deal with child offenders, who are usually children in need.
The risk factors for offending are poverty, social exclusion, parental ill health, family conflict, poor parental supervision, abuse, harsh or erratic discipline and long-term separation from biological parents. Those issues cannot be tackled within the confines of the prison cell. Youth offending has not increasedߞin fact, between 1992 and 2000 there was a decline. However, there has been an increase in the use of custody for younger children. In 1999, 3.9 per cent. of custodial sentences were imposed on children under 14. However, the figure had risen to 9.3 per cent. by 2000.
The price we pay for the inappropriate use of custody and the continuing detention of children is counted in human life. Since 1997, 93 young people, six of them under 16, have committed suicide while in custody. A recent inquest verdict on young Kevin Jacobs, who hanged himself, aged 16, at Feltham young offenders institution, found that neglect was a contributory factorߞclear evidence that a prison department is unable to safeguard and protect vulnerable and distressed children.
I have only one comment on physical punishment, because the issue has been well aired. We are all familiar with the arguments for and against it. Whatever our personal views, the anomalous state of the law is striking. Children are the only people in the UK who are not protected by law against violence. There is a double standard: we protect ourselves, as adults, but not the

161WH
most vulnerable members of society. The topic is regularly debated within these walls and in homes across the country. Do adults have the right to discipline their children? Should the state interfere? What is missing is the perspective of an advocate of children's rights.
I do not doubt the Government's commitment to child welfare. Since 1997 they have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to eliminate child poverty and to improve health, education and the criminal justice system for children as well as for adults—but my concern turns on that phrase. Our reforms and our legislation often include children's rights as an afterthought—and occasionally an afterthought that we forget to think. There should be a mechanism for putting them at the centre of policy development.
That will not be achieved in the present set-up, however able, super and committed the Minister might be. For example the Minister currently responsible for children and young people is very committed—but he has a Department with many other responsibilities and there is only one of him. It is my strong view that the change of culture required in this country will not happen without a children's champion. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to appointing a children's commissioner under the ambit of the human rights commission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. Before we continue, it will be helpful for me to talk about timing. The Minister requires about 10 minutes to respond to the debate, which is appropriate; according to normal procedure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson is entitled to 18 to 20 minutes; the Conservative spokesman might want a few moments, too. Three more Labour Members wish to speak, so there is still adequate time, but please bear the time in mind.
4.3 pm
Valerie Davey: I am delighted to take part in a debate on United Nations day on an issue of importance to all of us. I join my colleagues in paying tribute to the Labour Government for the work that they have already done, and encouraging them to do more. I also pay tribute to all who have campaigned on children's issues, whether they be organisations such as the NSPCC and Save the Children, or doughty individuals who, like some of my colleagues, have consistently and persistently championed the rights of children. I also want to commend the many people who, in their daily jobs—whether they are teachers or doctors, school bus drivers or sports coaches—uphold the beliefs enshrined in the convention. It contains a good set of principles, and traditionally we have upheld them.
I pay a special tribute to a policeman about whom I know nothing except that three years ago, when a refugee family arrived in this country in trauma and were being held for questioning, he gave the two children some chocolate. He made them feel secure and safe; in accordance with the principles of the convention, he gave them support and protection. Now,
162WH
three years later, he is still well remembered. His actions made that family believe fully in the values that our country has to offer. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider the one policy on which the United Nations committee has questioned them—their retaining of the wide-ranging reservation on immigration and citizenship, particularly in respect of children.
Other Members have greater experience of the work being done in this country, and I therefore simply take up the refrain echoed earlier, which is that children are children are children, the world over. The convention is a United Nations convention, and this is United Nations day. In comparison with what happens here, children in other parts of the world are suffering to an untold degree, and despite the fact that we do not have direct legislative responsibility for them, we have a moral responsibility.
I would expect the United Nations convention to be recognised throughout the world, but I shall give just one example of its not having been observed. Despite the fact that the country concerned had signed and ratified the convention, things have gone terribly wrong. That country is Afghanistan, and I am talking about the situation there before 11 September. I admit that I knew little about what had happened there, and I guess that the rest of the world, too, knew little about it.
I pay full respect to our Secretary of State for International Development, who was taking the Government's values forward by supplying aid there, but just listen to this: a quarter of Afghan children died before their fifth birthday; half the children under five years old were underweight; 39 per cent. of boys, and only 3 per cent. of girls, had any education. Compared with the standards of concern that we show for children here, that situation is unrecognisable, and it is reflected to a greater or lesser degree in many other countries.
I want the Government to consider the debate going on in the United Nations about humanitarian intervention. I draw the Chamber's attention to the report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, commissioned by the Canadian Government, entitled, "The Responsibility to Protect". In what terms should the United Nations intervene, particularly in the context of our debate about upholding the rights of the child? That subject is perhaps one for the longer term. However, I register a strong interest, and I am concerned that the Government should take up the Canadian report and consider in depth how, in the long term, the United Nations should uphold the convention on the rights of the child throughout the world.
4.8 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound: I pay tribute to the Minister for his opening remarks, which combined a mastery of his brief with a passion for the subject. I sincerely hope that the feelings of amity and respect that I have for him will survive my visit to his constituency this Sunday afternoon, when my fellow Cottagers and I will be descending on St. Mary's football ground.
The full title of the report presented today is "Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland." I apologise because, wide though the Minister's brief is, he is not directly concerned with

163WH
internal affairs in the north of Ireland. However. I hope that you will allow me to detain the Chamber with a few issues, Mr. Pike, as I think it is vital that they at least be aired.
Like everyone else, I welcome the opportunity to debate the report. Compiling a periodic report under the UN convention involves enormous resources for Departments and non-governmental organisations. Hearings are thorough and competent, and Governments should never be defensive. A critical report such as this should be an opportunity to learn and change, and I want to mention a couple of points within the challenging context of political conflict in the north of Ireland.
We all know that children have suffered disproportionately during the 30 years of conflict. Many have died, and many more have been injured. A huge number have been robbed of their childhood. Those children all have in common the fact that the problem was not their fault. The community of NGOs in the north of Ireland took its participation in the process of compiling a report to the UN seriously. The Children's Law Centre, the Northern Ireland wing of Save the Children, submitted a report to the UN that was more than 30 pages long. It was supported by more than 30 charities and specialist organisations, and I want to mention its main points.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child agreed with the recommendations of the UN Committee against Torture in calling for a ban on the use of plastic baton rounds as a means of riot control. We are familiar with the Patten reforms and know that they have moved us a long way, but the baton round is a child killerߞnot potentially, but actually. It must be replaced with socially acceptable methods of policing.
Committee members were keen to consider the specific provision for the protection of children within emergency legislation. We have neglected that, and will need to examine it further. The principle of the best interests of the child contained within the convention on the rights of the child is one of the most far-reaching and revolutionary proposals to have secured unanimous support from the UN General Assembly. In applying that principle, we need to work through our assumptions. Some children's groups criticised the Government's proposals in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, arguing that the youth justice section of the legislation did not adequately support the best interests of child protection.
A key point—it informs our whole discussion—was raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who said that much of the subject under discussion was like motherhood and apple pie. For all I know, he still commands enormous fees at the Bar, and that comment says something about his ability to cut to the quick of a matter. Although there is motherhood and apple pie, there is also an issue of conflicting and competing rights. I am sure that everyone is familiar with what occurred at Holy Cross school in north Belfast, where the right that people claimed to make a political protest was in direct and fundamental contradiction of the rights of young Catholic schoolgirls who tried to make their way to school through a gauntlet of hatred. Balloons of urine were flung at them,
164WH
pornographic magazines were thrust in their faces, and blast bombs were exploded within metres of those primary school children.
It is said that freedom for the shark does not mean freedom for the minnow, which is true. There is a conflict. If we take one thing from the report and our discussion, it is that in such a conflict the rights of the child must predominate. Children must have primacy when rights compete and conflict. The current blockade at Holy Cross is on hold. Let us hope that our discussion and the actions of the Government will go some way towards establishing the acceptance of the fact that the rights of the child should be seen as supreme over the right to protest in that case.
I greatly welcome the debate, as I am sure everyone does, and I commend the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and all those involved in it. I am sure that I do not need to urge the Government to disseminate the report and study its recommendations with great care. I have been greatly impressed with many of the comments that have been made, and I feel distinctly optimistic. I thank you, Mr. Pike, for allowing me to stray a little beyond the direct subject of the Minister's responsibility; I hope you would accept that these are vital matters.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): The Chair only noticed the hon. Gentleman straying when he referred to the football.
4.15 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Unsurprisingly, I want to refer to the report as it affects Wales, although unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), I have not gone to the trouble of decorating my shirt with a tie that indicates which area of the United Kingdom I shall be discussing.
This is the second report reviewing the situation in the United Kingdom, but it is the first report following the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. Considerable effort was made in Wales by Save the Children and Children in Wales, two prominent non-governmental organisations working for children, which organised the collection of evidence with the full participation of children. Children from Wales went to Geneva to participate in the hearings and listen to the presentation of evidence by the United Kingdom Government.
I note that the Northern Ireland report ran to 30 pages. The Welsh have a reputation for being verbose in written form, but we have managed to get everything into 10 pages, and even the bilingual version stretches to only five lines more than 20 pages. That shows that we can be succinct when we want to be.
One aspect of the report which gave me a wry smile was the way in which it jumped so quickly from 1995 to 1999, leaving out the first two years of the Labour Government. Things happened in the Welsh Office at that time that paved the way for the Children's Commissioner for Wales, for example, which was the first such post created in the United Kingdom. When I was appointed to the Welsh Office, I was the Minister responsible for children, and we set up a committee of civil servants from all departments to consider the concerns of children. We thrashed out a unified

165WH
approach to children's policy and the needs of children. We did not get it right the first time and had to rethink our approach.
A big advantage of the Assembly over the Welsh Office is that it has Ministers for Departments similar to those in Whitehall. The Welsh Office Minister with responsibility for health and social services was also the Minister responsible for children. Now that three or four people oversee what I was responsible for, they can focus much more closely on the issues than I could. I freely admit that, on children's issues and other areas for which I had responsibility, I could not take the agenda forward as quickly as I would have liked, simply because I was responsible for so many different areas.
In the Assembly, we now have the opportunity to consider matters in a focused way. The report gives us grounds for hope following the positive developments that have taken place since the creation of the Assembly, one of which is the creation of the Children's Commissioner in Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, there are different types of commissioner throughout the world. There are some constraints on the Welsh commissioner because of the way in which devolution has developed. I shall refer to those constraints later.
The Welsh Assembly has established a body to take on board the views of children and ensure that children participate in the process of government. Its name—as a child of the 1960s, perhaps I should say its "groovy" name—is the Funky Dragon. The Funky Dragon is the children and young people's assembly for Wales. It is there to reflect views and to participate with the Assembly in policy development.
There is also a monitoring group in Wales now, headed by Save the Children, and including other NGOs, the Welsh Executive, the Funky Dragon and the Children's Commissioner's office, which all work together to monitor the implementation of the convention in Wales. There are a number of positive things going on.
It is also possible, however, to point to areas in which things must still be done better. As regards UK recognition, the UN convention is about a decade old. According to a survey conducted of 300 young people between the ages of 10 and 19 in Wales, almost 60 per cent. had never heard of the convention. Some 86 per cent. had never been involved in any talk or discussion about the rights of children, while 75 per cent. said that they would like to be involved. There is a task to be undertaken in disseminating information about the charter. That is arguably a task for the Welsh Assembly. I would guess, however, that the situation is not very different elsewhere in the UK, so there is also a role for Whitehall.
In contrast, due to the way in which devolution works, in Wales there are matters relating to children for which the Home Office, where my right hon. Friend the Minister daily storms the corridors of power, has responsibility. They are not part of the Assembly's brief, nor are they areas in which the Children's Commissioner can easily get involved, except in an advisory role. We need to examine how Whitehall, the Assembly in Cardiff, the Parliament in Scotland and the
166WH
Executive in Northern Ireland can he connected, to make sure that all aspects of the convention are implemented in a co-ordinated way, so that all children can benefit. With the move towards devolution in England, that may become even more important. Although in Geneva the children and young people's unit represented children, its main function in the UK is to develop policy in England only. The question of how things can be done better throughout the UK should be discussed at Westminster.
In Wales we need to examine issues related to monitoring through the Children's Commissioner, and the vexed question of the way in which devolution is currently developed. There are certain issues that are important to children, over which the commissioner does not have any direct power. He can advise, but his role is not the same as it would be if there were full devolution of responsibilities to Cardiff. That is another issue on which Whitehall and Wales need to work together much more closely.
On the report, a number of my hon. Friends mentioned child poverty. There is a great commitment to end child poverty in a decade. In Wales the problem is even bigger than in the rest of the UK. Save the Children and the university of York did a study of child poverty in the UK, and in Wales the number of children in families whose income is less than 50 per cent. of the average, excluding housing costs, is 10 per cent. higher than average. One third of children in Wales are in that situation.
Wales also has a higher than average rate of teenage pregnancies: it is over a third whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom it is less than 30 per cent. Boys in Wales drink phenomenally more than boys in the rest of the UK: 53 per cent. of them drink alcohol weekly compared with only 47 per cent. in England, 37 per cent. in Scotland and 33 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Tragically, drug abuse is much higher too: 28 per cent. of under-15s had used drugs in the previous month, which is not far short of double the figure for elsewhere in the UK. Something extra needs to be done in Wales. We have objective 1 status and things are going well in that direction. However, of the 18 indicators used in England to measure progress on taking children out of poverty only four work in Wales. We need to look at that and perhaps talk to other Departments to try to get that right.
Finally, I should like to talk about physical punishment, which was mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends. When the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) quoted the terrible statistics that the NSPCC has gathered on child abuse—for example, that one child every week dies from physical abuse—I thought that he would say that the time had come to change the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, that physical abuse arises from the framework of this Victorian law, which permits reasonable chastisement, which we know our courts have interpreted extremely widely in the past.
As a child, I was chastised physically more than once by my parents. Like many who still approve of reasonable chastisement, I could say that it did not appear to harm me that much, although it hurt at the time—some may wonder whether I have made a serious career mistake in saying that. Many people share the

167WH
thought that it does no harm, but I am pleased to say that neither of my children, who are now in their thirties, can remember me physically chastising them, although they do say, "Dad, sometimes you really exploded." But it was all verbal and along with everything else it seemed to do the trick. The NSPCC's survey found that almost 60 per cent. of people would support a change in the law, provided that a trivial incident would not become a matter for recourse to the courts. The body of opinion is moving towards changing the law.
I am pleased that Jane Hutt, the Minister for Health and Social Services, made an important statement on the subject in Wales yesterday. She said that she would approach my right hon. Friend the Minister to see whether something could be done because, under devolution, we cannot make that change in Wales ourselves. However, in all those areas where the Welsh Assembly can make policy regarding children, it has made it clear that there will be no physical chastisement of children. On top of that it has taken the positive measure of working with the National Family and Parenting Institute and the NGO Children in Wales to develop a parenting support project and to have a parenting code to help parents to find ways of keeping children on the straight and narrow without recourse to physical punishment. I hope that the Minister's commitment to look at further ways to improve the care and treatment of children and the policies developed in the UK will mean that the Government can at last take steps to rid us, once and for all, of the vexed Victorian question of reasonable chastisement.
4.29 pm
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): I hope that my voice lasts for the five or 10 minutes of my contribution. I apologise if it sounds more irritating than usual.
I want to add a few comments as co-chair of the UK Youth Parliament and say that today's debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on the quality of the lives of the 13.5 million young people in the UK under the age of 18 and the challenges that face them. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his work in trying to raise the issue of young people in Government. He made a good fist of saying how much progress has been made, and much of that progress is a tribute to the work that he has done. There is much more to do, but it is important to recognise that we would not have arrived where we are today without his personal commitment to the work.
My speech will be a series of challenges. There is not much point in our saying, "These are all the good things we have achieved," because the debate would then lack a cutting edge or any sense of excitement or passion about what we need to do to deliver the services and the sort of country that we want for our young people. Instead of just congratulating ourselves on what we have achieved, we should consider the problems that still confront us and challenge the status quo, because if we do not, there will be no radicalness in what we are doing. We need to set our sights high.
I want to reflect on a couple of matters, including the participation of young people in our society. We have made some progress in that respect, but how much progress have we really made in terms of Departments listening to what young people say? They may listen, but
168WH
how many policies can we identify that have fundamentally changed as a result of young people saying that they do not agree with what the Government are doing? How many local authorities have youth councils or forums in which young people can say to the council, "The policy that you are pursuing is wrong," and cause the council to change its mind and amend its policy? Guidance may suggest it, but do we know how many schools have set up youth or school councils, or how effective those that exist are? How many schools change their policies on discipline or lesson organisation, teaching and learning styles or timetables as a result of what the school council says? We need to ask such questions.
We started on the route of participation, and made considerable changes. We challenged the system and said that the voices of young people were crucial, but as well as setting up the participatory mechanisms, we need also to try to measure their outcomes in terms of what influence young people have on policy. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on how we might do that. I do not have the answers to all those questions, but it is important to reflect on them.
My right hon. Friend made various points on education, and we have made considerable progress in that regard, but we must ask what we are doing about the problems in education and how they come about.
We need to concentrate not only on the quality of many schools, which still needs to be improved, but on special needs education and whether the special needs of every one of our young people in this country are adequately met in all our local authorities. Parents in my constituency tell me that one of their greatest frustrations with education is trying to get help with the individual learning difficulties of their son or daughter.
We must also reflect on the provision of recreation facilities and youth clubs. As my right hon. Friend knows, the resources available for the youth service in this country are abysmal. The provision of recreation facilities for young people in some parts of the country is, frankly, poor. As hon. Members will know from their own constituencies, young people with nowhere else to go play out on the street. That causes problems, because when the police come to move them on, there is nowhere for them to be moved on to. There is a complete lack of informal, as well as formal, recreation space. One of the challenges that we face is whether we can develop the available youth facilities and rebuild the youth service.
My right hon. Friend made some important and interesting points about crime and the Government's attempts to do something about youth offending. My experience tells me that we could prevent much youth crime and much antisocial behaviour if we had a larger youth service and more youth workers out on the street working with our young people. There is often a terrible shortage of such workers.
We have made tremendous progress in tackling poverty, but there is still much for us to do. The Minister referred to the large number of children we have removed from poverty. Earlier, we started to debate whether the poverty was relative or absolute, and what the actual number of young people living in poverty was. Although we are making significant progress, there are still far too many children and young people who do not have the quality of life and standard of living that we

169WH
want them to have. It is incumbent on us to challenge ourselves to reflect on what we have done and consider whether we can do more. There are young people in our constituencies in homes or communities whose standard of living and quality of life we simply do not believe is good enough.
Under the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, priority housing can be given to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is an important reform, but far too many of our young people still have no support in the community. Because of changes to the legislation, a 17-year-old girl in my constituency has been placed in a council property as she is in need and presumably has suffered problems in the past. That is a great thing, but once society has housed her—a good thing—there is no support for her in terms of her other needs. There is a need for more joined-up support. We need to reflect not only on housing policy but on social and welfare policy.
My theme is that we need to reflect on the challenges that confront our society as well as congratulating ourselves on our achievements. As a society, we are judged by how we treat young people coming into the country as asylum seekers or refugees. We must remember that the fundamental point of the policy that we pursue in respect of asylum seekers and refugees coming into the country as children is that they are not asylum seekers or refugees—they are children. The whole agenda is rights driven, which means that those children have rights as children. Sometimes, however, we deal with them in such a way that they are not seen fundamentally and first of all as children. We should reflect on that.
My voice is now starting to irritate me as well as—I expect—everyone else, but I simply want to say that some of my remarks have been intended as challenging: they are not meant to be negative, to decry the achievements of the Government or be unhelpful: they are about acknowledging that our achievements have been enormous. My right hon. Friend is as committed to the furtherance of children's rights and to young people as we could wish.
However, if we as a Government and as individuals are to achieve as much as we want for our young people, we have to continue to ask ourselves the hard questions and to challenge ourselves about whether we are doing as well as we can. If the story is bad, we have to say so. We should not flog ourselves for that, but we must understand the reality and what we need to do about it.
There are serious challenges and serious problems in many areas. If we reflect on them and are honest about them, the policy that we develop to tackle them will be better and more rigorous and will bring about a better life for our children than it would if we simply enclosed ourselves with the view that everything in the garden is rosy.
4.42 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to register an interest, in that I serve as a parliamentary ambassador for the NSPCC. It is not a paid position, but it gives me a great deal of useful information and I am very grateful for the work that the NSPCC does. I am here today, however, to give a Liberal Democrat response to some of the issues that we have debated.
170WH
I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, because it has been well informed, and telling points have been made to which I hope that the Minister will respond. However, to debate and do justice to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and its 54 articles in three hours is impossible. It would take him that long just to respond to the many concerns expressed in the concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which were published earlier this month.
I shall focus on a few of the main issues, some of which have been touched on by other hon. Members, and on some of the recommendations made by that committee. Quite rightly, several hon. Members have spoken about child poverty, the cycle of deprivation and delinquency that can continue through the generations, and how we need to end that cycle.
I want to ask the Minister about the recommendations concerning detention and juvenile justice, which he has heard something about from others. The UN committee expressed serious concern that
"the situation of children in conflict with the law has worsened since"
its 1995 report. It goes on to say that it is "deeply concerned" about the high and increasing number of children in custody at earlier ages for lesser offences, which it regards as a violation of article 37(b) of the convention. The committee also expressed concern about the Government's failure to drop their reservation concerning article 37(c) because children are still detained in adult prisons. It said:
"it appears that only resource considerations now prevent the withdrawal of the reservation."
On top of those concerns are others about the use of restraint in custody. The report highlights recent figures showing that in two years 296 children sustained injuries following restraint and control in prison. As was revealed in the recently published joint chief inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children", there are weaknesses in the Government's current arrangements for safeguarding young children that are letting children suffer serious harm and even die.
As the chief inspectors say in their report:
"An analysis of surveys undertaken of young people in Young Offenders Institutions revealed that 24 per cent. reported incidents of assault by other young people, 14 per cent. reported that they felt unsafe some of the time, and six per cent. felt unsafe often. In one Young Offenders Institution, there were over 700 reported incidents of injuries to young people over an eight-month period."
That is a huge number, but I am concerned not only about injuries but about deaths, too.
Most recently, there was the tragic case of Kevin Jacobs, and I quote from a column by Mary Riddell in The Observer on 13 October 2002:
"On 3 July, 2001 … he was remanded to Feltham on a minor robbery charge. In care since he was seven, he was a disturbed and vulnerable boy, desperate for adults' attention. His favourite outing, he told them, was to go fishing on a lake. Everyone involved in his case agreed that he should never have been in prison.
On 19 July, Kevin was given a six-month detention and training order. On 14 September, after he had been bullied several times, he was found hanging in his cell, unconscious. He told the warders who revived him that he wanted to die. On 26 September, he

171WH
smashed a light and toyed with a plastic knife. Staff, discovering ripped sheets and a large hook under his bed, moved him to the health centre.
On 27 September, he was transferred to a normal cell, because the safe one on the wing was being refurbished. On 28 September, his social worker came to visit. Kevin, craving security, had hoped for release to his old care home in Guildford. That day, it was confirmed that there was no place for him. A few hours later, he was dead … He was 16.
On 26 September this year, an inquest jury returned a verdict of 'suicide to which neglect contributed'."
The article concluded:
"What can the prison service do when it is the unwilling longstop for children who should never be in jail?"
Since 1997, 93 young people have committed suicide while in custody. Detention and training orders seem to have led to an increase in jail sentences, apparently on the mistaken belief that they will result in more rehabilitation. What steps are being taken to review that pattern and ensure that alternatives to custodial sentences, such as the intensive supervision and surveillance orders, are used? Will the Minister comment on the fact, which has been picked up on by one or two hon. Members, that not all young offenders institutions are fully compliant with the principles and requirements of the Children Act 1989? What steps are being taken to ensure compliance? That, too, was a concern in the "Safeguarding Children" report.
Many of the children in custody should not be there in the first place. Half of them are the casualties of an under-resourced and over-pressured child protection system. So far the Government have refused to lift their reservation about children being detained in adult prisons, and the UK locks up more children than any other European country, which is a scandal. The convention makes it clear that custody should be a measure of last resort, so when will the Government honour their commitment to remove girls and young women from adult prisons? What is the timetable for compliance with article 37(c)? When will the reservation be lifted?
Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the conclusions in the report concern child deaths through neglect and abuse. The topic has not been spoken about much today, but is a concern for us all. I fully acknowledge that much good work has been done, not least through the quality protects programmes, but the UN committee rightly draws attention to the appalling level of child deaths in this country. Home Office figures clearly show that child homicide figures in England and Wales have not fallen for 25 years or more. We have cut child deaths on our roads and reduced the risk of disease and illness in children, but the child death rates as a result of neglect and abuse have remained unchanged.
Framing effective policy requires information, but there is a disturbing lack of information on the causes and circumstances of unexpected or suspicious child deaths. As the committee notes, there is no systematic follow-up for child deaths in this country. Incredible though it may seem, there is no permanent database of child death cases. The full extent of child death in this country remains largely hidden. The committee expressed its alarm at the lack of a co-ordinated strategy to reduce child deaths, and made eight specific recommendations concerning the issue. How, in general, do the Government intend to respond to those
172WH
recommendations? In particular, will the Home Office consider establishing a system of statutory child death inquiries, and include in future British crime surveys all crimes committed against children?
The issue of corporal punishment, mentioned in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the recommendations, has been at the heart of the debate, and has been a cause for concern to many of the hon. Members who have contributed. The Government have set their face against changing the law concerning reasonable chastisement. That is an unacceptable loophole that has allowed our courts to tolerate the use of belts, sticks, canes and other implements to punish children.
Research has shown that physical punishment is ineffective as a form of discipline. It is associated with subsequent aggressive and criminal behaviour in children. A 1995 UK study concluded that physical punishment was a significant factor in the development of violent attitudes and actions by children. Another UK study found that children who were frequently aggressive with their siblings were four times as likely as those who were rarely aggressive to have been severely punished at some time in their life.
Hon. Members, particularly those on the Front Benches, have been right to emphasise the importance of quality parenting, but it is wrong to use that as an excuse not to deal with the issue of reasonable chastisement. No one here is talking about some draconian ban. It is worth remembering that in 1999 a MORI poll for Children Are Unbeatable! found that 73 per cent. of those who responded and 78 per cent. of those with dependent children supported a ban
"if they could be sure that parents would not be prosecuted for trivial smacks".
The year before that survey, the Office for National Statistics found that almost every adult surveyed considered punishment that leaves a red mark or bruising to be unreasonable. Some 76 per cent. of people surveyed said that they did not support the smacking of children under two, and 87 per cent. said that using a cane, stick, belt or other implement to punish a naughty child was not acceptable. There were no significant differences in the views on smacking held by men and women, or by parents in different age groups.
Given those responses to the survey, why have Ministers failed to act? Why are they not prepared to ban blows to the head, shaking and the use of implements? Why are the Government unwilling to put on the statute book the factors that courts must take into account when determining whether punishment is reasonable?
Child prostitution has not been mentioned today, but the Barnardo's "Stolen Childhood" campaign, for which many of us will have seen the literature—not least the haunting posters of young children made old before their time by abuse through prostitution—has moved many. We are talking about boys and girls as young as six. In paragraphs 55 and 56 of the recommendations, the UN committee expresses its concern that the law criminalises children who have been the victims of such exploitation. In the "Safeguarding Children" report, the joint chief inspectors said that they were particularly concerned about a child protection system that seems to be in denial about the problem. They also said:
"it is apparent that little effort has been made to identify the extent of the problem or address the needs of these victims of child sexual exploitation."

173WH
The lack of a clear strategy to pull together the evidence from across agencies, co-ordinate intelligence gathering, and put in place the support such children need is a gross neglect. What plans do the Government have to commission the study on the scope, causes and background of child prostitution that was recommended in the report? What plans do the Government have to make it a criminal offence to buy or sell the sexual services of a child, or to participate in, facilitate or allow sexual exploitation of a child under the forthcoming sexual offences legislation? The Government signed the optional protocol on child prostitution in September 2000, but they have yet to ratify it. When will they do that?
Barnardo's rightly drew attention to the role of the internet in luring children into prostitution. Following a constituency case 18 months ago, I raised my concerns at Prime Minister's questions about paedophiles using teenage chatrooms to groom children for sexual purposes. I welcome the fact that the Home Office set up a taskforce on internet safety. I am a member of that taskforce, and I have been encouraged by the progress that has been made in framing both a legislative and a multi-agency response to the issue. However, what assurances can the Minister give today that the House will soon be able to enact those vital protections?
I want to question the monitoring of the implementation of the convention. The UN committee has asked the Government to enshrine the convention in our domestic law, and many hon. Members have said much the same today. Do the Government support taking that step?
The committee expresses deep concern that, although there is a Children's Commissioner in Wales—which is a welcome innovation—and there are plans for similar posts in Northern Ireland and Scotland, there is no such post in England. The Liberal Democrats believe that establishing a children's rights commissioner would ensure that Governments took children's rights seriously in their policies and decisions. Some powerful arguments have been advanced for that today.
By definition, that office is a guardian of the human rights of all children, not a manager of child protection services or of a Government welfare or quality assurance programme. Children's rights commissioners are meant to ensure that Governments consider children as citizens now, rather than only when they grow up and can vote. I regret that, to date, Ministers have set their face against such a post, preferring instead the more narrowly drawn children's rights director in the National Care Standards Commission. That is a valuable post, but it is not an adequate response to the matter, as it covers only looked-after children and fails to meet this country's obligations under the convention.Moira Rayner, the former director of the London Children's Rights Commissioner's office, put it this way:
"A Children's Rights Commissioner is a canary in the mine, giving warning. It is better to prevent than to remedy a wrong, and anyway it is no remedy to give the damaged adult a wronged child may become the 'right' to chance their luck in the courts that were not designed to deal with them."
174WH
Can the Minister outline the Government's case against the establishment of such a commissioner? We have never heard that case articulated by a Minister; perhaps we can do so today.
The UN committee makes several specific recommendations about data collection. When I was preparing for this debate, it became clear to me how little the Government know about the circumstances of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. There is no regular collection of statistics on the numbers or needs of that group of children—indeed, apart from a snapshot survey conducted last year of a typical week in a local authority, no information has been collected. How is it possible to plan sensibly and sensitively for the needs of those children without basic information? Establishing a clear picture of how many of them there are in the country is a key ingredient in developing responses and services that those very damaged children need. It is hardly surprising, then, that the committee was so critical of the Government's handling of asylum-seeking children.
The committee has set out a massive agenda of issues and recommendations for the Government to consider. The Minister has outlined some of the responses that the Government have made so far. It is vital that they act to ensure that this country's obligations under the convention are honoured, and that children's rights are named and claimed for children when they are children.
4.58 pm
Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Members of all parties who have taken part in this debate. A huge number of issues have been raised, and even though I have been left about half an hour to speak, I cannot promise that I will manage to recall all of them—even with the help of my notes—let alone answer them satisfactorily. However, I will deal with as many as I can.
It is a shame that the Back-Bench contributions have come entirely from Labour Members. Given the importance of these issues, it is a pity that the other parties have been represented only by their Front-Bench spokesmen—although they have done a good job.
Mr. Grieve: That is a problem, but this afternoon's debate in the Chamber is on the local government finance formula, which is of enormous importance, especially to Back Benchers. In the circumstances, it is no great surprise that that has been their priority.
Mr. Denham: None the less, one or two might have made their way here to express their interest.
I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) at St. Mary's on Sunday afternoon. Perhaps he will join me at half time when I am hoping to launch the next phase of the anti-racism campaign run by Southampton football club. That will provide him with some half-time entertainment.
On more serious matters, let me start with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The NSPCC's figures on child murders are of course shocking, but it is worth remembering that this country has one of the lowest child murder rates in western Europe. Some indicators, particularly the number of children on at-risk registers, are more fairly viewed as a measure of how we have built on our child

175WH
protection systems in recent years rather than as an accurate reflection of the scale of the problem. The inspectorate report published last Monday acknowledges considerable improvements, though clear gaps in the system remain—
Mr. Dawson: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am afraid that we cannot hear the Minister at this end of the Chamber. Something may be wrong with the microphone.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): I do not know whether the problem is in the system, but the microphones are sensitive to position, so I hope that the Minister will position himself well.
Mr. Denham: I will step forward.
I was saying that some of the examples used by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield can be read as evidence of the extent to which we have built a more extensive system of child protection rather than as evidence of the problem. It is rather like increases in certain types of recorded crime, which show that people are acquiring more faith in the system. As the inspectorate's report showed last year, much has been done, but improvements remain to be made. As well as considering how best to respond to the report, the Government are waiting for Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbié case. We do not know exactly what they will be, but proposals for changes to the system of child protection will certainly be recommended and the Government will want to take them very seriously indeed.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield made an interesting speech, and it was a measure of how public debate has changed over the past five years. It was mainly about what the evidence shows about the best forms of prevention and early intervention in the lives of young people and young offenders. However, he is a member of a party that never spent anything like the resources that we are spending on services. At the last election, his party proposed to cut £20 billion from public spending.
I welcome debate about the best model for early childhood strategies. Ministers did not design the sure start programme on the back of an envelope. It is based on extensive reviews of the published and evaluated evidence on the most effective ways of intervening to help young people. The same is true of the youth offender strategies promoted by the Youth Justice Board. There is always room for debate about innovations and new ideas. I am glad that today's debate has been about how to make the best of the substantial investment that we are making.
Without prejudging what Lord Laming will say, we clearly need to improve our ability to identify young people at risk and to ensure that services for them are properly co-ordinated. That is why in the autumn, after the spending review, we announced that in England—it does not apply to the devolved Administrations—we shall be working with local authorities, the health service, the police and other agencies to put identification, referral and tracking systems in place. It is a way of sharing information about young people when different agencies are concerned about them, to ensure a concerted response.
176WH
We all know from our constituency work of individual children who were known to the police, social services and education organisations, but in respect of whom the different agencies had not co-ordinated their response. Such a child can end up in crisis, may need to be taken into care or even end up in a young offenders institution. If there had been an intervention four or five years earlier in those children's lives, that would have led to a different and more positive outcome.
We are building on the current system to ensure that we have better focused strategies to identify those young people who are at risk. We will ask all the agencies that I mentioned to work together in a more concerted way from next spring, to develop clear preventive strategies for young people. Those strategies should show not only how the agencies will identify the young people at risk but how they will work together to respond to their needs. We are moving forward. There is a great deal more to be done in this area, but we can be pleased with what we have done so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) acknowledged what the Government have done so far. I disagree with one of her substantive points about the naming of children who are the subject of antisocial behaviour orders. We believe that such orders can play an effective role in strategies to control youth nuisance at local level, with which I know she agrees.
Such orders are used most effectively as part of a wider strategy, which on some occasions will attempt other interventions before moving to an ASBO and in others will move straight to it. The impact of an ASBO depends on people knowing that the order has been made, so that the public and the communities that have been affected can help to monitor and identify any breaches of the order. An ASBO that cannot be enforced, so a breach cannot be prosecuted, is unlikely to be fully effective. Although the courts have discretion in the matter, the ability to name an offender under an ASBO is a key part of the measure. If we removed it, the measure would not be effective in many circumstances.
There are a variety of views on smacking and reasonable chastisement. There are those who would like any form of smacking to be outlawed. Others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), said that the issue concerned not so much outlawing it entirely as the definition of reasonable chastisement, and that the law should, perhaps, be amended to be more precise about what that means.
There are several issues that we need to take into account. I spoke to several of my counterpart Ministers in countries that have banned smacking, and they said, universally, that those laws had not been enforced but were symbolic. Therein lies a difficulty that may be peculiar to the United Kingdom—I do not know, as I am not an international legal expert. We have very little tradition in this country of declaratory legislation, of passing laws as a symbol of what we mean, rather than ones that we expect to be enforced. Had we a different tradition, the debate might also he different.
I believe that trying to amend the law to be more precise would probably get us into more hot water and more difficulty than we would wish. I have in mind the analogy of the law on euthanasia. It does not fit exactly what happens, and most attempts to suggest something

177WH
different would probably make it worse rather than better. The same would be true of an attempt to define more precisely what we mean by reasonable chastisement, or to come up with an alternative form of wording.
In practice, I believe that the law, backed up as it is now by the European convention on human rights, under which test cases have been taken, provides sufficient protection for children. I do not advocate smacking. I have two children, one of 15 and the other of 12, and neither of them has ever been smacked. I am, personally, a strong opponent of smacking. Not everyone in the Government shares my opinion, but I am certain that the way to send out the right signals about smacking is by supporting positive approaches to parenting, by having programmes that support parents in seeing different ways to discipline and by helping them to convey ideas about good and bad behaviour to their children. That is preferable to attempting to bring the criminal law into this difficult and sensitive area of family life.
Mr. Dawson: Does the Minister accept that the Government might be on stronger ground on the matter if, in the consultation that preceded the latest modifications to policy, they had offered the people of this country the option of abolishing the concept of reasonable chastisement, as the Scottish Parliament offered it to the people of Scotland?
Mr. Denham: There will always be different views about whether a particular consultation should have covered more options. The lesson from the consultation exercise, which was carried out through the Department of Health, was pretty clear in its conclusions. It endorsed our sense that a change in the law is not the right way to address the issue.
Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that the Government's clear and settled view is that they would not wish to legislate to ban blows to the head, shaking a child or using implements to punish a child?
Mr. Denham: We are not proposing to legislate on such matters. In case the hon. Gentleman wants to read something into my response, that does not mean that we would approve of forms of punishment of children that amount to assault. That is very clear, and I believe that it is the legal position. I think that, in practice, setting out detailed legislation would be a difficult challenge. We would be in danger of diverting attention from the real issue, which is how we support parents in finding alternative ways to discipline their children, other than any type of physical chastisement. The time devoted to the debate on what the Victorian law says, as interpreted by the European convention on human rights, amounts to a diversion from the real issue of how we can promote more positive approaches to parenting. We have more to do on that, although we have made a significant start in the past few years.
Smacking relates strongly to the question of a children's rights commissioner or a children's champion. Several hon. Members referred to that. Forgive me if I cannot identify every comment with each
178WH
individual Member; I hope that people will bear with me and recognise their own contributions. I said earlier, and several hon. Members acknowledged it, that there are different interpretations of who such a person might be. Those interpretations range from someone who would be, essentially, a children's ombudsman, who could take up complaints and issues raised by children, to the incorporation of the concepts of the convention in primary legislation. Somewhere in between is a body that might have the right to declare whether we have complied with the convention and which may have greater or lesser powers to require the Government to act. That is the spectrum of ideas that we are considering.
My view is that if we went for incorporation, it would inevitably be implied that we wanted to shift a huge policy area involving children to the courts and away from a democratic Parliament. Whether or not my view on smacking, and the Government's, is right, the decision on what the law in this country says about smacking should be taken by an elected Parliament, not franchised out to the courts.
Although not everyone takes the same view as me, I do not think that many people would accept the idea of the law on smacking being determined by the UN committee observing our progress on the UN convention on the rights of the child. Surely Members of the elected Parliament must decide the convention's interpretation—we believe that our position complies entirely with it.
In debates on commissioners, ombudsmen or others, we are considering what role such figures could play in achieving not only legal, but cultural and political change. I do not believe that we could ever have made a commitment to abolish child poverty in a generation because we had a children's rights commissioner. We have made a commitment to do that because we persuaded this country's people to elect a Government who intended to make child poverty a priority. Whatever commissioner we had, if a Government did not want to abolish child poverty, and the people did not want them to, it would be very difficult for such a person to impose that objective on them.
The matter, then, is not quite as simple as giving someone an office with a plate on the door saying, "Children's Rights Commissioner". Before we resolve the issue, we have to decide what Parliament's responsibilities are in the matter, what is to be decided democratically, what are the issues on which the convention provides a useful stimulus—as it does to me as a Minister in judging my actions and policies—and which issues Parliament should decide are to be determined by lawyers and courts, rather than by Ministers and elected MPs. Thus the matter is not, in my view, as simple as some of its advocates claim, because there are important choices to be made.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister makes a fair point about the spectrum of debate that must take place, but is he minded to introduce a Green Paper to enable those debates to happen? We can make progress quickly, but the Government clearly want further debate, so may we have a Green Paper?
Mr. Denham: Last year's launch of the consultation on the overarching strategy for children was not

179WH
specifically a consultation document on the establishment of a children's rights commissioner, but I have found that, in practice, it has elicited many responses on that subject. I cannot prejudge decisions that have not been made, but we are examining the matter as part of our consideration of responses to the overarching strategy. I want that strategy, including our action plan on the United Nations General Assembly special session on children held last May, to include the debate on a children's rights commissioner. I do not want to separate addressing this matter from what the Government want to do for children as a whole. That would be an artificial separation of rights and policy, which I do not want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre also mentioned the rights agenda. I have suggested to him some issues that I would raise in response to his approach, but that debate can continue later. He also mentioned mental health. He might have seen the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, made some 10 days ago, of a significant expansion of child and adolescent mental health services during the next three years as a result of the spending review. That will be welcomed by everyone. Mental health has been regarded by many, including me when I was a Minister at the Department of Health, as an area in which we did not do as much as we should have done for children, so the announcement will be widely welcomed.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) raised some important and well informed points about young defendants facing serious charges. She acknowledged that the guidance issued in 2000 went some way to try to humanise the court arrangements for young defendants—for example, abandoning robes and wigs, restricting presence in the public gallery, including that of the press, and ensuring that all participants are on the same physical level. However, she raised other points on which I should like to reflect a little after the debate. She put her points very powerfully indeed.
My hon. and learned Friend also rightly mentioned child care. She will know that a major expansion of child care, in terms of the development of children's centres, was put forward in the spending review last summer. I was not able to deal with that at length in my opening speech, but it is very much part of our provision for children, which will also help with the positive parenting that we have discussed.
I have much sympathy with how my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) put his points on what challenges we face. He is right that a big challenge is to make participation real, and we have shown that we can do that through schemes such as quality protects. The development of the Connexions service throughout the country has shown much good practice in its involvement and consultation with young people, but, to be honest, the national and local position is patchy. Over the next few years, we must identify good practice and respread it as quickly as possible.
We should probably do more to bring issues that need local consideration to the attention of Members of Parliament, including how they can involve young people in their constituencies and ensuring that they listen to young people. That is especially relevant if, as I hope, we develop occasional youth-oriented Question Times in this Chamber. I also hope that we can do more
180WH
to achieve that through hon. Members' work in the all-party group on youth affairs. I should acknowledge the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre in the all-party group on children, which also works extensively in that area.
There have been important changes, such as the rights of young people that are enshrined in education legislation. There have also been moves over the past few years to ensure that people listen to children with special educational needs during the identification of their future educational needs.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre spoke about unaccompanied asylum seekers. We know that there has been substantial growth in the number of such people, and we do everything we can to recognise the rights and needs of those young people.
With regard to the United Nations convention, it is not feasible to run a proper immigration system on the basis that any child who arrives in this country following payment to people traffickers is considered not part of the asylum system, but simply a child. We must step up our efforts to tackle people trafficking. That is a reason why we have a reservation regarding the UN convention. We make every effort to ensure that how we run our asylum system takes into account the needs and interests of such children.
As well as reminding me about Sunday's football match, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North raised several Northern Ireland issues and referred to baton rounds. He knows that the type of baton round has been changed following extensive testing programmes involving the police scientific development branch, which comes under my Home Office responsibilities. Every effort has been made to ensure that the less lethal technologies that are used are as unlikely as possible to risk causing lasting damage or death, but it is impossible to eliminate that risk from any technology that we have. A balance must be struck for police officers who face riot situations in Northern Ireland or, indeed, on the mainland. They must be able to control the situation without putting themselves at impossible personal risk. We take that issue seriously.
I referred to my Home Office responsibilities. Several hon. Members, in addition to flattering me, suggested that I should not have a day job in addition to this one. I take that as a mixed blessing. The issue is difficult, but, fortunately, it is one for the Prime Minister, not me. I regularly tell children's organisations that one can argue the point both ways. A Minister who is dedicated to a specific issue, but who has no handle on a specific Department, runs the risk of being relatively marginalised when up against Departments with punching power.
Equally, if the Minister, like me, has departmental responsibilities, less time can be devoted to that issue. I believe that being a Home Office Minister has strengthened my ability to push through several aspects that I have mentioned, especially those such as youth participation—a person must prove that that can be done in their Department, rather than just going around telling everyone else how to improve their act. I am sure that the debate will continue, but our current approach has real advantages.

181WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) brought a much-needed international dimension to the debate, for which I am grateful. I am not familiar with the Canadian report to which she referred—no doubt I should be, and now I will have to be—but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office. The UN intended, and intends, to safeguard the universal rights of children around the world, and we need to do what we can to promote them, including in problematic and conflict-ridden countries such as Afghanistan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) raised some important points. He is right to say that there are areas of overlapping responsibility in the devolution settlement that we must identify and work through. For example, the Home Office is responsible for policing and crime reduction in Wales, but my remit as Minister responsible for children and young persons stops at the boundaries of England. I can tell my hon. Friend that the children and young people's unit meets quarterly, with a formal agenda, representatives of the devolved Administrations, including that for Wales.
Part of that work is to co-ordinate the UK's response to and implementation of the convention. There is weekly—indeed, daily—informal contact between the CYPU and Welsh Assembly officials, and a Welsh delegate went to the UN hearings in Geneva. Although we can do more on some issues, as my hon. Friend says, there is good co-operation. We are watching with interest the development of the commissioner role in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and how it relates to children's policy.
182WH
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised a series of issues. I cannot deal with them all, but I hope that I have at least made my position clear on the children's rights commission and on smacking. He asked about young offenders institutions and sentencing trends. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the development of the greater use of detention and treatment orders is a result of misapplied sentencing. A great deal has been done to ensure that courts understand why a combination of custody and supervision and training should provide a more rehabilitative framework than an alternative such as the same period spent entirely in detention. Its increased use does not necessarily suggest that new people—those who would not have been in the system in the first place—are being caught up in it.
I agree, however, that we need to continue to extend the range of non-custodial provision, especially the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, which has produced extremely good results. My view is that that is partly because it brings a degree of structure to the chaotic lives of young people, often for the first time. There is statutory guidance on child murder reviews, so the hon. Gentleman may be incorrect in saying that there is no statutory procedure when a child dies following abuse or neglect. I shall look back at precisely what he said and clarify the point if necessary. I recognise the importance of the work on child prostitution, and I am grateful for his contribution to that.
We intend to ratify the convention, and we will be in a position to do so when we have found a way to ensure that our laws cover internal child trafficking as well as the external trafficking that will soon be so covered.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 5 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Amanat Ullah. [74860]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 230W.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 19 June from the hon. Member for Torbay regarding Mrs. Shyla Selvasenthil. [75000]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 6 August 2002.

  Yarlswood
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the latest estimated cost is of the Yarlswood fire; and what proportion is anticipated to be borne by the Exchequer. [75432]

  Beverley Hughes
  For legal reasons I am unable to comment on the costs of the Yarlswood incident and who will bear responsibility for those costs.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what negotiations he has had with insurers concerning insurance cover for(a) Yarlswood and (b) the proposed pilot accommodation centres for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [75430]

  Beverley Hughes
  Officials have held discussions with Group 4 Amey Immigration Limited (GAIL) and their insurers. Tenders have yet to be issued for the proposed accommodation centres.

  Detention Center Rates—1998 to 2002

  Detention Centre/Unit

  Non-Domestic Rates (NDR)/Contribution in lieu of Rent (CILOR)

  (Account Type: P406)

  2002–03

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Dover RC (Rochester)

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tinsley House

  415,150.00

  408,500.00

  399,594.19

  345,659.89

  410,316.21

  Manchester Airport Detention Unit

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Haslar Detention Unit

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Yarl's Wood DC

  299,345.00

  107,329.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Dungavel DC

  83,172.00

  81,780.00

  10,480.04

  0.00

  0.00

  Lindholme DC

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  412W
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been directed to Leeds, broken down by each Leeds constituency. [75001]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at the end of June 2002 the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was supporting 1,485* asylum seekers (including dependants) in accommodation in Leeds.

  Some asylum seekers supported by NASS find their own accommodation and receive subsistence only support from NASS. As at the end of June 2002 there were 570* asylum seekers (including dependants) in receipt of subsistence only support in the Yorkshire and Humberside region (which includes Leeds).

  Figures are not currently available by constituency for those asylum seekers supported by the NASS.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers accommodated by NASS in each cluster area are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Note:

  * Figures have been rounded to the nearest five. Figures exclude cases where the asylum seekers support has been ceased.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on the detention of pregnant women seeking asylum; and how many pregnant women are detained while their asylum applications are considered [76280]

  Beverley Hughes
  Pregnant women are not normally considered suitable for detention under the Immigration Acts unless there is a clear prospect of early removal from the United Kingdom and medical advice suggests no question of confinement prior to this. In addition, women in the early stages of pregnancy may be detained briefly at Oakington Reception Centre as part of the fast-track asylum process. Statistics for the number of pregnant women detained under Immigration act powers are not available.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask the Home Secretary how much he has paid in non-domestic rates for each asylum detention centre in each of the last four years; and how much he will pay in 2002–03. [76545]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 October]: The table outlines the expenditure paid for Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) for each Detention/Removal Centre across the Immigration Service, in each of the last four years, together with how much we will pay in Financial Year 2002–03.
  413W

  Detention Centre Rates—1998 to 2002

  Detention Centre/Unit

  Non-Domestic Rates (NDR)/Contribution in lieu of Rent (CILOR)

  (Account Type: P406)

  2002ߝ03

  2001ߝ02

  2000ߝ01

  1999ߝ2000

  1998ߝ99

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Oakington RC

  240,350.00

  0.00

  170,477.37

  0.00

  0.00

  Campsfield House

  25,127.50

  0.00

  49,729.37

  55,611.72

  49,196.90

  Queen's Buildings

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Aldington DC

  18,850.06

  15,774.44

  13,278.71

  0.00

  0.00

  New Harmondsworth DC

  1,165,042.00

  528,963.62

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Harmondsworth DC (Old)

  0.00

  0.00

  278,666.92

  94,560.07

  91,351.20

  Totals

  2,247,036.56

  1,142,347.06

  922,226.60

  495,831.68

  550,864.31

  Source:

  BASS

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask the Home Secretary if he will list each key performance indicator in the contract for the Dungavel asylum detention centre and the number of performance penalty points incurred for each key performance indicator by the operators of the detention centre in each year since it began operation. [76543]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: A copy of the contract with Premier Detention Services Ltd has been placed in the Library. Schedule G "Performance Evaluation" of this contract contains all the information required.

  Information relating to the number of performance points incurred by each Removal Centre operator is commercially confidential and so cannot be disclosed.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask the Home Secretary what the cost to his Department has been of monitoring private finance initiative contracts for each asylum detention centre in each of the last five years. [76544]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate does not currently hold any Private Finance Initiative contracts for Removal Centres.

  PQ-M 08533 HO managed websites costs

  2001

  Capital Costs

  Running costs (ex staff)

  Hosted by

  State

  www.policereform.gov.uk

  £3,000

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.policecouldyou.co.uk

  £15,200

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.secureyourmotor.gov.uk

  £100,000

  £8,000

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk

  £46,000

  £10,800

  CCGXM

  Live

  www.hmenterprises.gov.uk

  unknown

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.drugs.gov.uk

  £300,000

  £200,000

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.sentencing-advisory-panel.gov.uk

  prior to 2001

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.apc.gov.uk

  prior to 2001

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.ask-the-football-fans.gov.uk

  prior to 2001

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.fairersentencing.gov.uk

  £1,200

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Closed

  www.crimereduction.gov.uk

  £83,000

  £48,000

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.ppo.gov.uk

  prior to 2001

  absorbed by Core HO

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk

  £100,000

  £15,000

  CCGXM

  Live

  www.homeoffice.gov.uk

  £50,000

  75,000

  CCTA/Globix

  Live

  £698,400

  £356,800

  2002

  Capital Costs

  Running costs

  www.policereform.gov.uk

  £15,000

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.policecouldyou.co.uk

  £1,683

  £686

  Globix/BT

  Live

  414W

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75583]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since January 2001 to the present the total design and development costs for the website are £1,024,228, whilst running costs (hosting and maintenance, excluding staff costs) are £551,986 to date.

  Sites are assessed in-house using market intelligence, consumer feedback forms and Webtrends software, and, as of August 2002, monthly figures are submitted to the Cabinet Office.

  The table shows the capital and running costs for all Home Office websites, excluding the Immigration & Nationality; Passports and Crime Reduction websites.

  The web plays an invaluable role in providing information to the public and stakeholders across the range of Home Office responsibilities, and we are fully committed to developing our service to the public through it still further.
  415W

  PQ-M 08533 HO managed websites costs

  2001

  Capital Costs

  Running costs (ex staff)

  Hosted by

  State

  www.secureyourmotor.gov.uk

  £65,400

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.thinkyouknow.co.uk

  £25,000

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk

  £0

  £15,000

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.hmenterprises.gov.uk

  £0

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.drugs.gov.uk

  £100,000

  £50,000

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk

  £25,616

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.probation.gov.uk/estates

  £30,000

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.technicaladvisoryboard.gov.uk

  £400

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.onlinemappa.org.uk

  £400

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.sentencing-advisory-panel.gov.uk

  £21,229

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.apc.gov.uk

  £0

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.ask-the-football-fans.gov.uk

  £0

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.crimereduction.gov.uk

  £0

  £54,000

  Business Info

  PubliLive

  www.ppo.gov.uk

  £0

  absorbed by Core HO

  Globix/BT

  Live

  www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk

  £0

  £1,500

  CCGXM

  Live

  www.homeoffice.gov.uk

  £41,100

  £74,000

  Globix/BT

  Live

  £325,828

  £195,186

  Total costs to date:

  £1,024,228

  £551,986

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued in the UK since their introduction; how many have been revoked for non-compliance; and what these figures are for Kent. [75190]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Drug Treatment and Testing Order was introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and rolled out to courts in England and Wales on 1 October 2000, after successfully being piloted

  Between 1 October 2000–31 July 2000 (which is the latest month for which complete figures are available) 8,071 orders have been made nationally, of which 2,369 orders have been revoked for non-compliance. This represents 29 per cent. of the total number of orders made. In Kent 196 orders have been made over the same period, of which 64 have been revoked for failure to comply; this represents 32 per cent. of total orders made in the area.

  Mr. Ebrahim Solta
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Ebrahim Solta of Leicester who was detained at Charles Street Police Station in October [76310]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 15 October setting out the circumstances that led to the detention of Mr. Ebrahim Sotta at Charles Street Police Station.

  Chief Charity Commissioner
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 40W, on what date a copy of the reply of the Chief Charity Commissioner was placed in the Library. [76537]
  416W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: A copy of the letter from the Chief Charity Commissioner was placed in the Library on 14 October.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been given to agencies to provide support and assistance to victims of trafficking in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [76792]

  Beverley Hughes
  The White Paper "Secure Borders Safe Haven", published earlier this year, set out a comprehensive approach for supporting the victims of trafficking. We will make arrangements for their protection and support by providing access to safe accommodation and services such as medical care, legal advice, and counselling. We are working with the voluntary sector to set up these arrangements and hope to set up a pilot scheme next year, which will initially run on a trial basis for a period of six months so that we can evaluate its impact.

  The Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are running a number of prevention projects aimed primarily at raising awareness and educating potential victims (mostly women and children) of the dangers of being trafficked. We have given £3 million for the International Labour Organisation's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) programme in the Greater Mekong region (parts of Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam). This involves a number of inter-linked interventions to raise awareness, prevent trafficking and to support community reintegration for victims of trafficking. The United Kingdom is also contributing to the European Union STOP Programme, which provides support to Member State organisations responsible for action against the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children.
  417W

  Terrorism
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to expand the UK and EU lists on proscribed terrorist organisations; what criteria must be met in order for someone to be added to the list; how often the list is reviewed; when the list was last updated; what discussions he has had with the(a) US Administration and (b) Governments in South East Asia and Australia regarding the proscription of terrorist groups. [76167]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: I will be laying an Order next week for the proscription of the terrorist organisation Jeemah Islamiyah (JI).

  Under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, I have the power to recommend to Parliament the proscription of any organisation which is "concerned in terrorism", as defined in the Act, if I am satisfied that the statutory criteria are fulfilled.

  Under the Terrorism Act, an organisation is "concerned in terrorism" if it:

  commits or participates in acts of terrorism;

  prepares for terrorism;

  promotes or encourages terrorism, or

  is otherwise concerned in terrorism

  In considering which international terrorist organisations should be subject to proscription, I take the following factors into account:

  the nature and scale of an organisation's activities;

  the specific threat that it poses to the UK;

  the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;

  the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK and

  the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism

  The list of proscribed organisations is kept under constant review. There have been no changes to the list since the Order proscribing 21 international terrorist organisations which came into force on 29 March 2001. We remain in constant contact with the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been detained without charge under the recent anti-terrorism legislation, and in each case(a) what access to legal advice has existed, (b) whether criminal charges are anticipated, (c) the length of time spent in custody and (d) whether bail applications have been made; and if he will make a statement [75424]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Twelve foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, and a further one yesterday.

  Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 10 remain in detention.

  All of those detained have had access to legal advice throughout the detention period. There is no limit to the number of legal visits the detainees may receive.
  418W
  The persons detained have been detained under a primarily immigration power. They are not being held pending criminal charges.

  My decision to detain these individuals was made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. That evidence will be examined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when the individuals' appeals are heard, as provided for under the ATCS Act. The Commission is equivalent to the High Court. It has the power to overturn my decisions.

  There have been five bail applications in total made by three individuals. The first bail application was made by one of the appellants in December 2001—this was declined and the appellant subsequently voluntarily left the United Kingdom (UK). An application by a second detainee was withdrawn after the appellant voluntarily left the UK. A third detainee made three bail applications—two of these failed and a third, scheduled to be heard in August 2002, was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant's legal representatives and has not been resubmitted.

