Sitting of 14 January 2003

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

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales in relation to NHS dentistry. [90189]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): Officials from the Department of Health continue to have a regular dialogue with the National Assembly in relation to NHS dentistry.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I am grateful to know that the dialogue is still ongoing. Is the Minister aware that just 31 per cent. of the population in my constituency are registered with an NHS dentist? That is the lowest figure ever, since the NHS dentistry system came in. According to figures released last week, we also have the highest rates of lip and mouth cancer registered in Wales at European level. The Select Committee on Health report on NHS dentistry published in March 2001 identified the scale of charges for NHS dentists as the main obstacle to increased access to NHS dentistry. What is the Department doing to change that scale of charges to encourage more dentists to come into the NHS and to ensure that we pay them not just for the treatment that they provide but for the preventive care that they undertake?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the Welsh Assembly is responsible for dentistry in Wales. The Assembly has rightly set out its reform agenda under "Routes to Reform". Like us, it is also examining how local commissioning can be taken forward, and our "Options for Change" document is a vision for that local commissioning.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Without wishing to cast a slur on the whole dentistry profession, I wonder whether the Minister would agree with a colleague of mine, my dentist, who primarily treats NHS patients, that there is a problem with the motivation of many of
    528
    those now coming into dentistry? We need to encourage more of those who have an ethical reason to be there, rather than simply a financial one.
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is key that dentists should be able to move away from the piecework and methods of payment that we have had in the past. My hon. Friend will know that we intend to put proposals before Parliament to change the structure to ensure local commissioning by primary care trusts. I believe that that will empower dentists to move in the direction that they and the British Dental Association want.

    Specialist Stroke Units
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the role of specialist stroke units at NHS acute hospitals. [90190]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): As the national service framework for older people makes clear, all hospitals that care for people who have had a stroke should have specialist stroke services in place by April 2004. Monitoring of implementation of the national service framework shows that progress is being made with the introduction of those services.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for restating the national service framework target. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that, at present, only 27 per cent. of patients are being treated in specialist stroke units, which, in its judgment, is resulting in 6,000 unnecessary deaths a year. Is the Minister really telling the House that, within one year, 73 per cent. more patients will be treated in specialist stroke units in places such as Blackpool, which has no such specialist unit? What comfort can she give to people there that the money and resources will flow at a speed that will enable her target to be met in one year?
    Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right: we do need to make more progress. That is why provision of stroke services is a key priority in the Department's priorities and planning framework issued last October. I am sure that he will be pleased to reflect that the third national sentinel audit showed an increase in the number of hospitals with specific stroke units, notwithstanding the fact that the Government's objectives go beyond stroke units to involve integrated stroke services covering preventive care, rehabilitation and long-term support for stroke patients. The right hon. Gentleman also makes the important point that this progress is dependent on investment. I do not think that it will be the last time that we say this today: I hope that he will explain to his constituents that the progress we have made and that we expect to make is dependent on the investment that this Government are putting in and that his party would take out.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I am always grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the help that you gave me in 1998, when you rushed me into St. Thomas's hospital from Westminster when I had a stroke in the House. Is the Minister aware that the

    529
    diagnosis, treatment and prevention of strokes is cost-effective as well as humane? Is she also aware that magic potions are not what are needed to deal with strokes? It is mainly a matter of careful treatment, sensible eating, exercise and, if you have the stomach for it, a mild aspirin a day. It is, therefore, just sensible organisation that is required. Surely that can be delivered according to the time scale that the Minister is describing. We do not need high-tech to deliver this programme.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least from his experience. Although stroke rehabilitation units are important, so is the increasing amount of preventive work in primary care. That is being taken forward through other initiatives; for example, it is linked to the Government's action on preventing heart disease. My hon. Friend referred to the importance of exercise and healthy eating. On Friday, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), made an important announcement about the Government's five-a-day project to encourage healthier eating.
    My hon. Friend is right that stroke services are about prevention and long-term rehabilitation. He is also right that the Government have made that a priority, and we are confident that the sort of improvements that we have announced are being and will be made.

  Hospital Waiting Lists and Times
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress on reducing waiting lists and times in the NHS. [90191]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Waiting lists and waiting times are falling. Waiting lists for primary care and hospitals have fallen, and waiting for in-patient and out-patient appointments has reduced. The biggest reduction in waiting times is that for cancer and heart treatment.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, within five years of coming to power, the Labour Government failed to reduce waiting lists by the promised 100,000, which was only a reduction of less than 10 per cent? Waiting times are more important than waiting lists. The right hon. Gentleman set a benchmark of reducing waiting time to a maximum of six months by 2005. Does he accept that he failed to achieve the benchmark of a maximum waiting time of 15 months by March this year?
  Mr. Milburn: With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. We promised at the time of the general election that we would reduce waiting lists by 100,000 and we have achieved that. It might benefit hon. Members if I read out the figures. In March 1997, 283,000 people waited more than six months for a hospital operation. That figure is down to 230,000. In March 1997, almost 6,000 people waited more than 15 months for a hospital operation; the latest figures show that six people are waiting that length of time.
  530
  More than 70,000 people were waiting more than 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment when we came to office; that figure is down to 700. There is a long way to go but waiting times and waiting lists are moving in the right direction for one simple reason: our reforms of the national health service and the resources for which we voted and against which the hon. Gentleman voted.
  John Mann: The NHS in my constituency is going from strength to strength according to every indicator except one: that for drug treatment services. Will my right hon. Friend examine the returns on waiting lists that the drug action team for Nottinghamshire provides for my constituency and the rest of the county, and work out why I know people on 12-month waiting lists when the team's results imply a maximum wait of 12 weeks? Will my right hon. Friend consider the specific cases, the details of which I can provide to him, and the way in which the waiting lists for drug treatment services are being fiddled?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I appreciate that he takes a passionate interest in issues that involve drugs, such as drug-related crime and drugs treatment. I understand that he mentioned some of them in yesterday's debate. Progress has been made, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the performance of drug action teams varies throughout the country. Some are good and some are unfortunately less good.
  When effort has been focused, especially on areas with high street crime, waiting times for treatment have changed remarkably. In some cases, people who obviously needed drug treatment were arrested, but told that they would have to wait many months before they received such treatment. Nowadays, people in high street-crime areas receive treatment almost instantaneously. If we can do it in some areas, we must do it in others. That requires a combination of national and local action.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Is the Secretary of State aware of the increasing concern about fiddling waiting list figures? I refer not only to the National Audit Office findings of more cases of fiddling but the scandal at St. George's hospital, where it appears that some figures were fiddled. Will he assure us that he is confident that clinical priorities are not being distorted by his obsession with waiting times and waiting lists, and that we are treating the sickest thickest—I mean the sickest quickest? Will he also assure us that he has confidence in the figures on which he relies to demonstrate the claimed improvements in waiting times?
  Mr. Milburn: Obviously the hon. Gentleman spent too long in front of the mirror this morning. He claims that the Government are obsessed with waiting times, but it is the public and patients who are rightly obsessed with them. As he knows fine well, by and large the biggest public concern about the national health service today is not the quality of treatment received once people get into the NHS, but how long they have to wait to get into it. We believe passionately that the right way forward is to get the reforms into the national health service—I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes all of them—and to get the resources in as well, so that we can

  531
  bring down waiting times. Of course, nowadays there is more independent scrutiny of the NHS than there has ever been.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: The reforms are certainly working for us in Doncaster. Of those waiting for treatment for less than six months, nationally the figure is 76 per cent., but in Doncaster it is 88 per cent., which is obviously good. Nationally, 76 per cent. of those waiting for GP referrals are seen within 13 weeks, but in Doncaster the figure is 86 per cent., so the reforms are working. Where there is a will, there is a way. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the doctors, nurses and management in Doncaster, who are doing an excellent job?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is quite right, and what he says is true not just in Doncaster. I join him in paying tribute to the Herculean effort on the part of staff and management in Doncaster, but although major problems still exist across the national health service—unsurprisingly so, after literally decades of underinvestment—it is very striking that, for the first time since records began, in-patient and out-patient waiting times are falling, and falling together. The same is true in primary care, and also according to virtually every indicator. What gives me particular pleasure—I know that my hon. Friend will feel the same, particularly since he comes from an area that suffers not just from deprivation but from a high incidence of coronary heart disease—is that the biggest falls in treatment have been in precisely those clinical priority areas of cancer and heart disease.
  It is worth saying that when we came to office, heart patients were in some cases being asked to wait more than 18 months for hospital operations. By April of this year, we expect such waiting times to have been halved to a maximum of nine months. There is clearly a long way to go, but the only way to keep the waiting times moving in the right direction—downwards—is to keep on with the reforms, and, most importantly, to keep the resources going in. That is what the Government want to do, and what the Opposition oppose.
  Dr. Liam Fox: What estimate has been made of the number of casualties that the NHS could deal with if there is war in the Gulf, and the number of staff who could be sent there without significantly affecting current levels of NHS activity and, thereby, waiting times?
  Mr. Milburn: We obviously have not made estimates of the number of potential casualties, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told this House just a week or so ago, we have put in place contingency plans. That is sensible, particularly in the first instance for the call up of reservists. This will affect many NHS hospitals throughout the country, but I expect that, on average, the impact will be limited to two or three members of staff being called up. Sometimes they will be doctors, sometimes they will be nurses, and sometimes they will be allied health professionals such as therapists. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, last week a meeting was held in the Department
  532
  of Health with six of the principal NHS and other hospitals that would be used to deal with casualties in the event of a conflict.
  Dr. Fox: Last July, the armed forces said that they had only 195 GPs when 415 were needed, only 23 anaesthetists when 120 were needed, only 11 orthopaedic surgeons when 28 were needed, and only 18 general surgeons when 43 were needed. The whole House will undoubtedly agree that all our troops should have optimal treatment. If we are talking about a deployment of more than 20,000, how will the extra numbers be made up in those areas without having a very significant impact? Of course, that could cause great difficulty to the NHS.
  Mr. Milburn: Perhaps uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is being something of a merchant of doom and gloom. The reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made that statement in the House—I very much support what he said—was precisely that the national health service has to plan for all contingencies. The House—and, I dare say, Opposition Front Benchers—would be the first to criticise the Government were we not to put in place suitable contingency plans. That is precisely what we have done, in the first instance with reservists. If it is necessary to supplement the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made to the House, we will take any further action that needs to be taken. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have taken this tack. It is worth pointing out that the Government who cut the defence medical services in our armed forces were not this Labour Government, but the previous Conservative Government.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he intends to ensure that foundation hospitals are treated equally with non-foundation hospitals when strategic health authorities are considering hospital re-organisation. [90192]
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on financial independence for foundation hospital trusts. [90199]
  Mr Dave Watts: If he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the likely effect that foundation hospitals will have on staff retention in non-foundation hospitals. [90200]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): National health service foundation trusts will provide NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles and NHS standards. They will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally, by members of the public in the local community, and by local staff, patients and local primary care trusts. The freedom that they will have to improve services for NHS patients and

  533
  meet local needs will be balanced with safeguards to ensure that their primary duty to NHS patients is always met.
  Dr. Ladyman: I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve with foundation hospitals, and I support him in that. However, when schools were given grant-maintained status, many started competing against other schools instead of co-operating with them. I need to be reassured that that will not happen with foundation hospitals. If a strategic health authority that includes two trusts decides to localise services in one to create a centre of excellence, will the other trust accept that, and will the two trusts co-operate and work together? Will my right hon. Friend give me that assurance?
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Foundation hospitals will be part of the NHS. They will operate under a statutory duty of partnership, and we will introduce legislation to ensure that they will have the freedoms necessary to empower front-line staff and managers to shape local services to meet the local community's needs. With the best will in the world, that cannot be done from Whitehall, but those freedoms need to be balanced by significant safeguards. Our intention is definitely not to reinvent the dog-eat-dog competition that prevailed under the previous internal market. That is why so much effort is being made across the NHS to ensure that NHS standards are good in all hospitals and not just in some. As far as questions of so-called reconfiguration or service change are concerned, any NHS foundation hospital that wants to propose a service change will have to go through precisely the same process of scrutiny as any other NHS hospital. That process will involve the oversight and scrutiny committee of the local authority. That democratically elected committee will provide a significant safeguard and ensure that it is the interests of the local community, and not the vested interests of any one organisation, that come first.
  Mr. Swayne: I shall stick with Question 11, Mr. Speaker, which the Secretary of State has not begun even to address. He has merely lumped three questions together and answered them according to a query that he has imagined. Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely how much the foundation hospitals will be able to borrow from the private sector?
  Hon. Members: Keep taking the tablets.
  Mr. Milburn: I do not want to incur any more expense for the NHS, but the hon. Gentleman is in scary creature mode today, as he often is. His specific question concerns how much NHS foundation trusts will be able to borrow. That will be determined by each individual trust, against a prudential code that the independent regulator will have the duty of monitoring. The borrowing will be based on one simple principle, with which most people—as individuals and members of organisations—are fully acquainted. That principle is that borrowing should be based on ability to repay. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Government would
  534
  want NHS foundation hospitals to overstretch themselves in such a way that local services were lost to local communities.
  Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend will know that there is much concern among Labour Members about the proposed introduction of NHS foundation hospitals. Many of us believe that that could lead to a two-tier health service. Will my right hon. Friend give me the assurance that one-star and two-star hospitals will be raised in a very short time to the standards of foundation hospitals, and that they will be allowed to join the foundation scheme as soon as possible?
  Mr. Milburn: I can give precisely that assurance. I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I know that my hon. Friend is not saying such things, but all the talk suggesting that what we envisage is a group of half a dozen or a dozen elite hospitals is entirely removed from the truth. In fact, we want as many NHS hospitals—as many NHS trusts—as possible to become NHS foundation trusts, as quickly as possible. But we must start somewhere, and, as my hon. Friend knows from his constituency, there are now different starting points in the NHS.
  Some hospitals are performing very well, some are producing a middling performance and a few, sadly, are persistently underperforming. We need different approaches and different strategies to deal with the different starting points. Some hospitals can benefit from more freedom, many need more support, and a few need not less but more intervention. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about that many times in the context of his local hospital. There will, however, be no arbitrary cap on numbers.
  I hope my hon. Friend is also comforted by the fact that 75 per cent. of NHS trusts that were given a zero rating in our first round of star ratings had improved by the following year. Twenty-five per cent. had become two-star trusts, and I expect that before long some will have become three-star trusts.
  Mr. Simon Burns: How can foundation hospitals be truly independent from Whitehall control, as the Secretary of State keeps claiming they will, when they will be subject to a star-rating system that is imposed on all hospitals by the Department of Health?
  Mr. Milburn: For the simple reason that they will be owned and controlled locally, not nationally. They will be owned by members of the local community—not by me, not by any other Minister, and not by Whitehall.
  What the hon. Gentleman's question reveals all too starkly is the fundamental difference of view on this. The Tories want foundation hospitals—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Every time the Secretary of State has got to his feet he has told me what the Tories want. I do not want to hear any more about that. I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say for himself.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: There have been some mischievous suggestions that the governance proposals for foundation trusts are being included as a sweetener for people like me who have some reservations about the concept of such trusts. To prove that that is not so, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the concept of these governance proposals to other elements of the NHS?
  Mr. Milburn: In time, we will. The guide that we published on 11 December makes that absolutely clear.
  The proposals are certainly not a sweetener. The governance structure and the ownership structure of these organisations, and their independence, are intimately related.
  Michael Fabricant: Order. Face Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Milburn: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had taken over your role, Mr. Speaker. Heaven help us if he does. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would like to pass his pills to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Perhaps then we will hear a bit of sense.
  I was talking about the independence and the governance of foundation hospitals. We want to use our current model because whatever the great strengths of the NHS—and it has enormous strengths: its staff, its public service ethos and some of the advances it has achieved in public health—what cannot be done with the best will in the world is matching local services to local needs if these organisations are run from Whitehall. They must be run by members of the local community and local staff so that they can shape local services in accordance with communities' differing needs.
  Alistair Burt: I hope the Secretary of State agrees that if the House is to be reassured about foundation hospitals it is essential for us to have confidence in the views expressed by those who work in the NHS. Is he concerned about the climate described by the Institute of Healthcare Management? It says that
  "Over half of the managers…from board level down to heads of departments, felt unable to raise concerns about the Service, or their own organisation, for fear of recrimination".
  What does he intend to do about that climate, and who or what does he think those managers are afraid of?
  Mr. Milburn: I think we should give more independence and greater freedom to NHS organisations that are capable of using it.

  Consultant Contracts
  Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the reform of consultant contracts. [90193]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Following the ballot of British Medical Association members in October, we are carefully considering the options in relation to the best way forward and will make an announcement shortly.
  Mr. Edwards: May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist and overcome the opposition of consultants to the reform of their contracts? Constituents who need an orthopaedic operation feel deeply frustrated when they find out that they could have it done in the next couple of weeks by the same surgeon at the same hospital. The situation is so intolerable at the Royal Gwent hospital where my constituents go that the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales, Jane Hutt, has set up an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that those consultants who are dedicated to working full time for the national health service are rewarded for that? We should not have a two-tier system.
  Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly with hon. Friend. It is important to make it clear that no one has a veto on reform in the national health service. It is our job to find the best way to proceed with the reforms that we wanted to make. Our objective, however, is clear and it remains the same—to better reward NHS consultants who do the most for NHS patients. As I said, we will be making an announcement shortly about the way forward.
  On my hon. Friend's specific point about private practice, he will remember from the agreement that we negotiated with the BMA last year that we proposed a way forward for dealing with the perceived conflict between NHS practice and private practice. The need for clarity around the relationship between private practice and NHS practice remains the same, and we will be saying something about this in the near future.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) has raised an important point. While we have to give full credit to the overwhelming majority of consultants for their skill, dedication and commitment, is it not important that any contract should encourage a consultant to carry out as many operations as possible within the national health service in accordance with safety, hygiene and all other considerations that are important when using theatres? Will the Minister give me an assurance that that objective will lie behind any decision that the Government take?
  Mr. Hutton: Yes.
  Mr. John Baron: Dr. Paul Miller, the new BMA consultant negotiator, has today called for a resumption of national contract talks, saying that the consultants
  "are becoming increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of change…The Government is quick to claim credit for reductions in the longest patient waits but slower to acknowledge that the long waits have simply moved further down the system, with more patients waiting between six and 12 months for treatment."

  537
  How can the Government hope to gain the trust of the consultants when they are responsible for this sort of systemic distortion?
  Mr. Hutton: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's latter point. It is no coincidence that waiting times are falling across the national health service, because we have set clear national standards for the first time. We have pursued those with vigour and energy, and patients have been the beneficiaries.
  On the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course the doors of the Department of Health remain open to the BMA, and we look forward to the discussions to which he has referred.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I have in front of me a letter from a consultant who says that he voted in favour of the reforms. He goes on to explain that as specialists in one of the smaller trusts, he and his colleagues are becoming increasingly frustrated with our region's attempt to rejuggle the management of some of the smaller trusts. As we need to build on the trust of good consultants such as my constituent, will my right hon. Friend look closely at what the north-west region is doing in terms of mergers of small specialist trusts, which are the jewels in the crown of the local service?
  Mr. Hutton: Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; He is more than welcome to discuss any detailed concerns or issues with me.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Peter Pike: What discussions he has had with primary care trusts regarding improved access to NHS dental services. [90194]
  Colin Burgon: What steps he has taken to improve the availability of dental treatment on the NHS. [90196]
  Mr. John Grogan: What plans he has to increase the provision of NHS dentistry. [90201]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are committed to providing NHS dentistry for all who need and seek it. In addition to the annual general dental services budget, more than £125 million has been made available to the NHS to improve local services over the past three years.
  Despite the increase of nearly 2,000 dentists since 1997, we recognise that in some areas it can be difficult to find an NHS dentist. We therefore propose to legislate for far-reaching reform of NHS dental services.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust supported a bid, made under one of his Department's initiatives, for an improved NHS dental service in east Lancashire, but that the bid failed? Does he recognise that people in Burnley cannot get on to NHS dentists' lists? There is much poverty, as a result of which people cannot afford private treatment, and
  538
  dental health in east Lancashire is poor. We want the Government to take action to solve those problems; people are paying for NHS dental services, but they are not able to get them.
  Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the Department recognises the issues relating to poor dental health in Burnley. That is why Burnley has benefited from a number of other pilots, including dental access centres. Burnley has also received a substantial increase in its primary care allocation, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced shortly before Christmas. That, too, will improve dental access in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Colin Burgon: I am glad that the Minister has a strategy for improving access to NHS dental services, as the problem is also present in my constituency, even though it is a reasonably affluent one. Recently, a Garforth constituent gave me a letter that he had received from his dental practice, informing him that it was going private. Two things disturbed me about the letter. There was a strong implication, first, that unless my constituent signed up for a dental care plan, the practice could not guarantee treatment; and, secondly, that NHS dental care was of lower quality and that inferior materials and techniques were used. What is my hon. Friend's comment on that letter?
  Mr. Lammy: I am very concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says. If he passes the letter to me, I shall ask Department officials to look into it.
  NHS dentistry is overseen by a quality assurance system, as my hon. Friend would expect, and the dental reference service undertakes 55,000 random checks on dentists across the country.
  Mr. Grogan: Many NHS dentists feel strongly about fluoridation. What is the Government's current policy, following the Medical Research Council report that built on work carried out by the university of York?
  Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will understand that the subject is controversial, but the MRC supported the benefits of fluoridation in improving health inequalities, especially for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief medical officer and the chief dental officer to look further into the issue.
  Mr. Colin Breed: Will the Minister give me his definition of access? Does it include, for instance, the five to six-hour journey by public transport to fulfil an appointment that is often experienced by my constituents in south-east Cornwall?
  Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has, I know, been concerned about a case in his constituency that arose over Christmas. It is important that people ringing NHS Direct have access to a dentist within a reasonable distance. We must continue to strive to ensure that there is investment to improve dental access in the hon. Gentleman's area—as in others.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the Minister aware that in many rural areas—Sleaford

  539
  in Lincolnshire, for example—it is almost impossible for individuals to register for an NHS dentist? The primary care trusts say that they face great difficulties in attracting dentists to rural areas, and to Lincolnshire in particular. Will he, in concert with the working group, see what can be done to attract dentists to rural areas, and to Lincolnshire in particular?
  Mr. Lammy: Of course I am concerned about dental access in Sleaford and I am tremendously concerned about why we arrived at this position in the first place. The then Administration introduced a contract in 1990, but there was a 7 per cent. cut in 1992. The Conservative party currently supports a 20 per cent. cut, which would make things worse for the people of Sleaford. We have 17 dental access centres in rural areas and investment is being made to improve access. That will benefit the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Is the Minister aware that a mother in Freshwater in the west of my constituency cannot access an NHS dental practice unless she travels to Southsea, which involves public transport by way of bus, train and ferry? Does he recall the Prime Minister making a promise at the Labour party conference in 1999 that everyone should have access to an NHS dentist within two years? Why has the Prime Minister broken that promise?
  Mr. Lammy: The Prime Minister has not broken his promise. We remain committed to that investment. We will improve access by enacting legislation that will propose local commissioning for primary care trusts. Will the hon. Gentleman vote with us on that measure, or will he propose a 20 per cent. cut?
  Chris McCafferty: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the need for extra funding for primary care trusts, such as the one in Calderdale, that cover large semi-rural areas and face specific problems? There are pockets of need where access to dental care is not available. Those areas do not qualify for extra funding under the current arrangements because they are pockets rather than larger areas of specific need. The Government could help such areas by carefully considering their special needs.
  Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will know of the recent announcement on allocations; Calderdale will certainly have benefited from an increase. As I have explained, the legislation will enable her primary care trust to ensure better local commissioning and to provide better access for her constituents.

  MRI Scans (Yeovil)
  Mr. David Laws: What his estimate is of the waiting time for MRI scans in the Yeovil constituency. [90195]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am advised by Dorset and Somerset strategic health authority that both East Somerset NHS trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS trust are currently meeting the target for urgent referrals for MRI scans as set by the NHS cancer plan. Waiting
  540
  times for non-urgent MRI scans have fallen significantly at East Somerset NHS trust, although waiting times for non-urgent MRI scans at Taunton and Somerset NHS trust have risen in recent months.
  Mr. Laws: Is the Minister not aware that waiting times for MRI scans at Yeovil hospital are longer than they were in 1997, and that at Musgrove Park hospital they are now 38 weeks? Are not some of the longest waiting times in the NHS for diagnostic tests and for consultant-to-consultant referrals? Would it not be better for the Government to publish the information nationally so that we do not have a distortion in priorities across the NHS?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that waiting times at Yeovil hospital, which serves his constituents, have been coming down recently. It is also due to get a new scanner in May, which will make the process even faster. It may be able to help out with waiting lists at Musgrove Park hospital, which has problems with non-urgent MRI scan waiting times, although it has just appointed two new radiographers and extended the working day from 8 o'clock in the morning to 8 o'clock at night. In addition, people are working on Saturday mornings. The combination of extra investment and reform to working practices is beginning to make a difference on this very important issue.

  Nicotine
  Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to reduce nicotine deaths. [90197]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Some 120,000 people die every year from smoking. Forthcoming changes that will reduce deaths include banning tobacco advertising, starting with newspapers and billboards from 14 February, new stark warnings on cigarette packets and a major expansion of NHS smoking cessation services.
  Paul Flynn: The Government are to be warmly congratulated on their work on this issue, but is it not amazing that over the past 20 years the number of male cancers in Sweden has been cut in half and that smoking among men has gone down from 36 per cent. to 17 per cent.? Last month, the Royal College of Physicians said that using smokeless tobacco is up to 1,000 times less hazardous than using smoking tobacco. Is it not right that the product that has achieved that remarkable health improvement should now be taken off the banned list and become available in some form in countries outside Sweden? Unfortunately, the Government have said that setting up a regulatory authority to consider all those matters is not planned at the moment. When is that likely to be done, enabling us to take a rational look at all forms of smoking?
  Ms Blears: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that smokeless tobacco should be encouraged. All tobacco products are addictive, and it is much better to take our approach—helping people to give up smoking entirely, with Zyban and nicotine

  541
  replacement therapy—and to see how that works. I am afraid that we do not have a history of oral tobacco use, as people have in Sweden. The Swedish National Institute of Public Health does not support the use of Snus as a smoking cessation product because it is very concerned indeed that it could become a gateway to tobacco use, particularly for young people, at whom it is specifically marketed. Far from helping people to give up, it could increase the number, especially of young people, who use tobacco. It is a very interesting debate—I am sure that it will continue—but I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this issue.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Minister join me in congratulating South East Hertfordshire primary care trust, together with local GPs, pharmacists, practice nurses and the Hertfordshire stop smoking groups, on the excellent work that they are doing in my constituency to help my constituents to give up smoking? Although we still have three months to go, the primary care trust has already exceeded its 2002–03 Government target, with more than 200 people having given up smoking. Will the Minister please tell the House what action she is taking to put pressure on Ministers in other Departments to tackle the very serious problem of tobacco and cigarette smuggling, which has a serious impact on the issue that we are trying to address and which, of course, she particularly wishes to solve?
  Ms Blears: I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in congratulating all the people in her local area on the magnificent results that they have achieved. Those results are replicated throughout the country. More than 200,000 people are now being helped to give up smoking, and we are aiming for an extra 800,000 over the next three years. We are putting in the money to ensure that that can happen, because it requires extra resources as well.
  On cross-government action to reduce smuggling, we are in constant contact with Treasury Ministers to ensure that we bear down on the problem. We have a cross-government action plan to tackle not just smoking but all the damaging effects of tobacco on our community. We have a whole range of policies in the Treasury, the Department of Health and, particularly, the Department for Education and Skills, and we are doing a great deal of work to alert young people in schools to the dangers of tobacco and, indeed, of other drugs.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on tobacco, particularly in relation to tobacco advertising. The next huge timebomb that we face in health is obesity in children. Is she prepared to consider as part of a strategy limiting the advertising to young people of products high in fat, sugar and salt, which cause such huge damage to our young population?
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend highlights an extremely important issue, which is almost a timebomb waiting to hit us in years to come. He will know that the Government have a huge range of policies to improve people's diet and nutrition: the national school fruit scheme, the five-a-day projects and a range of plans to
  542
  encourage people to have access to a healthier diet. He raises the important issue of advertising to young people. The Food Standards Agency is conducting a research project to examine the effects of advertising foods high in sugar and salt to young children. I shall read its report with great interest to see what action we can take to improve the diets of young people in this country.

  GP Appointments
  Mr. John Bercow: What estimate he has made of the number and proportion of missed appointments with general practitioners in each of the last five years. [90198]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Information is not available for each of the last five years. Surveys conducted over the past two years by the Doctor Patient Partnership and the Institute of Healthcare Management, with funding from the Department of Health, have shown a reduction in the number of missed appointments of more than 8 per cent. during that period.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that answer. Given that people who miss their general practitioner appointments without good reason cause unnecessary cost to public funds, waste doctors' time and selfishly inconvenience other patients, does the Minister agree that, although people should always be free to use their GP, they should certainly not be free to abuse their GP?
  Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point, and I also agree with his views on the Conservative party, which we have all enjoyed reading. He raises a serious point, so he is entitled to a serious answer. He is right that the waste of resources caused by people who do not bother to turn up for appointments is a huge drain on the NHS; we are trying to find the best way to make sure that we minimise the incidence of the problem. As he will be aware, a number of GP practices in Buckinghamshire are taking part in the work of the primary care collaborative, including some, I think, in his constituency. We have found that improving the appointments system that practices operate can have a beneficial effect on the number of missed appointments. I am glad to say that, so far, the introduction of better appointments systems through the primary care collaborative has seen the national average of missed appointments fall by 50 per cent. That is the right way to proceed.
  Caroline Flint: Everyone would agree that missing an appointment with a doctor or at a hospital requires good reasons. I urge my hon. Friend, however, to do further work to examine why people do not attend appointments. Too often, statistics are produced showing that X per cent. of people have not attended appointments, but we do not go on to ask why. We need to spread good practice in terms of having an efficient appointments system, but we must understand that people may not attend appointments for many

  543
  good reasons. They may be fearful of seeing their doctor, or they may have got better, which is also worth knowing. We need more research in this area.
  Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are committed to working with the Doctor Patient Partnership to examine some of the issues that she raises. We know, for example, that the incidence of missed appointments tends to be higher in mental health trusts than in other NHS organisations, probably for obvious reasons. We certainly need to examine the background, including access, transport and convenience issues. I say to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): it is important that we work with the primary care sector, GPs and practice managers to improve the convenience and accessibility of the appointments system. If people are given a genuine choice not only over the time at which they are seen but where they are seen, all the evidence confirms that they are more likely to attend their appointment than if they are given little choice.

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What representations he has received about the impending closure of King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst. [90202]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other Ministers and departmental officials have received a number of representations on the financial situation that has been developing at the privately run King Edward VII Hospital, particularly over the last few months. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend last week. Furthermore, the director of health and social care for the south of England met the hospital's chief executive and director of finance to explore what the NHS could do, and discussions continue with NHS officials.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that the hospital is not private but independent, with half its patients coming from the NHS? Will she urgently examine why 40 per cent. of NHS work has been withdrawn over the past few months, which is the immediate cause of the closure, and whether that work can be restored? Is she aware that the hospital's closure will create a dramatic increase in waiting times for orthopaedic and cardiac work in the area? Is not it absurd that people from the area are being sent abroad for treatment, especially for orthopaedic work, when they can be treated at less cost at the King Edward VII hospital?
  Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman says, the hospital is not an NHS hospital, but the NHS in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire has worked with it for a number of years and recognises its contribution to local NHS patient care, as well as to providing care for independent private patients. The NHS throughout the country, certainly in the areas that concern the hon. Gentleman, is planning for and funding increased capacity and activity. Its purpose is not to reduce it. It is in that context that detailed discussions are ongoing with both
  544
  the hospital and the liquidators to maintain capacity, subject obviously to cost and quality considerations at the hospital.
  Tim Loughton: I am aware that discussions have been going on with Ministers behind the scenes. I acknowledge the hard work and approaches of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the receptiveness of Ministers. We certainly hope that this outstanding not-for-profit hospital can survive its centenary year and continue as a centre of excellence, having looked after a majority of NHS patients over the past 50 years in cancer care, cardiac work and orthopaedics in particular.
  As my hon. Friend says, is not it absurd that NHS patients are being sent abroad rather than up the road to a hospital that has state-of-the-art scanners, angioplasty equipment and its own intensive care unit? What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact on waiting times for NHS patients served by hospitals in Guildford, Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight and the whole of Sussex that previously relied on the centre, especially if the worst comes to the worst?
  Jacqui Smith: Serving the interests of NHS patients in that hospital and others in the area is, of course, the priority. That is why the NHS was willing to enter into partnership with private sector partners who were negotiating with the hospital and to undertake longterm contracts, given the necessary consideration of quality and price. That objective will continue to underlie the ongoing work with the liquidator. As I said, our priority remains to increase capacity and activity to ensure the very best services for NHS patients, wherever those are provided.