  Where terrorism is concerned our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. So long as the public emergency subsists, where a person is suspected of terrorism but cannot currently be removed and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option, we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal.

  Given the nature of these cases, I am unable to comment in any further detail on individual cases.

  Passport Fees
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on passport fees. [77744]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Privy Council has made an Order in Council, the Consular Fees (No. 2) Order 2002, which gives authority for a revision in passport fees. The revision will take effect on 21 November 2002. The fee for a standard 32 page passport will increase from £30 to £33 while the fee for a 48 page passport will remain at £40. The fee for amending an existing passport will increase from £18 to £22.50. The cost of a passport for a child will increase from £16 to £19. The additional charges for those making use of the guaranteed fast track and premium services available from the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) counters remain unchanged at £30 and £45 respectively. The fee for a collective passport, for organised trips for schools and youth groups, will decrease from £42 to £39. The Order also increases fees for passport applications made overseas to British consular posts. These will be an increase from £49 to £54.40 for a standard 32 page passport, an increase from £60 to £65.20 for a 48 page passport, an increase from £29 to £34.70 for a child passport and an increase from £30 to £33.90 for an emergency passport.
  419W
  Passport fees are set at the level needed to cover the costs of passport issuing, including —in this case—the recovery of certain deficits accrued before 1999, and the costs of providing overseas consular protection services which are not covered by other fees. The changes set out in the Order follow a careful review of costs to ensure that the fee for each type of passport service closely reflects the production costs and past deficits accrued by that service and bears its share of the cost of consular protection services. In relation to the cost of travel abroad, the new fees still represent very good value for money.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Vehicles on the Road

  13,000

  39,000

  65,000

  Figures available in FEB: 2003

  Vehicles Converted

  13,000

  26,000

  26,000

  Figures available in FEB: 2003

  Sources:

  The figures above were from the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association website updated on 11 October 2002.

  These figures compare with 3500 LPG vehicles on the road in 1998

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many businesses in Scotland are authorised to carry out conversion of vehicles to enable them to use liquid petroleum gas; [74971]

  (2) what the locations are of the businesses in Scotland authorised to carry out conversion work on vehicles to enable them to use liquid petroleum gas. [74972]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of businesses authorised to convert vehicles for the use of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) in Scotland currently stands at twelve (12), and are located as follows:

  Perth & Kinross—1

  Moray—1

  Highland Region—1

  Edinburgh—1

  Ayrshire—1

  Aberdeenshire—1

  Scottish Border—1

  Dundee—2

  Glasgow—3

  The above information is based on data from the LPGA website which was updated on 11 October 2002.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants are available for individuals to convert vehicles to run on liquid petroleum gas. [74973]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DfT sponsored PowerShift programme, administered by the Energy Saving Trust's TransportEnergy team provides grants towards the conversion of vehicles to run on LPG. These grants are available for vehicles up to five years old for which good quality LPG conversions are available.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets her Department has for the number of vehicles to be converted to run on liquid petroleum gas by the end of the current financial year. [74970]

  Mr. Wilson
  The government has not set a target on the number of vehicles to be converted to use LPG. However it is working with the energy and transport industries, to promote, and raise the awareness of alternative fuels—in particular LPG.
  420W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many vehicles have been converted to use liquid petroleum gas in each of the last two years. [74974]

  Mr. Wilson
  The numbers of new and converted vehicles on the road using liquid petroleum gas has doubled since 1999 as confirmed by the table below:

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the number of businesses in Scotland able to carry out conversions to allow vehicles to run on liquid petroleum gas. [74969]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. MacDougall) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, columns 6–7W, in which I explained the incentives and the encouragement this department is offering to retailers on the sale of LPG.

  MOX Shipments
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been received by HM Government in respect of safety and security concerns expressed in regard to the shipment of rejected plutonium MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield; and what the cost is of the security provisions in place to protect the nuclear cargo [75457]

  Mr. Wilson
  Representations have been received by our Diplomatic Missions overseas and by the Department from hon. Members, their constituents, non-government organisations and others over safety and security over the return transport of MOX fuel to the UK from Takahama in Japan.

  Costs of compliance with regulatory nuclear security requirements are borne by the company. Details of those costs are a matter for BNFL.

  Petro-chemical/Biotechnology Plants
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many petro-chemical and biotechnology plants in the United Kingdom have the technical capacity for dual civil/military use. [75836]

  Ms Hewitt
  Petro-chemical plants in the United Kingdom are designed to process crude oil for the production of fuels, lubricants and other hydrocarbon chemicals. Although such facilities, given access to the appropriate raw materials, could potentially he used for the production of chemical weapons or their precursors, in the UK their only dual civil/military use is for the production of fuels, lubricants etc. which are required for normal military as well as civil purposes.
  421W
  Biotechnology facilities in the United Kingdom having the requisite safety infrastructure, equipment and starting materials may have the technical capacity to produce biological agents and other products which have dual civil/military use. Vaccines are an example of such products. Such facilities in the United Kingdom are subject to extensive regulation and inspection.

  The UK abandoned its offensive biological and chemical weapons programmes many years ago.

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the 5 per cent. target of renewable energy contribution to electricity supplies to be reached; and if she will make a statement. [75125]

  Mr. Wilson
  I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 672W, to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity was generated from renewable resources in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [75124]

  Mr. Wilson
  I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 15 October,Official Report, columns 671–672W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans her Department has to include industrial kitchen equipment within the EU WEEE directives and restrictions on use of substances covering electrical and electronic equipment; and if she will make a statement; [75133]

  (2) which EU member states have included industrial kitchen equipment within the current EU WEEE directives and restrictions on the use of substances; and if she will make a statement. [75134]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive and the Restriction on the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical equipment (ROHS) Directive completed the conciliation process on 11 October. Following legal checking and translation the final texts should be presented to the European Parliament and Council for approval around the end of this year.

  The scope of these Directives is very wide. To fall within the scope electrical and electronic equipment must rely on either an AC current of up to 1000 volts or a DC current of up to 1500 volts to operate correctly. It must also fall within one of the ten broad categories the WEEE Directive outlines. These categories apply to equipment intended for use by the consumer or for professional use. On this basis it is likely that at least some industrial kitchen equipment will fall within the scope of the Directives. Detailed guidance on scope can start to be developed once the final text is available and we have consulted business further. The Department will also monitor closely developments in other member States to help ensure a consistent application of the Directives.
  422W
  We are not aware of any other member State who has taken specific decisions on the inclusion or otherwise of industrial kitchen equipment at this time.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the 10 most successful commercial applications of research programmes funded by the European Union's first five framework programmes for research and development. [74915]

  Ms Hewitt
  Business, large and small, competes fiercely to take part in EU Framework programmes and derive wider benefits from participation: for example in increasing research skills, helping to access international collaboration, alliances or markets, sharing project risks and costs, or helping to develop key industry standards.

  However, the research carried out in the EU Framework Programmes focuses primarily on longer term pre-competitive, collaborative research rather than leading directly to commercial products.

  The UK is strongly encouraging the Commission in its work to develop better ways to track and assess the impact of the Framework programmes. However, successful commercial applications often depend on bringing together a number of technological innovations from different sources (which might include, among other sources, elements drawn from the wide range of outputs from successive Framework Programmes) with the aim of meeting a particular user need. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to compile a restrictive, ranked list of commercial successes.

  Nevertheless, it is possible to give some general examples where Framework programmes have contributed significantly to subsequent successful commercial applications: for example, underpinning development of GSM telephony (mobile phones), production of new generations of microchips, competitiveness of European Aerospace industry, improved energy technologies, and a much-improved understanding of life sciences and global climate change.

  The Commission provides details of all projects funded under FP4 and FP5 on its website www.CORDIS.lu together with a range of technology brokering services to assist with the further exploitation of EU funded research.

  Mineworkers' Pensions
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many women pensioners the National Coal Board are waiting for their equal pay status to be reflected in their pensions; and what percentage of women pensioners this represents. [74902]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. Neither the DTI nor the two British Coal pension schemes, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, are aware of any current cases where women pensioners are waiting for equal pay status to be reflected in their pensions.
  423W

  BT
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what statutory minimums of service BT is obliged to abide by in standard telephone line provision. [76159]

  Mr. Timms
  The Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) requires BT to provide telephony services including the ability to make and receive national and international calls and calls employing facsimile or voice band data at a minimum of 2400bit/s at any place in the licensed area. The EC Directive on Universal Service and Users' Rights, due to be implemented in mid 2003, requires the connection to permit functional Internet access. Oftel will consult on the implementation of its provisions.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the impact of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Kohpharma GmbH. [76306]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have received no representations regarding the impact of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Kohpharma GmbH (Case C-433/00). The judgment was delivered on 19 September 2002, and deals with questions regarding the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93.

  Energy Review
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish her Department's analysis of the responses to the energy review consultation document. [76397]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government has recently completed its consultation on energy policy. It proposes to take the responses to the consultation into account in its work leading to a White Paper in the New Year.

  Reports on a series of seminars and conferences associated with the consultation are being published on the DTI's web site.

  The results of consulting the general public through focus groups, deliberative workshops and the questionnaire made available at the Tomorrow's World Live road show were published on 10 October. The questionnaire was also made available on the DTI's web site. The results of these responses will be published shortly.

  We have received over 2000 written responses to the consultation document. We expect to publish a summary of these responses shortly on the DTI's web site along with the individual responses that are already being published there.

  British Energy
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings she has held with British Energy since September. [76132]
  424W
  Ms Hewitt
  My Department holds regular meetings with British Energy.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions have been taken regarding future financial support for British Energy and other energy companies; and what return taxpayers will receive on moneys given to British Energy. [75023]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15 October, Official Report, column 666W on the recent support for British Energy. No decisions have been taken and no commitments given on British Energy's long term future at this time.

  The circumstances in relation to other energy companies do not raise the same issues. The Government's overriding priority for nuclear safety in relation to BE does not apply.

  The Government has taken security over British Energy's assets for the credit facility agreement in the interests of the taxepayer. Full details of the agreement are commercially confidential unless and until it is made public by British Energy.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many country specific enterprise initiative schemes there are; and if she will list them and their budgets. [75860]

  Ms Hewitt
  British Trade International has a number of country specific Trade Development schemes designed to help British businesses export for the first time or access certain new markets. The schemes are listed below together with the total budget allocation in Financial Year 2002–2003.

  1.

  Export Explorer: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden.

  £500,000

  2.

  Export USA

  £145,000

  3.

  Export Canada

  £15,000

  4.

  First Timers Programme: Brazil

  £70,000

  5.

  Enterprise Initiative: India

  £20,000

  6.

  Cuba Trade Development Programme

  £30,000

  7.

  Thailand British Business Mentoring Scheme

  £1,500

  8.

  UK-South Africa SME Partnership Programme

  £93,000

  In addition, British Trade International also conducts campaigns to raise British exporters' awareness of opportunities in particular markets. There is a budget of £669,000 available in Financial Year 2002–2003 to support campaigns in the following markets.

  1. Australia

  2. Brazil

  3. Egypt

  4. Israel

  5. Malaysia

  6. Mexico

  7. Morocco

  8. Saudi Arabia

  9. Singapore

  10. South Africa

  11. South Korea

  425W

  12. Taiwan

  13. Thailand

  14. United Arab Emirates

  Since the Cabinet Secretary's Review of Export Promotion in 1999 and the subsequent establishment of British Trade International, the focus of Government support for trade has shifted from promoting overseas markets to British business to developmental work in order to improve the ability of companies to export and trade overseas successfully. There is also a greater emphasis on identifying and exploiting specific sectoral opportunities within overseas markets where they correspond to sectoral strengths in the British economy.

  Trade Partners UK
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how frequently Trade Partners UK updates its website. [75865]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Trade Partners UK website has approximately 16,000 pages of information and advice. The website is updated on a daily basis.

  Regional Venture Capital Funds
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the regional venture capital funds have been established. [76825]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Currently seven of the nine Regional Venture Capital Funds are now operational and available to make investments into SME's with growth potential in the English regions.

  THE REGIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL FUND PROGRAMME
  The seven Regional Venture Capital Funds that are operational and available to make investments into SME's with growth potential are in the regions below.
  £30 million for the North West (Fund reached £35 million at first closing in April 2002. With subsequent closings the Fund now stands at £35.5 million)
  £15 million for the North East (Fund reached £15 million at first closing in January 2002)
  £25 million for Yorkshire and Humberside (Fund reached £25 million at final closing in July 2002)
  £20 million for the East Midlands (Fund reached £30 million at final closing in January 2002)
  £25 million for the South West (Fund reached £25 million at first closing October 2002)
  £30 million for the South East (Fund reached 22.56 million at first closing October 2002)
  £50 million for London (Fund reached £50 million at first closing in July 2002)

  Oil Emergency Stock
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the national oil emergency stock is above the level required by international obligations; and if she will make a statement. [75177]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: At 31 August 2002 the UK provisionally had stocks equivalent to 76 days consumption of petroleum products, which is above the stock level of 67 ½ days
  426W
  worth of consumption of oil products that the UK is obliged to hold at any one time in accordance with EU legislation.

  Broadband
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to compile figures for broadband connections broken down by individual constituencies. [76910]

  Stephen Timms
  The Department has no plans for compiling figures for broadband connections broken down into individual constituencies.

  Information on broadband availability is depicted on a map of the UK and is available in the UK Online Annual Report (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/reports-anrep20011-images/$file/fig01.pdf).

  National Minimum Wage
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to end the age differential in the operation of the national minimum wage. [76913]

  Alan Johnson
  National minimum wage rates are set by Government following recommendations from the independent Low Pay Commission. The Commission has been asked to produce a Fourth Report on the minimum wage by February 2003 and we will carefully consider any recommendations that they make on this issue.

  Small Business
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small business closures there were in each year since 1997 in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK. [76859]

  Nigel Griffiths
  VAT de-registrations are the only official measure of business closures. Business de-registrations are not available by size of business and there is no requirement for small businesses to supply the information separately.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was allocated to small firms throughout the United Kingdom using the Research and Development tax credit in financial years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [75119]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  For companies claiming the R&D tax credit for small or medium sized companies in 2000/01, the cost to the Exchequer was £75 million. Figures are not yet available for 2001/02.

  Parental Rights
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her plans to introduce(a) enhanced maternity rights, (b) new paternity rights and (c) rights for adoptive parents. [77828]
  427W
  Alan Johnson
  I have today laid before Parliament three draft affirmative Statutory Instruments which:amend existing regulations to extend current rights to maternity leave; provide for new rights to paternity and adoption leave; and establish the rates of statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay.

  These regulations, subject to their approval by both Houses, will be followed by negative Statutory Instruments setting the other details of the new statutory adoption and paternity pay regimes.

  These new regulations give detailed effect to provisions set out in broad terms in the Employment Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in July. The measures have been developed as a result of extensive public consultation over recent times, and are designed to provide significantly improved choices for working parents, to help them balance their work and family lives, without imposing undue burdens and administrative complexity on business.

  A Regulatory Impact assessment has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Uranium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the non-military uses of uranium for which the metal is used in the United Kingdom. [75835]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am advised that in the UK uranium ore is used to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. In its depleted form its main non-military applications are:transportable shielded containers for radioactive sources;
  aircraft counterbalance weights;
  piling equipment (civil engineering); and
  radiation shielding (hospitals, universities etc)

  E-Commerce
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the world's e-commerce is estimated to be conducted in(a) Britain and (b) the European Union. [75729]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]Reliable global e-commerce statistics that would allow a comparison between the UK and global levels of e-commerce value are not available.

  E-commerce figures for the UK (excluding the financial sector) have just been released by ONS and show a good increase on previous figures:
  There has been a 42 per cent. increase in online sales up from £12 billion in 2000 to £17 billion in 2001—according to the latest ONS e-business survey.
  Business to consumer last year was £6.1 billion, up 53 per cent.
  Business to Business last year was £10.9 billion up 36 per cent.

  We understand that Eurostat will be producing figures for the relative proportions of electronic commerce within the EU early next year.

CABINET OFFICE

  Rural Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he last had bilateral meetings with the 428W
  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss regional co-ordination of rural policy. [63078]

  Mr. Alexander
  Ministers in the Cabinet have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues. As with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings.

DEFENCE

  Training
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to ensure that training backlogs owing to unavailability of aircraft are cleared. [69994]

  Mr. Ingram
  Training priorities are matched to operational requirements. In the approach to, or during operations, aircrew training is refocused to reinforce critical skills. Subsequently, tactical air training reverts to normal patterns, and support to exercises resumes. Those Field Training Exercises cancelled as a result of non-availability of air transport will, in some cases, have been refocused and other means of meeting the training requirement explored. This being the case, there is no backlog as such.

  Sponsored Reserves
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the monitoring selection of sponsored resource will operate; what guidelines his Department have produced to monitor their performance; and if he will make a statement. [76494]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sponsored Reserves are selected for their specialist skills by their civilian employer. However, in order to enlist as a Sponsored Reserve, they must meet appropriate entry criteria for the Reserve Force they are volunteering to enter into, taking account of the operational environment in which they are likely to work. The entry criteria are laid down by the appropriate Single Service. Once enlisted as a Sponsored Reserve, the civilian employer remains responsible for maintaining the individual's specialist skills, but the relevant Single Service trains and monitors each Sponsored Reserve in the military skills he or she will need on operations as a serviceman or woman. Having been called out for operations, the performance of a Sponsored Reserve is monitored by the relevant Single Service in the same way as for any other Reservist.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the specification for marinised carrier-based F35 aircraft will differ from that for land-based aircraft; and what the cost of marinisation will be. [75954]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have selected the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) requirement. The STOVL variant of
  429W
  JSF was designed from the outset to be able to operate in the maritime environment. Under current plans the United Kingdom will be able to deploy any aircraft from within the FJCA fleet to the new carriers, as all STOVL JSF are intended to be equally capable of sea or land deployment.

  The unit cost of the Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) variant of JSF, which is under development to meet primarily the requirements of the United States Air Force, may prove cheaper than STOVL. As this aircraft is not capable of operating from aircraft carriers, it was not considered as a solution to the FJCA requirement.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments he has made in previous financial years in respect of the design, development and manufacture of the F35 aircraft. [75950]

  Dr. Moonie
  The assessment phase of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) programme (formerly known as Future Carrier Borne Aircraft) began in November 1996 and finished in October 2001. During the phase we spent some £127 million in resource terms, with the competing Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) prime contractors (Lockheed Martin and Boeing). In addition approximately £8 million was spent during Financial Year 2001–2002 as part of the current System Development and Demonstration phase, which began in November 2001.

  The year-by-year break down of expenditure is as follows:

  Year

  Figure £M

  1996–1997

  9

  1997–1998

  47

  1998–1999

  34

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–2001

  16

  2001–2002

  8

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors are taken into consideration in the assessment of the requirement of the numbers of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. [76368]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our current planning assumption is that up to 150 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) will be required to meet our through life Future Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. However, no final decision on numbers has yet been taken and detailed work is currently ongoing.

  The decision will take into account a wide variety of factors including: the number of pilots required to man the aircraft on operations; the number of peace time flying hours required to train and maintain those pilots at combat ready status; expected rates of attrition; and the expected airframe life of JSF.

  Future Rapid Effect System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Future Rapid Effect System will enter service with the armed forces. [76367]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decision has yet been made on the in service date for the Future Rapid Effect System.
  430W

  Firefighting
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have been recalled from sea so that crew members can be trained in firefighting duties in the last 12 months. [76357]

  Mr. Ingram
  No Royal Navy ships have had to be recalled from sea so that crew members can be trained in firefighting duties. However, the planned activities of the Fleet's ships have inevitably had to be re-prioritised due to the need to train and deploy personnel in anticipation of the Fire Brigades Union strike.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many personnel from each service have been trained in firefighting duties in each of the past six months; [76356]

  (2)which Fire Service roles service personnel will take on should they be required to cover firemen's duties in the event of a national firemen's strike; [76374]

  (3)if he will make a statement on the nature and duration of firefighting training being undertaken by service personnel. [76377]

  Mr. Ingram
  Armed Forces personnel will provide emergency fire and rescue cover during the fire brigades dispute. Whilst this cover cannot replace in full the service provided by professional firefighters, it will be designed to ensure that the loss of life which may be occasioned by the dispute is minimised, drawing on the proven effectiveness and dedication of the Armed Forces in serving the public. Cover will be provided by 827 Green Goddess crews, 331 Specialist Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams, and 59 Rescue Equipment Support Teams.

  About 3,000 RN personnel, 7,700 Army personnel and 2,300 RAF personnel have been trained to provide this front line emergency cover. The training lasts up to five weeks, depending on the skill and role of the individual. Information on the monthly breakdown of these figures is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The specialist teams will have all the skills required to use breathing apparatus necessary for fire rescue and the use of cutting equipment required to free people from damaged buildings and vehicles. Green Goddess crews are being trained to control fires from outside the building. Other training includes specialist driver training, first aid training and specialist equipment maintenance training.

  A further 6,500 personnel from all three services will be engaged in administrative, security, command and control and other duties drawing on normal Armed Forces skills and training. A total of more than 19,000 Armed Forces personnel will therefore be engaged in providing emergency cover during a strike.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which Royal Air Force squadrons personnel will be taken in the event of armed forces personnel taking on national firefighting duties. [76373]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF manpower is being drawn from the following squadrons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41,
  431W
  47, 51, 54, 56, 70, 99, 101, 120, 201, 202, 203, 206, 216 and 2623, as well as from ground based Air Defence Headquarters and the Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Regiment. Manpower will also be drawn from units at Cranwell, Digby, Cosford, Brampton, Wyton, Henlow, Uxbridge, Innsworth, Halton, St. Athan, Sealand, Valley, Shawbury and Linton-on-Ouse.

  In common with all Armed Forces personnel deployed on firefighting duties, RAF personnel will only provide emergency cover, designed to reduce the loss of life which may be occasioned by the strike.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what flying operations will be affected if RAF personnel have to cover firemen's duties in the event of the national firemen's strike. [76375]

  Mr. Ingram
  The expected reduction in fire cover at RAF stations will result in some loss of flying hours. A prolonged strike will also have some impact on engineering support, which will adversely affect aircraft serviceability and also lead to some loss of flying hours.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to call up reservists in the event of a national firemen's strike. [76378]

  Mr. Ingram
  Reserves may be used on a voluntary basis in supporting roles during the strike. None have been called upon to provide front line cover.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men have had their post-operational tour leave cancelled as a consequence of preparing to train for firefighting duties. [76668]

  Mr. Ingram
  In order to train for emergency firefighting duties, nearly a thousand personnel who have recently returned from the Balkans have had some or all of their post-operational tour leave delayed. It is intended that all post-operational tour leave will be taken as soon as these troops can be released. In the meantime, some leave is being taken as opportunities arise, within the constraints of preparations for firefighting duties, and the Ministry of Defence is actively pursuing options in order to reduce the impact to a minimum. Depending upon the duration of strike action, further personnel may also be affected.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision will be made, and in what locations, for emergency fire services in rural Dorset in the event of a strike by firemen. [76862]

  Mr. Ingram
  Emergency cover in Dorset, as in the rest of the country, will consist of a number of elements including Green Goddess crews, breathing apparatus teams, rescue teams (equipped with specialist equipment) and the police. The provision of Ministry of Defence emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer and local police to minimise call-out response times and maximise the availability of the range of firefighting capabilities.

  Three temporary fire stations will be located in Dorset itself, at Weymouth, Poole and Bournemouth. The operational control centre, based at Winfrith, will be responsible for co-ordinating emergency response in the
  432W
  quickest time possible, either through the deployment of assets based in Dorset or by requesting assistance from other operational areas.

  The Ministry of Defence's emergency cover will not replicate the fire fighting capabilities of the Fire Service, but will minimise as far as possible the danger to human life. Service personnel will provide basic fire and rescue cover.

  Challenger II
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on levels of Challenger II spares; and what surge capacity exists in event of conflict. [76352]

  Dr. Lewis Moonie
  Challenger II was purchased with an initial spares package and sufficient repairables to cover planned activity and anticipated operations. These holdings are supplemented by further purchases as and when required.

  ISTAR
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems will take over the capabilities previously to be provided by the TRACER system. [76365]

  Mr. Adam Ingram
  These capabilities—the Land Commander's Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) requirements—will be met principally by a combination of the WATCHKEEPER Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and manned ground reconnaissance. We expect the latter to be provided by the ISTAR variant of the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES). Arrangements have been put in place to utilise key technologies developed in the TRACER programme in new programmes such as FRES.

  ASTOR
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the ISD is of ASTOR. [76364]

  Dr. Moonie
  There has been no change in the approved In Service Date of September 2005, as reported in the National Audit Office's Major Projects Report 2001. The ASTOR programme is currently on course to meet this ISD.

  AMRAAM Missile
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which operations and deployments the AMRAAM missile has been equipped to(a) Tornado F3 and (b) Sea Harrier aircraft. [76344]

  Dr. Moonie
  To date, the Tornado F3 has not been equipped with the AMRAAM missile on operations.

  The Sea Harrier is equipped with the AMRAAM missile on Operation SOUTHERN WATCH, patrolling the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. The aircraft was also equipped with the AMRAAM missile during Operation DELIBERATE FORCE (Kosovo) and Operation DENY FLIGHT (Bosnia) between 1995 and 1999.
  433W

  A400M
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current ISD of the A400M. [76363]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current In Service Date (ISD) for the A400M is 2010. However, as the Contract has not yet been activated, we will continue to keep the ISD under review.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether representatives from the Brazilian(a) Government and (b) armed forces have visited onboard HMS Fearless in the past year. [76347]

  Dr. Moonie
  A team of five Brazilian Naval Officers visited HMS Fearless on 18, 19 and 20 June 2002. I am not aware of any Brazilian Government visitors to the ship during the past year.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to purchase 232 Eurofighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [76369]

  Dr. Moonie
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 10 July this year Official Report column 878W, there has been no change in the Government's commitment to the Eurofighter project, which has now been re-designated Typhoon.

  Tornado F3
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the programme to maximise the effectiveness of AMRAAM equipped Tornado F3 aircraft; how much this will cost; and when he expects the work to be completed. [76343]

  Dr. Moonie
  Work is continuing on the AMRAAM Optimisation Programme which will optimise the effectiveness of the missile system on Tornado F3. The programme is expected to cost under £30 million and is on course to achieve In Service Date at the end of this month. Work on the programme, which will comprise a number of incremental capability enhancements, is due to complete on schedule in 2004.

  Nimrod MRA4
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the in-service date is of the Nimrod MRA4; and if he will make a statement. [76380]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contractual in-service date for the Nimrod MRA4 is March 2005, though risk analysis suggests the date will be later in 2005. BAE SYSTEMS have recently acknowledged a delay in the programme for the first flight of Nimrod MRA4. The consequences of first flight slippage on ISD and potential mitigation action are being urgently examined by the Ministry of Defence and the Company. The results of this work will be available at the end of the year. It would therefore be premature to speculate on the impact of this slippage on the in-service date for the MRA4.
  434W

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache helicopters are held in storage. [76353]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has 11 Apache helicopters, maintained and supported in an operationally available condition, in storage at RAF Shawbury.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sea trials have taken place in respect of the Apache helicopter operating from aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers. [76346]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has not yet conducted sea trials in respect of the Apache Helicopter operating from aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers. We are planning to conduct appropriate trials on HMS Ocean in March 2004.

  Primary Casualty Receiving Ship
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Primary Casualty Receiving Ship capability will enter service. [76360]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 September 2002,Official Report column 325W, to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

  Veterans Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to Veterans Agency customers informing them of their options for receiving benefit from April 2003. [76107]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am making arrangements to place in the Library of the House a copy of the letter sent to Veterans Agency customers, informing them of their options for receiving benefit from April 2003.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of scrambling an RAF aircraft following the breach of the air exclusion zone around Sellafield in August by a light aircraft; and what provisions exist to recharge BNFL for this security action. [75883]

  Mr. Ingram
  Air Defence of the United Kingdom is a core Ministry of Defence task and there is no provision for charging others for this activity.

  Iraq
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the decision to bomb command-and-control posts in Iraq was a joint decision of the US and UK Governments; and if he will make a statement. [76240]

  Mr. Hoon
  Coalition aircraft conduct patrols of the Iraqi no fly zones in support of UN SCR 688, which demanded an end to Saddam's repression of his own people. The aircrew conducting those patrols are regularly subjected to sustained attacks from Iraqi integrated air defences. The United States and United Kingdom government are in agreement that the coalition pilots facing such threats should be allowed to
  435W
  respond in self defence against legitimate targets within the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System posing a direct threat to them, as is permitted under international law.

  Harrier
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the ASRAAM missile is not to be equipped to Harrier(a) GR7 and (b) GR9 variants. [76345]

  Dr Lewis Moonie
  We are currently upgrading our Harrier GR7 fleet to GR9. Shortly before such a major upgrade, it was not considered cost effective to carry out such substantial modifications.

  Consideration was given to equipping the Harrier GR9 with ASRAAM as part of the upgrade programme. However, as the Harrier GR fleet is already equipped with the Sidewinder AIM9-L for defensive purposes, and the purpose of the GR9 upgrade is to improve offensive capability, it was concluded that fitting of ASRAAM would not represent the best use of Ministry of Defence resources.

  Armed Forces Strength
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department(a) has and (b) has had a policy of trying to alter the number of members of the Armed Forces within specific age groups; and if he will make a statement; [76165]

  (2)what annual targets he sets for the establishment strength of the Armed Forces with specific targets for different age brackets; and if he will make a statement; [76164]

  (3)what recruitment and retention targets his Department sets for specific age brackets within the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement. [76163]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The Armed Forces do not set recruitment or retention targets based on, or related to, specific age brackets other than specifying minimum and maximum age limits (and waivers may be obtainable for the latter category in certain instances).

  The annual targets prepared by the Armed Forces are based on detailed calculations of the numbers required to deliver military capability, in accordance with the Government's defence policy. Each Service prepares detailed manpower plans to provide the numbers and skills it requires in each branch and trade group.

  Detailed manpower planning by the Principal Personnel Officer in each Service aims to sustain military capability, and at the same time provide careers for their people that will satisfy personal aspirations and withstand competition in the labour market place. It has not always been possible to maintain ideal career structures in all parts of the Services through the rapid changes which took place in the last decade, and past failures to achieve recruiting and retention targets can create imbalances that last a generation. Occasionally the Services have to resort to targeted retention incentives in order to sustain operational capability, and length of service can be a factor in the targeting process.
  436W
  Before taking this course we carefully assess the impact of such incentives on all the people who may be directly or. indirectly affected.

  The Ministry of Defence has not, and has never had, a policy aimed at trying to alter the number of members of the Armed Forces within specific age groups, although previous policies may have had this incidental effect. Our policies in relation to recruitment, career management and resettlement are based on the principle of maintaining sustainable experience profiles within each branch of the Armed Services. We see this principle as fundamental to operational effectiveness, and to attracting and retaining the people we need to deliver it.

  Currently, the Naval Service has a Three-Tier Commission for officers and RN ratings and RM other ranks serve on a time to serve basis ie 22 years. In the Army both officers and soldiers now serve on a Length of Service based career structure. For the RAF with the exception of a retirement age of 55, most control/exit points are linked to length of service and rank, not age.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 37W, on RAF training (1) how many additional instructors will be required to meet the tasks transferred from RAF Church Fenton; [76575]

  (2) how many qualified flying instructors and ground instructors there are in the university air squadrons; [76576]

  (3) how many staff at RAF Church Fenton will be subject to Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) legislation as a result of transferring the Joint Elementary Training School tasks to the university air squadrons; [76577]

  (4) whether the cost effectiveness has been assessed of transferring the duties of the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton to the university air squadrons. [76578]

  Mr. Ingram
  No additional instructors will be required when the tasks are transferred from RAF Church Fenton as the Qualified Flying Instructors at the University Air Squadrons will absorb the task.

  The total number of qualified flying instructors at the University Air Squadrons is 69. However, the additional duties of the Squadron Commanders and Chief Flying Instructors reduce the available flying training time to the equivalent of 50. There are currently no ground instructors at the University Air Squadrons.

  No staff at RAF Church Fenton will be subject to Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) legislation. It is expected that their task will be absorbed into the existing arrangements for the University Air Squadrons. This means the task will be done in a different manner and location rather than simply transferring to another contractor.

  Contract negotiations are still underway. The actual savings will not be known until they are complete, but significant annual savings are anticipated.
  437W

  Indian National Liberation Army
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether membership of the Indian National Liberation Army disqualifies former Far East prisoners of war from eligibility under the Ex Gratia Payment Scheme announced on 7 November 2000. [77534]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the Second World War, the Japanese recruited a considerable number of servicemen from Far Eastern countries who they had taken Prisoner of War, to serve alongside them in the Indian National Liberation Army.

  The Ex Gratia Payment Scheme was established to recognise the circumstances of the captivity of those taken prisoner by the Japanese. Anyone who would otherwise be eligible under the Ex Gratia Payment Scheme but who joined the Indian National Liberation Army had removed themselves from that captivity which the Ex Gratia Payment Scheme recognises. Their inclusion in the scheme would not be compatible with its purpose and therefore those Prisoners of War who joined the Indian National Liberation Army are not entitled to any payment under the Scheme.

  Deepcut Army Barracks
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the fatalities at the Deepcut Army Barracks. [76908]

  Dr. Moonie
  The deaths of Privates Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray and James Collinson at Deepcut remain subject to ongoing investigations by the Surrey Police, who are keeping the families informed of developments. The Ministry of Defence has given full co-operation to the police in the course of their enquiries, which will not be complete until the New Year. The MOD is unable to discuss the specific circumstances surrounding the deaths whilst the police investigations continue.

  Date

  Ship

  Value

  Type

  May 1999

  HMS Marlborough

  £1 billion +

  Cocaine

  17 November 1999

  HMS Northumberland

  £135 million

  Cocaine

  July 2001

  HMS Coventry

  £80 million

  Cocaine

  21 July 2002

  HMS Newcastle

  £1.5 million

  Marijuana

  22 July 2002

  HMS Newcastle

  £42 million

  Cocaine

  5 Sept 2002

  HMS Grafton

  £7.5 million

  Marijuana

  7 Oct 2002

  HMS Grafton

  £65 million

  Cocaine

  Arms Exports
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems are in place for monitoring(a) use and (b) onward
  sales of arms components sold abroad by UK companies. [76532]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government focuses its efforts on assessment of potential end-use at the export licensing stage, including where needed through checks made by our Posts
  438W

  Gulf War
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vaccination programmes were undertaken for UK armed forces in the build up to the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [76290]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence paper: "Implementation of the Immunisation Programme Against Biological Warfare Agents for UK Forces During the Gulf Conflict 1990–1991" dated 20 January 2000, provides the information requested. A copy of the paper is in the Library of the House. It is also on the Internet at: www/mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/medical/bwa.htm and available from the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit (Freephone 0800 169 1645).

  El Alamein
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which departmental Minister represented Her Majesty's Government at the 60 anniversary commemoration of the Battle of El Alamein in Egypt. [76669]

  Dr. Moonie
  I did. In addition to this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I also attended the Commemoration in London.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list drug seizures made by Royal Navy vessels since 1997; where the seizures took place; what the value of each seizure was; and if he will make a statement. [76289]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy vessel regularly deployed to the Caribbean conducts counter-narcotics patrols, working in conjunction with HM Customs and Excise, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and national authorities in the region. Whilst there were no interdictions in 1997 and 1998, there have been a number of successful operations in the Caribbean since then. These are as follows:

  overseas. Carrying out effective risk assessment on end-users before making the export licensing decision is the surest way of preventing arms from falling into the wrong hands.

  As set out in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 8 July, Official Report, columns 650–52W; where components are for incorporation and reexport to a third party, we will also have regard to the export control policies and effectiveness of the export control system of the incorporating country.
  439W
  Proactive monitoring of defence exports is only carried out in those cases of greatest concern. Our overseas posts have standing instructions to report on allegations of misuse of any UK-origin defence equipment. We take these reports into account in our assessment.

TREASURY

  EU Enlargement
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the leaders of(a) Slovakia, (b) the Czech Republic and (c) Poland concerning their applications for EU membership. [75698]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met leaders from these countries on a number of occasions. For example he attended the Barcelona European Council earlier this year, to which Heads of Government from all the candidate countries were invited.

  E-Procurement
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on c-procurement in Government purchasing. [75728]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Office of Government Commerce has successfully completed all its pilot e-Procurement projects. As a result valuable information has been gained about the practicalities and potential that e-Procurement offers. The Office of Government Commerce is currently developing its strategy to further deploy e-Procurement across government departments and agencies.

  Departmental Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75675]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria are used to separate errors in tax returns from deliberate late payments; and what interest rates are applied to these different categories. [75147]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No distinction is made between the categories for the purposes of interest rates.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what interest rate is paid on sums collected in taxes in error and in advance. [75148]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If the Inland Revenue issues a request for tax which is found later not to be due, the money is repaid with interest. The rate of interest 440W
  depends upon the type of tax. For income tax and capital gains tax the rate is 2.5 per cent. For corporation tax and inheritance tax it is 3 per cent.

  Money paid in error or in advance of tax becoming due generally does not attract interest.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what criteria the interest rates for the late payment of taxes are determined. [75149]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The criteria are contained in regulations which were laid before the House on 28 July 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1297) These regulations set down formulae for the calculation of interest rates. The basis of the formulae is the average of the base lending rates of 6 major banks.

  International Debt
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the operation of vulture funds; and if he will make a statement. [76278]

  John Healey
  Following requests from UK and other G7 partners, the IMF and the World Bank have comprehensively addressed the issue of creditor litigation in their report on the status of implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. The report looks at vulture funds and other debt brokers purchasing debt in the secondary market and seeking recovery through litigation.

  10 HIPCs responded that they were facing litigation on credits held by commercial creditors and the governments of Iraq and Burundi.

  Some countries are burdened with several cases-for example Uganda is facing 6 cases of litigation and Sierra Leone five cases. A copy of the full Report is available on the IMF website at: http://www.worldbank.org/hipc/ progress-to-date/Final—Full—Revised—Status—of—Implementation.pdf

  At the Annual meeting the UK continued to press for the establishment of technical assistance to help countries being sued by creditors.

  Final Salary Pension Schemes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the change in the number of final salary pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [76686]

  Ruth Kelly
  I receive representations on a wide range of pensions issues. We will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with employers about their plans to continue final salary pension schemes; what recent representations he has received concerning the abolition of final salary pension schemes by solvent employers; and what recent representations he has received concerning the possibility of companies becoming insolvent who access pension funds for purposes other than paying pensions. [76895]
  441W
  Ruth Kelly
  I receive representations on a wide range of pensions matters. All such representations will be taken fully into consideration when we publish the Pensions Green Paper later in the year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the total value of PFI. and PPP schemes(a) completed and (b) signed are in (i) each of the regions of England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales. [75855]

  Mr. Boateng
  A region-by-region breakdown of the total capital value of English PFI and PPP projects, both signed and completed, will be published in a series of forthcoming Treasury publications, entitled "Public Private Partnerships: helping to deliver public services". One such booklet is being prepared for each English region. The booklets will be published shortly, and copies will be deposited in the Library.

  The capital value of both signed and completed Scottish PFI projects, along with a departmental breakdown, is published by the Scottish Executive on their website. (The number of projects signed and completed is listed at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pfi/ facts—01.asp, while a department-by-department list is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pfi/project—list.xls.)

  A list of Welsh PFI and PPP projects, both completed deals and deals in procurement, including capital values, is published by the National Assembly for Wales on their website.(This can be found at http://www.pfu.wales.gov.uk/scripts/pfilist.asp.)

  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer. what targets have been set for the OGCbuying. solutions trading fund for 2002–03. [77535]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have set the following challenging targets for the trading fund for 2002–03:

  i. The Agency will facilitate at least £8omillion value for money improvements for central civil government over the 2002–3 year.

  ii. The Agency will continue to achieve levels of customer satisfaction above 90%.

  iii. The Agency will generate 8% Return On Capital Employed.

  iv. The Agency will reduce by 5% the ratio of internal costs over value for money improvements compared with the outturn for the same ratio in 2001–02.

  A copy of the Agency's Business Plan for 2002 can be found on their website: http://www.ogcbuyingsolutions.gov.uk.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Digital Radio and Television
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will take steps to provide to hon. Members the facility of digital radio and television coverage from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. [77030]

  Mr. Fabricant
  The special annunciator televisions on the Parliamentary video network have 442W
  24 channels. The Information Committee reflects the views of hon. Members on how these channels should be used, and it considers individual representations. The radio and television programmes from which the selection can be made at reasonable cost are those transmitted by satellite to the London area. Channel 22 on the annunciator already carries the Welsh station S4C2. However, not all regional broadcasters make their local news programmes available by satellite, and the cost to the House of providing a specialised television landline link to regional television stations from Westminster would be prohibitive.

  Catering Subsidy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) what plans the Commission has to cap the subsidy for catering over the period of the Three Year Strategic Plan; [73759]

  (2)what steps the Commission is planning to reduce the annual subsidy for catering set out on page 16 of the 24th Annual Report of the Commission. [73760]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 2002, c. 6W]: I should have made it clear that we expect the Finance and Services Committee's consideration to arise primarily in the context of the three-year financial plans. The Commission is still considering the Report of the Catering Committee.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what use she and her Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if she will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if she will publish the research on her Department's website. [74988]

  Dr. Howells
  Since June 2001 my Department has made use of focus group research in 2 cases. In both cases the focus group research formed only one part of a larger project, but it is not possible to itemise this cost.

  (1)A quantative survey into consumer attitudes into digital television made use of 3 focus groups including two groups exploring issues of concern to the blind/ partially sighted viewers and deaf/hard of hearing viewers. The survey was conducted by MORI and the total cost was £32,547. The research is published in full at http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  (2) The Regional Data Framework project, which is aiming to identify data sources and methodologies for gathering information at both regional and national level in general support of policy development across the DCMS sectors, made use of a number of focus groups. The project is being carried out by a consortium of consultants lead by Positive Solutions and the total cost

  443W
  of the consultancy is £61,000. The findings from the Regional Data Framework project will be published on the Department's website http://www.culture.gov.uk in 2003.

  Web Sites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the web site links associated with her Department, including sites now

  Website

  URL

  Status

  Start-up cost

  Running cost/year

  Current ISP

  Communications Bill

  http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk

  Live

  Zero (in house)

  *

  UUNET

  Communications White Paper

  http://www.communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk

  Dormant

  £13,000

  *

  UUNET

  Culture Online

  http://www.cultureonline.gov.uk/

  Live

  £24,500

  £2,000 01/02

  UUNET

  £2,000 02/03

  UUNET

  DCMS (main site)

  http://www.culture.gov.uk

  Live

  £81,134

  *

  UUNET

  DCMS (lottery site)

  http://www.lottery.culture.gov.uk

  Live

  £60,000

  *

  UUNET

  Digital Television

  http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

  Live

  Zero (in house)

  *

  UUNET

  Gambling Review**

  http://www.gamblingreview.gov.uk

  Live

  Zero (in house)

  £200 01/02

  BTIgnite

  £200 02/03

  BTIgnite

  Golden Jubilee**

  http://www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk

  Live

  £200,000

  £25,000 01/02

  Globix

  £12,000 02/03

  UUNET

  Golden Jubilee Media Site

  http://www.media.goldenjubilee.gov.uk

  Dormant

  Zero (In house)

  £12,000 lyr only

  UUNET

  Government Art Collection

  http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/home/index.asp

  Live

  £30,500

  *

  UUNET

  Notes:

  * Running costs for these websites are covered under one contract at £51,000 per annum.

  ** Costs of the Golden Jubilee and Gambling Review websites were met by the Home Office and later transferred to DCMS.

  No assessment has been made of sites by any company.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to appoint a new chairman of Sport England. [75196]

  Mr. Caborn
  We expect to appoint a new Chair of Sport England by the end of November.

  Mr. Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the spending review for Sport England for the period 2003 to 2006 will be published; and if she will make a statement. [76572]

  Mr. Caborn
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the resources, role and responsibilities of regional development agencies in respect of tourism. [74870]

  Dr. Howells
  An announcement about the Regional Development Agencies' tourism responsibilities will be made to the House shortly. The RDAs have a vital role to play in the delivery of our programme of strategic reform of the tourism industry in England. They are being given new responsibilities and resources and it is 444W
  dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if she will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [75588]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows

  important that they achieve a balance between meeting regional priorities and achieving national coordination and consistency, where appropriate.

  Lottery Grants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the projects awarded funding by the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme since its establishment and the level of funding for each. [75971]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities initiative, the New Opportunities Fund will deliver projects worth £125 million across the United Kingdom through 11 award partners. Hitherto, over £40 million has been committed to 1,265 projects under this initiative. The following table details the number of projects funded, and the amount committed so far, by each award partner.

  Awards to date (Oct 2002) under the New Opportunities

  Awards (£s)

  Number of Projects

  ENGLAND

  Barnardo's

  2,933,620

  50

  BTCV

  874,572

  114

  The Countryside Agency

  1,939,294

  136

  English Nature

  4,946,078

  111

  RSNC

  7,635,883

  239

  Sustrans

  5,043,000

  57

  Sport England

  5,843,692

  337

  445W

  Awards to date (Oct 2002) under the New Opportunities

  Awards (£s)

  Number of Projects

  By region:

  North East

  Barnardo's

  334296

  5

  BTCV

  130181

  15

  English Nature

  998772

  16

  RSNC

  420210

  15

  Countryside Agency

  105986

  17

  Sport England

  782820

  46

  Sustrans

  938000

  10

  North West

  Barnardo's

  552759

  9

  BTCV

  77736

  9

  English Nature

  402817

  9

  RSNC

  1204865

  37

  Countryside Agency

  548157

  28

  Sport England

  800595

  61

  Sustrans

  1095000

  10

  Yorks & Humb

  Barnardo's

  556303

  11

  BTCV

  95948

  12

  English Nature

  447930

  15

  RSNC

  1180690

  39

  Countryside Agency

  236044

  11

  Sport England

  387663

  27

  Sustrans

  362000

  5

  East Midlands

  Barnardo's

  16170

  3

  BTCV

  28926

  4

  English Nature

  445400

  8

  RSNC

  940448

  29

  Sport England

  378599

  34

  Sustrans

  178000

  2

  West Midlands

  Barnardo's

  281874

  3

  BTCV

  60401

  7

  English Nature

  711279

  13

  RSNC

  820616

  19

  Countryside Agency

  293449

  18

  Sport England

  1103408

  35

  Sustrans

  670000

  4

  East

  Barnardo's

  89000

  1

  BTCV

  40511

  6

  English Nature

  170550

  4

  RSNC

  358460

  11

  Countryside Agency

  71838

  13

  Sport England

  298560

  26

  Sustrans

  715000

  12

  London

  Barnardo's

  459637

  9

  BTCV

  151755

  18

  English Nature

  602300

  12

  RSNC

  698285

  22

  Countryside Agency

  62400

  3

  Year

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Number of items held at the correct environmental conditions (in millions)

  6.2m

  6.5m

  6.7m

  6.8m

  6.9m

  Percentage of items out of total collection held at the correct environmental conditions

  79%

  83%

  85%

  87%

  88%

  446W

  Awards to date (Oct 2002) under the New Opportunities

  Awards (£s)

  Number of Projects

  Sport England

  1215698

  43

  Sustrans

  210000

  5

  South East

  Barnardo's

  101100

  2

  BTCV

  172899

  25

  English Nature

  502998

  17

  RSNC

  529939

  18

  Countryside Agency

  74500

  8

  Sport England

  644889

  44

  Sustrans

  95000

  3

  South West

  Barnardo's

  542481

  7

  BTCV

  116211

  18

  English Nature

  664032

  17

  RSNC

  1482327

  49

  Countryside Agency

  305585

  14

  Sport England

  235000

  21

  Sustrans

  780000

  6

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  NIHE

  500,725

  52

  SCOTLAND

  Fresh Futures

  704,368

  35

  SLF

  8,144,698

  76

  WALES

  WCVA

  1,546,588

  58

  UK Totals

  40112518

  1.265

  Comprehensive lists of every project in every area are not yet available, but further information on schemes in a particular area can be obtained from the New Opportunities Fund on request.

  British Museum
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what help is being offered by her Department to the British Museum to clear its deficit. [75530]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: To avoid a deficit the British Museum is carrying out a programme of reform and modernisation. We fully support the Museum in this endeavour and we have made arrangements to enable the Museum to fund this programme from the resources available to it.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the artifacts and collections in the British Museum were maintained at the right environmental condition in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) 2002–03 to date. [76601]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is shown in the following table.
  447W

  Manchester Museum of Science and Industry
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the spend per head was on(a) visitor catering, (b) retail and (c) the Super X Simulator in the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date. [76602]

  Dr. Howells
  The relevant figures are as set out in the following table, based on total visitors of 287,814 in 2000–01, 389,262 in 2001–02, and 220,226 between April and August 2002:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 to end August

  £

  £

  £

  Visitor catering

  0.74

  0.76

  0.75

  Retail

  0.57

  0.77

  0.68

  Super X Simulator

  0.16

  0.19

  0.20

  National Gallery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many paintings were(a) lost, (b) stolen and (c) severely damaged while on loan from the National Gallery in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2002 to date. [76600]

  Dr. Howells
  No paintings have been lost, stolen or severely damaged while on loan from the National Gallery from 2000 to date.

  Museum of London
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much time the average visitor spent in the(a) World City Galleries and London Before London exhibition in the Museum of London in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 to date. [76599]

  Dr. Howells
  The World City Galleries opened at the Museum of London on 7 December 2001. According to data compiled by the Museum in a survey of 60 visitors carried out between the end of February and the middle of April 2002, the average time spent per visitor in the Galleries was 26 minutes.

  Figures for the London Before London exhibition are as yet unavailable, as the exhibition opened on 18 October 2002. The Museum plan to undertake a survey of average time spent by visitors to London Before London in the exhibition in the next few months.

  Beacon School, Falmouth
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the funding of Beacon School, Falmouth under the Space for Sports and Arts in Schools programme. [75291]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has received representations on this issue from my hon. Friend, and from representatives of Cornwall County Council, in June and July this year.
  448W
  The Space for Sport and Arts (SSArts) programme is targeted at Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in areas of social, economic, sporting and cultural deprivation. It is for LEAs participating in the scheme, of which Cornwall County Council is one, to decide which schools in their area to select for involvement in the programme.

  UK World Class Performance Programme
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) gold, (b) silver and (c) bronze medals have been won at major international championships by (i) teams and athletes supported via the UK World Class Performance Programme in (A) able-bodied and (B) disabled events in (1) 2000, (2) 2001 and (3) 2002 to date. [76604]

  Mr. Caborn
  The data required is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member with detailed information as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list external(a) public relations/ communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74677]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since June 2001, my department has employed the following communications and marketing companies.

  Scope Productions

  Glass Page

  Locofoco

  Astron

  Kemistry

  Faulds

  These companies were engaged to design and produce public information material of various types for my department's external affairs at an aggregate cost to date of £130,000.

  My department has also used one individual consultant to advise on devolution systems in European countries, at a cost of £6,100.

  Health
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last year for which her Department had responsibility for health in Scotland, what funding was made available to health authorities which include populated islands to recognise and assist in meeting patients' costs of travel for mainland treatment; what assistance was made available by each health authority to patients travelling for treatment; and if she will list the
  449W
  health authorities which included populated islands, showing their expenditure per person on those islands on assistance with travel for treatment. [75218]

  Mrs. McGuire
  This has been a devolved matter since 1 July 1999. Details of expenditure in 1998–99 by each health board on the two patient travelling expenses schemes are as follows:

  Means Tested Scheme

  Highlands & Islands Scheme

  £

  £

  Argyll & Clyde

  89,068

  521,744

  Ayrshire & Arran

  28,095

  3,383

  Borders

  22,694

  0

  Dumfries & Galloway

  72,465

  0

  Fife

  41,450

  0

  Forth Valley

  92,796

  0

  Grampian

  204,636

  11,388

  Greater Glasgow

  260,987

  0

  Highland

  239,430

  284,599

  Lanarkshire

  37,812

  0

  Lothian

  2,629

  0

  Orkney

  952

  538,420

  Shetland

  22,245

  1,025,582

  Tayside

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  16,187

  992,612

  Reimbursement made under the Highlands and Islands Scheme includes costs incurred by patients from populated islands travelling to mainland hospitals for treatment.

  Health boards which include populated islands are Argyll & Clyde, Ayrshire & Arran, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles.

  Expenditure per person for assistance with travelling expenses is £27.19 in Orkney, £45.52 in Shetland and £35.72 in Western Isles. Separate figures are not available for the populations of the islands in Argyll & Clyde and Ayrshire & Arran.

  Energy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations she has made to Ofgem with regards to the proposed changes to the auction system for capacity to the National Transmission System at St. Fergus; [72411]

  (2) what representations she has made to the Minister of Trade and Industry with regards to the proposed changes to the auction system for capacity to the National Transmission System at St. Fergus. [72412]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received from my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Energy & Construction, on 19 September,Official Report, column 160W.

  Expenditure
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was given to the(a) Scotland Office and (b) Scottish Executive in each year since 1997. [73375]
  450W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive were established on 1 July 1999. Since that date expenditure by the Scotland Office has been as follows:

  £m

  £m

  £m

  £m

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 (estimate)

  4.128

  6.758

  6.916

  7.442

  The grant paid to the Scottish Executive over the same period was:-

  £m

  £m

  £m

  £m

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 (estimate)

  9,647.5

  14,097.1

  14,989.6

  16,556

  Notes:

  1.Figures for 1999–2000 are for the period 1 July 1999–31 March 2000.

  2.Scotland Office figures also include expenditure by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Sentencing
  Andrew Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General, what steps she is taking to publicise the public's right to seek review of unduly lenient sentences. [75303]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General or I can refer a case to the Court of Appeal if we regard it as unduly lenient.

  The prosecutor at court will, if the sentence is very lenient, advise the victim or relatives that they can ask us to refer.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Solicitor General what role the Crown Prosecution Service has in prosecuting anti-social behaviour orders. [75305]

  The Solicitor-General
  An Antisocial Behaviour Order is normally obtained by the police or a local authority. The application is made before a magistrate's court, exercising its duties as a civil court, or the County Court.

  A breach of an Antisocial Behaviour Order constitutes a criminal offence. The CPS is responsible for the review and prosecution of allegations of breach of ASBOs.

  In 2001 there were 85 prosecutions for breaches of ASBOs. Of these, 69 led to a conviction, 9 were dismissed and 7 not separately dealt with. The conviction rate for breaches, taken at its lowest, is thus 81 per cent. (69 out of 85 cases)

  Prosecutions
  Phyllis Starkey
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the proportion of prosecutions abandoned before trial in the last year. [75307]
  451W
  The Solicitor-General
  During the year ending June 2002, 20 per cent. of all magistrates' courts proceedings handled by the Crown Prosecution Service were abandoned before trial, together with a further 17.4 per cent. of all proceedings in the Crown Court.

  These figures include several distinct types of outcome. The magistrates' courts figure comprises of discontinuances; cases in which the defendant agreed to be bound over without a trial taking place; and cases which could not proceed because the defendant could not be traced by the police, or had died, or was found unfit to plead.

  The Crown Court figure comprises of cases dropped before a jury was sworn, resulting in a formal verdict of an ordered acquittal; bind overs; and, again, cases which could not proceed because the defendant could not be traced, or had died or been found unfit to plead.

  Appeals
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Solicitor General what discussions she has had with the Crown Prosecution Service about circumstances when appeal against sentence would be appropriate. [75308]

  The Solicitor-General
  I discuss questions of sentencing regularly with the CPS. The Attorney-General and I have the power under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer sentences passed in the Crown Court for a limited number of serious offences to the Court of Appeal for review, if it appears that the sentence passed is unduly lenient.

  Street Crime
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in the Government's street crime initiative. [75301]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is playing a central role in the street crime initiative. It has developed with the police a Premium Service which provides experienced prosecutors to:give the police advice during the investigation to strengthen the case and target resources effectively
  advise on the choice of charge so that it is right first time, and
  working closely with the police after the court process has begun to make sure that the case is in the best possible state by the time that the trail takes place

  Particular attention is being paid to the needs street crime victims and witnesses, in particular providing them with the necessary information and support to see them through the judicial process.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable has been set for publishing an Aviation White Paper following the end of the Future Development of Air Transport consultation. [75062]
  452W
  Mr. Jamieson
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his Statement to the House in July, we will publish the White Paper next year.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost was of producing The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation Document. [74903]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The national consultation on The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom produced a suite of seven detailed consultation documents and seven summary documents. The approximate cost of producing these documents is £556,000.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost was of employing NOP to gauge public opinion on The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation Document. [74905]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultation does not end until 30 November. Until then it is not possible to say how much assistance analysing responses NOP will provide.

  Traffic Levels
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research(a) has been conducted since 1997 and (b) is planned by or for his Department comparing forecast and actual traffic levels for (i) the building of new roads and motorways and (ii) the widening of existing roads and motorways; and if he will place the documentation in the Library. [75015]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A programme of comparisons of forecast and actual traffic levels on new trunk road schemes was started in 1981. The latest report on this monitoring work, the tenth in the series, was published in May 2001. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  More detailed post implementation studies have been done on 19 projects; 6 of these have been carried out since 1997. Reports on these studies will be published in the next few months and will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Since August 2001 a new system of project evaluation has replaced the two systems described above. It covers all projects over £ 1 m and it is planned to extend this to smaller projects next year. It involves gathering data on traffic, journey times and accidents, before opening and one and five years after. In addition, an analysis of changes in flows on surrounding local roads at the time of opening is usually carried out for schemes over £5m.

  Midlands Airport
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received(a) in support of and (b) in opposition to the proposal for a new airport between Rugby and Coventry. [74906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not yet analysed all the responses but will produce a summary after the consultation ends on 30 November.
  453W

  Radioactive Materials
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the International Atomic Energy Agency Transas Mission to the United Kingdom this year in respect of the transport of nuclear materials. [75454]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The International Atomic Energy Agency carried out a Transport Safety Appraisal Service (TranSAS) to the UK, at our request, during the period 9 to 21 June this year. The appraisal team, consisting of fourteen participants and observers from several countries and international bodies, carried out an examination of the regulatory and enforcement infrastructure in the United Kingdom relating to the transport of radioactive material. The IAEA's Report was published on its web site on 6 September 2002 and may be found at http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/. I will place hard copies in the House Libraries as they become available.

  The report's three main recommendations relate to:
  the manner in which the UK competent authority documents some of its reviews and assessments;
  the need to establish a more systematic approach to the review of package designs used to transport smaller quantities of radioactive material; and
  the need to enhance inspection and enforcement activities for minor consignors and consignors of mobile sources.

  The report also contains 21 Suggestions and 15 Citations of Good Practice.

  The UK has reviewed the Recommendations and Suggestions and updated procedures as necessary.

  Modal Shift
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the studies and research used in support of the claim made in Chapter 1, 1.1 of his Department's publication using the Planning Process to Secure Travel Plans that(a) a 30 per cent. Modal shift in transport is a possibility and (b) that 10 to 20 per cent. has been achieved. [74981]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These assessments of the potential for modal shift are based on research carried out in the preparation of our guidance document "Making travel plans work: Lessons from UK case studies" which we published in August. The research report and case study summaries were published separately.

  I am arranging for these documents to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what scope for modal shift has been identified in each of the multi-modal studies that have reported to date. [74982]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The scope for modal shift varies considerably due to differences in the characteristics of the study areas. In broad terms studies focused on urban areas have identified greater scope for modal shift than studies examining inter-urban corridors.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Fallen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist for the continued use of the 454W
  Waterloo terminal for Eurostar services after Phase II of the CTRL has been fully completed; and if he will make a statement. [76234]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The development of plans for the continued use of Waterloo International terminal for Eurostar services following the completion of CTRL Section 2 is the responsibility of Eurostar (UK) Ltd (EUKL) in conjunction with its Eurostar partners. EUKL has not yet reached any firm decisions on this matter.

  EU Railway Package
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list statutory instruments which have been laid before Parliament in response to the First Railway Package introduced through the European Commission; and if he will indicate the date laid in each case. [76500]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None as yet.

  Traffic Area Network
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions his Department has had, and what representations have been received, on the TAN21 self service online service for road hauliers to update operators licences; [76498]

  (2) if he will list the percentage changes in electronic utilisation by customers of the Transport Area Network; and what assessment has been made; [76485]

  (3) when new e-commerce services for the transport industry under the auspices of the Transport Area Network were introduced; what changes there have been to the timetable for the introduction and nature of this scheme; and what assessment has been made of its progress. [76478]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday 21 October 2002,Official Report, columns 20–21W.

  The Department has had informal discussions with the road haulage industry trade bodies who support this project. No representations have been received. The Traffic Area Network is piloting the use of electronic self-service, the aim being to have 20 per cent. utilisation within 12 months of going live.

  27 per cent. of recipients of Traffic Commissioners' Applications and Decisions and 26 per cent. of recipients of Notices & Proceedings now receive them by e-mail. They are also available on the TAN website www.tan.gov.uk.

  Railway Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority of the impact of the Competition Act 1998 upon the railway industry. [76401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None
  455W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have arisen against railway businesses in each year since 1998 under the terms of the Competition Act 1998. [76211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the Competition Act 1998 came into force on 31 March 2000, the Regulator has considered the following numbers of cases concerning services relating to railways arising from complaints from individuals, companies, groups or representatives of groups:

  2000–2001 7 cases

  2001–2002 5 cases

  2002-to date 3 cases

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much private investment has been(a) spent and (b) procured for the railways under the 10-year plan; how much is projected by 2004–05; and what is projected for the 10 year plan (i) at today's prices and (ii) at outturn cost. [76194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Table 5.2 of "National Rail Trends" published by the Strategic Rail Authority, every three months, sets out investment in the rail industry. In 2001–2 which is the first full year of the 10 year plan period, the rail industry attracted total investment of £4070m of which £3386m was private investment.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the estimated start-dates for construction of each of the projects in the 10-year plan. [76467]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10 Year Plan provides an overarching investment framework. While it included some illustrative outputs to show the scale and type of projects that could be delivered, it is for the key Delivery Agencies involved to determine how that investment is ultimately deployed to deliver the Plan targets.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the public expenditure on transport listed in the 10-year plan remains uncommitted. [76468]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information will be published in due course in the report on the 10 Year Plan setting out progress to date.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report he requested from the SRA on the Central Railway Project; and when he plans to publish the SRA's conclusions. [74910]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 October to the hon. Member for Chesham & Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). [75905 and 75906].

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to publish the Strategic Rail Authority's advice on Central Railway's proposals. [76415]
  456W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 October to the hon. Member for Chesham & Amersham [75905 and 75906].

  Road Junctions
  Miss. McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his programme to tackle congestion and improve safety at junctions on trunk roads and motorways; and what impact his programme will have on his plans for de-trunking roads. [76139]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 October, Official Report, columns 170–171. This programme will have no impact on our plans to detrunk roads as none of the junctions are on roads to be detrunked.

  Midlands—North West Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce plans to take forward the Midlands to the North West Multi-Modal: Study findings. [75982]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: We are considering the recommendations from this study alongside the views from the Regional Planning Bodies and will make an announcement in due course.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet representatives of teachers' unions to discuss road safety outside schools. [75296]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have no plans to meet with representatives of teachers unions—nor am I aware of any request by them to meet me. Responsibility for local road safety schemes rests with local highway authorities. It is for them to decide their investment priorities consulting local people as necessary. However, we advise local authorities to pay attention to child casualties, assessing roads around schools and the routes children use to get to school. This should be a component of the child road safety audits we expect local authorities to undertake, and will indicate where investment is required. Furthermore, their school travel plans should include measures necessary to ensure that there are safe routes to school for children.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Specialist Schools
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if she will make a statement on progress in secondary school specialisation. [75282]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are currently 992 specialist schools in England located across 146 local education authorities. In the October 2002 competition we have received 350 applications for specialist school designation. We are committed to a target of 2,000
  457W
  specialist schools by September 2006 with the expectation that over time all secondary schools ready and able to can be specialist schools.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage schools to apply for specialist engineering status. [75268]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Within the framework of the Specialist Schools Programme it is for individual schools to decide on the specialism for which they wish to apply. We are funding the Technology Colleges Trust to support schools wishing to apply for specialist school designation, including as an Engineering College. In addition to allowing for the possibility of combined specialisms which involve Engineering we have made it possible for existing Technology Colleges to switch to an Engineering specialism when they apply for re-designation.

  Small Schools (Lancashire)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what investment has been made in small schools in the Lancaster & Wyre constituency since May 1997. [75283]

  Mr. Twigg
  Figures for the investment in small schools in Lancaster and Wyre are not collected centrally. Since 1997, the Government has allocated £7.9m of specific funding to support small schools in Lancashire in addition to the budgets allocated to these schools through Lancashire's school funding formula.

  School Discipline
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what recent assessment she has made of the impact of disciplinary problems on standards in schools. [75284]

  Mr. Twigg
  Standards in schools have risen rapidly since 1997. This year 51 per cent. of secondary pupils achieved five or more A* to CGCSEs compared to 45 per cent. five years ago. But OFSTED report that bad behaviour disrupts education in one in 12 secondary and one in 50 primary schools. We are implementing a wide range of measures to tackle that problem, including a £50 million Behaviour Improvement Programme that is providing intensive support for schools facing the most challenging behaviour.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what plans she has to increase the powers of teachers to deal with indiscipline in schools. [75290]

  Mr. Twigg
  Headteachers already have the power to exclude pupils from school on disciplinary grounds by virtue of section 64 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That power has been re-enacted in section 52(1) and (2) of the Education Act 2002. We aim to commence section 52 and regulations under that section which will improve the working of exclusion appeal panels on 1 January 2003.
  458W

  A-Levels
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what representation she has received following the publication of the inquiry into the marking of some A level subjects this summer. [75285]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State has received a range of representations on A levels. These included questions on how the inquiry may affect individual grades, how the inquiry regrading process would work, requests for the department to intervene in individual appeals and general comments about the grading system.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether higher education institutions will charge tuition fees to students who transfer to another institution in the current or next academic year as a result of regrading of this year's "A" levels. [76414]

  Margaret Hodge
  I understand that no more than 168 higher education students are eligible to transfer to another higher education institution as a result of the A level regrading following Mike Tomlinson's enquiry. Where a student transfers to another institution in the current academic year, they will pay no more in total than their assessed contribution to the personal tuition fee, which depends on their income and that of their parents. Guidance from Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals advises the institution they are leaving to refund the unused portion of any tuition fee which has been paid and the receiving institution cannot levy a higher tuition fee than the balance of the student's personal contribution.

  In cases where students transfer to another institution next year and do not receive a full refund of any personal tuition fee already paid, they may apply to the A Level Claims Fund for the balance of their personal tuition fee contribution.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when her Department first received correspondence from the A-level examination boards alerting them to the potential problems in the new A-level system. [75895]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills did not receive any correspondence from the awarding bodies about potential problems in the new A level system. Issues of implementation of public examinations are dealt with by the statutory regulatory body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

  A-Level Regrading
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schools that have had at least one of their students' overall grades changed following the recent regrading. [76781]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for the Oxford and Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether she intends to make public the submissions to the Tomlinson inquiry. [76784]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for Mike Tomlinson to decide whether to publicise the submissions to his inquiry.
  459W

  Further Education
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what steps she is taking to raise standards in further education establishments. [75286]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are determined to build on the progress that has been achieved by the sector in recent years to raise standards. In June we published our proposals for a reform of further education—"Success for All". This comprises a comprehensive strategy, which has received the overwhelming support of key partners, for radical improvements. It will improve the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning and develop the teachers and leaders of the future. We plan to make further announcements shortly.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, If she will make a statement on the funding of further education. [75292]

  Margaret Hodge
  This year, 2002–03, £4.4 billion has been allocated to further education, an increase of £1.2 billion (24 per cent. in real terms) compared with 1997–98. The Spending Review settlement for the next three years up to 2005–06 includes a I per cent. real terms annual increase in core funding and paves the way for three year budgets for colleges and other providers which demonstrate their effectiveness. We also expect to announce further substantial resources later in the autumn to support our strategy for reforming further education and training.

  LEA Funding
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, when she last met representatives from the f40 Group of local authorities to discuss education funding [75287]

  Mr. Miliband
  I last met representatives of the f40 Group of local authorities on 25 September to discuss the review of Local Education Authority funding.

  Teachers (Criminal Records Bureau)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if she will make a statement on the impact of the performance of the Criminal Records Bureau on the process of appointing teachers. [75288]

  Mr. Miliband
  At present the performance of the Criminal Records Bureau is not impacting on the process of appointing teachers. My Department has advised employers in the education service that teachers, and other staff and volunteers, can be appointed provisionally in advance of the receipt of a Disclosure from the CRB. They may be deployed to work with children at the discretion of the Head teacher, subject to a satisfactory check of my Department's List 99 which contains details of people who are barred from teaching and other work involving regular contact with children, taking up references, and other usual recruitment checks. We have also advised employers that where appropriate they should continue to seek a CRB Disclosure, and review the person's suitability in light of any information revealed by that when it is received. The interim arrangements to allow teachers to be appointed in advance of receiving a Disclosure were first introduced in May.
  460W

  Primary School Testing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what recent assessment she has made of the impact of regular testing upon primary school pupils; and if she will make a statement. [75289]

  Mr Miliband
  There are statutory tests for primary school pupils at the end of Key Stages 1 and 2 as they complete one programme of study and prepare to move on to the next. Each year the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority carries out evaluations of the key stage tests, including questions relating to pupil anxiety. The evidence over several years, including this year, is that teachers generally feel that most children cope well with them. Other recent studies include a review by the EPPI-Centre on the impact of summative assessment and testing on students' motivation for learning. These studies help inform the development of policy.

  Policy Documents
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many policy documents a secondary school is required(a) by law and (b) by her Department to have. [75293]

  Mr. Miliband
  All secondary schools are legally required to publish an Annual Report to Parents and a Prospectus, which if they choose can be combined as a single document. They are also legally obliged to publish an Action Plan following an OfSTED inspection.

  There are 19 areas in which all secondary schools are legally required to have policies and an additional four areas that only apply to secondary schools of varying type and form of governance. 20 of these are statutory requirements and three are required by Departmental guidance and circulars. Schools are not necessarily expected to produce these as separate documents for each area of policy.

  Pay (Further Education)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if she will make a statement on the pay and conditions of lecturers in further education. [75294]

  Margaret Hodge
  Colleges in the further education sector, including sixth form colleges, are run by independent corporations with their own pay arrangements. Colleges agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with their staff in the context of local priorities and the overall resources available to them. Within this context, there is a nationally recommended pay increase agreed by employer representative bodies and the unions. There has not yet been agreement between employers and the trade unions on a national recommendation on this year's pay. The Government has strongly encouraged both parties to enter into meaningful discussions on this year's pay award.

  In consultation with the Association of Colleges, the Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum and the FE unions we have introduced the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) to help colleges modernise pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain excellent teachers. This has provided a significant new resource for pay and we recently announced the extension of TPI arrangements

  461W
  to include non-teaching staff, together with a further £32 million, equivalent to about 1 per cent. of the pay bill. This brings total funding for TPI this year to £142m.

  TPI is an ongoing commitment for colleges and future funding arrangements will recognise that position. Many colleges have felt able to consolidate TPI payments into pensionable pay already and I hope that others will follow their example.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of pay levels for staff working in colleges of further education. [75298]

  Margaret Hodge
  Colleges in the further education sector, including sixth form colleges, are run by independent corporations with their own pay arrangements. Colleges agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with their staff in the context of local priorities and the overall resources available to them. Within this context, there is a nationally recommended pay increase agreed by employer representative bodies and the unions. Pay arrangements in the sector are therefore diverse, reflecting colleges' local priorities and the overall resources available to them. Extra resources have been made available to FE colleges. There is £4.4 billion available to the sector this year, an increase of £1.2 billion in five years. Within this there is £142m available for the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) which helps colleges to modernise pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain excellent teachers and we have recently announced its extension to non-teaching staff for the first time.

  From next year up to 2005–06, the Government has already announced that there will be a 1 per cent. annual real terms increase in core funding for FE. We also expect to announce further additional resources later in the autumn to support our strategy for reforming further education and training.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the offer of additional funds to further education colleges under(a) the Teaching Pay Initiative and (b) the College Pay Initiative; and what proportion of the remuneration of each full-time equivalent these aggregates represent if passed on in full. [76416]

  Margaret Hodge
  On 20 September, I announced an extra £32m for the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) in further education colleges this year and the Learning and Skills Council has notified colleges of their additional allocations. Of the £32 million, I indicated that £20 million was for teachers and lecturers and £12 million to allow colleges to make a start on extending the initiative to non-teaching staff for the first time through the College Pay Initiative (CPI). However, colleges have complete flexibility in determining how they allocate their share of the £32 million between different groups of staff to meet local priorities. The additional £32m represents approximately one per cent. of the overall FE pay bill.

  SSA (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what the education SSA is per head in secondary schools in Wiltshire [75295]
  462W
  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03 Wiltshire's Education SSA per pupil in secondary schools is £3220.

  Note:

  * Figure in cash terms for pupils aged 11–15—rounded to nearest £10

  Teacher Assaults (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many assaults there have been on teachers employed by education authorities in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [75297]

  Mr. Twigg
  The Department does not collect this information. However, figures for the whole of Great Britain provided by the Health and Safety Executive show that 135 teachers received injuries as a result of assault in 1999–2000 and also in 2000–01. There are no figures available yet for 2001–02.

  Metals Skills Council
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Minister for Adult Learning and Skills, what progress has been made in establishing a Metals Skills Council. [75275]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Sector Skills Development Agency is in continuing discussions to ensure an appropriate place for metals within the Sector Skills Network.

  I look forward to seeing how things develop for this important sector and to receiving the SSDA's recommendation.

  Business Studies
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what plans she has for improving the teaching of business studies in schools and colleges of further education. [75280]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Pupils learn about the economy, enterprise and business education through PSHE and Citizenship. All secondary schools have received specific guidance to support this.

  Following Sir Howard Davies recommendations, additional resources have been allocated to give every child the chance to spend five days engaging in activities to develop knowledge and skills about entrepreneurship; the economy; business and financial literacy.

  We have set up a new Standards Unit to develop materials and disseminate best practice on all aspects of post-16 teaching & learning.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will bring forward proposals for a replacement scheme for individual learning accounts. [76546]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In June 2003 following the completion of our review of funding of adult learning and as an integral part of our groundbreaking national Skills Strategy and delivery plan.
  463W
  In view of this decision we have agreed with Capita that our joint work with them on the development of a successor scheme is now complete. We are grateful for the partnership approach that Capita have adopted to the wind down of the ILA scheme and the development of a successor scheme.

  English as an Additional Language
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's estimate is of the number of children who have English as an additional language in schools. [74958]

  Mr. Miliband
  In January 2002 there were 350,483 or 10.0 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary schools in England whose mother tongue is known or believed to be other than English. The corresponding figure in maintained secondary schools is 282,235 or 8.6 per cent.

  The collection of data on pupils' "mother tongue" through the Annual Schools Census in January 2002 replaced the earlier collection of data on English as an Additional Language.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research she has commissioned on how children with English as an additional language learn English most quickly; and what the findings were of the research. [76144]

  Mr. Twigg
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: There is already a great deal of research evidence from the UK and elsewhere about effective strategies for teaching English as an additional language (EAL). The general consensus among practitioners in England is that EAL teaching is most effective where it is firmly embedded across all National Curriculum subject areas. This ensures that pupils have the opportunity to learn English in a meaningful subject-specific context. My Department's role is to ensure that the particular needs of bilingual learners are properly taken into account in all policies and programmes aimed at raising standards. Recent examples include the development and dissemination of EAL modules as part of the National Literacy and Numeracy strategies and Key Stage 3.

  Home Education
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children of school age are being educated at home in(a) England, (b) East Sussex and (e) Eastbourne. [75151]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available figures record for each Local Education Authority the number of pupils not in school and being otherwise educated. This includes, but does not separately identify pupils taught at home, traveller children, asylum seekers at Further Education colleges or with voluntary providers. The figures show that in January 2002, 263 pupils were not in school but were being educated otherwise in East Sussex Local Education Authority. The corresponding figure for England is 18,969.

  Teachers (London Allowances)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to give London weighting to teachers' salaries in Castle Point. [75469]
  464W
  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has asked the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) to consider the pay of London teachers, but has not specifically asked it to review the qualifying areas for the three London allowances. All schools, including those outside the existing London Allowances area, already have discretion to pay recruitment and retention allowances worth up to £5,262 per annum to target their particular recruitment and retention issues. She has also asked the STRB to consider what scope there would be over the longer term for introducing some form of local pay, which will better reflect local differences in costs and rest more responsibility for pay in the hands of Headteachers. She awaits the STRB's recommendations with interest.

  Community Empowerment Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions her Department has had with the Community Empowerment Network. [75631]

  Mr Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills has had no direct discussions with the Community Empowerment Network.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the value of target setting to the work of her Department. [76492]

  Mr Miliband
  Investment of public money in the services required to achieve our objectives is linked to measurable performance against targets, which are set out in Public Service Agreements. These are established alongside spending plans in the Government's Spending Reviews. Performance is monitored and reported to Parliament.

  We have recently reviewed our targets in the context of the 2002 Spending Review.

  LEA Spending
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the amounts that education authorities have spent above or below their education SSAs in the current year. [76276]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table contains the information requested:

  LEA Name

  SSA £M

  Education budget £M

  Difference £M

  All England

  23,857.8996

  24,102.2827

  244.3830

  City of London

  1.0224

  2.3166

  1.2942

  Camden

  103.0365

  106.7864

  3.7499

  Greenwich

  145.0059

  141.8289

  -3.1769

  Hackney

  120.7448

  112.7290

  -8.0158

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  76.9500

  77.0269

  0.0768

  Islington

  104.5123

  104.7119

  0.1996

  Kensington and Chelsea

  48.7089

  50.1378

  1.4289

  Lambeth

  130.9174

  131.2125

  0.2951

  Lewisham

  147.1363

  147.8178

  0.6815

  Southwark

  149.7648

  149.7648

  0.0000

  Tower Hamlets

  167.8211

  169.9616

  2.1404

  465W

  LEA Name

  SSA £M

  Education, budget £M

  Difference £M

  Wandsworth

  112.1965

  108.7913

  -3.4052

  Westminster

  79.7290

  87.0317

  7.3027

  Barking and Dagenham

  102.8619

  103.1689

  0.3070

  Barnet

  161.9221

  164.0561

  2.1340

  Bexley

  128.0827

  123.3978

  -4.6849

  Brent

  144.5210

  135.5429

  -8.9781

  Bromley

  154.1728

  143.5694

  -10.6034

  Croydon

  169.2417

  170.4822

  1.2405

  Ealing

  152.7345

  154.4311

  1.6966

  Enfield

  170.1536

  168.2011

  -1.9526

  Haringey

  134.2717

  134.2796

  0.0079

  Harrow

  95.8466

  97.2904

  1.4438

  Havering

  117.3537

  116.3395

  -1.0141

  Hillingdon

  134.0767

  132.3941

  -1.6826

  Hounslow

  126.3980

  124.8600

  -1.5380

  Kingston upon Thames

  64.9491

  67.0417

  2.0926

  Merton

  74.8190

  75.5614

  0.7425

  Newham

  190.1691

  183.1632

  -7.0059

  Redbridge

  144.7254

  142.2387

  -2.4867

  Richmond upon Thames

  60.6527

  65.0357

  4.3830

  Sutton

  97.4150

  97.7339

  0.3189

  Waltham Forest

  131.4987

  133.4767

  1.9780

  Birmingham

  578.4689

  605.5499

  27.0810

  Coventry

  155.4544

  161.8734

  6.4190

  Dudley

  139.5913

  146.9561

  7.3648

  Sand well

  152.5939

  154.5979

  2.0040

  Solihull

  100.8826

  101.6920

  0.8093

  Walsall

  143.0901

  143.9510

  0.8609

  Wolverhampton

  128.1214

  129.8654

  1.7440

  Knowsley

  93.7373

  89.4980

  -4.2394

  Liverpool

  264.1078

  264.1221

  0.0143

  St. Helens

  86.9732

  88.4465

  1.4733

  Sefton

  138.6666

  147.6179

  8.9513

  Wirral

  169.6693

  168.1654

  -1.5038

  Bolton

  134.7642

  135.0284

  0.2642

  Bury

  81.5847

  82.4809

  0.8962

  Manchester

  232.5382

  231.7309

  -0.8073

  Oldham

  122.2909

  123.8428

  1.5519

  Rochdale

  111.1350

  109.5689

  -1.5661

  Salford

  105.0821

  109.5790

  4.4969

  Stockport

  118.2643

  121.9897

  3.7254

  Tameside

  108.8925

  109.7389

  0.8464

  Trafford

  104.0584

  105.9499

  1.8914

  Wigan

  141.4448

  147.7403

  6.2955

  Barnsley

  99.2009

  100.2947

  1.0938

  Doncaster

  153.9750

  154.0220

  0.0470

  Rotherham

  131.8516

  133.6561

  1.8045

  Sheffield

  227.4497

  228.6550

  1.2053

  Bradford

  267.2879

  259.0728

  -8.2151

  Calderdale

  103.0057

  103.9320

  0.9263

  Kirklees

  188.6507

  186.9214

  -1.7293

  Leeds

  333.0348

  343.3101

  10.2753

  Wakefield

  148.5499

  148.8855

  0.3356

  Gateshead

  88.3709

  91.9210

  3.5501

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  124.4614

  120.8965

  -3.5649

  North Tyneside

  89.2221

  91.5132

  2.2911

  South Tyneside

  76.9479

  77.7474

  0.7995

  Sunderland

  142.9263

  141.8552

  -1.0711

  Isles of Scilly

  1.4213

  1.4743

  0.0530

  Bath & North East Somerset

  72.2319

  78.5632

  6.3313

  City of Bristol

  151.3926

  167.8251

  16.4325

  North Somerset

  79.5604

  79.5771

  0.0167

  South Gloucestershire

  110.7529

  115.0135

  4.2606

  Hartlepool

  48.5591

  48.5619

  0.0029

  Middlesbrough

  74.2550

  74.5087

  0.2537

  Redcar and Cleveland

  73.2583

  73.2588

  0.0005

  Stockton-on-Tees

  91.7786

  92.4574

  0.6788

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  129.4733

  130.7577

  1.2844

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  144.6368

  145.6397

  1.0029

  North East Lincolnshire

  83.3160

  86.0500

  2.7340

  North Lincolnshire

  73.6651

  75.5444

  1.8793

  North Yorkshire

  260.4408

  272.0278

  11.5871

  466W

  LEA Name

  SSA£M

  Education budget £M

  Difference £M

  York

  70.0044

  72.1578

  2.1534

  Bedfordshire

  193.5908

  192.2110

  -1.3799

  Luton

  102.7965

  102.9612

  0.1647

  Buckinghamshire

  231.9312

  230.5043

  -1.4269

  Milton Keynes

  109.8883

  110.3019

  0.4136

  Derbyshire

  324.1436

  333.2927

  9.1491

  Derby

  112.7384

  112.4870

  -0.2514

  Dorset

  161.7980

  166.6484

  4.8504

  Poole

  57.3219

  57.6851

  0.3632

  Bournemouth

  64.7092

  65.8520

  1.1428

  Durham

  229.8940

  235.3863

  5.4923

  Darlington

  45.9026

  46.0735

  0.1709

  East Sussex

  210.3524

  210.4880

  0.1356

  Brighton and Hove

  98.8876

  98.5689

  -0.3187

  Hampshire

  528.0371

  533.0300

  4.9929

  Portsmouth

  84.2356

  84.9116

  0.6760

  Southampton

  99.8437

  95.9386

  -3.9051

  Leicestershire

  273.7501

  282.9221

  9.1720

  Leicester

  150.7880

  151.5138

  0.7258

  Rutland

  13.7401

  14.9132

  1.1731

  Staffordshire

  368.5498

  372.2987

  3.7489

  Stoke-on-Trent

  112.4341

  115.4721

  3.0380

  Wiltshire

  189.7108

  191.8442

  2.1334

  Swindon

  83.7499

  85.0684

  1.3185

  Bracknell Forest

  47.0862

  46.8975

  -0.1887

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  61.0867

  61.5277

  0.4410

  West Berkshire

  73.6664

  73.8679

  0.2014

  Reading

  54.9770

  55.9641

  0.9871

  Slough

  70.2168

  68.3485

  -1.8683

  Wokingham

  69.0003

  69.9677

  0.9674

  Cambridgeshire

  223.1475

  229.2433

  6.0958

  Peterborough

  92.6291

  91.4104

  -1.2186

  Cheshire

  304.7116

  320.8066

  16. 0950

  Halton

  65.1823

  65.7914

  0.6091

  Warrington

  90.8670

  92.8647

  1.9977

  Devon

  288.3235

  290.2373

  1.9138

  Plymouth

  124.3191

  124.3928

  0.0737

  Torbay

  58.2246

  58.7771

  0.5525

  Essex

  630.8486

  624.5436

  -6.3050

  Southend-on-Sea

  85.1138

  85.2244

  0.1106

  Thurrock

  71.5857

  71.6057

  0.0200

  Herefordshire

  72.0859

  72.0400

  -0.0459

  Worcestershire

  230.1543

  232.5732

  2.4189

  Kent

  672.6925

  665.0712

  -7.6213

  Medway

  141.0335

  141.2467

  0.2132

  Lancashire

  534.9970

  554.4728

  19.4758

  Blackburn with Darwen

  79.1864

  81.4579

  2.2715

  Blackpool

  64.0861

  64.2837

  0.1975

  Nottinghamshire

  344.6936

  352.9175

  8.2239

  Nottingham

  128.6954

  132.7207

  4.0253

  Shropshire

  118.5369

  119.7804

  1.2435

  Telford & Wrekin

  78.0621

  78.0941

  0.0320

  Cornwall

  219.4095

  215.7320

  -3.6775

  Cumbria

  226.2349

  233.4352

  7.2003

  Gloucestershire

  254.0244

  257.0497

  3.0253

  Hertfordshire

  539.0524

  539.6100

  0.5576

  Isle of Wight

  64.7710

  64.7862

  0.0152

  Lincolnshire

  301.5732

  305.9253

  4.3521

  Norfolk

  340.3741

  345.5370

  5.1628

  Northamptonshire

  302.3844

  306.4191

  4.0347

  Northumberland

  147.9800

  149.9239

  1.9440

  Oxfordshire

  261.7899

  264.1175

  2.3276

  Somerset

  208.5049

  216.8839

  8.3791

  Suffolk

  295.0851

  297.3883

  2.3032

  Surrey

  432.9177

  434.9247

  2.0070

  Warwickshire

  219.5074

  228.3518

  8.8444

  West Sussex

  325.7824

  327.2292

  1.4468

  Sources:

  Data 2002–03 S52 Budget statements as returned by the DfES.

  Data reflects position as at 11 October.
  467W

  Physical Education
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 19 September,Official Report, column 111W, on physical education, what research was undertaken to enforce the joint Public Service Agreement with her Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of sport in schools; and if she will place such research in the Library. [76803]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All School Sport Co-ordinator partnerships are currently undertaking an annual data collection exercise. This will provide in-depth information on the number of pupils with access to two hours of high quality PE and school sport a week, within and beyond the curriculum. Early messages from this will be available before the end of the year and the House will be informed of the results.

  European Job Mobility
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what progress there has been in establishing the European Job Mobility web-site agreed at the Barcelona Council in March 2002; [75726]

  (2) what progress there has been in developing a Europe-wide Internet portal aimed at providing access to information on job and learning opportunities. [75724]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: At Barcelona in March 2002, the Council decided that a one stop European Job Mobility web site should be established by the end of 2003 at the latest.

  The Commission, together with the national public employment services, has developed the European Employment Services (EURES) system which, since 1998, has provided job vacancies on the Internet. The Commission is also currently testing a new portal website which will provide access to training and learning opportunities. It is expected that the new portal will be launched next month.

  The Commission plans to bring together the two Internet services in 2003 to offer a single point of access for citizens interested in jobs and learning opportunities. The new, single, portal will form the basis of the European Job Mobility website.

  In-learning on AMA in sector as % of in-learning on AMA in all sectors

  21 Jul 1996

  3 Aug 1997

  2 Aug 1998

  1 Aug 1999

  30 Jul 2000

  29 Jul 2001

  28 Jul 2002

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  Accounting

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Aviation

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Business Administration

  13

  14

  12

  12

  11

  9

  7

  Construction

  7

  7

  6

  7

  7

  7

  6

  Customer Service

  —

  1

  3

  5

  7

  6

  6

  Early Years Care and Education

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  5

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  7

  5

  7

  6

  6

  8

  9

  Engineering Construction

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Engineering Manufacture

  21

  14

  18

  14

  13

  14

  14

  Hairdressing

  7

  7

  6

  6

  6

  5

  4

  Health and Social Care

  5

  6

  4

  5

  5

  5

  4

  Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hospitality

  7

  7

  6

  7

  7

  6

  6

  Information Technology and Electronic

  468W

  Training and Enterprise Council Assets
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the disposal of TEC assets to(a) the public sector and (b) private interests. [76410]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is the Department's intention to publish a statement on the disposition of TEC assets in the Department's accounts which are currently being audited by the NAO and are due to be published on 4 December 2002. The disposition of TEC assets has been subject to a policy agreed with Ministers and Treasury with the aim of making sure that TEC assets are used for the benefit of the TEC local communities in the furtherance of broader government objectives and not for private gain.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many modern apprenticeships have been under way(a) in total and (b) in each industrial sector in each year since the inception of the scheme; and how many persons have entered a programme in each of these years. [76413]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The figures (except those broken down into sector) in the following tables also appear in the DfES' Statistical First Release on work-based learning, published today at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics/DB/SFR/s0358/index.html.

  The numbers of people in-learning on AMA and FMA since the inception of the scheme are as follows:

  Date in-learning

  AMA

  FMA

  16 July 1995

  2,100

  0

  21 July 1996

  35,100

  0

  03 August 1997

  87,500

  0

  02 August 1998

  109,600

  8,800

  01 August 1999

  123,800

  41,400

  30 July 2000

  127,300

  77,700

  29 July 2001

  117,800

  88,400

  28 July 2002

  107,900*

  111,600*

  Note:

  * In-learning figures on 28 July 2002 are provisional.

  The proportions in-learning in each sector, as a proportion of all sectors, are as follows:
  469W

  In-learning on AMA in sector as % of in-learning on AMA in all sectors

  21 Jul 1996

  3 Aug 1997

  2 Aug 1998

  1 Aug 1999

  30 Jul 2000

  29 Jul 2001

  28 Jul 2002

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  Services

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Moving into Management

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Motor Industry

  9

  8

  9

  8

  8

  10

  11

  Plumbing

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Printing

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Retailing

  7

  9

  5

  6

  5

  3

  2

  Road Haulage and Distribution

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sports and Recreation

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Telecommunications

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Travel Services

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Sources:

  Sectors which have less than 0.5% of all those on AMA on 28 July 2002 are not shown.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

  "—" denotes zero or less than 0.5%.

  In-learning on FMA in sector as % of in-learning on FMA in all sectors

  02 Aug 1998

  01 Aug 1999

  30 Jul 2000

  29 Jul 2001

  28 Jul 2002

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  Accounting

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Amenity Horticulture

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Animal Care

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Business Administration

  13

  18

  16

  15

  14

  Construction

  —

  4

  7

  7

  9

  Customer Service

  1

  6

  10

  10

  8

  Distribution, Warehousing and Storage

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Early Years Care and Education

  —

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Electrotechnical

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Engineering Manufacture

  6

  4

  4

  5

  4

  Glass Industry

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Hairdressing

  23

  13

  11

  10

  10

  Health and Social Care

  4

  5

  5

  6

  7

  Hospitality

  7

  10

  10

  11

  11

  Information Technology and Electronic Services

  —

  5

  4

  4

  3

  Manufacturing (Engineering)

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Motor Industry

  8

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Plumbing

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Retailing

  —

  16

  13

  12

  10

  Road Haulage and Distribution

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Sports and Recreation

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Sources:

  Sectors which have less than 0.5% of all those on FMA on 28 July 2002 are not shown.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

  "—" denotes zero or less than 0.5%.

  The numbers of starts on Foundation Modern Apprenticeships (FMA) and Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (AMA) in the last six years are as follows:

  Date of start

  AMA

  FMA

  22 July 1996–3 August 1997

  64,600

  0

  4 August 1997–2 August 1998

  66,800

  7,800

  3 August 1998–1 August 1999

  73,200

  45,100

  2 August 1999–30 July 2000

  76,800

  88,300

  31 July 2000–29 July 2001

  72,400

  104,100

  30 July 2001–28 July 2002

  52,700*

  106,600*

  Note:

  * Starts in 2001–02 are provisional.

  The Learning and Skills Council is responsible for delivering the new generation of Modern Apprenticeships and is working closely with the new Sector Skills Councils and the Connexions Service to improve quality and performance.
  470W

  Independent Schools (Exam Grades)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of candidates from independent schools achieved A* or A grades in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [75254]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown below:

  Percentage of 15 Year Old pupils Achleving GCSE A* or A Grades in Independent Schools in England

  %

  1997–98

  73

  1998–99

  74

  1999–00

  75

  2000–01

  76

  2001–02 (Early Statistics)

  77

  471W

  School Standards
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have not been classed by Ofsted as well led over the last five years; and what proportion this is of all schools inspected. [75256]

  Mr. Miliband
  These are matters for the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). The HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on whether the performance inequalities between(a)primary schools and (b) secondary schools have narrowed since 1997. [75258]

  Mr. Miliband
  There has been a significant narrowing of the performance inequalities between primary schools, following the introduction of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. At Key Stage 2, for example, the average performance of the lowest attaining 20 per cent. of schools improved from 41 per cent. in 1997 to 61 per cent. in 2001, an increase of 20 per cent. points compared to the national average increase of 13 per cent. points.

  We are committed to narrowing the performance gap between secondary schools through the implementation of our plans to transform secondary education.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the total cost in each of the last four years of the performance related pay scheme for teachers, broken down by(a) administration costs, (b) payments to teachers and (c) other costs; how many of those who applied received the additional payments; and if she will make a statement. [75260]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teachers have been receiving performance threshold increases since September 2000. Over £245 million in threshold grant payments were paid to local authorities in the 2000–01 financial year, over £436 million in 2001–02, and to date over £279 million in the current financial year.

  The Department has a contract with Cambridge Education Associates (CEA) for the provision and deployment of threshold assessors and external advisers to governing bodies on heads' performance. We also have a contract with Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) for training in threshold assessment and performance management. The value of these contracts depends on the volume and quality of activity. Since January 2000 total CEA contract costs have been around £47 million and CfBT costs around £13 million.

  Not all teachers who were eligible to apply did so. Over 200,000 teachers in England applied to cross the performance threshold in the first round and over 31,000 in the second round. Of these, nearly 224,000 were assessed as meeting the threshold standards. This is something of which the profession can be proud.
  472W

  Examination Results
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of GCSE candidates achieved five or more A* to C grades in each year from 1987 to 2002; and if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying the change in performance. [75261]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the Table below:

  Percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving 5 or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ in schools in England

  %

  1986–87

  26.4

  1987–88

  29.9

  1988–89

  32.8

  1989–90

  34.5

  1990–91

  36.8

  1991–92

  38.3

  1992–93

  41.2

  1993–94

  43.3

  1994–95

  43.5

  1995–96

  44.5

  1996–97

  45.1

  1997–98

  46.3

  1998–99

  47.9

  1999–00

  49.2

  2000–01

  50.0

  2001–02 (Early Statistics)

  51.2

  Sources:

  1986–87—1987–88 School Leavers Survey

  1988–89—1990–91 School Examinations Survey

  1991–92 onwards Data collected for Secondary School Performance Tables

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the average proportion of GCSE marks accounted for by coursework; and if she will make a statement. [75262]

  Mr. Miliband
  The proportion of coursework and examination assessment of GCSEs varies between individual subjects and awarding body specifications. The weighting of coursework for academic subjects varies between 20–40 per cent.; for practical subjects between 40–60 per cent.; in the case of the eight new GCSEs in vocational subjects introduced in September 2002, the coursework weighting is 67 per cent., with the exception of Applied ICT, where the coursework weighting is 67–85 per cent.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employees there were of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies; if she will estimate the annual (i) staff pay costs, (ii) buildings costs, (iii) administration costs and (iv) other cost for each; and if she will make a statement. [76169]

  Mr. Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills (DIES) employs 4,270 permanent staff and 114 temporary staff. It has no agencies.

  DfES's gross administrative costs for the financial year 2001–02 were £222m (estimated outturn). This comprised:

  staff pay costs - £126m;

  building costs - £26m and

  administration and other costs - £70m

  473W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Job Advertisements
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many posts were advertised in the press in each year since June 1999; and what percentage of them were advertised in the Scottish press. [76853]

  Clare Short
  The information in the table below refers to the number of advertisements placed in the press rather than posts advertised—details of which are not maintained. The figures for 1999 are for the full year as monthly information is no longer available for that year.

  Year

  Total Advertisements Placed

  Total Placed in Scottish Press

  1999

  275

  Information not available

  2000

  166

  3

  2001

  122

  4

  2002 1 January—

  79

  3

  30 September

NORTHERHN IRELAND

  Probation Board
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the 2001–02 annual report for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland will be published. [77015]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The 2001–02 Annual Report for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland was published today.

  A copy of the Report has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  11 Plus
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will defer implementation of the decision of the former education minister of Northern Ireland to abandon the current 11-plus transfer arrangements, until such time as a suitable and broadly acceptable alternative transfer procedure has been decided. [75465]

  Jane Kennedy
  Responses to extensive consultation on the Burns Report showed almost universal support for the abolition of the 11 plus Transfer Tests and a predominant view that academic selection should be ended, although there was also substantial opposition to this proposal. There was also support for the development of a Pupil Profile, a broadening of curriculum choice at age 14, and for greater co-operation and collaboration between schools. There is a clear demand for change in order to address the weaknesses of the current system. It is important that we continue to make progress on this key issue and the Department will be meeting the key education partners to build consensus on new transfer and post-primary arrangements that are fair for all children and enable all children to reach their full potential.
  474W

  Selective Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of selective schools in Northern Ireland. [75227]

  Jane Kennedy
  Extensive consultation on the Burns Report has demonstrated almost universal support for abolition of the Transfer Tests and a predominant view that academic selection should be ended although there was also substantial opposition to this proposal. In light of the views expressed the Department of Education will be meeting with key education partners to build on that consensus and develop new post-primary arrangements that are fair, enable all children to reach their full potential and provide a modern education system for the 21st Century.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to reply to a letter sent to her on 24 July by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, regarding the Pesticides Residues Committee. [76673]

  Mr. Morley
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 16 August 2002.

  Biotechnology
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission's advice to the Government that a public debate be held on genetic modification issues. [75176]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to hold a public debate on genetic modification issues in response to the advice of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission. [75900]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 26 July the terms on which the Government will sponsor a public dialogue on genetic modification (GM) issues. The overall process will have three components: a public debate organised independently of the Government, a review of the science on GM issues, and a study of the costs and benefits associated with GM. The Government wants an open and balanced dialogue that will help to deepen understanding of the issues surrounding this technology.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 21 October 2002, (75916) if she will dismiss Mrs. Jacquie Findlay and Professor Ian Smith, independent members of the Agricultural Wages Board. [76815]
  475W
  Alun Michael
  Mrs. Jacquie Findlay has served as an independent member of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales for 5 years. Professor Ian Smith has served in this capacity for a total of 8 years. We are currently reviewing Board appointments and both Jacquie Findlay and Ian Smith have indicated that they do not wish to be reappointed. The Independent member posts were advertised nationally earlier this year and over 140 applications were received. Details of the successful candidates will be announced shortly.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to conserve and enhance biodiversity in England; and if she will make a statement. [77743]

  Margaret Beckett
  Today I am publishing a biodiversity strategy for England. The document. "Working with the grain of nature" is being placed in the House libraries.

  The undertaking to prepare a biodiversity strategy for England was made in the Rural White Paper, "Our Countryside, the future: a fair deal for rural England". The Strategy is intended to build on the progress that the Government has already made in protecting and enhancing biodiversity in England, for example with greater protection for sites of Special Scientific Interest under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the implementation of 436 biodiversity action plans for priority habitats and species. We recognise that we can only secure the long-term health of biodiversity that is needed to bring a truly sustainable future by also achieving fundamental changes to public policy and the behaviour of people across the board.

  The Strategy sets this process in train by seeking to embed biodiversity considerations into all the main sectors of economic activity, public and private. The Strategy sets out a vision and programme for the next five years for five important policy sectors.

  In Agriculture, we aim to encourage the management of farming and agricultural land so as to conserve and enhance biodiversity as part of the Government's Sustainable Food and Farming Strategy.

  In water, we aim for a whole catchment approach to the wise, sustainable use of water and wetlands.

  In woodland and forestry, we are looking for the management and extension of woodland so as to promote enhanced biodiversity and quality of life.

  Initiative

  Area

  Budget

  Partnership innovation Budget which builds on the ethos of the CLS in encouraging joint working and fresh approaches to service delivery

  London

  £1,070,052

  South East

  £1,487,369

  South West

  £355,285

  Wales

  £1,134,617

  West Midlands

  £766,354

  North West

  £2,166,265.75

  North East

  £1,234,237

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  £1,435,028

  476W
  In marine and coastal management, we aim to achieve the sustainable use and management of our coasts and seas using natural processes and the ecosystem-based approach.

  In urban areas, we want biodiversity to become a part of the development of policy on sustainable communities, urban green space and the built environment.

  The Strategy also identifies a number of cross-cutting themes, with the aim of involving society as a whole in the achievement of biodiversity improvements. For example, we aim to encourage business to act for biodiversity in the boardroom, through the supply chain, in their management systems, in their annual reports and accounts and on the ground. We will also help make biodiversity part of people's everyday lives through information, communication and education and establish a mechanism to involve children and young people in the development of biodiversity policy. In addition, we will continue to encourage partnerships for biodiversity at local and regional levels in England.

  It will be essential to ensure that we measure biodiversity trends and the effects of our policies. Much work is already underway to improve the information that is available to understand the status of habitats and species, and the Strategy announces the development of a new web-based Biodiversity Action Reporting System to he launched in 2003 and the adoption of a set of biodiversity indicators to measure our progress. These indicators will be published in full within a year.

  This Government Strategy has been prepared, uniquely, with the active contributions of a large number of partners and stakeholders. We shall continue to rely on the widest possible partnership as we move forward to implementation. The partnership will be represented through the England Biodiversity Group, which will review the Strategy annually and publish a report on progress in 2006.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75673]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The schemes and initiatives sponsored by LCD, its agencies and the Public Record Office are set out in the table below.
  477W

  Initiative

  Area

  Budget

  East Midlands

  £831,472

  Eastern

  £1,040,455

  Merseyside

  £1,386,597 Capital (revenue)

  Exhibit (AR* p.22)

  Chelmsford, Basildon and Southend

  £1.2M(£1.7M)

  Digital Audio Recording (AR p.23)

  Doncaster, Bournemouth and Snaresbrook

  £1M (£500K)

  Electronic Presentation of Evidence (AR p.23)

  Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol, Blackfriars, Liverpool, Manchester, Kingston, Southwark, Central London

  £2.1M(£200K)

  Video Conferencing Crown Court (AR p.23)

  Hampshire, Lewes/Hove, North West

  (£800K)

  Flexible Plea and Directions (AR p.23)

  Preston, Newcastle & Middlesex Guildhall

  (£130K)

  PREMA E-mail applications (AR p.27)

  Preston

  £65K

  Virtual PDH

  Manchester

  (£190K)

  Business Centre (AR p.27)

  Walsall

  £1.5M(£600K)

  Information Kiosk (AR p.28) including Crown Court websites (AR p.22)

  Telford, Ipswich, Chester, Kingston, Mold, Southwark Crown Courts, Bournemouth Combined Court

  £150K(£100K)

  Extended Magistrates' Court Sitting Hours

  London and Manchester

  (£0.8M)

  Pilot of a regionalised Court of Protection in Preston, enabling hearings to be dealt with locally rather than in London

  North and North west England

  Cost has been absorbed into normal running costs

  Public Record Office

  Profile—raising campaign aimed at PRO's local community. Aim to increase understanding of PRO and how the local community can use it. Campaign involved production and distribution of information leaflet.

  Richmond, Barnes, Kew, Chiswick, Brentford, Acton, Ealing.

  2002–2003 111,428.05 (printing, design, distribution of leaflet)

  Note:

  * AR = Court Annual Report 2001–2002—HC 1187

  Assaults (Courts)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many assaults there have been on(a) justices of the peace, (b) district judges, (c) district judges (magistrates courts), (d) circuit judges, (e) Crown Court judges, (f) High Court judges and (g) court staff in England and Wales whilst sitting or working in court or during private room appointments in each of the last five years for which records are available. [74960]

  Yvette Cooper
  Reliable central records of security incidents have only been collected since April 2001, primarily as a result of strengthening procedures in the wake of the attack on Judge Ann Goddard at the Central Criminal Court in January 2001.

  Of the incidents reported since then, 9 have involved courtroom/chambers assaults on the categories of personnel listed, broken down as follows:

  JPs/District Judges (magistrates courts)—2

  District Judges—1

  High Court judge—1 (Bankruptcy Registrar)

  Staff—5

  There have been no reported assaults on circuit judges or Crown Court judges over this period.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department takes extremely seriously any assault on those working in the courts. A major programme of security improvements to district judge chambers and an ongoing programme to install more secure docks into a number of criminal courtrooms have increased the security for those working in the courts. Further improvements to court security are being developed.
  478W

  Access to Justice
  Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for improving access to justice in civil law disputes in respect of the socially excluded. [75304]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  99 per cent. of the population of England and Wales are covered by Community Legal Service Partnerships (CLSPs) with the aim of improving access to good quality legal and advice services. By focusing on social welfare and family law, such as housing, welfare benefits, debt and employment, the Community Legal Service is making it easier for vulnerable individuals and families to learn about their rights and how to enforce them. The Partnership Innovation Budget is allowing CLSPs to develop creative ways to deliver services to excluded groups while changes to the eligibility limits mean that more people now qualify for free initial advice and guidance. This will make it easier for those individuals most at risk to address problems before they escalate.

  Child Abduction
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, by country, the number of child abduction cases dealt with by his Department which exceeded the six week deadline for a hearing(a) in each year since 1998 and (b) in 2002 to date. [76408]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Article 11 of the Hague Convention makes reference to a six week "deadline", but does not oblige courts to conclude a case within six weeks.

  Information is not available in the format sought. The Child Abduction Unit only keeps figures for the last 2 years. The attached table details the average times

  479W
  taken for countries to conclude cases from the time of referral to the date when the final court decision is made. The UK average conclusion time was 84 days in 2000 and 76 days in 2001.

  Average length of time (days) in which Hague Convention cases are concluded in these countries from the date of referral to the date of the final court decision

  Country

  Year

  2000

  2001

  Australia

  121

  35

  Austria

  140

  *

  Belgium

  198

  *

  Canada

  72

  92

  Cyprus

  *

  131

  France

  99

  141

  Germany

  127

  115

  Greece

  96

  350

  Hong Kong

  138

  *

  Ireland

  108

  177

  Italy

  69

  169

  Netherlands

  115

  *

  New Zealand

  115

  *

  Poland

  167

  *

  Portugal

  28

  40

  Romania

  *

  235

  South Africa

  257

  548

  Spain

  136

  231

  Sweden

  98

  372

  Turkey

  *

  62

  USA

  115

  129

  Venezuela

  *

  309

  Note:

  * Where there is no data this could either be because there were no cases involving that country or that cases did not involve a final hearing eg Netherlands and New Zealand resolve many cases outside the court arena.

  Web Site

  Start-up costs

  Operating costs

  Host company

  Evaluations/surveys

  Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

  £6,048

  Sept 2000—Sept 2001: £2000 per month

  British Telecom

  No formal evaluation. CTPI are currently conducting a redesign.

  Sept 2001—present: £2532 per month

  Civil Justice Council

  £1,116

  2002–2003: See note 1

  Previously CCTA, then Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  None.

  Community Legal Service—Just Ask

  £1,500,000 (April 2000)

  2001–2: £888,000 (Legal Services Commission assumed responsibility Oct 2001)

  ICL

  Accessibility policy reviewed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

  Conway Rose Smith Report (2000, internal). Hunter Springs Consultancy Report (June 2000, internal) assessed the site against Central IT Unit guidelines for Government websites. Plain English Campaign's award for Best Website of 2001. e-Business Innovation Award 2000.

  NewMediaAge Award for Charity and Public Sector Category 2000.

  CLS—Graduate Recruitment Site (closed Sep 2002)

  £525 (June 2002)

  Included in start-up

  SolidUK.Net

  None.

  CLS—Legal Services Research Centre

  £500

  2000–1: included in start-up 2001–2: £475

  Simplynames.com

  None.

  Council on Tribunals

  £6,418.97

  £1253.30 pa 2002–2003: See note 1

  Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  None.

  Court Service

  £18,542.25

  1998–9: £15,404.68 1999–2002: £12.000 pa 2002–2003: See note 1

  Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  Online survey, set up by in-house staff, produced 643 responses. To be used as the basis for future changes.

  480W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by country the number of child abduction cases being dealt with by the Child Abduction Unit which have exceeded the six week deadline for a hearing and are awaiting a resolution. [76407]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Article 11 of the Hague Convention makes reference to a six week "deadline". This Article draws to the attention of Contracting States the urgency with which these proceedings should be dealt with. Article 11 does not oblige the courts to conclude a case within six weeks. Common delays are where the country in question is unable to locate the child or where additional enquiries are necessary to assist the court in their decision.

  The Child Abduction Unit currently has 105 cases outstanding where children have been wrongfully removed to, or retained in, other Hague Convention countries. Without examining each case it is impossible to say exactly how many of these cases have exceeded the six week period, but it will be the vast majority.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75577]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is listed below.
  481W

  Web Site

  Start-up costs

  Operating costs

  Host company

  Evaluations/surveys

  Immigration Appellate Authority

  Included in Year 1 operating costs

  2002–2003: See note 1

  Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  None

  Judicial Studies Board

  £975 (October 1998)

  1998–9: £330 1999–2000: £1985 2000–1: £500 2001–2: £1200 2002–3: £13077 2002–2003: See note 1

  Oct 1998–June 2002 NEXTRA (CIX) Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  Review by Executive Director in March 2002 (internal). Statistics supplied to OeE monthly Further evaluation to identify customers' needs in 2002–3

  Land Registry—Main site http://www.landreg.gov.uk>

  In house (Oct 1996)

  1996–1999: £5000 pa Oct 1999–Oct 2000: £1000 Oct 2000–March 2001: £ £2000 2001–2: £ 7,000 2002–3: £12,000

  1996–9 CCTA 1999-present: Telenor

  Internal only

  Land Registry http://www.cofrestfatir.gov.uk—Welsh version

  £500 (April 2001)

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  Land Registry http://www.landregistrydirect.gov.uk>

  In house. (May 2002)

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  Land Registry http://strategy.landreg.gov.uk>

  £41,129 (May 2002

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  Land Registry http://legislation.landreg.gov.uk> and

  £8,956 (May 2002)

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  http://deddfwriaeth.cofrestrfatir.co.uk—Welsh version

  Land Registry http://www.e-conveyancing.gov.uk>

  £82,107.50(May 2002)

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  Land Registry http://search.landreg.gov.uk and http://chiwilio.cofrestfatir.gov.uk—Welsh version

  £2303 (March 2002)

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  Land Registry http://mobile.landreg.gov.uk>

  In house (Oct 2000)

  Cost included in hosting contract for main site

  Telenor

  Internal only

  Law Commission

  £2,400

  £10,675pa 2002–2003: See note 1

  Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  Statistics recorded internally

  Legal Services Commission

  £20,577

  2000–1: £91,925 2001–2: £123,761

  Worldcom

  LSC will begin customer research project in mid-November

  Legal Services Ombudsman

  £3348.75(August 2000)

  2001: £3879.251 2002: £2539

  Analogue

  Internal survey over the next 6 months. Question relating to website on customer survey: a small number of people had seen the site of whom 50% were "satisfied", and only 20% were "at all dissatisfied"

  Lord Chancellors Dept

  £7,368

  1998–9: £16,200 1999–2000: £16,200 2000–1: £41,133 2001–2: £152,859 2002–3: See note 1

  Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  Cabinet Office audit (June 2000), report available. Interactive survey on web site, evaluated internally

  Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate

  £7,000

  2001–2: £1322.50 2002–3: £840.13 2002–2003: See note 1

  Cable and Wireless from June 2002

  None

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  £55,000 (April 2002)

  £15,000 pa

  Fujitsu

  Weekly internal review of usage statistics, used as basis for changes

  Official Solicitor's Department Public Trust Office (closed June 2001)

  In house In house (early 1997)

  1999–2002: £141 p.a. 10,000 p.a. including development and operating cost

  Demon CCTA

  None. None

  Public Guardianship Office

  £37,600(June 2001)

  2001–2: £14,334 2002–3: £7,398

  Development & updating by Edelman Interactive Solutions Hosted by Host Europe

  No formal evaluation, but consultation with external stakeholders in Oct 2002

  Public Record Office—Main site

  £200,200(1995)

  2002–3: £147,000 Previous years: similar

  WorldCom

  PRO Key Performance Indicator requires 2 surveys of online users each year. Target of 80% per cent, rating site as "good" or "excellent". See www.pro.gov.uk/about/web http://www.pro.gov.uk/about/web>—surve y.htm Won Price Waterhouse Coopers 1999/2000 Innovation and Risk prize

  PRO-Other sites: Family Records Learning Curve a2a Moving Here Census

  —

  Complex arrangements with various partners, PRO contribution only assessable at disproportionate cost

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 The 8 sites hosted by Cable and Wireless (2002–2005) under a three year contract under the Government Telecommunications Contract includes the following elements:

  Hosting

  Provision of Content Management System

  Conversion of existing content into Content Management System

  LCD and Court Service Intranet.

  The total cost of the contract for the three year period is approximately £1.5m.

  General:

  Except where stated costs may exclude internal departmental resources.

  Some of the evaluation/surveys referred to have been placed in the public domain and further consideration is being given to the wider publication of those which are not. However, the best single source of assessment of government web sites is that recently published by the National Audit Office: Government on the Web 2 The total cost of the contract for the three year period is approximately £1.5m.
  482W 483W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bereavement Benefits
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the rules for claiming bereavement benefits. [77652]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have laid Regulations today to amend the Social Security Claims and Payments Regulations, 1987. Subject to Parliament's approval they simplify the rules for claiming bereavement benefits.

  Bereavement benefits were introduced in April 2001. We have been looking at the way the three elements fit together and whether there might be improvements made by simplifying the rules. Depending on when someone claims a bereavement benefit there can be two separate social security decisions to be made—one for the weekly benefit of either Widowed Parent's Allowance or Bereavement Allowance and another for the lump-sum Bereavement Payments when there is no real difference in the qualification rules. This is both time-consuming and can be confusing for bereaved people themselves.