  Complementary Medicines
  Mr. David Tredinnick: What steps he is taking to improve GPs' understanding of acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal medicine and homeopathy. [90203]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being called to ask his question; it has relieved my hon. Friends of the guessing game of who will be on the happy receiving end of it.
  In June 2000 we issued an information pack for primary care groups on the most commonly used therapies. We are currently co-funding with the King's Fund a project run by Westminster university to develop good practice in the clinical governance of complementary and alternative medicine, using a network of primary care trusts.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that with 20 per cent. of the population now using complementary therapies, the time has come to make doctors more aware and thereby ensure a better interface, which is what many doctors want? Does she accept that the problem is that the royal colleges and faculties are not issuing guidance or providing post-graduate courses for doctors, which goes against the

  545
  recommendations in the Lords report, in particular recommendation 6.85, which says that the royal colleges should address the issue of familiarisation by
  "supporting appropriate Continuing Professional Development opportunities"
  for doctors? Will she assure us that she will consider the issue to determine whether it is appropriate to issue guidance to the royal colleges?
  Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman points out, many of the decisions are for the royal colleges to make, but the medical profession has recently added a
  546
  mandatory requirement for complementary and alternative medicine familiarisation to the medical curriculum.
  Alongside that, the network that I referred to earlier is important in helping to ensure that GPs and primary care trusts are confident about clinical governance issues concerning the use of complementary and alternative medicine. To support that process, Ministers recently agreed to provide additional funding to help to extend the network and to create an interactive website for participants, so that more people can understand what I know the hon. Gentleman strongly believes to be the benefits of such treatment.

Sizewell (Security Breach)
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the urgent question, I point out to the House that this is a very narrow matter, and I do not intend to allow it to run for a great length of time.
12.30 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications of yesterday's security breach at Sizewell nuclear power station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): At 6 o'clock yesterday morning, Greenpeace activists illegally entered Sizewell B nuclear site and carried out acts of protest. From the initial incursion at the perimeter fence, site security was at all times monitoring the intruders and their actions. At no time did they enter sensitive areas such as the control room or the reactor building, which remained secure throughout. To avoid unnecessary risk to both protestors and security staff, no action was taken to remove protesters from the roof of facilities. Suffolk constabulary were in attendance.
Security at nuclear power stations is designed according to the "defence in depth" principle. A perimeter fence alone cannot stop mass intrusion. Systems installed at the perimeter fence serve to delay and detect intruders, thereby enabling management to assess the threat posed by the intrusion and to activate appropriate contingency arrangements. I am satisfied that the response procedures at the site were adequate and were carried out according to plan.
Sensitive areas and systems within the site are given additional protection. The objective is to contain intruders while continuing to protect the sensitive areas and systems within the site. The security did protect the sensitive parts of the site; it was adequate and it worked properly. Despite their attempts, the intruders did not breach any of the internal security barriers.
Security precautions at sites have to distinguish between the type of irresponsible behaviour that we saw at Sizewell yesterday and real threats. I am satisfied that both the Sizewell site security and Suffolk constabulary acted appropriately in the circumstances. However, there will be a full report into the incident by both the DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security, which, as the House knows, regulates security at civil nuclear sites, and British Energy, which operates the reactor. That will not be published, as the House will appreciate that it is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites. However, security is kept under regular review, and we shall use the reports to review the security arrangements.
Mr. Blunt: The House and the public will be slightly concerned by the Minister's account, which sits rather at variance with that given in The Mirror by the journalists involved in the incursion. I would be grateful if the Minister answered one or two further questions.
Is it the Minister's initial assessment that security was so lax that immediate action is required at other nuclear installations? Exactly which people and organisations were responsible for security, and should changes be
548
considered? How long did it take for the incursion to be detected and for the assessment to be made that this was not a terrorist operation? What lessons were learned after the previous incursion last October, and what actions were taken?
What inquiry process do the Government intend to initiate in the wake of the report to which the Minister referred? When will the report's preliminary conclusions be acted on? Do the Government think that it would be appropriate to publish the conclusions of any further inquiry following the report, and if not, how can Parliament be satisfied that lessons have been learned and acted on?
Does the Minister believe that it is possible to defend all key economic installations on a permanent basis, or must we accept that our security must be intelligence-led? In the light of these events, do the Government propose to review the balance between those two requirements?
Finally, does the Minister think that The Mirror and Greenpeace have done a service or a disservice to the country by undertaking the raid? What would the position now be if armed policemen had responded with lethal force to the incursion?
Nigel Griffiths: The House will be well aware that we have a tradition of peaceful protest and civil disobedience in this country. That is a tradition that we are loth to change. Security arrangements were able to detect the incursion yesterday within minutes and react to it appropriately to ensure that the critical building and areas were not entered. The picture in The Mirror— I am glad that the newspaper has a new fan in the Conservative party—shows, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies it closely, that it was taken outside the control room, not inside the control room, which is strongly defended and protected.
Of course, any lessons that should be put in the public domain will be given to Members of the House and the public, as appropriate, but I know that the House will endorse the long-standing practice that sensitive security matters should not be put in the public domain. The House has Committees that can scrutinise them fully with the proper security and privacy necessary for that.
Of course, the response yesterday was appropriate and non-violent. It was taken to ensure that security staff were not put at risk by having to climb unnecessarily on to a roof from which protesters were willing to come down. Of course, there was no armed response to peaceful protesters. The facilities are designed to take attacks of considerable strength and hits from the air, the House will be pleased to know, and the appropriate response is available quickly on such sites in the event of a non-peaceful demonstration.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the treatment of the protesters that he described is in stark contrast to what happened when the Tory Government were in power during the pit strike of 1984–85? I can tell my hon. Friend that if any of those miners had dared to get into a nuclear power station, or even get anywhere near the fence, there would have been thousands of police jumping on them, the miners would have been put in jail, and the Tories would be calling for them to be sacked for life. I applaud the fact that the

549
Minister is taking a more reasonable attitude, for I do not take kindly to the Tories whining about the incident—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that the subject was very narrow.
Mr. Skinner: And you do not want me attacking the Tories.
Nigel Griffiths: The Government are always grateful for the support that they receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He makes a forceful point.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Clearly, there has been a serious breach of security, which has drawn attention to the potential vulnerability of our large power-generating plants, particularly our nuclear installations. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made, following 11 September, of the risks of damage and catastrophe within the plants, and the potential for catastrophic consequences for civil society? Had those protesters been disciples of bin Laden, what assessment has the Minister made of the consequences that might have flowed from that incursion? Does he accept that the incident highlights the vulnerability of our large generating plants and our nuclear industry, and makes the prospect of a new generation of nuclear plants absurd?
Nigel Griffiths: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I can tell him that there has been a major review of the security of such facilities in the light of the events that occurred the September before last. Steps have indeed been taken to ensure that the threat from terrorism and violent protest can be countered. As the House knows, the breach was not a violent threat, but a peaceful protest. While I do not endorse it in any way, I think that there are great differences in that respect. I hope that the House will be reassured by the fact that a major review of security at such plants was initiated very shortly after the events of 11 September.
Mr. David Chaytor: Given that the Government's long-awaited energy review will be published in the next few weeks, may I ask whether it will consider the issue of nuclear terrorists? With regard to the Minister's remarks about the ability of nuclear installations to withstand attacks from the air, is it not the case that British nuclear stations are not built to the same specification as American ones, which are constructed to withstand such attacks?
Nigel Griffiths: I understand from discussions that the Department has had this morning that the plant would withstand an attack or hit from the air. In respect of the other matter, no, I do not believe that it is part of the review, because safety has always been a paramount issue on the Labour Benches and for this Government in terms of nuclear facilities. Although it is an important factor, the energy review is more wide ranging. We do not take security for granted, but it must be built into the heart of any process involving nuclear reactors.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Just before Christmas, a number of foreign anti-nuclear protestors
550
broke into Devonport dockyard and were able to access a nuclear submarine. Although no damage was done, the breach was a massive publicity coup for anti-nuclear protestors. In the review of security, will the Minister and others take into account not only issues of public health or damage in wrongful access to such sensitive facilities, but the sort of propaganda that anti-nuclear protestors in this country can get if security is too low and lax and they can gain such access?
Nigel Griffiths: Yes. I think that lessons should be learned about the message that goes out from incidents such as that of yesterday.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having visited Sizewell on several occasions, but more relevantly, having attended day 157 of the Sizewell committee inquiry in the Aldborough festival hall, does the matter not justify the thought that the late Sir Richard Layfield, the lawyers involved, Lord Silsoe and the engineers gave precisely to the questions of eventualities in relation to security? Has not the response been a very sensible one? Should not some tribute be paid to those who gave a great deal of thought to precisely these possibilities at the planning stage during that long, extended Sizewell inquiry?
Nigel Griffiths: Indeed, we do owe a debt to people who gave a great deal of time and effort to thoughts of security. The track record has been very good in this country and it is right that we can today discuss the issue, examine the questions and re-evaluate and re-endorse the advice that was given.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister tell the House whether the financial chaos in British Energy has led to any reduction in the number of security staff or procedures or any of the security measures needed at Sizewell? Will he investigate that and assure the House on a future date that sufficient resources are available for security at the site?
Nigel Griffiths: The answer to the first question is no. On the second question, the issue may obviously be taken into account by the security review.
Paul Flynn: Following speculation that the plane that did not reach its target on 11 September was targeted on the Three Mile Island nuclear facility, the French have guarded their nuclear stations with rockets that can shoot down aircraft. We know that in this country since then jets have been scrambled as a result of a false alarm. As it is the opinion of the French think tank W.I.S.E. that the containments would not withstand the sort of attacks that occurred on 11 September, can my hon. Friend the Minister give us an assurance that sufficient protection is given to our nuclear power stations, because W.I.S.E. also said that the result of such an attack would be contamination a hundred times greater than occurred at Chernobyl? Is it right that the cost of this security is put at the door of nuclear energy, a form of power generation that is already the most expensive of all forms of power generation?
Nigel Griffiths: I attended the Cabinet Committee meeting that considered this very issue—that the best possible security, both appropriate and effective for British sites, is being attended to.

Points of Order
12.45 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
We recently deployed to the Gulf the largest number of troops since the last Gulf war, yet many of us feel that in the answers we are receiving from the Government when we ask questions about one of the most onerous decisions any Member of Parliament will take—going to war—the Government are being evasive. At yesterday's press conference many relevant questions were asked that were not fully answered.
What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to protect democracy in the House and the right of Back Benchers to know whether or not our Government have taken a decision to go to war?
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In the last debate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he would bring this issue back to the House before any troops were sent, and that before any war was declared there would be a vote in the House. I remember him saying it, and I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can remember him saying it and will ask him to come and do it.
Mr. Speaker: I noted the comment that the Foreign Secretary made, and I certainly will hold him to that comment.
Mr. John Taylor: Really?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members. Tomorrow we have Prime Minister's Question Time, and these are matters that can be put before the Prime Minister, who is accountable. There is also a debate on defence next week, when hon. Members like the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) can apply to speak. These are opportunities that can be taken. There is nothing to stop hon. Members applying for an Adjournment debate, when they can raise their concerns and a Minister has to come before the House and be accountable.
What I am saying to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members is that I understand their concerns and that there are many ways in which Ministers can be brought before the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On matters of peace and war, is it really sufficient to say that there can be Adjournment debates, either half an hour at the end of business in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall? Surely the importance of this issue supersedes Adjournment debates. Although there is a debate next week, it would be much more authoritative if the motion were amendable.
Mr. Andrew Stunell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer.
552
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is inviting me to express an opinion. I am not entitled to express an opinion; the rules of the House are quite clear on this matter. The hon. Gentleman can approach Ministers, put pressure on various Ministers and express the concern that he expresses here in the Chamber.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On another point of order, which I think is related, Mr. Speaker.
The House understands the restrictions that are put on you. They are traditional and quite clear. However, there is a very important point about what happened yesterday, in that a very serious statement was made, but not to the House of Commons. I think it is a matter not only for you, Mr. Speaker, but for all of us, that perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers should be reminded that in matters of very serious content it is preferable that such statements should be made here, where Ministers can be questioned.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right—anything new should be brought before the House. Did the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) wish to make a point of order?
Mr. Stunell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I wanted to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that the House has an opportunity to vote for or against action before it is taken and not simply for it to be a mater for an Adjournment debate—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Government to decide the shape of motions put before the House, not the Speaker. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is one of the usual channels, and has perhaps better input than I do in the matter that he has raised.

BILL PRESENTED
RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY
Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Hain, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mrs. Secretary Liddell, Mr. John Spellar and Mr. David Jamieson presented a Bill to make provision about railways, including tramways; to make provision about transport safety; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 40].

Litter and Fouling of Land by Dogs
12.50 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement
Aficionados of ten-minute Bills may feel a sense of deja vu today, as they will remember that I introduced the same Bill in Nov 2001 in the previous Session of Parliament. Unfortunately, it met the fate of most such Bills. Those who take a special interest in seriously late Adjournment debates may remember a debate that I initiated at 5 o'clock in the morning in May 1999, when I first put forward the essential idea behind the Bill that I have introduced today—how we can enforce our litter and dog fouling laws, giving councils the means to do so by making the polluter pay.
Although 1999 may seem a long time ago, a good idea is worth pursuing. If at first we do not succeed, it is worth the long march when the prize is a road to march on that is free of litter and where we do not have to watch our step, if I can put it that way. However, it is now clear that we are close to success. I will not repeat all the arguments today, save to emphasise that litter, including dog fouling, is pollution. It is the most common and widespread form of pollution, perhaps so common that people often do not think of it as pollution. The cause is very simple—people drop it or permit their dogs to drop it through laziness, thoughtlessness, carelessness or plain loutishness. Visually, it spoils both the natural and the built environment. Litter is also a health risk; dog faeces even more so.
Litter pollution has a simple solution. It does not take an earth summit, an EU directive, complex technology, a climate change levy or even congestion charging to tackle it—just do not drop it. That is already recognised in law, as it is illegal to drop litter and dog dirt, but the statute book itself is littered with legislation that either is not used or is ineffectual. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 placed statutory duties on councils and introduced fixed penalty fines, which were doubled to £50 last year by the Government. The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 put dog fouling on the same basis as litter. Yet as we know only too well, our streets and open spaces are nowhere near clean because the law is simply not being enforced. There are only a few hundred prosecutions a year in magistrates courts. Fewer than 3,000 fixed penalty notices for litter and fewer than 2,000 for dog fouling are handed out annually in the whole country. In my county of Suffolk, for instance, there seems to be only five or six convictions a year, and in my own district of Waveney I can find no recent record of prosecution or fixed penalties for litter, with just one recorded fixed penalty for dog fouling since the Act came into force.
Instead, the culture in this country is that people drop litter, we wade around in it, pay enormous amounts of money—£450 million a year—in taxes to clear it up, then moan that councils do not get it all cleared up properly. By any standard, that is a waste of money and human effort. We must make the polluter—the litter lout—pay, but councils must have the means to enforce
554
that. About 50 councils out of 450 employ any litter wardens at all, and they only employ two or three people each. Most councils have only one or two dog wardens—it looks like some kind of "Dad's Army" is trying to tackle the 1,000 tonnes of dog faeces dropped daily by Britain's 5.4 million dog-owning households.
As the law stands, all revenue from fixed penalty fines has to be returned to central Government. That sum currently amounts to just £70,000 a year, which is a measure of how little enforcement is going on. The essential measure in my Bill requiring councils to keep fines would incentivise them, as it would require them to enforce the law of the land and give them the means to do so. I put that idea to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions last March, and he gave his support to the principle. Since then, the proposal has been piloted in 13 local authorities under public service agreements. My office conducted a survey to find out what has happened. There have been some real successes, particularly in Newcastle, where the number of fixed penalty notices increased from none in 2001 to 309 to the beginning of December 2002. Similarly, in Wigan the number has increased from none to 221.
These are still early days, but it is clear that where the local authority has the will, the system works. Newcastle publishes the names of people issued with fixed penalty notices in the local newspaper, which adds to the effectiveness of the new system. So why not change the law and roll out the new approach to litter across the whole country? I was delighted to see clause 116 tucked in at the end of the Local Government Bill, which was given a Second Reading in the House last Tuesday, as it includes the essence of my Bill. Presumably, we can look forward to the provision becoming law. However, there are two reasons why my Bill should still be reintroduced. Clause 116 of the Local Government Bill leaves the retention of fixed penalty fines to councils' discretion—it does not require them to do so. As the explanatory notes to the Bill make clear, the revenue from fines does not have to be spent exclusively on enforcement of litter and dog-fouling laws. They state that
"the new regulation making power will be sufficiently wide to give an authority complete freedom as to how it spends its receipts".
I want to make two key points. First, I mentioned my survey of pilot authorities, and cited the successes. But there is another side to the story. Some pilot councils had done nothing, and some had made only a feeble attempt, even though they had volunteered for the scheme and had signed up to public service agreements. There is a lesson to be learned—unless councils are required to operate in the new way, we will not make the progress that we should in bearing down on litter louts and dog foulers. We have had enough postcode lotteries with NHS prescriptions and the like—we do not want postcode litter enforcement.
Secondly, the new revenue stream must be spent on enforcement, because it works. The money from the fines should certainly not be spent on services unrelated to litter, but even in the services that deal with it we must focus sharply on enforcement of the laws and not dodge the issue. We have had anti-litter campaigns for years—they do not work. As someone who was a teacher for 25 years, I can say that when it comes to litter, education does not work. Some of the most littered places I have seen are school playgrounds. Sadly,

555
although many young people are concerned about holes in the ozone layer and saving whales, they drop litter like confetti.
Then there is the old "no bin" excuse—"I had to drop it because there was no bin." But there is always one's own pocket or a bag. There are more bins in this country than ever before, but litter is still on the streets. I do not want money from fines to be spent on education campaigns and bins—I want it to be spent on enforcement, otherwise we will not change the culture that I described of dropping litter, then paying to have it cleared up. What will change the culture more than anything else, as with other crime, is people knowing that they are likely to get caught. The more litter wardens we have, the greater that chance.
The public want this measure. We all know from our doorstep work and our surgeries that people are concerned about such issues. When I introduced my previous Bill, Meridian Television carried out a telephone poll and received its biggest response ever, with 97 per cent. in favour of the proposal. It fits in with the Government's agenda, set out in the Queen's Speech, of tackling antisocial behaviour and improving the quality of everyday life in local communities. I hope that my Bill can play its part in that agenda and encourage the Government further to develop in Committee the essential provision in their Local Government Bill. I can tell the House that the Minister for Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), has already offered me a meeting—outcomes will be important.
The prize is great—cleaner streets, parks and open spaces, and a cleaner countryside—and making the polluter pay costs the Government and the taxpayer nothing.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Blizzard, Andy Burnham, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. David Lepper, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Alan Meale, Lawrie Quinn, Jonathan Shaw and Mr. Neil Turner.

Litter and Fouling of Land by Dogs
  LITTER AND FOULING OF LAND BY DOGS
  Mr. Bob Blizzard accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 April, and to be printed [Bill 41].
Opposition Day

  Education (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Prime Minister.
  1.1 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I beg to move,
  That this House urges the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to honour the clearly expressed preference of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland to retain a selection procedure for transfer to post-primary schools, thus limiting the damage flowing from the administrative vandalism of the former Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; congratulates governors, principals, staff and pupils in Northern Ireland schools on achieving higher qualification levels at post-primary level than their counterparts in England and Wales; calls on the Government to maintain the levels of excellence achieved at so many schools while striving to enhance the performance and status of schools with a lesser level of achievement; regrets that too many able students from local grammar and secondary schools cannot obtain university places in Northern Ireland; calls for a change in household income thresholds to encourage higher uptake of discretionary awards; and urges the Government to honour its pledges to ensure a fair allocation of resources to education in Northern Ireland, including adequate research funding for Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Ulster.
  The future well-being of our education system is critical to Northern Ireland's long-term success. We must have a well educated and well trained work force if we are to commend and promote Northern Ireland nationally and internationally as an ideal location for investment and job creation. That is why we believe that it is essential that these issues should be debated in full on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
  One of the key issues that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland has inherited is the future structure of post-primary education. Unless this matter is handled very carefully, there is a real danger of doing irreparable harm to our education system and of undermining the good standards presently being achieved by pupils in Northern Ireland. Standards in Northern Ireland's schools—controlled, maintained, voluntary and integrated—are already high compared with other areas of the United Kingdom. According to the Northern Ireland annual abstract of statistics 2001—the most recent set of figures available—pupils in Northern Ireland continue to perform better than their counterparts in England at the higher qualification levels, with 57 per cent. of year 12 pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 49 per cent. in England and Wales, and with 93 per cent. of final-year pupils gaining two or more A-levels, compared with 81 per cent. in England and 92 per cent. in Wales. Indeed, it is interesting to note that only 4 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved no GCSEs, compared with 6 per cent. in England and 8 per cent. in Wales.
  This issue has its genesis in the Burns report on post-primary education. One unfortunate legacy of that report is that the statement by the then Northern Ireland Education Minister that the present transfer test would be abolished by 2004 was made without any attempt to spell out alternative selection transfer procedures. We were therefore utterly amazed that one of the first acts of the present Minister with responsibility for education

  557
  was to reiterate and support that statement of educational vandalism and malice. According to the Burns consultation report on post-primary education, only 30 per cent. of the 200,551 respondents to the household survey believed that academic selection should be ended, while 64 per cent. stated that academic selection should be retained in some form. A further 7 per cent. were undecided.
  There is evidence that these trends run across the sectoral divide, and many Roman Catholic parents support academic selection. Indeed, one of the strongest advocates of academic selection is Monsignor Faul, a distinguished former head of a large Roman Catholic grammar school and a leading spokesman on community issues. Bearing these figures in mind, does the Minister still think it wise to press on with implementing proposals to abolish the 11-plus without a suitable and acceptable alternative transfer procedure being put in place? Would it not serve the educational needs of school children in Northern Ireland much better if we were to keep the current transfer system in place until such time as a final replacement system is found and agreed to? Any results from focus groups—which, at best, will be no more representative than a widespread survey of households into the future of post-primary education selection—cannot be allowed to overrule the democratic wishes of the people in an attempt to subvert democracy.
  Representatives of the Ulster Unionist party met the Minister on 7 January and put forward the sensible recommendation that she should appoint an education advisory panel which could make recommendations to her on how a new transfer procedure could be put in place. At the meeting, the hope was expressed that she would act to create a new body that could be transparent, open, independent and capable of ending the chaos and uncertainty in education that has arisen out of the decision by the former Minister to abolish the 11-plus examination. There is concern as to whether the Department for Education and Skills could develop an alternative system in a truly impartial manner. An independent body could bridge the gap caused by the suspension of the devolved institutions. I ask the Minister to show her commitment to the future of post-primary education by adopting the suggestion for an education advisory panel.
  We accept that there are problems with the present 11-plus transfer procedure. Indeed, we support its replacement, but only when a suitably worked out alternative has been put forward. We have our own alternative proposals based on informed parental choice and the use of pupil profiles, with the requirement for objective assessment. We want genuine choice, greater diversity and a greater emphasis on vocational and skills-based education. Diversity in the provision of post-primary education is to be encouraged, as long as it provides families with real choices and maintains high standards of education and opportunity. We must ensure that any change enables all our young people equally to maximise their individual potential, whatever
  558
  their various personal abilities. Equality and diversity are central to our education system. I ask the Minister to look at the question of equality legislation in schools.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's background means that he takes a serious interest in education. How would his ideas on equality and access deal with the problem that only 8 per cent. of children from disadvantaged backgrounds in Northern Ireland are able to gain access to grammar schools? What are his proposals for tackling that obvious inequality in the current structure?
  Mr. Beggs: We need a clear definition of disadvantage. I am a member of a family of 12 children; I have six sisters and five brothers. My father worked in the shipyard and in the textile industry for a time. He also worked hard on a small farm to provide for his children. Was I disadvantaged? The education system in Northern Ireland afforded an opportunity to every member of my family and to many others who did not start off with a silver spoon. We were able to make our way and benefit from the excellent education in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Let me press my hon. Friend on what is meant by access. In my constituency, children are disadvantaged by their inability to access secondary education without undue expense for their parents. It is not simply a matter of grammar school children being disadvantaged; they get their fares paid if they live outwith the area.
  Mr. Beggs: I believe that every child in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to benefit, irrespective of family circumstances. We must perhaps do more to encourage the parents of children in households where there is no history of third-tier education. I try to do that in my constituency by encouraging the university of Ulster, which is the local university, to contact primary and secondary schools in East Antrim when there is no clear sign over time that children have moved through them and taken advantage of the excellent opportunities that further and higher education affords in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the previous question. The figures that an Ulster Unionist councillor gave me for his ward in north Belfast show that only 6 per cent. of children made it to grammar school. What does the hon. Gentleman propose for the other 94 per cent.?
  Mr. Beggs: As I said, we must encourage parents more. Many youngsters do not even enter the selection procedure. In parts of north Belfast, children traditionally grew up to believe that the greatest achievement for them and their families was gaining an apprenticeship with Short Brothers, the aircraft factory, with Mackie's foundry or in the shipyard. They had no higher expectation. However, many able pupils who stayed at school until they were 14 or left at 16 without qualifications have subsequently taken advantage of workers education courses and night classes to improve their skills and qualifications. They have continued

  559
  through our university system as mature students. The process will take time, but we must focus on the group that has benefited least.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that 25 per cent. of the adult population of Northern Ireland are at the lowest literacy level? Does not the hon. Gentleman perceive a relationship between the selective system that has operated historically and the exceptionally poor achievement in literacy?
  Mr. Beggs: A few years ago, we were worried about the low achievement of a significant proportion of our school-age population. I am happy that that has been tackled and that steady improvement has occurred in the past three or four years. We hope that that will continue.
  It is vital that an academic option be available to pupils for whom that path is appropriate in order to maintain and improve standards. It is equally important to develop a strong technological and vocational curriculum, which should have parity of esteem with the traditional academic path. If our schools are oversubscribed, they must be permitted to select pupils on ability. Every school should be helped to achieve academic, vocational and technological excellence.
  We ask the Minister to be careful not to destroy the existing strengths of all our schools when making the changes that we agree are necessary to the detailed transfer arrangements. I should like her to assure us about that. We are happy to meet her and discuss the matter at any time.
  We must congratulate school governors, principals, staff and pupils of Northern Ireland schools on maintaining high standards of educational achievement, especially given the external difficulties that they have faced in the past 30 or so years. I am referring not only to grammar schools. Many secondary schools provide excellent support services to pupils and assist them to achieve their full potential.
  Any changes to our post-primary selection transfer system must acknowledge and protect the vital role of primary school teachers. We must continually try to raise the esteem in which teachers are held in our community and ensure that any new administrative burdens are kept to a minimum. An obvious improvement could be achieved by the Government's making a conscious effort to listen to teachers' voices as expressed through respected organisations such as the Ulster Teachers Union.
  The union took the time and trouble to conduct a survey on stress. It also undertook a health and safety risk assessment for teachers. However, the Government ignored the results and the Department of Education decided to waste a great deal of taxpayers' money on launching its own surveys, only to discover what everyone else already knew. In the light of such incidents, is it any wonder that teachers suffer from low morale?
  We must develop a stronger working relationship between universities and further education colleges and primary and post-primary schools, especially in communities where low numbers of young people go on to the third level of education. I do not apologise for
  560
  emphasising that again. The reasons for educational failure among pupils, especially young males, must be tackled.
  Approximately one third of people in Northern Ireland who gain university degrees have studied outside Northern Ireland, mainly in Great Britain. In some cases this reflects free choice, but the worrying aspect is the extent to which many of these leavers—of whom there are some 4,500 annually—have left Northern Ireland because there are simply not enough local university places to accommodate them.
  In 1997, the Dearing report concluded that, compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland had a shortfall of about 12,000 places. The devolved Executive in Northern Ireland were able to bring about an increase in places of some 5,500. Clearly, much remains to be done. It is important for our economy that we encourage local undergraduates to study and to work in Northern Ireland. Some of those additional places in the pipeline related to the Springvale campus of the university of Ulster and to the Belfast institute. It seems that the future of that project is now in some doubt. I ask the Minister to provide further information on the review of Springvale. In particular, if it is concluded that Springvale is not now a viable concern, we will want to know whether those places will be reallocated to other parts of the higher education sector in Northern Ireland.
  Even before the conclusion of the 2000 review of student support by the then Minister with responsibility for further and higher education, training and employment, the Ulster Unionist party had called for a return to means-tested grants. We therefore welcome the introduction of a maximum bursary of £1,500 in the 2002 academic year, which will be increased to a maximum of £2,000 next year. We support the principle of wider social access to further education and, indeed, to higher education, so we think that the level of these grants, and the extent to which they are tapered off according to income, should be kept under review. Much more should be done to encourage the uptake of discretionary awards by further education students.
  The Ulster Unionist party has long recognised the need for an injection of additional resources into higher education. As this cannot all come ultimately from the taxpayer, it may be that the most equitable method is some variation on the model of deferred or graduate contributions. In other words, to the extent that students will, on average, gain a private monetary benefit from their course of study—the available evidence strongly confirms this—it is not unreasonable that after they have graduated they should, as they are able to, make some contribution to cover part of the cost of their university training.
  We call on the Government to honour their pledge to ensure a fair allocation of resources to education in Northern Ireland. We welcome in principle the planned introduction of the common funding formula, but we realise that this is enabling legislation. We await the fine detail and hope that the consultation process will be open, transparent and inclusive.
  There are certain issues relating to the common funding formula that need to be given particular consideration, the first of which is teachers' salaries. We consider that further detailed consideration needs to be given to determining a factor in the formula that will

  561
  reflect the natural progression of teachers towards the top of the salary scale, but which will still leave schools with the freedom to take staffing decisions within their delegated budgets. We also consider that more guidance should be available to school governors to assist them in determining appropriate individual salary ranges for principals and vice-principals, and the salary levels within these ranges.
  Secondly, we accept that there is a need to tackle the problem of underachievement in a minority of Northern Ireland's schools. We consider that further research is required to justify present funding levels before any additional allocations are considered. There is a need to address the educational and skills requirements of specific groups of disadvantaged young people, such as those in care, school-age mothers, those from traveller and other ethnic minority backgrounds, and the disabled. Furthermore, we do not believe that targeting additional funding on the basis of free school meals is suitable or appropriate. Allocations should be founded on objective measurements that are based on key stage results.
  Our third concern about the common funding formula is its impact on schools. We are aware of the funding problems facing primary schools, but we have also been alerted to a number of financial pressures in the secondary sector. It is clearly essential that we look again, in some detail, at the balance of funding between the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland. It is also clear that the current underfunding of the primary sector cannot be allowed to continue.
  Finally, we feel that there is a need to refine the way in which money is allocated for the upkeep of buildings under the formula. The formula must reflect the fact that it is much more expensive to maintain old buildings than purpose-built, newer ones.
  I want to commend what has been achieved so far in the funding of higher education. Teaching and research assessments indicate that, in many cases, standards are in line with national and international aspirations. That said, as Universities UK has highlighted so effectively, universities in Northern Ireland, like their counterparts in Great Britain, have suffered from long-term underfunding and there is a limit to the extent to which they can be expected to continue to deliver quantitative and qualitative improvements without greater input of funds.
  While I welcome the recent announcement of £10 million extra annually over the next three years for core university research funding, a good case can be made for the need for a further £20 million per annum, to close the gap that has opened up in comparison with Great Britain. Such research is intrinsically desirable, but it would almost certainly also deliver considerable economic spin-offs. It is worth remembering that the total level of research and development spending in Northern Ireland is low by United Kingdom regional standards, and very low compared with most of the rest of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We welcome the current innovation strategy and await the results of the consultation process with interest.
  562
  On the Northern Ireland spending block, the "Barnett read-across" has implied that Northern Ireland's universities have been unable fully to match some of the very worthy initiatives being taken by English, Scottish and Welsh colleges in terms of widening social access. That said, we already have a larger proportion of students coming from low-income backgrounds. One further point of concern is that the pay of university lecturers and staff has fallen behind the private sector. This is a UK-wide problem that the Government have to address.
  I end where I started out. Investment in our education system means investment in all of our futures.
  Mr. McCabe: I must confess that I am slightly astonished to discover that the hon. Gentleman has opened a debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party without making even a passing reference to the integrated education movement. Before he finishes his speech, would he care to tell the House how he thinks that that movement relates to the wider argument that he has made today?
  Mr. Beggs: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, but I am conscious of the breadth of opportunity to speak that this short debate offers, and of the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute. However, responsibilities are shared in my party, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he winds up the debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed by what he has to say.
  If ever there were a place where people needed to look to the future with a greater sense of hope, it is Northern Ireland. I trust that the Minister of State has listened carefully to my remarks, and I hope that she will act on them.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  1.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates governors, principals, teachers and other school staff on the contribution they make to educating young people in Northern Ireland; welcomes the high qualifications achieved by many pupils but acknowledges that there are also large numbers of young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, leaving school with low qualifications; urges the Secretary of State to continue to take forward the review of post-primary education with the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will maintain those high standards of achievement and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential; and further welcomes the additional higher education places and the Secretary of State's decision to increase Government funding for research and knowledge transfer at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster.".
  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party on giving the House the opportunity to debate the 11-plus, post-primary and transfer arrangements in Northern Ireland, and the wider questions of education and lifelong learning for which I now have responsibility.