  We want bereaved people to claim and receive the help that they and their families are entitled to when they need it—immediately after the bereavement. Most people do; more than four fifths claim within four or five weeks of their loss. The claim is easy to make; using only one form, a widow or widower can claim whichever of these three benefits they may be entitled to without further form-filling. However, we acknowledge that not all bereaved people find it possible to claim as promptly as the current rules for the lump-sum Bereavement Payment require. To simplify matters further, we are extending the time limit for claiming Bereavement Payment and aligning it with the period over which a person can receive Bereavement Allowance—namely 12 months. We see this as a sensible alteration that will simplify the scheme for everyone while remaining compatible with underlying benefit entitlement rules.

  We intend to make this change effective for claims in respect of deaths that occur on or after 1 April 2003.

  Social Fund
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes he is making to the discretionary social fund. [77805]

  Malcolm Wicks
  My right hon. Friend will be making a number of minor changes to the discretionary social fund, with effect from 28 October 2002. The changes to the fund are minor clarifications of guidance and directions, and, in the main, are consequential to legislative changes being made in respect of other social security benefits.

  Details of the changes have been placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many deductions from earnings 484W
  orders have been made in Portsmouth, South by the CSA since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [73876]

  (2) how many cases the CSA has handled in Portsmouth, South since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [73878]

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

  Letter to Mr. Mike Hancock from Mr. Mike Isaac dated October 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by the Agency's Chief Executive. I am replying on his behalf.
  You ask two questions:
  how many cases the Child Support Agency has handled in Portsmouth South since 1997
  how many deductions from earnings orders have been made in Portsmouth South by the Child Support Agency since 1997
  Since 1997 approximately 4,300 Child Support Agency cases have been handled for the Portsmouth South area and 700 deduction from earnings orders have been made.

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many cases the CSA has handled in Paisley, North since 1997; [73668]

  (2) how many absent parents have refused to co-operate with the CSA since 1997; [73669]

  (3) how many deductions from earnings orders have been made in Paisley, North by the CSA since 1997. [73670]

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

  Letter to Mrs. Irene Adams from Mike Isaac dated October 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by the Agency's Chief Executive. I am replying on his behalf.
  You ask three questions:
  how many cases the Child Support Agency has handled in Paisley North since 1997
  how many absent parents have refused to co-operate with the Child Support Agency since 1997
  how many deductions from earnings orders have been made in Paisley North by the Child Support Agency since 1997
  Since 1997 approximately 2,100 Child Support Agency cases have been handled for the Paisley North area and 400 deduction from earnings orders have been made.
  I'm sorry that the information you request on non-resident parents who refuse to co-operate is not available.

  "Opportunity for All"
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and if he will provide a breakdown of the estimates in "Opportunity for All" of the proportion of men and women who contributed to a non-state pension in recent groups of years by income band. [74841]
  485W
  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of Working-age Individuals Contributing to a Non-state Pension in at Least Three Out of Four Years by Equivalised Income Quintiles (20 per cent. band) (Great Britain)

  Percentage of working-age individuals

  Source: BHPS

  Bottom Quintile

  Second Quintile

  Third Quintile

  Fourth Quintile

  Top Quintile

  All

  All

  1992–95

  15

  8

  16

  24

  36

  100

  1993–96

  14

  9

  17

  24

  37

  100

  1994–97

  13

  9

  17

  26

  35

  100

  1995–98

  11

  11

  17

  26

  35

  100

  1996–99

  9

  10

  19

  27

  35

  100

  1997–2000

  7

  10

  19

  27

  38

  100

  Males

  1992–95

  16

  9

  17

  25

  34

  100

  1993–96

  15

  10

  18

  23

  34

  100

  1994–97

  13

  10

  18

  25

  33

  100

  1995–98

  11

  11

  18

  26

  34

  100

  1996–99

  9

  11

  20

  27

  34

  100

  1997–2000

  7

  10

  20

  27

  35

  100

  Females

  1992–95

  15

  6

  16

  24

  40

  100

  1993

  96

  13

  7

  14

  26

  40

  100

  1994–97

  12

  8

  15

  28

  37

  100

  1995–98

  10

  10

  16

  27

  37

  100

  1996–99

  8

  9

  18

  27

  37

  100

  1997–2000

  6

  9

  18

  27

  41

  100

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) data set. The BHPS is a longitudinal data set developed at the University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research The latest data available is for the period 1997 to 2000.

  2. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. The income measure used is total equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  Employment Rights (EU)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what restrictions exist on the rights of citizens from an EU country to work in any other EU country. [75627]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Free movement of people is one of the four freedoms within the internal market of the European Union. Within the Free Movement Title of the EC Treaty, Article 39 states that free movement of workers "shall be secured within the Community". This means that workers of the Member States are free to accept offers of employment actually made in another Member State, and to remain in another Member State for the purposes of carrying out employment. However, Article 39 does not apply to employment in the public service.

  The main EU Regulation giving effect to free movement rights for workers of EU Member States is EEC Regulation 1612/68. This guarantees migrant workers equality of treatment with nationals of the host country in respect of:
  The right to take up an activity as an employed person
  The right to negotiate and conclude an employment contract
  Full and free access to the host country labour market
  Assistance from public employment offices
  Engagement and recruitment conditions
  486W
  Conditions of employment and conditions governing reemployment, social and tax advantages, vocational training, retraining, and clauses contained in collective or individual contracts of employment
  Membership of trade unions and the exercise of rights attaching thereto
  Housing; and
  Access of children to education and vocational training.

  The Regulation guarantees, subject to certain conditions, the right of the migrant worker's family to live in the host country.

  Nevertheless, provided they fulfil their obligations under EU legislation, Member States can and do place restrictions on the free movement rights of EU citizens, in particular:
  Article 39(3) of the EC Treaty allows Member States in some circumstances to restrict the movement and residence of workers on the grounds of "public policy, public security or public health";
  in relation to requirements to hold professional qualifications.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what sanctions his Department has imposed upon the company responsible for managing the Benefits Agency's medical services tests of disabled and sick benefit recipients during the last three years for which records are available. [76090]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Service credits for failure by the Department's medical services provider to meet contractual targets have been applied in each of the last three years. Precise details are commercial in confidence and are not disclosed under part 2, paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Pensions (Married Women)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to review the operation of pension entitlement for married women who have paid national insurance contributions at the reduced rate where no official advice was given as to the consequences of exercising this option. [76817]

  Mr. McCartney
  In order to pay the reduced rate contribution, married women had to complete a form CF9 which was attached to leaflet NI1 (National Insurance for married women). This leaflet explained the consequences of the choice. In particular, it explained that the choice could affect future entitlement to benefit, including Retirement Pension. In addition, they had to sign a statement that they had read and understood the leaflet.

  The option to pay the reduced rate was withdrawn in 1977 but those who were already paying the reduced rate were allowed to continue to do so with the option to revoke it at any time. This was widely publicised. Following the restructuring of National Insurance contributions in 1989, the Department again ran a publicity campaign to inform married women paying the reduced rate contribution that they could be paying more in reduced rate contributions than if they paid the standard rate.
  487W
  This campaign also reminded them that they could revoke their option to pay the reduced rate. In October 2000, they were again advised, following changes to the structure of the National Insurance scheme, to reconsider their choice to pay the reduced rate contribution.

  We therefore have no plans to review the position.

  Pension Benefits
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of (i) state pensions, (ii) MIG, (iii) attendance allowance and (iv) winter fuel payments in (A) Perth constituency, (B) Scotland and (C) the rest of the UK. [76909]

  Mr. McCartney
  Such information as is available is shown in the table using figures for England and Wales in place of the rest of the UK.

  Total Number of Pensioners in Receipt of: (i) State Pensions; (ii) MIG; (iii) Attendance Allowance; and (iv) Winter Fuel Payments

  Benefit

  Perth (000s)

  Scotland (000s)

  England and Wales (000s)

  State Pension

  16.0

  911.7

  9,344.4

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  2.3

  182.7

  1,563.4

  Attendance Allowance

  2.4

  129.8

  1,158.4

  Winter Fuel Payments

  17.2

  996.6

  10,205.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures for State Pension, MIG and Attendance Allowance are based on 5 per cent. samples and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Figures for Winter Fuel Payments are based on a 100 per cent. sample.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands

  4. Parliamentary Constituencies have been assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant postcode directory.

  5. Figures for State Pension are for individuals of pension age.

  6. Figures for MIG are for benefit units where the man and/or woman are aged 60 and over.

  7. Figures for Attendance Allowance are for men and women aged 65 and over.

  8. Figures for Winter Fuel Payments are for men and women aged 60 and over.

  Sources:

  State Pension—Pensions Strategy Computer System, September 2001.

  Minimum Income Guarantee—Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2002.

  Attendance Allowance—AA/DLA computer system, May 2002.

  Winter Fuel Payments—Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment 2001/02 exercise.

  Asylum Seekers (Disability Status)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information he collates on the disability status of asylum seekers. [76412]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 3 April 2000, the Home Office, through the National Asylum Support Service, has been responsible for supporting and accommodating asylum seekers awaiting a determination of their case. Information on the number of those asylum seekers who report a health condition or disability is not collected centrally.
  488W
  Those asylum seekers in receipt of benefits prior to 3 April 2000 continue to be eligible to claim Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Of the 8,700 asylum seekers receiving Income Support in May 20021, 400 received a disability premium.

  Source:

  1 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2002.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases where care and mobility needs have not changed the disability living allowance periodic inquiry has resulted in lower entitlement with reference to the results from the first two years of periodic inquiry. [76814]

  Maria Eagle
  In the first two years of periodic enquiry, 33091 customers had their benefit entitlement checked. Of these, 9192 resulted in a change of entitlement, of which 6803 (74 per cent.) had their awards increased and 2389 (26 per cent.) had their award decreased.

  Of the 9192 cases where entitlement changed, 2326 were due to factors other than a relevant change in their care or mobility needs, but it is not possible to say from the available data how many of these resulted in higher or lower awards of benefit.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the procedures are for obtaining a national insurance number for adults who have entered the UK(a) legally, (b) illegally and (c) on claiming asylum [72127]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The National Insurance number (NINO) allocation process for persons from abroad is known as the Enhanced NINO Process and is administered by Jobcentre Plus. The process involves a rigorous face to face interview, scrutiny of supporting documentation, and corroborative checks made on the information provided prior to the allocation of a NINO. The process applies to all foreign nationals requiring a NINO. Anyone actively seeking work may apply for a NINO regardless of their immigration status. If during the allocation process suspicions are raised as to the legitimacy of an individual's right to be in the country, the case is referred to the Department's National Identity Fraud Unit for further action. Upon arrival in this country asylum seekers are initially supported by the Home Office National Asylum Support Service. Contact with this Department for the allocation of a NINO will therefore not normally take place until a decision has been made by the Home Office on the person's application for asylum. Once this has taken place (or if the person has been in the country for more than 6 months and is still awaiting a decision), an application for a NINO can be made through the Enhanced NINO Process.
  489W

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will direct HM Treasury to reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, which he sent the Department for response with regard to Ms E. Harding and Mrs. I. O'Neill. [74861]

  The Prime Minister
  The Economic Secretary replied to the right hon. Member on 11 October in respect of Mrs. O'Neill. I understand that the Treasury is looking into the matter of Ms Harding's correspondence and will be contacting the right hon. Member shortly.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the amount spent by local authorities on bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless people in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [76406]

  Mrs. Roche
  Latest available information is published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in their report "Homelessness Statistics 2000–01 Actuals". Total estimated expenditure by local authorities in each of the past five years, based on information supplied to CIPFA, was as follows:

  Local Authority Expenditure on Bed & Breakfast Provision: England

  Gross £m

  Net £m

  1996–97

  51,190,208

  17,483,026

  1997–98

  56,689,680

  24,075,766

  1998–99

  117,837,868

  53,840,470

  1999–00

  151,651,900

  70,804,741

  2000–/01

  178,222,459

  80,466,675

  Notes:

  B&B accommodation includes privately owned or managed hotels/guest houses with some shared facilities, but excludes hotel annexes of self-contained accommodation where meals are not provided.

  Expenditure excludes any apportionment of central or departmental administration. Net expenditure takes into account income arising from charges to clients, and housing benefit subsidy.

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Homelessness Statistics—"Actuals" annual reports.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Bed and Breakfast Unit in reducing the number of homeless families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. [76405]

  Mr. McNulty
  The most recent statistics on statutory homelessness showed that numbers of families with children in B&B at the end of June 2002 remained at around 6,700, the same as the equivalent figure for the end of March 2002.
  490W
  In March 2002 a £35 million programme was launched to help local authorities ensure that by March 2004 no homeless family with children is in a Bed and Breakfast hotel other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than 6 weeks. The Bed and Breakfast Unit has now funded the 44 authorities with the highest number of families with children in B&B to implement Bed and Breakfast Action Plans and will be monitoring progress closely.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to use the actual costs incurred by schools in delivering education to their pupils as the principal determinant of the distribution of funding to local education authorities; and if he will make a statement. [76263]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Funding will be distributed to Local Education Authorities in 2003–04 on the basis of a per-pupil amount plus top-ups for additional educational needs and area costs. The per-pupil amount will be determined by deducting the top-ups from the overall sum available and our aim will be to judge the right balance between these elements.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when PPG7 was last redrafted; when he expects to publish the new draft of PPG7; and why a redraft of PPG7 is needed. [76666]

  Mr. McNulty
  The current version of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (PPG7),The Countryside, was published in February 1997, although some aspects of the guidance have been updated since. PPG7 will be replaced by a new planning policy statement (PPS) in line with the proposals set out in last year's Planning Green Paper, Planning: delivering a fundamental change, and confirmed in our paper, Sustainable Communities—delivering through planning, published on 18 July. We expect to publish a draft PPS7 for public consultation in 2003.

  Affordable Housing
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the use by Wandsworth Borough Council of section 106 agreements to require affordable housing on site by developers within the borough. [76230]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. However, the Government takes its affordable housing policy as well as any available section 106 agreements into account as material considerations, in deciding whether planning applications should be called in for inquiry.

  Local Government Act
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many individual applications he has received from local authorities under sections two and five of the Local Government Act 2000; [76316]
  491W
  (2) how many individual applications from local authorities under sections two and five of the Local Government Act 2000 have been determined by his Department to date; [76315]

  (3) what mechanisms his Department has in place for dealing with applications from local authorities under sections two and five of the Local Government Act 2000. [76317]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received enquiries about possible use of section 5 Orders in respect of legislation that is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from Camden, Shepway, Southampton and Watford. None of these enquiries have yet resulted in an Order being laid. In one case the request has been superseded by other de-regulatory measures.

  Procedures for applying for orders made under Section 5 of the Local Government Act 2000 are set out the guidance on the operation of the well being powers published in March 2001. Authorities are also able to discuss the potential use of Section 5 orders in the course of negotiating Local Public Service Agreements. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister considers any applications which relate to legislation for which it has responsibility and provides advice to other departments as necessary.

  Milton Keynes and South Midlands
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to advertise the conclusions of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Regional Growth Study. [76839]

  Mr. Raynsford
  During the Course of the study there have been a number of events to keep the relevant parties informed of progress. In addition a series of factsheets was published on the web sites of the regional planning bodies and the Government Office for the South East. The study report was launched by my right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker on 18 September 2002 at a conference of key stakeholders including representatives of local authorities, other Government agencies and community bodies including CPRE, education establishments and voluntary organisations. Copies of the summary report were distributed at the launch event and a copy of the full report has been sent to each organisation represented. All local MPs and local authorities have received a copy of the full report and it is available on the web site of the Government Office for the South East and those of the three regional planning bodies.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has for public consultation about the recommendations of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Regional Growth Study; [76847]

  (2) what plans he has to carry out a public examination of the conclusions of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Regional Growth Study. [76840]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I understand that the regional planning bodies are currently considering how to take account of the conclusions of the study as part of the process of updating regional planning policy guidance.
  492W

  Reoffending
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he has taken to implement the recommendations relevant to his Department of the Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners." [76805]

  Mrs. Roche
  Responsibility for co-ordinating action to implement the recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners" rests with the Home Office, where a new unit, the Adult Offenders Rehabilitation Unit has been set up. This unit will, in due course, produce an action plan detailing how the recommendations will be taken forward. The Social Exclusion Unit remains fully involved in monitoring and facilitating progress through its implementation team.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how much public money has been used for the purposes of settlements and payments relating to(a) redundancy and (b) termination of contracts for employees of the New Deal for Communities in the last five years. [75965]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the last five financial years, £4,000 of New Deal for Communities (NDC) grant has been used for the purpose of terminating contracts of employment. This occurred in year 2001–02, and was spent by the Clapham Park NDC in Lambeth. No NDC grant has been spent on payments relating to redundancy in the last five financial years.

  In total, £2 billion has been made available to the 39 NDC Partnerships over the 10 year lifetime of the programme. The individual Partnerships have grants of between £30m and £61m.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74985]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made use of focus group research on two occasions since June 2001.

  In March 2002, we commissioned a research paper on "Community Perceptions of Forced Marriage". It looks at the perceptions of forced marriage held by British Bangladeshis and Pakistanis of different generations and social backgrounds. We paid Professor Yunas Samad (University of Bradford) and Professor John Eade (University of Roehampton) a total of £30,000. They made extensive use of focus groups in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. The results of the research will be published on 12 November 2002. The paper will be available in hard copy and on the FCO website.
  493W
  Separately, in July 2002, ICM Research carried out four focus groups for the FCO on attitudes to Britain's membership of the European Union. The total cost was £10,575. The exercise formed part of an FCO internal research project and the participants were informed that their contributions would be treated in confidence. The results will therefore not be published.

  Guyana
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has met with political party leaders in Guyana recently to discuss the political situation there. [75108]

  Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) regularly engages with Guynanese politicians about the political situation in Guyana. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Jagdeo and the leader of the oppostition, Desmond Hoyte, in Guyana in April this year to discuss the political situation. My noble Friend Baroness Amos met President Jagdeo in April and May, and, again, most recently during his visit to London in September. We keep in close contact with Guyanese politicians through our High Commissioner in Georgetown.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in negotiating the allocation and distribution of oil revenues in the peace talks between the Government of Sudan and the SPLM. [74897]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Sudanese parties, mediators and observers at the peace talks have agreed that all briefing on the substance of the talks should be done by the Kenyan Special Envoy, Lt General Lazaro Sumbeiywo. We are therefore unable to comment on the progress of the discussions on wealth sharing.

  Child Abduction
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many children were abducted from the UK in October. [75654]

  Mr. MacShane
  The total number of children reported as abducted from the United Kingdom in the period 1–17 October is three.

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the British Embassy in Cairo is no longer accepting applications for family reunion from Somali nationals. [76530]

  Mr. MacShane
  The designated entry clearance posts for Somali nationals are Nairobi and Addis Ababa. Cairo does accept applications from Somali nationals for family reunion, but only from those who can show they are resident in Egypt.

  Public Bodies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people 494W
  are employed by the (a) Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine and (b) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment; what their roles and terms of reference are; and what their annual budget for each year since 1997–98 was and their projected budget for the coming year. [75972]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine does not employ personnel. The Committee is composed of four appointed Masters of Wine and a Chairman who give their time without remuneration. A civil servant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acts as Secretary to the Committee. The roles of members of the Committee and terms of reference are defined in its Annual Reports, available in the library of the House. The Committee is advisory and holds no budget.

  The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) is within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. However, I understand that there are 36 people currently employed by CABE. Their roles are detailed in CABE's Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02 which is in the libraries of both Houses. CABE does not have formal terms of reference but its vision and objectives are set out in its Annual Report.

  CABE was established in 1999 and its annual budget since then has been:

  1999–2000: £3,330,000

  2000–2001: £1,530,000

  2001–2002: £1,538,000

  2002–2003: £3,500,000

  Projected Budget for 2003–4 is £3,500,000.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the performance of the(a) Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine and (b) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment; what performance targets he has set; what reports were published on their performance in the last three years; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75973]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine is an advisory Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB). Its members give their time voluntarily and meet only on four half days each year. Members are bound by the Terms of Reference of the Committee, against which they have and continue to deliver the highest quality advice on wines and cellar-management. The terms of reference of the Committee are included in the annual report of the Committee, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) is within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport but the FCO collaborates closely with it. However, I understand that the Secretary of State reviews CABE's performance through the following review meetings:
  January/February: Ministerial endorsement and signing of funding agreement

  495W
  May/June: Review of performance in previous financial year
  November/December: Mid-year review of performance.

  CABE published an Annual Report and Accounts for 2000–01 and 2001–02, copies of which have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new action he plans to take to protect the interests of UK citizens who are in detention in Indonesia. [76318]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are currently 7 British citizens detained in Indonesia. Consular staff will continue to provide all possible consular assistance to the detainees and to monitor the situation to ensure their continued safety.

  International Fund for Animal Welfare
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. [76093]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) leads on environment issues. All recent representations from IFAW have been passed to Defra for action.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been to European Union sanctions against Zimbabwe. [76676]

  Peter Hain
  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the Council of the European Union adopted Common Position 2002/600/CFSP on 22 July 2002 extending the list of individuals subject to an EU travel ban and asset freeze from 20 to 72. The extension highlights the collective responsibility borne by the ruling Zanu-PF elite for the continued deterioration in the situation in Zimbabwe. The Council subsequently adopted Decision 2002/754/CFSP on 13 September extending to 79 the list of individuals subject to the measures to take account of changes to the Zimbabwean Government announced on 26 August 2002.

  Somalia and Angola
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been to the United Nations sanctions against(a) Somalia and (b) Angola (UNITA). [76677]

  Peter Hain
  (a) With the support of HMG the United Nations Security Council on 22 July 2002 adopted resolution 1425 (2002) consolidating and strengthening the arms embargo against Somalia. In addition to arms the embargo now also applies to the direct or indirect supply to Somalia of technical advice, financial and
  496W
  other assistance, and training related to military activities. The resolution reflects the ongoing threat to peace security caused by the conflict in Somalia.

  (b) On 15 August the United Nations Security Council, with HMG's support, adopted resolution 1432 (2002). The resolution suspends for a further ninety days the travel ban on designated members of UNITA, established pursuant to resolution 1127 (1997). The suspension of the travel ban will allow UNITA officials to participate fully in the peace process.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of all(a) reports produced by and (b) communications with The United Nations Inspection Body for Iraq, since the end of 1998. [75869]

  Mr. MacShane
  UNMOVIC's reports are available on the UNMOVIC website (http://www.un.org/Depts/ unmovic/index.htm).

  The Government
  has been in routine contact with UNMOVIC over the organisation of the advanced training courses for UNMOVIC inspectors which it has funded. Officials also have regular contact with staff of UNMOVIC in New York, as we do with other UN organisations. The Director-General of UNMOVIC Dr. Hans Blix has visited the UK on a number of occasions since UNMOVIC was established, and has held discussions with officials and Ministers. The content of such exchanges is confidential. (Code of Practice on access to Government Information Part 2 Exemption 1a, information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence). Although Dr. Blix has made himself available for media interviews and meetings.

  Ms Atherton
  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. [77621]

  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 laboratory equipment to UNESCO for use by the Suleymaniyah Technical Institute in Northern Iraq. The export included potassium cyanide and hydrofluoric acid which are subject to the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000 as amended. HMG is confident that there is no proliferation threat associated with this export.

  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.
  497W

HEALTH

  Specialised Services Commissioning
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results and conclusions of the consultation on Specialised Services Commissioning by PCTs and strategic health authorities will be made available. [74962]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responses to the consultation on commissioning arrangements for specialised services are still coming in. I will be considering the responses and expect to reach conclusions on the way forward by the turn of the year.

  Cancer Care
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cancer consultants there are

  Hospital Medical Consultants in the Cancer Specialties by Strategic Health Authority each Year1

  numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  March 20021

  England

  3,160

  3,270

  3,360

  3,530

  3,720

  3,860

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire

  130

  140

  130

  150

  170

  190

  Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire

  90

  100

  90

  90

  90

  100

  Birmingham & The Black Country

  150

  150

  160

  160

  180

  180

  Cheshire & Merseyside

  170

  180

  190

  200

  200

  210

  Country Durham & Tees Valley

  60

  70

  70

  70

  70

  70

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire

  90

  90

  100

  90

  100

  100

  Cumbria & Lancashire

  100

  110

  110

  110

  110

  100

  Dorset & Somerset

  70

  70

  70

  80

  80

  80

  Essex

  70

  70

  70

  70

  80

  80

  Greater Manchester

  210

  200

  210

  210

  220

  230

  Hampshire & Isle of Wight

  110

  120

  120

  130

  150

  160

  Kent & Medway

  80

  80

  80

  90

  90

  90

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire & Rutland

  80

  80

  90

  90

  100

  100

  Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambridgeshire

  160

  170

  180

  190

  190

  200

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  80

  90

  100

  90

  110

  110

  North Central London

  150

  160

  170

  150

  170

  180

  North East London

  70

  70

  80

  80

  110

  120

  North West London

  210

  200

  190

  230

  230

  240

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  120

  130

  120

  130

  150

  150

  Shropshire & Staffordshire

  70

  70

  70

  80

  80

  80

  South East London

  130

  140

  140

  140

  170

  170

  South West London

  70

  90

  100

  100

  110

  110

  South West Peninsula

  90

  80

  80

  100

  100

  110

  South Yorkshire

  90

  90

  100

  110

  110

  110

  Surrey & Sussex

  150

  150

  140

  150

  150

  160

  Thames Valley

  150

  150

  160

  170

  170

  190

  Trent

  150

  160

  160

  170

  150

  150

  West Yorkshire

  170

  170

  180

  170

  180

  190

  Special Hospitals

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Blood authority

  —

  20

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Notes:

  1Data for 1997 to 2001 is at 30 September, 2002 data is at 31 March.

  "*" denotes five or less than five

  "—" denotes zero

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.
  498W
  (a) with the NHS and (b) broken down by health authority; and what the figures were for each year since 1997; [75780]

  (2) how many (a) lung, (b) breast, (c) prostate, (d) ovarian and (e) leukaemia cancer specialists there are within the NHS; and what the figures were for each year since 1997. [75786]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of lung, breast, prostate, ovarian and leukaemia cancer specialists within the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

  The Department collects data on the number of consultants within medical oncology, clinical oncology, histopathology, clinical radiology, haematology and palliative medicine. Collectively, these are referred to as the cancer specialties.

  Data relating to the total number of cancer specialist consultants in England and by Strategic Health Authority are shown in the following table.
  499W
  The number of cancer specialists employed in the NHS is growing. As at March 2002, there were 3,860 cancer specialists (rounded to the nearest 10). This represents an increase of 22 per cent. since September 1997.

  Medical Degrees
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding available for medical related degrees. [75094]

  Mr. Hutton
  The service increment for teaching reimburses National Health Service organisations the additional costs they incur as result of providing a clinical setting for medical and dental undergraduate students' training. £585 million was made available for this in 2002–03 and included additional funds to support increased numbers of medical and dental students. Between 1999 and 2001 the higher education funding council (HEFCE) allocated 57 per cent. more medical school places to higher education institutions in England. Actual training costs are met by HEFCE, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) number of residential care homes that have closed and (b) number of residential care home beds lost in Torbay in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [74854]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of residential care homes that have closed and care home beds lost is not centrally available.

  The number of residential care homes and care home beds in Torbay Unitary Authority is shown in the table at 31 March for the years 1999 to 2001. Data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Number of Residential Care Homes and Care Home beds in Torbay Unitary Authority at 31 March, 1999 to 2001

  As at 31 March

  Care homes

  Care home beds

  1999

  205

  2,850

  2000

  195

  2,825

  2001

  190

  2,705

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) private and (b) local authority care homes for the elderly have (i) opened and (ii) closed in each year since 1997 in (A) England and (B) West Sussex. [76914]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally. The table below shows the number of registered and local authority residential care homes for the elderly in England and West Sussex for the years 1997 to 2001.

  Number of Registered and Local Authority Residential Care Homes for the Elderly 1 at 31 March, 1997 to 2001

  At 31 March

  Registered care homes2

  Local authority care homes

  England

  West Sussex

  England

  West Sussex

  1997

  11,340

  315

  1,500

  25

  1998

  10,740

  305

  1,465

  20

  500W

  Number of Registered and Local Authority Residential Care Homes for the Elderly1 at 31 March, 1997 to 2001

  At 31 March

  Registered care homes2

  Local authority care homes

  England

  West Sussex

  England

  West Sussex

  1999

  10,450

  290

  1,355

  20

  2000

  9,845

  275

  1,270

  20

  2001

  9,345

  275

  1,190

  15

  Notes:

  1 Elderly includes all older people aged 65 or more and older mentally infirm people

  2 Registered homes includes voluntary, private and small homes.

  3 Data is rounded to the nearest 5

  Data on nursing homes does not distinguish age of client. The table below shows the total number of private general and mental nursing homes in England and West Sussex for the years 1997 to 2001. There are no local authority nursing homes.

  Number of Registered Nursing Care Homes2 at 31 March, 1997 to 2001

  At 31 March

  England

  West Sussex

  1997

  5,570

  ..

  1998

  5,785

  175

  1999

  5,690

  170

  2000

  5,440

  150

  2001

  5,215

  140

  Notes:

  1".." indicates data is not available.

  2 Nursing homes includes general and mental nursing homes.

  3 Data is rounded to the nearest 5.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places in care homes for the elderly there were in West Sussex in each year since 1997. [76915]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of residential and nursing care home places for the elderly in West Sussex is shown in the table at 31 March for the years 1997 to 2001. Data for 2002 is not yet available.

  Number of Residential and Nursing1 Care Home Places for the Elderly in West Sussex2 at 31 March, 1997 to 2001

  As at 31 March

  Residential

  Nursing

  All homes

  1997

  5,795

  ..

  ..

  1998

  5,530

  ..

  ..

  1999

  5,435

  ..

  ..

  2000

  5,345

  4,100

  9,445

  2001

  5,435

  3,915

  9,355

  Notes:

  1 ".." indicates data are not available.

  2 The breakdown of the number of nursing beds for the elderly was not provided by the Health Authority for the years 1997 to 1999.

  3 Residential data refer to West Sussex County; nursing data refer to West Sussex Health Authority.

  Mental Health Services
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that psychiatric patients in the community take their medicines. [75480]

  Jacqui Smith
  Development of robust community-based mental health provision is the key to ensuring that patients adhere to their care plans.
  501W
  The NHS Plan pledged to establish a total of 220 assertive outreach teams by December 2003. There are 180 teams in operation at present. These teams provide services to people with a mental illness in the community who have difficulty engaging with mainstream mental health services.

  Another NHS Plan initiative is to create crisis resolution teams which provide intensive support for people in a mental health crisis in their own homes. These teams are designed to offer prompt and effective home treatment, including medication, in order to prevent hospital admissions. A total of 335 crisis resolution teams will be established by 2004 when all people in contact with specialist mental health services will be able to access crisis resolution teams at any time.

  Although, community-based teams can support and encourage patients to adhere to their care plans, they currently cannot compel them to do so. The draft Mental Health Bill contains proposals so that patients who meet the criteria for treatment under compulsion might remain at home, supported by an outreach service, rather than having to be detained in hospital. Patients will not be forcibly treated in their own homes. These patients will be subject to conditions authorised by the independent mental health tribunal to ensure that they comply with their individual care plan, including where necessary taking medication.

  NHS Hospital Trusts
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the English hospital trusts that fall under two or more PCTs. [75478]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) have the freedom to commission services from wherever they can to obtain the best services for their patients. It is likely that the majority of National Health Service trust hospitals have more than one PCT that commissions care from them, although the precise figures are not collected centrally.

  Surgeons
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the new pay and conditions package will encourage surgeons to increase the number of operations that they carry out for the NHS. [74955]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposed new consultant contract is designed to provide a much more effective system of planning and time-tabling consultants' duties and responsibilities for the National Health Service in ways that best meet local service needs and priorities. Under the proposed arrangements, full-time consultants will typically devote at least seven out of a total of ten weekly programmed activities to direct clinical care. The new contract will also facilitate arranging extra consultant activity on a more planned and efficient basis.

  ME
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department categorises ME as a neurological illness. [76269]
  502W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not have its own system for categorising conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis in this way. However, it employs the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis appears in the current version, ICDߝ10, as a neurological illness.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to general practitioners about ME. [75976]

  Jacqui Smith
  Action on ME, a voluntary group active in this area, has recently produced guidance on the management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). We have brought this guidance to the attention of National Health Service chief executives through the CE Bulletin; and will be making reference to in the next issue of the GP Bulletin.

  The CFS/ME independent working group's report, which was published on 11 January 2002, has been placed on the Chief Medical Officer's web-site, so that it can be accessed by all interested parties including general practitioners.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many specialist centres for ME there are in the UK; [75975]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the care of people with ME in the community. [75974]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on local service configuration for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is not held centrally.

  Most cases of CFS/ME are managed in the community although general practitioners can refer patients for specialist opinion and advice where appropriate.

  ME is mainly managed in primary care. It is the responsibility of local primary care trusts to commission services for their local populations including those suffering from CFS/ME.

  Compulsory Treatment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the social and psychological effects on patients of compulsory treatment for(a) 72 hours, (b) 28 days and (c) a longer period. [76688]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has not recently made an assessment. The social services inspectorate's report Detained focused on the quality of service experienced by detained patients generally and in particular, the approved social worker's role. It was published in February 2001.

  NHS University
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed NHS University. [76411]

  Mr. Hutton
  Professor Bob Fryer CBE was appointed as Chief Executive of NHSU and Vice Chancellor designate of the proposed NHS University in February
  503W
  2002. NHSU is the body that has been set-up to prepare the establishment of a university for the National Health Service.

  NHSU is currently finalising a development plan for the NHSU setting out the vision for the university, as the basis for an extensive consultation exercise with the NHS and its partners, between November 2002 and January 2003. The plan will be widely distributed and a number of consultation events will be organised jointly with NHS workforce development confederations around the country.

  The NHSU will begin to work later next year.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason Wythenshawe Hospital scheduled an operation on Mr. S. Ford of Warrington at a time when the relevant consultant was known to be away; how many times this has happened to other patients in the last year; and what procedures will he put in place to prevent such occurences in the future. [76648]

  Jacqui Smith
  There was a breakdown in communication within the cardiac waiting list department. This was the first and only time such an incident has occurred. Staff have been reminded of the importance of informing the cardiac waiting list department in the event that a consultant is not available to cover the trans-oesophageal echo list.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask the Commission for Health Improvement to investigate(a) the procedures in place for monitoring the number of times patients have operations cancelled at Wythenshawe Hospital, (b) the procedures which are involved when the hospital cancels a patient's surgery more than once and (c) the system used for ensuring patients are notified of a new date for surgery within 28 days. [76646]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) has power to undertake special investigations into particular areas of concern in the delivery of health care. The Commission considers all such requests against six guiding principles which are set out in its,Policy on assessing requests for investigations and fast track clinical governance reviews, copies of which are available in the Library and on its website at www.chi.nhs.uk. These principles include situations where there has been an incident of great severity, where there is evidence of repeated service failure and where action by CHI could result in lessons for the whole of the National Health Service.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been waiting more than(a) three (b) six (c) nine (d)(e) 18 and (f) 24 months between (i) referral by a GP for a diagnostic test and (ii) referral by a consultant for a diagnostic test; and if he will make a statement. [75989]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of patients waiting for diagnostic tests. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any diagnostic test is dependent on their clinical condition.504W
  Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, however this is dependent on the clinical priority of all remaining patients waiting to have diagnostic tests.

  The NHS Cancer Plan set new targets to shorten the time patients have to wait for diagnosis and treatment. The first step in reducing cancer waiting times was the introduction of the two week waiting time standard form urgent general practitioner referral to outpatient appointment for cases of suspected breast cancer from April 1999. The two week standard was extended to all other urgent cases of suspected cancer during 2000. By 2005 there will be a maximum two month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment for all cancers.

  We are making unprecedented investment in the provision of new and replacement diagnostic equipment, improving the recruitment and retention of staff and streamlining the way care is delivered through the cancer services collaborative.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish guidance from his Department to NHS trusts and health authorities on the speed of processing of patients onto(a) inpatient and (b) outpatient waiting lists following (i) GP and (ii) consultant referral; and if he will make a statement. [76288]

  Mr. Hutton
  All guidance to the National Health Service is published in the NHS data dictionary/manual. This covers the relevant information on when a patient should appear on a waiting list and how a waiting time should be recorded.

  Patients are added to the inpatient elective admission list at the time there is a decision to admit the patient and the waiting time is calculated from that date. For first outpatient appointments the waiting time is calculated from the date the NHS trust receives the referral, except where a patient as been referred under the urgent cancer referral route, then the waiting time is calculated from the date the general practitioner decided to refer.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether endoscopy tests are included in the waiting list figures for(a) inpatients and (b) outpatients; what guidance has been issued to hospital trusts and health authorities about exclusion of endoscopies from waiting list statistics over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [75985]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on waiting times for consultant led inpatient elective admissions and consultant led first outpatient appointments, following a general practitioner referral, are collected on the consultant's main specialty not by procedure. Endoscopies can be recorded as either inpatients or outpatients depending on the setting in which the endoscope takes place. Guidance to this effect is available on the Department's web-site, at www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/frequentlyaskedquestions.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each English health authority and trust, the number of patients who have been waiting for more than six months to see a consultant, after having been referred by a consultant: and if he will make a statement. [75846]
  505W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: Data on consultant to consultant referrals are not centrally collected. Data on first general practitioner referrals to consultants are collected and published on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the length of the waiting lists for neurophysiology treatment in English hospitals. [75734]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The outpatient target, to have no over 26 week waiters following first outpatient appointment from a general practitioner referral by March 2002, was achieved for the specialty clinical neuro-physiology.

  In 2002ߝ3 the National Health Service is working to reduce maximum waiting times for first outpatient appointments from a GP referral from 26 weeks to 21 weeks.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting more than(a) six months and (b) 12 months as (i) in-patients and (ii) out patients in England as at (A) 31 March 1997 and (B) the latest date for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [75847]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The tables below show the number of patients still waiting for elective admission and a consultant outpatient appointment by length of time waiting at 31 March 1997 and the latest available date. Data are not collected on patients waiting over 12 months for a consultant outpatient appointment.

  Patients Waiting for Elective Admission: England(Responsible population based)

  months end

  over 6 months

  Patients Waiting over 12 months

  Mar-97

  283,866

  30,245

  Aug-02

  250,794

  18,234

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  Patients Waiting for First Consultant Outpatient Appointment Following GP Referral: NHS Trusts in England

  Month end

  Patients waiting over 26 weeks

  Mar-97

  70,689

  Jun-02

  1,145

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08

  Criminal Record Bureau
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have been employed in care homes before the Criminal Record Bureau checks have been completed; and if he will make a statement. [75572]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: This information is not collected by the Department or by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC), which is responsible for registering and inspecting all care homes in England.
  506W
  A new recruit's employment in a care home cannot be made permanent until satisfactory Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks have been completed. However, the NCSC is sympathetic to problems caused for providers by delays at the CRB in processing checks on new members of staff and it has published guidance to care home providers. The intention of the guidance is to enable providers to employ new members of staff before the completion of CRB checks provided the new recruit has applied for a CRB disclosure; that other checks into their background have been satisfactorily completed; and they are assigned to and supervised by, an established member of staff, pending satisfactory completion of the CRB check.

  Adoption
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many married couples seeking to adopt children(a) have not yet been assessed for suitability and (b) have been assessed as suitable, but have not yet adopted a child. [76693]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Spelthorne will receive a reply to his inquiries of the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust of 5 March on behalf of Mr. T Dartnell, a constituent, about his late wife. [74803]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit has requested a duplicate.

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former GPs have applied for the £10,000 welcome back initiative. [75564]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: It was announced on 24 September 2002 that the National Health Service general practitioner Golden Hello scheme would be extended to GPs returning to general practice. Details of how the scheme will be extended are currently being discussed with the profession. We expect to be able to launch the scheme this autumn, subject to the conclusion of these discussions. Payments will be backdated to 24 September.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP surgeries in England and Wales have(a) opened and (b) closed in each of the last five years. [75523]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested for England is not collected centrally. Questions relating to Wales are now matters for the devolved administration.
  507W

  Primary Care Trusts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the chief executives and chairmen of PCT's in England and Wales, and their respective remuneration. [75515]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the salaries of individual primary care trust chief executives is not available centrally.

  PCTs are required to disclose in their published accounts details of the remuneration of senior managers including the chief executive. Individuals may decline to give their consent to have this information published relying on the Data Protection Act 1998. In this case their decision to withhold the information should be disclosed in the published accounts.

  Salaries of primary care trust chief executives range from £78,625 to £107,500, however, in exceptional cases the figures paid may be lower or higher. A copy of the framework used to determine the salaries for primary care trust chief executives in 2002/2003 has been placed in the Library.

  The remuneration of chairs of primary care trusts in England is determined centrally. Chairs are paid at one of three levels—Band 1— £20,420: Band 2— £18,154; Band 3— £16,017. Details of the bandings for 2002ߝ2003 have been placed in the Library.

  A list of primary care trust chief executives and chairs will be placed in the Library.

  Information in respect of health bodies in Wales should be sought from the National Assembly for Wales.

  Overseas Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls the NHS Overseas Nurses Advice Line has received since it was established. [75562]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Since the NHS overseas nurses' advice line was established it has received 13 calls requesting advice.

  Adrenoleukodystrophy
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in England who have been diagnosed as having the adrenoleukodystrophy gene are being treated with Lorenzo's oil; [76032]

  (2) how many people in England have adrenoleukodystrophy. [76033]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 21 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is undertaking to ensure that the Working Time Directive is implemented for all NHS and social care staff. [75710]
  508W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The European Working Time Directive (EWTD) currently applies to all health and social care staff, with the exception of doctors in training.

  The Department issued guidance in Health Service Circular 1998/204, Working Time Regulations—Implementation in the NHS. It is for local National Health Service employers, within the guidelines issued by the Department, to conform to the legislation as an individual employer. In relation to the social care workforce, individual employers in the statutory, private and voluntary sectors are also required to conform to current legislation, assuming their responsibility as the employer.

  Doctors in training will come under the EWTD from August 2004, which will be introduced in stages with an initial maximum requirement of 58 hours reducing to 48 by 2009. The Department will be issuing guidance on implementation this autumn and is working with stakeholders including the medical Royal Colleges, British Medical Association, NHS Confederation and the service to ensure that effective solutions are developed. The Department is also funding a programme of pilot projects based in NHS trusts to develop and test innovative solutions to EWTD implementation. Full details of the pilot programme will be announced when the guidance is issued.

  Health and Social Care Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many re-assessments of entitlement to free continuing care his Department predicts as a result of implementation of section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 regarding the effect on entitlement to free continuing care; [76212]

  (2) what representations his Department has received on the implementation of section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 regarding the effect on entitlement to free continuing care. [76213]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 22 October 2002]: The implementation of section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 relates to National Health Service funded nursing care, not free continuing care. The guidance states that patients should have their need for registered nursing care reviewed and re-assessed three months after their placement in a nursing home; at least annually thereafter, or when there is a significant change in their condition. Entitlement to local NHS continuing health care criteria is the first consideration in any assessment by NHS nurses. I have received several representations in relation to the implementation of section 49.

  Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Lancashire and South Cumbria Strategic Health Authority received details of the proposed further distribution of additional CT scanners for their area of responsibility. [75983]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: Officials in the Department wrote to the chief executives

  509W
  of the strategic health authorities on 2 September 2002, requesting details of priority candidates for the proposed allocations of additional commuted tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging
  510W
  (MRI) scanners. The chief executive of the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority was included in this exercise together with all of the relevant leads from the cancer networks.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Courtown (Lord Saltersford)The Earl of Courtown (Lord Saltersford)—Took the Oath.

Pension Contributions: Tax Relief
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of tax relief on pension contributions accrues to the top 10 per cent of earners and whether they propose to reduce it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, estimates of the amount of relief accruing to the top 10 per cent of earners are not available. However, the Government estimate that more than half the tax relief given on pension contributions goes to higher rate taxpayers, who make up around 15 per cent of contributors.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will be aware of the ballpark estimate, which is widely quoted, that some 50 per cent of the £16 billion of tax relief each year on pension contributions accrues to the top 10 per cent of earners and that 25 per cent goes to the top 2.5 per cent. Does he agree that there is something topsy-turvy about that? Does he further agree that the Inland Revenue's contribution to that inequality is becoming unsustainable, not least because whereas taxpayers at the top executive level are able to take full advantage of the whole of their tax allowance, those at the standard rate—given current incentives—are unable or unwilling to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not recognise my noble friend's figures. I gave the latest available figures to answer his Question. It is certainly true that fewer than one in 20 employees put in the full amount that they could under approved pension schemes. As for his second question, which was about money going to well-off people, he will be aware that since 1989 there has been a cap on income that is acceptable for approved pension schemes. That cap is now £97,200. The very large sums going to directors in pension payments—such stories appear in the press—are normally at the expense of shareholders rather than taxpayers.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1997—these are the Inland Revenue's statistics—the tax paid by the top 10 per cent of taxpayers has risen from 48 per cent of the total tax take to 52 per cent of that total? Given that a major proportion of those people are employed in wealth creation, does he
1428
believe that there is any point at which the process might prove to be counterproductive or even perhaps appear to be unfair?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about pensions and the question of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is not about pensions. Yes, theoretically, if one projects any figures of that kind there will be an element of unfairness.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company pension fund. Is it still the Government's view—this arises from the earlier exchange—which was expressed in the 1998 Green Paper on partnership in pensions that the balance spent on pensions by the state and the private sectors will change from 60 per cent from the state sector and 40 per cent from the private sector to 40 per cent from the state sector and 60 per cent from the private sector; or is it now their view that the overall effect of their policy is to reverse that process, penalise people making private contributions of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord and move pensioners on to means-tested state benefits?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is fully entitled to remind us of the Green Paper of 1998. But as we have a pensions Green Paper coming out before the end of this year, which will cover exactly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I think it would be unwise of me to anticipate it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that withdrawing tax relief from middle income ranges—that is, for people paying income tax on salaries of £33,000 and above—would be counterproductive because that would mean that such people would cease to have much incentive to save for retirement? That was hinted at in the press. It is the Government's policy that people should be encouraged to save for retirement with stakeholder pensions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have seen the reports in the press. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear, we have no such plans.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it not remarkably natural that the people who pay most tax and the people who make the largest contributions to their future pensions will be those who get the most tax relief?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the opinions that will undoubtedly be fed into the Green Paper. I am not going to anticipate it.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in relation to pensions the single biggest problem area involves people at the poorer end of the income scale? In relation to that area, the Government's stakeholder pension is their principal solution. Does he accept that many life assurance companies and other companies

1429
no longer feel able to offer stakeholder pensions to poorer people because they would be no better off with a stakeholder pension than with the pension credit? Does he therefore accept that the Government's policies for poorer pensioners are a complete muddle?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about stakeholder pensions. It is not the case that stakeholder pensions are the only government policy. After all, the state second pension, which we introduced, covers 18 million people and by the end of June of this year, the stakeholder pension covered more than 1 million people. Those are successful and popular policies and they help the less-well-off people to whom the noble Lord referred.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is aware of the plight of steel workers in Cardiff at the Allied Steel and Wire plant, which has gone into liquidation. Some of those employees, who paid contributions for 20 or 30 years, will not, as I read the situation, receive a pension at all. What is the Government's view of that predicament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know the particular case to which my noble friend refers. If a company goes into liquidation, its pensioners are creditors and they have a right to expect some recompense. In any case, the pension fund is normally independent of the company's own balance sheet. I am surprised to hear what my noble friend said but I shall investigate and write to him about it.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, will the Government remember, in the forthcoming Green Paper, that pension contributions are paid out of taxed income and that pensions are taxed as well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is an element of inter-generational equity, which has been going for very many years. It was questioned only once, in a flurry of radicalism by Mr Peter Lilley before the 1997 election. That proposal did not receive much favour.

Specialist Schools
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many specialist schools there are and how many of those select their pupils wholly or partly on grounds of ability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, out of a total of 992 specialist schools, 47 grammar schools have specialist status. The department does not collect figures on partial selection by ability. Secondary schools are
1430
allowed to select up to 10 per cent of pupils by aptitude in a specialism, but we estimate that only 6 per cent of specialist schools use that right in whole or in part.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, can she give an absolute assurance that no selection by ability takes place at any of the schools now designated as specialist schools, beacon schools, city academies or any other proposed newly-designated school? These days, there are so many types of school that we have to make a comprehensive statement on them. Can my noble friend say what the Prime Minister meant by his recent remark:
"We are moving to the post-comprehensive era"?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very happy to explain to my noble friend that the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and all the associated regulations of which noble Lords will be well aware placed a ban on any new selection by ability other than for sixth-forms and for fair banding. Noble Lords will know that, in banding, pupils are tested and placed in ability bands with the aim of ensuring that pupils of all abilities are represented in a school's intake. As my noble friend knows, we allow schools with a specialism to give priority, to a level of 10 per cent of their intake, to pupils who have an aptitude in their specialist subjects.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was clear that we want to move into a world in which every child has the best possible education and that we should aim to achieve that in an equitable and fair way. Noble Lords will know that one way in which we seek to do so is by supporting our schools in recognising what unites them as well as what makes each of them special and different. We want to ensure that they have the opportunity to work with their young people in offering their specialism.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House the Government's prejudice against selection of children by ability?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are clear that selection by ability at age 11 left us with a number of problems. First, children who were not selected to go to grammar schools experienced a great sense of failure. Secondly, and more importantly, they did not have the educational opportunities that were open to grammar school students. In general, they did not have the opportunity to study for A-levels and to go to university unless, by chance, they opted out of the system. That makes no sense for individuals but, more importantly, it makes no sense for the economy of this country. If we are to compete in the global economy that we see before us, we must raise the standard of education of every person in this country to the highest possible level both

1431
for their personal fulfilment and for our economic fulfilment. That is why we are prejudiced against selection at age 11.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it must be the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the research work of Professor David Jesson. That work has indicated that, where children feel that their school is special in some sense, they perform better. That helps to support the noble Baroness's contention that specialist schools have some advantage. Nevertheless, is she also aware of Professor Jesson's work which shows that, the greater the variety of schools in a particular neighbourhood, the greater the social segregation of those schools? Therefore, why are the Government persisting in creating such a diversity of provision with advanced specialist schools, beacon schools and city academies in such neighbourhoods, when that will only create greater social segregation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Professor Jesson's work is an important contribution to the debate. I pay tribute to all the work that he has done over many years. In developing a system which thus far has created success for 50 per cent of our young people at the age of 16 or thereabouts in gaining five grades A to C at GCSE, we still have a situation where 50 per cent of our children do not attain to a level that we would like to see. Therefore, in considering what to do next, it is right and proper that we ask how we can make schools develop further. As head teachers have said to me when I have discussed this matter with them at secondary level, this is an opportunity for schools to move forward, to create specialisms and to label themselves not only as regards their similarities in offering excellence across the spectrum of ability but also as regards developing their differences and using those to help every young person in our school system.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does not the recent speech by the Prime Minister and the apparent change of attitude by the Government show that, with hindsight, they now recognise the grave damage which their assault on grammar schools and the removal of the assisted places scheme have done over the years? Does she accept that the victims of those policies were the bright children from poorer backgrounds who missed the opportunities available to them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe it is probably the case that many bright children from poorer backgrounds did not attain well because, on the basis of one test at age 11, it was decided that they could not attain any further. As the noble Lord will be aware, I rarely make any kind of party-political point, but I understand that more grammar schools were abolished under the Conservative government than was the case under the Labour Government.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, within the variety of schools that have been, or may be, established, none will carry the label "sink schools"—a label applied to some not very long ago?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. I believe that all noble Lords across the House—it is always my intention to unite the House and not divide it—will accept that we must move forward and ensure that every child who goes to a school receives the best possible education. We must also recognise that children's development is differential: they grow up and mature at different rates. We must ensure that our system is adaptable enough to give them the best possible opportunity at every stage of their lives.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have the Minister's officials given thought to the European experience, where differentiation of schools exists? That seems to suit people. Has she noticed that plumbers in Germany and Denmark put their qualifications on the side of their lorries? Vocational education is respected there. The comprehensive system has not respected vocational education and the Minister should give attention to that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I would consider that the grammar school system gave attention to vocational education. However, I agree with the noble Lord that vocational education is very important. That is why we introduced vocational GCSEs. It is also why, as I have said previously in your Lordships' House, it is important that we ensure that people who choose a vocational route—as I have said before, I include doctors in that—feel that they are pursuing a route as worthy and important as any other.

Urban Foxes
3.16 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they will give to people living in urban areas whose gardens are overrun by foxes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government recognise that urban foxes can present problems for people with gardens. Responsibility for fox control rests with property owners and occupiers, who may, of course, engage pest-control contractors to undertake the work. DEFRA's leaflet, Urban Foxes, provides advice to householders. It concentrates on preventing and reducing problems by, for example, housing pets securely, storing rubbish properly, the use of repellents and physical exclusion. As a last resort, foxes may legally be trapped in humane cages and humanely dispatched.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the current situation borders on the farcical? Foxes are being trapped in north London and released in south London. The DEFRA advice to which the noble Lord referred encompasses the building of electrified fences and detailed Boy's Own-type instructions for building elaborate cages. DEFRA has an ongoing dispute with the RSPCA about whether foxes should be trapped and released in the wild. Will the Government now sort out this muddle by issuing clear guidelines to local authorities in order to provide effective management of foxes in areas where local residents demand it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, prime responsibility for the control of all vermin, both rural and urban, rests with the occupier, householder or landowner. That is the case in relation to urban gardens and foxes. As to whether foxes are being transported against their will from north to south London, I am not sure. I believe that if I were a fox in north London, the leafy plains and delicious food in Dulwich would probably attract me without the need for me to be put into a cage.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that foxes are being transported—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend does not call in the hunt as that would cause the damage, upset and tremendous distress that is caused in rural areas when 50 hounds and their followers invade rural gardens in pursuit of their quarry.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when leaving my office late the other night I observed an urban fox in Smith Square outside the headquarters of DEFRA. I do not know whether it thought it was safe there. It struck me that the burghers of Westminster and Kensington probably would not favour the hunt coming across their pleasant gardens in order to destroy such vermin. The problem needs to be taken seriously, but is a question of pest control rather than legislation or government action.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that foxes are being transported from urban areas to rural areas in considerable quantities? I believe that that is an illegal activity and would ask the Minister to condemn it here and now to your Lordships' House. It is not only unfair to the urban fox finding itself in circumstances in which it cannot cope; it is also unfair to those managers of the countryside who have to deal with it and who, I can assure the House, have enough problems already.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not our advice that foxes should be transported from one area to another, whether from urban to rural areas or from north to south London. That is not a sensible way of trying to control foxes. As regards whether the problem is greater in rural or urban areas, statistics do not bear
1434
that out. However, the general indications are that urban fox populations are growing faster than rural fox populations, principally because they know where they can have access to food. It is important that we recognise that we are now dealing with foxes which are used to different kinds of habitat.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, unwisely, my wife left a pair of shoes outside our house last night? An urban fox in SW14, possibly released from north London, decided to chew them and they are now totally destroyed. That may suggest one word of advice for people living in urban areas.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hesitate to ask why the noble Lord's wife left her shoes outside in the first place. That seems to me most unwise in south London.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is there any reason why a householder should not shoot foxes in his garden?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that depends on whether one has a gun licence and on whether one can do so without causing danger or discomfort or seriously alarming one's neighbours. I referred to foxes being humanely dispatched. Normally that would mean shooting but carried out away from a suburban garden and not near other people.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that if hunting is abolished, the number of foxes in the countryside and in most urban areas will increase and that foxes will then suffer terribly because other methods of killing them will cause more cruelty than hunting?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far both I and other noble Lords have not dealt more generally with the issue of the regulation or banning of hunting. The evidence in that respect indicates that whatever one thinks of hunting, it results in the killing of only a small proportion of rural foxes.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept—he has done so already—that the number of urban foxes is increasing rapidly? My noble friend is right; they are being taken into the countryside and that has become a welfare problem because they cannot survive there. Does not the Minister think it is about time that his department instigated a method of controlling foxes in urban areas rather than leaving that to property owners, who cannot chase foxes round their gardens?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a government responsibility too far. We can give advice, support and information. However, I do not believe that a vigilante squad of DEFRA officials trying to find urban foxes would meet with the noble Baroness's approval.

Miners: Vibration White Finger Scheme
3.24 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the closing date for miners' widows to make claims for compensation under the vibration white finger scheme is imminent, and what steps they are taking to publicise this.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, back in her place.
In March this year the DTI announced that in line with the agreement signed between the department and solicitors acting for the claimants, we proposed to close the vibration white finger scheme on 31st October 2002. We have carried out two press campaigns during the past seven months with advertisements in both the national and regional press. The date has also been advertised in the DTI newsletter entitled Compensation for Miners, and on the department's coal health website. In addition, the cut-off date has been advertised on a regular basis by solicitors' firms in local papers.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is it not a matter of great concern that with days to go before the cut-off date, the Department of Trade and Industry has still not reached agreement on the posthumous VWF claims protocol? Further, is it not correct that the DTI has failed to advise widows of their eligibility to claim or that they must comply with the deadline? I acknowledge the points made by my noble friend regarding advertisements. However, such failure could mean history repeating itself. I refer to the situation regarding compensation in respect of chest diseases when such applications spiralled.
Does not the Minister think that the DTI could find itself in a position in which many miners' widows are denied their rightful compensation, as were the canteen ladies in the coal industry who missed out on thousands of pounds through no fault of their own?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not fully understand the first part of my noble friend's Question. However, I shall read Hansard and, if necessary, write to him. As regards widows, there has been a process for dealing with posthumous claimants with medical evidence ever since the inception of the claims handling arrangements three-and-a-half years ago. The difficulty has been with such claims in which there is no medical evidence.
We have always made clear that we would accept such claims, and for over a year there has been a form for registering them. We have procedures which have been agreed with claimants' solicitors. I do not think that that has been a problem in the submission of claims. Around 10,000 such claims have been received.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on 13th September Mr Brian Wilson, the Minister for energy, announced that
1436
150,000 claims under the VWF scheme had been received. Can the Minister indicate how long it will take for such claims to be processed and settled?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the majority of such claims have been processed and settled. At present the number of claimants is falling off. Where an assessment centre can handle, say, five claimants a day for testing and medical assessment, many now handle a much smaller number. That is not economical, and is not a good use of doctors, and medical technicians. That is why it is necessary, regrettably, to bring the scheme to a close, as was always planned.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, in the light of the remarks by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse, if there is the slightest possibility of a widow being denied a legitimate claim, why cannot we have a more flexible cut-off point than we have at present?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have explained why it would be a poor use of resources to carry on the scheme indefinitely. However, that does not mean that there is a denial of claims. This refers only to claims under the scheme. It is still possible for claims to proceed through the courts under common law provisions and there are solicitors available to see that that happens.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.29 p.m.
Report of Parts 3, 5 and 8 received.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
"ASYLUM SEEKER: RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT
(1) The following shall be inserted after section 95(11) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (persons for whom support may be provided)—
"(11A) A condition imposed under subsection (9) may not include any prohibition or restriction upon employment, paid or unpaid.
(11B) Nothing in subsection (11A) shall prohibit income derived from paid employment from being taken into account in assessing whether a person is destitute under sections 95 and 98 (temporary support) of this Act or sections 16 and 23 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002."
(2) The following shall be inserted after paragraph 21(2E) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (temporary admission or release from detention)—
"(2F) Where a person has been an asylum-seeker within the meaning of section 94 (interpretation of Part VI) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for more than six months, no restriction as to employment shall be made under this paragraph and any restrictions on employment already made in respect of that person shall be deemed to be lifted.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we read today's papers we read about the resignation of a Minister, perhaps more conscientious than some. The two things which seem to have brought her to grief are

1437
the haste in the introduction of AS-levels, and a rash pledge about the achievement of targets. Both those decisions were taken on the watch of Mr David Blunkett, now Home Secretary. The habit of legislating in haste is one from which Mr Blunkett does not seem to have recovered, as Amendment No. 6 in today's Marshalled List illustrates.
Amendment No. 1 concerns the withdrawal of the right to work. That was introduced not by legislation but by administrative fiat, as the Home Secretary perfectly properly could but should not therefore necessarily have done last July. The purpose of the amendment would be not to give an absolute right to work, but to restore the status quo ante-Blunkett—the right to work after six months.
In introducing this measure I believe that the Home Secretary has shot himself in the foot. First, he has the combination of the withdrawal of the right to work with a draconian series of measures entitling him to withdraw support. Those look to me suspiciously like the upper and the nether millstone.
Secondly, the Home Secretary talks continually about weakening the appeal of the extreme right. He does not seem to be very successful at it. The extreme right writes me a large number of letters, rather more about asylum than about gay rights. Over and over again the point that the extreme right makes is that asylum seekers are scroungers. Most of them do not know that for a long time they have not had the right to work for the first six months. I have succeeded with that point in reducing even a London taxi driver to silence. But I do not think that I can afford to campaign against the Home Secretary by taking every taxi in the British Isles.
So if asylum seekers continue to be unable to work after six months and continue to need to depend on whatever support the Home Secretary may graciously choose to give them, that point made by the extreme right can only have greater appeal than it does now. Furthermore, people tend to have an unreasonable desire to live. So if they have neither support nor the right to work, first they will fall for the temptation of illegal working. The report by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on the black economy shows that there are plenty of people ready to offer that work.
This measure will be a shot in the arm for the sex industry; and I did not say a shot of what. I am not known in the House as a campaigner against pornography. But I am I think known as one who objects passionately to the use of economic power to put a woman in a position where she has no choice but to work in the sex industry if she wishes to feed herself and her children. That I regard as an abuse. In the process, the Home Secretary will deprive his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of income from tax and national insurance, of which he needs rather more than it seemed he was likely to do a year ago. I do not think that that is very clever.
Finally, I shall not enter into the questions raised by St Thomas Aquinas about whether it is a sin for the destitute to steal from the rich in order to support
1438
themselves. I have never made my mind up on that one. But I am aware that we have a Prime Minister who came into office with a pledge to be tough on the causes of crime. I think that the withdrawal of the right to work from asylum seekers is a breach of that pledge. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I address the first part of the amendment. I have some difficulty understanding why those dealing with applications for support would need to impose conditions relating to employment when offering support. Other immigration legislation already provides powers to impose conditions relating to freedom to take up employment. We do not believe that we need more.
However, I well expect that the central thrust of the amendment is the second part. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, signalled his interest and concern in this matter before the Summer Recess when we were in Committee but without the opportunity to debate the matter. The amendment attempts to reintroduce the former employment concession for asylum seekers. The House will not be surprised to hear that we do not support that.
When we withdrew the concession in July this year, it was made clear that there was a strong concern for the need to prevent abuses of the asylum process. There is a perceived belief that those who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution but wish to come here for economic reasons are claiming asylum because they believe that this will allow them to work here. While that was not the case, we must take steps to ensure that people do not make fraudulent applications for asylum.
The Government, as the House knows, have announced plans to address skill shortages in the UK. Equally, we have made it clear that these must be seen as separate from asylum. We cannot have a situation where people claim to be asylum seekers for the first six months and economic migrants afterwards.
We believe that the amendment as worded is unworkable. All asylum seekers are issued with an application registration card or standard acknowledgement letter and both those documents state categorically whether or not the asylum seeker has permission to work. Unless an entirely new document is issued to every asylum seeker, covered by this amendment, no self-respecting employer would offer them employment.
The regulations are issued in respect of Section 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996. They specify the documents that an employer can rely on to establish a defence against prosecution under Section 8. These include documents that show the person has permission to work here. Employers would not be able to establish a satisfactory defence against prosecution were they to employ asylum seekers whose documents did not confer permission to work.
However, I do not wish to respond merely on the technicality of the amendment but more on the substance. The substance is that we continue to work

1439
to speed up the process of initial decision making. That means that few people should be waiting longer than six months for an initial decision. Therefore, in short, we do not believe that there is the problem which the amendment seeks to address.
The ending of the employment concession—Clause 54—will not result in destitution for anyone who has children under 18, as the position of families is protected under Clause 54, so they will be able to obtain NASS support, as we have indicated previously. For those reasons, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. Therefore, we invite the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to consider withdrawing it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I simply fail to understand why the Minister thinks that every asylum seeker who is still here after six months must necessarily be fraudulent. I fail to hear anywhere in the Minister's remarks any attempt to make a distinction between asylum seekers who are fraudulent and asylum seekers who are not. I have never been able to see how that distinction can be made before claims have been heard.
Essentially the Minister's objection is that it would involve the Government in issuing a piece of paper. I thought that government were rather good at issuing pieces of paper. In fact, I thought that was one of the few things that they were good at. I find this a rather surprising objection. I accept the point that support shall remain available for children, but the Minister did not, I think, hear the debate yesterday on Amendment No. 109 of the Adoption and Children Bill. The question was raised of separating children from their families, which is, first contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; secondly, contrary to the Children Act 1989; and, thirdly, is not good policy.
I do not see how that pledge to support the children but not the grown-ups can be implemented without breach of those perfectly serious conditions. Under the Bill, especially in conjunction with later amendments, on which I shall not now dwell, some people will receive no support and have no right to work. I draw the Minister's attention to the Labour Party manifesto for the most recent election, which contained the pledge to reduce rough sleeping on the streets. I cannot see how that is compatible with the withdrawal of the right to work from asylum seekers, of whom 61,000—I think it was at the last count—relied on social services in London. I cannot see how that can be done without putting people in a position where they have neither the right to work nor a right to support. How can the Minister deny that some people will be in that position?
When I was newish in the House and had been making a big fuss in the Chamber, I was once asked how I would rate the issue that I had been raising on a scale of outrage from one to 10.I said that I would rate it as eight on the scale. I received the reply, "What, not nine or 10?" I said that I reserved nine for things that I could barely imagine would be done and 10 for things that I used to believe would never happen in this country. Today, we have a crowded agenda. I rate this issue at nine on my scale of outrage, but today I must
1440
reserve Divisions for those that I rank at 10—the time of the House permits no less. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but were the Minister to refuse me that leave, I should walk through the Lobby as fast as possible. I hope that he shall not refuse and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Asylum-seeker: form of support]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 23, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was discussed at some length during recommitment last week. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which have been tabled by us with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is to ameliorate the Government's proposal to withdraw subsistence-only support. Amendment No. 2 would remove the Secretary of State's power to remove subsistence-only support from all asylum seekers in one fell swoop. Amendment No. 3 would oblige the Secretary of State to take into account personal circumstances of asylum seekers when deciding to withdraw subsistence-only support. Amendment No. 4 would ensure that those in receipt of subsistence-only support before the coming into force of the order would retain it. Thus, the Secretary of State could provide only that new cases were not to receive subsistence-only support.
My purpose in moving the amendment is to seek some broad assurances from the Government that they will not bring the provision into force to place people in National Asylum Support Service accommodation but that they intend to use it only when accommodation centres are up and running in which they can place people. Secondly, the Government must accept that families provide not only material but also practical and emotional support to asylum seekers and must respect the principle of family unity. The third assurance that we seek is that the Government will respect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in implementing the provision and will not separate children from carers.
We also want the Government, before Third Reading, if possible, to place in the Library details of the number of people—especially principal applicants and dependants—claiming subsistence-only support for the week ending 13th October 2002. That would give us an indication of what expenditure the Government will incur under the provision.
Among those who have expressed concern about the provision is the Greater London Assembly. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has recently produced a report entitled Distant Voices, referred to during the previous debate, which identifies serious and systematic concerns. It states that,
"more than 400 social policy evidence reports received by NACAB from CABx since 1 March 2002",
demonstrate,
"that the Government's stated perception of the current performance of NASS is far from reality".
I hope that the Government will not impose extra responsibilities on that body, the performance of which is questionable. I hope that the Minister can give the assurances for which I have asked. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the power in Clause 42 is necessary to ensure that we have the flexibility in future to move to a more managed asylum policy and so that we can maintain better contact with those who are eligible for support during the asylum process. We have already made clear that, as and when accommodation centres replace the present system of dispersed accommodation, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres. Under current arrangements, asylum seekers eligible for support can stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. We have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact.
Large numbers of those who take up cash-only support remain in London and the South East. At the end of June 2002, more than 23,000 of the more than 33,000 asylum seekers taking subsistence-only support were living in London. That clearly causes considerable problems and does nothing to alleviate the pressure on services in those areas, which the introduction of the dispersal scheme was intended to do.
It will be apparent to the House that we certainly do not have sufficient accommodation centres up and running to make it likely that we shall want to trigger those powers in the near future, but it is clearly our hope and intent to move to that position, so the powers are necessary. However, we have already said that in reaching decisions on when and how to exercise the power to end subsistence-only support, the Government will take account of all the relevant factors, including the points raised by noble Lords and our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. I reiterate that at present we have made no decisions and there is no timetable—for the obvious reason that anything like the required number of accommodation centres do not exist.
We should also remember that we have agreed that any order made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which means that we shall set out how we intend to exercise the power and there will be ample opportunity for each House to discuss it and its implementation. Although no decision has been taken about the content of any draft order or orders on whether implementation will be on a phased basis, the Government require the flexibility to be able to abolish cash-only support in all circumstances—even when it has already been provided. We need that flexibility by order, subject to affirmative resolution, should we so decide.
Turning to some specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, we clearly respect the principle of family unity. If by that he means, "Would it be right to separate children from their prime
1442
carers?", the answer is a categoric no. If he means, "Would an asylum seeker always be able to live near an extended family?", the answer is no. Similarly, we have previously made our position clear on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in legislation.
In summary, I emphasise that we believe the power to be necessary for flexibility. It would not be triggered without affirmative resolution. It may not be used, because we may apply it on a phased basis, but we believe it is right and proper that it exist.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he accept that the clause as drafted is entirely inflexible and allows the Government to remove support from everyone concerned all at once? Before he takes refuge behind the affirmative resolution procedure, does he accept that it is entirely proper for the House to vote on an affirmative resolution?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into changes to the working practices of the House. That is clearly a subject on which there has been considerable debate and differing opinions. The noble Earl knows that better than most.
I am struggling to remember the noble Earl's first point. Would he please remind me of it?
Earl Russell: My Lords, the clause allows the Home Secretary to withdraw support from all people not in accommodation at once and without condition.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it does, but the Secretary of State's hands are not tied. He can choose whether to use the power or to bring it in incrementally, using other powers in the Bill. He is not forced to use the power, if he thinks it inappropriate to do so.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I identified three issues in the amendment. One is that pressure on services will increase, if people live with families with no support for essential living needs. Somebody will have to identify those needs, and that will fall to the services.
The second point is that the proposed measure is particularly punitive. Many asylum seekers will be elderly people, single mothers or people suffering from mental illness, whose friends or family have realised that they would be incapable of surviving on their own, if dispersed to accommodation elsewhere, and have taken them into their own home. I refer again to the NACAB report, which shows that, in many cases, vulnerable individuals were left for weeks—even months—without the means to buy food and other essential items.
We tried to get some assurances on the matter in Committee: we did not get them, nor are we satisfied with the Minister's reply at this stage. In the circumstances, I shall seek the opinion of the House.
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Barker, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Best, L.

Methuen, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Naseby, L.

Chan, L.

Newby, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Dholakia, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ezra, L.

Razzall, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greaves, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Taverne, L.

Joffe, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Walmsley, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dubs, L.

Alli, L.

Elder, L.

Amos, B.

Erroll, E.

Ampthill, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Filkin, L.

Bach, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gale, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gavron, L.

Blackstone, B.

Golding, B.

Borrie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brett, L.

Greengross, B.

Brightman, L.

Greenway, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brookman, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Burlison, L.

Harrison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Jordan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kingsland, L.

Desai, L.

Laird, L.

1444

Layard, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Lipsey, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Listowel, E.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Renton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sewel, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Simon, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Strange, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mitchell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Tenby, V.

Monson, L.

Thornton, B.

Morgan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilkins, B.

Parekh, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winston, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.1 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Destitute asylum-seeker]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 25, leave out lines 16 and 17.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment would delete a provision that authorises the Secretary of State to declare a person not to be destitute, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is our old friend the Humpty-Dumpty clause—"Destitution means whatever I say it means". It is not a power that I am particularly eager to allow anyone. There is something to be said for the previous definition of destitution, in Clause 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—being unable to meet essential living needs, which is a strong phrase.
I hope to hear from the Minister how he expects people who are denied the means to meet their essential living needs to remain alive. If I do not hear an answer to that question, I will repeat something said by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, when she was the Speaker in another place. When a mobile phone went off during a debate, she exclaimed, "It should not have been brought into the Chamber in that condition". If the Government have no answer to my question, they should not have brought in Clause 43 as it stands.
Grouped Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 relate to clauses that allow compliance with a condition to be made a condition of support and bar local authorities from providing support for anyone who breaches any condition. No doubt some conditions and—I concede this before the Minister makes the point—sanctions will have to exist but we do not regard as acceptable the total withdrawal of support as a means of enforcing conditions. We do not believe that punishment should be inflicted in a civilised society.
In the case of the United Kingdom v. Ireland under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, degrading treatment was defined as,
"treatment that arouses in the victim a feeling of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating or debasing the victim and possibly breaking his/her moral resistance".
But such treatment must attain the minimum threshold of severity, determined on a case-by-case basis. I do not understand how denying people their essential needs for living can fail to meet that condition. No doubt that question is one that government lawyers will have to answer in due course.
We regard the total denial of support as an entirely unacceptable punishment. We are opposed to the death penalty. We are opposed to not officiously striving to keep people alive. We are opposed to what the law describes as recklessness, as to whether or not people are able to remain alive. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment because it has many ramifications throughout the drafting of the Bill—some of which relate to the questions that I asked at col. 984 of the Official Report of 17th October. To put the matter in perspective, Amendment No. 5 only opens the key to the door.
Would assistance be available to all those who would otherwise be left destitute? I think that the Government's answer is no. Must there not be some casual connection between an act of omission of an improper nature and the fact of being left homeless and destitute? I think that the Government's answer is no. Ought not the burden of proof to rest with the Secretary of State in establishing whether conditions for withholding support are compatible with human rights—and that those conditions have been met if a person is to be left without adequate housing, food or clothing? The Government's answer is no.
As no appeal to an adjudicator is available to those persons who are adjudged ineligible for support, ought there not to be the power to provide some support pending the outcome of the application for a judicial review? Again, the Government's answer is no. Finally, it all turns. One condition turns and is related to another. Are adequate safeguards provided against violation of the human rights of children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which are expressly safeguarded by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998? The Government's answer is no.
On those grounds, I support Amendment No. 5 in the perspective of that very unattractive scenario.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I support the amendment and, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I am a member of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, whose 23rd report was published on 22nd October in relation to the Bill. The particular passages dealing with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, are set out in the report, which I am sure Ministers and their advisers have read.
1446
The Government's position so far as concerns clarification of the Human Rights Act is that when new clauses are introduced, as they have been with the Bill, the Explanatory Notes originally published with the Bill are not at that stage updated so as to state the Government's position on why they consider the new clauses to be compatible with human rights. There is no obligation on Ministers to do that, although they could if they wished to do so.
The Explanatory Notes that have been provided on these clauses do not reveal the Government's position on the human rights implications—nor, as I say, do they have to do so—but the Lord Chancellor, in answer to questions that I raised, assured the House that Ministers would remain under a duty during the passage of a Bill to be as forthcoming as they could be on why they considered a particular amendment to be compatible with human rights.
I have covered points that will be made later in the debate on other matters to which the Select Committee has drawn attention. I say that—not in relation to this clause, admittedly, but in relation to Clauses 54 and 55—because the Select Committee has drawn attention to our view that the Government have a positive obligation to deal with destitution, otherwise they will risk breaching Section 6 of the Human Rights Act and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In supporting the amendment, I ask the Minister to respond to those points in our report at this stage in order that the House may properly be informed and able to take a position on this amendment and later amendments dealing with clauses in relation to destitution. If not, I would ask that something be done before the amendments are passed. Otherwise, we, as legislators who have an obligation in law making to comply with the international human rights treaties by which the United Kingdom is bound, will be left wholly in the dark. We have given our legal advice in our report, and Professor David Feldman's advice is spelled out very clearly here and elsewhere. As the Explanatory Notes do not clarify this issue, I am sorry to say that the luckless Minister will need to do so in accordance with the undertakings given to the House.
This is not a sensible way of dealing with parliamentary business. It would have been better if the Explanatory Notes had dealt with the convention issues. But I do not press that point because there is no obligation for them to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept that certain noble Lords feel some discomfort with what we are proposing and I can understand what lies behind and motivates this group of amendments. The issue of human rights raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is worthy of further reflection, but we need to put the points he has raised in the context of what we are trying to achieve overall with this legislation—and, perhaps, in the context of earlier legislation. I shall work through those points because they are important.

1447
Amendment No. 5 relates to Clause 43, which amends various provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The intention is to ensure consistency with the definitions contained in Part 2 of the Bill. Subsection (6) amends Section 95(3) to (8) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to determine who is to be regarded as destitute and therefore eligible to receive support.
As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 5 would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying in regulations that a person is not to be treated as destitute for the purposes of providing support under Section 95 in specified circumstances. I hope that I can offer some reassurance and suggest to the noble Earl that there is nothing sinister in the paragraph. The provision reflects what is already the case—the noble Earl probably understands this—under Section 95(2) of the 1999 Act and the regulations which support it.
We do not believe that people eligible for support under one set of provisions should be able to benefit from additional support. As I understand it, that would be the net effect if the noble Earl's amendment was agreed to. The kinds of cases we are talking about here are those where an asylum seeker already qualifies for interim support from a local authority, or where a person is eligible for social security benefits. Also excluded are persons who have not made a claim for asylum.
In our view, it is sensible to spell these categories out in secondary legislation so that the position is clarified. The intention is merely to ensure that persons do not qualify for support under two or more different sets of provisions and, equally, where they have not made claims for asylum. I hope that that offers the noble Earl some reassurance.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government recognise that they have a positive obligation to remedy the evils of destitution in order to comply with our treaty obligations under the European convention and the economic and social rights covenant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly we must ensure that we are not in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the noble Lord will probably accept that there is quite a high threshold to that. That has been accepted in earlier debates.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, experience has shown that it is necessary to have a more managed asylum process with tighter controls within that process. I believe that noble Lords understand the importance of that. Our proposal is simply part of a package of amendments aimed at ensuring that we achieve a tighter control. Asylum seekers who report as instructed will have absolutely nothing to fear from our proposal to link provision of support to compliance with a requirement to report.
1448
We have already provided additional funding to the Immigration Service to enable it to set up a number of reporting centres so that the process of reporting is easier. As a result, more asylum seekers will be required to report. Regular reporting enables the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to obtain information from the asylum seeker. But equally—and this is the positive side—it gives the asylum seeker regular face-to-face contact with officials who can give advice on the status of the asylum applicant's claim.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked a perfectly simple, sane question, which was: in organising the new controls, do the Government accept that they must be organised within the remit of the European Convention on Human Rights? Surely the only answer the Government Front Bench can give is yes. If it is no, where are we?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had made it plain that that was our view. Yes, of course, we accept that we have to operate within the terms of the conventions.
To return to the points that I was making in regard to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, failure to report without reasonable cause may be an indication that the person is not complying with the asylum process. Asylum support is provided only while an asylum claim is under consideration. It would be wholly unjustifiable to use public money to support those who are not prepared to comply with all aspects of the asylum process. The noble Earl invites us to set that on one side. We believe that responsibilities come with making an application for asylum.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I explicitly conceded that point before the Minister rose to reply. I merely said that this particular penalty is not appropriate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at the end of the day, the noble Earl and the Government may well have a disagreement on this point. We believe that it is an essential part of ensuring that we can properly manage the process. As I said at the outset, while I understand the good-natured spirit and intention behind the noble Earl's proposal, we believe that this good management is an essential part of ensuring that we protect the rights of asylum seekers and that we have a system that is fair and reasonable for all who go through the process. We shall possibly have a disagreement about where the firmness of the line should be drawn, but we are quite clear as to where we believe it should be drawn. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has not drawn attention to the fact that the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights covers Article 8, dealing with respect for family life, as well as Article 3, dealing with inhuman and degrading treatment. It is a point to which he might pay attention before the Government find themselves in court.

1449
I know that this provision repeats one in the 1999 Act. If the Minister looks at the debates on that Act in Hansard, he will find that I made the same points then. I congratulate the Minister on his gift for understatement, in saying that there is "some discomfort" about the Bill on these Benches, and, I believe, elsewhere in the House. For a long time, I believed that the worst Bill that I should ever see before this House was Mr Michael Howard's asylum Bill in 1996.I regret to say that in 1999, and now, I have seen two which are in my opinion worse. I never thought to find myself saying that on liberal grounds I should welcome the return to office of Mr Michael Howard.
I appreciate the Minister's point about not being eligible for support under two different sets of provisions. Had he chosen to word the clause in that way, I should not have tabled this amendment and the time of the House would have been saved. But the wording of the clause gives the Government their beloved friend "flexibility". It allows the Secretary of State to declare a person not to be destitute in any circumstances which appear to him appropriate, absolutely without prescription. That is flexibility for the Minister; it is inflexibility for everyone else.
I am not in the least satisfied by the Minister's reply. However, I cannot divide the House every time that I am in a state of total dissatisfaction; otherwise, we should be here all night. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Section 43: supplemental: Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 26, line 41, after "shall" insert "apply"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is, I am happy to say, a technical amendment. Its aim is to correct an oversight that has resulted in the omission of the word "apply" in the amended Section 7(4) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 that Clause 45(4) substitutes for the existing provision. Without this amendment, the first phrase of the amended provision would be meaningless—and, of course, we could never permit that in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Best Lord Best moved Amendment No. 6A:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE GRANTED LEAVE TO REMAIN
The following shall be inserted after section 94(6) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (interpretation of Part VI)—
"(6A) If, on the determination of his claim for asylum, the asylum seeker is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he is to be treated (for the purposes of the provision of support and accommodation under this Part only) as continuing to be an asylum seeker—

(a) for a period of 60 days; or

(b) until he secures adequate accommodation and support, whichever is the sooner.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am bringing back this amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 10A and the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 71A. I am honoured that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has added his name to the amendments.
I tabled the amendments because I am convinced that they are essential if the Government's sensible policy for the dispersal of asylum seekers and the integration of refugees in new communities is to have any chance of success. Without such measures, it seems to me a near certainty that those asylum seekers who are given refugee status and are allowed to remain in this country will leave the areas to which they have been dispersed—mostly northern conurbations—and will go to places where they can be helped by communities who share their culture, language and ethnicity, which mostly means going to London and to other areas where there is a high demand for housing and where the arrival of more people in need of accommodation will exacerbate immense strains.
The position is this. With the good news for an asylum-seeking household that they can settle in this country comes a 28-day notice of eviction from the accommodation provided for them through the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The contractor-landlord is often not notified until some days or weeks thereafter, although many refugees are ignorant of their position until the landlord has been in touch. With the clock ticking before they must go, the refugee household may be facing the task of finding a new home without the benefit of any clear advice on their options and with the barrier of a lack of English language compounding a lack of understanding of the processes. In the time remaining, the household must locate alternative accommodation, negotiate with a new landlord, organise a job to pay the rent or get through the minefield of housing benefit to secure rent payment through the local authority.
As if navigating past all these obstacles in the remaining available days were not enough, there is the currently insuperable problem of the national insurance number—or NINO. This is issued by the Department for Work and Pensions, not by the Home Office. On it depends the entitlement to benefits, including the notorious housing benefit which the Government have rightly pledged themselves to reform, but also the possibility of legally obtaining a job.
At present, the national insurance number almost never arrives within the 28-day period. It often takes two months to reach the refugee household. Inevitably, the refugee household, without the wherewithal to obtain an alternative home, leave their NASS-provided accommodation with nowhere to go. Many try to move in—against the rules—with others nearby whose case is not yet settled. Occasionally, NASS landlords—again, against the rules—will generously let them occupy, rent-free, premises which they have empty. But for many refugees, the only way of finding somewhere safe is to move to their own communities in London or in other areas of high pressure. Less scrupulous landlords will pay the fare to

1451
be rid of the household without further hassle. So the dispersal policy collapses, as refugee households move away.
These amendments seek to increase dramatically the chances of dispersal working and of bewildered new long-term residents in this country settling and integrating into the areas to which they have been sent. The amendments would give them 60 days, not 28 days, and provide for advice via the local authority—no doubt through a refugee community organisation or other body—in their own language to help the new refugees to find a home. These changes will not in themselves provide the accommodation that is needed. However, housing is available in the areas chosen for dispersal, and the amendments provide the opportunity to match that supply to these needs.
I have met the relevant senior officer from the Home Office, and I know about the hard work to try to speed up the bureaucratic processes. In particular, efforts are being made to get the Department for Work and Pensions to issue national insurance numbers more speedily. But, my assessment is that it will be many months—if it ever happens—before refugees will have a full 28 days to solve their housing problems. Even if the full period is available to them, their dependency on others in getting through the hoops of housing benefit claims, negotiations with landlords and others means that the 28-day turn around will remain impossibly short.
Although paying for housing for up to one extra month would cost the Home Office more than paying for just one month, these amendments should reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer. It is much more cost-effective to continue to house people and to provide services for them in low-value areas than in the most expensive parts of the country, where services are already overloaded. To save much human misery, to save the Government's admirable dispersal policy and even to save some money, I commend these two amendments and the consequential one to reimburse local authorities for ensuring that the necessary advice is available.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on tabling these two very necessary amendments. He referred to the need for a review of housing benefit, which was announced in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, last week. The run-on provision that the amendment introduces mirrors with uncanny precision what the noble Baroness offered the House in her Statement. It represents good thinking in both cases. This turn-around period, when someone stops claiming one form of support and becomes eligible for another, is always tricky.
I also wish to confirm strongly the difficulty of obtaining a national insurance number. Governments of all political complexions are rather less aware of the problem, but that does not mean that it is less true. My honourable friend Mr David Rendel, when he was my party's social security spokesman, constantly received
1452
assurances from various Ministers that there was absolutely no difficulty in getting national insurance numbers. However, they did not know that Mr Rendel's chief researcher had had her purse stolen with her national insurance card in it and that it had taken her no less than six months to recover a new one. I regret to say that that is not a unique case, and it explains why my honourable friend Mr Rendel was far from being as reassured as many Ministers hoped he would be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, these provisions are vital to people's chance of gaining employment, which is vital to their chance of getting accommodation without relying on asylum seekers' support. Mr Kenneth Clarke, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was first to appreciate that such a run-on provision was needed. The provision that he introduced was a very good idea, but it had one or two small wrinkles in the detail, which have been ironed out by this Government. If the noble Lord, Lord Best, can persuade the Government to iron out those same wrinkles for asylum seekers, he will have done us all a service, and, incidentally, he will bring people into employment much sooner, bringing the Chancellor of the Exchequer revenue that I am sure he will find very welcome. Should the noble Lord feel the need to take the amendment to the Lobbies, we will support him with alacrity.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take seriously this commendable amendment. I shall make two points about why the amendments are important. First, whether or not we like it, and whether or not we support it, we all understand that the Government are at pains to make arrangements for people who are temporarily here, while seeking asylum or whatever, that will not induce unnecessary numbers of people to feel that living here is a good prospect: or to wish to come here. Once people have been through the process and have been granted leave to stay, that argument—about which some of us may have reservations in any case—has no application whatever. The task is then to enable these people to make a success of staying and to become positive citizens. Therefore, even if apparently an extra bill will be attached to doing this at first, it will be an investment in future success. Failure to do that may result in all kinds of additional expenditure for society because of the failure to make a success of the transitional phase. On economic grounds alone, therefore, it is crucial.
I shall make one further analogy to underline the point. As I said in the House before, I have the privilege of being president of the YMCA in England. We do quite a lot of work with young offenders. The issues addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in these amendments are absolutely central to the success of offenders' rehabilitation to become positive, useful citizens. If those issues apply in that context, how much more are they a relevant and important part of enabling people who are staying here to become useful, positive and successful members of society?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be exceptionally brief. As somebody who was engaged

1453
in constituency duties during the last Parliament, I can endorse entirely the admirable presentation of the facts of the case by the noble Lord, Lord Best. They are familiar to those of us who served as MPs during the last Parliament, and I endorse entirely the amendments.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the first part of the Committee stage, I asked the Government to pay particular attention to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Best. He told us today that he had been in touch with senior officials in the Home Office. He has also carried out research in the dispersal areas and met all the relevant people there.
I emphasise that this group of amendments relates to genuine, accepted refugees who have passed through the sieves and have no more hurdles to leap over. Amendment No. 10A is essential to the proper settlement in this country of refugees who are accepted. The third amendment in the group, Amendment No. 71A, places an obligation on the Government to support local authorities who incur extra expenditure. That will be particularly important in the case of local authorities that are suffering from cash limits. I ask your Lordships to accept that this group of amendments is essentially concerned with a humane approach to re-settlement and is entirely essential.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the very clear way in which he explained his amendments. It might be better, however, if Amendment No. 10A said that housing authorities should secure that information on help is provided only if the information is requested. As currently drafted, the amendment seems to require housing authorities to track every asylum seeker granted permission to stay and to maintain that information. That would not be very reasonable. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to comment on that. Perhaps the Minister, who is an expert on the affairs of housing authorities, also would like to comment on it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for raising this issue on Report, as he did so carefully in Committee. I am grateful also for his call last week. He has been doing some very careful work behind the scenes to ensure that noble Lords are aware of the work done during the summer to take the arguments further forward than we could achieve in Committee.
It is a matter of humanity to ensure that those granted leave to remain can assimilate into the communities to which they have been dispersed. It is also an important issue. The Government have already extended the period from 14 to 28 days, and I welcome that move. The noble Lord, Lord Best, argues that that is still not sufficient and that 60 days should be allowed because of the problems of a bureaucratic system, particularly in the processing of national insurance numbers. I am sure that all noble Lords will, as my
1454
noble friend Lord Brooke said, have had case histories presented to them showing that there is real difficulty in the allocation of NINOs.
When the issue was raised in Committee, I said that my concern about the duty which the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to impose on local authorities was really about whether we should include good practice in the Bill. I was worried about funding levels and about whether the money allocated by central government to local authorities should be ring fenced. After that debate, during the summer, I tried to elicit the LGA's response to my comments and to the debate. Sadly, despite three or four e-mails and a couple of telephone calls, I have failed to elicit a response from the LGA. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has had more luck. In the absence of any response, I can only assume that the LGA must be content with what the noble Lord has brought before us today.
It has to be a matter of good practice that information in their own language is given to those who are dispersed. In my own community, my council follows that good practice. I hope that other local authorities do the same. I shall certainly listen with great care to the Minister's reply.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should just like to ask one question before the Minister responds to this very important debate. The guidance recently issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on how local authorities should interpret their responsibility for homelessness strategies under the Homelessness Act refers particularly to people from the ethnic minorities in their area. I cannot recall whether that guidance contains any special provision for offering advice to asylum seekers which would supplement the provision in these amendments. I am by no means suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is not absolutely right to spell this out in Amendment No. 10A, but I wonder whether local authorities already have some element of this responsibility under the Homelessness Act. I should be grateful if the Minister could remind us of that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and other noble Lords for returning to this important issue. I completely agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Judd and other noble Lords that this is an issue about resettlement. If the decision has been made that someone qualifies to remain in the country, no one should be mealy-mouthed about it: that person deserves to be properly treated, respectfully welcomed, and integrated as efficiently as possible into society so that he can contribute to society as he thinks appropriate. There is no resiling or hesitation about that at all.
I would be foolish if I sought to deny that there are problems; the noble Lord, Lord Best, clearly made that point. The department, too, is clear that this is not a perfectly functioning system. If we did come to the view that the 28-day period is not appropriate, we could, as the House would expect, extend the period by secondary legislation. There therefore seems to be no

1455
good reason to include the prescribed period in primary legislation—indeed, to do so could make it more difficult later to amend the prescribed period should that be deemed necessary. Who knows, it may well happen.
I realise that there is concern, as has been argued, that the 28-day period is not sufficient. I have asked NASS officials to give urgent further consideration to what constitutes an appropriate period. We have had conflicting messages. There is a suggestion that some local authorities will not provide housing until the person is homeless or about to become so. There is also a belief that some asylum seekers do not take active steps to obtain alternative accommodation until they are about to become homeless. I do not know how true that is. In these cases, however, the allowed period would not matter. However, I do not want to build a case on that argumentation.
I believe that there needs to be a proper expiration among the relevant and interested parties as to how we get this right. However, I also believe that the debate is about more than simply whether the period should be 14 days, as it was, 28 days, as it is, or 60 days, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, proposes. The issue is about making various bits of government work effectively and trying to ensure that local authorities respond properly and positively as far as they can with the resources at their disposal.
I turn first to the issue of national insurance numbers. NASS has worked with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling successful asylum seekers to transfer from central government support to mainstream benefits or to enter the labour market. The national insurance number is clearly crucial to that. I have asked my officials to ensure that the revised arrangements are being applied to best effect. If that is not happening, I have asked what more the Government can do to make it happen.
NASS is also working with colleagues from the DWP and Jobcentre Plus to provide information to successful asylum seekers about mainstream benefits and accessing mainstream services. Advice to asylum seekers from the DWP and Jobcentre Plus is as important as the provision of a national insurance number. People need help, guidance and support about how to access mainstream society.
On housing, the Homelessness Act 2002 introduces an amendment to Section 166 of the 1996 Act to require a local housing authority to secure that advice and information is available free of charge to persons in their district about the right to make an application for an allocation of housing accommodation. In addition, any necessary assistance and advice in making such an application must be available free of charge to persons in their district who are likely to have difficulty in doing so without assistance. Some of us who were involved in housing aid 30 or so years ago might think that the local provision of such advisory functions is a fundamental point. The 2002 Act, which comes into effect in January, puts that provision into
1456
effect. When that happens, existing statute will provide precisely the remedy which the noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly seeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about financial compensation in regard to one aspect of the amendments. I am 99 per cent certain that an assessment has already been made of the financial implications of that additional burden on local authorities and that that has been incorporated into the grant settlement. I am fairly certain of that as I recollect discussions on it when I was working with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the Homelessness Bill in another place. If I am in error about that, I shall come back and clarify the position. However, I am certain that there has been an adjustment to grant for that purpose.
I am not able to answer the question about the ODM's exact advice. I take the thrust of the point and I shall give the factual answer. If it does not cover the point, I shall take it into our wider considerations.
What I am saying, in short, is that some of these issues will already be addressed by existing legislation. Some of them are under active consideration by various parts of government. To ensure that these processes do not just drift on for ever without coming to a conclusion, I give a commitment to the House that within a three-month period—over the next three months—we shall consult the relevant organisations: the LGA, relevant local authorities and the relevant refugee and support organisations as to how best to improve the position. The matter concerns how local authorities help resettlement in their areas, how we get the DWP to work effectively on the issuing of NI numbers and how we ensure that practical advice is issued. That process is bound to identify some issues that require further action. My intention is that within three months we shall be able to make a statement about what we shall do to address those issues. If we need to change the 28-day period, we shall do so. If other things need to be done, I shall spell out in my written response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, the actions that I think it is right and proper for us to take. We share the motivation behind the amendment; that is, that we should support in an efficient and fair way the integration of those who have been accepted for refuge into this country.
Lord Best: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of many noble Lords for the amendments that we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that we are talking only of genuine, accepted refugees who are here to stay. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the point—echoed by the Minister—that we must help those people in every way that we can to settle and to become successful citizens. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her comments. She has direct experience resulting from her work at a citizens advice bureau of the kind of problems faced by people who do not have national insurance numbers. As far as I know, the LGA is happy with what is proposed.

1457
The Minister suggested a number of ways in which government can under existing powers be much more helpful than perhaps has been the case in the past. The 28-day period could be changed by secondary legislation. The Minister will give consideration to whether a longer period than 28 days is justified. I feel sure that he will come to the conclusion that it is justified because it is impossible at the moment to expect people to settle their affairs as speedily as that given the bureaucratic processes involved. He makes the point that local authorities are encouraged to provide information about benefits. From January advice will be available free. However, it needs to be in the language of the relevant refugee household. A booklet on housing benefit written solely in English is hopeless. This must constitute a pro-active giving of advice to people who are likely to be fairly isolated and often in a place where only a very small number of people speak their language.
I am glad that funding is likely to be available under existing provisions. In the light of those comments and the commitment to the consultation which the Minister kindly gave, it is appropriate for me to reflect further on the matter. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Conditions of support]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Choice of form of support]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 29, line 12, at end insert "provided that—

(a) the offer that has been made has not been withdrawn, and

(b) the refusal would not render the person or any dependant of his destitute within the meaning of section 18 of this Act or section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (persons for whom support may be provided)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. Amendment No. 9 goes to the very heart of the support mechanism that we discussed on a number of previous amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to ensure that no one is left starving and homeless.
I seek assurances that the Secretary of State will always maintain the original offer of support, or an offer of the original type of support. The amendment is fairly modest. It is important to note that it would be a misuse of the provisions if the Secretary of State were to seek to use them to deprive people of all support. Earlier, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say that he understood our concern. As I say, this is a modest request. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give a reassuring response. I believe that it is still a principle of our society that no one living in the United Kingdom should be destitute, and
1458
that everyone who lives here should enjoy certain basic standards. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeks to ensure that no one falls between the arrangements that are specified. I therefore hope that my noble friend will give a reassuring response.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the idea behind the amendment, as my noble friend Lord Judd has done. I cannot go along with the idea—I do not believe that my noble friend can either—that that situation should arise. I hope that my noble friend will give a positive response to the amendment. There is no point in labouring the matter further. As I say, I hope that my noble friend will give a positive response to the amendment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hope so too, but events will show whether that is the case.
Clause 50 deals with offering support. In essence it says that asylum seekers may not choose how to be supported; the Secretary of State makes that choice. If the asylum seeker declines the Secretary of State's offer of support in, say, an accommodation centre, the Secretary of State may refuse to provide support elsewhere. Clause 50 does not deal with whether or not the person is eligible for support, nor does it deal with circumstances in which support may be withdrawn.
The situation which Clause 50 addresses is where an offer of support has been made and the asylum seeker declines to accept that offer for reasons of personal preference. Take the example of an asylum seeker provisionally housed in emergency accommodation, who is offered support in an accommodation centre. If he decides he would prefer dispersal accommodation and lodges a second application for Section 95 support, the Secretary of State may refuse that second application for support on the basis that an offer had already been made under another provision. However—I believe that this directly addresses the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—the initial offer of accommodation centre support would not have been withdrawn, it would continue to lie upon the table for the asylum seeker to take up. But if the asylum seeker, say, failed to travel to the accommodation centre, the offer of support could be withdrawn under Clause 25. At that point, the decision to withdraw support would attract a right of appeal under Section 103 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended by Clause 52 of the Bill.
Our view, therefore, is that Amendment No. 9 is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the original offer of support will be kept open. In the light of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Withholding and withdrawal of support]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 30, line 34, at end insert—"
( ) Where—

(a) the withholding or withdrawal of support under paragraph 6 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 would render a person or any dependant of his destitute within the meaning of section 18 of this Act or section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (persons for whom support may be provided); and

(b) the Secretary of State has the power under section 4 (accommodation for those temporarily admitted or released from detention) of that Act to provide, or arrange for the provision of facilities of, accommodation for that person;

the Secretary of State must exercise his powers under section 4 of that Act in respect of the person."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with people who have reached the end of the ordinary stages of the process. It provides that the Secretary of State, while he may withhold support under Sections 95 and 96 of the 1999 Act, shall not withhold support under Section 4 of that Act, which I might describe as the "bargain basement" section of the 1999 Act. It deals with the,
"provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons—

(a) temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom…

(b) released from detention…or

(c) released on bail from detention under any provision of the Immigration Acts".

This amendment is chiefly concerned with the rights of those who wish to lodge appeals for judicial review, or who wish to do so under the European Convention on Human Rights. Appeals in both respects have happened, and both kinds of actions have ultimately ended in success. It does not seem to us to be reasonable that a person who wishes to have recourse to the processes of law, to which he has every legal right, should be prevented from doing so by being left so penniless that he has no access to the courts because he does not even have the money in his pocket to cover the fare. That might be construed as a breach of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to an effective remedy.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 have also been included in this grouping. They relate to Schedule 3, which lays down a whole series of actions that local authorities must not take; for example, they may not offer support to anyone who is unlawfully in the United Kingdom. However, thanks to all the various controls, carriers' liability, and so on, almost every genuine asylum seeker is, in a sense, illegally in the United Kingdom because he has had to enter under forged papers, or in concealed circumstances.
It occasionally escapes the Government's attention that such people are protected by Article 31(1) of the 1951 UN refugee convention, as was repeated in a thunderous judgment by Lord Justice Simon Brown only a few years ago. We do not want anyone in that situation to be prevented from having access to justice; nor do we want anyone to be prevented from having access to justice if he has a case under the European Convention on Human Rights and may be returned to
1460
a country where he will experience torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In view of the arguments advanced about the Roma, that is all too serious a possibility.
The provisions under Schedule 3 will also involve local authorities if, every time they have to apply a social services power, they also have to consider a power under the National Assistance Act, a power under Section 17 of the Children Act, powers to provide help and workshops to those with disability, and the immigration status of those concerned. There will be all sorts of exceptions. There are people with ECHR (Article 3) claims, and there are people with claims as regards freedom of movement within the European Union. Indeed, if the programme of accession goes ahead, Slovak Roma will be protected under both those grounds. It is not fair to expect the average local authority to make such judgments, in addition to all the other burdens that it also has to carry.
Further, I do not believe that it is reasonable to construe an attempt to exercise a perfectly genuine legal right as an attempt to obstruct removal from the United Kingdom, as is the case under Schedule 3. If the court wishes to say that the action is frivolous, it has the right to do so; and, indeed, it may exercise that right. But if the Government say that that attempt to exercise a legal right is an attempt to obstruct removal they will be acting as judge and party in their own courts, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and subject to judicial review.
Noble Lords on these Benches believe that the powers of justice must come above the convenience of the Home Office. I know that that is not a popular doctrine in every quarter, but it is one to which we very firmly adhere. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put the case both fully and well. I simply rise to say that the concerns he has expressed are not limited to any one quarter in this House. Many of us will listen with great attention to what my noble friend the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, whenever I hear my noble friend Lord Russell speak, I often think to myself what a great barrister he would have made: he deals with law in a way that ordinary people, even I, can understand. I have one question for the Minister in respect of these amendments. My noble friend raised the issue about the right of access to courts, and the right to an effective remedy. Whatever his position may be on this amendment, is the Minister able to give an assurance that destitution and the consequences of government action will not be used in a way that interferes with the right of access to justice in the determination of civil rights and obligations, or in a way that frustrates the provision of an effective remedy for claims of breach of the European Convention on Human Rights or of the refugee convention?

1461
If the noble Lord is able to give those assurances to the House, my position with regard to this group of amendments would be materially affected. If not, it seems to me that the inclusion of such amendments in the Bill would constitute an important safety net.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the intention behind this amendment. We all wish to see the absolute minimum number of people kept in detention. However, a very small drafting point has occurred to me. I believe that the amendment might be improved by leaving out the words "facilities of" in paragraph (b).
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the House knows, these measures are about the issue of "benefit shopping", which we previously discussed. Such measures originated from a number of local authorities experiencing acute pressures regarding people who had refugee status, or nationality, in other countries coming to the United Kingdom and then claiming support from local authorities when other forms of support were not available.
Amendment No. 10 would apply to the withholding of support under paragraphs 6 or 7 of Schedule 3, which deal with the withholding of support from failed asylum seekers, or those unlawfully in the United Kingdom. Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 deals with what is known as "hard case support", which is provided at the discretion of the Secretary of State. This amendment would force the Secretary of State to provide "hard case support" (where Section 4 allows him to) to a person where the withholding of support under paragraphs 6 or 7 would render him destitute.
Therefore, the amendment would go against the whole purpose of Schedule 3, which is not to allow support under any of the provisions of the 1999 Act, as detailed in paragraph 1(j) of Schedule 3. The reason here is that we are clear that local authority budgets must be preserved for those most in need. Indeed, local authorities made strong representation to government to be given the protection that these measures provide. Failed asylum seekers who can leave but refuse to do so and persons unlawfully in the UK should not be supported. As I recollect, we said in Committee that there would be an offer on the table of transport back to the country where they had legal right to remain—a legal right of residence. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment, which would be contrary to the whole ethos of the measures contained in Schedule 3.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 would have the effect of allowing the forms of support listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to continue to be provided to failed asylum seekers and persons unlawfully in the UK, if, for example, an individual commences judicial review proceedings following a decision to remove him. They would also allow support to continue if an individual claims that any ECHR right would be breached if he were to be removed until such time as any appeals or judicial reviews against any adverse decision have been concluded. Finally, they would allow support to
1462
continue if an individual makes a request for leave to remain outside the immigration rules, again, until such time as any appeals or judicial reviews against any adverse decision have been concluded.
Failed asylum seekers have had their asylum claims finally determined. If failed asylum seekers wish judicially to review the Secretary of State's decision, they should do so before, or immediately at, the time of removal directions being set. The measures in Schedule 3 apply to failed asylum seekers only once they have failed to co-operate with removal directions issued in respect of them. It is important to stress that a failed asylum seeker will already have had the opportunity to raise at their appeal hearing against the refusal of their asylum claim all reasons why they should not be removed from the UK, including all ECHR reasons. Indeed, the legislation requires them to do so. Therefore, it will only be in exceptional circumstances that further ECHR points, raised after an applicant's original asylum claim has been refused and any appeal dismissed, will constitute a fresh application and be recorded as such. We should not set up a system by which a person gains from delaying raising their reasons for seeking to stay in the UK. Rather, we seek to make it clear that all issues should be raised at the relevant point earlier in the process.
Asylum support is also not available to those who are failed asylum seekers refusing to co-operate with removal directions who allege that other ECHR articles—for example, the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life—may be breached by removal. Likewise, support is not available if a failed asylum seeker applies for leave to remain outside the immigration rules but not including Article 3 claims. That is because it has been established that such persons do not fear persecution or torture on their return and can leave the UK or be removed by the Immigration Service. So, if they are destitute they can leave the UK to alleviate their situation and go to the country in which they have a right of residence.
For those reasons, persons who are here unlawfully should not receive any form of support. If they are genuine asylum seekers they should claim asylum. Then, so long as they meet the new eligibility criteria, they will be supported by NASS. To grant support in those circumstances would act as a pull factor, attracting individuals to enter the UK or remain here unlawfully.
Paragraph 1 does not prevent the exercise of the power relating to the performance of a duty to the extent necessary to prevent a breach of a convention or Community treaty. For those reasons, the amendments attack the fundamentals of what we believe is necessary to protect local authorities from unreasonable expenditure and to encourage those who have rights of residence elsewhere to move to places in which they can live after they have exhausted all the proper appeal processes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am well aware of the burden placed on local authorities. Indeed, I have co-operated with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in raising that on many occasions. That

1463
pressure was placed on local authorities by the unreasonable action of government in withdrawing support from those who should have continued to enjoy an entitlement to it. That is why the judgment of Mr Justice Collins on the National Assistance Act 1948 became necessary. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has continued to invoke claims of benefit shopping.
In Committee, I quoted to the Minister Eurostat figures that show that within the European Union our benefit levels are in the lower half of the EU range. I shall not quote those figures again. If applicants are attracted here by the belief that they will receive genuine benefits, that must prove that those applicants are mistaken. If they come here in large numbers they may do so for other reasons or because of a mistaken belief in the level of benefits.
I have previously asked the Minister and I ask again: what attempts are made to publicise, on the streets of Baghdad, Kabul, Freetown in Sierra Leone and other places from which asylum seekers regularly come, British benefit levels for asylum seekers? I do not believe that those attempts are very significant. The Minister cannot rely on that argument.
I am extremely sorry to hear an attempt to exercise legal rights being described as a refusal to comply with removal directions. Those removal directions have on occasion been opposed in error. The Minister may remember the case of Chahal, which went to Strasbourg. A very strong judgment indeed was given against this country. That was not an event that I enjoyed and I do not expect that the Home Office enjoys repeating its details. I remember another case of someone who, during the passage of the 1996 legislation, was returned to Belgium because he had passed through that country on the way here. That was done without regard to the fact that Belgium, in contempt of Article 31.1 of the refugee convention, refused to admit him to its process because he had entered the country illegally under false papers. He was simply passed on, on the pass-the-parcel principle, from Belgium straight back to Zaire, from where he had come. I do not regard that as a satisfactory situation and I am afraid that I cannot regard the Minister's reply as a satisfactory reply, either.
Before we return to these questions on Third Reading, I ask the Minister to read the Home Office's own research, which has been published since we completed the Bill's Committee stage. It shows that benefit levels are a negligible factor in attracting asylum seekers to this country. That fact, and the fact that people come here in spite of the lowness of our benefit levels, sustains the view that ignorance of benefit levels among asylum seekers is likely to be pretty high. I hope that we will not hear that argument again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10A not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 54 [Late claim for asylum: refusal of support]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 10B:
Page 31, line 1, leave out from "is" to "after" in line 2 and insert "satisfied that there was undue delay in making the claim"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is most unfortunate that major amendments to the Bill, which raise important issues of human rights, were published too late for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider and report on them before the Bill's Committee stage, which was held a week ago today. Since then, the JCHR has published a report, which contains a number of very serious criticisms of the Government's plans. I hope that they will act on and answer those criticisms, but I very much fear that they will not.
In moving Amendment No. 10B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 and manuscript Amendment No. 12A. They all raise significant issues of human rights, which were touched on in the report of the JCHR. Amendments Nos. 10B and 12A seek to reverse the burden of proof about whether the claimant is excluded from the possibility of support under Clause 54 on the ground that,
"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom".
That is a decision in practice: it is taken not by the Home Secretary personally but by a civil servant in the Home Office. The effect of that provision is that the burden of proof rests on the claimant. The purpose of the amendments is to reverse that burden of proof and make it rest with the Secretary of State.
The penalty that will be imposed on an asylum seeker who has been held not to have made the claim as soon as is reasonably practicable is very severe; it could be said to be out of proportion with the offence. There is no support even for the destitute. We have been told that that is the purpose of the Bill. That is relieved only by Clause 54(5), which requires compliance with convention rights. That means that one cannot allow an asylum seeker to starve to death.
Surely it is a matter of common humanity that, even if such a penalty is legitimate—I shall touch on that shortly—the burden of proof must rest on the Home Secretary. The benefit of doubt must be given to the claimant. I would assume, and I ask the Minister to confirm, that in this case the standard of proof will be the civil standard of proof; in other words, if the claimant can persuade the Home Office that, on the balance of probabilities, the claim was made in due time, then the Home Secretary will be satisfied. But it means that, even if it is as likely as not that the claim was made in due time but the evidence each way is equally balanced, then the Home Secretary, under the clause as it now stands, will not be satisfied. We believe that, if the penalty is imposed, it must be imposed only if the evidence shows positively that the application was made late. Indeed, we would say that, in view of the severity of the penalty, the test required should be proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Under paragraph 17 of its report, after referring to speeches explaining why there might be good reasons why applications were not made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival, the Joint Committee went on to say:
"In our view, there is a need for the express terms of the legislation to reflect the understanding approach which Lord Filkin said would be taken to those who claim to have been the victims of persecution. Rather than place the burden on them to satisfy the Secretary of State that they claimed asylum as soon as reasonably practicable, it would be preferable to require the Secretary of State to establish that there had been undue delay in making a claim, having regard to the circumstances facing the applicants. We consider that clause 54 should be amended by providing that support would be withheld only if the Secretary of State could establish that there had been unreasonable and undue delay in the making of the claim for asylum in the circumstances of the claimant's case".
The report then goes on to say at paragraph 19 that,
"clause 54(1)(b) would place on every claimant the burden of satisfying the Secretary of State that the claim for asylum was made as soon as possible after the claimant had arrived in the United Kingdom. In effect, this creates a rebuttable presumption that people claiming asylum have not made their claim as soon as reasonably practicable, and that accordingly claimants are not entitled to be supported. There is no empirical basis for presuming this, particularly when it may result in a destitute asylum-seeker losing any entitlement to support. As this could lead to a violation of human rights in the circumstances outlined above, it would be more appropriate to place the burden on the Secretary of State to establish that conditions for withholding support, compatible with human rights standards, had been met".
I turn now to the question of whether the refusal of support is justifiable at all. The Joint Committee on Human Rights says that leaving the claimant destitute would probably be a breach of Article 3 of the European convention on the grounds that it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Even if that were not so, a breach of the obligation would be a breach of the obligation under Article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises the right of everyone to adequate food, clothing and housing.
I recognise that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is not incorporated in United Kingdom law, but surely the Government should not deliberately contravene it. To say that one can and must leave an asylum seeker destitute so long as the treatment is not technically inhuman is, I believe, unworthy.
For procedural reasons, we cannot now vote to remove Clause 54 in toto from the Bill. However, we can, and I believe should, restrict it, and that is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Those amendments would remove the prohibition on support for the destitute by restricting the operation of Clause 54 to the provision of accommodation under the 1999 Act or under Clause 16 of the present Bill. Support for the destitute under Sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would be preserved. Access to temporary support under Clause 23 of the Bill would also be preserved. I believe that the effect of Clause 54 is unacceptable and inhumane and
1466
that the Government should take note of, and act upon, the criticisms in the report of the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Goodhart for having drafted this and other amendments to enable the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to be raised before the House during this debate. I am also grateful to him for having so fully explained what is to be found in our latest report. I want to make one or two points for the benefit of the House.
The Joint Select Committee is composed of six Members of the other place and six noble Lords drawn from all sides of the political spectrum, including the Cross Benches. They have the benefit of an expert legal adviser. Unlike the Government, who are entitled not to reveal their legal advice, the Joint Select Committee does reveal in a transparent way its legal advice on human rights issues. The committee, under its chair, Jean Corston, MP, has a Labour majority, but I believe that we act beyond party and we have been unanimous. Our report draws attention to some extremely serious human rights issues.
I have already accepted that the Government have no obligation to explain in their Explanatory Notes what they think about the human rights implications of amendments that they have tabled. But the Minister has an obligation, accepted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to inform the House as fully as he can of the Government's response to the human rights issues raised by the Joint Select Committee. Unless that is done, it means that the House is being asked to legislate in the dark. I know that the inadequacy of ministerial responses is a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has frequently drawn attention in the past. On the Select Committee we have had to work under enormous pressure and at great speed to produce what I hope noble Lords will consider to be a rational and comprehensive report.
The Home Office legal advisers have no doubt given full advice to Ministers about the human rights implications. I am not asking for that legal advice to be disclosed, but, on behalf of the committee—those of us who are members of the committee and those who are not here—I should like to hear a reasoned response to the particular issues in our report to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart has drawn attention. I very much hope that we shall not be told that the Minister will write to us because, by then, it will be too late. We need to have a fully considered response today to the targeted report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course I support the amendment, but I particularly support the argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It was clear and, to my mind, wholly persuasive. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, pointed out, it was based on the rendering of a non-party-political committee—the JCHR. That committee has Professor David Feldman as a legal adviser. I believe

1467
that the whole House could pay tribute to him for his magnificent work, carried out at short notice, which formed the basis of our unanimous report.
As your Lordships know, I have sat on the committee for some time. But it is seldom that we have had a situation not only where we have had to report with such speed but where we have done so with total unanimity. In the past, the Minister and I have had our own private problems on the subject of human rights. Thanks to his help, they have always been satisfactorily resolved. However, now there is not time in which to resolve the problem, as has been pointed out with considerable clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This time around we cannot see the advice which has been given to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. That is privileged and has always been conceded to be so, but at this stage we are entitled to a response which reflects that advice. That is all we ask.
As things stand, the conclusion of the report on page 49 is worth mentioning. It is only the part concerned with Clause 54, which, I agree, is unacceptable and, as it stands, inhumane. However, the committee, which is unanimous, states:
"We draw the following matters to the attention of each House on human rights grounds.
—There is a risk that leaving a person destitute would inevitably threaten a violation of rights under Articles 3 and/or 8…
—There is a risk that the power to support children without related adults might lead to the separation of members of a family, giving rise to a risk of a violation of Article 8…
—There is a danger that Clause 54, inserted in the Bill on re-commitment, would authorise a violation of the right to adequate housing, food and clothing under Article 11(1) of the ICESC",
to which I referred earlier. Finally:
"—There are weaknesses of safeguards for human rights in Clause 54, in view of:

(i) the burden being placed on the claimant to satisfy the Secretary of State that a claimant has claimed asylum as soon as reasonably practicable;

(ii) The lack of objectivity in the requirement that a person must claim asylum as soon as reasonably practicable in order to be entitled to support;

(iii) the lack of any appeal to an adjudicator against a decision denying support; and

(iv) the absence of any power to provide support pending an application for judicial review of the decision to deny support".