  563
  The motion neatly encapsulates the conundrum that I face when it
  "calls on the Government to maintain the levels of excellence achieved at so many schools while striving to enhance the performance and status of schools with a lesser level of achievement".
  That is very much one of aims of the post-primary review, which we will debate in detail today. Sadly, the Government consider the rest of the motion flawed, and that is the reason for the amendment. However, I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate gives me, as Minister with responsibility for these matters, to place on record my appreciation of the efforts and achievements of principals, teachers, governors, other school staff and pupils in Northern Ireland.
  The Liberal Democrat party tabled an amendment that was not selected but which paid tribute to the integrated schools movement in Northern Ireland. I should like to associate myself with that tribute.
  As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, over the past 30 years schools in Northern Ireland have operated in the most arduous of circumstances. Governors and staff have worked tirelessly to make schools safe and secure places where children can learn.
  The recent deplorable events in north Belfast at Holy Cross, Wheatfield and Currie primary schools demonstrate the ongoing pressures that schools have to face. However, I have no doubt that, across Northern Ireland, schools will continue to display the resilience and fortitude that have sustained them through the most difficult of times.
  Northern Ireland's schools have long had a well deserved reputation for high achievement. They have produced more pupils with qualifications at the top end of the achievement scale than England or Wales. Northern Ireland grammar and secondary schools are to be congratulated on those achievements, but there is no room for complacency. As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, alongside the high achievers, Northern Ireland has also historically had more pupils leaving school with low qualifications than elsewhere. Various programmes, such as the raising school standards initiative and the school improvement programme, have been successful in reducing the proportion of school leavers with no GCSEs, but the problem of low qualifications persists.
  There is strong social differentiation in educational achievement in the Province. Pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds do significantly less well than other pupils. The most disadvantaged pupils are only one third as likely to achieve a grade A in the 11-plus and only around half as likely to achieve five or more high-grade GCSEs as the least disadvantaged pupils. This matter has been debated for many years in Northern Ireland, and it is appropriate for me to set out its recent history. When we also consider the results of the 1996 international adult literacy survey, which showed that almost a quarter of the Northern Ireland work force are at the lowest level of literacy, it is clear that although the Northern Ireland school system does very well for many pupils, it does much less well for many others.
  564
  I agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I shall therefore limit the number of interventions that I accept.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give the House the figures that show how pupils in England and Wales are doing worse at the lower end even than pupils in Northern Ireland?
  Jane Kennedy: I could provide those figures, but I have chosen not to go into too much detail in my speech. We can discuss statistics, but there is broad consensus among the political parties, members of the educational establishment and the general public in Northern Ireland that the poor performance of the education system for the most disadvantaged pupils is unsatisfactory. That is largely the reason why we are discussing the subject today, and I should like to go into detail about these matters.
  Kate Hoey: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the acknowledged inequalities in Northern Ireland, more children from working-class backgrounds there go to university than is the case with pupils studying at comprehensive schools in England?
  Jane Kennedy: Yes. As I said, the high level of success achieved by Northern Ireland pupils is remarkable. They deserve congratulation and encouragement, and any review that is set in train should not damage their success. I take my hon. Friend's point: the figures show that 4.5 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve no GCSEs, compared with 5.5 per cent. in England. However, it is important to take account of the number of pupils who achieve more than one pass at that level.
  I do not want to get bogged down in statistics. Although they can enhance our debate, we are discussing questions of principle. I do not argue with the clear and demonstrable achievement of the grammar school system in Northern Ireland, to which the figures provide testimony. I want to explain today why the 11-plus is deemed to have been failing in Northern Ireland, and why there is such a broad consensus about the need for change.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Is not the strongest principle of all that we should not risk replacing a system that works well with one that works less well? The statistics show that fewer children in Northern Ireland emerge from school with no GCSE passes. They also show that pupils in England do slightly better in the next band above that, with 89 per cent. leaving school with five or more GCSEs at grades A to G, compared with 86 per cent. in Northern Ireland. However, the Minister must know that that is vastly outweighed by the fact that 57 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieve five or more A to C grades, compared with 50 per cent. in England. The Northern Ireland system is achieving better than the system in England. She must take that fact very seriously as she considers replacing the Northern Ireland system with something that does not work as well.
  Jane Kennedy: Clearly, I take that very seriously. That is why we are approaching the issue with great care and

  565
  engaging in detailed discussions with all those who have an interest and a stake in developing a new method of transferring children from primary schools to secondary schools. The wide disparity that exists in Northern Ireland and the concern about the low achievement of significant numbers of children was one of the key findings of research into the effects of the selective system there commissioned in 1998 by one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington).
  A report by Professor Tony Gallagher of Queen's university and Professor Alan Smith of the university of Ulster, published in September 2000, emphasised the adverse impact of the transfer tests on the primary curriculum and the undue pressure placed on children, teachers and parents. It said that many children entered secondary schools with a sense of failure.
  Further research by Professor Gardner of Queen's university found that the transfer tests had the potential to misclassify pupils by up to three grades above or below their given grades. Following the publication of that research my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), established a post-primary review body chaired by Mr. Gerry Burns—and mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim—to consult widely and produce recommendations for post-primary arrangements. The Northern Ireland Assembly's education committee conducted its own review of post-primary arrangements, and made an important contribution to the debate. Its report concluded that change was both necessary and appropriate, and was subsequently endorsed by the Assembly.
  The Burns report was published in October 2001 for consultation. Its proposals have implications for every child in Northern Ireland, along with his or her parents, and for every primary and post-primary school. It generated huge interest, and sparked a healthy and continuing public debate.
  Mr. Connarty: Did the Burns review body look at results in Scotland? Rather than comparing, say, Kent with Northern Ireland, would it not be better to consider a comparable system across the water that has shown much higher levels of achievement because it has a universal comprehensive system—unlike England, which is a hotch-potch of grammar schools, comprehensives and mixed messages?
  Jane Kennedy: My immediate predecessor was looking at other systems. I cannot definitely say, hand on heart, that we looked at the Scottish system in detail, but I know that many different systems were compared, and I would be surprised if that were not the case.
  Reflecting the importance of the issue, the consultation on the Burns report was the widest ever undertaken on an education matter. There were five strands. Twenty-eight ministerial meetings were held with the education sector, business, the Churches, the main political parties, and voluntary and community organisations. Moreover, more than 1,300 written submissions were received from a range of stakeholders, 40 per cent. of schools completed detailed response
  566
  booklets, 200,000 people completed and returned household response forms, and the views of young people were obtained through focus groups and independent research.
  Those responses were published last October and published in a report by the Department of Education. They demonstrated a clear demand for change. While there was little support for the review body's model in its entirety, individual recommendations attracted support. For example, there was consensus about the guiding principles, abolition of the transfer tests, and the development of a pupil profile.
  I found the recent threat by the Irish National Teachers Organisation to refuse to co-operate in the development of the pupil profile extremely disappointing and unhelpful at this stage of the review. The majority view is that pupil profiles would be useful to teachers, pupils and parents and would formalise the good practice that already exists in many Northern Ireland schools, and I hope that the INTO will reconsider its position.
  David Burnside: Confusion has arisen over the Burns report survey every time the Minister has come here to answer questions on the subject. Will she confirm, clearly and precisely, that although most of those surveyed opposed the existing 11-plus procedure, a majority did not favour the ending of a form of academic selection between primary and secondary school?
  Jane Kennedy: Yes. Now I will make progress while I am winning.
  There was consensus on the need for more cooperation and collaboration among schools, and a common curriculum for those aged up to 14. Many respondents also thought 14 a more appropriate age than 11 for pupils and their parents to consider and make choices about the curricular options or pathways best suited to the interests, needs and abilities of those pupils. There was also agreement on the need for young people to have broader curricular choice and more flexibility to change the nature and direction of their learning. Support was expressed for a range of approaches enabling post-primary arrangements to reflect the differing needs and circumstances of local areas.
  Following publication of the report on responses to the consultation, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster announced the abolition of the transfer tests and said that the last tests would be held in 2004. When I assumed responsibility for education, I considered the responses carefully. I was satisfied that there was a clear demand for a change in the current arrangements, and support from, among others, the political parties for abolition of the transfer tests. They have disadvantaged too many children, and that cannot be allowed to continue. I therefore announced, on 31 October, my intention to take forward the post-primary review and work towards the abolition of the tests as soon as practicable. I should make it clear, however—reinforcing the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside)—that no decisions have been made about academic selection or the shape of new arrangements.
  It is important for the review to progress in a way that has the confidence and support not just of parents but of the education sector and the wider community. I want to

  567
  build on the emerging consensus from consultation as we proceed with the review. I believe it is the responsibility of everyone involved in education to work together to develop new arrangements. As part of the process, my officials and I have held a series of meetings to discuss the responses to consultation, explore the full range of suggestions for new arrangements—including arrangements involving academic selection—and consider the next steps in the review. I have already met representatives of the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party, and further meetings have been arranged with other political parties. My officials have met representatives of the education sector, and will meet parents tomorrow.
  I have found those meetings very useful. When they have been completed, I intend to consider carefully the views that have been expressed—along with the responses to all strands of the consultation—before deciding on the next stages of the post-primary review.
  Lembit Öpik: Can the Minister give us an idea of when she might be able to share her conclusions? If she intends to proceed with these changes, she should bear it in mind that the clock is ticking.
  Jane Kennedy: There are a few more meetings to be held before I can begin to pull together all the strands of the thinking that is currently taking place. I hesitate to give a definitive timetable, but this should take only a few weeks. I am well aware that a deadline is looming. Schools want certainty: they want to know what to begin to plan for. I know of the pressure that is on us, and it is right for us to work under pressure. One of my reasons for saying that I would try to meet the deadline if that was practicable was my feeling that it was necessary to maintain pressure on my Department to resolve the issue.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned issues relating to higher education and student support. Northern Ireland is fortunate in having so many young people, and indeed mature adults, with access to higher education. It is also fortunate in having a superb range of higher education provision in its universities, teacher training institutions and further education institutes. Northern Ireland has around 40,000 undergraduates in the university system at present, of whom more than 28,000 attend the local institutions. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, almost 15,000 undergraduate students study part-time in Northern Ireland. In total, that represents a rise of 33 per cent. over the past five years.
  The Government and, indeed, the Executive, have pursued policies that continue to encourage the movement of students within the United Kingdom while, at the same time, steadily increasing the number of places in local institutions. As the hon. Gentleman said, from 1999 to 2005, it is planned to have an additional 5,500 full-time undergraduate places in Northern Ireland. He is right that there is more to do, but that was the programme that was in place; it was the objective of the Executive, and we are continuing to work towards meeting that objective. There is no cap on part-time students; the system caters for as many as wish to undertake their studies in that way.
  568
  The expansion in full-time places has included additional places at St. Mary's and Stranmillis for diversified courses, the pilots of foundation degrees in further education institutions and, of course, expansion at the two main universities. The figures show clearly the expansion of local places and the growth of overall participation. The proportion of young people who leave Northern Ireland for their higher education has reduced, from 31 per cent. in 1996 to 27 per cent. in 2001.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that money has been found for research for Queen's university and the university of Ulster. However, is the Minister aware that Stranmillis university college and St. Mary's university college received no money for research and that, under the new regulations, they are required to have research facilities or they will be marked down in the next review? Has she been given any account of that and can she give us any guidance and hope?
  Jane Kennedy: I was not aware of that issue, but now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention, I will look into it and write to him, if he will permit me so to do.
  A significant proportion of young people seeking undergraduate education clearly wish to undertake it outside Northern Ireland. They are attracted for a variety of reasons including, no doubt, the desire to experience life elsewhere, as in my wonderful home town of Liverpool. Those who wish to undertake their higher education in the rest of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to do so. The Government are, at the same time, conscious of the need to expand local provision, and have responded positively to that need. We will keep the issue under consideration.
  Student support was an area of much interest to the Executive. A major review of student support was carried out in 2000–01 and resulted in a number of changes to the prevailing arrangements. Grants were reintroduced in 2002 for full-time undergraduate students from lower-income families. The threshold for the payment of a private fee contribution to higher education was raised to £20,000 in 2001, and has since been raised further in line with inflation. Child care grants were introduced in higher education and a number of further education bursaries were introduced in 2001 for full-time students over 19 on vocational courses, to supplement the existing discretionary awards. The threshold for such bursaries was set in line with the higher education scheme.
  The changes have begun to affect the system. Some 11,000 students have so far availed themselves of the reintroduction of grants in higher education, and around half of all students do not have to pay the fee contribution either in full or in part. Some 300 students have taken up child care grants, and in further education, more than 400 students have so far taken up the new bursaries. The question of thresholds is important. The Executive set the further education and higher education bursary thresholds at the same level. It will take time to judge whether that is the appropriate level.
  Student support arrangements, including bursary levels and income thresholds, are kept under continuous review. I shall consider them again in the light of any

  569
  proposals that may be contained in the higher education White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will shortly publish. In addition, I shall be considering how we might make entitlements to the rather complex student support system easier for students to understand.
  Last month, the Government announced the budget for the three years from 2003–04. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), gave the details. It provides an additional £239 million for education by 2005–06, an increase of 16.6 per cent. In addition to maintaining existing service levels, the budget delivers £52 million across the period for real-terms increases in schools' core budgets to improve schools' capacity to achieve further improvements in pupil performance. A further £530 million will be available for a major programme of investment to improve the education estate.
  I am pleased that the budget includes an increase of £10 million a year for funding for research and knowledge transfer in the universities, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) alluded. The increases will allow Queen's university, Belfast and the university of Ulster to sustain and build on their performance in the 2001 research assessment exercise.
  In addition, there is to be an increase in higher education capital funding of £5 million for next year, rising to £10 million a year for the following two years as part of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Combined with the injection of £25 million from 2003 to 2007 under the second phase of the support programme for university research, those additions represent the most significant investment in higher education for the past decade. They will allow Northern Ireland to play its full part in the Government's science strategy, "Investing in Innovation". Including the proposals for the strategic investment programme, it represents an overall increase by 2005–06 of just over 27 per cent. in student support and 31 per cent. in higher education. I am delighted that we have been able to make these very significant increases in the capacity of our universities, through the excellence of their teaching, the breadth and quality of their research and their expanding regional mission to contribute to society and the economy in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim made three points. He asked me about Springvale, which I should like to deal with briefly. As he knows, the current plans are for 4,500 full and part-time students to enrol at Springvale. He will be aware of the difficulties that we are facing with the project. However, I remain committed to it. I want to see it taken forward, if not in its original form then in a revised form that offers the best and most appropriate provision for the people of north and west Belfast. Given the pressing needs of this part of Belfast, I am not prepared to walk away from the current difficulties.
  David Burnside rose—
  Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to give way, given the time, but I will as long as the intervention is very short.
  David Burnside: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is making the mistake of talking about Springvale benefiting north and west Belfast. That is a political decision. If we want an additional campus within the university of Ulster, it should benefit Greater Belfast and the whole educational outreach area of Northern Ireland. To sell something academically for political reasons is a mistake; to sell an additional campus as benefiting all the people of Northern Ireland but based in north and west Belfast is very different. Does the Minister agree?
  Jane Kennedy: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes his point forcefully and I hope that he will have the chance to reinforce it. That is my initial response on Springvale.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim talked about the common funding formula. I will not delay the House on that today; I hear the hon. Gentleman's points and there will be an opportunity to discuss it further in the debate on the order, which will take place soon.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about morale among teachers, and I accept his point. However, we have set up an independent inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions, being careful to ensure that the unions agreed. The employing authorities and unions have received an interim report on principals' and vice-principals' salaries and differentials. We will discuss all that through the negotiating machinery in the immediate future. The full report is scheduled to be received in the spring. I appreciate that teachers are not merely concerned about pay and remuneration, but about many other issues that affect morale in the difficult environment in which they work in Northern Ireland. We are listening and responding to the representations that teachers have made and are making.
  In conclusion, there has been—
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make a speech later in the debate, but I will briefly give way.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as I realise that she is coming to her peroration. I thank her for her general support for the Liberal Democrat amendment and I listened carefully to her remarks to ascertain whether there would be anything other than that general message of support. She will be aware that there is mounting interest in the possibility of opening more integrated schools in Northern Ireland, especially the Maine integrated school in Randalstown. As I have heard nothing about that possibility, can she tell us when we might hear something about it?
  Jane Kennedy: Very, very imminently but not today. We remain extremely interested in the development of that sector. Everyone working to develop such schools deserves our support and encouragement.
  There has been extensive and inclusive consultation on the Burns report, which provides a firm basis on which to take forward the post-primary review. I do not

  571
  accept the description of the current situation as "chaotic". I am determined to build on the emerging consensus to achieve the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential and that will maintain the current high standards of achievement.
  We have a major success story in Northern Ireland with regard to higher education in all its forms, whether one looks at investment, participation or performance. Higher education is a tremendous asset, especially for supporting economic development and attracting inward investment. All those who work in the sector deserve our congratulations and encouragement and I am sure that the House will join me in confirming that later in the vote.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the House that, in a limited debate, of which an hour has already been taken up, it would be appreciated if all further contributions, whether from Front or Back-Bench Members, could be moderated with that in mind?
  2.2 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I take note of your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is my intention to be brief.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on choosing to debate this vital matter this afternoon. Although my congratulations and my pleasure in discussing the topic are entirely sincere, equally sincere is my sense of regret that such matters should be decided here in Westminster and that we have brought to an end debate in the Assembly.
  I hope that that suspension will not be for too long, but I warned the Government that once institutions are suspended it takes a long time to get them going again. I fear that the current period of suspension will last much longer than the Government calculated and while it continues we must do the best possible job, but I cannot disguise from the House our regrets about the present situation or the fact that these matters cannot be discussed by the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who could take the time that is required to go through them in detail. Some of the confused statistical discussion that we have already heard this afternoon has demonstrated how damaging and dangerous it is to deal superficially and rapidly with such important matters. I greatly regret that it has not been possible for the Assembly and the Executive to continue to play their role in making important decisions about the future of education in Northern Ireland.
  Before I talk about schools, I should like to say something nice and, I hope, encouraging to the Minister about higher education. I was delighted and heartened by the commitment that she gave from the Dispatch Box that she will not allow the Springvale development—the university of Ulster campus on the Springfield road site—to be dropped, as there was real fear of that. The Minister and I have discussed the matter privately and I am glad that it will not happen.
  572
  I agree very much with the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim: such a campus will be an asset for the whole of Northern Ireland and especially for the greater Belfast area—for obvious reasons—and we look forward to it. However, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are two especially strong reasons for locating a campus in that area? First, it is close to the most deprived communities in Northern Ireland. More than anything else, people in such communities need ready and easy access to education locally, if we are to solve the problems of deprivation. Secondly, as the hon. Lady knows, the campus will be within walking distance of both the Falls road and Shankhill road areas, which are not merely deprived but also subject to paramilitarism and extremism of all kinds. Those communities suffer from a sense—even a complex—of being neglected hitherto by the establishment and by people who have an easier life than them. It is important to reverse those feelings and to provide for people from both communities so that they can work together and share in making a success of an institution that is located, literally, between both of them. It will enable people to form the normal social and personal relationships across the community divide that have been so lacking in that part of Belfast. The Opposition set great store by the coming to fruition of that project and we support the strong commitment to it that the Minister has made so clear this afternoon.
  Anyone coming to Northern Ireland afresh, as I did when the Leader of the Opposition asked me to take on my present role, is immensely and immediately struck by the extremely high standard of and commitment to education. As an Englishman, I can perhaps say that we are a bit philistine in this part of the United Kingdom. That problem does not exist so much in what is sometimes known as the Celtic fringe. It certainly does not exist in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland, in Scotland or in Wales, where people value education even if they have not had the chance to benefit very much from it. People set great store by their children being able to have access to education. Teachers and university professors have the status that they deserve.
  The achievements in Northern Ireland have been striking. The hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned some of the figures—57 per cent. of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved five or more GCSE at grades A to C in 2000–01, whereas the corresponding figure in England was only 50 per cent. A further statistic from the same period struck me forcefully: 93 per cent. of Northern Ireland pupils achieved two or more A-levels whereas the figure in England was only 82 per cent.
  Those are statistically significant differences. Those results were achieved despite the apparent disadvantage faced in Northern Ireland due to the troubles and the difficulties in access to schools caused by the sectarian divide. As the Minister pointed out, some schools were targeted by paramilitaries. Those results were achieved despite the fact that prosperity in terms of per capita income is lower in Northern Ireland than in England. Normally, there is a positive relationship between per-capita income and educational performance.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Davies: I give way to the hon. Gentleman but, like the Minister, I shall not give way frequently this afternoon.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman repeated a statistic that I hear again and again—that 93 per cent. of pupils gained two A-levels—but it relates to the 93 per cent. of pupils who enter the final year and actually sit A-levels. Can he tell us the number of pupils who enter the S1—secondary 1—in Northern Ireland and who then achieve two A-levels before they leave high school education?
  Mr. Davies: When I am a Minister, I shall be delighted to take the initiative in publishing such figures. However, for the moment—I hope that it does not last long—the Conservatives are not in government so the hon. Gentleman should ask his Front-Bench colleagues to publish the statistics.
  I emphasise that the figures I quoted are aggregate figures, so they do not reflect the performance of one sector—the grammar schools. They reflect the average position, taking account of the performance of other secondary schools. Therefore, it is not true that the better outcomes of the grammar schools in Northern Ireland are discounted by the less good performance of other secondary schools. The aggregate position takes account of both types of school.
  The Minister's treatment of the statistics was somewhat confusing. One point struck me, and it would have been an egregious piece of special pleading if it were not confusion. She prayed in aid in her argument against selection the fact that adult literacy rates in Northern Ireland are lower than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom. Adult literacy rates reflect the education that was delivered 20, 30 or even 50, 60 or 70 years ago and they are an extraordinarily poor guide to the current performance of the school system. If one is taking important strategic decisions on that basis, God help education in Northern Ireland or whatever else they may affect.
  I am not the only one to have been struck by the fine performance of schools in Northern Ireland. Many visitors notice that, and the people of Northern Ireland are extremely proud of their system. They relate the performance of their schools to the existence of selection. There can be no doubt about that. That is why the responses to the Burns report showed that, although people were not satisfied with the test currently used, there was overwhelming support for selection itself. Of those who returned the household response form—more than 200,000 people and far more than ever take part in any opinion poll—64 per cent., or nearly two thirds, opposed the ending of selection. Some 62 per cent. of teachers who returned the survey opposed the ending of selection. Those are very eloquent figures.
  The previous Minister of Education in Stormont used his last hours of power before the institutions were suspended to try to establish a fait accompli by abolishing the test. It is extraordinary that the Minister of State has simply endorsed that decision. She has not listened to other views and not taken the opportunity afforded by the Ulster Unionist party in this debate to
  574
  tell us with what she intends to replace the current system. The current position is that the test will be abolished in 2004, but we do not know what will replace it. That is a thoroughly irresponsible approach to administration and a particularly irresponsible approach to schools, because of the long-term consequences of any decision that is taken. How can one abolish anything at all without knowing what will replace it?
  The Minister has acknowledged that the existing system of education in Northern Ireland is working very satisfactorily, and that makes her approach even more irresponsible. Surely the right professional approach to the problem would be to leave the present system in place until and unless she is persuaded that a better solution exists. She should then come before the House and argue for that better solution. To destroy a system or to create a gap without knowing how she will replace what has been destroyed or how she will fill that gap is extremely frivolous.
  Jane Kennedy: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me to intervene on his diatribe and on his heaping of coals on my head. Surely he accepts that I inherited the decision when I took up my post. If I had reversed it, I would have created even more chaos. I considered carefully the reasons and details for the decision, and my work is now entirely focused, with the Education Department in Northern Ireland, on coming up with an alternative. As I have made clear, we will seek to find an alternative but the current system will continue until we do so.
  Mr. Davies: With respect to the Minister, I cannot accept that excuse. She took over her new functions almost within hours of Mr. McGuinness having signed the decree to abolish the test. No structural consequences had flown from his decision and it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have reversed it. She could have said that the Government were not going to allow an outgoing Minister to take a decision in his last few hours in office without their being clear as to what would be put in its place. They could have decided to allow the present system to continue while they restored confidence and discussed whether to maintain selection and whether it should be conducted under the 11-plus or some other test. When they had come up with a better system, they could have introduced the changes.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will not give way at this stage for the reason that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already given. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point in the debate.
  The fact is that the Minister took a decision. She may have decided that it was easier to do nothing than to do something, but it was a decision, if only by default, and it was quite unnecessary. By default, she endorsed the destructive decision taken by Martin McGuinness just before he left office. The decision raises anxieties, particularly because a Labour Government are behaving in this way. We know that it is in their nature to try to do things by stealth. The nastier the thing that they are trying to do, the more likely they are to want to

  575
  use the weapons of stealth. We must seriously ask whether the Government are ideologically committed to destroying good schools in Northern Ireland, but do not have the courage—they never have the courage of their convictions—to say that they will abolish selection and will force excellent schools to cease to have any further role in selecting their pupils. The Government do not have the courage to say that they are destroying the character, ethos and individuality of those schools, and they will not tell the public in Northern Ireland or in Britain as a whole.
  The Government are acting indirectly by saying that the decision was taken before the suspension of Stormont. They say, "We can't do anything about it. It will take us months to look at the matter. We are awfully sorry but there is no alternative in place to the system that we are going to abolish." I am not suggesting that the Minister is making plans along those lines, but to abolish the existing test without being clear as to how it will be replaced raises justifiable suspicions. There are only two possibilities in such circumstances. The first is that the Government do not have an agenda and have abolished something without knowing how they will replace it. When I made that suggestion, the Minister leapt to her feet in indignation. I accept that it was not a particularly flattering suggestion and, as I have said, I do not accept her explanation.
  The alternative is that the Government have an agenda, but they will not tell the House or the people of Northern Ireland what is in their mind. The Minister might not know what the agenda is, but perhaps she will receive orders one day from Alastair Campbell, who wants to create what he has described as "bog-standard comprehensives" in Northern Ireland. She may be acting in entirely good faith and be sitting here with her brief without having yet received her orders from Alastair Campbell. She may have been told to soft-soap the House of Commons to try to keep us all as happy as possible in the meantime. I have no idea whether that is true. However, if one is abolishing something and is not clear with the House about how one will replace it, we can come to one of only two conclusions. The first is that the Government do not know and do not have an agenda. In that case—this is probably the more likely explanation—they are being irresponsible. The second is that there is an agenda, and we will not be told what it is today. That would be a far more reprehensible course of action by the Government.
  I am glad that we have had an opportunity to air these issues, and that my remarks have smoked out some response.
  Lady Hermon: I am delighted at the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. Will he comment on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) that we should establish an education advisory panel? Does the hon. Gentleman support that proposal?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier remarks if she was in the Chamber at the time. I expressed reticence about deciding such matters of detail in the House. It is unfortunate that the Government have placed us in this position by abolishing Stormont. Before we make detailed decisions about how we replace the present test, there should be
  576
  much more detailed, thorough and professional discussion than we have had in this debate or are likely to be able to have. In the meantime, we should keep the existing system and lift the threat to it. We should do what I have already suggested the Government should have done and leave well alone. It is a fine and performing system and we should not replace it until and unless we have persuaded ourselves that there is a better solution. So my answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I am not committed, nor are the Conservative Opposition, to a particular form of selection test in Northern Ireland. We are committed to supporting good, thriving schools and to the principle of choice—that is fine—and we are against any act of educational vandalism. If a technically better mechanism to achieve selection than the present one can be found, we are open to being persuaded to consider it.
  However, the mechanisms are not in place for the House to take an intelligent decision, given the very limited time now available to discuss Northern Ireland business. Meanwhile, when in doubt, we should not destroy what we have got, and I hope that the Government will think again about what was obviously an extraordinarily rapid—if it was not worse—decision simply to endorse Martin McGuinness's final present to the people of Northern Ireland.
  2.20 pm
  Kate Hoey: I welcome this debate and congratulate the Ulster Unionist party on initiating it. I hope that it will help to make the Minister—I see that she is now leaving the Chamber—and the Government realise that they should be cautious about what is happening in Northern Ireland. I want to urge caution on two levels.
  First and foremost, it is still quite dreadful that not a single person in Northern Ireland was able to vote for the party that will now take the decisions about the future of the education system. The reality is that there is a huge democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. It is very sad indeed that the Assembly is not taking such decisions and I hope, like everyone, that it will soon be working again.
  Given that the education system has done so much for so many years, such changes should not be rushed through by dealing with them in this Chamber, when they could easily be delayed, allowing more discussion and debate, so that the decisions could be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that those in the Assembly want to get back to work as soon as possible and that such issues would be on the horizon for them. So caution really does need to be shown.
  I want to declare an interest: I am absolutely convinced that I would not be a Member of Parliament if I had not had the opportunity to have a grammar school education in Northern Ireland at an extremely good school, Belfast Royal Academy. It is still an extremely good school, and it takes children from all parts of Belfast and all sorts of backgrounds. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) talked about his farming background, but my background was probably more deprived. I grew up on a much smaller farm. I have absolutely no doubt that, without the opportunity offered by that school, I would not have been able to go on to college and university and become a Member of Parliament.