I mention that—I was about to say "in open court"—on the Floor of the House as it is on those sort of issues that I most respectfully seek a response from the Minister.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 10B tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am concerned as to whether the burden of proof should be with the claimant or the Secretary of State. I am not a lawyer, so I hope the House may forgive a simplistic analogy. I have been trying to reflect on this as the debate goes on.
If a person at school applies for permission to have a weekend at home and is late in applying for such permission, I can well understand that the burden of
1468
proof should be upon them to give a good reason why he or she was late because it is simply a question of an optional privilege. However, if a person is threatened with expulsion because of an alleged serious offence, it seems to me entirely right that the burden of proof should remain with the governing authorities of the school.
In this issue we are speaking of destitution. We are not speaking about bonus or privilege, but about something which is fundamental. Therefore, I support the amendment, which leaves the burden of proof with the Secretary of State.
Earl Russell: My Lords, at present a high proportion of successful applicants are applying in-country. During 2001, 46,160 people, or 65 percent of the total, applied for asylum in-country. There is no evidence to suggest that their applications were less successful than those who applied at the port of entry. There were 21,105 in-country applications granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain compared to 10,915 port applications. A further 17,475 in-country applications were granted asylum or ELR on appeal compared with 4,445 port applicants. It looks as if the applicants in country have a slightly better chance of success. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that their applications are in any way inherently less meritorious.
Such applications may be made in perfectly good faith. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is in his place so I beg his pardon if this is not so. It was the noble Lord who said that he did not realise it was necessary on arriving in the country to claim asylum. I have mentioned before the case of ex parte B in 1996. B walked from Waterloo to Lunar House to claim asylum in the mistaken but entirely honest belief that the headquarters of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate were the proper place to claim asylum. That is an honest error, for which total deprivation of support is a grossly disproportionate error.
I am extremely grateful for the Minister's comments in Committee regarding torture. I have come to know him as a man who is just, generous and careful, and I respect him deeply for that. The difficulty is, first, as I have heard my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby argue many times in this Chamber, it often takes a long time and great difficulty and danger to obtain evidence of torture from abroad. Secondly, once the evidence of torture is available, it often takes a long time for the lower reaches of the Home Office to believe it.
I remember a case of one of the Campsfield nine, about which I had an extremely long correspondence—triangular in conjunction with the firm of Christian Fisher—with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It took us many months, and I suspect the personal intervention of the noble and learned Lord, to convince the Home Office that in that case the evidence of torture was perfectly genuine and the asylum claim well founded.
If there is a total deprivation of support, what are such people to live on while they are trying to establish that they have been tortured or that if returned they

1469
face a serious risk of torture? There are risks here which have not been considered. Also, the Home Secretary—this is another case of him legislating in haste—has built another stage into the asylum application process. For as long as I can remember these debates, the Home Office has been asking for the process to be speeded up. However, now we have brought into the process the question of deciding whether the application was made as soon as was reasonably practicable. That is a technical question. It involves knowledge of conditions in a great many countries around the world, with which I do not believe NASS to be conspicuously well equipped.
It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that the performance of NASS has not received entire and universal applause. It will, I am sure, not have escaped his attention now that if we put into the asylum process another and complicated hurdle, it will all take a great deal longer than it does now. That is not what we want; it is not what the Home Office wants, and I do not believe it is what anyone wants, but that will be the effect of leaving the Bill unamended.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford put the point concerning the burden of proof extremely well and clearly. I hope he will be pleased to know that what he is saying is confirmed by the Home Office's research study 243. That states:
"There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK".
That explains why many current and past applications have arrived late and why a high proportion has succeeded.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in moving the amendment made reference to the fact that the amendments seek to amend the new clause tabled last week by the Government at recommitment. He said that because of certain rules he was not able to strike that out. That of course is simply because the noble Lord tried last week and failed. So who can blame him for having a second go in a different way?
At this stage I repeat the clear commitment that I gave from these Benches last week that we support the objectives that the Government seek to achieve by the new clause. Last week I spoke about the importance I attach to the guidelines that the Government are committed to introduce under the clause. I covered those issues at cols. 982 to 984 on 17th October. I shall not repeat them. I was very grateful to the Minister for the care with which he answered my rather long list of questions. I have considered his answers since then, and I am completely satisfied on the points.
There is a significant change in that the Joint Committee has had an opportunity to report on these matters. We have a duty to thank it for acting so speedily on such a significant matter. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right to point out that
1470
this is the opportunity for the Government to give a response on that matter. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, but I put on the record that we support the Government in the objective that they seek in the clause.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I remind the House why we think this measure is necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right: there is a high level of in-country asylum claims; in other words, only about one-third of asylum claims are made at the port. That does not mean that those two-thirds who apply in-country are automatically to be seen as not genuine asylum seekers; neither does the reverse apply: that those two-thirds are genuine asylum seekers.
The issue is about trying to get more order into the system. By that I mean that there are a substantial number of people who enter the country and work illegally. We know that when their visa or right to stay in the country expires a substantial number of people continue to reside in the country, working or not, because they wish to do so. Increasingly, when they are apprehended by the police or by immigration officials, they claim asylum and claim support at the same time. Nothing can be done about their claim for asylum. Indeed, there is nothing that we would wish to do about their claim for asylum. That should be considered.
There is clearly an issue about whether people in the circumstances that I have described should be supported by the state while they make an asylum claim which, on all the evidence, appears to be substantially late. I remind the House, without going into the issue, that it is not fundamentally an issue of funding. The funding figure is substantial—£1 billion a year on asylum support, which is an average cost per person supported of £10,000 per year.
At heart, what we seek is no more or less than to say to people, "We want you to apply at the earliest reasonable possible opportunity if you believe you wish to apply for asylum". To reinforce that point, we are basically saying that state support will be available to people who do so behave and that state support, with some very important exceptions to which I shall come, will not in the alternative circumstances. To be direct about the matter, we believe that that is reasonable and necessary in the world that we occupy.
Therefore, we cannot accept amendments Nos. 11 and 12 because they would undermine the intention of the Government's measures for dealing with late claims.
For the reasons I have outlined, we need to introduce measures which will help us to have more order and control in the process. Our proposed changes to the support system strengthen our strategy of moving towards a more streamlined, managed and fair system than we currently have.
It is entirely reasonable to expect those who are genuinely in need of international protection to claim asylum as soon as reasonably practicable. It is not helpful to the achievement of an effective asylum

1471
process if there is no encouragement to applicants to come forward and to be frank with us. We believe that applicants are likely to modify their behaviour and to come forward at an earlier stage. The aim is to produce an orderly and managed process.
Our new measures are different from the position created in 1996. Clause 54 will not affect families with children. That is the direct response to the JCHR question. Support will be provided to asylum seekers with dependent children under 18, even if they have not applied for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable. In addition, those with care needs will be able to access national assistance, as they can now, if they have a need for care and attention which is not solely due to destitution or the effects of destitution, whether or not they applied early or late.
The Government are unable to accept Amendment No. 10B. The purpose of Clause 54 is to establish that there should be no presumption of support for an asylum seeker who makes his claim after entry to the UK, unless he can satisfy the authorities that he has made his claim as soon as he reasonably could have done. The amendment starts from the opposite viewpoint; namely, that there should be a presumption of support unless the Secretary of State can prove that a person has not made his claim without undue delay.
As I said when we considered this clause last week, it is an entirely reasonable expectation that those who want the United Kingdom's protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity. That will enable us to help the genuine cases by allowing access to our integration arrangements as soon as possible. At the same time, it will increase the likelihood of those who do not need our protection returning home.
I make no apology, therefore, that the clause is aimed at helping to achieve that situation. We believe that literally tens of thousands of people who make in-country applications could have claimed asylum on arrival.
I turn to the amendment. The Government's view is that a person who has a genuine reason for failing to claim asylum as soon as reasonably practicable will be able to explain what that reason was. There is clearly a duty on the Secretary of State to listen to that. Similarly, if the claimant is destitute, he will be able to show why that is the case. It is easier for an asylum seeker to tell us why he has made a late claim than for the Secretary of State to establish that. The information and the evidence is with the asylum claimant; it is not with the Secretary of State. Therefore, it is fair to expect claimants to put that evidence before the Secretary of State. They are in possession of the information of why they have not made the claim. Therefore, it is right that the burden of proof is on them.
We are asking no more of asylum seekers than we ask of our own citizens. Effectively, if they wish to claim benefit they are expected to co-operate with the processes of government. We have moved away from a world where there are almost automatic benefits irrespective of the reasonable requirements of the state. Therefore, we can see no reason why there should not be such requirements in these cases.
1472
I turn to the very important issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I join others in thanking it for its work. I accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to respond to those important considerations, and I shall do so now.
As regards Article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11 does not set an absolute standard. It is perfectly consistent with Article 11.1 for a state to impose reasonable conditions on the receipt of support and to guarantee only a lower level of support where a person has failed to comply with the condition in question. It is therefore reasonable to require asylum seekers to make their asylum claims as soon as reasonably practicable and to make their receipt of full support conditional on that. If they fail to do so, support will still be available to comply with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as support for families with children and those with special needs, irrespective of whether they apply late. All of that is fully consistent with Article 11.1.
On specific legal response on the burden of proof, I fear that we disagree with the JCHR report. If people claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution under the refugee convention, that should be one of the first things that they communicate to the authorities after they arrive in the United Kingdom. Their reason for coming here is to claim asylum, not to seek work or to visit friends. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to expect them to register a claim for asylum at the first reasonable opportunity.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the Minister knows, many people who are unfamiliar with our system think it necessary to consult a lawyer before submitting their application. So, a day or a week after their arrival, they go to a lawyer to assist them in formulating their claim. Would that be a credible or genuine reason for the delay to which the Minister earlier referred?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not be drawn on the exact detail of how the regulations and advice, when prepared, will operate in practice. That will clearly depend on both the nature of the advice and the circumstances. It would not advance our discussions if I sought to engage in such detail. For those who enter our country and claim asylum at ports, the induction process will give them plenty of opportunity to seek advice and to understand how the process operates.
If applicants make their claim at a port, they will receive support. There is no doubt about that. Without a shadow of doubt, anyone who makes a claim for asylum at port will receive full support. If they make the claim in-country, they must show us why they have waited and give us reasonable evidence why they have done so.
I turn to other questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the standard of proof. Yes, it will be the civil standard of proof. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the person who walked from Waterloo to Lunar House. Clearly, a person's honest errors will not be penalised. A person

1473
who has made a genuine and honest error should be able clearly to advance that case and not be at risk of penalty. With regard to the question about torture, a person can lodge an asylum application even if he is still collecting evidence to back up his asylum claim. So, in a sense, the evidence about torture is subsequent to the lodging of the claim—although it is clearly relevant to consideration of the claim—so it does not bear on this point.
A further point arises from the JCHR's report about the extension of regulation-making powers. It says that the issue of when and how a person arrives is irrelevant to the issue of destitution. When and how a person arrives in the United Kingdom is crucial to whether we can be satisfied whether he is destitute. That enables us to discover for how long they have been in the UK, which is highly relevant to the judgment of whether it was reasonable for them to delay their application. Our intention is therefore to amend the NASS application form so as to require applicants for support to provide us with such information.
I accept that these are important issues, and especially appreciate the importance of the JCHR's comments but, for the reasons that I have stated, the power is necessary if we are to bring order to our system. The JCHR's questions have been good and important and I hope that I have fully answered them. Without seeking to irritate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, if there are points that I have not yet answered, I am unlikely to do much better this afternoon, but I shall certainly not deny him further consideration if that would be helpful.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that nothing that he says could possibly irritate me in any circumstances. Of course, what he has said will be studied carefully by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are all grateful for what he has said so far by way of explanation, but he has not dealt with three points that we raised.
He explained why, in the Government's view, the burden of proof should be placed on the asylum seeker, but we made three other points about the lack of effective safeguards. First, there is the lack of objectivity in the requirement that a person must claim asylum as soon as reasonably practicable to be entitled to support. Secondly, there is the lack of any appeal to an adjudicator against a decision denying support. Thirdly, there is the absence of any power to provide support pending an application for judicial review of the decision to deny support. We attach great importance to such safeguards; why do the Government not consider them necessary to ensure that human rights are well protected?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may at least respond on the issue of appeal.
1474
We do not accept that Article 6 of the ECHR necessarily applies, as we do not accept that the receipt of support is a civil right for the purposes of the article. That is especially so because the amendment not only confers no power to give support but prohibits the provision of support. But even if that is a civil right, judicial review is an adequate remedy for Article 6 purposes. Appeal to the asylum support adjudicators would be inappropriate, because they have no expertise on whether the asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable.
If it is claimed that the Secretary of State is adopting an unreasonable stance on whether a claim is late, that can be judicially reviewed in the usual way. It is true that a person will not receive support subject to Article 3 of the ECHR—special needs and children excepted—during any judicial review, but a person does not need support effectively to pursue judicial review. Provided that he passes the usual means and merits test, he will receive funding for his legal challenge from the Legal Services Commission.
I apologise for not responding to the other two points raised. There has been pressure for the JCHR, the House and, sometimes, even pressure for the Government under the timetables.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's answers.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we object to the principle behind Clause 54. I agree that Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to some extent undermine that principle. However, Amendments Nos. 10B and 12A do not. They are simply a matter of natural justice. Those amendments would not prevent the Government from withholding support from people who do not make an asylum claim as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is simply a question of the burden of proof.
Someone who fails to provide evidence of the date of his arrival or of the reason for his delay in claiming asylum creates an inference that there was a delay for unjustifiable causes. So we are not here concerned with people who simply say, "We will not tell you anything about how long we have been here or why we have not applied before". We are simply considering cases in which some evidence is produced. In the ordinary manner, there will be an interview and some kind of investigation to decide what are the reasons. In such a case, there is no argument but that the burden of proof should rest on the Secretary of State. As I said, that is simply a matter of natural justice.
The amendment is important, so I seek to test the opinion of the House.
5.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10B) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maddock, B.

Alderdice, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Methuen, L.

Avebury, L.

Monson, L.

Barker, B.

Newby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Best, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Bradshaw, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Razzall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Rennard, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roper, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Greaves, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Greengross, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Sharman, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hylton, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Joffe, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tope, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Walmsley, B.

McNally, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Filkin, L.

Alli, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Gavron, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bach, L.

Golding, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grenfell, L.

Borrie, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bragg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harrison, L.

Brookman, L.

Haskel, L.

Burlison, L.

Hayman, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Christopher, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

David, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

Desai, L.

Jordan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Judd, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dubs, L.

Kingsland, L.

Elder, L.

Layard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Levy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Lipsey, L.

1476

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Rooker, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Sewel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sheldon, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Simon, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mitchell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morgan, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Thornton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Pendry, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitty, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilkins, B.

Puttnam, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Rea, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Winston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 12A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 31, line 27, at end insert ", or
(c) the provision of support under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) or section 23 of this Act (provisional support) to a person under the age of 18 and the household of which he forms part."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is tempting to say that this is a minor and technical amendment, but it is a little more than that. The amendment is entirely consistent with the Government's position that asylum-seeker families with children will be supported, even if they have not applied for asylum, as soon, as is reasonably practicable.
Temporary support is currently provided to asylum seekers under Section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 if they are destitute, until the Secretary of State has determined whether support may be provided under Section 95. Clause 23 of the Bill duplicates that process for those who will be supported in accommodation centres.
All the amendment does is put beyond any reasonable doubt that families with children can be provided with temporary support, even if they have made a late claim. I believe that all Members of the House will be happy with the amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Application for support: false or incomplete information]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 58 [International projects]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 33, line 31, at end insert "including external gateways into the UK managed by the UNHCR"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I want to make it clear from the start that this is a probing amendment. As so often happens when one wants to ask the Government to put their policy on the record, one has to table an amendment which will achieve an objective which one does not necessarily want to see on the face of the Bill. This is just such a case.
This is a genuine attempt to give the Government the opportunity to clarify a couple of press reports which have appeared during the past three or four weeks. They appear to show that the Government are intentionally developing a new asylum policy. When the Home Secretary gave a press statement to The Times and information to the BBC on Monday 7th October, he stated that he would start accepting refugees from next April for resettlement directly from overseas, working with the UNHCR. He stated:
"The most oppressed people in the world are too poor to pay traffickers to get to the UK. They stay in refugee camps in countries next door to those they have fled".
I agree with that judgment. The press release continued:
"We will start taking such refugees into the UK—small numbers at first, but building up as we get a grip on wider abuse of the asylum system".
I referred to the matter on 7th October when the House was making representations about a recommitment. I then referred to it as an example of new provisions which would justify further time being allocated for the consideration of the Bill in a recommitment. The Minister then said that we had already debated it all on another matter. On looking back at previous debates in Committee, I assume he meant Amendment No. 163 which was moved on 15th July by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, at col. 1048. But the trouble is that at that stage the details of the Government's intentions were not clear. Only their recent press releases have begun to clarify their position. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to go further with that clarification.
On 7th October, in the Government's briefing note to editors—not part of the statement which appeared in the press—they stated that:
"For the first time this will provide a managed, tight, external gateway for those genuinely fleeing persecution".
Mr Blunkett is personally quoted as saying that this is,
"a new UNHCR gateway".
My questions for the Minister are as follows. What is the Government's response to the briefing circulated to noble Lords by the UNHCR in response to the Home Secretary's announcement on 7th October in which it raises several qualms? What do the Government mean by "small numbers next year" involved in the resettlement programme? How small is small? It is tens, hundreds or thousands? What are the Government's plans? What is the maximum number that the Government intend to resettle here if they get the asylum application system under proper control?
From which countries will they come? What did the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, mean on 15th July when he called it a "quota" scheme? That is a significant word
1478
and it appears at col. 1051. When one talks about quotas, one tends to be defining people coming here either by ethnic background or by country group. In this context, often one is talking about having achieved an idea of the total number after negotiation with EU states or others having determined how many asylum seekers/refugees they, too, will take under similar circumstances.
On 15th July, the Minister appeared to say that the applications would be made through the UNHCR and it would recommend to the Government who might come here for settlement. Where will potential resettlement people make their applications and to whom? Is it to be at embassies or directly at UNHCR offices overseas? Can applicants make those applications from within the country where they are being persecuted or do they first have to flee across the border? For example, will people currently living in Zimbabwe who are being persecuted be able to apply inside or outside the borders of Zimbabwe? Is Afghanistan included or excluded from the scheme? How will the Government's decision on this be affected by the tripartite agreement the Government reached on 12th October between the UK Government and the transitional Islamic state of Afghanistan and the UNHCR?
Is there now an agreement that some of those who are currently living in Sangatte will be allowed to come here? I am aware that on 15th July the Minister said that there would have to be some way of dealing appropriately with the inhabitants of Sangatte. At that stage, he indicated that he would write to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I have not had sight of such a letter and wondered whether it had been sent and whether the Government had decided on the process of settling the people at Sangatte somewhere and whether some of them will come to this country?
I appreciate that the Government must have carefully considered the new policy—for "new policy" they call it—before they announced the details to the press on 7th October. The problem is that so far the detail of that policy has not been made available to your Lordships' House. I therefore thought that I should table the amendment today so that the Minister could put the Government's thinking on the record. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned Sangatte in France. If the UNHCR services are to be called upon to sort out the considerable numbers of potential refugees milling around that area, will it be possible for the Government to sort out for our benefit those people who have a strong connection with this country? Such a connection could be, for example, having close relatives here or possessing a good knowledge of the English language.

1479
I have tried to raise some of these issues in the past but without much success. I should be most grateful if the Minister could throw some light on them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will it be necessary to amend the Bill before it leaves Parliament to accommodate the new plan?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for setting out the intentions behind her amendment, which was extraordinarily helpful of her. The noble Baroness will understand that it will be difficult for me to give some of the precise details for which she asked.
In essence, we sympathise with the motivation behind this probing amendment. Clause 58 provides the Secretary of State with greater flexibility to fund and participate in projects connected to migration. Projects may be designed to reduce unregulated migration, effect voluntary or compulsory return of migrants or provide settlement to migrants in the UK or elsewhere.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to provide financial support to organisations involved in such projects and to provide migrants with financial or other assistance. It does not set out the detail of those projects—simply the parameters within which funding may be granted.
Clause 58 contains the legal base for funding our new resettlement programme. The programme will provide a safe haven for recognised refugees whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental human rights cannot be protected in the country where they have been resident. On 7th October, the Home Secretary announced that our resettlement programme will begin on 1st April 2003. In providing a humanitarian gateway to the UK, we are not only offering much needed sanctuary to those most in need but are reducing the need to have recourse to human traffickers and demonstrating our support for the UNHCR's calls for greater support to be provided to regions hosting large refugee populations.
We cannot accept the amendment for a number of reasons. We are not in a position at this stage to say whether the UK's resettlement programme will or will not be managed by UNHCR. We hope that the commissioner will certainly be involved, and we intend that, in particular, it will play a critical role in the initial selection of possible candidates for resettlement. However, overall management of the project will be a matter for the UK Government. We will retain control over the decision to permit entry to the UK—including by setting our annual quota—and must satisfy ourselves that no abuse or fraud is allowed to permeate the programme.
We will be discussing with the UNHCR, other relevant international bodies and non-governmental organisations precisely what will be their role in the programme. I hope that UNHCR's role will include among other things referring potentially suitable cases to us.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that UNHCR already refers potentially suitable cases
1480
under the mandate refugee scheme and that the UK is accepting something like 500 persons so nominated per annum? Will the new scheme be completely different? If so, how will it dovetail and what will be the initial numbers? Presumably they will be additional to the 500 refugees that we are already accepting.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would not be proper for me to attempt to provide that level of detail because we have to work through some of the issues—particularly in consultation and discussion with the organisations to which I referred.
We hope that the UNHCR's role will include also conducting overall co-ordination of the global resettlement effort and advising us on best practice for our programme's operation. That would parallel the role that the UNHCR plays in resettlement programmes operated by other European countries.
Clause 58 already provides for all that to take place and allows the Secretary of State to fund projects managed by the UNHCR, should such an assignment of management responsibility occur. There is no need to duplicate that provision by making a specific reference in Clause 58(1)(e) to the UNHCR or projects involving that body. To create such duplication would undermine the need for brevity in legislation—something of which the House is often reminded—and possibly its accuracy, which is as important. The clause is primarily intended to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility in funding projects. As we intend to provide resettlement exceptionally, outside the rules, it is neither appropriate nor necessary that details of its operation appear in primary legislation. To do so would undermine the clause's flexibility, the programme's operation and the way in which we work with the UNHCR, NGOs and other international organisations.
Clause 58 is designed to support, not define, the design and implementation of the resettlement project. Continuing consultation with the UNHCR, expert bodies and experienced resettlement countries will inform its development so that we implement a model based on best practice. When developed, the detail of the programme will be publicly available as part of the immigration department's policy instructions and will be kept under close review, to take into account emerging experience and developments.
We fully understand the importance of the UNHCR being seen to be acting within its mandate when participating in a project of whatever type—as failure to act in accordance with the mandate may mean that the commission is acting unlawfully. However, whether or not the UNHCR is carrying out its protection mandate is ultimately for that body to judge. It is not something that can be affected, determined or achieved automatically by reference to a mandate in the clause.
I was asked whether people from Sangatte will be resettled under the scheme. The answer is no. Sangatte is subject to different arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether legislation

1481
would be needed to amend the plan. The resettlement scheme will be provided exceptionally outside the Immigration Rules, so the answer is no.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend used her amendment to ask about the implications of the Home Office press release. Do the Government envisage implementing that press release and, if so, will they have to amend Clause 58? I understood the Minister to say that that would not be necessary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that will not be necessary.
As to numbers, we estimate something like 500 migrants per year. We do not yet know the source countries, but that will be determined over time and through consultation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether the different arrangements regarding Sangatte will, in his opinion, lead to a real decrease in the number of people trying to enter this country illegally, at great risk to their own lives and causing great disruption to transport services?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are achieving greater and higher levels of co-operation with our colleagues in France. The arrangements we are putting in place in regard to Sangatte should deal more than adequately with the issues raised by the noble Lord. I hope that the answer to his question is yes.
I hope that I have dealt with the other points that were raised during the debate. If I have not and there are particular issues on which noble Lords require further information, I shall be more than happy to respond to them, perhaps through correspondence.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his contribution on the issue of numbers and for the later clarification that he sought from the Minister. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for the important clarification that she obtained in regard to the Government's belief that there is no need to amend this clause in order to achieve the policy they set out in the press release on 7th October. I thank the Minister for giving me so little detail so courteously. I shall, of course, continue to pursue these matters. But this is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it tonight.
It would appear that the House is being asked, in a sense, to give the Government a blank cheque in regard to this clause when the Government have said that they have not worked out the detail. Obviously I was being far too ingenuous in commenting in my opening remarks that I thought that the Government must have worked through the policy in great detail before launching it upon the unsuspecting world on 7th October. I got that totally wrong.
1482
I am intrigued that the Minister said that the Government will be achieving different arrangements in regard to Sangatte. As he will expect, I shall seek to find out—perhaps through Written Questions—what on earth those different arrangements may be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Right of appeal: general]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 48, line 6, at end insert—
"(2A) A variation or revocation of the kind referred to in subsection (2)(e) or (f) shall not have effect while an appeal under subsection (1) against that variation or revocation—

(a) could be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), or

(b) is pending."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is genuinely a technical amendment. It seeks to ensure that where the Home Office curtails or revokes a person's leave to remain, the curtailment or revocation will not take effect until any appeal against it has been concluded. More explanation than that is not required. I have explained it as concisely as I can. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Appeal: claim for asylum]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 48, line 10, leave out "a claim for asylum" and insert "an asylum claim"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Essentially, these are tidying amendments. In Committee, Clause 109 was amended to establish a definition of "asylum claim" for the whole of Part 5. I am advised that there is no need for a separate definition for the purposes of Clause 81. We simply propose to remove it. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I quite understand the amendment, but why does the title of the clause remain "claim for asylum"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, presumably because that is the issue covered by the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 48, line 13, leave out "one year" and insert "28 days"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the moment, the vast majority of people who are granted exceptional leave to remain for 28 days or more can appeal to an adjudicator to upgrade their status to that of a refugee. That gives them access to an independent evaluation of their claim and, if they are successful, to important benefits in terms of their immediate family reunion rights and settlement in the United Kingdom.
The courts have commented on a number of occasions on the benefits that refugee status confers over exceptional leave to remain, the most significant being that of family reunion. In the case of Saad,

1483
Diriye and Osorio, the Court of Appeal stated clearly that the recognition as a refugee of a person who is in fact a refugee was an international obligation under the convention.
I do not suppose that the Minister will give me what I am asking but, if he cannot accept the amendment, will he at least assure the House that where refugee status is refused but ELR is granted, full reasons for the refusal of refugee status and the grant of ELR will be given to the applicant? This is very important because, if the appeal is delayed for one year, as the Government plan, there will that much of a gap between the finding of the facts in the initial determination and the adjudication on those facts on appeal.
It would not be administratively difficult for the Government to do this because in many cases they already explain the decision to grant ELR—for example, where the Home Office first refuses a person's application for refugee status and then later a decision is made to grant ELR on the basis of subsequent representations.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that it was a matter of clogging up the system: that if you had a significant number of cases of people applying for asylum—he gave the example of Kosovo in 1999—who are not found to qualify but are seen to have a right to exceptional leave to remain, such people would clog up the system, as the Minister put it, if it was necessary to test their appeals. That is the primary justification for putting these people in a position of not having a right of appeal for 12 months after they have been granted ELR.
However, reference has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to the growing practice of Ministers issuing policy through press release. In this case, we have the statement made by the Home Office on 7th October that it intends to,
"end the routine granting of Exceptional Leave to Remain…on a country basis, and review its use and scope to focus it on those who really need special humanitarian protection".
If that is the case, we will not need to take precautions against those granted ELR continuing to enjoy the rights that they have already under the existing system of changing their status to that of refugee.
Moreover, we hope that there will not be cases such as Kosovo or Afghanistan—which is the other big example—where ELR was given on a country basis to anyone who applied, bearing in mind the impossibility of sending anyone back to those countries. If we do not have another Kosovo or Afghanistan situation, it is very difficult to envisage circumstances where the international community decides to restore the rights of people in a particular territory, and thus anyone coming from such territories who seeks asylum in this country may be seen to have a capacity to return within a measurable space of time. That is the kind of situation in which ELR is granted on a country basis, but we do not envisage that happening again in the future.
It is unsatisfactory that genuine refugees must reapply for asylum after a whole year on ELR. It will waste resources because it will put an additional administrative load on the Home Office to process asylum claims for a second time when they have been sitting on the shelf for the past 12 months. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this issue was debated at some length on 23rd July. It is not my intention to cover ground that was covered on that occasion. However, I am aware of the understandable concern that some future government might abuse that provision. In theory, it would be possible to deny an unsuccessful asylum seeker the right of appeal indefinitely by granting leave to remain for successive periods. As was explained to the House on 23rd July, the Government would not seek to do that. I am happy to give that reassurance again. However, one can fully understand the anxieties that have prompted the amendment.
We have, as a consequence, asked officials to consider whether it would be possible to amend Clause 81 to provide a right of appeal wherever an unsuccessful asylum seeker is granted exceptional leave to remain for more than a year in total—so, two grants of a year, two grants of eight months, or three grants of six months would all result in the right of appeal.
Regrettably, it has not been possible to resolve how the matter should be dealt with in time for this debate. However, it is our expectation that we shall be able to satisfy your Lordships at Third Reading that the concern that is understandably addressed in the amendment has been properly reflected upon. It is important that we get the details right.
If this amendment were accepted, it would still be possible to deny the right of appeal. Instead of granting a year at a time, government could grant a month at a time. No doubt that is not the intention or spirit behind the amendment, but it opens up that unpalatable prospect. It would be a most regrettable outcome.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about giving full reasons when refusal has occurred. I am more than happy to give the assurance that full reasons will be provided. I hope that in the light of those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful for the two points that the Government have conceded: first, that full reasons will be given for the granting of exceptional leave to remain and for the refusal of refugee status where that decision is made by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; secondly, that if cumulative periods of granted ELR add up to over a year, the right of appeal for refugee status will kick in at the end of 12 months. We very much look forward to an amendment at Third Reading giving effect to that undertaking. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 48, line 14, leave out "claim for asylum" and insert "asylum claim"
Page 48, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Matters to be considered]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 49, line 11, leave out "against an immigration decision" and insert "or 81(2) against a decision"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. The 1999 Act makes it clear that in an asylum appeal the adjudicator can consider any relevant evidence, whether or not it could have been foreseen when the decision to appeal against it was taken.
Clause 83 repeats this provision. It does not include an asylum appellant who has been given limited leave to remain on some other basis—that is, those appealing under Clause 81(2). The amendment corrects that image. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 49, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to probe for the second time why the Government intend that appeals against the refusal of an entry clearance and against the refusal of a certificate of entitlement should be assessed on a different footing from other appeals. In these cases, an adjudicator will be able to consider only evidence relating to the date of the decision, as opposed to all relevant evidence as at the date of the appeal hearing.
Clause 83(5) lays down that in appeals against refusal of entry clearance or refusal of a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom—both are appeals made outside the United Kingdom—an adjudicator,
"may consider only the circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision to refuse".
That is in contrast to appeals made from within the United Kingdom, where an adjudicator,
"may consider evidence about any matter which he thinks relevant to the substance of the decision, including evidence which concerns a matter arising after the date of the decision".
On 23rd July, I asked the Minister the following question:
"Why should an adjudicator be permitted to consider what weight, if any, to give post-decision evidence in an immigration matter where the appellant is in the United Kingdom but not be allowed to consider the same range of evidence when the appellant is overseas?".—[Official Report, 23/7/02; col. 334.]
In the course of his reply, the Minister said that he would write to me, if appropriate. Indeed, on 19th September, I received a communication from the
1486
noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, Mrs Beverley Hughes. In the final part of the letter, under the heading "Entry Clearance Appeals", she states:
"We have considered whether adjudicators should be able to take into account new facts when determining an appeal but remain of the opinion that despite the delays that can occur that Entry Clearance Officers are best placed to deal with these. Further relevant evidence is much easier to investigate in the country of origin and can be put direct to the ECO without penalty as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the appeal hearing, which may result in adjournment thereby delaying matters still further.
The new provisions for asylum seekers are not designed to give preference to such cases and disadvantage those applying for Entry Clearance but to streamline the appeal process and enhance one stop appeals, by reducing the opportunities for delay".
I am, of course, extremely grateful to Mrs Hughes for taking the trouble to write me a letter and to give me that explanation. But I must confess to being not much wiser about the rationale that lies behind the distinction. My understanding is that in other parts of the Bill the Minister is urging us to accept that an appeal is an appeal and it does not matter whether it is from inside the United Kingdom or launched from some other country; that no one launching an appeal against an unfavourable decision from some other country will in any way be disadvantaged.
If that is so, why is there this plain distinction on the face of the Bill between the kind of evidence that can be taken into account in these two sets of circumstances? I am most apologetic to the Minister for raising this matter again, but I wonder whether he is in a position to unpack Mrs Hughes's answer and enlighten me further. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, to respond in short: a little bit, but we will see how much that manages to satisfy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, knows, under the 1999 Act, the adjudicator is to decide the case on the basis of the circumstances applying at the time he hears the case if those circumstances relate to an asylum or Article 3 human rights matter. Other matters are to be decided according to the circumstances applying at the time of the decision. This followed case law, that of Ravichandran. Section 83 extends the principle so that nearly all appeals are dealt with on the "time of hearing" basis. That has advantages for one-stop appeals, in that updated circumstances can be considered without requiring a new decision or appeal.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the exception is appeals against refusal of entry clearance or a refusal of certificate of entitlement. I shall not repeat his quotation, which I can declare to be exact, from the letter of my honourable friend Beverley Hughes. Why are entry clearance cases treated differently? In short, they are not one-stop appeals. In a one-stop appeal, the adjudicator will consider everything arising up to the date of the hearing. That will usually include asylum or human rights issues relating to a potential removal. They look forward to what the situation might be when removal is likely to take place, so it is appropriate that the evidence considered is the latest available. Overseas cases, however, are an assessment

1487
of a decision taken on the basis of whether or not someone qualifies at that time under the Immigration Rules.
Case law in ordinary immigration cases suggests that it is fair to consider evidence that was not before the decision-maker but that is relevant to the decision and relates to circumstances at the time that the decision was taken. However, case law goes no further than that. Where circumstances have changed, the Government believe that it is right that a new application be made to the entry clearance officer. Adjudicators will still be able to take account of evidence that throws light on the facts at the date of the decision. However, the result of putting in evidence at the hearing can only incorporate delay if further investigation is needed, especially where the evidence originates from abroad. I hope that that response is helpful in at least some measure.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I could not help noticing that the Minister's reply to me on this matter lacked the ebullience and gusto of his replies to other Members of the Opposition.
Those appealing from abroad as a result of Clause 83(5) are placed in a less favourable position than those appealing from the United Kingdom. Nothing that the Minister said from the Dispatch Box this afternoon gave me confidence that the Government had given a rationale for the acceptability of this distinction. I will reflect on what the Minister said and I may return to the issue at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Ineligibility]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 50, line 20, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to a matter that we discussed in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has been good enough to hear further representations at two meetings during the summer.
The Immigration Rules do not cover all the circumstances in which the Secretary of State has a published policy or concession on who should be allowed to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom. Those concessions cover a wide range of circumstances, such as business people coming here to work, people who come on the basis of marriage and whose partners then die, and people who come here on the basis of a family relationship. Those refused permission to rely on such a concession or policy have a limited right of appeal. Such appeals are usually based on the claim that the Secretary of State got the facts wrong; for example, a decision that the policy did not apply to an appellant on the grounds that he was not working in a certain type of job, when in fact he was. Clause 86 removes any right of appeal to an adjudicator in those circumstances.
We accept that inevitably new policies and concessions will develop to meet new situations. There cannot ever be a state of perfection, where all policies
1488
are incorporated into the rules. However, certain long-standing concessions have not yet been incorporated into the rules. We ask that they be incorporated as soon as possible; that is to say, before the end of this calendar year. We must bear in mind that once the Bill has Royal Assent people who formerly would have had a right of appeal will be deprived of it despite the long-standing nature of the concession in question. In addition, I think that it is reasonable to ask that a review of policies and concessions be carried out at least annually, and that statements of changes to the Immigration Rules incorporate new policies at least annually. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment would permit an applicant to appeal even where he had sought to stay for a purpose not permitted by the Immigration Rules. Such an appeal would have to be dismissed. The Immigration Rules provide that an application must be refused where the applicant seeks to enter or remain for a purpose not covered by the rules—that much is plain. It would therefore be impossible for an adjudicator to uphold an appeal made wholly on those grounds. In some cases, the adjudicator must simply dismiss the appeal. This amendment would therefore provide an empty right of appeal, giving people false hope, and delaying the consideration of substantial appeals that may lie in a queue behind them. In some cases, the adjudicator can find that policy published by the Secretary of State has not been followed. However, even in those cases the adjudicator is not entitled to consider the merits of the decision. The only point at issue is whether the policy has been followed. In other words, the point is purely one of procedure and process.
The jurisdiction of adjudicators is substantive. Their function is to allow or dismiss appeals. We have a separate mechanism—judicial review—for challenging a decision by a public body on a point of procedure. The existing situation represents at best a duplication of functions and at worst a confusion of roles. Clause 86 takes nothing away from applicants. An appeal to an adjudicator adds nothing to the remedy open to them by way of judicial review, or through a simple letter to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It would be open to adjudicators to make extra-statutory recommendations in these cases, but such a recommendation is not binding and can only suggest that the decision-maker review new evidence. In any event, the Home Office reviews new evidence as a matter of policy, so the power to make recommendations adds nothing to what could be achieved simply by contacting the Home Office directly. Again, a failure by officials to consider fresh evidence would be a matter for judicial review.
Although one can understand the noble Lord's desire to ensure that there is proper process and that the merits of procedures have been properly understood, for the reasons I have given, we cannot agree to this amendment and we continue to resist it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I cannot understand why the Minister is being so negative about the

1489
amendment, given that after the 1999 Act some of the concessions at least—although not as many as anticipated—were incorporated into the rules.
We certainly expected the Minister's reply to give us some undertakings about the incorporation of these long-standing concessions into the rules, but he ignored that part of my speech. I mentioned several cases, such as business people who come here to work, people who come here on the basis of a marriage and whose partners die and people who come here on the basis of family relationship. In all those cases, there would have been a limited right of appeal, which I mentioned. I had thought that when we discussed the matter during the Summer Recess, we received some assurances that the Government would incorporate those long-standing concessions into the rules so that people would continue to enjoy the limited rights of appeal—as the Minister said, they are not extensive—on matters of fact.
Although I cannot press the matter to a Division at this stage, I am extremely unsatisfied with the noble Lord's answer and I hope to pursue it with him—
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have looked through my notes. They make it plain that we have registered the noble Lord's point. We need to do further work on incorporating those concessions into rules. We hope that we shall be able to make real progress by next year so that the process of incorporation will coincide with the commencement of Part 5. That may not go as far as the noble Lord would like, but that is our honest endeavour and what we seek to do. That may make him a little happier in withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that is a much better reply than the Minister gave at first. If it is possible to incorporate the long-standing concessions into the rules to coincide with the coming into force of Part 5, that will go a long way towards meeting what we are aiming to do. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 50, line 31, leave out from "on" to end of line 32 and insert "any or all of the grounds referred to in section 82(1)(b), (c) and (g)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments would add greater clarity to the legislation. I shall run fairly quickly through each amendment. Government Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 protect the right of appeal on asylum grounds where an appeal would otherwise be prevented by the operation of Clauses 86 and 87 respectively. Amendment No. 29 simplifies Clause 90(2) by replacing the list of appealable decisions with references to those decisions, thus avoiding repetition.
Amendment No. 30 clarifies that the trigger for suspensive asylum, human rights or EEA appeals is a decision made on an application on those grounds, not on the grounds of the appeal themselves. Amendment No. 31 is a minor and genuinely technical amendment to clarify that, where a certificate has been issued under Sections 11(2) or 12(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 on the removal of asylum claimants to a third country, a person may not appeal under Section 80(1) while they are still in the United Kingdom.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are technical amendments representing the knock-on effect of government amendments made elsewhere in Clause 109 concerning the definition of a human rights claim.
I hope that those explanations provide the necessary clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have a question about one of the amendments, which I hope I have understood. I am sure the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
Amendment No. 29 might appear on the face of it to be simply a drafting amendment, removing five paragraphs that are repeated elsewhere in the Bill and replacing them with a simple cross-reference. However, two of the provisions that currently appear in the list in Clause 90(2), which the amendment would replace with a cross-reference to the list in Clause 80(2), are worded slightly differently from those to which the cross-reference will point if the amendment is agreed to.
Clause 90(2)(b) and (c) allows a person to appeal from within the United Kingdom if he is appealing against a refusal to vary his leave to enter or remain, or against a variation of that leave. The Government propose to delete those words from the clause and replace them with a cross-reference to similar words in Clause 80(2). However, the wording is not quite the same in these two cases, although it is the same in the other three provisions to be replaced by cross-references.
Clause 90(2)(b) allows a person to appeal from within the United Kingdom if the appeal is against,
"refusal to vary a person's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom".
However, by replacing those words with a cross-reference to Clause 80(2)(d), the amendment will allow an appeal from the United Kingdom only if the appeal is against,
"refusal to vary a person's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if the result of the refusal is that the person has no leave to enter or remain".
By replacing the existing wording of Clause 90(2)(b) with the cross-reference I have just quoted, the amendment effectively adds,
"if the result of the refusal is that the person has no leave to enter or remain".
The same words would also effectively be added to those in Clause 90(2)(c).

1491
What is the effect of that on the right to appeal from within the United Kingdom allowed under Clause 90? Does it mean that a person cannot appeal from within the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State refuses to vary, or does vary, his leave to enter or remain, unless as a result he would have no leave to enter or remain? What would be the position of a person whose leave to remain was varied but who wanted to challenge the variation, perhaps on the grounds that an extension was not long enough? He would retain the right to remain in the United Kingdom, but, as I read the amendment, he would no longer have the right to appeal from within the United Kingdom under Clause 90, because of the effective insertion of the words that I have just quoted.
I apologise for what might seem to be a Committee point, but I hope your Lordships will agree that it is important to ensure that the effects of government amendments tabled late in the Bill's passage are probed and understood just as much as those tabled in Committee. I hope the noble Lord will be kind enough to help clarify the situation, or at least to respond to my observations. There may be a very simple explanation that I have entirely missed.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, mine is a more modest question, but I remain a little bemused about why the title in Clause 81 remained the same after government Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 23. My question relates to Amendment No. 32, which takes out the original words, which ended at the end of line 23 with the conjunction "and". The words that replace them do not return the conjunction "and". Is that significant? If not, why was "and" included in the first place? If there is significance, what is it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for asking what seems a very simple question. I hope that my response is equally simple. It is apparently a drafting amendment, because the wording was different and should not have been. That is what it amounts to. The references should coincide with the decision which the appeal is against. That is the simple explanation.
I do not have an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, as to why the word "and" was not replaced. If I receive an answer very shortly, I shall endeavour to provide it to the noble Lord—and I have just received the answer. The change was made for clarity of drafting and there is no change in effect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Visitor or student without entry clearance]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 51, line 1, leave out from "on" to end of line 2 and insert "any or all of the grounds referred to in section 82(1)(b), (c) and (g)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Appeal from within United Kingdom; general]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 51, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (e) and insert "an immigration decision of a kind specified in section 80(2)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (j)"
Page 52, line 1, leave out from "decision" to end of line 14 and insert "if the appellant—

(a) has made an asylum claim, or a human rights claim, while in the United Kingdom, or

(b) is an EEA national or a member of the family of an EEA national and makes a claim to the Secretary of State that the decision breaches the appellant's rights under the Community Treaties in respect of entry to or residence in the United Kingdom."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 91 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: "third country" removal]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
Page 52, line 16, leave out from "person" to "if" and insert "may not appeal under section 80(1) while he is in the United Kingdom"
Page 52, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—"
(a) the appellant has made a human rights claim,"
Page 52, line 24, leave out "claim mentioned in paragraph (a)" and insert "human rights claim"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 34, I have to inform your Lordships that if it or Amendment Mo. 35 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 36 under the pre-emption rules.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 52, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 34,I wish also to speak to the other amendments in this group which are in the names of my noble friends and myself; namely Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 38A, 38B, 39, 39A, 40 and 43A.
This group of amendments concerns Clause 92. The purpose of the clause, as it now stands after its amendment in Committee, is to exclude the right of appeal on asylum or European convention grounds in cases which the Home Secretary certifies as clearly unfounded. That test is indeed strengthened for the countries specified in subsection (4), which is commonly known as the "white list". The Government, according to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, apparently think that there is still a right to appeal from outside the United Kingdom and that all that has been excluded is the right to an in-country appeal. However, I have found it impossible to see how Clause 92 can have that effect. I agree with the Joint Committee that it appears pretty clearly to exclude any right of appeal in those cases, either in-country or outside the country.
The amendments in this group have a number of different purposes. Amendment No. 34 would allow all applicants who face a return to their country of origin to have a right of appeal which would in fact be an in-country right of appeal on either asylum or ECHR grounds. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would mean that the "white list" could operate only in respect of asylum claims and not claims made under the Human Rights Act. I have no hesitation in conceding that both these amendments are effectively wrecking amendments. We feel very strongly indeed that there should be a right of appeal in all these cases. We opposed the provision in Committee, and effectively we oppose it again now.
Amendments Nos. 38A and 38B would have a more limited effect as they would delete two countries from the "white list". The "white list"—and particularly a number of those countries—has been the subject of adverse comment in the Joint Committee's report. I should apologise to the Republic of Cyprus for the fact that it appears in Amendment No. 38A. That was not intended; it should have been the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, somewhere between my drafting and the Public Bill Office, it appeared as Cyprus rather than the Czech Republic.
Amendment No. 39 removes the power to add countries to the list by statutory instrument. Amendment No. 39A, a relatively minor amendment, prevents the order being made under subsection (5) without prior consultation.
All these amendments are covered by the report of the Joint Committee. In paragraphs 32 and 33 of its report, the Joint Committee points out, as I said, that the effect of Clause 92 is to exclude any right of appeal either inside or outside the UK to an adjudicator on grounds that removal from the United Kingdom would breach either the refugee convention or ECHR rights. The Joint Committee goes on to say that that would result in inadequate protection of human rights. At the end of paragraph 32, the Joint Committee states:
"In our view, the removal of any right of appeal results in there being inadequate protection for the human rights of claimants".
As I said, Amendment No. 34 ensures that the right of appeal will remain. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 will retain the right of appeal for claims based on the European Convention on Human Rights. I accept that most claimants would appeal on both grounds. So the amendments would very considerably limit the effect of the clause as it now stands.
On the "white list", the Joint Committee said:
"The presumption that a country is safe is of questionable validity. As observed on recommitment, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees…does not accept that any country can be declared 100 per cent safe, a view shared by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union. There is also widespread discrimination against certain groups, such as Roma in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic".
It is that reference that has led us to choose those two countries as the subject of our Amendments Nos. 38A and 38B. I should say, however, that—the rather
1494
lengthy—footnote 41 to the Joint Committee's report indicates that a number of the other candidate states have a less-than-ideal record as well.
At the end of paragraph 37, the Joint Committee goes on to say:
"in view of the well-authenticated threats to human rights which remain in the states seeking accession to the European Union, we consider that a presumption of safety, even if rebuttable, would present a serious risk that human rights would be inadequately protected. We consider that the presumption of safety is unacceptable on human rights grounds, and we draw this to the attention of both Houses".
That is a very strong comment indeed.
Amendment No. 39 omits the power to add countries to the list by secondary legislation. On that matter, in the last sentence of paragraph 37, the Joint Committee said:
"For the same reasons, we have the same reservation about the power to add states to the list of 'safe states' by subordinate legislation".
Amendment No. 39A provides in the Bill for something that the Home Secretary said that he intends to do: consult with an appropriate advisory group before adding a new country to the list. In paragraph 40, the Joint Committee states:
"We note, in addition, that clause 92 as amended does not impose any duty on the Secretary of State to consult the proposed independent advisory group, to which he referred in his article, before adding new countries to the list of presumptively safe states. Creating a presumption that a place is safe for asylum-seekers to return to has major human rights implications. The step should not be taken unless the evidence of safety is very clear. Advice from an independent advisory group would be a valuable safeguard for human rights in the face of a power such as that proposed in the amendment. We consider that clause 92(5) should be amended so as to require the Secretary of State to obtain, and have regard to, advice from the independent advisory group before adding states to the list of those which are presumed to be generally safe. We draw this to the attention of each House".
Amendment No. 40 is purely consequential. However, Amendment No. 43A, which I have not mentioned previously, is an important one because it would prevent the removal of claimants to a country of origin while judicial review proceedings are under way. That is dealt with at paragraphs 38 and 39 of the report of the Joint Committee. Paragraph 39 concludes:
"We consider that clause 92 should be amended to provide the protection which the Secretary of State wrongly considers the clause, as amended on re-commitment, provides, and should prevent a person from being removed from the United Kingdom without being allowed an appeal unless an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's certificate would have the effect of suspending the removal pending the determination of the application for review. We draw this to the attention of each House".
There has been broad criticism of the whole concept of safe country lists. That was expressed at some length in the debate in Committee and, therefore, I do not intend to repeat it now. That criticism comes not only from the Joint Committee but also, as has been pointed out, from the UN High Commission for Refugees and the European Union Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
We believe that Clause 92 is a deeply unsatisfactory clause because of its inclusion of a safe list of countries but also, perhaps more importantly still, because in its

1495
present form it excludes any right of appeal in cases of asylum applications or ECHR applications. It has to be said that a significant proportion of appeals succeed. I understand that appeals following refusals of asylum succeed in some 17 per cent of cases. That is about one in five. It appears to us, therefore, that by excluding a right of appeal in cases which the Secretary of State prejudges as being manifestly unfounded, there is a real and genuine risk that a miscarriage of justice may occur and that someone may be returned to a country where there is a threat to their life or their liberty. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I can be perhaps uncharacteristically brief in this intervention for two reasons: first, because the objections to subsection (2) have already been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with his usual clarity and, secondly, because these issues were discussed at some length in Committee. I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in that debate.
If the Bill is unamended, a whole category of decisions relating to the safety, and even the lives, of human beings will be taken by a member of the executive without the possibility of an appeal to the judiciary. That deprivation of justice will be triggered by a certificate that the application is "clearly unfounded". That certificate will lie wholly in the judgment of the executive against whom the appeal is being pursued. One party to the appeal will certify that the other party should not be permitted to present his case.
The Bill appears, on the face of it at least, to say that the decision of the executive should be taken by the Home Secretary, as it would be, if, for example, this were an application by the security services to intercept communications. However, during the debate in Committee it emerged that the decision is to be taken by a Home Office official whose name will not even appear on the certificate. Ministerial infallibility is a doctrine which forms no part of our constitution. In fact, some clear confirmation that that is factually accurate was given during the debate. Official infallibility is at an even further remove from what we understood to be the effect of our constitution. We were assured that the official would be given some training, as though we should be pleasantly surprised to learn that the person who decided the matter would not be someone who had been called in to repair the plumbing.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton replied to the debate, his argument was clear and simple; namely, that that infringement would be perpetrated only where the application was clearly unfounded. If the application was clearly unfounded, no injustice was done by precluding an appeal. When it was pointed out that the purpose of the whole proceeding was to resolve the question whether an application was unfounded, my noble and learned friend replied that the courts decided such questions all the time. Of course, they do—courts are instruments of the judiciary; that is what they do. Part of their function is to monitor the executive. That is not the
1496
function of the executive itself. It is fundamental to natural justice that one party to a dispute should not adjudicate on whether the other party has an arguable case.
It is self-evident that what is manifestly unfounded is the Government's argument. However, we are not analysing the logic of an argument, we are discussing human lives. We are talking of torture, persecution and murder. I am sure that our grandchildren will be astonished that we could ever have had this debate and that the matter could ever have been in doubt.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the Government have now introduced a further reflection relating to the white list. He referred to the unusually severe strictures of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Perhaps when my noble and learned friend replies, he will say whether the Government propose flatly to reject that advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights or what they will do about it.
My purpose in intervening was to speak to my Amendment No. 35, which is an attempt to produce what I hope will be considered a compromise. However, I am in a difficulty. I have been out of the country. I returned from Australia only this morning. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Filkin for having attempted to contact me in Africa by telephone. He succeeded in extracting me from a dinner at the High Commission. But we did not have what either of us would regard as the profound discussion which the situation requires. Although we have had a discussion since with my noble and learned friend, clearly, if we are to achieve any meeting of minds, it will take a little longer than that.
As I shall have no right to explain my reactions by making another intervention, I say now only that if there were any proposal from my noble and learned friend which required reflection and consultation both with my noble friends and other noble Lords who have supported me in these proceedings, and with the non-governmental organisations which have given so generously of their time to advise us, I should probably not press my amendment to a Division today. In that event, if Amendment No. 34 were pressed, I personally would abstain. However, I do not presume to advise any of my noble friends as to the course that they should take.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support in the main the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. In so doing, I sympathise with him in coming back from Australia today and having to participate so suddenly in this debate, but there we are, that is the lot of Members of this place.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will take the opportunity to reply to the representations made by the Black Women's Rape Action Project and by Women Against Rape. Their representations must be addressed. This may not be the only place where that could be done. The main point being advanced is that some people are so traumatised by what they have gone through that they are unable to speak about their experiences. When he responds, I hope that my noble

1497
and learned friend will deal with that point. It is quite impossible for us to expect people to recount such experiences.
I turn to the third point that I wish to pursue. This is a matter that I have raised with my noble and learned friend. He is aware of my intention to make the following suggestion. I am something of a realist, but I am certainly not prepared to play politics at the expense of asylum seekers. In all probability, the Government will succeed in getting through the main points of their Bill. I propose a workable compromise.
There can be no doubting the fact that the Government are faced with an intolerably difficult problem. We must never lose sight of the fact that some asylum seekers, whether or not they have genuine cases, seek refuge in this country because they realise that they can be provided with a better form of life. Some people will prove their case before the appropriate tribunal, but I propose that the Government, whom I mostly support, should pursue their own experiment in a rather limited way.
First, the Government should establish that their experiment is working well to the satisfaction of both Houses of Parliament. Secondly, they should make this effective by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. Thirdly, if Parliament reaches a conclusion that the scheme is not working appropriately, the current scheme, which I call the "existing system", should remain effective.
I hope that my noble and learned friend can reply to my remarks. I have not provided a form of words to which I want to speak in this regard, but I have given an outline of my proposal; in other words, it is highly appropriate that the Government should reconsider the scheme. What they are proposing now is only an experiment. As parliamentarians, we are entitled to assess the value of that experiment at an appropriate time. When he concludes the debate, I hope that my noble and learned friend will reply in the affirmative. I trust that what I have said will commend itself both to him and to the Government.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, there is a problem with the suggestion just made so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He described what the Government currently propose in the Bill as an "experiment". However, I see nothing in the legislation to suggest that such measures are intended to be only an experiment; indeed, they will stay on the statute book once they have been passed, as tough and illiberal measures tend to do—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is another possibility here. We still have Third Reading, and one can table amendments in this place at that stage of a Bill. I am rather inclined to hope that my noble and learned friend will bring forward appropriate amendments along the lines that I suggest at that time.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, now, if a may say so without being offensive, the noble Lord is talking. We very much hope that the Government will bring forward amendments, perhaps substantial amendments, on Third Reading. However, I have one further comment to make about the noble Lord's suggestion regarding how we might view the progress of this experiment; that is, if it is one. How does one assess the progress of an experiment when it consists of denying someone the right to appeal within country, and saying to him, "You can appeal against a perceived injustice from the country to which you have been returned"—or, alternatively, to some other country assessed by the Government as being safe?
We have received copious and very helpful briefings from interested bodies, for which I, too, express my gratitude. It comes down to the fact that the Government are denying people the right to assemble and receive advice upon their appeal within this country in circumstances that everyone who knows about these matters must realise will impose upon them a great disadvantage. There will be no means of assessing whether or not this is proving to be a satisfactory experiment to anyone except the Government. So that proposal falls at the first fence.
I both endorse and adopt the argument of the Select Committee, which is surely very compelling. I propose to support Amendment No. 34 if it is taken to a Division. However, in saying that, I do not wish in the slightest degree to discourage the Government from reflecting hard upon what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and upon the suggestion just put by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. They must return to the matter on Third Reading. Perhaps it will encourage them to do so if this amendment is pressed and the vote goes against them, though no doubt they will be able to steamroller it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, not only has the Joint Committee on Human Rights twice made its position plain—first in its 17th Report of 17th June, and, much more recently, in its 21st Report—but we have now also heard from two very distinguished noble and learned Lords, former Law Officers of the Crown. Having moved from his responsibilities as regards the Millennium Dome, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, now finds himself faced with a provision from his department which, quite apart from the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention points, seems to me to be inconsistent with basic constitutional principles about the separation of powers—the argument that it is the function of courts to decide whether one has a claim, not Ministers against whom the claim is brought, and the other constitutional principle about the effective protection of the rule of law.
I should like to add a few remarks to the speeches that have already been made. It would be both unnecessary and impertinent to repeat any of those arguments, but I have one further comment to make. I declare an interest here as the spouse of a special adjudicator and a former chair of the European Roma