  577
  I have another interest to declare. I often visit schools in Northern Ireland, so I know that the standards of all schools—grammar and secondary schools—are so much better than anything that we have in England. So I urge caution because it seems absolutely amazing that we should want to destroy something that is working. I accept that too few people in some areas of Northern Ireland are able to go on to the right sort of education, but that happens in my constituency and deprived areas of England. The idea is that, somehow, what is really good and works should be destroyed to give, in theory, more children from deprived areas a better education, but we have shown that that just does not work in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
  As recently as November, the Prime Minister himself condemned the "enormous damage" done by the pursuit of the comprehensive ideal and said that he is determined to provide choice and diversity in education. He said that it is time to lay to rest the controversy over the future of the comprehensive system and that
  "It has all too often carried with it the notion that children should be treated as of the same ability."
  Given that not one person in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to vote for a Labour Government, I cannot understand how we can try to push the current proposals through. The Burns report is clear: there is unhappiness with the 11-plus. That is taken for granted. My sister and I both passed the 11-plus. I went along feeling absolutely wonderful and looking forward to taking that test. Apparently I told my mother and father that I was looking forward to meeting lots of children. I lived in the country, but went elsewhere to take the test and it was nice to meet other children. My sister was much brighter than me, but she was absolutely terrified by the test. She hated it and worried about it. Children are different, and there is no doubt that the test needs to be adapted. We need profiles and different ways of doing things, but I do not accept that a majority of people in Northern Ireland favour ending academic selection. It is nonsensical to try to change what has proved to be very good indeed.
  I also want to give the Minister some sense of caution about the Education and Libraries Bill. Again, the provisions in that Bill may be pushed through by an Order in Council—I am not quite up to date on when that may happen—and it will give the Minister strong, dictatorial powers. The Minister will have the power to remove all the governors of any grammar school—quite unacceptable—and make all sorts of changes to alter the system by stealth. I urge the Minister that that measure should not be pushed through the House, and I will certainly not support it. I do not understand why any Labour Member should support any measure on Northern Ireland when we do not even allow people in Northern Ireland to join the party that is governing them.
  Lots of Members wish to speak, but I want to say that the standards of education in Northern Ireland are unquestionably high. That does not mean that we cannot do better or that we should not give greater encouragement to those children from some parts of Northern Ireland who do not even sit the exam. They do not take that opportunity for all sorts of reasons, which
  578
  are similar to those in some of the worst parts of my constituency, where the assumption is that parents and children cannot become properly involved in education. Such problems should be considered, but I want to urge caution.
  I recently visited one of the best girls schools in Northern Ireland, Strathaern school. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) knows it well. Some of the children at that school have come from the most deprived parts of Belfast. The young girl whom I presented with the overall achievement award was from a very poor part of Belfast. In my constituency, such children would have great difficulty getting the sort of education that they would receive at Strathaern school, because no school in the immediate area offers that kind of opportunity.
  Another important thing, which has not been mentioned at all in today's debate, is that private education hardly exists in Northern Ireland because no middle class parent needs to buy private education. The changes will affect the work being done by schools such as Belfast Royal Academy and the Methodist college—I could name many others—if they are no longer able to select pupils.
  Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend knows that I hold her in very high respect—we share many similar views—but she sadly appears to be guilty of trying to portray the future of Northern Ireland without selection as being like the position in her constituency, Vauxhall. Does she accept that, in fact, it would be more comparable to parts of Scotland, where the comprehensive education system allows parents to work hand in glove with the local education authority to improve the results? That vision may be denied to the people of Northern Ireland to protect the privileged system that she herself came through.
  Kate Hoey: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, and he also supports my view that people in Northern Ireland should be allowed to join the Labour party. The statistics about Scotland, however, are not necessarily as good as he made out earlier. The comparison would not be between like and like, although I do not want to go into the detail of that now.
  The other thing that is different about Scotland is that there is still a large amount of private education there. People who go to Northern Ireland, perhaps to take a job in the BBC or in the civil service—the kind of people who would pay for private education here—are helped to move when they realise that they will not have to pay to get their children into a good school, as there are so many of them. If we opt for a straightforward, one-sizefits-all comprehensive system in Northern Ireland, we will have private schools as a result, and we will lose the fantastic mix in the very best schools in Northern Ireland, in which young people from very poor backgrounds—the kind of background from which I came—can mix with the children of people running Northern Ireland industry. That mix still exists, and it is a huge advantage to young people.
  I therefore urge the Minister to be cautious. There is absolutely no reason to go ahead with what Martin McGuinness did in his last few hours, outrageous and vindictive as it was. Instead, we should use the

  579
  opportunity of the current lull before the Assembly is reconstituted to bring people together to talk about a solution that will build on our best provision, not destroy it.
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I welcome this debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) for his opening speech, which set out in detail and with great clarity the issues that confront us in terms of the future of education in Northern Ireland. I want to speak about my experience both as a parent and as a constituency MP, having spent a considerable amount of time visiting and getting to know the teachers, boards of governors and parents associated with the various post-primary schools in my constituency.
  First, speaking as a parent, may I say that my eldest daughter underwent the 11-plus transfer test last year? As it happens, she did very well. She got an A grade and was accepted into Wallace high school, which is one of the grammar schools in my constituency: a very successful school named after one of my illustrious predecessors, Sir Richard Wallace, who was the Member of Parliament for Lisburn. Wallace is one of a number of post-primary schools in my constituency enjoying considerable success. The Friends school, which comes from a Quaker background, is an equally successful grammar school. Secondary schools such as Laurelhill community college, Forthill school, Lisnagarvey high school and Dunmurry high school are all proving successful and improving the standards of educational attainment in the greater Lisburn area and the Lagan Valley constituency.
  My eldest daughter, however, like my youngest daughter, who sat the 11-plus last November, undoubtedly felt the stress and the pressure of the 11-plus examination, and it was the focus of concern and discussion in our family home for months. We felt the pressures on our children—we await the results of the test for my younger daughter, and I hope that she will be successful—and, as a parent, I see the need for the reform of the transfer procedure and of the 11-plus examination. I agree with many in the field of education who believe that two examinations are not the best or fairest way of determining a child's academic ability at the age of 11. I strongly disagree, however, with the recommendation in the Burns report on post-primary education for an ending of academic selection. Having looked at the practicalities, in my constituency in particular, I do not see how the proposal for a collegiate system can work in practice and be fairer than the academic selection that exists at present, even though I support reform of the method but not of the principle of academic selection.
  I have received a large number of letters and telephone calls and have had many conversations with parents in my constituency who are very concerned about the proposals in the Burns report and the impact that they will have on their ability to have a proper choice to send their children to the school that they desire. The Burns report is very much based on the concept of parental choice, but the consequences of its proposals will, in many cases, limit the choice of parents. To give a simple example, I live in the village of Moira, which is on the outskirts of my constituency and about
  580
  10 miles from the city of Lisburn. It is also right on the boundary of the Craigavon area, which operates an entirely different education system known as the Dickson plan, under which transfer takes place at the age of 14 and a system of junior high schools and senior high schools or colleges exists. That system has been quite successful in many respects. Lurgan college and Portadown college, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will know, have a record of successful educational achievement for their pupils. Lurgan college is particularly well placed in terms of its results, although I do not want to single out schools in the constituency of another Member too much—I am simply repeating what I read in the newspapers.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Do you believe them?
  Mr. Donaldson: Not always.
  Under the system that would exist if the Burns proposals for post-primary education were adopted, however, parents living in Moira would be at a real disadvantage. A constituent from Moira wrote to me:
  "The new system is supposed to introduce parental choice. I should be able to list my school of choice, which would be a school suitable to the academic ability of my child. I have an extremely bright child. His reading ability is of the standard expected of children three years older. Under the new system he will have no chance of gaining a place at"—
  what is currently known as—
  "a grammar school because he lives in a rural area, even though he currently attends a school next door to a grammar school."
  Under the Burns proposals, that child will be at a significant disadvantage in terms of gaining a place at such a school because of his place of residence. Many of my constituents are therefore afraid that we are moving to selection by postcode.
  Another constituent wrote to me:
  "We should find some way to retain an academic sector at the same time putting a great deal more emphasis and funding into a technical and vocational sector. This would give us the best of both worlds—excellence for all. Selection ultimately by postcode offers no real parental choice and should be vigorously opposed."
  That is from a constituent living in Lisburn who is in closer proximity to the post-primary schools in my constituency than those who live in rural areas.
  The collegiate system also has other consequences. In terms of fairness, section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1988 places on Departments an obligation to treat people fairly and equally. The consequences of implementing the collegiate system, however, can be arbitrary. Let me quote two examples in which people in my constituency will be placed at a distinct disadvantage, and, in my opinion, will be discriminated against. A constituent living in Dunmurry has written to me to make the point that since Dunmurry will be in the west Belfast collegiate area, the parents of Protestant boys attending primary schools will no longer have any choice to send their child to what is now a controlled grammar school, because there is no controlled grammar school for boys within the west Belfast

  581
  collegiate area. The only controlled grammar school within the west Belfast collegiate is Hunter House, which is a girls' school.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the chances of Hunter House getting anyone from west Belfast are nil and that it will be cut off from the natural hinterland?
  Mr. Donaldson: I accept that. Indeed, the principal of Hunter House college made precisely that point to me when I met her recently.
  Protestant families living in Dunmurry are discriminated against and severely restricted in their choice of school. However, Roman Catholic parents from Lisburn wrote to me explaining that Roman Catholic families from that town who wish to send their children to what is a maintained grammar school have no choice within the collegiate area covered by Lisburn, Banbridge and Crumlin. In fact, when the previous Roman Catholic maintained grammar school in Lisburn was closed in the 1960s, the Education Department gave a written undertaking that the parents of Roman Catholic children in the area would be given preferential places at Rathmore grammar school, the replacement for the new school. However, Rathmore is now in the west Belfast collegiate, so Roman Catholic parents living in Lisburn will no longer have that choice. Those are the hidden but real consequences of the collegiate system and the manner in which it discriminates against parents and parental choice.
  Lady Hermon: May I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend expresses clearly? The Government will be aware that parents are entitled to have their children educated in accordance with their philosophical and religious convictions, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, and that, when not suspended, the Assembly will have to abide by those obligations.
  Mr. Donaldson: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must consider not just the equality obligations in section 75, but the implications under the Human Rights Act. That has not been fully thought through in the proposals in the Burns report.
  There is much that one could say on the issue. However, I shall deal briefly with two key aspects of the proposals in the Burns report. The first is the admissions criteria. There is little doubt that the criteria set down by Burns will lead to the creation of area comprehensives. Without any form of selection, schools will have an all-ability intake. By making distance from school the determining criterion, schools will increasingly draw their pupils from the immediate area, so introducing an element of social injustice. Parental choice for those who live in rural areas, such as those in my constituency, will be substantially curtailed.
  Friends school, for example, draws its pupils from a wide catchment area. Of the pupils in years 8 and 9, 60 per cent. come from the Lisburn area postcodes of BT27 and BT28. A further 20 per cent. come from Hillsborough and Dromore, with the postcodes of BT26 and BT25. But a significant proportion of year 8 and 9
  582
  pupils come from areas such as Moira, Aghalee, Maghaberry, Ballinderry and Glenavy. They will all be disadvantaged under the proposals because of the distance/proximity criteria. The Minister and the Department need to consider that.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the catchment area of a particular grammar school. Does he give any consideration to the people who live beside that school and who are denied access to it because they cannot pass the academic qualifications in the 11-plus? They have to watch people receiving the higher education that they are denied.
  Mr. Donaldson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but Friends school and Wallace school are within a few hundred yards of each other. Within half a mile of them and on either side are two excellent secondary schools, Forthill and Laurelhill, so I fail to understand his point. People who live within a mile radius have at least four excellent post-primary schools from which to choose, whereas my constituents in Moira, Glenavy and Ballinderry have none of those choices and will be discriminated against under the system.
  The second key aspect that worries me is the transfer test and the issue of selection. The end of a selective system will inevitably mean the end of grammar and secondary schools as currently defined. However, Burns envisages that schools will offer specialist provision and that parents will decide on the most appropriate school for their child on the basis of the information contained in the pupil profiles and in consultation with primary school principals. The report appears to be offering the best of all worlds: the end of selection and the continuance of schools with a specialist academic provision, with guidance from the pupil profile and, ultimately, free parental choice. Surely, however, the former grammar schools will not be able to offer a specialist academic curriculum and meet the needs of individual pupils in an intake that, without selection, will inevitably cover the full range of ability. So it is misleading to assert that parental preference will be given priority when particular schools will be oversubscribed.
  I hope that the Minister and the Department take on board the real concerns expressed in the debate and understand that the proposals in Burns are not the way forward. There has to be another way that commands a much broader consensus within Northern Ireland.
  2.46 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I am reluctant to contribute to the debate, because Northern Ireland is not a part of the United Kingdom that I visit frequently and I would not want to be sufficiently presumptuous to comment in detail on its schools. However, I feel strongly about secondary school admission policies and want to make a few remarks that may inform the future debate in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) made a balanced and broad presentation, and most of us would agree with much of what he said. However, when he tries to defend selection at the age of 11 by academic

  583
  ability and at the same time says that he wants parity of esteem between the academic and the vocational, he is treading on difficult ground. It is intrinsic in any system that selects by academic ability that the academic will always be seen as superior to the vocational when it provides a superior level of per capita investment and superior life chances to those young people.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chaytor: I hope the hon. Lady will accept that, as I only have a few minutes in which to speak because many of my colleagues want to contribute, I do not want to give way.
  It is significant that the Government will next week publish their White Paper on the development of 14 to 19 education. We anticipate a great leap forward in the establishment of parity between the academic and the vocational which I fear many people in Northern Ireland have not yet appreciated. I note the concerns of the hon. Member for East Antrim and the consensus that the Burns report reflected on the need to do away with the existing testing regime. The debate should now focus on what is the best alternative.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke of upholding devolution and his regret at the suspension of the Assembly. Almost in the same breath, however, he criticised the Minister for merely upholding the decision taken by the Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He cannot have it both ways. In addition, he should not criticise the Minister for supporting the response to the consultation on the Burns report, which clearly called for an end to the existing selection test, by saying that she should not have taken that decision. It is important that we take a consistent approach to these matters.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chaytor: If I had something by way of reciprocation, I would give way.
  It is important that those now grappling with this issue in Northern Ireland realise that the matter has been exhaustively debated on the mainland for 40 years. The overwhelming conclusion in most parts of the United Kingdom system is that a comprehensive admissions policy serves to raise standards and build social cohesion. Even the most passionate advocate from the Ulster Unionist party cannot with conviction claim Northern Ireland as a model society for the rest of Europe in terms of social cohesion. We have to examine very carefully the nature of the secondary school system that we create and its consequences for society.
  Those who argue the importance of academic selection at age 11 have to be convinced of certain factors. First, they must be convinced that it is possible accurately to identify a child's ability at 11, the age of transfer from primary to secondary school. That age is arbitrary; in a different system we could have transfer at 13 or at nine. They must be convinced also that the young person's ability will not increase, change or develop in their teenage years, and that there is a means of identifying that ability. Clearly, the consensus in Northern Ireland is that the current means, the 11-plus, is insufficiently accurate.
  584
  We should appreciate that as standards of education rise across the board, and as more primary school children attain high levels of performance, the challenge of discriminating between those who are above a given threshold at age 11 and those who are below that threshold becomes even more difficult. As levels of achievement rise, discrimination between the twenty-fifth percentile point and the twenty-sixth percentile point becomes almost impossible. The defenders of selection have to be convinced that a test, an interview or a pupil profile can accurately distinguish between those who will subsequently be given advantages and those who will be denied them.
  Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and other colleagues, will say that the opportunities that I received were entirely due to my passing the 11-plus and my subsequent achievements at grammar school. However, we have to ask how many people are denied the opportunities that I had because they do not go to grammar school, having failed the 11-plus, and are subsequently labelled failures. Many of them feel that sense of failure throughout their lives. We cannot consider the advantages of those who succeed at 11 without considering the consequences for those who fail at 11.
  Once we have made that decision and are confident that we can identify ability and that we have an accurate testing system, we have to pick up the social consequences for the 75 per cent. who are not selected. In her opening speech, the Minister of State gave statistics for attainment in Northern Ireland. She said that the GCSE rate in Northern Ireland is slightly higher than on the mainland, but she pointed out that there is a huge amount of under-achievement. We accept that that is a factor not only for Northern Ireland but for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Comparing Northern Ireland with England on the assumption that the education system in England is 100 per cent. comprehensive is a fallacy. Although the system in most of England is, in theory, comprehensive, a significant minority is selective, and in the majority that is comprehensive, many subtle layers of selection operate. We must make sure that we compare like with like. We must be clear about the consequences of selection at 11 for those who are not selected.
  We are talking about standards for the population as a whole, not for an arbitrarily selected minority, and we are also talking about social exclusion. I ask Ulster Unionist Members to remember that this issue is not a new one for the mainland; people have grappled with it for 40 years. There is now a consensus in most parts of the mainland, although not yet in Kent, Buckinghamshire or Lincolnshire—I accept that. If we believe in parity between the academic and the vocational, in equality of opportunity for all young people and in a society that minimises social exclusion, a comprehensive admissions policy is the way forward.
  2.56 pm
  Lembit Öpik: We are all agreed that Northern Ireland achieves impressive results for a proportion of the young people who go through the education system.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Including you.
  Lembit Öpik: Including me. I am ever so grateful to have had the opportunity to go to the Royal Belfast Academical Institution. It is certainly the best school in Northern Ireland and probably the best in the world. I took the 11-plus, and I wish to talk about that and then move on to integrated education.
  As I listen to the debate, it seems to me that we are concerned about the abolition of the 11-plus because we fear that it may materially alter the excellent schools that many right hon. and hon. Members had the privilege to attend. Let us bear it in mind, however, that Gerry Burns was very clear about the 11-plus process in his report. He said:
  "We have been left in no doubt that the Eleven-Plus Transfer Tests are socially divisive, damage self-esteem, place unreasonable pressures on pupils, primary teachers and parents, disrupt teaching and learning at an important stage in the primary curriculum and reinforce inequality of opportunity."
  He clearly feels that the test is a divisive tool.
  Thinking about trauma, I can remember doing the 11-plus. The first time I mucked it up, but by an act of fate some naughty people had stolen a few papers and I had the chance to re-sit it. Obviously, I then passed it and got into the institution. However, I remember the enormous stress that I felt, and I am one of those people who prefers examinations to continuous review.
  We need to recognise that the issue is not really whether the 11-plus is the correct system of selection; it is how we maintain what is best in the Northern Ireland education system while ensuring that those who are not selected are protected from harm and given an opportunity to shine academically and make more of their education.
  On the question of whether the majority of people in Northern Ireland are for or against selection, the answer is not as clear as it may at first seem. Paragraph 4.26 of the Department of Education's report on responses to consultation on the Burns report indicates that only 30 per cent. support the ending of academic selection. However, let us remember that only 16 per cent. of the population responded, and the response rate from better-off areas was almost three times greater than that from less-well-off areas. More than 50 per cent. of the responses were from the parents of grammar school pupils. It is hardly surprising that people who benefited from the system want to retain it.
  I accept that a large body of people and organisations support the idea of a selection system, but once again the figures are very telling. Responses from the education sector show that 60 per cent. of primary schools and 93 per cent. of secondary schools believe that academic selection should be abolished, but not surprisingly only 10 per cent. of grammar schools hold that view.
  There are many examples of organisations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or changing it. It is not surprising that individuals who have benefited from the system or perceive a benefit to their work would prefer the status quo, whereas those who feel that it is harming the children in their care or has harmed their personal opportunities would be in favour of a change. For that reason, we need to look at the issue more strategically and ask how we can best find a consensus solution that is satisfactory to the great
  586
  schools that Northern Ireland has and does not compromise their performance, at the same time as widening access for other groups.
  The Alliance party has proposed some interesting ideas. It suggests that although the age of 11 is the natural time in light of emotional, physical and mental development for students to progress from the single classroom atmosphere of primary education to a system of multiple specialist subject teachers, it is not an appropriate stage of development to distinguish between students on the basis of academic ability. The Alliance party proposes that children should progress together in post-primary schools that provide a general middle school curriculum for the first three years—say, to the age of 14.
  At the end of that period, children would be in a much better position to understand their strengths and areas for development and, crucially, what their personal aspirations were, whether vocational or more academic. At the age of 14 it is more likely that they can make informed decisions about the rest of their education. It is surely not beyond the wit of politicians in the Chamber, consulting closely with the vested interest groups in Northern Ireland and led by the Northern Ireland politicians, to find a solution bringing all that together in a way that works.
  I move to the second issue that I want to cover. Although I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to those thoughts and suggestions with regard to selection, the most striking feature of the motion and the Government amendment is the absence of any written recognition of integrated education. That is one of the most significant social developments in the past 20 years in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education describes its role as
  "the bringing together in one school of pupils, staff and governors, in roughly equal numbers, from both Protestant and Catholic traditions. It is about cultivating the individual's self-respect and therefore respect for other people and other cultures. Integrated education means bringing children up to live as adults in a pluralist society, recognising what they hold in common as well as what separates them, and accepting both."
  I hope that the amendment tabled by me and my fellow Liberal Democrats adequately reflects what is missing from the motion and the other amendment.
  The first integrated school was Lagan college, established in 1981 by All Children Together, a campaigning parent group. There are now 47 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, 18 second level colleges and 29 integrated primaries. There are also eight new integrated education projects across Northern Ireland. The expected announcement of the opening of Maine integrated primary school in Randalstown, and the transformation of Springfarm primary school in Antrim and Glengormley primary school in September will bring the number of integrated schools to 50. Surely the Minister would agree that that is glowing testimony to the fact that things are changing and that parents believe that that is a good way forward. Can he assure the House that the recent rapid increase in interest in integrated education will be fully supported financially and in other ways by the Government and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland?
  More than 15,000 pupils now study in integrated schools in the Province. That represents just over 5 per cent. of the total school-going population. I am greatly

  587
  encouraged by the fact that there are so many and that the number is growing. Will the Government ensure that the obvious and continuing demand for places at integrated schools in Northern Ireland is facilitated? According to the Northern Ireland Audit Commission, there are 45,000 unfilled places in Northern Ireland schools. The only sector with no unfilled places, and the one that the population seems keen to use, is the integrated sector. There is, therefore, pressure on the Government to act more quickly.
  I remind the Minister that in the Good Friday agreement, the Government stated that they would facilitate the development of integrated education. It is disappointing that one of the few changes made to the Government's "Building on Progress" document was the removal of support for growth in integrated education from the Department of Education's public service agreement. That was a telling change and it concerns me. Can the Minister explain why it took place and assure the House that support for the growth of integrated education will be pursued, and that there has not been a move away from the integrated education project?
  If anyone doubts the benefits of integrated education, I advise them to visit an integrated school. I went to Hazelwood integrated primary school in Newtownabbey last September. After speaking with the principal, Jill Houston, I met many pupils. We discussed what made Hazelwood special. They replied that anyone could go to school there. When we asked whether it mattered where they came from, how clever they were or what colour hair they had, the children said no. Clearly, there is much more to integrated education than simply bringing together people from different religious traditions. One little boy had been turned down by other primary schools in the area because he had a hearing difficulty. I pay tribute to the fact that integrated education is about showing that all of us should be regarded as equal. By encouraging their children to go to those schools and to learn together, parents are actively contributing to the peace and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the Minister will focus on those two substantive points—selection and integrated education. I have set out the assurances that I seek on integrated education. May I impress on him the need for a clear timetable for the changes in selection procedures, as I requested from his colleague in my intervention? It is right for the schools to be nervous about the vacuum left by a stated change in policy and the absence of any detail. Perhaps even today, the Minister can say when we may expect those details to come out for consultation.
  I remind all hon. Members once again of the importance of recognising that educational reform goes hand in hand with the kind of cultural reforms that I consider so important. It is a shame that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman took a full hour between them in a debate that properly belongs to the Ulster Unionists. I hope that by curtailing my remarks, I have enabled others from those parties to speak.
  3.7 pm
  Helen Jackson: I hope that I shall not take too long. The debate is welcome, as it is a debate about real politics called by the Ulster Unionists.
  588
  It is an opportunity to discuss an issue that has been central to the politics of this country for many years—selection by academic ability at the age of 11 and its impact on educational achievement as a whole.
  I remember the 11-plus. The key thing about it was that one passed or failed. The word "fail" dominated the lives of so many people who were then passed on to a secondary system. Their self-expectations were thereby reduced. I come from a city, Sheffield, which shares with Northern Ireland the justification which, I understand, was part of what the Burns committee took on board in its deliberations on the matter—the research done by the Programme for International Student Assessment. This concentrated not on the achievements of the educational system in Northern Ireland, which I recognise is very high, in terms of the percentage of pupils getting high grades at A-level and so on, but on the differential between the best and the worst achievers. That differential reveals some of the worst symptoms of academic selection at 11.
  Sheffield is a widely disparate city in terms of educational achievement. I was greatly relieved that the 11-plus had finished by the time my children went to school there. In Sheffield, the pressure was on from day one to live in the right place. As people said that the only schools to go to were those with sixth forms in the southwest of the city. They were the schools that enabled students to get into the top universities and that was the only place to live. That residential discrepancy has, in a sense, dominated Sheffield and ensured that the educational and social achievement differences between those living in the Hallam constituency and those in the Central and Brightside constituencies are some of the greatest in any city in the country.
  This debate on selection is important and gives Labour Members the chance to demonstrate how the issue has played a part in determining our priorities. As Northern Ireland is a key part of the United Kingdom, we are a Government who are intent on driving forward equality of opportunity there. If we are going to achieve that, which I think is the thrust of the point made by those who tabled the motion, it is essential first to say that the test will be abolished. Continuity is an important point. Different things cannot be done simultaneously, so I completely endorse the idea that the first action of the Minister in wanting to change to system should be to say that the academic selection test at 11 will be abolished. It is then necessary to move forward, as I believe the Government are, in establishing further ways in which the factors that affect educational discrimination can most usefully be dealt with.
  More will be needed than the abolition of the academic test at 11, including greater emphasis on integrated education and schools. From what I know of the integrated schools, they are playing a major part. I welcome what the Minister of State said about the expansion that is being proposed in further and higher education in Northern Ireland. The opportunity of part-time and full-time places for students and part-time places for mature students will also be essential in raising expectations and opening up possibilities for dealing with disparities between the top and bottom ends. Abolition of the test is only a first step. I hope that this Government, while the current system remains in place, and also the devolved Administration, which I hope will be re-established before too long, will be able

  589
  to work on those further steps and encourage the child care provision, integrated schools and extra student support that will be necessary in taking them.
  I want to mention one other aspect of education in Northern Ireland of which I had some experience when I worked with the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland as their Parliamentary Private Secretary. I was given a brief of keeping closely in touch with educational work, especially for adults and among women in Northern Ireland. On a number of occasions, I visited the award givings of the Belfast Women's Training Services organisation in Northern Ireland. Hundreds of certificates were distributed and the courses were full year on year. I was struck by how young women from the working-class areas of Belfast on both sides of the sectarian divide were so eloquent about the fact that it was only after they had left school that they were starting to realise their own educational potential, as well as their potential for taking a useful and active role in the community. I pay tribute to a lot of the work that has been done by that organisation among mature students in the working-class areas of Belfast, as well as by the Workers Educational Association and other adult education movements, which I got to know well.
  Such organisations have lessons for many of us in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in respect of inner city areas where such disparities of educational achievement exist, but the better way forward is to establish an educational system that does not end up with huge disparities for mature students. It is in that context that I think that the Government were correct—the Minister made a strong case built on the Burns report and the work of the devolved Assembly—that it was right to say at the start was that there would be no academic selection at 11, which can be divisive, and that they would abolish it as soon as was practicable, and work hard to establish how best to ensure that the transfer from primary to secondary education results in a society in Northern Ireland that is as little divided educationally as possible.
  Of course, all of us in the House hope that a society will come about in Northern Ireland that is also as little divided as possible in any other way. This debate plays its small part in that wider political role as well.
  3.16 pm
  David Burnside: I was not in the Assembly when my party and the others chose their election portfolios. Ministries are always a difficult matter. The old hands, such as the now Lord Kilclooney—an old hand and one of the few Unionists who were in government in the old Stormont Parliament—always go for finance first, as that has the purse strings. That may be right or wrong, but I would have argued for education as the top priority with farming second on the list. That is my personal preference, but I was not there at the time.
  The Executive cannot be reformed in the foreseeable future because of the former Education Minister's continuation with an operational terrorist criminal organisation, but if and when it does come back with some sort of structure, I hope that my party and the Democratic Unionist party, which is represented on the
  590
  Benches to my left, will try to get together next time around and take education as our priority. It is the one priority that we should take. It is the major challenge and has the most importance for the future prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The administrative vandalism to which the motion refers was an act of vicious vindictiveness. It was the act of a man who is not interested in the long-term future of Northern Ireland. I hope that he never again has an opportunity to hold that portfolio, but what happened happened, and what happens under the law we must accept. The Minister, who is not now in the House, will have to make a decision in the near future about the uncertainty that is now in the minds of all parents. Parents who have a child at school in year 6 do not know what is going to happen. They do not know about the selection procedure or about how their children will proceed into secondary education. Children do not know whether they will go to grammar or secondary school, or whether there will be a new form of selection procedure.
  That uncertainty must be ended. I hope that it will end by reflecting the views of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, and the greatest possible number across the teaching establishment, as well as the political establishment, including all the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Minister's decision does not have majority support from either the Protestant or the Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
  I went to the Antrim grammar school prize giving last year, and was extremely proud. I saw increasing academic standards—a proud school, good staff and pupils who want to be part of that school. Just after I was elected, I went to Ballyclare high school and had a briefing there, and then to the senior civil servant in the North Eastern education and library board to ask for a rating of the schools in the constituency. He said, "When we bring in visitors from outside Northern Ireland, we take them to Ballyclare high to show them an excellent school, a state school performing well." As has been said, we do not have private schools. I say to the Government: do not destroy this excellence.
  Defending grammar schools does not mean that we will lower standards for our secondary sector. I heard the expression of some views that should have died with the Labour party in the 1960s—a lot of old fashioned socialist clap-trap, the sort of language that made it sound as if going to a grammar school somehow means that a social stigma attaches to the secondary school that might be only a couple of hundred yards away. When I attended one of the best institutions in Northern Ireland, the Coleraine Academical institution, I did not find such a stigma with the secondary school next door. I do not find it in my constituency now. I do not find a social stigma attaching to the very fine pupils who go to secondary school.
  Let us not try to re-fight an old class battle of the 1960s. Comprehensive education failed in this country and was a disaster economically. A few academics involved in the Burns report share the left-wing parentage of the failed academia of the 1960s. Let us not make that mistake. We have a good, strong system with high academic standards that is highly respected by the community. Do not destroy it.

  591
  After making the strong point that we need a form of academic selection, let me turn to some related subjects. Whether it is Dickson or the American high school system, let us get the academic selection put in place so that parents and children, especially in year 6 but going back to years 5 and 4, have that uncertainty removed and we know what the transfer procedure will be from next year.
  Two points on funding concern me. In this wide debate, I want to try to represent the concern within the primary sector. For historic reasons, going right back to the Education Acts of the 1940s, primary education in Northern Ireland has been the poor relation in funding terms of secondary education. On the mainland, in England and Wales, the amount in pounds per head spent on the secondary sector and on the primary sector is pretty even—within single percentage figures. In Northern Ireland the primary sector is very much the poor relation. As we all know, the overall budget is the problem on funding, but it is also the overall budget plus the allocation. I wish to make a plea on behalf of the primary school sector, which feels that it is often the poor relation of the secondary sector.
  I move on to the problem of research. Years ago, I used to advise the Industrial Development Board, which is now Invest Northern Ireland. When it brings Japanese, Korean and American business men into Northern Ireland, our standard of education, our secondary education and our highly trained workforce feature right up high in the slides and presentations. That gives us a competitive edge in inward investment when there is so much competition in the United Kingdom between the regions. Let us not destroy that. Let us try to be conservative. If it is good, do not wreck it. Keep it there, because it is a selling point for Northern Ireland.
  There is a point about research that I raised with the Secretary of State for Education last November. The underspend per head of population in Northern Ireland for the two universities, the university of Ulster and Queen's, is very low compared with that in England, Wales and Scotland. The matter needs to be considered by the Government. We need research linked into our universities, because that is how to get industry in and how to get good, modern, high-tech companies to come into Northern Ireland, where we have had considerable success in recent years.
  In conclusion, I repeat to the Government: do not wreck it. We do not need an elected dictatorship in Northern Ireland telling us that it will destroy our grammar school system. We have a fine grammar school system, a fine secondary system and a fine primary system. There is a great deal of room for improvement and we want to take part in that. If the Government follow the action of the former Minister of Education, they will impose a comprehensive form of education in Northern Ireland that is not supported by the vast majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, and that will destroy the grammar school system. I say to them: do not do it.
  3.25 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: I have only a few minutes, so I shall be swift.
  My constituency is in Scotland, so it might seem that I would not have much to say about education in Northern Ireland. However, I spent a short while
  592
  running a small but fairly diverse education service in Northern Ireland, and I did a couple of higher degrees while I was at it, so I got to know the Northern Ireland education system fairly well.
  Some strong points have been made from both sides during the debate. The main points that I can raise in the time available relate to selection and the method of transfer between primary and secondary education, and the whole business of grammar schools and how to correlate them with grammar schools in England. We have none in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) received short shrift from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) when he mentioned pass rates. The pass rate referred to was 93 per cent. in Northern Ireland obtaining two A-levels at A to E, which is not the case. The point that my hon. Friend was trying to make was simply that that is the proportion of people who sit A-levels.
  Mr. Brady: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with the correct figures. As a proportion of the 18-year-old population, the appropriate figures are, for those obtaining two or more A-levels in 1999 to 2000: in England 30 per cent.; in Wales 27 per cent.; and in Northern Ireland 37.7 per cent. Again, the Northern Ireland system is delivering better results.
  Mr. Joyce: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the point made earlier confused overall attainment with the degree of selectivity. One could have a pass rate of 100 per cent., but it would not tell us anything about the people who did not sit the exam. That is different from the way in which we express GCSE figures, which gross up the whole cohort.
  Mr. Brady: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. This is even more compelling evidence. The figures I gave a moment ago are as a percentage of the total 18-year-old population, so there is a very significant improvement in performance in Northern Ireland compared with England.
  Mr. Joyce: I would not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I simply wanted to amplify the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East for which he got fairly short shrift.
  In Northern Ireland, the figures are slightly higher and have certainly improved because there is greater selectivity. In England, by contrast, there is a modest level of grammar school education. Another difference is that English grammar schools, particularly in Sutton in Surrey, for example, operate in a very different ecology. Surprisingly, the local secondaries perform at a level not far below that of the grammar schools. The latter, however, tend to perform better academically in England—I understand that this does not happen in Northern Ireland—because GNVQ and vocational figures are included in secondary school results. There is therefore a school ecology, as it were, in which everyone is getting comparable results. However, the grammar school system that has evolved in certain English counties has produced a more diverse education than exists in Northern Ireland where, I believe, a fairly conservative, old-fashioned structure has been preserved. By contrast, some of the best grammar school practice in England is forward looking and progressive.

  593
  I accept what one or two Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), said about the comprehensive system in the 1970s. There is quite a lot of room, to say the least, for more diversity and choice based on aptitude testing. There is an important distinction to be made between raw and crude academic testing and sound, valid academic testing at the age of 11 that involves complex and sophisticated tests based on specific aptitudes. The latter gives parents a choice about the kind of school their children may attend, including, perhaps, sports or art-oriented schools. That philosophy is increasingly predominant in English education and should be naturally predominant in Northern Ireland too, even though it would have different origins.
  Many Opposition Members nodded their agreement with the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). If we strip grammar schools out of the system and do not replace them with anything, people will simply opt for the private sector. Nationally, about 7 per cent. of kids are in private schools, but in Edinburgh the figure is about 20 per cent., which shows what happens when a fairly affluent group of people in a well-off city comes up against a non-differentiated system that does not provide choice. Grammar schools, or what they should evolve into, provide that choice.
  I am pushed for time, so I shall cut my comments short. Opposition Members, including those who are diametrically opposite, bemoaned the potential loss of academic excellence if grammar schools disappear. That argument misses the point that grammar schools in England are evolving in a diverse ecology and have maintained academic excellence alongside schools that have managed to develop new specialisms. That is the dominant philosophy in education in England, and ought to be in Ireland too.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome our debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland, and am glad of the opportunity to take part in it. I shall keep my remarks brief and deal with several general matters.
  First, I join the Minister who, in her opening remarks, mentioned recent events in my constituency at the Holy Cross girls primary school, Wheatfield primary school and Currie primary school. Members will be aware that, whatever our arguments on the future of our education system, the first priority is the safety and well-being of all our children, as well as staff and parents going to school. It is right that the House should put on record its outrage at events not just at Holy Cross, but also at Wheatfield school and Currie school, as well other schools across north Belfast that have suffered terribly in recent years. Some schools rightly feel that their plight has been overlooked in favour of others that have received more media attention. I therefore welcome the Minister's remarks. I wish that Sinn Fein, in its comments on those events, would declare its responsibility, rather than trying to avoid it and placing the blame for the attacks, particularly at Currie and Wheatfield, on the loyalist community, as that is deeply resented.
  594
  The main thrust of my remarks concerns academic selection and Martin McGuiness's last-minute, last-gasp decision, which reminded me of the last-gasp decisions made by the outgoing President Clinton, when he rushed to pardon a host of dubious characters. There was a last-minute rush by the outgoing Education Minister to push through his decision to abolish the 11-plus at the very last moment, in breach of his commitment to Assembly Members that no such decision would be taken without its first coming back to the Assembly for consideration and decision. Those who argue that pursuing that course and simply adopting the former Minister's decision is simply advancing what was already agreed by the last devolved Administration are wrong. In fact, no such decision was made by that Administration—a decision was made by one Minister, which points to a flaw in the devolved system.
  Speaking as an ex-Minister in the devolved Administration, I have some experience of this, and sometimes I have to say that it has worked to my advantage. The reality is, however, that Ministers are unaccountable and, in this case, the Minister of State has adopted a decision that did not have the backing of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The decision was in breach of the undertaking given by Martin McGuinness to the Assembly.
  I have to agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She attended a very good school, the Belfast royal academy, which I had the pleasure of visiting the other day and meeting the headmaster. He would be delighted with the comments that a pupil of that school has made today in the House, because he would entirely agree with what she said about academic selection.
  There is no reason for the Minister to have adopted this decision, and no reason for there to be a rush to abolish the 11-plus, particularly when we recall that no decision has been taken on its replacement. The sensible thing to do would be to take our time, look at what should replace the 11-plus— —if it is to be abolished—and then make the decision, so that parents, staff, pupils and everybody else in the education system would know exactly where they were. It would have been easy simply to say, "Look, this last-minute decision by the former Education Minister is not going to stand. We are going to maintain the status quo." There would then have been no upset whatsoever. The decision by the Minister in this House has plunged the education system into chaos because people are uncertain about what is happening.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dodds: I would love to give way, but my time is very limited.
  The decision should have been taken to maintain the status quo. I am reminded of the rush to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Without knowing what the final outcome of the House of Lords reform will be, the Government have proceeded with the first stage. In Northern Ireland, they have rushed to abolish the 11-plus with no idea at all—or certainly not one that they have shared with the people of Northern Ireland—of what its replacement is to be. I have often

  595
  heard it said, particularly by Ministers, that we cannot advance the argument for the abolition or replacement of something without having a viable alternative. Northern Ireland politicians are lectured all the time on the need to put forward an alternative. In this case the Government are saying, "Let's abolish the 11-plus system, but don't ask us what the alternative is. We will come up with that as we go along." That is not a satisfactory, logical or sensible way to proceed.
  The Government have not adopted this approach in relation to other matters emanating from the devolved Administration. For example, I had some responsibility for Housing Executive rent increases—a settled policy—but the new direct rule Minister has decided to increase Housing Executive rents by inflation plus 1 per cent., in breach of the previous settled policy of the devolved Administration that they should increase only by the rate of inflation each year. The idea that the Government are simply following on from the previous decision of the devolved Administration needs to be focused on. It is wrong to argue that that is happening. The Assembly did not have the opportunity to debate this matter following the decision announced by Martin McGuinness, and the Minister should reflect carefully on the comments of Northern Ireland Members today. He should recognise what they have been saying: you don't fix something that ain't broke. Northern Ireland has the finest education system anywhere in the United Kingdom, and that should be preserved and enhanced, not destroyed.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: May I begin by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this debate? I am quite satisfied that our party took the right decision in bringing this matter before the House; this debate vindicates that decision completely. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) at the outset of his speech, when he referred to the recent outrages at Holy Cross, Wheatfield and Currie schools, coming as they do after the disturbances that we have had over the last year in the cockpit of north Belfast, which has seen some of the worst violence of the last 30 years. Riven as it is by sectarian divisions, it is also the area of Belfast that has been most affected by the disappearance of the engineering industry that had given the area much of its culture, and the consequent disappearance of what had been the normal career path for most people who lived there. This has contributed to the violence and to the recent disturbances. Improving the quality of the schools in north and west Belfast is crucial to improving matters generally. Work in the schools that we have mentioned is therefore important.
  There is a sense of déjà vu about the debate. We have held many discussions in Northern Ireland about the Burns report and the shape of post-primary education over the years. It is understandable that Labour Members spoke in the context of their experience and the arguments in which they had been involved in England in the past 20 to 40 years. They may not appreciate that there are differences in Northern Ireland, and that it is wrong simply to compare the position in Northern Ireland with that in England. That struck me especially when I listened to the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). In
  596
  socio-economic terms, society is much more egalitarian in Northern Ireland than in England. We have political divisions and quite acute religious and sectarian divisions, but our society is much more socio-economically egalitarian.
  The greater equality is due to the current education system. Some hon. Members supported comprehensive education in England 30 or 40 years ago because they perceived it as a method of curing social divisions and a means of social engineering. It would produce the opposite result in Northern Ireland, where the more egalitarian society that they want already exists. The introduction of comprehensive schools would drive existing schools out of the state system. They would go private in ways that would reinforce and worsen the sectarian divisions. We must bear that in mind. Following the so-called comprehensive route and imitating events in England of 40 years ago would be a social disaster in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred to the economic consequences, which would be equally significant.
  The hon. Member for Bury, North and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) constantly referred to selection at 11. We are not considering that. A large part of Northern Ireland, especially my constituency, where the Dickson plan operates, uses a much more mixed approach. The age of 14 is as important—if not more so—as others. The Dickson plan works well, especially for those in the academic stream. Until recently, it did not work so well for those in the non-academic sector. That is one of the great weaknesses of the education system in Northern Ireland.
  The Ulster Unionist party has repeatedly introduced proposals to try to enhance secondary and technical education. We appreciate that that is the challenge, and that we need to level up, not down. We must retain the excellence, but tackle the weaknesses. One method is to examine parity of funding and status with a view to attracting finance. The differences in the financial structures of grammar and secondary schools should be considered and changed. That is a matter not simply of funding but of schools' ability to deal with their position. We want such matters to be examined. Parity of esteem is not an idle phrase.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, North—I must tackle that bad habit—in his criticism of the Minister's approach. It is essential to understand that the decision of the former Minister of Education in the last few minutes of devolution would not have been made without the prospect of suspension. The Northern Ireland Executive would never have made such a decision and the Assembly would not have approved it. The Minister of Education knew that his proposals on the Burns report were not going anywhere as far as the Assembly and Executive were concerned. That is the reason for the delay. If I had more time, I would explain the structures that we adopted for decision making in the Executive. They would have ensured that the decision could not be effected. Suspension led to the decision. In our motion, we use the term "administrative vandalism", and those words were deliberately chosen.

  597
  The Minister should not regard the decision as democratically legitimate, because it is not.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Trimble: I am sorry—I would like to pursue this matter further, but we are short of time and I must give the Minister the opportunity to reply. Because this important decision is not democratically legitimate—indeed, I wonder even about its legality—and because it was taken without something else being put in its place, I very much doubt whether it would have survived a judicial review.
  Before I leave the points made by the Minister, I want to refer to a matter that I touched on in replying to the hon. Member for Bury, North. One thing that we did in respect of student finance of which I am particularly proud was to introduce grants for further education. I was greatly disappointed to hear from the Minister that, so far, only 400 of them have been taken up. That is partly because of a certain reluctance within the education system to market them and to bring them to people's attention. We took a very deliberate decision to treat people in further education in the same way as those in higher education. We appreciate the importance of the skills developed in further education both in social terms, and to those who are pursuing that particular course in life. We cannot improve that sector and parity of esteem in the way we would like unless similar support is provided.
  I do not want to spend too much time on the selection issue, which has been dealt with comprehensively. I agree with the Minister's observations on the comments made in yesterday's press by the northern secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation. He has adopted a must unhelpful approach, and I was amused to learn that, in making those comments, he began by attacking political opportunism, only to proceed to engage in a bit of such opportunism himself. He should keep out of politics and leave the political decisions to those with a mandate, rather than attempting through the threat of union action to determine the decisions that Governments take. To do so is wholly wrong, and we do not want that bad form of trade unionism to recur.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned the integrated sector, and as he knew before today, I intended to raise that issue myself. It is perhaps not always appreciated here in England that integrated education is in fact a great lost opportunity in Northern Ireland. That lost opportunity occurred not 40 years ago but 80 years ago, when the first Unionist Government proposed the introduction of a single compulsory integrated education system in Northern Ireland. It was Lord Craigavon who tried to introduce that system, in 1924, but unfortunately he was unable to do so because of the combined opposition of all the Churches. Had he been successful, the history of the past 80 years would have been quite different.
  Integrated education is not a new idea, therefore, and I was a bit disappointed that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred purely to the integrated
  598
  education movement. I know that it includes a lot of well-meaning people, but they comprise just one particular movement, and there is more to integrated education than them. Some of the difficulties that people have with the integrated education movement concern issues such as accountability and creating yet another education sector. We already have too many such sectors: in addition to the controlled and maintained and the Irish medium sectors, we would then have the integrated sector. We need to look at these administrative structures more closely, and to encourage more of the integration that happens naturally. Many of the schools that are not in the integrated education movement are in fact integrated. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will know from personal experience that major grammar schools in Northern Ireland that are thought of as Protestant schools have significant Catholic enrolment, and would qualify as integrated. I do not want to speak only about grammar schools in Belfast. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the Catholic St. Columbanus secondary school at Ballyholme near Bangor has a Protestant enrolment of nearly 50 per cent. The school's ethos and quality mean that people go there as a matter of choice. There exists a significant integrated sector that is not recognised in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. We need to be more comprehensive in regard to such matters.
  I was disappointed that no member of the Social Democratic and Labour party contributed to the debate. I recognise that that means that the party does not have to say something on the question of education. There may be reasons for that, and I hope that the House will forgive me for indulging myself by saying that someone once remarked that the distinction between the SDLP and Sinn Fein was that SDLP was composed of people who passed the 11-plus.
  It is puzzling that the SDLP should have adopted a somewhat hostile approach to academic selection, given that opinion poll evidence shows that it is the most middle-class party in Northern Ireland, in terms of electoral support. Its members may find it difficult to come here and adopt a position that is contrary to the interests of most of the party's voters. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that there is a substantial number of Catholic grammar schools. I do not want to do a head count, but they may outnumber the grammar schools that are considered Protestant. Those schools have a view, as do the people who represent them.
  The proposition is simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Certain sectors in education in Northern Ireland need to be improved, especially on the secondary side. Also, certain geographical areas have massive social problems that need to be addressed. Education is an important component, but not the only one. We need to look at a variety of social issues.
  I was pleased that the north Belfast community project began to look at those matters, and it is a great disappointment that we have been interrupted in our follow-through to that project. It was an example of an approach—integrated in a different sense—that needs

  599
  to be adopted in respect of areas where huge social problems are tied to lack of attainment in schools. The problem is one for society and not just for schools, and that is where our focus must be.
  The Government are responsible for education in Northern Ireland. They could do a tremendous amount of damage, or they could help reinforce some of the good things that we were trying to do. I hope that they choose wisely.
  3.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) for initiating this afternoon's useful and interesting debate on education in Northern Ireland. I am grateful too for the lively and informed contributions from hon. Members, and I am pleased to use the short time available to reply to the debate.
  As today's Opposition day debate was chosen by the Ulster Unionists, I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the speeches made by members of the Conservative, Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist parties. However, I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions: it is clear that they have longstanding expertise in education, and specific local knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  The quality and passion of our discussions underline the importance that we all attach to the education of our young people. They illustrate why education is a key priority of this Government.
  The education system in Northern Ireland has many strengths, and these have been referred to today. We have a highly qualified and professional teaching force, governors who make a substantial voluntary commitment to the management of our education institutions, strong schools and further education institutes, and a wide range of higher education provision in our universities, which have a world-class reputation in a number of areas.
  Many young people in Northern Ireland schools and further education institutes achieve top-grade qualifications and high proportions go on to higher education. We must continue to build on these strengths, and the investment being made in education by this Government is clear evidence of our determination to do so.
  We have heard much today about the challenges facing education in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim—who made a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech—about the importance of education to Northern Ireland's economy, and the need to proceed carefully with the post-primary review. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister of State will do. The hon. Gentleman also made important points about parity of esteem via the vocational route, and made comments about Springvale and the common funding formula which were addressed by my hon. Friend.
  600
  I have not much time, but I want to say something about the university funding system, which was mentioned by a number of Members. We entirely accept that many people cross the water to attend university here although they would much prefer to be educated in Northern Ireland, and we are dealing with that.
  As the hon. Member for East Antrim knows, when—as the Minister responsible for finance in Northern Ireland—I saw the draft budget and observed that there was no money to fund education, research and the research assessment exercise, I was surprised, to say the least. I was pleased to be able to provide the necessary money—£10 million a year for the next three years—and also to announce, as part of the reinvestment and reform initiative, £25 million for capital projects that will ensure that Northern Ireland's universities have a world-class structure to accompany their expertise.
  The gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and indeed the debate in general, concerned the former Education Minister's decision to announce the abolition of transfer tests. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that neither the Executive nor the Assembly would have made that decision, and I take his word for it. I also understand why the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) urged caution. I must tell them that we did not want devolution to be suspended, but it happened, and I do not think it would have been appropriate for an incoming home rule—[Interruption]—direct rule Minister's first action to be the announcement of the reversal of a decision made by the former Education Minister.
  This is of course an important issue that needs to be addressed, and is indeed being carefully considered, but I must tell Opposition Members that consultation on the Burns proposals showed clear support for abolition of the transfer tests. I must add, notwithstanding the comments. of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), that the household form responses showed a clear preference for maintaining academic selection.
  We need to discuss the way forward with the political parties. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already had a round of meetings with education sector interests, parent representatives and the political parties, and is continuing to engage in such meetings. We hope to be able to make an announcement about the next stage of the review shortly. Again, we would all prefer local politicians to drive this forward rather than a direct rule Minister taking the decision. However, I reiterate that no decisions have yet been taken about the new post-primary education arrangements—they will be taken in the future.
  In the short time available to me, I should like to talk about the other major issue raised—
  Mr. Beggs rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 377.

  Division No. 49]

  [4:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Jack, rh Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bacon, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baldry, Tony

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Barker, Gregory

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Bercow, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, rh David

  Burns, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burnside, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Maples, John

  Cameron, David

  Mates, Michael

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Norman, Archie

  Collins, Tim

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Conway, Derek

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Paice, James

  Curry, rh David

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Randall, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Flook, Adrian

  Selous, Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Francois, Mark

  Shepherd. Richard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Grayling, Chris

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John

  Spring, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Hague, rh William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hermon, Lady

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend, Michael

  602

  Trimble, rh David

  Willetts, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Wilshire, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, rh Sir George

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Mark Hoban

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clelland, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barrett, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blunkett, rh David

  David, Wayne

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Breed, Colin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doughty, Sue

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burgon, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, rh Derek

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  603

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Galloway, George

  Kidney, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gardiner, Barry

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lamb, Norman

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lammy, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lepper, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Grogan, John

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Hanson, David

  Linton, Martin

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Healey, John

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Heath, David

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hendrick, Mark

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Heppell, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hesford, Stephen

  MacDougall, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McFall, John

  Heyes, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hinchliffe, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Holmes, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  McWilliam, John

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hutton, rh John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jamieson, David

  Michael, rh Alun

  Jenkins, Brian

  Miliband, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mole, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Moore, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Mudie, George

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Keetch, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  604

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Picking, Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thurso, John

  Purnell, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rendel, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Willis, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wills, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Singh, Marsha

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spellar, rh John

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Squire, Rachel

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates governors, principals, teachers and other school staff on the contribution they make to educating young people in Northern Ireland; welcomes the high qualifications achieved by many pupils but acknowledges that there are also large numbers of young people, particularly from

  605
  disadvantaged backgrounds, leaving school with low qualifications; urges the Secretary of State to continue to take forward the review of post-primary education with the objective of putting in place new post-primary arrangements that will maintain those high standards of achievement and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to achieve their full potential; and further welcomes the additional higher education places and the Secretary of State's decision to increase Government funding for research and knowledge transfer at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster.

2012 Olympics Bid
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): This debate is indeed well timed, and I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to set out the arguments for and, indeed, against London bidding for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics and to hear the arguments of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House and with constituencies across the country.
The debate is well timed because the Government have undertaken to take a decision on whether to support a London bid by the end of this month. Only the British Olympic Association can make a bid on behalf of a British city to the International Olympic Committee. The association must indicate its intentions to the IOC by July this year at the latest, and it can bid only if it can show that all costs will be underwritten and that it has full Government support.
To give the association sufficient time to prepare for July, we feel that a Government decision by the end of January is necessary. Just mounting a bid is a two-and-a-half year marathon. By January next year, applicant cities must reply to the IOC's questionnaire. That reply is then examined by the IOC, and it will announce its shortlist in June 2004.
The final assessment will be completed by May 2005, after visits by the IOC evaluation commission. The final vote will take place in July 2005. To have any chance of success, a British bid would have to be wholeheartedly supported by the Government. If the Government decide to back the bid, we will back it to the hilt, and we will expect similar commitment from the other stakeholders.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for convening sessions of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport today and tomorrow to take evidence and hear views on the prospects for a London Olympics. Today's debate and the Select Committee hearings will help to inform the deliberations of the committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that will consider the Government's position on the Olympics, for this decision has to be taken by the whole Government, not by one Department.
We must take the decision with our eyes very clearly open and it must be tested against four clear criteria, the first of which is affordability. Can London and, indeed, the nation afford the investment needed? The second criterion is deliverability. Can the necessary infrastructure be defined, designed and built in time and to standard? The third criterion is the legacy. Will the games infrastructure leave behind a sporting legacy and a regeneration legacy that are worth the very considerable cost? The last criterion is winnability: however good and however credible a London bid can be, the question is whether it has a good enough chance of winning and is worth the expenditure of the many millions of pounds which mounting a bid would cost.
Any decision to bid must therefore be based on a thorough analysis of all the costs and all the benefits. I must therefore take into account all the risks, which is

607
why I have set in train a full assessment of the costs and benefits: an analysis of the fit between potential Olympic development and the wider regeneration proposals for east London; an examination of transport options; consideration of legacy issues; and discussions with the private sector about the level of its contribution. I have also commissioned an assessment of winnability, and tomorrow I will publish some survey research on public opinion in relation to an Olympic bid.
Mr. George Osborne: Why is it assumed that the only successful bid that could be mounted would be by London? A very successful Commonwealth games was organised in Manchester. People in the north-west feel that they have been betrayed, given that, after organising such a successful games, there is no prospect of an Olympic bid by Manchester being organised and supported.
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman's point will be received with some sympathy across the Chamber. The British Olympic Association, however, has made it clear—in discussion, I presume, with the International Olympic Committee—that London is the only credible UK city for a bid. As he will know, both Manchester and Birmingham have bid unsuccessfully in the past 15 years.
Mr. Doug Henderson: As someone who had grave reservations about the development of Wembley as an international football stadium when better opportunities existed around the country, I take a completely different view of the Olympic games. I do not believe that any other part of Britain can bid successfully for the Olympic games, which would bring great benefit to our young people and to sport in general. Those of us who represent northern constituencies recognise that if Britain is to make a bid, London must be the city.
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. In assessing whether to bid, we have drawn on the lessons to be learned from the management of big projects in the past in which the Government have been involved, such as Wembley stadium, which have led the Government to commit more money than was originally intended.
Mr. David Watts: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the impact that a successful bid would have on other regions? Would they lose resources that would have gone to them if the bid were not made?
Tessa Jowell: That is an important question. Clearly, any bid, if one is to be made, will be made for a London Olympics. As the Sydney Olympics showed, however, investment in training facilities prior to the Olympics can lead to new facilities in different parts of the country. Part of our assessment of the economic benefits of the Olympics would be to ask precisely my hon. Friend's question: how dispersed are the benefits, and will the rest of the country benefit?
Mr. Mark Field: The right hon. Lady says that one of her four main tests
608
is winnability, and that she has already commissioned research in that regard. Will she tell the House precisely how that research is taking place, and whom she has asked to determine that vital criterion?
Tessa Jowell: In relation to assessments of winnability, we have sought advice from the British Olympic Association and UK Sport, from which we have commissioned a report. My departmental officials have also made an assessment, and this Friday I will meet Jacques Rogge, the President of the International Olympic Committee, in Lausanne, to discuss the matter further. I will say more about that as I develop my argument to the House. The first three criteria of affordability, deliverability and legacy are more measurable than winnability, which is more of an art than a science. However, we have to make an important judgment before we commit a substantial sum to making a bid. We also have to assess whether the expenditure of time and effort across the Government and beyond will be worth it.
Mr. Mark Field: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make progress.
Dr. Rudi Vis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Tessa Jowell: I hope that my hon. Friend forgives me, but I will not. I want to make some progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.
Let me be the first to say that a powerful sporting case has been made for bringing the games to London. A successful bid would bring sport to the centre of our national life for a decade between now and 2012. It would motivate and inspire the young athletes who are beginning to enjoy the new facilities, opportunities and additional coaching provided by the lottery and directly by Government investment. It would also intensify the focus on elite sport, so that our athletes have the best possible chance of winning in front of our home crowds. The evidence of previous Olympics makes it clear that countries win more medals when they host the games.
The world of sport understandably relishes the prospect of a London games. Its only concern is that the expenditure needed to stage an impressive event and to prepare the UK athletes should not be at the expense of existing expenditure on sport. It understands that investment in sport at the grassroots—in talent identification and development, and in facilities and coaching to bring sporting opportunities to every community and school in the UK—should not suffer if we bid for the games. However, it is not unreasonable of others to suggest that if the Olympics games are of such high importance to the world of sport, it should be willing to reorder its spending priorities accordingly. The impact of any potential diversion of resources from within sport is one factor that we will weigh carefully before taking the final decision.
Mr. John Greenway: Given that it will be 2005 before a decision is made and that the spending programme of the Government and the new

609
opportunities fund only run until then, does the right hon. Lady agree that there are still a further six or seven years in which to make the investments required?
Tessa Jowell: To some extent the hon. Gentleman is right, but he should remember that if we decide to bid for the games and win, every pound spent on developing Olympic facilities in London is a pound that will not be spent on schools, hospitals or grassroots sporting facilities in other parts of the country. We are confronting a tough set of choices and I welcome the debate as way of informing those choices.
Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State rightly referred to the opinion in the sporting world that holding the Olympic games in London would be hugely motivational, but she also implied that the money might have to come from other parts of sport if we decide to bid for them. Does she really believe that to be the case? Surely if we want to bid for the Olympics and the Government support that, the money has to be over and above anything that is already going to sport.
Tessa Jowell: Money for an Olympic bid and for building the Olympic facilities would come from the same pool as money to fund the Government's other priorities. It would have to compete with schools, hospitals, the development of grassroots sporting facilities and the renewal of our transport infrastructure. That is a fact and it is why the decision requires us to face tough choices.
Every host city has found that the games come at a price. Past experience informs us that early estimates for the cost of major events or for other capital projects tend to escalate before their completion. The costs of the Manchester Commonwealth games, one of the great sporting festivals of the summer, more than doubled from Manchester city council's first bid, and the games had to be rescued by the Government and the national lottery before becoming the success that they were. The costs of the new Wembley stadium were originally forecast at £250 million, whereas the project that was finally agreed is budgeted at £760 million. Escalation of costs is not unique to Britain. Sydney found it necessary to spend double its original estimate, and Athens could be heading the same way.
Mr. Clive Betts: As a northern MP, I am very supportive of the proposed bid for London. However, as costs rose so much for the events that my right hon. Friend just mentioned, we have to be sure from the beginning that we are not underestimating the likely costs of London's bid; otherwise we will hear damaging stories about costs escalating out of control, which will detract from the good news about the event. Hopefully we will win the bid.
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He almost makes my point for me. I am determined to ensure that, as the funder of last resort, the Government are absolutely clear about the extent of any possible liability before we make a commitment.
Mr. Chris Smith: My right hon. Friend will know that many of us in London
610
are greatly excited by the potential hosting of the Olympic games in London. That could do wonders for the regeneration of the city as well as for sport and Britain's standing in the world. She will know also, however, that the bid depends crucially on investment not only in sporting facilities and the running of the games but in London's infrastructure. Will she take the message from the House to the Chancellor that without Government investment in London's infrastructure, particularly in transport and housing, the games cannot be the success that they should be?
Tessa Jowell: I am sure that the Chancellor will have heard my right hon. Friend's intervention.
To ensure the extent of any Government liability, we have developed the work undertaken by Arup, which concluded that the total cost of hosting the 2012 Olympics would be £3.6 billion, requiring a net public subsidy of £1.1 billion. In our view there is a significant risk of the total cost rising to £4.5 billion, with a net public subsidy requirement of £2.5 billion. The scale of work needed, the impact on the regeneration of east London and the total costs involved mean that sport alone cannot fund the Olympics, nor can sport alone justify the total expenditure. Those wider considerations must be weighed before a decision can be made.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Tessa Jowell: I shall make some progress.
Any public subsidy of the games must, by definition, come from other areas of public spending. It is the job of Government to balance what are inevitably competing claims, and I hope that one of the outcomes of the debate that we seek to have will be greater public understanding of the extent of those choices. If the Olympics would carry forward the regeneration of east London, if they would contribute substantially to the UK economy and if they could be financed without distorting other spending priorities, they could be affordable. However, if they would do none of those things, but rather inhibit regeneration and fail to leave a valuable legacy, the argument is clearly considerably weaker.
Many, if not all, Olympic host cities have justified their expenditure by those wider considerations. Hon. Members will know that the Minister for Sport and I have, over the past few months, visited a number of past and prospective Olympic cities in order to understand those points at first hand. For the 1992 Olympics, Barcelona wanted to rebuild and even reinvent itself—to turn it round to face the sea, as one resident put it to me when I visited. It wanted to emerge as a new, modern city and as the capital of a vibrant region, to increase hugely its capacity as a tourist destination. It spent accordingly, perhaps £8 billion in today's terms. Beijing clearly wants to use the Olympics to promote the city and to turn it round to face the rest of the world. Athens, too, is using the impetus of the games to rebuild and rebrand its city.
In this context, it is important to recognise what our Olympic expenditure would cover. It would cover the cost of making the bid; land reclamation and the development of sport sites and the village in the east end;