1499
Rights Centre. Quite apart from the fact that this provision flouts principles of British constitutional law and of international human rights law, it will not work in practice. It will not work in practice because whatever the Minister may certify will be subject to judicial review. If it is subject to judicial review, we should examine the record of our independent courts in dealing with such matters. In a judgment delivered only last week—on 17th October—by the House of Lords in the Thangarasa case, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Hope of Craighead, emphasised in an asylum context what is already well known; that is, that the judges will give most anxious scrutiny by way of judicial review to these matters and that they regard the possibility of challenge on human rights grounds as being essential under the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said as much.
Let us imagine that a future Home Secretary—or the present Home Secretary—certifies that he believes that there is nothing in a claim on human rights or refugee convention grounds. That would inevitably be subject to judicial review, which would hold up the works and lead to further delay and a great deal of litigation in that case.
The safe country list will also lead to litigation. We should remember that including Pakistan, as the previous government did, in a previous safe list was held by the House of Lords to be incompatible with the refugee convention. All of the refugee convention and Human Rights Act points will be taken and Sections 3 and 6 of the Human Rights Act will be relied on. That will be great for members of my profession but not for the Home Office or asylum seekers; it would be an utterly pointless thing to do. I just do not believe that the arrangement will work in practice. It would be much better to leave the matter to the special adjudicators to decide, as judges, whether they consider a human rights claim or a refugee convention claim to be manifestly ill-founded; that is what judges do all of the time. They are specially trained at public expense in ways in which to determine such matters under the refugee convention and the human rights convention. They are better judges as judges than is the Home Secretary, who is party in his own cause. On practical grounds as well as on international human rights grounds, what I have said indicates that the arrangement will not work.
Finally—I hate to be a Cassandra—if the arrangement ever went to the European Court of Human Rights, I very much doubt, if it were applied as envisaged, whether it would pass muster in Strasbourg. I shall give a recent example that will serve for all. In Conca v Belgium, which was decided as recently as 5th February of this year, the Strasbourg court struck down a Belgian attempt to fetter the appeal rights of asylum seekers. Roma rights were also involved: the case was about the Roma coming into Belgium. The European Court struck that down because, among other reasons, there were no effective
1500
remedies under Belgian law for asylum seekers by way of appeal. They said that that clearly breached Article 13 of the European Convention.
The Home Office will lose before either the English courts or the European Court of Human Rights. In any event, the arrangement appears not to be in the wider public interest.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation in this debate, which so far has been exclusively the preserve of highly experienced and distinguished members of the legal profession. I cannot claim to be remotely close to the legal profession. I am one of those ordinary citizens who looks to the legal profession to sort out the law and to handle it as it should be handled. I approach this issue from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen.
I say at the outset that if my noble and learned friend Lord Archer can make a case such as that which he made this evening, after an exhausting week on parliamentary business in Africa and Australia—and he flew back overnight—I should regard myself as being extremely fortunate, if need ever arose, to be one of his clients.
I turn to the amendment. As an ordinary citizen and one who has had the good fortune to work most of my life in the sphere of humanitarian activity—that is very close to the issues that are before us—what concerns me is: what is asylum about? We have drifted a long way. Asylum is about the rights of individuals. If anyone has a case for asylum, it is necessary to ensure that every possible legal step has been taken to ensure that justice is done. "White lists" do not lend themselves to the fulfilment of that individual right or to a concern with the individual. The curbing of appeals certainly does not lend itself to that right of the individual.
We know that the Government have a huge problem. We are all practical politicians in this place and we know that there is currently a massive problem with the number of cases. However, in the long run, the way in which we will secure an enduring, sound immigration policy is when it becomes transparently clear—I refer to the old adage of justice not only being done but of being seen to be done—that if a person has a case for asylum it is upheld, and if they do not, it is not. If that message becomes clear over time, that would be the firmest possible way in which to enable the outside world to see the realities in this regard.
To start introducing short cuts and curbing what has been regarded as the procedures that are necessary for natural justice to manage numbers cannot be justified in the context of a commitment to justice. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and I have been together in and outside Parliament for a lifetime; we have done many things and had many good experiences together. He said that, as a practical

1501
politician, he wants to look at the realities and to think of a way out of this impasse. That involves—here I have a certain sympathy with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—a very big compromise. I will need firm convincing that that will not unacceptably damage the cause of justice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I want to make my position clear to my noble friend if I can. I wish that I did not have to put forward a compromise. What I have done is not right in the short term. Nevertheless, if one faces reality, the Government will come back with the Bill. I want to mitigate the circumstances in which a government will proceed. I want to ensure that ultimately we can have a workable compromise; that is all.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. That will be a very serious compromise, at which we shall have to look very closely. If the Government consider taking the road that my noble friend suggested, I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to appreciate that this is not a matter of fudging or finding a formula of words, which can mean one thing to one set of people and another thing to another set of people and enable people to go home with a less troubled conscience than they might otherwise do; it must be a tough and convincing position that goes as far as possible to preserve what should be justice. But I do not see how any arrangement in that context can possibly be fully justified in terms of a commitment to justice. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it will certainly be nothing more than that, and I believe that we should be very clear on the matter.
I conclude by saying that I hope that at the centre of this issue we shall remember what asylum is about and what those who pioneered the concept of asylum and the legislation to support it were fighting to achieve. They had a vision of a society in which, if a person was endangered in the way that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell described so well earlier in our deliberations—that is, of a decent, civilised and democratic country such as our own—he could be certain that, through the legal system, he would have every opportunity to receive what he was entitled to in a way that we in this country would express as our own aspiration.
Therefore, I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to understand that we are in a very grave impasse at present. We are jeopardising the concept of the commitment to asylum not only in rhetoric but in meaningful, judicial ways as a result of how we operate the whole system. I urge my noble friends to take these arguments very seriously tonight.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the main thrust of all these amendments and, in particular, Amendment No. 34. The arguments have been made on this and other occasions most eloquently, and I find them compelling. For me, the
1502
nub of the issue is the question that came to my mind when I once drove past a Quaker church. There was a wonderful notice outside, which said:
"On essentials, unity. On inessentials, diversity. In all things, charity".
We can all agree on, "In all things, charity"; but the question in my mind is: who decides what is essential and what is inessential? If we are making a distinction between what is well founded and what is clearly unfounded, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, put it so powerfully, the answer according to the Bill as it now stands is highly unsatisfactory and a denial of natural justice.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the question is: who decides? In the past, when the Home Office has certified cases, there has been a right of appeal to an adjudicator. That right will be taken away. We can look at the effects of that by scrutinising what happened to certified cases in the past. Therefore, we do not need the experiment that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested; we can look at the past record of certified cases on appeal.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, received the note that I sent him this morning, in which the Refugee Legal Centre gave a summary of the cases that had passed through Oakington with which it had dealt. I want to ask the Minister whether it is intended that in future all certified cases will be processed through Oakington. I have one or two points to make as regards the suitability of Oakington for that purpose, as raised with me by the Refugee Legal Centre and which I pass on to the noble and learned Lord for his consideration.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships about the experience of the Refugee Legal Centre in relation to the certified cases that have been through Oakington. I shall give, first, the figures for the Czech Republic, as that is one country which is supposed to be perfectly safe for everyone and is supposed not to generate any legitimate applications for asylum. Of the certified cases heard between 1st January and 8th October, 14 per cent were successful on appeal. Of the total number of cases taken through Oakington, as many as 20.7 per cent were successful when taken to appeal by the Refugee Legal Centre. Such cases, which will not have a right of appeal because they will be certified under this clause, will have lost the right which they should have enjoyed and which manifestly, according to the results, they deserve to have. They will not have any opportunity whatever to obtain access to a tribunal for an appeal to be heard.
As I said, all such cases will be processed through Oakington, and the Refugee Legal Centre has raised a series of objections to that process. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with them this evening. I simply say that they come under several headings. First, the centre says that there is a poor quality of decision-making in Oakington cases, and it gives a number of examples. Secondly, it points out that there is insufficient time for representations to be considered because the fast-track procedure at Oakington means

1503
that an asylum claim is determined within seven to 10 days. It suggests that that is not appropriate for the processing of claims which are likely to be certified as clearly unfounded and which will therefore have no in-country right of appeal. Therefore, our experience tells us that what we are doing is wrong and that we should not accept this clause.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, there is great concern that Clause 92 and following clauses which restrict rights of appeal bear even more harshly on women than they do on men. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I have received the briefing on bright yellow paper. I hope that the Government have also received it; if not, they can easily be supplied with it.
I want to draw attention to only two points in that paper. The organisations concerned state:
"Estimates suggest that 50 per cent of women seeking asylum in Britain are rape survivors, yet rape by soldiers and police, sometimes over many months in detention, is the least recognized form of torture and persecution".
I have no exact knowledge of whether that percentage is correct. But I believe it is certain that there is some percentage of rape victims among women asylum applicants. The organisations go on to state that,
"rape is usually the last evidence of torture to emerge and therefore rape victims are more likely to be deported unless they are able to appeal".
The only other point that I want to highlight is that the organisations state that,
"it is even more shocking that this Clause would apply retroactively to appeals already lodged".
Again, I am not sufficiently legally informed to know whether they are correct in making that claim of retrospection. However, if it is justified, it is a most serious and wrong matter. Therefore, in general, I support all previous speakers and the amendments that we are considering.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, in supporting Amendments Nos. 38A and 38B, first I want to thank my noble friend the Minister for both his letter of yesterday and his rapid response to the latest report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. I regret that my absence on committee business prevented my taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill.
I fully understand the Government's need—indeed, the national need—to streamline and speed up the process of dealing with asylum seekers, but I am concerned that the assumption that the accession states have already implemented the acquis communautaire in respect of human rights, in the case of their large Roma populations over a year ahead of the accession date, is premature.
I do not refer only to serious discrimination, which is well known and widespread, but also to information provided by the Immigration Advisory Service on the denial of a wide range of rights, which if substantiated would probably amount to persecution by the state, not only in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. For instance, we are told that Roma who are born in and reside in Slovenia are also denied citizenship,
1504
passports, access to health, education and pensions as well as being subject to violent assaults unprotected by the police. I believe that no minority-related priorities even appear in the most recent accession partnership document between the Slovenian Government and the European Commission.
Therefore, can my noble friend give the House more evidence that on Royal Assent states which are listed in the amendments and in the whole of Section 4 are safe enough to return Rorna asylum seekers?
8 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the Joint Select Committee for its further report. Being a non-lawyer like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I did not take part in the earlier debate on these matters. The report of the Joint Select Committee is so pellucidly clear that although a non-lawyer I was able to follow all the relevant issues. In that regard I include footnote 41, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred.
Unlike Mr Asquith's well known lucidity of style of which Mr Balfour remarked that it was a positive disadvantage when he had nothing particular to say, the Joint Select Committee has a great deal to say, and I shall be happy to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew in supporting the lead amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, if it is put to the vote.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I endorse two points which have been made. First, I thoroughly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. If the quality of speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, after a flight to Australia is that high, let us imagine what it would have been like had he not just come from that flight. Secondly, this is an important debate. Although there are legal aspects to it and issues of statutory construction and principle, ultimately we are talking of people's lives and one has to be incredibly careful in the way in which such issues are addressed.
There is an issue at the heart of this debate. It is said that there should not be no in-country right of appeal simply on the certification of the Home Secretary. That point is used to attack the original draft of what was Clause 82 and is now Clause 92. It is also used to attack the safe countries list added by an amendment earlier this month in this place.
I shall describe our case in outline. That is not with a view to going back on issues which were debated fully on recommitment, but so that there is a proper understanding of the position. As my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davies and Lord Judd rightly said, there is a real problem at present. A large number of people are making applications. The problem to which that gives rise is that money is spent on dealing with such applications, and resources have to be devoted to dealing with them while claims are being made. I suspect few noble Lords would dispute that significant numbers of those claims are unfounded either in

1505
asylum terms or human rights terms insofar as there is a difference. For example, applicants will and have said words to the effect, "I am making a claim because my family told me to". Despite seeking advice from both medical and legal advisers provided to them, the application becomes no more detailed than that.
Are those sorts of claims ones which should go through a detailed process involving a number of layers, or are there claims which can be safely certified as manifestly unfounded? We believe that there are claims which can be safely certified as manifestly or clearly unfounded. What will the process involve? It will involve the relevant applicants having access to medical and legal advice and an official then considering the claim. If the official concludes that the claim fails, and that it is clearly unfounded, a second pair of eyes will then look at it.
After the certificate of "clearly unfounded" is issued, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made clear, it would be open to the applicant to make an application for judicial review. The noble Lord referred to the Thangarasa case. Paragraph 59 from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, echoes the point made by the noble Lord:
"The European Court has accepted that the process of judicial review, under which decisions of this kind are indeed given the most anxious scrutiny, is capable of providing an effective remedy… In my opinion, the scrutiny which the courts below gave to the decisions which are under challenge in these appeals fully measures up to this standard, and I agree with them as to the results".
As I understand it, the result in that case was that the noble and learned Lords upheld the findings or the certificate of the Home Secretary that the case was manifestly unfounded.
Therefore, we have a system which ensures individual application of a mind to the individual case. It is not a question of whole tranches of applications being put to one side and treated as clearly unfounded. Each case must be looked at on its merits. A second pair of eyes looks at it administratively. There is a process by which the courts can intervene on application if there is a question that the claim is not clearly unfounded.
It is the Government's intention that that process is safe. It addresses the problem in a way which provides sensible and appropriate safeguards. It is also important to emphasise that where an application for judicial review has been made, the practice is not to remove the person from this country until that application has been resolved—frequently, as noble Lords will know, with the application for permission being rejected. It is only once it has been resolved—
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am grateful to him for his helpful and clear explanation. Will applicants be told about the right of judicial review? If they are and a good number avail themselves of it, will we not have
1506
the situation so powerfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester; that is, a much longer and more expensive process?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the first point, they will have access, for example, in the Oakington facility, to legal advice, which will tell them of their rights in relation to judicial review. The question of whether or not the prognostications of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, are correct depends on two factors. First, will the courts by and large uphold the "clearly unfounded" certificates by, for example, refusing applications for permission. Secondly, how long will they take to deal with them? We believe that if the courts become satisfied that there is a reliable process of certification, although it is a matter for the courts to determine as they deal with their business, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the system described by the noble Lord will come to pass.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way in the context of what is—I agree with the right reverend Prelate—a full explanation. However, perhaps he could make one clarification. A moment ago he used the word "administratively". How can we guarantee that the prevailing culture in which administrative decisions will be taken will not be one which is about managing and controlling the numbers rather than one which states, "If anyone here is entitled to asylum, we are jolly well certain they will get it"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord: first, because the decision is one which has to be taken quasi-judicially; and secondly, the courts providing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly identified, an effective remedy, are there to ensure that they do that. They are not giving effect to any sort of political direction but exercising a quasi-judicial function in which they have to evaluate the merits of each individual claim.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Am I not right—I refer to the evidence given by the Home Office in answer to the JCHR Select Committee, reported in our 21st report—that at the moment there is a concordat between the Government and the High Court whereby a person who is detained and subject to removal, and who applies for judicial review, is given only three working days to lodge an application with the High Court? That is the first question I should like to explore; whether this is an effective remedy. If so, is that satisfactory?
The second question I ask the noble and learned Lord is why on earth, if we have this serious problem, can we not have a simple procedure whereby the Home Office goes to the adjudicator, who is the expert judge, on a strike-out procedure and says, "This is manifestly ill-founded. Will you decide that straightaway as a preliminary issue?", rather than bringing in High Court judges and the complexity and expense of judicial review, with appeals to the House of Lords and

1507
so on? Why can there not be a speedy and effective remedy before the specially trained and appointed adjudicator on a strike-out, where the Home Office puts its case, says that it is manifestly ill-founded and the judge decides?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first question about the concordat, perhaps I may get details before I venture into an answer.
As to the noble Lord's second question, why not have a procedure whereby the adjudicator decides the question, that in fact is reflected in the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. The answer is that the certificate stating that the case is clearly unfounded should be given at the first stage of the procedure; namely, when the Home Secretary or the officials on his behalf look at the matter and form a view. Once they form a view that the claim is manifestly unfounded, which is the first stage in the existing procedure, that should be sufficient. We think that judicial review in the High Court is the most appropriate way to ensure that that is properly dealt with.
The noble Lord asks whether we should add another level in relation to that adjudicator. Why? We have a perfectly reasonable system, one that the House of Lords sitting in a judicial capacity have described as an effective remedy. It allows the officials dealing with the claim at first instance to decide and leaves the normal structure of law, which is judicial review, to determine whether it operates in practice. Do not invent a new procedure. That is why we have done it that way.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it was a policy decision on the part of Ministers—a right, albeit delayed, one—that it was not safe to send Zimbabweans back to Zimbabwe. In what respect will the procedure which the noble and learned Lord has just outlined differ from the procedure operating in those cases where officials in the Home Office said that the anxieties of the asylum seekers were manifestly unfounded?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not want to talk about individual cases because I do not know enough about them. If there is a case where there is a certificate that purports to suggest that the asylum seeker's claim is "clearly unfounded", and it can be demonstrated that there is plainly an argument that it is not, the normal rules of judicial review would provide a remedy.
Without wishing to comment on a particular country, surely if the position is as clear and straightforward as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggests, it would demonstrably have been a perverse conclusion.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, perhaps I put my question a little obscurely. The noble and learned Lord the Minister was at pains to say that there will be two pairs of eyes which will look at this
1508
administratively. Were there two pairs of eyes or only one pair of eyes in the case of the Zimbabweans and similar cases at the same time? Is it a new procedure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, what I am seeking to define for the noble and learned Lord is the framework within which a plain error in relation to that can be corrected.
IND policy is not to remove once the applicant has indicated an intention to apply for judicial review. As soon as that intention has been indicated, the applicant is given three days to lodge his application. Once the application is lodged removal is deferred until permission is either granted, in which case it will be deferred for longer, or refused, in which case protection against removal is granted. So, the critical point in answer to the first question of the noble Lord is that the three days apply from the time that the intention to apply for judicial review is raised.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Am I not right in saying that the central question that an asylum seeker has to establish is that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution? That is a question of fact depending on complex evidence that a special adjudicator, such as my wife, listens to for hours and then spends a day writing a judgment on.
Can the noble and learned Lord explain how Home Office officials can be confident of the answer of whether or not there is a well-founded fear of persecution for Roma in the Czech Republic in a particular case and certify that the adjudicator cannot deal with the matter? How can they be so certain, except in the most rare and exceptional cases? If they cannot be so certain, why can they not simply go to the adjudicator, who is the judge qualified to decide those questions independently, for a judicial determination—on a speedy procedure if necessary?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process is about identifying those cases which are clearly unfounded, not those where there is an argument both ways and one has to weigh up which way the answer probably falls. It is the ones where there is clearly an unfounded claim. If one is trying to stop a long process continuing, the best place at which to determine whether a claim is clearly unfounded is right at the beginning after the first consideration of the claim. That is the approach that we have taken. We believe it is an approach which is safe and sensible because of judicial review providing an effective remedy to ensure that the right course is taken.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. At the risk of being tiresome, can he explain how, if the purpose of all these proposals is to expedite the processing of asylum claims, that will be promoted by encouraging a plethora of applications for judicial review?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we believe that, if the position operates properly so that the Home

1509
Secretary is only certifying those claims which are clearly unfounded, then the market in judicial review will inevitably go away. What will happen is that the courts will say, "Permission refused", because it will become obvious that the way the system is operated is one in which the IND is getting the answer right. If it is not getting the answers right, that will emerge in the course of the judicial reviews.
I go on in the analysis to deal with the list of countries that have been referred to; namely, those on the face of the Bill. There is a clear rationale for listing the 10 countries in subsection (4). These are the 10 countries which are in the first wave of accession states due to join the European Union in 2004. They have met the stringent criteria that have been laid down by the European Union. At last week's Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg all member states agreed to a declaration stating that there should be a presumption that asylum claims from these countries would be manifestly unfounded.
That is a clear European Union view, as noble Lords will know, covering a whole range of complexion of government. Given the clear EU view that these 10 countries are generally safe—
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us how such presumption is to be reconciled with the position of the UN convention that claims are to be considered without discrimination on the ground of nationality?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, an individual claim must first be considered on its merits. Let us remember that, even in claims from the 10 accession countries, each applicant must have his claim considered. If that claim is dismissed, the official must presume that it is clearly unfounded unless he thinks that it is not. So every claim from whatever country is entitled to individual consideration on its merits.
Turning to Slovakia and the Czech Republic, a considerable amount of material supports the inclusion of Slovakia in the list. First, there are court judgments in the Horvath case heard by the Court of Appeal in 1999 and the House of Lords in 2000. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination that the Slovakian authorities are able and willing to provide protection to the required standard and that Roma, as a class, are not exempt from that protection was upheld. More recently, in the July 2002 IAT determination in the case of Gujda, it was found that there was:
"sufficiency of protection in Slovakia, not simply against criminal elements such as skinheads, but also where rogue elements of the police themselves engage in acts of wanton violence… The evidence does not show unwillingness or inability of the state to protect… Roma".
Those are powerful and relevant judgments supporting the view that the Slovak Republic is not a place where inadequate protection is available, but the evidence does not stop there. In its regular report, in October 2002 the European Commission confirmed
1510
that the country continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria, which require that it must have achieved
"stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".
In other words—to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker—those countries would not have reached this point as accession states without satisfying those stringent requirements about democracy, the rule of law and protection of human rights.
According to the United States' Department of State report for 2001, the Slovak Government generally respects the human rights of its citizens. Its constitution prohibits torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. The Interior Minister has recently introduced several new measures to prevent police brutality—over and above the provisions in the penal code that make the abuse of coercive measures by police officers a criminal offence. The judiciary is independent, impartial and separate from other branches of government. The Slovak Republic has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. There is an ombudsman. The constitution contains an anti-discrimination clause guaranteeing human rights and freedoms regardless, inter alia, of race, nationality or ethnic origin.
I could go on, but those are all concrete facts that give an objective picture of conditions in the Slovak Republic. Of course, it will always be possible to point to unsavoury incidents. No one suggests that the Slovak Republic—or any other country on the planet, for that matter—is 100 per cent perfect. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the Slovak Republic, along with the other nine front-running accession states, is a country from which very few asylum and human rights claims will be well founded. In our view, it is such a country.
I turn to the Czech Republic. Human rights groups operate without government restriction and government are generally co-operative and responsive to their view. There is a commission for human rights and the office of the ombudsman was created in December 2000. A government-sponsored council for nationalities advises the cabinet on minority affairs. As I cited in Committee, in the case of Hervak,
"The position in the Czech Republic is such that it will, in our view, be impossible for a Roma, or anyone who has suffered as a result of discrimination against Roma, to establish a well-founded fear of persecution".
As I made clear on recommitment, we do not say that it is impossible to make a claim from such countries; we say that it is unlikely that such a claim will be made. However, irrespective of whether that is right or wrong, each claim is considered on its merits by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. If it is rejected, the presumption is then that it is clearly unfounded unless the Secretary of State, through his officials, considers that it is not.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the United Nations Committee Against Torture found that:
"the pattern of violent abuse of Roma at the hands of both police officers and private actors persisted and the authorities often failed to investigate and prosecute such crimes effectively"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord says so, that is plainly the case, but the critical question concerns whether the process, to which the noble Lord wants access to be given irrespective of whether the claim is clearly objectively unfounded, has made the pronouncements to which I have referred about claims from the Czech Republic—and, although I assume that his remarks do not refer to it, to Slovakia. Of course, no country is perfect, but the tribunals have said that in such cases it is difficult to make a claim. That is reflected in the fact that in 2002 only 10 per cent of appeals from accession country applications have succeeded. That confirms the idea that it is difficult to make a claim from those countries.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with the individual amendments. Amendment No. 34 would remove the "clearly unfounded" provision and, for obvious reasons, we reject that. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 disable the list of safe countries by ensuring that it could not be used where a person makes a human rights claim. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it plain that that is a wrecking amendment, so I need not deal with it further. I have referred to Amendment No. 35, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, providing for referral to an adjudicator. I have dealt with that. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would delete Cyprus and the Slovak Republic, but I have dealt with the Czech and Slovak Republics, because they were the ones raised.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 concern the order-making powers to add or subtract from the list of countries. We debated that last Thursday. Amendment No. 39 would omit the order-making power completely—we have discussed that and do not need to do so again. Amendment No. 39A provides that a state will not be added to the list unless the Secretary of State has consulted an independent advisory panel. We are considering whether it would be appropriate to include in the Bill the provision to set up an advisory panel whose functions would be to audit and advise on the country information that is used to assess asylum applications. Whether or not the panel is included in this Bill, we have agreed that it should be established. No country would be added to the list without the panel having first examined the relevant country information reports.
Amendment No. 40 would allow any of the 10 countries to be removed by order. Again, we have already discussed that point and I do not think that I need to deal with it again. Amendment No. 43A deals with judicial review proceedings, with which I have already dealt.
Perhaps I may deal with one important point that has influenced the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its report, it refers to a previous report in which it makes it clear that it does not like the idea of the
1512
"clearly unfounded" approach. Its new report deals with the changes made, but proceeds on the basis that the effect of the amendment is to remove not just the in-country appeal but the out-of-country appeal. Although that is not its main argument, that informs its first, second and third points. Its conclusion is wrong in that respect, and perhaps I may set out why.
The wording of Clause 92(9) means that the general bar in Clause 93 on making an appeal from outside the United Kingdom on asylum or human rights grounds does not apply where the person has been issued a certificate under Clause 92. Nor, as some may fear, does Clause 92(2) prevent any appeal being made on asylum or human rights grounds. It prevents an appeal being made "in reliance on Clause 90(4)". That subsection enables an in-country appeal right to be made on asylum or human rights grounds, so saying that a person cannot appeal in reliance on Clause 90(4) prevents an in-country appeal only, not any appeal. All that ensures that a person is not prevented from appealing from outside the United Kingdom, if a certificate issued under Clause 92 has removed their in-country appeal right.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister explain the effect of Clause 92(2) on claims of breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998? As I read the clause, even though the Minister is under a duty imposed by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to act in a way that is compatible with human rights, the Minister can, through his officials, decide that a claim of breach, which would normally be brought under the Human Rights Act, cannot be brought. Is that right?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am dealing with the point that was made in the Joint Committee's report. It is important that we focus on that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I follow that. I was not dealing with the out-of-country or in-country point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall deal with the other point in correspondence. The critical point is the one that informs this report, which suggests that any right of appeal was abrogated. That is not right. That is not the only point that was made, but it informs the first three points.
The fourth point that the committee makes—from paragraph 35 onwards—is that it does not like the idea of safe country lists because, it says, no country is completely safe. We do not dispute that, but we follow the declaration made by all current members that there should be a presumption that, if a claim is made from one of the accession states, it is clearly unfounded.
We listened carefully to the points made and anxieties expressed. Plainly, those views are genuinely held. Our "clearly unfounded" provisions are a vital part of our package. We listened particularly carefully to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis who spoke

1513
with realism. I am sure that we will continue with the provisions, subject to the agreement of Parliament at Third Reading, but, before that stage, we will consider carefully the points that have been made.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said nothing about the Refugee Legal Centre information that I sent him, which included details of the percentage of cases that were successful on appeal, after certification. Should I take it that he has no answer to those points?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I put before the House the basis of the procedure that we propose to follow. I put before the House the extent to which there are sufficient protections, picking up, in particular, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that judicial review provides an effective remedy. Noble Lords must consider whether the procedure is appropriate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I raised issues that were, appropriately, put before the House by the Black Women's Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape. Will the Minister have the courtesy to say something about them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Clinton-Davis, for not dealing with it as I intended to. At Oakington, for example, there are on-site legal representatives and an on-site medical centre. There are case workers who are trained to deal with interviewees who suffer from the sort of trauma referred to in what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, called the bright yellow briefing.
If the trauma relates to past torture, which is the sort of trauma to which both noble Lords referred, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture can be contacted. The claim would not be decided until we had the views of the foundation, a body for which both noble Lords have the greatest respect. If the foundation indicates that there is any sort of history or risk of the sort to which the noble Lords referred, the case would not be appropriate for the "clearly unfounded" procedure. I apologise again for not dealing with that point before.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. Basically, all have been critical of the Government's stand on the amendments.
I shall start by dealing with two relatively minor matters. One is the interpretation of Clause 92. The Minister said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights had got it wrong by saying that the clause prohibited out-of-country appeals and not just in-country appeals. I cannot comment on that view at this stage, as it would require a detailed analysis of what he said and of the Bill.
1514
The second point, which is less minor, relates to the "white list" or safe country list. The Minister—understandably, for it would have prolonged an already lengthy debate—did not really challenge the argument of principle that safe country lists were never appropriate. He concentrated on the position of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the other eight candidate countries on the list. The Minister said that those countries would not have got on to the list if their human rights records had not been satisfactory. I do not find it easy to agree with that.
None of the states has a record so bad that it would not be considered a suitable member of the European Union. However, that is not the same thing as saying that those countries' standards are already up to the level of the existing member states. There are serious concerns about some of the countries. There is a political imperative to get them into the European Union, and it may be that entry into the EU will improve those standards. I am not suggesting for a moment that any of those countries are not suitable members of the European Union, but that is not the same as saying that they are appropriate countries for inclusion on any safe list.
The fundamental issue is whether we should have certificates stating that claims are manifestly unfounded, which would prevent in-country appeal—at least—to an adjudicator. The Minister said that a significant number of asylum claims were unfounded. He thought that no one in the House would disagree with that. I do not disagree; there is no doubt that many claims are unfounded. However, that is not the question: the question is whether those identified by the Home Office as having made manifestly unfounded claims will always be correctly identified. That is a different question.
In such cases, access to judicial review is not the equivalent of a right of appeal. The decision is taken by a government official; it is an executive decision. The Home Office official who makes the decision is not a tribunal and is not subject to the procedural rules that apply to the courts. Such cases require an independent and impartial adjudicator who can review the case on its merits. That, after all, is what happens in cases relating to benefit claims. There is a benefits tribunal, which hears claims made under the social security Acts and can review on its merits the decision of the official in the Department for Work and Pensions who took the decision.
I therefore believe that what is needed is not simply judicial review, but, as a step open to anyone whose asylum claim is dismissed by an official, a chance to take the case to an adjudicator who as an independent and impartial person can review the executive decision to refuse asylum. For that reason, I believe that Clause 92 is deeply unsatisfactory.
I hope that even at this late stage the noble and learned Lord and the Government consider that there are steps that could be taken before Third Reading to improve Clause 92. I was particularly interested in what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. He spoke an enormous amount of

1515
wisdom and sense. If I were to move to a vote on Amendment No. 34, I would very much like to have him on our side. Clearly, that will not be the case—I do not say that ultimately it will be, but I hope that it will—until all avenues for consideration have been explored.
For that reason, and because we are well past the hour at which one can expect a truly representative vote, it is my intention to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. However, in view of the wide degree of support it has received from around the House, I hope that it will be possible to bring it back at a more viable time at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 9.42 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 9.42 p.m.]
Lord kingsland Lord kingsland moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 52, line 30, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (10),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36, 41 and 43 fulfil the commitment given by my right honourable friend Mr. Oliver Letwin during Report stage in another place on 11th June. It was as follows:
"there is no question that returning a person to France, Denmark or any EU country, for example, is anything but a perfectly legitimate act for the British state. It runs no risk of compromising that person's life or liberty… I am determined that we should give the Home Secretary the support that he deserves in regard to those provisions that are right and which make it possible to imagine that bilateral agreements will come back into play. However, I intend to preserve our determination to avoid, if we can, compromising improperly the safety of individuals through those subsections that pose a threat to their safety".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/02; col. 805.]
The amendments before your Lordships in my name and that of my noble friend seek to implement that aim. As it stands, Clause 92 would allow the Secretary of State to remove to another country an asylum seeker whose claim was certified by the Home Office as being "clearly unfounded" before that asylum seeker could exercise his right of appeal to an adjudicator. The asylum seeker would then have to bring his appeal from abroad.
The amendments seek to ensure that, when the Secretary of State decides to remove such an asylum seeker before that asylum seeker has brought an appeal, the removal may only be to a country which has been certified as safe and from which the asylum seeker has a reasonable opportunity to exercise his appeal rights. I anticipate that there would be relatively few problems, if any, with certifying other EU member states, or even candidates for EU membership, as "safe" countries under the terms of the amendment.
The amendments would, however, allow those asylum seekers whom the Secretary of State proposes to remove to countries which are not safe, or from which they could not reasonably exercise their appeal rights, to have their appeal considered by the judicial authorities in the United Kingdom before removal takes place. Even the Minister will admit that the Home Office occasionally makes mistakes. I am sure that all sides of your Lordships' House will agree that it would be regrettable, indeed, if a mistake could not be rectified simply because an asylum seeker had been returned to a country from which he found himself unable to exercise his right of appeal—a right that even the Home Secretary does not propose to remove altogether.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has taken a different approach with his Amendment No. 35, which would give the right of appeal to an adjudicator against a "clearly unfounded" certification by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, such a person would, even under the Government's proposals, be able to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the certificate. I recognise that appeal and review are two very different things, but none the less there would be a remedy in cases where the Home Office had clearly and unreasonably got things wrong.
Our amendments, on the other hand, seek to ensure that in the case of France, Denmark and other EU member states the Bill can be the basis for the return of the bilateral agreements to which my right honourable friend referred in another place, while also seeking to ensure a measure of safety in respect of countries where a person would be at risk.
It is, indeed, a difficult balancing act. But, in my submission, our amendments present a solution—perhaps not the purest form of solution, but a solution none the less—to the problems which the non-suspensive appeals provisions in the Bill may present in future, while retaining the possibility of swift removal in appropriate cases. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister and others among your Lordships will be able to support the amendments. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we welcome the fact that these amendments recognise the value of introducing a list of safe countries. As that is common ground between us, and as I spent some considerable time before supper and last week explaining the Government's position on the matter, perhaps I may concentrate on those areas where we differ from what is proposed in the amendments.
The main difference is that they would close the door to the use of non-suspensive appeals in respect of any person who is not to be returned to a country on the safe list. This would limit the scope of the provision unnecessarily. Just as there will be occasions where it is not appropriate to return an applicant to a country which is on the safe list, equally there will be occasions where it is appropriate to certify a claim from an applicant who does not come from such a country.

1517
It is quite possible for a person from any country to come to the United Kingdom, use the magic word "asylum", and then be unable to provide any information to substantiate their need for protection. I gave examples of that before supper. We need to have scope to continue dealing with clearly unfounded claims, whoever makes them, even if the emphasis may be on claims made by those on the safe country list.
There are also some other differences in these amendments. Whereas the amendments that we made last week are concerned solely with safe countries of origin, the amendments that we are now debating also cover situations where a person is being removed to a third country from which he or she can safely appeal against the refusal. Since it is the number of applicants from safe countries making unfounded asylum claims that is causing the problem, we think it right to focus on that aspect.
That difference in emphasis partly explains another difference; namely, the tests for using the order-making power. We believe that the reference that we have to human rights is to be preferred, because the key issue is whether removal would be a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under the ECHR. That is not identical to the question of whether a person might have his or her human rights infringed in the country to which we are seeking to remove that person.
I agree that the reference to human rights breaches used in these amendments makes some sense in the context of non-suspensive appeals relating to appeals from third countries. But I argue that it is not appropriate for safe country of origin cases.
Furthermore, in safe country of origin cases, the issue of a person being able to pursue an appeal from abroad does not arise in the same way as it does in a third country appeal case. In safe country cases it will be implicit in the decision to issue a certificate that the country to which the person is to be returned is a safe one. For third country cases, we do not think that creating an order-making power of the type proposed would add value to that which is already in the Bill; namely, subsection (7), which sets out the two conditions of which the Secretary of State must be satisfied if the certification powers in Clause 92 are to be used in such cases. These are: that the person is not a national or a citizen of the country of intended removal; and that there is no reason to believe that the person's ECHR rights would be breached in that country.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that it would be unfortunate if an error could not be rectified by a person having an effective overseas appeal. For clearly unfounded certificates, the presence of judicial review provides an effective remedy against any error by the Secretary of State or the IND. I elaborated on that at some length before the House adjourned for dinner.
1518
As to third country certificates, the Bill already requires that a certificate can be issued only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person's ECHR rights will not be breached in the country from which he or she appeals. So that covers both situations.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Would that prevent anyone being sent to a country which is not a member of the Council of Europe and therefore does not apply the European convention in its courts?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the question would be whether human rights would be infringed—which would be a different question from whether or not the country adhered to the European Convention on Human Rights. I was about to give an example; however, I think it unwise to do so without checking it out first. I do not think that the questions are the same.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, without rehearsing a substantial part of the debate that took place before the dinner adjournment, I am in some difficulty in dealing satisfactorily with all the apposite points that the noble and learned Lord made.
Perhaps I may be allowed one reflection. The noble and learned Lord made a distinction at one point between the human rights that relate to the decision as to whether or not to send an individual abroad and the human rights that the individual would discover or not discover in the country where he or she was sent.
I am not sure that I understood entirely the Minister's observation. I took him to say that what was crucial to the Home Office—to the Government—was the first measure of human rights, not the second. But since I intend to re-table this amendment at Third Reading, I think I can wait for a further episode from the Minister then. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 53, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) This section does not apply if the evidence adduced in support of the application establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in the country to which it is proposed to remove him."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, whatever categories of persecution there may be, I assume that the House agrees that torture is in a separate one. Those who suffer torture are the most vulnerable, the most inhibited from discussing their experience or describing it at an early stage, and the least able to survive further persecution. It is in this area in particular that the record of the Home Office does not inspire a great deal of confidence. I am grateful to the group of NGOs that put out the latest publication under the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association.
I shall refer briefly to three case studies. In the first, a man from Zimbabwe whose parents were beaten and stabbed to death by ZANU, made a claim for refugee status following a campaign of harassment, intimidation and beatings. The Home Office certified it as being manifestly unfounded. The adjudicator indicated that the claim was clearly not manifestly unfounded. He allowed the appeal and overturned the certificate. He said that the man would have had a genuine fear of being persecuted, ill-treated and possibly even killed, and he was ultimately granted refugee status.
The second case is in a category that has been discussed more than once during this evening's debate. A woman from the Roma had received threatening letters and telephone calls, her house had been burnt down and she had been attacked by skinheads. Her claim was certified as being manifestly unfounded. The adjudicator said that if she were returned there would be a real risk that she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
The third case is of a man in Cameroon whose father had disappeared and whose family home had been burnt down. He was arrested and detained for three months, during which time he was systematically tortured, beaten with the flat-side of a machete and had his leg burnt with a hot iron. The Home Office certified that his case was manifestly unfounded. The adjudicator allowed the appeal, and he was granted refugee status.
Obviously, there are other examples, some of which other noble Lords quoted during the debate. The idea that the Home Office is somehow infallible in these matters will simply not stand up to a moment's examination. I note, too, that 40 per cent of cases that were certified as manifestly unfounded were in due course overturned on appeal. I shall quote from Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in the Demirkia case:
"Where evidence of past maltreatment exists, it is unquestionably an excellent indicator of the fate that may await an applicant upon return to her home".
That is self-evident, but it appears to have required a distinguished Lord Justice of Appeal to spell it out. How, then, can it be said that in those circumstances an appeal is manifestly unfounded? I will not weary your Lordships by elaborating further. The proposition is so clear that any refutation would be manifestly unfounded. I know that my noble and learned friend is exploring whether there is a solution that will accommodate the recognised, legitimate concerns of the Government and also our own. I am content to await his reply. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell has again put the case very well. I have one area of concern to add. Methods of torture have, unfortunately, become increasingly sophisticated. One dimension of torture is psychological torture, which is much more difficult to deal with because the physical scars are not necessarily there. I can imagine that under a great deal of pressure—and we have been talking about pressure;
1520
why else would we be having the debates that we have been having?—people with good intentions might find it difficult to credit that there had been torture. That is why it is terribly important that the judicial and other safeguards are in place to make sure that the issue has been very carefully examined. Physical torture is bad enough, but sometimes psychological torture leaves consequences of even longer duration.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord spoke of the record of the Home Office. I have a strong residual loyalty to the department in which I had the honour to serve a long time ago. Fortunately for me, I was not in charge of immigration cases. The three instances that the noble and learned Lord cited are very dismaying because in each of them the official arm has certified that the claim for asylum was manifestly unfounded.
The amendment affords the Minister the opportunity to answer the question that I twice put to him before our adjournment: whether the system that he has taken pains to explain to us this evening—that one pair of eyes will be supplemented by another—was in operation at that time. He has probably had an opportunity to take instructions about that and I should be very grateful if he would let us know.
While the Minister is thinking about that, I beg him not to expound once again that all is well because there is to be judicial review. Judicial review is not the same as appeal. As part of the legislature, it is our duty to ensure that in every type of case, and never more importantly than when torture is concerned, the judicial system provided for by statute—and the adjudicator has to deal with these matters judicially—is sufficient to provide an appeal against such a decision. It should not be left to judicial review and the High Court to say that the system was inadequate and let the applicant down.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say something seriously about the proposals to deal with all the cases certified as manifestly unfounded by funnelling them through Oakington, including the ones to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred? If that is the case, how can someone who claims to have been tortured establish the basis of their case within the seven to 10 days that are normal for people to pass through Oakington and out the other side? In a torture case, somebody needs to obtain medical evidence. There may or may not be doctors available at Oakington with the necessary background and expertise to examine a patient and say whether the wounds that he displays are likely to have been caused by torture. Still less are there likely to be psychiatrists capable of evaluating the sort of claim referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd., in which someone says that they have been psychologically tortured. A specialist kind of medical examination would be needed for that.
If the Government intend to send every one of these cases that are certified as manifestly unfounded through Oakington, they at least have a duty to

1521
explain to the House how they intend, in such a short time, to process the ones who claim to have been tortured.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the cases cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, vividly illustrate the type of culture of disbelief that has prevailed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the past and that I suspect is still found there. When he winds up, would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, be kind enough to say whether he includes rape as a form of torture in the context of his amendment? It seems to me that the amendment is a minimum safeguard which the Government should accept if they wish to have their Clause 92.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches entirely support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on this amendment. If anything, we would like to see it strengthened so that it applies to cases where there is a real possibility that the appellant would be tortured if returned to the country. The Minister may simply say that someone who has been tortured would never be regarded as someone with a manifestly unfounded claim, but I would not regard that as an adequate explanation. I think that the provision should certainly be included in the Bill to ensure that those who examine these cases always have in mind the question of whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the person has been tortured or would be tortured if returned. There is a value in including that in the Bill even if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, might not regard it as strictly necessary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course the Government are fully committed to protecting those at risk of torture if returned to their country. Applicants who show that they face a real risk of torture if removed from the United Kingdom will have established that they have a well-founded human rights claim and—in many cases, depending on the reasons for that torture—that they have a well-founded asylum claim. In such instances, the question of certifying a claim as clearly unfounded under Clause 92 would obviously not arise. Far from being clearly unfounded, the claim would be well-founded and leave to enter or remain would be granted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, then how did it come about that the Home Office made the initial, perverse decision in the cases cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the subsequent adjudications revealed, those were mistaken decisions. I have not for one moment suggested that the Home Office and the IND are infallible; they plainly are not. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, would be the first to agree that there is no system that does not make mistakes. I think
1522
that the critical question is the extent to which the systems proposed will adequately pick up the mistakes that are made.
I should like to answer directly—which I have not done before—the point made so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. The general policy for the past few years has been to have a single pair of eyes for the making of a decision. In any case, however, the officer dealing with the case can seek the advice of a senior caseworker. I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord whether the officers dealing with the three cases cited sought the advice of a senior caseworker. However, the procedure in future for clearly unfounded cases will be that every case is looked at by two officials specially trained in such cases, and there will be additional quality checks on top of that. So under the new arrangements the system will be different from that which applied to the three cases to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, drew attention.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, just on a point of information for the next stage, will the Minister outline how much regular supervision these workers receive? Good supervision and a proper system of regular supervision are such important factors in the effectiveness of those working on the front line. If it is available, I would appreciate more information on that point for the next stage.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall try to write to the noble Earl on that point before the next stage.
The amendment is addressed at a different target from that of risk of torture to someone if he or she is returned. It is concerned not with the future prospect of torture—that is, whether removal would result in a person being tortured—but with the possibility that a person has in the past been subject to torture. The two matters are obviously related but they are different concepts. It is that difference which leads us to resist the amendment.
There are two main issues to address. The first is the relationship between previous torture and the prospect of future torture or other forms of serious harm. The policy underpinning Clause 92 is that where an asylum or human rights claim can objectively be regarded as being clearly unfounded, it is reasonable and sensible to deny a person an in-country appeal right against the refusal of their claim. The clause does not go on to define what is a clearly unfounded claim although it does create a presumption that claims from residents of certain countries will be clearly unfounded. We think that it is better to leave the term without further definition as its general meaning is well understood by the courts. Indeed, just a week ago the House of Lords restated the position in its judgment in Thangarasa which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is not present at the moment, referred to before the dinner break.
Accepting this amendment would, therefore, mark a change from that open approach. It would provide in effect that where a person had in the past been tortured

1523
in the country to which we proposed to return him or her, that claim could never be clearly unfounded. Such an approach would, in our view, be wrong. We accept that evidence of past torture or persecution is often a good indicator that a person would risk torture or persecution if returned to that country. So there will often be cases where applicants who demonstrate a real possibility of past torture will be successful in their claims.
There will also be some cases where we do not consider that the torture or persecution will be repeated and, accordingly, we refuse the claim but where we do not think that the claim is clearly unfounded. In such cases certification under Clause 92 would, of course, not be appropriate. But we do not discount the possibility that in some cases a person who may have been tortured in the past would in the present day have a clearly unfounded claim. Because country situations can change substantially over a period of time, it is perfectly possible that someone who was tortured 15 years ago would today face absolutely no risk of torture or persecution in their home country.
The consideration of an asylum or human rights claim involves a forward-looking assessment of risk based on present-day country information and the experiences the applicant has faced in the past and may face in the future. One cannot underestimate that the evidence of past torture is an important part of this consideration, but the amendment would elevate it to a factor which trumps all others. That would distort the process of assessing the claim—a process which should be a rounded exercise taking account of all relevant factors.
The second issue might be expressed as the argument that the clearly unfounded process is too rapid to handle the claim of a victim of torture—which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, both before and after the dinner break—and that even if it is objectively true that an applicant in those circumstances has a clearly unfounded claim, there is too great a risk of our coming to an inaccurate decision because there may be relevant facts which come to light only after the applicant has been removed. That is the principle underlying the point that the noble Lord made. He referred specifically to the process in Oakington. First, he asked whether it was right that almost all of those claims which might be in the clearly unfounded category would be dealt with at Oakington. Although there may be some exceptions and there may be places with a similar approach to Oakington's, broadly an Oakington-type process will be used in the first instance. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's first question.
Secondly, the noble Lord asks what the process will involve. The possibility of past torture can be identified early on in Oakington in a number of ways. The applicant may mention it directly, although I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis; namely, that people who have gone through the trauma, for example, of rape, which is plainly a form of torture, may be too traumatised to speak about their
1524
experience. However, that possibility may be picked up by the on-site medical team. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows, and as everyone else who is aware of what goes on in Oakington knows, there is an on-site medical team that is keen to investigate such cases.
There is also an on-site legal team that is available to advise applicants. That team, and the medical team, are in a position to seek to draw from applicants enough of the history of such experiences to establish whether or not there may be an issue that is worth investigating. If that is the case, then either the legal or the medical representative can contact the medical foundation—an organisation with which noble Lords are familiar. They are completely free to do so. A referral form can be sent to the medical foundation, which is expert in looking for precisely the sorts of experiences about which noble Lords are concerned. Once the representatives produce a copy of the referral form to the medical foundation, the applicant would be moved out of Oakington, or out of the Oakington-type place, to enable the medical foundation to carry out its examination. A decision on the claim would not be taken until after the medical foundation had completed its assessment.
If the medical foundation finds that there is evidence of past torture, it would normally mean that the claim was not one that merited certification as being "clearly unfounded". So the process in Oakington, or in the places analogous to Oakington, allows for medical or legal advisers to identify whether or not a claim should be referred to the medical foundation. Once that reference is made—there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that references to the medical foundation are being abused as a means of delay; indeed, it is a sensible use of the process—the applicant is taken out of the process which might lead to a clearly unfounded certificate, and the result of the medical foundation's approach is considered.
As I believe I made clear, if the medical foundation finds that there is evidence of past torture, that would normally lead to the applicant's claim being taken out of the route that could lead to a "clearly unfounded" finding. I cannot rule out some exceptions to that because circumstances may have changed so significantly in an individual's case since the torture occurred that there may clearly be no risk to the person if now returned. Plainly, those would be exceptional cases; for example, torture 15 years ago in a country that has since gone through a regime change.
I have outlined how the system works. That is my answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—that the process does not allow long enough for such determination. He referred to the seven-to-10 day period. If the on-site experts consider that there might be something that could lead to the belief that there is some risk of torture, they have the

1525
power to refer the matter to the medical foundation; indeed, there is no restriction in that respect. We then await the medical foundation's conclusion—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that the medical foundation, which is a wholly-independent charity, is part of the decision-making process?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; I am not suggesting that for a moment. The issue here is whether or not such claims are "clearly unfounded". If, after having investigated a particular applicant's claim, a very reputable body like the medical foundation finds that that applicant has suffered torture, whether physical, psychological, or sexual violence of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that would normally be sufficient to create enough evidence to make it clear that the case could not be "clearly unfounded". That is the issue.
If a reputable medical expert says, "This is the position", it is like asking whether he then becomes part of the decision-making process. No, that is not the case; he becomes part of the material-gathering process that must be weighed and considered in the making of the decision. Once the medical foundation indicates that there has been torture, it is very unlikely that such a case could be determined as "clearly unfounded".
Caseworkers at Oakington and the analogous organisations have guidance available to them on dealing with potential torture cases, and training is also provided. A rolling programme of seminars from the medical foundation, the UNHCR and the Red Cross has been launched to equip caseworkers to deal fairly and sensitively with those applicants who have suffered torture or other forms of trauma. Those seminars are proving very successful.
If an applicant raises the issue of previous torture or if the trained caseworkers believe that there might be something that is worthy of investigation by the medical foundation, the procedures are in place to deal with that. Should a person not mention torture, should that not emerge during the course of the substantive interview and should the inquiries by the medical and legal experts in Oakington not produce any sign of it, the amendment would not bite because no evidence of torture would have been adduced.
I repeat my opening remarks that the Government are fully committed to providing protection for those who would face torture if removed. The amendment is underpinned by intentions with which we all agree.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to Section C of the preparatory works to the UN convention of 1951. It states that while it may be possible to remove a refugee to a country that is physically safe for him, a refugee should not be removed to a country in which he has undergone such distressing experiences that he can
1526
never feel safe there. That provision and the amendment say exactly the same. I should have thought that the proper reply to the amendment, if the Minister wished to resist it, would be to say that it is unnecessary because it is covered by Section 2 of the 1993 Act and that the Immigration Rules may not contain anything contrary to the 1951 convention.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my position in relation to the question of torture has been clearly set out. I accept in many cases—indeed, it would be the norm—that if there had been torture, it would be very unlikely that the claim could possibly be described as clearly unfounded. I go further—in many cases, the claim would have been made. All I am saying is that there will be cases that appear not to be barred by provision "little c", to which the noble Earl referred, in relation to which there was torture a long time ago and the current position in the country is such that no reasonable person could possibly conclude that it made the applicant's position too distressing to live in that country or that there was no real risk of persecution. If, for example, the applicant had lived for 15 years without any assault on him by the state but he sought to make a claim for asylum or an infringement of human rights, based on torture from a long time ago—that would be an exceptional case—I am not sure whether that would be caught by provision "little c"; nor do I understand the noble Earl to be suggesting that it would.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is so explicitly asserted by the preparatory works to the convention, which I did not write.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very wary of getting into this because the noble Earl has a much greater memory of the precise words than I have. The test, as I understand it, is that as a result of what happened the trauma of living in the place is unfair on the applicant. What is the position when there was torture some considerable time ago but the person lived perfectly happily in the country because the regime changed and there was no chance of torture? That does not appear to fit into the provision of which the noble Earl gave us an abstract. I say only that this is not an absolute.
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not inviting the noble Earl to keep the debate going, unless he is absolutely determined.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is plainly contradicting the words of the convention and the UNHCR handbook. Incidentally, the provision has a large "C".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Sorry, my Lords. I accept that the provision has a large "C".
Perhaps I should clarify what I am saying. If the torture had the relevant impact the noble Earl would of course be right. My only point is that if the torture

1527
is of the sort that I described, it might not have had such an impact, but that would be an exceptional case. I do not wish to be taken to be asserting anything other than that torture would normally give rise to a claim that could not possibly be described as clearly unfounded.
I repeat that the Government are fully committed to providing protection for those who would face torture if removed. The amendment is underpinned by intentions that we all share. However, we believe that, in making an inflexible link between past torture and future risk, it goes too far. The ultimate question is whether a claim is or is not clearly unfounded. Evidence of past torture is an important factor in determining that question, but it is not the only or decisive factor in all cases.
For that reason, and in the light of assurances that I have given about our commitment to fair handling of claims involving torture, including the outline of the procedure that I gave in answer to the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, clearly my noble and learned friend has directed his mind to the concerns expressed in the amendment. I am not sure that the system that he described and the intentions which he seeks to incorporate are beyond improvement. I am tempted to embark on a number of factors which occur to me now. I am not persuaded that it would be wise to formulate them spontaneously, nor perhaps to attempt to negotiate with my noble and learned friend in the course of a public debate.
I was somewhat persuaded by the possibility that there might have been a change of regime a very long time ago and that that is not specifically provided for in the amendment. As ever when he intervenes in a debate, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, totally transformed the ambience in which we are debating. I believe that that will also require a certain amount of concentration.
I should like to reflect further and to consult, in particular, my noble friend who supported me in the amendment, other noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and the non-governmental organisations which, again, have so generously provided us with advice. I give no undertaking that your Lordships will not be invited to consider the matter again. But, for the present, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 43A not moved.]
Clause 94 [Earlier right of appeal]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 53, line 39, leave out "the Secretary of State or the immigration officer" and insert "an adjudicator"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 94 provides that, if at one time a person had a right of appeal and was notified of it but did not exercise it for any reason and he then formulated a new application, the Secretary of State could then certify that, in his
1528
opinion, the person made the new application in order to delay his removal from the United Kingdom and that he had no other legitimate purpose for making the application. If a case is so certified, then the person has no right of appeal. He does not have an opportunity to explain to a competent tribunal why he did not choose to exercise the right of appeal on the earlier occasion.
Many of your Lordships will be familiar with cases where a person has changed the basis of his claim halfway through and ultimately has been successful. We say that such people will no longer have a right of appeal because the Home Office is saying, "You had that right on a previous occasion. You chose not to exercise it and we can't see any good reason why you should have an appeal now". That will be that and the person will be subject to removal.
There is nothing on the face of the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying an application in circumstances where the applicant had a perfectly good reason, which he could have explained, for failing to make use of earlier appeal rights. On the basic principles of fairness, the Immigration Appellate Authority and not the Home Office should decide whether a person has a meritorious appeal against a Home Office decision. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments result in what we would consider to be a seriously backward step. The one-stop system introduced in 1999 has been a success. It helps IND to consider all aspects of the case more efficiently and gives those with a case the opportunity to put it forward at an early stage and have an earlier decision. It stops those who would put forward late claims to prevent the reasonable implementation of a sound decision.
It stops no one from having the right of appeal if they want it; it stops no one from claiming asylum or putting forward human rights grounds. It stops them from successfully delaying or evading a removal, the reasons for which they have the opportunity to dispute earlier.
Clause 94 simply builds on existing legislation. The 1999 Act introduced the one-stop procedure. The intention is that we deal with all the applicants' points quickly and in one go instead of bit by bit. That is the system set up by the 1999 Act. Some applicants, and nearly all those lodging an in-country appeal, are required by Sections 74 and 75 of the 1999 Act to disclose their full grounds for remaining here. They are-given a formal notice which warns them that if they raise a matter later which they would have raised at that point, they may not be able to appeal on that particular matter. Various provisions have that effect.
During the debate in Special Standing Committee in April 1999 there was general agreement that the one-stop procedure was a positive development. However, there were also concerns that judicial reviews would increase. The one-stop procedure works, and the more people get used to it the better it will work. If applicants and their advisers know that they musts