611
transport enhancements for the period of the games; preparation for our elite athletes; a world-class Olympic fortnight; and the Paralympic games. The level of funding would not provide for wider Thames gateway redevelopment. Those who look admiringly at Barcelona and Athens, with their dramatic changes to their cities, and assume that the London gain would be similar, need to know that public works on that scale would increase the costs still further and would not make a London bid any more winnable.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Tessa Jowell: No. I shall make some progress.
The third test is legacy. The best estimate to date is that the lasting legacy of the Olympic buildings and associated infrastructure could be otherwise provided for about £300 million. That would include the stadium, a 50 m swimming pool, some improved sports halls and other facilities in east London, around 160,000 sq m of employment floor space and about 400 permanent jobs, 4,000 new homes, and expanded rail capacity at Stratford station.
The subsequent use of the stadium is important. More recent Olympic and world event stadiums have been economically unsuccessful unless a viable anchor tenant has been found. That is true of Stadium Australia and also of the Stade de France. Arup's preferred solution is for the £280 million, 80,000-seater Olympic stadium that London would need to be reduced after the games to 20,000 capacity and to be used for athletics. However, even at that capacity, the stadium would make a loss and would require continuing subsidy. An alternative considered by Arup was to follow the Manchester example and find a football club to take over the venue. That would leave the stadium with a 60,000 capacity, but Arup felt that residential and commercial neighbours might be wary of being close to football grounds, and that that would be reflected in the development prospects.
There are other legacies to consider. The Olympics could bring a substantial boost to London's tourism. The benefit is estimated at £400 million to £600 million over four years.
Mr. Gareth Thomas rose—
Tessa Jowell: It is true that London is already the most popular destination in the UK, and steps would have to be taken to encourage visitors to venture beyond the capital so that the rest of the country would benefit from the Olympic impact. There could be a legacy of people enthused to take up sport because of the excitement generated by the event, but experience shows that that immediate effect is short lived, when high standard facilities and coaching are available. Even in Australia, which in 2002 had one of the most successful Olympic games ever, participation levels have fallen away, and its couch-potato population is estimated to be equal to ours. To capitalise on the Olympics in that way would require further expenditure if people are to be engaged in sport in the longer term.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Bob Russell rose—
Tessa Jowell: No, I shall make progress.
612
A further consideration is the impact that the games decision could have on the wider Thames gateway, giving confidence to investors that it is an attractive place to invest. The games could revitalise the image of London in the eyes of the world, confirming its position as a leading world city. There is the potential for improving the image of the UK around the world, something done to great effect for their countries by Sydney and Barcelona. There is the undoubted value of the games in terms of national pride. We had a foretaste of that in the Manchester games this summer, which showed that we really are a can-do nation.
Deliverability is the third of our criteria and perhaps the one in which I have greatest confidence. There is absolutely no doubt that Britain can stage a great Olympics in 2012. The Queen's jubilee and the Manchester Commonwealth games show how we can organise and deliver vibrant and exciting events, bringing together hundreds and thousands of people to celebrate. Some of our detractors will point to Picketts Lock and say that we cannot be trusted to deliver, but Manchester, the jubilee and the 1996 European football championships all show otherwise, as do the outstanding regular events that this country hosts in football, cricket, rugby, golf, tennis, rowing, sailing and many more sports.
Of course, the Olympics are on a different scale and level of complexity, but given the time available and provided that the games are fully funded and that we are confident about the costs, we can be confident about delivering an impressive event with which London's infrastructure is well able to cope. Our current assessment is that transport would not be an obstacle to a successful bid. The Government are currently considering what measures would be necessary. We would also ensure that the necessary planning and development powers are in place—an important lesson from other Olympic cities—and that the Mayor of London and relevant local authorities have all indicated their support for a bid. We would look to the mayor and the London development agency for a substantial commitment of their resources, to reflect the fact that London would inevitably be the main beneficiary of the games.
I am very grateful for all the work undertaken across government in assessing the practicality and deliverability of the games, and I should like to thank my colleagues for their wholehearted co-operation. As a result of all that work, I can say that a high-quality games is well within our reach to deliver.
I turn finally to winnability, which, as I have indicated, is not an exact science. The ballot is secret and the delegates are drawn from more than 80 different countries, each with different traditions and attitudes. We know that the competition will be intense.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Tessa Jowell: I am going to draw my remarks to a close.
It is obviously in the interests of the IOC to have as many high-quality bids as possible. Nevertheless, I welcome the encouraging remarks made by Jacques Rogge, its president, and look forward to meeting him

613
in Lausanne on Friday. However, as he says, any London bid will face very stiff opposition. We can expect New York, Paris, Moscow, Toronto, a Spanish city, a German city, possibly a city in South America and others to throw their hats into the ring. Paris and Toronto have both made recent bids. Athens and Beijing both failed with bids before they subsequently won. No matter how good the London bid is technically, we must acknowledge that winning will be difficult. Our bid will have to be highly convincing. It will have to be well organised and professionally run, it will need dedication and hard work and it will cost a substantial amount.
The final decision by the IOC will take place in July 2005. In the intervening years, we will have to show that our proposals are sound, fully funded, protected against risk and capable of being delivered on time. We would be up against cities that, in some cases, will have much more of the necessary infrastructure in place. We are also advised that we would have to demonstrate our commitment by beginning key elements of the work well in advance of the 2005 vote. We would have to begin land assembly, as well as construction of at least one key venue and probably a 50 m pool for the aquatic centre. In all, we would expect to have to incur costs of more than £200 million even before the vote took place.
London is a great city, however. It is truly a world city, the match of any likely competition. None of the competitor cities has a unique winning proposition. Although winnability is a tough test, London remains a force to be reckoned with.
In conclusion, affordability, deliverability, legacy and winnability are the key tests. We know that people love the Olympics and that they are stirred by the prospect of people coming to Britain. Our poll of public opinion, the details of which will be released to the Select Committee tomorrow, suggests that 75 per cent. of people in this country are in favour of the games coming to London, and by and large believe that expenditure on health, education and transport are all more important.
Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Tessa Jowell: We know that it would be wrong to waste money on an expensive hid if we had little chance of winning. We know that a commitment to the Olympics must boost regeneration to the east of London and must not hold it back. We know that a commitment to the Olympics must fit with a broader strategy for sport and not be at the expense of the rest of sport. And we know that a commitment to a London Olympics must not starve the rest of the country of the resources that it needs to develop sport or divert much needed resources from other key priorities.
This is an important decision, and the arguments are finely balanced, which is why before reaching a conclusion the Government are examining with such rigour and such care the extent of the liability that would fall on them. The Government are genuinely open minded, and I look forward to the opportunity to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House.
4.46 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I begin by reminding the House of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Tony Banks: What has that got to do with this?
Mr. Greenway: I am not sure that it has anything to do with this, but it is important to remind hon. Members that we have a wider experience than just politics.
This debate is very welcome and also very timely. It really is "make your mind up time". I note that the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government intend to reach a decision by the end of January. We want that decision to be "Yes". There is no time left for any further prevarication.
My hon. Friend the Shadow Culture Secretary, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), is currently in Standing Committee on the Communications Bill, and so is unable to be here for this important debate.
Mr. Banks: This is the hon. Gentleman's big chance.
Mr. Greenway: I have had other big chances before. I like to think that they have at least maintained my position. I have been doing this job for almost three years, and that speaks for itself. With no disrespect for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) or the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I am still in my job.
On 6 August, the day after the conclusion of the Commonwealth games, I issued a press release which included the following statement:
"A well-organised, viable British bid for the 2012 Olympics will naturally enjoy the support of the Conservative Party."
We had twice supported an Olympics bid for Manchester and then the Commonwealth games bid, which was a huge success. I will not go into party political semantics as to who was responsible for that success; I make the point simply to say that our support for this bid is not opportunistic. It is part of a pattern of support which we showed when in office.
Since August my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it abundantly clear that the Conservative party supports a London bid for the 2012 Olympics. I hope that this debate will equally convince the Government that the prize of a successful bid to stage the 2012 Olympics is so great that they should throw the full weight of the Government behind the bid and work with the British Olympic Association to secure the games for London.
The public have every reason to expect support. I found in my cupboard a copy of Labour's Sporting Nation, the Labour sports policy document published early in 1997, which I think was written by Lord Pendry, for whom I have the greatest respect. It is not what he said that I wish to quote; it is what the Prime Minister said:
"if we are to make the most of the wealth of talent we have in this Country, we must be ambitious as we strive to put Britain back on the sporting map. That is why a Labour Government will provide full support for British bids to host international sporting events."

615
That is my first quote—I shall use more later.
The Arup report concluded that if all levels of government and other agencies are committed to a common proposal, the potential advantages of the 2012 games centred on the lower Lea valley could be developed into a world-beating bid. We see no reason to doubt the wisdom of that conclusion or to challenge the BOA assessment that a UK bid based in any other city would be unlikely to succeed. A London-based bid, however, has an excellent prospect of success if, as seems likely, the International Olympic Committee decides that under rotation the games should return to a European venue in 2012. The Secretary of State is right—it is not an exact science, but that is the current indication.
The Minister for Sport, in an interview in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, said:
"My job as sports Minister is to put the case for sport."
The case for sport is indeed overwhelming and has been well documented in both the summary of the Arup report published by Ministers and the BOA briefing for our debate.
I should like to emphasise four points. A successful bid would secure significant benefits for elite sports, with Team GB greatly increasing its medal haul, as other host nations have traditionally done so; create a lasting legacy of coaching and sports infrastructure, with 100 training venues throughout the UK, including refurbished school gyms, leisure centres and community facilities; create a legacy of encouragement and motivation so that more young people will take part in sport—for me, that is one of the most important reasons to support a bid; and secure the right to host the Paralympics, in which we lead the world—a not insignificant opportunity.
Mr. Hawkins: I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying in my capacity as the deputy chairman of the all-party group on sport and leisure. However, does he agree that in her amazingly downbeat reading of her solemn brief the Secretary of State showed no enthusiasm for this matter and overlooked the clear evidence, starting in Los Angeles, of profitable gains to be made from the games, which The Daily Telegraph has highlighted in its very good campaign for a London bid for 2012. Back in 1984, Peter Uberroth made a profit of £260 million for sport, and $6 billion was generated through long-term advances in the tourism industry. Should we not be talking about that legacy when we look at making a bid?
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and will make three points in response. First, we cannot always repeat the experience of others—we have to make a hard-headed assessment of the position in London. I shall return to that point in a moment. However, my hon. Friend is right that a huge public subsidy is not necessarily needed if the games are organised correctly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Greenway: I want to respond to my hon. Friend and make two further points.
Secondly, The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have, we hope, run a successful campaign and have
616
certainly made the argument for holding the games here. Thirdly, this debate is an occasion on which we ought to try to have as much unity in the House as possible, so I will not overindulge in the opportunities that have presented themselves to me, save to say that at the end of the right hon. Lady's speech, I felt that we had reached half-time with a stalemate nil-nil draw. I hope that we can move on and put some balls in the net.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Greenway: I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) first, then the hon. Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), but that is all.
Mr. Banks: I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that we will bid for the 2012 Olympics, not least because many of the facilities will be in my patch of east London. As he has talked about the Ove Arup report, will he tell the House whether he agrees with its cost estimates? He has rather brushed over that, but I am sure that he will come back to it. My instinct is that the report grossly underestimates the cost of mounting the Olympics.
Mr. Greenway: I intend to come to that in a moment. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), whom I am going to mention in a minute.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am grateful for that advert. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if Arup has underestimated the cost of bidding for and staging the Olympics, it has probably also underestimated the benefits of the games? It admits to using the relatively conservative figure of £610 million for tourism income, when Sydney benefited to the tune of £2 billion, and Barcelona estimates that the net economic impact of its games was £11 billion.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has, as ever, anticipated precisely what is in the text that I have prepared for the House. I will give way to the hon. Member for Leigh.
Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the public subsidy that would be required. It will be significant, as we have heard. We also know that the Conservative Front Bench is committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public spending. In that context, is the hon. Gentleman absolutely clear from which budget he would take the money required to stage the Olympic games?
Mr. Greenway: I shall address that issue as well. The Conservative party is committed to ensuring a viable and strong economy, and the Olympic games would provide a huge opportunity for wealth creation and job creation, and for more revenue, not less, for the Exchequer.
I want to finish my assessment of sport, then I must make some progress. New facilities need only be permanent when that is essential, and when a long-term future has been identified. We accept, as the Secretary of State said, that the future use of a new main stadium to host the games remains to be settled. It is important that

617
we face up to that. We do not, however, believe that that is an intractable problem, as the initial 80,000 capacity could be reduced, depending on its future use. The Secretary of State mentioned two such possible uses.
Sport will not be the only winner at a successful Olympics. This debate gives us the opportunity to highlight the significant wider benefits of staging the Olympics in London. The benefits from social change alone that a successful Olympic bid would secure would include a more fit and healthy generation, less crime and vandalism, and the regeneration of a wide area of deprivation in east London—the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham. Those gains would, in themselves, justify hosting the Olympics here in Britain.
I also suggest that all the interests for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible would benefit from a successful Olympics bid; not just sport, but tourism, culture, art, heritage, the media and broadcasting. All would be major beneficiaries of a UK-based Olympics in London. The English Tourism Council has said in a letter to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that
"the 2012 Olympic Games in London represents a major 'once in a generation' opportunity for UK tourism. It will strengthen London's claim to be one of the top five cities"—
in the world—
"and promote huge opportunities for tourism in the rest of Britain, both during the Games and for many years afterwards."
The ETC goes on to give examples of how tourism in the north-west of England benefited from the Commonwealth games, bringing in some 300,000 additional visitors and more than 6,000 new jobs. I well remember visiting the British Tourist Authority office in Dublin when it launched its campaign for more people to come to the north-west from Ireland, both in association with the Commonwealth games and more generally.
The Arup report estimates up to £610 million from additional tourist revenue but points out, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West mentioned in his intervention, that Sydney benefited by some £2 billion from new inbound tourism. I would like to suggest to the House that London is a bigger attraction with a much larger hinterland for potential visitors from the near continent. The inbound tourism sector—a major growth area—includes events, conferences, meetings and incentive travel, and would also be expected to experience a significant increase in associated activities if the Olympic games were held here. The British Tourist Authority estimates that, on current trends, business tourism could account for as much as 45 per cent. of inbound tourism expenditure by 2010. In opposition, the Government agreed with that and the sports-tourism link. The document to which I referred earlier states that international events provide a major boost to the earnings of our tourism and hospitality industries and the Exchequer. I agree with that.
As the Secretary of State knows, the Athens Olympics will revive the cultural Olympiad, and United Kingdom arts organisations will participate in those events. There is a great opportunity for us to do the same in London. The world would spend 16 days being reminded through television of our unique heritage that is unrivalled in so
618
many ways. More than 3 billion viewers watched the Olympic games in Sydney. Our broadcasting media will have the opportunity to demonstrate what we know: they are the best at covering major international events. One has only to compare the coverage of English or British teams overseas with that in Britain to appreciate the difference.
Can we succeed? The British Olympic Association recently said:
"we don't want to bid for the sake of bidding. We want to bid to win".
I understand the Secretary of State's desire to ensure that a bid has a good chance of success—her "win-ability test"—and I agree with her analysis. However, we should not ignore the positive benefits of the bidding process. The bid that Manchester submitted helped to stimulate regeneration in that city and in the north-west and put the area back on the map.
News coverage of the bidding process, especially the visits of leading athletes and sports administrators and the International Olympic Committee, would encourage interest in sport, provide significant media opportunities and help those who promote tourism to the UK, especially to London. Positive promotion of London and Britain during the bidding period would support the process and the chance of winning.
Public support and cross-party unanimity are vital. It is rumoured that more than 75 per cent. of those polled by ICM for UKSport said yes to the games. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister tell us whether that is accurate? When do they expect to publish the results?
It is important to be open and candid about costs and the significant challenges of delivery. The point has been made that it is easy for the press to be on side now but off side when bad news arrives. Let us therefore have the whole truth. We would have liked the Ove Arup report to be published in full, but we understand that parts of it are confidential and could give competing bidders an advantage.
Nevertheless, more of the report could have been published, thus helping to confirm the quality of the study, and the advice and conclusions given to Ministers and other members of the key stakeholders' group. Will the Minister confirm that the Ove Arup study represents the most thorough in-depth analysis in advance of an Olympic bid and that no major city that wanted to stage the Olympics has had the benefit of such a detailed, location-specific analysis?
In an interview in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, the Minister said:
"We should not be events-driven, we should be strategy-driven."
He has made that point previously. However, surely any long-term strategy should be ambitious and aspirational. If we want our athletes and our teams to win more often in international competition, the strategy for sport should include the aim of hosting international events such as the Olympics, World cup and so on. Again, I pray in aid the Labour party's pre-election document—[Interruption.] I believe that it was written by a first-class parliamentarian who is a good friend and now in the other House. The document states:
"A Labour Government will provide full support for British bids to host international sporting events."

619
There it is—it could not be clearer, and one could almost describe it as an election pledge. The public need to ask the Government to think about realising that pledge, notwithstanding the fact that, as I accept, challenging problems do exist.
The Minister for Sport also said:
"we don't want a Wembley or a Picketts Lock".
We certainly agree with him on that, but if we want to learn the lessons of these problems, we must first understand that they occurred under this Government. We also need to decide what we think is more important. It is perhaps tempting to argue that we should not make promises and enter into commitments that we cannot deliver on, and that is certainly one lesson of the bid for the 2005 world athletics championships. [Interruption.] The Minister is agreeing with me, but it was his Government who made that promise.
Arguably, the real lesson is to understand more clearly the role of the Government. They cannot adopt an arm's-length approach, just dipping in and out when it suits them. A successful Olympics would require strong leadership at the highest Government level, and—I say this with no disrespect—probably not even within the right hon. Lady's own Department. Someone must he able to ensure prompt and decisive action across Government Departments, but that did not happen with Wembley, as those of us members of the all-party group on football who took part in the various meetings with the planners of Brent quickly discovered.
The key stakeholders group represents a good start. Ironically, of all its members only the Government have yet to make clear their position, or to voice any real enthusiasm for the bid. We also need to engage a fourth partner: the business community.
On costs, Ministers have challenged some of the conclusions of the Ove Arup report, and they now suggest that the cost of hosting the games could be as much as £5 billion. A different figure seems to be given every time that a statement is made, and we shall have to read tomorrow's Hansard carefully to find out the exact figure that the right hon. Lady quoted. However, the Arup consultants do not accept that their original costings of £1.8 billion were wrong to anything like the extent suggested. Having re-examined all their Costings—they based them on 2002 prices, as the key stakeholder group asked them to do—they believe that the new figure should be no more than £1.9 billion.
On a like-for-like basis, the Arup figures are robust, but if the Treasury were to use inflated prices on costs, and if no account were taken of the increased revenue that the same inflation costings would generate, it would not be surprising if a higher figure came out at the end. The calculations must be made on a like-for-like basis. There is a real suspicion that costs are being loaded just for the sake of it, and the Government seem determined to adopt a "more than worst case" position in their deliberations, over-egging the contingency to take account of other failings such as the millennium dome.
Bob Russell rose—
Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: No, I will not give way. I know that many Members want to speak, and I am getting close to the end of my remarks.
620
If we want to learn a lesson from the millennium dome, it is to have a clear view on whether the investment under consideration is likely to deliver value for money. I suggest to the House that an Olympics bid, with all the advantages that I have outlined, is far more likely to deliver long-term, lasting value for money than the millennium dome. Whatever figure is arrived at, the total cost is not the cost to the Government. The cost to Government is much less because of grants from the IOC, sponsorship and inward investment.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West got it exactly right when he said in the Westminster Hall debate of 26 November that he sponsored:
"I believe that London could host the Olympic games at a much lower cost than is perhaps widely accepted at the moment."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 45WH.]
I agree with his analysis. Having commissioned the Ove Arup report, the members of the key stakeholder group need to show more support for its conclusions.
It is argued that the money could be better spent on hospitals and schools—the philosophy of despair advanced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in an interview the other day. That approach misses the point completely. It ignores the benefits for health, education and the fight against crime that would accrue from increased sporting activity among young people. The Government's own performance and innovation unit confirmed as much: the news may have been slipped out on the last day before Christmas, but the unit confirmed that those would be major benefits.
The approach that I have described also fails to recognise that a London-based Olympics would be the engine of increased economic activity, especially through tourism and regeneration. That would lead, in turn, to more jobs and more revenue. That potential was instantly recognised by the Conservative party and it underpins our enthusiasm for the project.
A London Olympics would be the inspirational catalyst for the realisation of many worthy and vital public policy objectives. For us, it is inconceivable that the Government should say no unless they can demonstrate some deep-seated and major practical obstacle that is not apparent from the Arup study. A lack of political will would not be tolerated by the public at large as the only reason not to go ahead.
In her closing remarks, the Secretary of State said that Britain was a "can do" society. There is no better way to prove it. I urge Ministers not to be afraid of failure, but instead to recognise the enormous benefits that our nation, not just our capital, would derive from success. Ministers should recognise the tremendous feel-good factor that a successful bid would bring. Above all, they should recognise that a country with the fourth largest economy in the world, which gave so many sports to the rest of the world and which has a capital city still widely regarded as one of the world's finest, ought to be capable of hosting the world's biggest sporting event. If Athens can do it, why cannot London?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all speeches by Back Benchers in this debate.
5.12 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is conducting an inquiry into the potential Olympic bid. I am Chairman of that Committee, and I speak today in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the Select Committee. In the near future, the Committee will publish its report, by which I shall be bound, whatever it says.
Considerable reference has been made to The Daily Telegraph, which yesterday published an interview with Matthew Pinsent, a member of the International Olympic Committee. He asked a series of questions to do with who, where and how: he wanted to know where the village was going to be, how the transport would work, and so on. This afternoon, I want to ask a series of questions to which we need precise answers. Those answers must cohere if a bid is to be justified. Regardless of my personal opinion about whether a bid should be lodged, I believe that a bid will not be tenable if the questions that I am about to ask are not answered in that way.
I hope that my questions can be answered at the end of the debate by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, or when Ministers come before the Select Committee tomorrow. If not, I hope that they can be answered pretty soon, as I think that the country has a right to the information.
The first question has to do with costs. So many different estimates have been made of the cumulative costs of staging the games that it is impossible to be sure about the matter. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) quoted the Ove Arup report, but only a short time ago the Financial Times said:
"The cost of a London bid for 2012 is estimated at up to £5.4bn, with almost £3bn coming from public funds."
We must be clear that the cost of any public sector project will be higher than originally estimated—and probably a lot higher. The building of the British Library cost seven times the original estimate, and took 30 years rather than the estimated five. The costs of such projects tend to balloon, so it is important for us to know them.
I want to know the cost of the projected stadium in east London. Can it be built? Can planning permission be obtained? What is the timetable, and can the stadium be built on time? If not, it is not worth building.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is present. The whole basis of Sport England's support for a rebuilt Wembley stadium, and the whole basis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State eventually agreed to Government support for it, was dual use: the stadium was to be used for athletics as well as football. This morning, the Select Committee heard that there would be a new stadium for athletics, and that Wembley would be used for football and for nothing else. What, then, was the point of that laborious process involving Wembley stadium?
Then there is the question of the village. Where will it be? How much will it cost? What about planning permission? What is the timetable? Moreover, several swimming pools are to be built, of which one, apparently, is to be retained. Where will they be, what
622
will they cost, and can they be built on time? We need to know those things, or we shall walk blindfold into a morass.
There is also the utterly bewildering question of transport. The Ove Arup report assumes that although Crossrail is not due to be completed until 2016, it will be available in time for games that will take place in 2012. The Mayor of London—whose main contribution to transport has been to make the west end static for months on end—says that he hopes for Government approval of Crossrail very soon. He says:
"Trains could start running by 2011, providing a crucial boost to London's chances of holding the 2012 Olympic Games".
In its submission to the Select Committee, however, Transport for London says:
"The transport strategy described in this paper assumes that Crossrail is not in place for the Games. The provision of Crossrail would provide significant additional capacity… However, the transport strategy should not be made contingent on the successful delivery of Crossrail by 2012."
Richard Ottaway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not.
So there are three different attitudes to Crossrail, which is the key link to a stadium in the east end of London. We must also bear it in mind, even if the timetable is accepted, that such projects are not necessarily delivered on time. The Jubilee line extension to North Greenwich was supposed to be ready at least two years before the opening of the dome, but it was ready only a few days before that—and the budget was so enormous that Mr. Tunnicliffe of London Underground did not even know what it was. We cannot operate on the basis of huge blank cheques being signed by our constituents, as taxpayers, without knowing what will happen.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Ryedale to say that there is huge public enthusiasm for this in 2003. Of course there is—The Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard are running campaigns—but what will happen in 2005 or 2006 if things start to go awry, as the track record shows they will? The Government will be about to be re-elected or will have been re-elected, and all the people who are now saying that we should bid for the games will regard this target as an Aunt Sally. That is what happened with the dome, which the Conservatives started. Indeed, under the Conservatives, £120 million was given by Sport England for Wembley stadium. It does not stop them being opportunistic.
Mr. Andy Reed: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, because I have only two minutes left.
There is also the question of organisation. Huge tributes are paid to the success of the Commonwealth games. The only reason they were a success is because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) to create a structure for the

623
Commonwealth games that had not existed before. That enabled the athletes and volunteers to achieve their superb successes.
We have no such structure now. Instead we have a concordat whereby a bevy of organisations all put their oars in. If we are to bid for the Olympic games, we must have a Minister in charge. The New South Wales Minister for Sport, for example, was in charge of organising both the games in Sydney and the transport.
It is not negative to ask these questions, it is essential. Unless the answer to every one of them is yes, our constituents will say that spending £5 billion or £6 billion—$12 billion was spent on the Barcelona games—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.22 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. I am proud to sport my Team GB tie. I admit that it is not very subtle—in fact, it makes the ties of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) look positively anaemic. However, it has the advantage of making Liberal Democrat support for the bid clear from the outset.
Our reasons for supporting the bid have been well rehearsed, and the Secretary of State set out many of them in her opening remarks. The bid is not London-centric. There is no doubt that other towns and cities would benefit, whether from holding camps, football competitions or the resulting increase in tourism. The Secretary of State referred to Barcelona. Between 1991 and 1997, Barcelona witnessed an increase in overnight stays of 70 per cent. That is the sort of increase that we could hope for in tourism in London and beyond. She spoke about the need to spread the benefits of tourism and to export it to other parts of the country, which we support.
We should support the bid for reasons of regeneration. Parts of east London have objective 2 status and clearly need regeneration. The bid could act as a catalyst for transport projects such as Crossrail. Even if Crossrail were not completed, having a portion of the line up and running would contribute significantly to increasing capacity in London, which would benefit the games. Furthermore, it is possible that, as happened in Greece, EU grants might be available to assist with some transport projects.
A further reason for supporting the bid is the fact that Londoners back it, as other Members have said. The Government pushed ahead with something that Londoners most certainly do not support—the part-privatisation of the tube. Why do they not push something that Londoners actually support? The issue does not affect only Londoners. Disparate bodies such as the Evening Standard, The Daily Telegraph, the Mayor and the London chamber of commerce and industry agree on their support for the bid, as do many London Members of all parties.
Sport has an impact on health. If the Olympic games took place in this country in 2012, it would act as a strong motivator to our children. The health of many children is at risk because of our sedentary lifestyles and the games would give them something to aim for. Ten and 11-year-olds who turn away from sport as they
624
become interested in other things might focus on the date of the Olympics, perhaps because they want to compete or because it would make them realise the importance of keeping fit.
The Secretary of State referred to the competing demands on funding—for example, for hospitals or schools. However, when the costings are being drawn up, I hope that she will take into account the effects on health that could result from motivating a generation of youngsters to participate in sport and, we hope, to maintain that participation.
I understand that Arup's presentation to the Select Committee was not entirely convincing, but if there is more confidence in the figures, we ought to support the bid. As the Cabinet will discuss the matter on 30 January, we have written to all its members asking them to back London's bid; we want them to be lions rather than chickens. As Members will have noticed from my tie, the lion is part of the British Olympic Association logo. The Government must trust our capital city and the entrepreneurial skills and drive that exist there and throughout the country—the can-do culture—to deliver on this important project.
There are as many reasons for opposing the bid as there are for supporting it, as the Secretary of State outlined so even-handedly. There is the problem of overrun that we have experienced in many sporting projects. Surely, however, the Government and the private sector have learned their lesson and we can complete projects on time and to cost.
There is a risk that we might lose money if the bid is not successful. One cannot really deny that. However, the Government push local authorities to bid for specific grants or pots of money. If they are encouraging local authorities to do that, should they not do the same?
When the Minister for Sport sums up, I hope that he will confirm that the overriding reason for the Government refusing to back the bid is not their concern that the Mayor and the Government cannot work together. That would be a great pity. If that is one of the Government's reasons they will, in effect, have been hoist by their own petard. They were scared to give the Mayor a full range of powers, so they have been left in a situation where neither party has sufficient power to push the matter through. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will not stop the bid going through.
What is needed from the Government? First, we need the Government to state their full support for the bid. We have heard a series of very mixed messages. Obviously, the media will spin what Ministers have said to a certain extent, but today's Evening Standard quotes the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as pouring cold water
"on the campaign to stage the Olympics".
She is also quoted as saying that Ministers had not yet made up their minds. Yesterday, The Times said that the Secretary of State was going to argue that there was
"a very strong sporting case"
for hosting the Olympics. Such messages do not give us a clear picture as to where the Government stand on this important issue, and her remarks have not clarified matters further. When the Minister sums up, perhaps he will make the Government's position a little clearer.
We need a clear statement from the Government on what they expect the costs to be. Arup has said that the Treasury might have to contribute about £500 million,

625
but the Government suggest that £2.5 billion of public subsidy might be required. We need to know how they arrived at that figure. What does it include and how much is for projects such as transport that are necessary but that have been brought forward? How much could be described as "wasted"? If the research commissioned shows that the bid has a significant chance of success and that the games will make a small surplus, as Arup have suggested, or will require a costed and controlled financial contribution from the Government, I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that the Government will come out in favour of the bid.
As a country, we are capable of sending, at just weeks' notice, an armada to the other side of the world. Our scientists are working with other European scientists to land a space probe on a comet—in 2012, as it happens. A rocket will have to be launched in the next couple of weeks and a probe will loop round Mars and twice round the earth before it slingshots to make contact with the comet in 2012. However, it seems that the Government's prevarication and poverty of ambition are such that we could, as a country, be deprived of the opportunity to bid for and host the world's greatest sporting event.
5.33 pm
Alan Keen: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I will not prejudge the issue; I will listen to the evidence tomorrow and to this debate. However, I am also chair of the all-party football group, one of the vice-chairs of the all-party sports group and joint secretary of the Lords and Commons cricket team, so I should at least express an opinion. It will not be surprising if I say that I support the bid. [Interruption.] Attack is usually the best form of defence, and I shall leave it to my hon. Friends to determine when I find time to enjoy myself.
The Olympics have a special value for me. I may not look it but, in 1948, I was old enough to be taken by my father, who was a racing cyclist, to Herne Hill to see the sprinting. We had the disappointment of seeing Reg Harris being beaten by the Italians in that event and in the tandem sprint. I also have a special memory of Windsor great park. Among the only 12 words in French that I remember are, "Allez, allez, allez".
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Only nine left then.
Alan Keen: I obviously know another nine words. The hair still stands on the back of my neck when I picture the scene. One of the French team had blown a tyre and his whole team stopped while he changed it. When he got back on his bike, the call was, "Allez, allez, allez". I can remember being greatly inspired by the Olympics when I was a kid. They were drab days, of course, in 1948, after the war, and the Olympics made a big difference to everyone. I can remember the atmosphere in London and being taken to Harrods to see the special display that was then in that shop. Those games were an inspiration to many people.
626
If we bid for the Olympics in 2012 and our bid is successful—I expect that it would be—the games would also inspire many young people and show those in my constituency and the four London boroughs that would be the main hosts of the 2012 games that the world is multicultural and that the fact that they exist in a multicultural community is just as things should be.
The world may not be so drab now, but it is pretty drab for those who live in housing that is not of an acceptable standard and whose jobs are not as good as they would want them to be. The Olympic games can make a big difference to people. They can teach young people that it is well worth living healthily. The Olympics inspired me to work hard and keep free of crime—at least until I was elected to the House in 1992, anyway. Let us hope that the games will have that effect on many young people, especially those in east London. We want people to aspire not only to be world champions, but to look outside their own lives and realise what they can achieve if they set their minds to it.
I want to give one or two examples to illustrate what sport can do. Again, I very well remember the 1966 World cup, when Middlesbrough, which I still regard as my home town, hosted the North Korean side that played three first-group games and knocked out the favourites, the Italians, in the first round, probably helping England to win the 1966 World cup. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that that was only a few years after the Korean war, yet the people of Teesside took the North Koreans to their hearts and supported them. Thousands travelled to Liverpool to watch the North Koreans play at Everton's ground in the quarter-finals.
That friendship still exists today. The North Koreans from that original team came over here, and Mr. Speaker entertained them in his apartments. We took them to Middlesbrough, and there was a special dinner for them. The man who scored the goal against Italy was led out on to the pitch at Riverside and allowed to put the ball into the back of the net, as he did way back in 1966. Sport can cement friendships. On the day the North Koreans arrived here, we heard the first announcement that North Korea was not going to get rid of its nuclear weapons programme, but friendship through sport can overcome many difficulties.
It is worth talking very briefly about the Manchester experience. We members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport were lucky enough to attend the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games, and I attended the first day of athletics the following day. I stayed in one of the hotels at the airport and travelled on public transport and then on the special buses out to the stadium. The Manchester people were absolutely thrilled and proud of their city on that day. The athletics were good and the opening ceremony was brilliant, but what I remember was that the hair on the back of my neck stood up—sport often causes that—as I listened to the conversations on the train and on the buses. People were really inspired; they were proud of their city.
More than anything else, what came out of the Manchester experience for me was the fact that those on the volunteer scheme—I met a lot of the volunteers, and they had given up work to do the job or had already retired—were so proud to be part of something. Many of them realised that they were able to give something,