1529
disclose everything at an early stage and that spurious late claims will not get them anywhere, the tactics should not be used any more. Ideally, we should never need to certify a late claim because the only late claims we get are due to genuine changes in circumstances, for which the procedure permits. We would be delighted if that were the case.
I have taken some time to go back to present legislation so that we can sensibly discuss how we have built on it. Under our proposals applicants may be advised on application or soon after that they must state all the reasons for wishing to stay in the United Kingdom. They will be warned of the consequences if they do not apply. By extending the power to give a warning to all applicants we catch those who do not mention asylum or human rights initially so that we can deal appropriately with a tactical claim later. If the application is refused, with a right of appeal, the disclosure requirement will be repeated when appeal forms are sent out.
We think that it is reasonable, fair and just that, if the opportunity to apply and appeal a refusal has been offered and the applicant chooses not to take it and warnings have also been given, any later application can be certified. That mirrors the effect of Section 76(5) of the 1999 Act in asylum cases but extends it to other types of case dealt with in this country.
It will also bring into the system those who are liable to an adverse decision, such as deportation or curtailment of leave, without having made an application. Issue of the one-stop warning will become discretionary so that the system better targets those cases where it is likely to be of benefit. We do not intend to impose a requirement on every short-term visitor to our shores, for example. At the same time we have simplified how the one-stop system works in practice. That has been welcomed, for example by the Refugee Legal Centre, whose briefing speaks of our simpler and more effective scheme.
Opposition Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 will take away the element which makes one-stop work; that is, the fact that a late application intended to delay by virtue of an appeal no longer has that effect. Having to put the case before an adjudicator would almost inevitably mean that the removal arrangements would have to be cancelled.
Every person whose case is certified will have had the opportunity to make an asylum or human rights case to the Home Office in the proper manner. If they have done, and it has been refused, they will have had the opportunity to appeal. They can apply for judicial review of any one-stop certificate issued in their case and of the decision to refuse the claim, so they are not without recourse.
The general principle that the certificate should deny access to the adjudicator has been with us now for nearly two years. However, no one who has been certified can say that they were not required, often twice over, to make their claim at the appropriate time.
1530
The Joint Committee on Human Rights reminded us of the need to ensure that people are not removed before they have had an effective opportunity to ask for a court's help in enforcing convention rights. The one-stop warning given under Clause 103 requires the person to put forward any convention issues he may have so that any refusal can go through the full appeal process, not just the higher courts.
It is up to claimants to take that effective opportunity when it is offered by complying with the requirement. If they do not and the case is certified they will still have access to judicial review. So, overall, it is a fair system.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I did not hear the noble and learned Lord say anything about the circumstances which I postulated in moving the amendment; that the person has a legitimate reason for not taking advantage of the appeal at the earlier opportunity. As the noble and learned Lord explains the situation, although his case can be certified, the general tenor of his remarks is that it would be certified and it does not make much difference what explanation the applicant gives to the Secretary of State, he is still going to be whisked off without a proper hearing.
We believe—and this was the basis for the amendment—that under existing systems in the IAA one can have short preliminary hearings and rulings. Those would be suitable for dealing with the question of whether a particular case was spurious. I see that I shall not persuade the noble and learned Lord of this at 10.35 p.m., so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 95 [National security, &c.]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 54, line 22, leave out "against an immigration decision" and insert "or 81(2) against a decision"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are technical drafting points. There is no need to refer to immigration decisions. The decisions under which there is an appeal under Section 81 are set out. That avoids any confusion.
Amendment No. 50 applies to a lapsed appeal under Clause 94, which is about certification of later appeals. It makes clear that as an appeal cannot be continued it must lapse. These amendments are designed for clarification. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can we have some explanation of what type of decision is meant by the amendment?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the decisions are listed in Clause 82.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 48A:
Page 54, line 35, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these government amendments respond to concerns about wording and other matters of a political kind expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in Committee. I acknowledged that on reflection we should accept the wisdom of what he had advised us.
We debated the issue on Report on 9th October. It is unnecessary for me to speak further about these amendments, although I should be happy to deal with any points raised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 54, line 36, leave out "against an immigration decision" and insert "or 81(2) against a decision"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 54, line 43, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—"
(c) otherwise in the public interest."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Sections 95 and 96: appeal in progress]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 55, line 21, after second "section" insert "94(1) or (2)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Appeal to Tribunal]:
Lord Joffe Lord Joffe moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 55, line 31, leave out "on a point of law"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 to 54, 57 and 59. I support Amendment No. 52 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, although, if it were accepted, Amendments Nos. 53, 54, 57 and 59 would fall. As my amendments have correctly been grouped together, and as one of them concerns an issue that has not been raised before, I fear that I shall take a few minutes more of your Lordships' time than I should have wanted, for which I apologise—especially at this late hour.
The context in which I approach the amendments is that, despite my deep sympathy for almost any refugee who aspires to make his or her home in the United Kingdom, I understand the Government's objective: to speed up the asylum process and prevent abuse of the system. However, it is impossible for anyone concerned with justice to support the removal of the legal rights of those refugees who are entitled to asylum to prevent abuse by those not so entitled.
The purpose of Amendment No. 51, to which the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Judd, have added their names—for which I am grateful—is to preserve the existing jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to hear appeals the grounds for which are either errors of law or fact. The Bill proposes to limit the grounds of such appeal to points of law only. The tribunal's current factual jurisdiction enables it, in appropriate cases, to grant leave to appeal where there
1532
is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard—in other words, where the interests of justice demand it.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, stated that increasingly it has been the tribunal's practice to grant permission for an appeal to it only where a point of law is at issue. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand why the Government should find it necessary to introduce legislation to compel the tribunal to do what it is already doing. The reason provided by the Minister was that that would provide a better use of judicial resources in a two-tier appeal. It is equally difficult to understand how that conclusion is justified. The Government have admitted that they have no idea how many cases are appealed solely on a question of fact; how many succeed; how much judicial time is wasted; and what difference, if any, the removal of the right to appeal on a question of fact would make to speeding up the processing of asylum claims.
In justifying the removal of the right to appeal on the facts, in Committee the Minister drew the Committee's attention to Sir Andrew Leggatt's recommendation in his report on the review of tribunals that appeals to the second appeal tier should be on a point of law only. However, if the Minister had had the time to read the report, she would have realised that the recommendations related to an entirely differently constituted first and second appeal tier. Sir Andrew thought that there was a structural anomaly in the current system that brought in the contribution of non-lawyers too late in the process and created serious problems. He proceeded to recommend a different system. I cite his report:
"There should be a first-tier immigration and asylum tribunal…which should be the sole judge of issues of fact. Complex factual issues are a regular feature of immigration and asylum cases… Many cases would not be suitable for hearing by a chairman, even legally qualified, sitting alone and expert members should be used when appropriate at this level… There should be a second-tier tribunal, consisting of a lawyer sitting alone, to hear appeals on a point of law only".
So, far from supporting the Government's proposals, Sir Andrew raises the same concern that I raise. To exclude appeals from a single adjudicator on a point of fact would inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice because, as he points out, complex factual issues are a regular feature of immigration and asylum cases.
In Committee, I raised the recent case of a Turkish Kurd whose claim had been rejected by an adjudicator but whose appeal was upheld by the tribunal on an error of fact. The Minister responded that the Turk could still appeal under Clause 99, if the adjudicator's decision on the facts was perverse. However, an analysis of the case shows that it was not a perverse decision; it was a possible—but wrong—interpretation of the facts. Had Clause 99 been in force, the Turk would have been denied asylum and been returned to Istanbul to face persecution.
Surely, the Minister is not suggesting that, when interpreting the facts, adjudicators can never be wrong. We should bear in mind the fact that many adjudicators are part-time and have different levels of

1533
knowledge of immigration law and practice. Inevitably, some will be new appointments. There will be injustice, unless—in a limited number of cases only—appeals can be made on a point of fact. To exclude that right would be to discredit the Government's claim that they guard jealously the fairness, integrity and probity of our legal system. Can the Minister give any assurances that asylum seekers, who would have been entitled to asylum but for errors of fact that were not perverse, will receive justice?
The remaining amendments in the group focus on the removal of the right to address oral argument and on the removal of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. I assume that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, will, with his immense experience, deal with the importance of retaining the right to an oral hearing. I will touch only on the Government's failure to make the case for the saving in time that will result from the removal of that right and on the consequences of removing the right.
No statistics have been provided to show that there has been an evaluation of how much judicial time will be saved. In his report, Sir Jeffery Bowman undertook the type of analysis that one would expect the Government to have undertaken to justify the proposals. Sir Jeffery analysed the time spent by judges on judicial review cases. He found that a paper application for judicial review took a judge about 25 minutes to deal with, while an oral application took 22 minutes, in addition to 29 minutes of preparation, making a total of 51 minutes of a judge's time. By restricting oral argument, the Government are, at best, saving under an hour per appellant. The result will be that an asylum seeker whose application could have succeeded, if he had been permitted to present it properly, may be returned to his country of origin, with all the attendant perils, because our judicial system is not prepared to find an extra 51 minutes of judicial time to allow him to present his case.
It seems that the priority is no longer to ensure that justice is done but that appeals should be disposed of as quickly as possible. The law is clear: the courts are required to give asylum cases anxious scrutiny. Yet, in Committee, the Minister explained that statutory appraisals would be rushed through in four weeks, beginning with a draconian time limit of 10 days to lodge the appeal. Presumably, there will be 10 days for the tribunal judge to consider the case and a further 10 days for the High Court judge who, as the Minister put it, will "swiftly" check the tribunal's decision on a question of law. The Bowman report found that, when such decisions had to be made within 10 days, the pressure on the court,
"has meant that leave decisions are made swiftly (we are told in 10 or 15 minutes) and are often supported by inadequate reasons, reproduced in identical form in many cases".
Self-evidently, it is impossible for judicial officers to give anxious scrutiny to appeals while they are swiftly seeking to meet unrealistic time limits and, at the same time, are deprived of the opportunity to hear oral argument. Inevitably, the victims will be genuine
1534
refugees, who, because of such swiftness, will be denied asylum that would have been granted in a more measured and fairer legal system.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 which seek to retain a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision by the statutory review judge. The House of Lords judgment in the well-known case of Shahana Islam and others demonstrates the injustice that will flow from removing the existing right of appeal. The case reached the House of Lords by way of application for judicial review of the tribunal's refusal of leave to appeal from an adjudicator. Shah lost in front of the adjudicator and was refused leave to appeal to the tribunal. He applied and obtained judicial review of the tribunal's decision. The Home Office then appealed to the Court of Appeal and won. Shah then appealed to the House of Lords and won.
I will not go into the details of the facts of the case. It suffices to say that this judgment has had an enormous impact in terms of day-to-day cases in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It clarified an important issue of the interpretation of the refugee convention, and many genuine asylum seekers had their claims for an asylum upheld as a result. Under the proposed legislation, the Shah appeal would not be permitted and one must ask why not as it is rare for asylum seekers to get leave to appeal to the court of appeal.
It is clear that some of the provisions in the Bill will prejudice the position of asylum seekers entitled to asylum and that there must be better methods to achieve the Government's objectives without prejudicing genuine asylum seekers. Some of the ways of speeding up the process, but at the same time ensuring just outcomes, are set out in the reports from Sir Jeffrey Bowman and Sir Andrew Leggatt, commissioned by the Government but in respect of appeals not accepted by them.
I have one final question for the Minister. Does he envisage that the test for the judge to apply in statutory reviews will be the same as the tests which the tribunal currently applies in determining whether to grant leave to appeal? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to go into the detail of Amendment No. 52, standing in the name of my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury. It is part of the group which carries the same theme. It has been put extremely thoroughly and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and I can say only that we on these Benches agree with what he has said. The provision is another example of the Government's clear intention to limit the number of appeals and I believe that the limitation would impose a significant risk of a wrong decision being taken.
It is highly desirable that the decision of an adjudicator, who sits as a single judge in these matters, should be reviewed not only on the law but on the facts. There are significant numbers of cases where an adjudicator is likely to be seen to have gone wrong on the facts. If the only ground of appeal is on a point of law, it becomes much more difficult, because not only must the tribunal disagree with the views expressed by

1535
the adjudicator, but it must reach the conclusion that that decision is not only wrong but perverse. For that reason, we believe that these amendments are totally justified and we strongly support them.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Government's proposals to replace full judicial review of a refusal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of leave to appeal with the new statutory review procedure, provided for in Clause 99, was extensively debated in Committee on 29th July.
Amendment No. 58 is restricted mainly to the Scottish judicial system and relates to a point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on 29th July. The point is whether or not, because of the use of the term "the High Court" in Clause 99(3)(d), rather than the term:
"the High Court or in Scotland, to the Court of Session",
which appears in subsection (2) of the clause, applications for what are effectively wasted costs orders against counsel who pursue applications for statutory review that are wholly without merit can only be made outside Scotland; and, if so, whether this is the Government's intention.
If there is, indeed, a defect in the Bill, Amendment No. 58 would cure it by removing the word "High", so that the paragraph would refer to "the Court"—which would encompass both the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland, as those are the courts to which applications are made under the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, undertook to write to my noble friend Lady Carnegy when she raised the point on 29th July, and this amendment, therefore, gives the Government the opportunity to place their response on the record.
As to Amendment No. 55, I said that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would have to put forward a powerful case to rebut the arguments in favour of allowing some form of oral hearing advanced by her noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. In fact, the most powerful case put forward in that debate was not from the Government Front Bench, but from the Government Back Benches.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, stated:
"Our procedures across virtually the whole of our legal system are based on oral argument. That is because it has been found by long experience that that is the best and fairest way to clarify the issues and the arguments. It is usually the most expeditious way. We might have conducted our proceedings in your Lordships' House by exchanging memoranda, but we found by experience that oral debate is more likely to lead to a proper conclusion… I hope that my noble friend will not find herself in the position of saying, 'Even if the judge believes that oral argument is necessary to lead to a just outcome, it will not be made available to him'. That would be a monstrous affront to the judiciary and a flagrant denial of justice".—[Official Report, 29/7/2002; col. 706.]
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said:
"It is highly wrong that oral argument should be removed from the judges altogether. With respect, I do not believe that putting documents before them can be any substitute…the case put forward by the Government, which I generally support, is wholly wrong in this regard. I simply cannot see that oral argument has to be viewed with such suspicion".—[col. 707.]
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, commented that:
1536
"as a layman, it is absolutely clear to me when I look at the judicial system that a deliberation on written evidence cannot be compared in quality with a deliberation on evidence that is both written and oral. It is self-evident that it cannot be of the same quality, depth, care or integrity".—[col. 709.]
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, stated:
"I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I very much hope that she will take on board the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell… In my view it gives nothing away to give the sole judge who will hear the appeals we are discussing discretion to say, 'I do not feel that I am able in this particular case to come to a secure judgment solely on the basis of the relevant papers' and therefore to enable that judge in those circumstances to say that he wants to hear some oral argument".—[col. 715.]
If the Government will not listen to such an impressive coalition from their own Benches, then I suspect that my argument will add little weight.
However, I ask the noble Baroness whether she will undertake to consider the points that have been made in your Lordships' House today, as well as those that were made in Committee in July.
Your Lordships will have noted that Amendment No. 54 on this point appears in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Judd; that Amendment No. 55 appears in my name and that of my noble friend; and that Amendment No. 56 stands in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Joffe and Lord Judd.
I should also like to raise another substantive point in relation to a hearing on the papers alone. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark made an extremely important point; in the debate in Committee when he said:
"The right to an oral hearing in a higher court is central to justice in this country; without it, the decisions of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal will not be subjected to the 'most anxious scrutiny', which is to be expected in human rights decision making".—[Official Report, 29/7/02; col. 707.]
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, certified the Bill—and therefore the provisions of this clause—under the Human Rights Act 1998 as being compatible with the convention. Can the noble Baroness confirm that it is the Government's view that a hearing solely on the papers satisfies the requirement of Article 13 of the convention that there should be an effective remedy against the breach of convention rights by a national authority?
The European Court of Human Rights has said that full judicial review is such a remedy. Can the Government tell your Lordships today the reasons why they consider that the statutory review procedure in the Bill also meets that test, notwithstanding that it does not provide for the possibility of oral argument or the right of appeal? I should be most interested to hear from the noble Baroness the Minister on that point, which will doubtless have been considered in some detail by Ministers before the certificates of compatibility were signed.
The final point that I wish to raise in respect of whether or not there should be the possibility of an oral hearing is this: your Lordships will recall the proceedings in your Lordships' House some three

1537
years ago on the two mode-of-trial Bills put forward by the Government. Noble Lords will also recall that the Government proposed in those Bills to allow a right of appeal to a Crown Court judge against decisions of magistrates on mode of trial, and that it was this right of appeal that was so crucial in changing the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, who had, while in opposition, been opposed to the removal of the right to elect trial by jury. Indeed, I recall the noble and learned Lord describing in those heady days of opposition—heady for him, that is—that such a step would be madness.
However, my point relates to the way in which such appeals to the Crown Court would have been heard had the Bills been enacted. In a Written Answer in another place, the then Home Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw, stated:
"The Government believe that most appeals will be determined on the basis of the papers. It would however be open to the parties to seek to make oral representations, which the judge could agree to hear if he considered it necessary in the interests of justice; the arrangements for such an oral hearing would be a matter for the judge's discretion".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/00; col. 377W.]
Why then, if the Government were prepared to allow for the possibility of an oral hearing if the judge considered it necessary on a mode-of-trial appeal in the criminal courts, are they not prepared to allow for an oral hearing if the judge considers one necessary in such a case as we are discussing? What is the difference—if, indeed, there is any at all? I look forward to the noble Baroness's response.
11 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I rise for two purposes. The first is to support Amendment No. 51. I shall not attempt to improve on the case so clearly made out by the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Goodhart, except to add one further reflection. The composition of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is a legal chairman and two lay members. Can my noble friend tell the House what is the function of two lay members on a tribunal which is hearing appeals confined purely to points of law?
As to the amendment relating to the review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal not to give leave to appeal, all noble Lords who have spoken have set out their respective arguments so clearly that, again, it would be superfluous—not to say arrogant—if I were to try to improve on them.
My Amendment No. 56 was intended to be a compromise and to give my noble friend a let-out. It proposes that the judge should see the papers. If he decides that the refusal of leave to appeal by the IAT was properly considered and concluded, then so be it; that is the end of the matter. If he decides that the IAT's decision is clearly open to objection, he will no doubt pronounce accordingly and oral argument will not be necessary.
But let us suppose that the judge is not sure. Let us suppose that he believes that the matter should be argued before him because he thinks that he would
1538
benefit from oral argument. Is he then to be told that he is not entitled to hear oral argument? An experienced judge may be expected to know whether he will be assisted by oral argument. My amendment is designed simply to leave that option open to him.
Because I shall not be able to address your Lordships again in the course of this debate, perhaps I may repeat a point that I made earlier. I shall listen carefully, as I always do, to my noble friend's response. If she makes a proposal which I think requires consultation with other noble Lords and with the NGOs, I propose not to take any further action tonight but to pursue that consultation. There is still Third Reading. I say that simply because I do not know what is going to happen next—a situation in which we frequently find ourselves in this Chamber. But in due course I shall have to decide whether to press Amendment No. 56.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not attempt to gild the lily as regards the remarks of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. But perhaps I may add to the all-party support for Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, which seem to drive at similar points. "Hear both sides" is a fundamental maxim of natural justice. I know that a rising tide of paper is lapping round the base of that principle. But, every now and then, rising tides of paper reach the point where people feel the need to erect flood defences against them. I feel that that point may be approaching, especially in asylum cases.
In any first decision in asylum cases, so often the key point is the credibility of the applicant. I know—because it is my professional duty as an historian—that one may attempt to judge the credibility of people off paper, but just for that reason I know how difficult it is. I know how much more satisfying it would be to be able to cross-examine Charles I on what exactly his motives were. I support these amendments warmly.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister cannot possibly ignore the complementary nature of the contributions from all quarters of the house on this issue. There is obviously widespread concern about the matters raised in the amendments.
When this group of amendments was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe—whom I have enjoyed knowing for many years in our work together in Oxfam and elsewhere—not only did we hear a powerful legal case, but behind it was the moral authority of someone who was in the front line of these issues as a human rights lawyer in South Africa in the old days and who, as a result of that work, was compelled to leave South Africa.
Central to all the various considerations put forward in relation to these amendments is the issue that I raised earlier. I make no apology for stressing it again. If we really remain committed to the principle of asylum, as distinct from settling for a management policy to ensure that not too many people come to this country, it is unthinkable that anyone who is pursuing a case for asylum should be denied all the processes of the law which have become so important in the rest of the legal administration in our national life. It is just

1539
unthinkable. Asylum, by definition, is about such acute human need. I underline the point made earlier that if the appeal procedure is removed, where will be the discipline of excellence that the existence of such a system ensures in the administration of justice generally? We are in danger of dumbing down our whole concept of justice and its administration.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Joffe. All sides of the House would agree that to achieve good results in these matters a right interpretation of the facts is essential. Often, such an interpretation will turn on knowledge of the situation in the country from which the applicant comes. Such knowledge will include the degree of persecution carried out by a government and the degree of persecution that may be carried out by other non-governmental parties. If these factors are to be considered properly, we ought to follow the Canadian model of an independent commission to consider the situation in applicants' countries of origin. That would be the commission's first minimum function. Later, no doubt, it could take on a wider remit.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have had a formidable array of speakers against me this evening. We all enjoyed the very robust debate at the last Committee session, which lasted well over two hours. I note that it is 11.10 p.m., so I will adopt the stance taken quite often by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, of trying to be telegraphic in my responses.
I shall reiterate the procedure, because it is important to bear in mind the context. All the applications that will be subject to this procedure will have already undergone intensive scrutiny. Initially they will be viewed by Home Office officials to determine whether the case is sound. Then there will be a complete oral hearing before the adjudicator. During today's debate, proper applause was given to adjudicators' hard work and the efficacy with which it is done. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, about part-time adjudicators, but I assure him that all adjudicators operating in the system are well trained and well honed on immigration issues. They discharge their duty with just as much care and rigour as do the full-time appointees.
After that scrutiny, if the adjudicator feels that leave should not be granted and refuses the application, there is a second pair of judicial eyes. The decision is reviewed by the president or vice-president of the tribunal. The third pair of eyes are those of the High Court judge. I reassure your Lordships that I am more than content that by the time the proceedings reach the statutory review stage, there will have been the opportunity for a fair and public hearing, which is a right contained in Article 6 of the ECHR.
The nub of the issue is whether a paper review by the High Court judge will suffice. I hope that I can reassure your Lordships about that. A number of noble Lords have echoed the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer in asking what will happen if the judge says, "I am not sure. In
1540
essence, there may be something in this". Our expectation is that in those circumstances the judge should refer the matter back to the IAT for it to determine the issue.
Of course, that will have to be done in accordance with rules. I cannot say that the civil procedure rules will be in a certain format. A number of your Lordships will know that the civil procedure rules are the province of the committee. However, our expectation is that the application would consist of a written argument, the tribunal's written notice of decision and a copy of the application for permission to appeal to the tribunal, including the adjudicator's written determination. Your Lordships will remember from our last debate that it is not proposed that the Home Office should have a right of reply at this stage. The application will be determined on the evidence produced by the appellant only.
Once an application is lodged, a judge looking at the papers will either affirm or reverse the tribunal's permission decision and provide written reasons for his decision. If the judge thinks the applicant may have an arguable case, rather than adjourn for an oral hearing—which would be the trigger for sending the case back to the tribunal for an appeal to allow proper consideration, including oral arguments—the rules should provide that it should then be heard by the IAT. That is not a removal of the opportunity for oral argument. That argument is simply being transferred to the IAT, which we consider to be the proper place, giving the speed and efficacy that would better suit the needs of the applicant's case.
We do not believe that that involves dumbing down, as has been suggested. It does not involve lowering the standard that we would reasonably expect for our judiciary and the case law to operate. It demands careful scrutiny.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend for the characteristically considerate way in which she is replying. We are encouraged to take the concept of joined-up government seriously. In another sphere of government—in education—we are hearing a great deal these days about the importance of excellence. In the administration of justice, is not excellence an essential ingredient? Is not the consideration here that ultimately we are playing down the role of excellence in the consideration of these matters?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says, but his argument will be listened to with some alarm by the current members of the IAT, who have a very high level of probity and have had many plaudits for their excellence. We do not see that it is diluted in any way. Noble Lords will know that the IAT is a specialist tribunal, honed in relation to this type of law. It has all the expertise that one would wish to be directed to the consideration of these issues. I am always tempted to be persuaded by my noble friend, but on this issue I must forcefully part company with him.

1541
The arrangements we envisage will enable hearings to be heard more quickly, more efficiently and, therefore, we believe, more effectively, without losing any degree of probity. Although we cannot accept the amendments as drafted, we of course understand their import and why they have been pursued to this stage.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, asked about the role of the two lay members. I must tell him that lay members often enhance the acuity with which lawyers look at and understand the rule of law. There is even an argument for extending the lay element in other parts of the judicial process to enhance the grounded nature of the delivery of justice. I would not like the noble and learned Lord to labour under any misunderstanding as the Government indeed believe that lay members can make a valuable contribution in this regard.
The point on the point of law is clear. I do not want to reiterate everything that I said in Committee, but the question of the mixture of law and fact is often interpreted by some as a question of fact when, in fact, the court itself interprets it as a point of law. The IAT has been very careful in its more recent judgments to clarify how the interpretation will be used. There may well be a misconception about the IAT's current grant of permission, but I assure noble Lords that it is indeed on a point of law. That is being reiterated in the current provision.
I turn to the point on Scotland made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I regret that we cannot accept this amendment, simply because only the High Court in England and Wales will be required to issue a certificate, under Clause 99(3)(d), if the judge thinks that the application has no merit. It is not proposed, following consultation with the Scottish Executive, to place an equivalent requirement on the Court of Session to issue a certificate as the legal aid arrangements in Scotland are different from those operating in England and Wales. It will of course be open to the Scottish Executive, if they think it right and so choose, to replicate or mirror certain conditions in relation to penalties.
In relation to Amendment No. 59, we believe that statutory review should bring an end to cases in which leave is not granted because of lack of merit. On such matters there should not be further appeal. If leave is granted and the matter goes back to the IAT, the normal route of appeal will continue.
I am conscious that it is now 11.25 p.m. I hope that I have said enough to reassure your Lordships on these matters. I rely on everything that I said in Committee. I looked very carefully indeed at the representations made at that point, and I have listened very carefully this evening to the further representations by noble Lords. I assure your Lordships that we can deal efficaciously with this matter by using the rules. Proper rules will be made which, as noble Lords know, will include consultation with all the stakeholders, to ensure that they are robust, efficacious and actually deliver what we wish. Although I cannot prejudge what the rules committee will do, I can reasonably anticipate that it will do as I have just outlined.
1542
I therefore invite noble Lords not to press these amendments, and not to bring the matter back on Third Reading.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister replied to my last question; she may have done but I misunderstood. The question was whether she envisages that the test which judges apply in statutory reviews will be the same as that which the tribunal currently applies in determining whether to grant leave to appeal.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we envisage that it will certainly cover all the judicial review remedies, and the rules that we shall put forward—I should like to be precise in assisting the noble Lord in relation to them—should cover the point fully.
One of the wonders of truncating a speech is that one then cannot find the precise paragraph one needs. I hope that I may write to the noble Lord on the matter. I undertake to do that. However, I shall probably find the relevant paragraph once I have sat down.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her usual courteous response to the issues that I raised. She has assured us that she has great confidence in the adjudicators but that confidence is not shared in the respective reports of Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Jeffery Bowman. Sir Andrew Leggatt drew attention to the fact that it was totally illogical for the lay members to determine points of law when they would be better used in helping to determine matters of fact. The Sir Jeffery Bowman report refers to appeals being decided in a short time leading to standardised replies and wrong conclusions. As I say, the Minister has confidence in the adjudicators, but in the light of the findings of the reports I mentioned, I am not convinced about the matter.
The Minister will have noticed the support for the amendment from all quarters of the House and the concern that is felt about potential injustice in this area. I should like time to reflect further on the Minister's comments and to study the letter that she will send me. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 59 not moved.]
Clause 102 [Pending appeal]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 57, line 5, at end insert "(or when it lapses under section 97)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 102 explains when an appeal is pending and when it ceases to be pending. This is important for a number of reasons. For instance, under Clause 76 an appellant is protected from removal while an appeal is pending. For the avoidance of doubt, government Amendment No. 60 provides that an appeal which is lapsed is no longer pending. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Notice of immigration decision]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 57, line 27, after "include" insert "rebuttable"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. This amendment and, indeed, most of the remaining amendments that I shall move tonight, was tabled in Committee but was not moved at that stage as we reached agreement to finish the seventh Committee day at a fairly reasonable hour in order to allow noble Lords to debate the Enterprise Bill. My noble friend Lord Kingsland has the somewhat dubious pleasure of discussing both the Enterprise Bill and this Bill.
Amendment No. 61 would ensure that presumptions about the service of a notice about an immigration decision would be rebuttable. That is not clear on the face of the Bill as the word "rebuttable" is not used. That is in contrast to Clause 70(4) where it is made clear that the presumption that someone is a "serious criminal" is explicitly said to be "rebuttable". If that is the case—and it needs to be made plain in Clause 70—does that mean that the presumption in Clause 103 is not rebuttable? If not, why not? I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. All I need say is that I believe this to be a very simple and straightforward amendment and one that we support for the reasons already given.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank both speakers for their contributions. The noble Baroness has posed a fair question, to which I shall seek to give a clear and succinct answer. As the House knows, an applicant can remain in a country lawfully until such time as he is notified that his application or appeal, if he has made one, has been refused. That is an important principle. But without presumptions about service, that safeguard allows the unscrupulous to abscond in the knowledge that they can remain lawfully in this country until immigration officials catch up with them.
We believe that officials should be entitled to rely on the addresses that they are given by applicants. Service of a notice, or appeal determination, at the last address notified should be presumed to be valid. The time limit for appealing will begin at that point, and we can consider taking action if the applicant neither appeals nor leaves the country. But if the presumption is rebuttable, the applicant could simply say, "I changed address and did not receive your notice". The fact that the applicant did not trouble to inform us of his change of address would be irrelevant. He would have to be allowed 10 days in which to think about whether to appeal or abscond again; or, indeed, do both.
1544
Legislation should not permit such abuse. A person who has been refused leave to remain should either appeal or leave the United Kingdom.
It might be said that an absolute presumption could harm the innocent—if, for example, the applicant happened to be visiting relatives when the letter was delivered, he could lose the right of appeal. That is not true. There is provision for late appeals. The Home Office is obliged to pass the papers to an adjudicator who decides whether or not the appeal should proceed late. If the applicant can provide a reasonable explanation—a rebuttal of the presumption of good service would usually be a reasonable explanation—the appeal will go ahead without prejudice to either side. Rebuttable presumptions would assist abusers, while not providing any significant benefit to others. For those reasons, we do not support the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of Sit Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As ever, I shall carefully consider his response. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to explain how the Government are attempting to avoid an abuse of the system by use of such phraseology. I am a little concerned about his explanation that there is a way out of any problem because there is provision for late appeal. We have already discussed the difficulties involved with late appeals, so I shall have to consider that point. However, for this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Rules]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 57, line 37, leave out "or require"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should mention that this amendment is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. In moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 and 68.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the procedure rules contain provisions that enable but do not require adjudicators to dispose of a case in a particular way, and thus to preserve the important principle that the Immigration Appellate Authority should have the independence to regulate the procedure to be followed in relation to a particular appeal.
Why have the Government introduced the new word "require", which would remove the adjudicator's or the IAT's discretion? Paragraph 210 of the Explanatory Notes merely say that this is a re-enactment "with amendments". It does not refer to the fact that the fettering of discretion is being introduced by the use of the word "require", which is rather a change.
The purpose of Amendment No. 68 is to prevent people suffering prejudice in the appeal process in circumstances where it is simply not their fault that service of a document has not been effective. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise simply to express our support for this group of amendments, to which my noble friend Lord Dholakia put his name.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, assuming that the Minister resists these amendments, is there a distinction of significance between the words that will remain as they are currently drafted—in other words, "enable or require"—and those at line 27 on page 58, where the words "enable or require" are reversed to read "require or enable"?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any significance in that distinction. I hope that that assists the noble Lord. I am very grateful to him for pointing out that transposition of the two words. I am sure that the draftsmen will have that brought to their attention.
Clause 104 allows the Lord Chancellor to make rules that regulate the exercise of the right of appeal in Part 5 of the Bill and prescribe the procedure to be followed with an appeal. The clause also sets out particular matters that may be included in the rules.
We have taken a power so that the procedure rules can require adjudicators and the tribunal to act in specific ways. The Government consider it important, in clearly specified circumstances, to require adjudicators to follow a particular course of action. The expansion in the number of adjudicators and appeals hearings means that it is becoming increasingly important that the rules require adjudicators and the tribunal to act in certain ways to avoid inconsistency and confusion. There are now 107 full-time adjudicators and 458 part-time adjudicators. We anticipate a total future complement of at least 170 full-time adjudicators and approximately 440 part-time adjudicators. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate that rules requiring adjudicators and the tribunal to act in certain ways are in no way an interference in judicial decision-making. That would be wholly unacceptable. They simply provide the appropriate framework. In addition, the Government consider that it is important to require adjudicators to avoid delays in proceedings that are caused by either party. That is why we included Clause 104(2)(h), which allows rules to,
"make provision about the treatment of adjourned appeals by an adjudicator (which may include provisions requiring an adjudicator to determine an appeal within a specified period)".
That power could be used to require an adjudicator, for example, to determine the appeal on whatever papers he has at that date. That would avoid multiple adjournments in proceedings.
I turn to Amendment No. 68. For the appeals system to reach an end point, presumptions about service need to be made: for example, when decisions
1546
are notified by post. Presumptions are needed to enable the Secretary of State to begin taking enforcement action to remove failed appellants from the UK. Examples of such presumptions are provided for in rules 47 and 48 of the current rules. Those rules allow for presumptions about the address for service and time of receipt of documents.
There is an out-of-time procedure for lodging notice of appeal to the adjudicator and the tribunal in the current rules. If the adjudicator or tribunal is satisfied that there are special circumstances in which the appellant was not able to lodge his application for appeal within the usual time limits, the appeal will go ahead without prejudice to either side. I hope that that better explains the clause.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for his eagle eyes and for noticing the transposition of words.
I shall consider the Minister's response between now and Third Reading. I am concerned that she adduced that an expansion in the number of people doing the adjudication means that there is a requirement to avoid inconsistency. That is what I understood her to say. She later went on to say that it would be necessary to provide the appropriate framework.
One could perhaps argue in response that, if a substantial extra number of people have been appointed, perhaps the solution to the issue is to provide proper training so that there is consistency in approach, rather than having rules which direct people to act in a particular way. That is a matter that I would like to consider between now and Third Reading. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 58, line 7, leave out from first "adjudicator" to end of line 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in part, the Minister referred to this amendment during debate on the previous group. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I say simply that I still need to ask some questions in relation to this matter.
Amendment No. 67 would remove the words allowing rules to prohibit adjudicators from adjourning in certain circumstances. However, during debate on the previous group, the Minister was not able to answer my questions: what are the circumstances in which the Government do not expect adjudicators to adjourn, and why do the Government wish to prevent adjudicators from adjourning? Is it not the case that adjournments are caused not only by appellants but also by Home Office failures; for example, the failure to join evidence submitted by appellants to the appellant's Home Office file—something as simple as that; a bureaucratic mistake?

1547
Another example is the failure to consider that evidence before the hearing itself. Is it not the case that the Home Office's conduct is, indeed, the reason for a significant proportion of the adjournments that take place?
If one was cynical, one could say that perhaps the reason behind this provision is that the Government are concerned about the quality of their adjudicators. After hearing the earlier remarks of the Minister, I certainly hope that that is not the case and that they do have confidence in their adjudicators. However, I believe there is a danger here that one may find that the interests of speed are imposed over the interests of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, assuming that the Minister resists this amendment, again, with the same hypothesis as I established during debate on the previous amendment, I have a stylistic point to make. Perhaps I may illustrate it by notional substitution of some other words: "The Lord Chancellor may make rules which may make provision for attendance of a Peer or Peers in the House of Lords (which may include provision prohibiting a Peer or Peers from attending except in specified circumstances)". That would be an absolutely ludicrous way of expressing that thought on the part of the Lord Chancellor.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to add a word in support of the amendment. The difficulty with this method of legislation by regulations specifying circumstances is that one can never possibly foresee all the circumstances. To take a case which I hope is reductio ad absurdum, although I cannot guarantee that it is, let us suppose, for example, that the regulations do not specify an attack with nerve gas by members of Al'Qaeda. It would be highly unreasonable to expect a court not to adjourn in those circumstances. There must be a discretion; one cannot do it all by specifying every detail in regulation because then one can only lock the stable door after the adjudicators are dead.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his comment in relation to the drafting. Clause 104(2)(g) enables the rules to contain provisions making clearer in what circumstances adjournments will be granted by adjudicators. The rules will not impose obligations on adjudicators unless we can justify them as part of that process. Therefore, we shall seek to ensure that adjudicators and other stakeholders are used to ensure that an appellant is not penalised for delays which are not of his making. Delay can be caused by both parties to the proceedings. We do not suggest that appellants are more responsible than other parties for those delays. Delay is bad for the process and bad for the parties per se.
The current procedure rules already set out provisions about adjournments, for example in Rule 31(1) that the IAA shall not adjourn the hearing unless it is satisfied that refusing the adjournment would
1548
prevent the just disposal of the appeal. We shall simply be building on those provisions to try to adduce a degree of clarity.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for his attention to the drafting, and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. I agree that the difficulty is that one cannot specify all circumstances in regulations. They are blunt instruments.
I am grateful to the Minister for making clearer the Government's approach as to how the rules will operate and how they will be framed. I am particularly grateful to her for recognising that delay is a bad thing and that the Government do not allege that there is any greater delay caused by appellants than by other parties. That was most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 107 [Grants]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 59, line 29, at end insert—
"(c) legal representation or advice and assistance with applications for support and appeals; against refusal to grant support."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70.
Both these amendments address the question of how grants should or should not be used in assisting those who apply for asylum. Amendment No. 69 would add to the list of reasons why the Secretary of State may make a grant the important issue of legal representation or advice, and help with making applications for support and help with appeals against refusal to grant support to the asylum seeker.
This is, indeed, important work carried out by voluntary organisations. As yet, it does not appear clearly on the face of the Bill. I invite the Minister to give the House an assurance that those activities by voluntary organisations will be covered by Clause 107. It is important that we have clarity from the Government on those matters because no doubt there will be activities which qualify for a grant. We have to know exactly what those activities are and have certainty over whether the Government will be able to approve such grants.
However, there will also be activities which should not be funded by grants under this section. We need to know how the Government will make decisions about such activities. To probe the issue, I have tabled Amendment No. 70, which will prohibit the use of grants made under this clause for any political activity in relation to assistance given to asylum seekers whether that assistance relates to their right of appeal under Part 5 of the Bill or concerns welfare services.
The general question is how do the Government expect this clause to operate. Do they expect political activity to be excluded from funding under the provisions of this clause? Will there be guidelines published explaining how the Secretary of State will exercise his judgment in these matters? Noble Lords will be aware of the public concern caused over the past couple of weeks by the award of £340,000 by the community fund to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reported in the Sunday Telegraph this week as having told the press that she would be taking measures to ensure that future grants would not be awarded to such groups engaged in political activities. I think that that gives a flavour of the Government's approach on these matters, which makes me cautious about looking at the way in which Clause 107 might operate.
It is important that we have clarity from the Government on questions of how public money should be allocated to voluntary or community groups under this clause. I firmly believe that I have made clear in Amendment No: 69 that some activities certainly should qualify for grants under Clause 107.I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia is down in support of Amendment No. 69, although not of Amendment No. 70.
I raise one point which I am not sure is covered in Clause 107 or is adequately dealt with by Amendment No. 69. If, as it appears, Clause 107 indicates—although it does not expressly say so—that the grant is for the purposes of advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal, there could be a problem with Clause 92. That clause specifically states that people whose asylum claims are held to be clearly unfounded cannot appeal.
That exclusion was justified on the basis that judicial review would still be available. Obviously, in order to make an effective application for judicial review, there has to be legal advice or assistance. It might be helpful if Clause 107 specifically made clear that that grant could be made to organisations providing advice or assistance to persons seeking judicial review against a decision which could not be appealed against.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with the point made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, which I hope will be taken account of. Subject only to that proviso, I welcome the amendment. I have been wondering a great deal of the afternoon how people, who by definition are unable to meet essential living needs, are going to be in a position to contest refusals of support which may be extremely serious.
The amendment does not go all the way towards answering that question. But it makes a significant contribution to it, which I welcome. If that contribution could be combined with the point made
1550
by my noble friend Lord Goodhart then we might have a good workable amendment for a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, Clause 107 allows the Government to continue to provide discretionary grant in aid via the Home Office to voluntary organisations in the same way and for the same purposes as the existing arrangements under Section 80(1) of the 1999 Act. For example, there are three organisations currently funded to provide assistance—the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Northern Ireland Law Centre.
Free legal advice and assistance is already available for applicants for support from solicitors or not-for-profit organisations funded by the Legal Services Commission. There is no reason to duplicate that.
Resources for the provision of legal representation, however, must be prioritised. It is not policy to seek to extend this to asylum support appeals. The provision of publicly funded representation for asylum support appellants would place them in a better position than welfare benefit appellants who do not qualify for such legal aid representation. We see no reason for making a distinction between the two.
Legal Services Commission funding already provides for legal advice and assistance but does not extend to representation before asylum support adjudicators. The proposed amendment would be inconsistent with this policy.
The issues involved in asylum support appeals are not sufficiently complex to justify publicly funded legal representation being provided. However, in exceptional cases where the issues are considered complex or particularly complex LSC funding representation can be made available. Clause 107 therefore is intended to maintain only the existing arrangements for the funding of appeals.
The Government sympathise with the sentiment behind Amendment No. 70. But we think it is unnecessary. Clause 107, like its predecessor Section 80(1), allows for the grants to remain subject to terms and conditions. One condition currently imposed under Section 80(1) is that money shall not be used to fund any party political activity; for example, the current conditions for granting aid to the Northern Ireland Law Centre. It states explicitly the grant in aid may not be used for any party political purposes. We think that that is right, but other conditions may be appropriate, such as the stipulation of an equal opportunities policy or a prohibition on funding a case that is already funded by grant-in-aid moneys by another organisation. We see no value in giving undue prominence to one condition by writing it into the Bill when the Bill already provides for a variety of conditions to be imposed.
Notwithstanding all that I have said, the views of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary are pretty clear on some of the more extreme forms of reported activity, but I do not think that we are discussing such activity with respect to those three responsible organisations. Of course, those organisations could be

1551
seen to be engaging in political activity when they give advice to opposition parties on challenges to government legislation such as the Bill. Although there may be occasions when I wish that that were not the case, I should not for a second think it right to advance that as an argument against them.
I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the point that he raised. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I shall certainly do so in a few moments. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the limited application of my amendment. They made a valid point that I must consider between now and Third Reading.
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarity in explaining where the Government believe that legal assistance is properly available in various circumstances. I was a little concerned when he talked about circumstances in which the asylum seeker will be facing questioning that is insufficiently complex to warrant publicly funded legal assistance. From my experience of sitting for about 13 years on social security appeal tribunals—and child support tribunals when they were introduced later—there is always the worry that what appeared to be a simple issue for a layman such as myself who sits on such tribunals for week after week is extremely complex for someone for whom it is a once in a lifetime experience. I shall consider that carefully, but I am grateful to the Minister for providing greater clarity about the Government's expectation of the lack of grants for political activity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Special Immigration Appeals Commission: Community Legal Service]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
"ASYLUM SUPPORT ADJUDICATORS
In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (c. 22) (Community Legal Service: courts and tribunals in which advocacy may be funded) the following shall be inserted after paragraph (ha) (and before the word "or" which appears immediately after that paragraph)—
"(hb) Asylum Support Adjudicators,"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the Minister's last remarks, I am not optimistic in moving this amendment, but, with respect to him, I am not sure that he was right when he said that the Legal Services Commission has discretion to fund representation at asylum support adjudicator appeals. As I understand it, the Law Society, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and the Commission for Racial Equality have written to the LSC to ask for public funding for such representation, and have been told that that is a matter for the Government. So the discretion that the Minister claimed for the LSC to fund such appeals is not apparent to the agencies working on them.
With respect to the Minister, this is a complex area of the law, with a growing amount of case law and substantial precedents from the High Court. The issues that come before the High Court are those of destitution and starvation and breaches of the United Kingdom's obligations under the ECHR and other instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I refer only to one case: that of Husain v. Asylum Support Adjudicators, in which the appellant appeared unrepresented and in handcuffs. Because his NASS accommodation had been withdrawn, he had no address for release on bail and was kept in custody. But the decision to withdraw NASS support and accommodation was later overturned by judicial review, and the High Court found that NASS was a civil right under Article 6 of the ECHR and that withdrawal of support could interfere with asylum seekers' Article 3 rights. That was noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the Government acknowledged that the withdrawal of support could raise issues under Article 3 of the ECHR. People should be capable of representation. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, funding from the Community Legal Service—formerly legal aid—is not generally available for representation before a tribunal. However, funding has been made available for certain tribunals at which it is considered that legal representation is necessary. For example, the Bill extends public funding to representation before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission because the liberty of the appellant is at stake.
The constraints on the Community Legal Service's budget are such that we have had to order our priorities. We can extend public funding only if it is necessary to do so. Community Legal Service funding does not extend to representation before asylum support adjudicators, and it would not be appropriate to extend public funding to the provision of such representation.
The Community Legal Service provides free legal advice and assistance from solicitors or not-for-profit organisations funded by the Legal Services Commission to asylum support appellants, prior to the hearing of their case. Public funding for representation at asylum support appeals would put such appellants in a better position than those refused social security and other welfare benefits who do not qualify for free legal representation at their appeals to tribunals.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has just made the same point as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, about creating a situation for social security applicants that was different from that of asylum seekers. So far as it goes, the point has merit. However, applicants who are not from this country, are not familiar with our system and, often, do not speak our

1553
language are at a corresponding disadvantage to native British applicants. An inequality one way might be compensated for by an inequality in the other.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand what the noble Earl says. However, he will know that there are many people in our country who are similarly disadvantaged when they appear before the welfare benefit, social security and other tribunals. Many of them have difficulty with the language and face other disadvantages.
I reiterate to the noble Earl what I said: appellants will get legal assistance and advice prior to the hearing. That advice is available from solicitors and not-for-profit organisations, funded by the Legal Services Commission, who can assist people prior to their hearing. There is no legal representation for the hearing itself.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am not sure why that information could not have been given to the agencies when they wrote asking whether public funding would be available. It would have been simple to explain that public funding could be made available for those seeking advice prior to the hearing, even though they could not be represented at the hearing itself. That would have given some reassurance to those concerned with such matters.
The Minister has not really addressed the problem raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Withdrawal of support and, therefore, appeals to the ASA are matters of human rights. The Government acknowledged that. However, I shall not persuade the Minister at this late hour. We shall consider what she said and, if necessary, come back to the matter at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 [Money]:
[Amendment No. 71A not moved.]
Clause 154 [Commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 74:
Page 90, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) section 37,"
Page 90, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) section 55,"
Page 90, line 18, leave out "16" and insert "22"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are minor amendments which provide that Clauses 37 and 55 and paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 will be commenced on Royal Assent.
Amendment No. 72 enables Clause 37 local authorities to contract with us or our contractors in respect of accommodation centres. It is our intention to open trial accommodation centres as soon as possible, and we would not want this to be delayed by local authorities' inability to contract with us to provide, for example, services at accommodation centres.
Amendment No. 73 ensures that the amendments to Section 99 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that Clause 55 of the present Bill makes can come into effect as soon as practicably possible. This will enable the local authorities, if they wish, to have early discussions with the national asylum support service about the provision of induction centre accommodation.
Amendment No. 74 is minor and consequential, re-numbering a reference from paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 to paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 in line with the numbering of clauses in the current draft Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Withholding and Withdrawal of Support]:
[Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 100, line 17, leave out "to apply or"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 deal with Henry VIII powers arising in paragraph 15 of Schedule 3. The schedule authorises the withdrawal of various forms of mainly local authority support. It has to be defined in terms of persons and power. It is a list of persons who may not receive it and of types of support they may not receive.
Amendment No. 77 deals with persons. It removes the power to apply Schedule 3 to any new class of person. Amendment No. 78 changes the words "add or remove a provision"—that is, in relation to types of support—to "remove a provision". Therefore, the Government would be allowed to remove the ban in receiving a particular type of support but not to add a new type of support which may not be received.
Amendment No. 79, which is to leave our sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 15, takes away the power to add, amend or remove a limitation or exception to paragraph 1(1).
The House will be familiar with my views on this method of legislation. It gives the Government what they like; that is, flexibility. But their flexibility is everyone else's inflexibility. These powers are extremely widely drafted. I recall, when dealing with a similar power, asking the Minister to admit that it authorised the Government in future circumstances to deprive all Welshman of the right to social security. The Minister duly made the admission because it was plain that that was the effect of the clause.
Anyone could be added to this clause, and under the powers in Amendment No. 77 the Government could say that everyone whose name began with the letter A was not to be entitled to all these forms of support. I think that that is a degree of flexibility greater than I hope the Government will claim is needed.
There may be many other forms of help, particularly under the mental health Acts, which it could be dangerous to deprive groups of people of, as well as disadvantageous and unfair to them. The power to add, amend or remove authorises the Government to dismantle most of the local authority social services

1555
systems brick by brick, without further legislation. If the Government would specify what they really wanted to do, usually these things sound a good deal less threatening. But the trouble is, when one leaves power in Acts of Parliament which are so generally worded, it is like going about a war landscape strewing mines. They are left lying there for people to tread on. This was brought to my attention when students were disentitled to social security, which I believe is the most disastrous decision in higher education made since 1988—and that is saying something—under powers which no one had ever envisaged being used for this purpose.
If there is anything that the Government genuinely particularly wish to do with these powers, maybe they will tell us what it is and draft the Bill so as to allow them to do what they want to do and not to allow every future Government of every future complexion to do whatever they like to do. That really would be a way to make Parliament redundant. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, what the Government want to do with this amendment is essentially to achieve what the whole benefit shopping measures in the Bill set out to do—which, as the House knows, is essentially to protect local authorities from burdens or obligations in terms of providing support in the particular examples we have talked about in the past on numerous occasions.
Schedule 3 is a complex area of law in what is an ever-evolving area and paragraph 15 provides the flexibility to allow it to operate flexibly.
An illustration of why the power is necessary is given by the further amendment that we have to bring in as a result of the legal case—I speak from memory—where Bristol City Council was found as a result of a court judgment to have been placed under a burden to respond to that court judgment when it believed that it ought to have had no obligation to do so. As a consequence, we had to bring in further amendment to do that. We had not spotted that particular issue at the time. It is quite plausible that there will be other issues of that type that it is not possible to spot at this time, but which will require action to achieve the objective which Schedule 3 has been drafted to address.
However, because these are powers of potential significance, albeit that they may never be used—we do not know how often they would be used—the affirmative procedure will have to be used to put the measure relating to them through both your Lordships' House and another place. Therefore, in short, it is entirely possible that new classes of person may emerge in the future to whom it is right to apply Schedule 3. It is also possible that other forms of support or assistance might need to be withheld. If the whole of paragraph 15(c) were removed, an extra exception—an addition—in paragraph 2 could not be made except by primary legislation.
For the reasons that I have advanced and with the protections which are clear through the affirmative procedure, we believe that it is right that the
1556
Government have the flexibility to protect the central thrust of what Schedule 3 has been put on the face of the Bill to achieve.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I have heard it before. I am afraid that he has heard my reply before too and I will try to make it as brief as possible. First, does the Minister accept that these clauses may be used in future to do things which he would deplore as much as I would? I ask him genuinely to think about that question before he responds to it.
Secondly, does he accept that the affirmative resolution is absolutely no protection until it is widely recognised that this House is free to vote on it when it has it? And thirdly, perhaps I may remind him, with the greatest brevity, of the information that I have already put before him about the Eurostat figures on benefit levels and the Home Office research on the effect on welfare benefits on applications. I am sorry to hear him yet again repeat this argument about benefit shopping. It simply does not stand up to the evidence. But I am not going to divide the House at a quarter past twelve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but the questions are ones the House will hear again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 nut moved.]
12.15 a.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 101, line 19, leave out "116(4)(c)" and insert "128(4)(d)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are 28 amendments in the group. I have a lengthy speaking note, which I am happy to go through if your Lordships so require, but, given the hour, a brief outline of the amendments may suffice.
Amendment No. 80 is a minor and technical amendment. Amendments Nos. 81 to 100 are consequential amendments; they are minor, technical and drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 relate to provisions that are repealed elsewhere in the Bill and so appear in the repeal schedule. For example, Amendment No. 106 simply changes references inserted by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to references to the Bill. I suggest that it is not necessary for me to go into the amendments at greater length. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Immigration and Asylum Appeals: Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 101:
Page 105, line 24, at end insert—
"In section 33(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (pending appeal: interpretation) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "in accordance with section 102 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (pending appeals)"."
Page 105, line 25, leave out "the Immigration Act 1971" and insert "that Act"
Page 105, line 28, at end insert—
"In paragraph 4(4) of that Schedule (examination and detention of documents) for "an appeal under this Act" substitute "an appeal under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002"."
Page 105, line 40, at end insert—
"For paragraph 3 of that Schedule (deportation: effect of appeal) substitute—
"3. So far as they relate to an appeal under section 80(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against a decision of the kind referred to in section 80(2)(j) or (k) of that Act (decision to make deportation order and refusal to revoke deportation order), paragraphs 29 to 33 of Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply for the purposes of this Schedule as if the reference in paragraph 29(1) to Part I of that Schedule were a reference to this Schedule.""
Page 107, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
"16 The following shall be substituted for section 2 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals)—
"2 JURISDICTION: APPEALS".
Page 107, line 39, leave out "an immigration" and insert "a"
Page 107, line 41, after "80(1)" insert "or 81(2)"
Page 108, line 1, after "80(1)" insert "or 81(2)"
Page 108, line 5, after "appeal" insert "against an immigration decision"
Page 108, line 11, at end insert—
"(ba) section 77 of that Act (deportation order: appeal),"
(bb) section 80(2A) of that Act (variation or revocation of leave to enter or remain: appeal),"
Page 108, line 14, after "84" insert "of that Act"
Page 108, line 14, at end insert—
"(ea) section 85 of that Act (successful appeal: direction),
(eb) section 94 of that Act (earlier right of appeal),
(ec) section 102 of that Act (pending appeal),"
Page 108, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) The following provisions shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to an appeal against the rejection of a claim for asylum under this section as they apply in relation to an appeal under section 81(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—

(a) section 83(4) of that Act (matters to be considered),

(b) section 84 of that Act (determination of appeal),

(c) section 85 of that Act (successful appeal: direction), and

(d) section 107 of that Act (grants)."

Page 108, line 16, at end insert—
"(2B) An appeal against the rejection of a claim for asylum under this section shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the United Kingdom."
Page 108, line 17, after "appeal" insert "against an immigration decision"
Page 108, line 20, at end insert—
"(3A) In this section "immigration decision" has the meaning given by section 80(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.""
Page 108, line 22, leave out paragraph 18 and insert—
"18 Section 4 of that Act (determination of appeals) shall cease to have effect."
Page 108, line 44, at end insert—
"In section 5 of that Act (procedure)—
(a) in subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2) omit "or 2A", and
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Rules under this section may, in particular, do anything which may be done by rules under section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (appeals: rules).""
Page 108, line 45, leave out paragraph 19 and insert—
"19 Section 7A of that Act (pending appeals) shall cease to have effect."
Page 109, line 4, at end insert—
"In paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to that Act—

(a) in sub-paragraph (b)(i), for "section 57(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999" substitute "section 79(3)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b)(ii), for "paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2" substitute "paragraph 11 of Schedule 5"."

Page 109, line 13, at end insert—
"(2) This paragraph is without prejudice to—

(a) the effect after commencement of this paragraph of a certificate issued before commencement, or

(b) the power of the Secretary of State after the commencement of this paragraph to issue a certificate in respect of a claim made before commencement."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 107:
Page 120, line 25, second column, at end insert—

"Section 4.

In section 5(1)(a) and (b) and (2), the words "or 2A"."

Page 120, line 26, second column, leave out "7A(6)" and insert "7A"
Page 120, line 51, at end insert "and (6)"
Page 121, second column, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—

"In Schedule 1—

in paragraph l(2)(a), the words "or charge",

in paragraph 5(1), the words "or 42", and

in paragraph 5(2)(d), the words "or charge"."

Page 121, line 10, leave out "and 119" and insert ", 66, 96, 98(2) and (3), 120 to 121 and 126 to 129"
Page 121, line 11, after "paragraphs" insert "23 to 29 and"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  China: Population Growth
  China: Population Growth
  Population Growth Rates
  Population Growth Rates
  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
  Nuclear Veterans
  Nuclear Veterans
  Destroyers and Frigates
  Destroyers and Frigates
  Ministry of Defence: Race Equality
  Ministry of Defence: Race Equality
  Northern Ireland: Use of Baton Rounds
  Northern Ireland: Use of Baton Rounds
  Far East Prisoners of War: Ex Gratia Payment Scheme
  Far East Prisoners of War: Ex Gratia Payment Scheme
  Recovered Assets Fund
  Recovered Assets Fund
  Passport Fees
  Passport Fees
  Police Authorities: Promotion of Racial Equality
  Police Authorities: Promotion of Racial Equality
  Newspaper Industry: Taxes
  Newspaper Industry: Taxes
  Alternative Investment Market: Stamp Duty
  Alternative Investment Market: Stamp Duty
  Immigration: Population Trends
  Immigration: Population Trends
  Objective 1 Structural Funds Programmes
  Objective 1 Structural Funds Programmes
  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, 8 October
  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, 8 October
  Broadband Access for Schools
  Broadband Access for Schools
  Education Support Grant
  Education Support Grant
  Skills Priorities
  Skills Priorities
  BBC Radio: Production Quota
  BBC Radio: Production Quota
  Northern Ireland Office Members of Staff: Criminal Actions
  Northern Ireland Office Members of Staff: Criminal Actions
  Complaints of Maladministration
  Complaints of Maladministration
  West Coast Route Modernisation
  West Coast Route Modernisation
  E-Government
  E-Government
  Noise Pollution from Helicopters
  Noise Pollution from Helicopters