627
probably at a time in their lives when they thought that they were past it. Again, we should build on that example.
I do not want to digress too much from sport, but we are all concerned about the future of the nation's health and social care system. As fewer people work and more are retired, how will we look after people? A controlled, co-ordinated and supported voluntary system will probably help to get us through the next half a century, when public services cannot get the funding that is needed because the working population is getting smaller and smaller. Apparently, 50,000 people have already volunteered for the Greek Olympics, and what we learn from such volunteer schemes can be applied outside the sporting world.
We are 10 years away from the 2012 Olympics, and if we set our minds to it, we can win this bid. I put out a call to those who are much higher up in politics than me: if we put our minds to it, we can use the Olympics as an example, and if we really work at it, the only conflict in the world in 2012 could be the competition at the Olympic games in London.
Before I finish speaking, I want to thank those who have already worked hard, such as the BOA and others, to advance the case for London. I hope that we make the bid, and that we are successful, because I believe that much more will come from that outside the world of sport.
5.41 pm
Richard Ottaway: There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the Government are having this debate, which all of us in London appreciate. The bad news is the downbeat assessment by the Secretary of State of the outcome of the Government's deliberations. She made a realistic assessment, but it left many questions open. Given that only two weeks remain before the Government must make a decision, I cannot help feeling that they must already have answered some of the questions, and the bid is getting the thumbs down. I hope that the outcome of the debate will be to give the Government confidence to support the bid.
First, I support the bid because it is no less than the catalyst for the regeneration of London. Secondly, I have pride in my city, and I believe that the Olympics will leave a legacy of which London will be proud not only for decades, but, possibly, for centuries. The three most important factors in making an Olympic bid are confidence, confidence and confidence. I see confidence in the British Olympic Association, confidence in the other place, confidence in every business group in London, and confidence in British Airways, which is supporting the proposals. The London boroughs have confidence, as has the London Development Agency.
There is hesitation, however, on the part of two of the three major stakeholders: the mayor and, sadly, the Government. The Greater London Assembly has confidence, but today's debate has not really focused on the key role that the Mayor of London will play in the whole process. He is a central figure in the process: he has published a press release saying that he is in favour of the bid, although his support is fairly lukewarm, if he does not mind me saying so. He answers a few questions but then returns to arguing with the Government about the underground.
628
The question is whether the Mayor of London will offer the leadership that the bid deserves. If London ever needs a champion, he is the guy to be the champion, and this is the moment to do it. He should organise the shadow London organising committee. Where is the shadow Olympic development agency? He should be arguing the case and banging the drum. The difficulty—this is a serious point—is that his communications with the Government are not perfect at the moment so it is difficult to have a dialogue with them over something so central, in which he is a key player and in which he must lead the bid.
The Government are the second hesitating stakeholder, seemingly for two reasons: first, cost; and secondly, they had their fingers burned over the Wembley stadium and the dome. The Government should learn the lessons from Wembley. They saw where they went wrong, and now they can get it right. The lesson of the dome is even clearer—the problem was that they did not know what they were going to put in it, and they did not know what they were going to do with the dome afterwards.
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): It was your project, not ours.
Richard Ottaway: And we would have made a better job of it. What did the Government expect, leaving it to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to decide what went in it? It is crystal clear what the dome is for. All the infrastructure will produce a legacy that lasts for a substantial time.
Those of us who have not had a chance to consider the detailed Ove Arup report because it has not been published are slightly in the dark, but it is possible to get a feel for its approach. It says that the cost of hosting the Olympics will be £1.8 billion and explains that although the cost in Sydney was £2.2 billion, the revenue was more than double that, at £5.5 billion. Other cities will also benefit from events such as football and sailing. We should remember that the cost will be spread over nine years. The difficulty is trying to do a cost benefit analysis of civic pride.
There are a couple of things on which the Government have to show confidence and leadership. I agree that that must come from the very top, from the Cabinet and lower levels of the Govt. The conservative estimates of Arup were that the games would break even. If they are well planned, well marketed and well run on a world-class basis, and not in a half-hearted way, they can be profitable.
The role of the private sector will be important. The dome and the Excel exhibition centre are in place. We will, of course, need a new stadium. Frankly, it will have to be built by the private sector and, as the Secretary of State said, it must have an anchor tenant. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) can tell us whether West Ham football club might be interested in taking it on.
Mr. Banks: I am a Chelsea supporter.
Richard Ottaway: I know where the hon. Gentleman spends his Saturdays; I also where his votes come from.

629
An anchor tenant of that nature is important and the Olympic village will become low-cost social housing afterwards.
The Secretary of State's second test is deliverability: can we do it? The answer is yes, of course we can. Much of the transport infrastructure is already in place. The Jubilee line goes right up to the lower Lea valley. Whether it needs another station or platform remains to be seen, but it has the capacity of taking 400,000 passengers a day. We have the docklands light railway and the Stratford channel tunnel rail link. If the Minister wishes to revisit Conservative Government decisions, perhaps he will agree that locating the terminal in Stratford was a visionary decision. We may also have Crossrail. The games could take place without it, but if that can be completed, so much the better.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asked whether the transport infrastructure could cope. In the morning rush hour, between 7 and 10 o'clock, 1.1 million people come into London on public transport. If we contrast that with the estimate of 500,000 people a day moving around during the Olympic fortnight and a peak movement in the morning of 150,000, it is clear that the existing infrastructure can cope providing it is running efficiently. On any Saturday afternoon, the grounds of Arsenal, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Charlton, Millwall and Twickenham turn out at a quarter to five. The infrastructure in those areas copes with hundreds of thousands of passengers and we can cope with the extra people who come to the city because of the games. We can deliver. We have the hotels and airports and can build the necessary infrastructure.
So let us consider the legacy. Manchester is a good example because it has been left with decent stadiums and facilities from which it can benefit. It can rightly be proud of those. The games will give a tremendous boost to the sporting culture. London has many world-class facilities and it can become the sporting capital of Europe. There will also be economic benefits for the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham. That area has some of the highest unemployment in London, so it is a great place to locate such an economic development. The benefits are obvious; for me, the whole question is a no-brainer.
We come to the final test, which is winnability. Can we win? Can we see off Paris? It is down to us. If we are confident, if we have the leadership and if we go ahead, we will win. If we are half-hearted, unsure and hesitant, we will not. This is a unique opportunity. By 2012, it will be 60 years since we last had the Olympic games in London. To delay would be an absolute disaster. I understand that our next opportunity would be 2024, and by then the land in the east end of London will almost certainly be developed and unavailable. This is a golden opportunity. Let us face it—if the capital city of the world's fourth largest economy cannot stage this bid, it does not say much, does it?
5.50 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) for the nice things that he said about my constituency. We are
630
grateful for his support, and he is always welcome to come and have a curry with me in the East India Tandoori. There are plenty of curry houses and they serve good dinners.
Obviously, I have to declare an interest, although it seems that most Members have declared it for me. Most of the proposed Olympic site is in east London; 50 per cent. of it is in Newham, and a substantial amount of that is in my constituency. Naturally, but not for that reason alone, I support the bid. I fully believe that there will be long-term economic and sporting benefits not only for London but for the country as a whole. Having said that, and knowing how much my area will benefit, we should bid for the games only after the most rigorous, dispassionate and objective assessment of the costs and benefits leads to that conclusion.
If we are to proceed, it is essential, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised, that the Government demonstrate their total commitment, both financially and politically, to the bid. Without that there can be no success and it would be folly to contemplate bidding. We also need to be aware of two inescapable basic facts. First, the organisers and supporters of major sporting bids invariably overestimate the revenues and benefits and underestimate the costs and difficulties. That seems to be almost an immutable rule.
Secondly, bids are usually launched amid intense media and public enthusiasm, but as soon as the first problems are encountered, the supporters who have been cheering from the sidelines largely disappear or become prophets of doom. They cross their arms and say, "I told you we should never have gone for it in the first place." We must be wary of listening to siren voices, whether they are those of Opposition Members, the Evening Standard or The Daily Telegraph. We must say, "If you're going to support the bid, you must continue to support it when the problems emerge."
Problems will emerge, because every bidding city has run into problems. Athens, Sydney and Barcelona ran into problems, and we will run into problems. Will we be able to count on those who have been huzzaing from the sidelines? Frankly, I think not. It seems to be one of the harsh rules of politics that if it all goes well, someone else takes the credit, but if it goes badly, the Government take all the blame, so it is little wonder that Ministers are treading very carefully. They are on a hiding to nothing. In the end, all the rhetoric in this Chamber is no substitute for a critical examination of the facts. If we go for the bid, everyone has to sign up, preferably in blood, and that includes the media, who are so negative when things go a bit awry.
Turning to the costs, my instincts and bitter experience tell me that Ove Arup's projections, both for the bid costs and the capital costs, are a gross underestimate. It is not just public projects that go over budget. A private project such as the channel tunnel went grossly over budget. I have seen costs estimates ranging from £1.8 billion to £5.4 billion. The Government would be wise to take the thick end of that estimate—£5.4 billion—and add a further sum. Then they might come somewhere near the outturn budget. Any optimistic estimate of costs at this stage, which there always are, should be ignored. If they get it wrong by overestimating the costs, they are quids in. If they get it wrong by underestimating the costs, all the problems

631
will come their way. We should examine the matter closely and assume that all the costs that we have been told so far are an underestimate.
When I went with the Secretary of State on an inspection tour of the east end sites, I pointed out to her that the regeneration of most of those sites and the investment in Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Newham will take place eventually, because it is such an obvious area for development, if one looks at the map of London as a whole. Clearly, the impetus of the Olympic games coming to London will make that development happen so much faster, providing, as I said at the outset, that the Government are fully signed up to the bid.
Crossrail has been mentioned, and it is a good case in point. London and the south-east desperately need Crossrail. That has nothing to do with the Olympic games at all. We have needed Crossrail for decades. We should have had Crossrail before we had the Jubilee line extension. It has been one of the facts of transport life in London for ages. Crossrail is essential to the success of an Olympic bid. I know that the Government support Crossrail and will be providing the money for it, so it seems sensible to bring that money forward and add it into the bid costs. We need Crossrail, whether or not we get the Olympics.
I shall deal with some of the other aspects. The after-use of an Olympic village in the east end of London is obvious. It will provide a large concentration of affordable, decent, new housing in an area that desperately needs it. We can see the benefits coming through immediately. Crossrail and other transport improvements will be good not just for the Olympic bid, but for the whole of the south-east region. The village will provide us with decent, affordable houses. We begin to see how a bid stacks up in terms of its long-term economic benefits.
There is a different problem arising from the after-use of the Olympic stadium. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have discussed the matter. An 80,000-seater Olympic stadium is far too big for athletics. Even if it were scaled down to 20,000, it would still be too big. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested a moment ago, the Government need to look for a football club to take it over. West Ham is a possibility, and so is Tottenham. I might add, having read the Evening Standard tonight, that with Craven Cottage being sold off by al-Fayed—there's a surprise, I might add—perhaps Fulham might be a candidate. Knowing football fans as well as I do, I recognise that it is a lot easier to make those suggestions than to bring them to fruition. It is a problem that we need to consider.
The boroughs in the east end will be worried about inheriting sites and facilities that no one wants to use or which are under-utilised. It is not just the capital costs that matter at that point, but the revenue costs. We cannot afford another dome in the east end of London. The dome came in on budget, but we did not have any set idea of what the after-use would be. When I was a Minister, I went to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he was the dome Minister of blessed memory and told him that that would be an ideal site for the Olympic games. Unfortunately, he did not see any sense in that, and we still have a very empty dome.
632
In summary, a successful Olympics are a wonderful showcase for a city and a country and could provide long-term economic benefit, particularly in terms of transport, jobs and regeneration. We should go for the bid. It is important for London and its status, but as I have said time and again, it has to be done on the basis of a cold, calculated and even cynical view of the costs and benefits. It is easy to hear people in a pub on the Romford road, where I am, say that we should go for the Olympic games, but whatever public opinion says now, when the problems come in, we can sometimes find that the people who were cheering us on have all disappeared. That is the bitter experience of the past. That point is not downbeat, but realistic. Unless we are realistic, we will find ourselves running into difficulties.
Finally, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the Olympic truce? Anyone who re-reads the founding principles of the 1894 congress will see how the political, cultural and economic objectives of the Olympic games were stated and how many of them have now been lost. I hope that she will consider that point.
6 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: We have just listened to a most fascinating contrast in styles. When we read Hansard tomorrow, we will see that the message from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is pretty similar to that of the Secretary of State. However, we got a "can do" message from the hon. Gentleman, while from the Secretary of State, we got not just a "can't do", but a "won't do" message. That is very sad, as having an Olympic games in London is the most exciting and thrilling prospect that we have to look forward to. I hope very much that the message from this debate and all the work that the Secretary of State says that she has set in train will change her attitude to a "can do" one and move it away from the negative and very low-key response that we got this afternoon.
I should like to point out to everybody who has mentioned Crossrail, which is a key part of any Olympic bid, that contrary to what the hon. Member for West Ham said, I understand that London Regional Metro has just formulated a proposition that it is putting to the Government in which the private sector would build and run the project without any cost to the Government and in time for the Olympics. I hope very much that the Secretary of State for Transport will hear the message from London Regional Metro that it can deliver Crossrail on time and at no cost to the public purse.
The reason I wanted to contribute today was not to put in a second bid for the site of the Olympics, as there is clear agreement that it should be in the east end of London, but to raise the constituency issue of the future of Crystal palace. The Secretary of State will know Crystal Palace well, as it is next door to her constituency, although it lies wholly in mine. It has been the national athletics centre and is still very well used as an athletics centre. I am sure that Ministers will know that the lease that Sport England has on Crystal Palace is due to come to an end, and that it had a full repairing lease. There are £20 million worth of dilapidations to the centre to be made good when Sport England gives up the lease, as I understand that it plans to do. There have been negotiations about a very exciting and innovative renovation, working with Bromley council, and a situation in which minimum dilapidation costs are paid and the whole thing reverts to Bromley.

633
I do not want to go into the ins and outs of the situation, which are far too tortuous. Indeed, I am conscious that a lot of hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to take too long on this point, but until a stadium is built in the east end, there will be no athletics venue in London for grand prix events other than Crystal Palace. Once a stadium is built in the east end, it is possible that it may continue as an athletics stadium after the Olympic games, but it sounds more likely that a football ground will be used. So London would be left yet again without a venue for grand prix athletic events.
There is a real need for the Government to make absolutely clear to Sport England what they see as the future of Crystal Palace, so that London is not faced with an interim situation in which there could be no grand prix athletics events at all between the end of this lease and the Olympics events and beyond. That is the crucial matter that the Government have to clarify, because I am sure that, without that pressure from the Government, Sport England will dither and duck and dive so that we may be left with no athletics for London held in London and no grand prix events.
I very much hope that the right hon. Lady and the Minister for Sport will take on board this constituency point, which, while it directly affects me and everybody in Bromley, is also key to the future of athletics provisions in London. It is also key to attracting the elite athletes, a group whom, with their investment in sport, they are trying to develop not just in London but throughout the rest of the country. If there is no venue, it will be a very sad day for athletics in London.
6.6 pm
Mr. Graham Stringer: I should like to make it clear that I believe that at some time in the future it would be right for this country to host the Olympic games. In many ways, I regret the advice that I shall give to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is not to support the British Olympic Association in its bid for the 2012 Olympics. I regret it not least because I formed many friendships with members of the BOA when they supported the previous two British bids for the Olympic games, in 1996 and 2000.
There are three prime reasons—one could have a longer debate and go into many more—why the Government should not, in the next two and a half weeks, rush into a bid for the 2012 Olympics. The first reason, which annoys me the most, although it is probably not the most important issue, is that every other time this country has decided to bid to host the Commonwealth games or the Olympic games there has been a national competition in which any city in the country that wanted to bid to host them could put its case forward and it would be considered by the Commonwealth Games Council for England or the British Olympic Association. On this occasion the British Olympic Association has decided that it can only be London. I find that completely unsatisfactory.
It may well be that, in competition and under examination, it turns out that London is the best bid. I doubt it, because over the past 18 years or so London has bid three times, twice to host the Olympic games and
634
once to host the Commonwealth games. Each time when the issues that are important to hosting the games—transport, legacy, the local political structures—have been examined, London has been found wanting. I believe that if the British Olympic Association organised that competition as it has in the past it would look at the political structures in London, which are defunct, look at the relationship between the Mayor of London and the Government, which are not good, and have second thoughts. It would examine the transport structure in London and find that it would be very difficult to host the Olympic games within London.
Mr. Banks: I would ask my hon. Friend to clarify the point about London having bid before. We had the Olympic games in 1908 and 1948, but I do not remember our being a bidding city. We might have been interested in becoming a bidding city, but it was at a time when we had no one to represent London at local government level, because the Conservative party had abolished the Greater London Council.
Mr. Stringer: I am sorry if I was not clear. London tried to be the bid city for both the 1992 and 2000 Olympic games, as well as the 2002 Commonwealth games. When its case was examined by the appropriate bodies, it was found wanting. Such an examination should have been undertaken on this occasion, not least to assure the Government and everybody else of the viability of the bid.
Tom Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the BOA did not receive advice that, from an international perspective, only London would have competitive status, or that that advice was wrong?
Mr. Stringer: I was going to come to the reason why the BOA made that decision after receiving advice on an IOC survey. Before I answer the hon. Gentleman, I advise my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to take seriously anything said by the Liberal Democrats in support of an Olympics bid, as they opposed holding the Commonwealth games in Manchester, even though they supported such a proposal in the Chamber. That is exactly the kind of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred.
On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the IOC conducted a survey in 1994 after the failure of a previous bid. IOC members, some of whom have since been sacked for corruption, found people who were willing to say that only London should be considered. Over the years, I have talked to IOC members, and a body of them holds that view. There is also a body holding the opposite view—six of the last eight cities chosen to host the Olympic games have not been capitals. The most important power of IOC members is their power to choose a bidding city, and they do not tell the absolute truth when asked which city they will support. The voting population is 100 or so, but when we talk to bidding cities we find that their votes add up to about 500.
The Government are mainly interested in the issue of whether London and Britain can win the bid. I do not believe that they can, partly for the reasons that I have already given. It was a mistake not to hold a competition

635
for other parts of the country to bid, and it is now difficult to get them to back an Olympics bid. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham—if we spend the public money envisaged by the Government, that sum is almost guaranteed to double. At a time when the health service, the transport system and the criminal justice system are not perfect, within six months of a bid many people will say that the money spent on it and the facilities required should have been spent on health. One of the enormous strengths of the Manchester bid was the fact that, until the very last minute, when the Government put in £30 million and Manchester city council put in £30 million, we did not use ratepayers' or council tax payers' money—that advantage will be absent from a London bid.
It has been assumed in our debate that the successful bid will come from a European city. Toronto and New York made increased television rights part of their case, so it is highly likely that many IOC members will be seduced by the prospect of having more money. Atlanta, not the most attractive city in the world, managed to win the 1996 bid basically because of the television rights it offered. The value of such rights is always higher when the Olympics are held in US time zones.
There has never been a time when British sport has had a weaker position in international sport's corridors of power. A small number of people make and have influence over decisions. We have two members of the IOC but, as far as I know, we do not have a single officer in international sporting federations for any of the recognised sports in the summer games, which puts us in a weak position, particularly when combined with the legacy of bad feeling after Picketts Lock and the bid for the world athletics championship. On that occasion, we promised to do something, but failed to do it, and that is remembered.
It is also remembered that, apart from at the Commonwealth games, we have not performed at that level for many years. We have been going backwards. It is false logic to say that because we organised the Commonwealth games in Manchester very well, we can also organise the Olympic games well in London. That logic does not follow when we look at the different projects that have taken place in London: the Wembley fiasco, Picketts Lock and the dome, for example. Those projects were not supported nationally, and they have given us a bad reputation internationally, in the case of two of them, and nationally in the case of all three. There is a long discussion to be had about whether we could win the vote. I do not believe that we can, at our current strength in international sport and with our recent legacy.
I realise that my final point will not be popular with hon. Members from London. If London represents the best bid, which has not been proved, we also have to ask ourselves whether the bid is a national priority. The Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), regularly tells us about regional disparities, and about the fact that London is, with the possible exception of Luxembourg, the richest region in Europe, while every other English region performs below the European average. If we are going to put investment into east London over and above the investment that would naturally occur, when more public money per head already goes into London than anywhere else, will that make regional disparities
636
greater or will it lessen them? Frankly, I do not believe that spending what may well be £10 billion in London is a national priority when we have those regional disparities. If London is the answer to that level of investment, it is a very strange question.
6.17 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I must confess that I instinctively support the enthusiasm shown in the positive comments about sport made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I am a keen sports fan and, without going too far down memory lane—I could not go as far as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen)—I, too, recall the first time that I came to London to watch a sporting event. It was the Ashes test match at Lords in 1972, and it has left me with a very positive approach towards sport over the past 30 years. I am sure that that experience is replicated by millions of schoolboys and schoolgirls.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). We must take a hard-nosed view of this issue and I know that he, too, is a keen sports fan. One might ask how any London Member of Parliament could possibly oppose these plans, but we have to ask whether this is a realistic proposition, or whether there is a great danger that, in spending the £13 million to £30 million that it would cost simply to put a bid together, we might be throwing good money after bad.
We have seen the story of the London Olympics bid in recent weeks, and, as ever in recent London governance, it has been a shameful mix of Mayor Livingstone's grandstanding and central Government's dissembling over their financial obligations—to the capital, at least. Of course, the Mayor desperately needs a PR win. He has an election of his own to run within the next 18 months, and there has been an apparent lack of delivery in the two and a half years he has held office. Transport is in a desperate state, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) rightly pointed out that Crossrail is key to what we are trying to achieve in London. Above all, the Mayor sees this as a way of distracting attention from his own failures with a prestige bid, but we should not be fooled. This is opportunism masquerading as vision. Rather like King Midas in reverse, anything that Mayor Livingstone has touched has tended to turn to dust.
I know that we have all tried to have a positive outlook in this debate but, without being over-critical, I believe that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has lived up to its reputation as one of the most monumentally useless Departments of Government. Its lack of clout means that the Treasury's view prevails too often. An Olympics bid would detract from other sporting priorities. I was sorry that the Secretary of State put the dampers on by saying that schools, hospitals and transport could suffer. I should like to believe that that would not happen. However, other sporting priorities throughout the United Kingdom would inevitably suffer if we won the bid.
Many hon. Friends drew attention to the great worry that the Treasury appears to have changed the financial goalposts several times in recent weeks. The initial report suggested a subsidy of approximately £495 million. Even on the Secretary of State's figures, that sum has increased to £2.5 billion, possibly rising.

637
After the Wembley fiasco and, perhaps more important, the Picketts Lock debacle, when financial squabbling resulted in our being forced to give up the 2005 world athletics championships, we must ask whether there is a realistic chance of winning a 2012 Olympics bid in the next two years. We cannot assume that the International Olympic Committee has suffered collective amnesia.
I am worried that the Government want to get out of a hole and are keen to find a pretext, as the Secretary of State showed today. We must wait and see what happens in the Cabinet discussions in a fortnight. The Government would ideally like to find a financial or, at worst, logistical reason to walk away from the bid. Perhaps the decision will depend on the "win-ability test", whatever that means. The Secretary of State did not make that any clearer during her comments.
Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman personally in favour of bidding for the Olympics? Is he expressing unequivocal support for Conservative Front-Bench Members' positive view of a bid?
Bob Russell: The Secretary of State refused to say whether the Government supported the bid.
Mr. Field: It is a rare occasion on which I take advice from the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), but he is right. I have spoken for five minutes; the Secretary of State's speech was six times as long, yet we did not get an answer to the question that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) asked.
I personally support making a bid, and I should like the Olympics to take place in London. However, I am worried about "win-ability" or other tests. If we have no viable, realistic chance of winning, there is little point in making the bid. We need leadership, support and vision, unfortunately not from the Conservative party but from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Reed: I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points, but the matter comes down to a crucial question, which the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman should answer. At what level does the cost become unacceptable—£2 billion or perhaps £5 billion? I support the bid, but there must be a cut-off point at which it becomes too expensive; the Government cannot write a blank cheque. Has the hon. Gentleman any views on what that figure should be?
Mr. Field: That is a fair point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency contains this country's economic powerhouse. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) pointed out that even in depressed economic times, London tends to provide a net output of £15 billion to £20 billion. That contribution alone probably means that we should run with the bid if there is a realistic chance of success.
Clearly, the tourism benefits could be huge. A conservative estimate is £750 million. The benefits for my constituency, which contains the west end and its hotel trade, would be enhanced not only during the Olympics but before and after the games.
638
However, it would be best for the Government either to commit themselves wholeheartedly to a bid for 2012 or to take the longer-term view of making a bid sometime in the future. Much depends on who wins the 2012 Olympics. If the winner is a non-European country, London would be in the running for 2016. Above all, I hope that Ministers, not only in the Department but throughout the Government, and especially in the Treasury, commit themselves to spending the next four years in the run-up to any formal bidding procedure improving London's infrastructure, especially its transport. Only then can Londoners be confident that our city is worthy of being home to the global showcase that we are considering.
6.24 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I wonder why we spent five years on Wembley, which we were told would be both a football and an athletics stadium, given that we may now have a new stadium in the east end of London. I find that extraordinary.
This morning, Sir Steven Redgrave said something to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that struck me. He said that if London does host the games, many cities and towns in Britain will be partners in that project. We could put the Japanese team in Sunderland, which built the Japanese imperial navy and is now home to Nissan. As a result, five or six years of cultural and artistic activity could be established in Sunderland. Peter the Great came to Chatham, which is near my constituency, to discover how to build a modern navy, so we could create Russian events there. The whole of Britain could be partner to a London bid that is in fact a British bid.
Sir Steven also pointed out that the British Olympic Association spent £1 million on building a brilliant rowing centre on the gold coast to win more gold medals than we have ever won before. Look what that did for Brisbane, even though the games were actually held in Sydney. The games would have a regenerative impact on the whole of Britain, because the overseas Olympic associations—of which there are more than 150—will ask us to build first-class facilities, not all of which could be sited in London. We should therefore bear it in mind that this is not just a London bid.
I am not sure why we need a stadium that can hold 80,000 people. Can the Minister confirm whether that figure relates just to the opening and closing ceremonies? As I said this morning, on 31 December 1999, 300,000 people were in The Mall, and some 3 million people were in London, to celebrate the millennium in the most spectacular way. We could bring a new buzz to the Olympic movement by changing the way in which the opening and closing ceremonies are conducted. We could celebrate the ceremonies by holding them among our people. I see no reason why we cannot twin with every city that has hosted the Olympics, and have an opening ceremony for them as well. We have the most amazing technology, so we can do all that. We could bring a different pizzazz and feel to an Olympic bid.
If we do not need a stadium that can hold 80,000 people, perhaps it would be better to build a smaller one. That would give West Ham United the chance to move, or enable athletics to make such a stadium its home. I should like confirmation of the 80,000 figure.

639
Wherever the games might be held, I wonder whether we might nick a few names to make the bid sexier. Instead of saying that it will be held in the east end of London, we could say that it will be held in "the royal city" or "the Olympic city". Perhaps we just need to brand the bid differently. At the moment, what we are saying is rather boring, and the bid needs to rise in our estimation. Have we considered putting an ambassador for sport in our Swiss embassy? FIFA and the IOC, the bodies responsible for the major sporting events, are based in Switzerland, and we need to be at that table. We no longer have political clout on the world's sporting bodies, and we need to get it back. I repeat that we should consider putting an ambassador specifically for sport in our embassy in Berne.
On the question of the best site, I take a deep breath and suggest that there is perhaps an alternative site. If the Government tick the idea that we should bid, I hope that they will allow an alternative bid from north Kent. [Interruption.] Hold on—hear me out. I have talked to Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the leader of Kent county council. Three weeks ago, the Audit Commission gave Kent county council premier league status. Kent should be allowed to open discussions with the Government, because if its bid were accepted, there would be a single owner, rather than having to involve the Greater London Authority and four boroughs as co-hosts. We must consider organisation. The recent Commonwealth games worked because Manchester city council owned them. If the GLA is not prepared to own the Olympic games, they will not work. I want us to take a deep breath and allow Kent to make an alternative bid.
Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wyatt: No, I will not give way.
In the next couple of weeks, an education paper will be published. Many of the university colleges in London are in a mess, and many do not have student accommodation. The need to provide accommodation in the event of a successful Olympic bid gives us the opportunity to give Imperial college, University college, or Queen Mary college a new campus site. After the games, students could use that accommodation. We would need to find a working campus after the games, and the greatest legacy that we could provide would be to give Imperial college university status, and the chance to be as good as the great Massachusetts institute of technology.
We cannot do these things in two weeks. We cannot bully the Government into saying on 31 January, "Okay, we are going to bid." We need to look rationally at the alternatives and the costs of the investment.
How do we cost the bid? I have a couple of ideas. In July 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor created what he called a domesday book. What is in it? I could probably find £1 billion by privatising Channel 4, and another £4 billion by privatising BBC 1. I am sure that the book contains 10 properties worth at least £1 billion.
The Wall street market is up 20 per cent. this week. It is said that if that market rises in the first week of January, it will end the next year another 20 per cent. higher. The City of London is recovering too, so the price of projects from the Chancellor's domesday book would be higher than what could be achieved at present. I should like some of what is listed in the book to be costed.
640
Who will own the games? As I said, a bid from north Kent would mean that there was only one owner. That should be taken into consideration.
Finally, the Select Committee noted in its 1999 report on international events that such events require a Minister of Cabinet rank. That is most important: we used to have half a Minister acting in that role with the present Minister for Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and he did a fantastic job. We need someone else to do the same job.
I want us to bid for the Olympics. I do not think that we have an alternative on 30 or 31 January, but we must be careful about rationalising the costs and looking at the opportunities open to us.
6.31 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Both personally and as deputy chairman of the all-party sports committee, I am totally and unequivocally in favour of a 2012 bid. I was delighted by the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by the support that he received from all the Conservative Members who have spoken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, that contrasted strikingly with the downbeat way in which the Secretary of State read from her brief. She accentuated the negative: if that was her being enthusiastic, I should hate to hear her damn something with faint praise. If she is meant to be a champion of sport, I am fearful of what the Cabinet will do.
I want to accentuate the positive in my speech. Hon. Members of all parties know of my passion for sport. I was never fortunate enough to be able to compete in an Olympic games, but I was lucky enough to do quite a lot of competitive swimming in my teens, including at international level. My coach was Charlie Wilson, who took the British swimming team to the 1972 Olympics and who remained involved in international swimming through 1976. I was lucky enough to host him at this House only a few weeks ago, after his recent recovery from a stroke. He is long past normal retirement age, but still coaches swimmers.
The captain of my swimming club, the Bedford Modernians, was the captain of the British Olympic swimming team at the 1972 games. I have seen what Olympians can do, as have all those in the House and outside it who have worked with them. I have seen the enormously positive effects that sport can have in turning around people's lives. That cannot be measured on a balance sheet. One cannot measure the positives accruing to the Australians from the success of their Olympic games.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Before that Committee has started taking evidence, he has already told The Daily Telegraph that he opposes a UK bid. It is beyond me to know how he can separate his role as Select Committee Chairman from his personal opinions. It is scandalous that so much doom and gloom should come from leading Labour Members.
The Government have set certain tests. I hate the word "winnability", which is an abuse of the English language, but the Government are right to say that there

641
would have to be a legacy from the games. We must also look at the financing that would be necessary from now on.
The Government say that they do not want to bid unless they can win, and that they cannot fix the result. The Prime Minister is the antithesis of Bob the Builder—with him it is not, "Can we fix it? Yes, we can", but, "Can we fix it? No, I don't think so, so let's not go in for it." The Prime Minister should not approach the matter in that way. He is worried about his place in history, but if the bid were made and won, the games would not be held until long after his time. He is really worried about making an unsuccessful bid in what may well turn out to be an election year.
All Members must be very conscious of the fact that far more people in this country care about sport than about politics. None of us should forget people's passion for sport and the good that it can do in turning the young away from the drugs subculture, encouraging them to keep fit, reducing obesity and saving money for the health service. Such benefits cannot be valued in the Red Book. It is vital that we give proper weight to those factors as well as so-called winnability.
In the few moments I have left now that our speaking time has been reduced, I want to mention extra ways in which funds can be raised. I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that we should think of Olympic successes, starting with Los Angeles, and the amount of additional money that has been put into tourism as a result. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that the costs always go up and the income figures always prove to be inflated, but that is not true: although the costs tend to increase with inflation, estimates of the income generated by recent Olympic events have been too low.
Various commentators have drawn attention to sources of income that have not even been considered in the Government's report. The possibility of re-energising the lottery through money provided by a successful Olympic bid should not be underestimated. The columnist and distinguished former editor, Donald Trelford, has pointed out that, unfortunately, the lottery has lost £1 million a week because of controversial—and, in my view, wrong-headed—decisions that allowed the community fund to provide grants for things that were not worthy of grants. But if we said that the lottery would support a successful British Olympic bid, it could indeed be re-energised.
There is a lot of business support out there. The London bid for 2012 has already received support from the London Business Board, a coalition consisting of CBI London, the London chamber of commerce and industry and London First. Unprecedentedly, those bodies have sent the Prime Minister a joint letter pointing out that the bid represents a "unique opportunity" for London. They say:
"The Government's wholehearted commitment to the bid is essential. To be successful requires central, London and local government to work together effectively as a team throughout the bidding and implementation stages. Business is keen to play its part. To gain business's full support, we must be wholly engaged in the development process from now on."
A DCMS official spokesman has told the press, "We are worried. What the Government is keen to avoid is starting with a low figure and then seeing it rise
642
dramatically so people end up thinking, 'Oh Christ, where is the money coming from?'" Apart from the fact that that is a disgraceful thing for a Government spokesman to say to the press, I think that we can give answers on where the money is coming from. It can come from business and from re-energisation of the lottery.
Let me end with a constituency point. Only one venue would be the same in the 2012 Olympics as it was in 1948. The only place where the Olympic shooting event could happen is Bisley, a range that is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
It is vital that we take at face value the words of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). An Olympic bid can help the whole country, including my constituency, which would be one of the venues. I unequivocally support the bid; I only wish the Government showed real signs of doing so as well, but I do not think that they do.
6.38 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am enthusiastic about the bid, but I think the hon. Gentleman did its prospects no favours with his weasel words attacking my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which they have conducted the debate and the discussions in Government. I think they were entirely right to visit countries that have hosted the Olympics in the past and to assess the benefits, and I also think they have been entirely and consistently clear about the criteria they would use to decide whether a bid should go ahead.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I do not support the case for north Kent or indeed the case for Manchester. I am a passionate supporter of the case for London, which would accelerate the regeneration of east London—so long the poor relation of our capital. It would stimulate new investment in housing, which London and the south-east desperately need. It would also stimulate new investment in transport capacity and sporting facilities, which the Commonwealth games helped deliver for Manchester.
Before the last election, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published an excellent report on the decline of swimming in the United Kingdom, highlighting the decline in the number of swimming pools in London. Holding the Olympic games here would help generate investment in grass-roots sporting facilities, which London is crying out for.
Above all, the case for holding the Olympic games in London rests on the prospect of huge benefits to British business, from engineering and construction to tourism and conference industries. It would provide a powerful opportunity to stimulate new pride in London and Britain and to foster a new sense of ambition for many of the communities that would benefit directly from the Olympic games.
I recognise that the case for a London bid is finely poised and that the most obvious argument against it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, is the cost. There are a number of estimates—will it cost £1.8 billion,

643
£2.5 billion, £4.5 billion or even £5.4 billion, which I saw flagged up in The Sunday Times only this week? The one financial appraisal made, which has been conducted by Arup, estimates that the net cost of holding the Olympic games here would be half a billion pounds. I am not an accountant, and I am not an advocate for Arup. Its figures may be underestimated, but those who criticise the Arup report should publish their assessment of why Arup has it so badly wrong. If Arup is wrong about the costs, it may also be wrong about the benefits of the games. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), Sydney benefited from £2 billion-worth of in-bound tourism and the net economic impact of the games on Barcelona was some £11 billion.
It is worth stating that Arup did not carry out its analysis in an ivory tower but before a reference group, which included some hard-headed civil servants from the Treasury, no less. Its analysis includes considerable cost overruns in the last three years when most of the construction work would take place. It is also worth highlighting the fact that the highest costs will inevitably be for the infrastructure—the stadiums, the swimming pools and warm-up tracks that will be necessary for the Olympic games to take place. However, those facilities offer a benefit long before and long after the Olympic games take place.
Some people, thinking of Picketts Lock and Wembley, fear that London cannot get its act together and deliver the games. However, London agencies regularly work together to deliver ceremonial and sporting events, and proper facilities for our tourists. To be fair to Manchester, the fact that the games held there were so successful is a powerful reminder that Britain could bid successfully for and deliver the Olympic games.
I agree strongly with the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. We need a Minister for international events, of Cabinet rank, to organise the bid and work alongside Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Manchester showed, albeit on a smaller scale, that the UK can be appealing.
The worst argument that I have heard against an Olympic bid is the suggestion that London—and, implicitly, Britain—does not need the Olympics. We are, after all, one of the world's great cities already and, unlike Sydney, we do not need to use the games to advertise the benefits of our city, because tourists flood here already. According to this argument, east London needs regeneration but the Olympic games would simply confuse or delay the plans that are already in place. Proud Londoner that I am, I think that such an argument reeks of complacency about our city. In a global culture, where information, money, jobs and business are moving in and out of countries ever more easily, the idea that we should pass up the opportunity to showcase our capital and our country to a massive international audience at their time of maximum receptiveness to the case for London and for the UK seems little short of lunacy. The Government could make no greater statement of intent about the case for regenerating east London than to launch a bid for the Olympic games.
644
There are people who say, rightly, that we might not win the bid and that New York may stand a better chance, given the emotion generated after 11 September, and the financial case that could be made. Paris, too, may have a better chance than us. The competition will certainly be tough. We may not win but we have a realistic chance of doing so; no less a figure than Jacques Rogge, the head of the International Olympic Committee, has made that clear. We may not start as favourite in the bidding competition but, given the British media's love of building a pedestal for its favourite projects or people and then tearing it down, perhaps that is no bad thing.
We need to be realistic with the people of Stratford, London and the wider UK about the prospects for an Olympic bid. A well planned, albeit unsuccessful, bid could still help to accelerate investment and regeneration in a part of the UK that has been crying out for that for much of the past 30 years. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will succeed in persuading the Cabinet to back the bid.
6.46 pm
Mr. John Randall: One of the facts of life on the Opposition Benches is that we always seem to be opposing things. Being negative sometimes gets depressing so it is a great pleasure for me to endorse something enthusiastically. An advantage of being called at this late stage of the debate is that although I am short of time most of what I wanted to say has already been said.
I shall briefly reiterate what the Olympics would mean not only for London but for the country more widely. An important aspect of the bid is that it would give us a deadline for dealing with some of the problems in London—on law and order or transport. We keep talking about all those problems, but nothing seems to happen. If there were a deadline, we could finally sort them out.
The Paralympics were mentioned. All the facilities generated by a successful bid would be replicated for disabled people. They would come to this country from all over the world and that would give us the opportunity to ensure that our facilities in London and elsewhere were up to scratch and were the best in the world. We should flag up the importance of the Paralympics.
I do not want to echo the comments about the Secretary of State sounding downbeat on the radio, because she has been enthusiastically nodding throughout the debate, to show that she really loves the whole concept and will put everything into it. Of course, I do not blame her for sounding downbeat. The trilogy of Picketts Lock, the millennium dome and Wembley is a little depressing and gives the impression that the Department cannot even run a bath.
There are some successes, however: the Millennium stadium in Wales, for example. The bid would be an opportunity for London and for the whole country. Football matches would be held throughout the country—apart, I think, from Northern Ireland because there is not a big enough stadium there.
There will be opportunities for tourism. With our skills in that industry, I am sure that once people arrive in this country for the Olympics we will be able to persuade them to travel throughout the country.

645
I am most enthusiastic about what the bid will do for our young people. We need to get a culture of sport under way and ensure that it brings fresh impetus to sport in schools and elsewhere.
As we know, the lottery has lost some of its popularity. I like the idea that the bid might bring some excitement back to the lottery and get the nation behind it again. I have pride in my country and in London—my city—but the Olympics would be an advertisement for British business and expertise and for the British people.
I am rather worried by the word "winnability". When athletes go out to compete—whether they are disabled or able-bodied—are they really thinking about winnability? Do they say that they will not enter because they may not win? They go out to try to win because they believe in themselves.
Of course, we must consider the bid carefully, because we cannot rush around spending lots of money. However if we do not go ahead with the bid, that will show an incredible lack of ambition by this country. It would be an opportunity wasted.
6.50 pm
Kevin Brennan: If being a new Member making a speech were an Olympic event, it would be a sprint. We always speak at the end of the debate and we do not have much time.
I am not a London Member of Parliament; I represent a seat in the capital of Wales. However, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of the bid for London to hold the Olympic games, for a number of reasons. The first is that Britain has not held the Olympic games since 1948. It is about time we did. Secondly, the bid has the potential to bring benefits to London, as many hon. Members have said, and to the whole country. Thirdly, I am pretty sick and tired of the country's growing reputation for not being capable of organising world-class events. We should be able to take on the challenge and to do it with enthusiasm and effectively. We can win the bid.
This country has held world events in recent years. The Commonwealth games are mentioned very frequently, but the rugby world cup has been ignored. It was held in 1999, with the final in Cardiff. The event was spread around the country and to Ireland and France. It was hugely successful and showed that this country can hold world-class events. I am not suggesting that the Olympic games are not much larger than the rugby world cup, but the evidence is that we can host such events if we get our act together. It can be done.
We should, however, be clear about one or two issues. Despite Manchester's laudable ambitions and the bids that it has made in the past, I seriously believe that no Olympic bid from Britain would be successful unless it were a bid from London. Ironically, that is also a weakness. Many Members have pointed to the weaknesses in London, not least the political weaknesses in the lack of cohesion between the Mayor of London and the Government. The failure of Britain to hold the 2005 world championships in London also represents a serious handicap. We must try to overcome it by bidding for events such as the Olympic games.
646
I believe that the bid for the world championships went wrong mainly because people gave in to the football lobby over Wembley stadium. It will be a huge white elephant unless it finds a tenant, as it will cost £700 million to build. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about the Millennium stadium, it is becoming a millennium millstone round the neck of the Welsh Rugby Union and it nearly bankrupted Laing's construction division. Although it cost more, the Welsh Rugby Union paid only £100 million for it, and £46 million of that came from the lottery. However, the debt on the stadium, even with the low interest rates that we have now, is already a millstone round the neck of the Welsh Rugby Union. It is actively considering selling the stadium.
The cost of Wembley stadium and the debt that will be carried on it will be huge. As I have argued all along, a Stade de France option should have been chosen for Wembley, as such a stadium could then have been used to host an Olympic games. If we are building an athletic stadium for the Olympic games in London, it is vital that it will provide a legacy and can be used by a football club afterwards; otherwise an 80,000-capacity athletic stadium will become a huge white elephant. Let us make sure that that point is built into the plans.
Despite that warning and despite what I have said about the Millennium stadium, it has proved a huge success. It is important that we remember the economic regeneration impact and benefit that can be brought to London and to other parts of the country by a London Olympic bid. I hope that rugby—perhaps its seven-a-side version—will be in the Olympics by 2012. Along with other events such as football, rugby could be played around the country. The competing teams will need training facilities around the country and I hope that some of them will base themselves in south Wales and in other parts of the country. However, I want to make it clear that, even if there were no direct economic spin-off to my constituents, as a Member of the UK Parliament I would support a bid for this country to hold an Olympic games.
Several people have been mentioned during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) mentioned Sir Steven Redgrave in his very clever little name-drop during the debate. Well, I want to drop in a name that many people may not have heard of before. [Interruption.] The Whip is waving at me, but I will finish this point. Before Sir Steven Redgrave, Britain's greatest Olympian was undoubtedly Paul Radmilovic. I see nods of recognition around the Chamber. He was born in Cardiff; won four Olympic gold medals and competed in five Olympic games if the interim games of 1906 are included. He would have competed in two more if Britain had bothered to enter the 1904 games in St. Louis and if it had not been for the first world war. He won three gold medals for water polo and another gold medal in the four by 200 m freestyle relay. We have heard a lot about swimming, and, in the spirit of Paul Radmilovic, I wish to say that he would not shilly-shally about our bidding to hold an Olympic games in Britain. He won two gold medals at the 1908 games in London. Let us have an Olympic games here in 2012.
6.56 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: This has been an excellent debate, although a little curtailed by the time allotted. We welcome the Government's decision to hold this debate on a very important issue, and we look forward eagerly to the Government's decision in a few weeks' time.
I should like to reiterate the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in his excellent speech. Although he pointed out some of the difficulties, he was positive and bullish about an Olympic bid and its likely success. That view is shared by all in the shadow DCMS team. It is still not clear, however, where the Government stand on this issue. Perhaps the Minister can come a little closer in his winding-up speech to mirroring my hon. Friend's enthusiasm.
Several hon. Members commented on the Secretary of State's rather downbeat contribution. That may have been because of her delivery or body language, but I am sure that she will want to give a slightly different impression from that which she gave. Indeed, with so many doubts being raised in her contribution, and with only two and a half weeks before a decision will be taken, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) feared that a negative decision had, in fact, already been made. That view was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who bemoaned the impression of a "can't do", rather than a "can do" or, better still, "will do" mentality.
Most hon. Members spoke positively and supportively, none more so that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). The negative contributions came from northern Members, such as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), both of whom challenged the costing and the provision of adequate infrastructure and housing.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley went even further and challenged head on the accepted wisdom that London is the only possible location. Although his idea of holding a competition between London and other centres for the privilege of bidding for the 2012 Olympics has some merit, no doubt the Minister will confirm in his winding-up speech the Government's view that London is their only realistic choice on grounds of winnability alone.
There is no question among Conservative Members but that London is indeed the one and only location. We were grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his support. He represents a northern constituency, but he recognises that London is indeed the only viable location throughout the United Kingdom.
Other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), emphasised the fact that the United Kingdom's bid would be not just London-centric, but would involve many other regions and cities in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale emphasised the knock-on effect of investment in sporting facilities across the board and throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South primarily supported London's bid in his contribution, particularly because of the opportunity that it will
648
afford regeneration in the city. However, he referred to the role of the Mayor of London, who appears to have adopted a slightly ambiguous position. He says that he is for the bid, but he seems keener on the parallel improvements to transport and housing infrastructure. Perhaps the Minister will clarify in replying to the debate the significance, as he sees it, of the relationship between the Government and the mayor and whether the current political difficulties represent a hindrance or a benefit.
The Secretary of State referred in her comments on funding for a bid to the potential distortion of other areas of Government spending, and implied that if the choice were between money for schools and hospitals versus an Olympic bid, there would be only one outcome. In addition, she implied that the sporting community may have to adjust its spending priorities to accommodate an Olympic bid. That view was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). Both expressed incredulity that, given the huge importance of the Olympic bid for the nation as a whole, the Government were not prepared to commit their resources fully to the success of that bid. Will the Minister confirm the Government's position on that when he winds up the debate? If the Government decide to back the bid, will they finance that independently of other investment in sport?
Mr. Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: I am afraid that I do not have enough time.
On costings, a number of contributors, including the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), alluded to the underestimates, as they described them, of the Arup report. The question is: why does such a large discrepancy exist between the figures from Ove Arup and those from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? On the one hand, it is £1.8 billion, while on the other, it is £4.5 billion to £5 billion. It is pertinent to ask the Minister to clarify which model is being used in the calculation, particularly in his Department. Are we comparing like with like in this instance? Why should we give greater credence to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's figures, which are worked up by civil servants with little or no experience in analysis of this kind? Given that only a few weeks remain before a decision is taken, it is imperative that we have figures that are universally accepted as accurate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, it is now time for the Government to make up their mind. It seems inconceivable to the Opposition that the Government could turn down this opportunity, given the case made in this debate alone in relation to regeneration in London, the economy as a whole, future tourism, the country's pride in its sporting achievements, the knock-on effects in terms of sport infrastructure and facilities, and the health and wellbeing of the nation as a whole. We want the Government's decision to be yes, and we want the full weight of Government, right up to the steps of No. 10 Downing street, to be thrown behind a bid. We believe that we can win, and if we believe that, we will win.
7.2 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): First, I want to thank the 17 Members who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. It has been an excellent debate, and we can infer from the interventions that have been made that a consensus exists to move forward, which will be taken into account by the Cabinet in making the decision.
Some of the comments made in the House this afternoon have been unfortunate, as we are genuinely trying to make sure that the we engage the House properly in the decision-making process on a serious matter that will have an impact for the next decade. If the Cabinet agree to go forward, and our bid is successful, it will concentrate a lot of minds and involve a lot of expense, and I hope that there will be a degree of unity in the House to support that. I genuinely welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said that he would be very supportive and called for the whole House, the population outside and the media to get behind the bid, if the decision is taken to make it.
That is why I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is about time we changed the way we make these major decisions: not by having a fancy dress parade around the country, but by having serious dialogue and discussion. If we had done that in relation to many major projects in the past, some very expensive mistakes, which have been made by Administrations of both parties, would not have been made. When we say that we are strategy driven, not events driven, it is important that we mean it. What has become clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary and State and me as we have visited many of the cities that have staged the games is that an exit strategy must be in place. Consequently, when the games are finished—they all finish on a high—the infrastructure can be used in a sustainable way for sport or other activities, thereby providing added value. That is what the debate is all about. It will feed into further discussions, as we said in the PIU report, because the Olympic games are the mega-event.
Let me say at the outset that although people have tried to undermine the Department, it has used its power to engage in a partnership. I want to thank the British Olympic Association and the Mayor's office for coming together to fund the first cost-benefit analysis—the Arup report—which has formed the basis of our debate. Indeed, we have gone further than that. We have again engaged the BOA and the Mayor's office to discuss the differences in the figures. They are with their professionals at the moment working out the differences and ensuring that the terms and costs that go to the Cabinet represent a shared view of the tripartite.
I can go further than that and make an offer: the official Opposition spokesmen can see the Arup report and how we evaluated the figures. If we are to move in partnership and bat for UK Ltd., we all have to understand our approach. Unfortunately, one or two hon. Members made glib remarks. We could all do that, but we are trying to act in a partnership, within the terms of the modernisation of the House, so that we act in unison for UK Ltd.
We have held discussions with the IOC and its new president, Jacques Rogge. He is an extremely honourable man and it is clear that he wants to
650
modernise the Olympic movement. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, he has returned to its fundamental principles. The president wants to remove the tarnished image of the Olympics. I hope that with our support he will be successful. Part of the modernisation is to make the games manageable so that most countries can run them. What Jacques Rogge is doing is right and I hope that his efforts will yield results by 2005, when the bid is made.
As I cannot address all the issues raised, I shall cover the main points. On the cost, no modern Olympics has taken place without a subsidy by the host country except the Los Angeles games, which came on the back of the Montreal games. The Los Angeles games used existing facilities and little capital. However, they received a heavy subsidy from the IOC, which wanted to ensure that the games after Montreal did not go into bankruptcy and again bring the IOC and the movement into disrepute. So every Olympic games except Los Angeles has received a state subsidy.
We are working through the broad figures with the BOA and the Mayor's office in a constructive way. It is Arup's view that the games will cost £3.6 billion and that the revenue will be £2.5 billion. That leaves a subsidy of £1.1 billion. As a result of the uncertainty over the 10 years, we have revisited the figures in a realistic, not a destructive, way. We have gained experience from the dome, Wembley, Picketts Lock and Manchester. We could also put Silverstone into the pot. Hon. Members who said that the civil servants in my Department do not have the necessary skills should retract that allegation. My civil servants are very skilful in such matters. We have taken their advice and revisited the figures to ensure that the Cabinet is given sound information. Our officials have worked out that the games would need a subsidy of £2.5 billion. We are working through that with the BOA, which challenged the figures to some extent, and I hope that we will agree a position that we can present to the Cabinet.
It is not for the BOA or the Government to decide the size of the stadium. That is a matter for the IOC and it is one thing that Jacques Rogge will investigate. There was some discussion at the last bidding process about whether we needed an 80,000 seater stadium. It is debatable, but we will see what happens. We will bid according to criteria laid down by the IOC.
Those who say that Wembley could be used for the Olympics are not taking into consideration the extent of the games. The Olympics are the biggest sporting event in the world, and they could not take place at Wembley, even if we wanted them to, simply because the area could not accommodate the athletes. We must remember that these are the finest athletes in the world, so we could not stick them on the tube and tell them to get over to Wembley from accommodation that may be 20 miles away across London.
The aim of the Olympic park is to bring together the facilities so that the best athletes in the world have access to them, with minimum disruption, and can perform at the highest standard. Anyone who thinks that we can build an Olympic village in Wembley is wrong. We have considered that, and I think that it would be extremely difficult even to put a warm-up track around Wembley.

651
We must consider the size of the Olympics and what it entails. Apart from the number of athletes, there are 20-odd events, perhaps more.
Mr. Banks: More like 30-odd.
Mr. Caborn: That is right. There were 17 events in the Commonwealth games, which was one of the largest Commonwealth games ever run.
I turn now to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Ryedale about the opinion poll. The results of that have been given to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so that the Committee can consider them tomorrow. They show that 73 per cent. of respondents are in favour of the games, and that result is for people who were asked about the costs. In fact, about 81 per cent. of people support the bid, and I hope that people will consider that figure. Regional analysis of the poll results has been undertaken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton asked about the project costs. I know that the Select Committee has gone through Arup's costings, and I hope that when its report is completed, it will give us a view on Arup's realistic assessment. Tomorrow we will present the Committee with evidence about the development of facilities that is needed, and we will try to answer questions on transportation.
Departments are still in the process of realistically considering the potential problems and cost implications raised by Arup. We will work through those and make sure that the Cabinet has the necessary information when it comes to make a decision. That is the job of the DCMS, as the lead Department for sport, and nobody can say that the Secretary of State has not championed sport in the quest to host the Olympics.
As the lead Department, we also have a wider responsibility to the Government. It is our job to co-ordinate the partnership, outside the Government, with the BOA and the Mayor's department, and to try to convince our colleagues within the Government. Sometimes that takes a little quiet diplomacy and a little persuasion, and sometimes matters are better kept out of the press. I hope that when push comes to shove, the press will be behind us all the way, as I know that the Secretary of State will be behind us, all the way.
I say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that I, too, am wearing a tie. Mine is from Sapporo in Japan, where England beat Argentina. We both boast sporting ties this evening, but mine is more successful than his—at least we beat Argentina in Sapporo. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats, including those in local authorities, will remain consistent.
Bob Russell: It is the Government we are worried about.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman should not worry about the Government; he should worry about the Liberal Democrats. I hope that they will pass on the sense of partnership and unity in the House to their minions in local authorities who will, like their colleagues in Manchester, bash the hell out of the bid.
652
I have no doubt however that the comments of Opposition Members this evening were genuine. If we decide to make a bid, we accept that they will support it.
I assure hon. Members that we are working with the Mayor's office. In the event of our making a bid, it would be a red herring and a dangerous sign to send from the House that there were differences between us on the project. The partnerships that we have forged with the Greater London Authority, the Mayor's office and the City—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been working hard with City leaders and the Bank of England to make sure that we know the attitude of the private sector—will stand us in good stead. A message should not go out from the House that there are major differences of opinion. There are not. We are working together with those other bodies to make sure that if we do make a bid, there will be unanimity.
May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) that, in my opinion, his command of the French language is brilliant? What he said was true: one can know the price of everything and the value of nothing—
It being three hours after commencement of proceedings, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [7 January].
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am seriously concerned that Parliament is not being kept properly informed of very significant changes in Government policy.
Over the past few hours, it has become evident that the Government are planning to make a statement tomorrow on Government policy on missile defence. It is being reported already on the Press Association wires, and the written press is preparing to report in detail, that the Government are minded to accept the American request for the use of the Fylingdales base in Yorkshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I hope that you will share my concern that the announcement appears to be being made outside this place, instead of in this place as a courtesy to Members and to allow proper scrutiny.
If that were not enough, earlier today a written statement was issued on further contingency preparations being made for possible military action in the Gulf. Little was made explicit in that written statement, but it is being taken by the informed defence press to mean that that constitutes the final decision to deploy 7 Brigade and elements of 4th Armoured Brigade, possibly comprising as many as 20,000 men. Although the Government may have made no final decision about that deployment, it again seems that they are trying to smuggle announcements out to avoid embarrassment and proper scrutiny, instead of being honest with the British people, Parliament and the armed forces. Will you express this concern to the Government and ensure that we have proper statements tomorrow on both subjects?
Mr. Speaker: This is the first that I have heard of the matter and the complaints that the hon. Gentleman makes. The best thing that I can do for him is to investigate the matter. I will reply to him as soon as I can.

2012 Olympics Bid

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, Notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time—[Mr. Kemp.]

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr Norman Baker be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr David Chidgey be added.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  PETITION

    Arms Controls
    7.18 pm
    Rachel Squire: I am honoured to present a petition signed by 178 pupils of St. Columba's high school, Dunfermline, and organised by the school's Amnesty International youth group.
    The petition declares that the current arrangements for arms controls are in need of improvement, and that the United Kingdom Government need to display a more robust style of leadership on the issue. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to strengthen UK arms controls, make the export control system more open and accountable, and demonstrate robust international leadership in pushing for the adoption of tough regional and international controls on arms transfers.
    To lie upon the Table.

Public Services (Isle of Wight)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
7.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for offering me the opportunity to raise this subject in an Adjournment debate. Although the debate is about public services on the Isle of Wight, for reasons that will become apparent, I shall devote my speech almost entirely to health, and I thank the Minister for taking up the challenge.
I should like to acknowledge the hard work done by all those involved in the provision of health services on the island—and not only those at the front line, as the managers sometimes come in for undue criticism. I acknowledge with thanks the help that David Crawley and Graham Elderfield, respectively the managers of the primary care trust and of St. Mary's and the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS trust, have given to me in preparing for this debate.
I wanted to raise four issues—dentists, financial allocations, HealthFit, as it is called, and the King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst—but the Minister and I had a little outing over dentists earlier today and I do not propose to repeat it. I shall therefore start with island health funding. The question that concerns many people on the island is whether we are to live a hand-to-mouth existence in health funding or whether the funding formula will explicitly recognise the island's needs. In autumn 2000, the case was made for recognition of the island's particular needs and it was referred to ACRA—the advisory committee on resources action—on 23 August 2001. ACRA made recommendations that led to Ministers turning down our case for the island's specific needs, and we were notified of that decision on 19 December 2001.
I recognise that the Government are putting an extra £37 million into the Isle of Wight primary care trust over three years, as was announced on 11 December last year. However, is that a recognition of the island's explicit needs or merely part of a funding uplift that the Government are imposing generally? The basis of the argument that has been advanced, which is set out in more detail in the document "The Isle of Wight Health Economy: The Island Factor", dated September 2000, is that the Isle of Wight is an atypical health authority or PCT. Indeed, it is a unique health authority—or PCT—as it is, first, an island. Things cost more on the island because of the cost of transport. There are diseconomies of scale on the island that cannot he met by merger with an adjoining health authority. Secondly, we have a population of 125,000 most of the year round, which is swollen to 350,000 by tourism in the middle of the year. Thirdly, we are one of only two non-ambulance trusts with responsibility for ambulances. Fourthly, our boundaries are defined not by arbitrary and easily adjustable lines on maps, but by something that is rather more difficult to adjust—coastlines and cliffs. Travel to the mainland takes about one hour and 45 minutes from St. Mary's hospital in Newport to the Southampton hospitals, or one hour 15 minutes to St. Mary's in Portsmouth.
The manifestations of our needs are that we have more consultant posts per head of population because they are needed to provide 24-hour cover. We have an

655
increased cost of specialist residential care. For example, when patients go to the mainland for cancer treatment, they need to stay at the Abbey unit in Southampton. In their condition, they are unable to take two sea journeys a day, five days a week for up to six weeks. That is an additional cost, and there are additional costs in running the ambulance service. Of course, there is also unused capacity. It was estimated in 2000 that those additional costs, which are unique to the island, amounted to between £2.4 million and £2.8 million.
I recognise that the Government may argue that those costs have been met in 2003 to 2006, but I ask the Minister to confirm whether those needs are explicitly met in the funding allocation formula for PCTs or whether it is merely a matter of luck. If they are explicitly met, how has the formula been changed to take that into account?
The assumption underlying our argument is not like those for Scottish islands or remote rural parts of England, where there is a population of fewer than 30,000 or where there are road links to other hospitals. It is that 350,000 people in the summer and 125,000 in the winter must have an accident and emergency service, and therefore must have the 24-hour cover that supports that accident and emergency service, which has been described by the joint consultants committee of the BMA as acute medicine, acute surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, a full anaesthetic service, ITU, CCU and HDU, pathology and radiology, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. That is a basic minimum without which A and E cannot function effectively or, indeed, safely. The excess cost of having that was £1.4 million in 2000.
The island also runs its own ambulance service and has made great efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of that service. The cost of patient transport is not covered by other activities as it is in other areas. I am asking the Government to recognise the continuing need for the accident and emergency service, for patients on the island to be treated within that golden hour within which they need to be treated if they are to have a good chance of survival.
That brings me on to a proposal that emerged only last week from the strategic health authority. It is bringing forward proposals which, if implemented, would undermine the argument that there is a minimum "must have" provision for the population as I have described. Last week it published Healthfit, a set of proposals with the effect of reducing from five to three the number of district general hospitals in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
I recognise, of course, the continuing need to obtain greater efficiency and improved patient care, but the health authority itself states:
"It is clear that further centralisation per se will not be tolerated by communities."
It proposes two primary care diagnostic and treatment centres with a range of functions, and it looks as though it is proposed that St. Mary's hospital in Newport should be one of those centres. Two sites would lose under those proposals—Winchester, which, of course, can speak for itself, and the Isle of Wight.
656
It is curious that the document states elsewhere:
"The issue of access in an emergency situation is particularly sharp for the…Isle of Wight."—
I certainly recognise that—
"However, the emerging view of the Healthfit event was that greater thought needs to be given to emergency access to the mainland rather than treating the Solent as a barrier".
Let us examine what the closure of accident and emergency services means. It means that 2,000 people in February and 3,000 in August would have to travel to the mainland accident and emergency services. Air ambulances at present are used about once a month. Emergency transfer by ambulance and ferry can be undertaken within 35 minutes, but what would the walking wounded do? What would those who do not need an ambulance do? What would happen when the ferry was fully booked? Would private cars be able to jump the queue if it were claimed that somebody needed accident and emergency treatment? What would happen at night, when ferries do not run for two hours and the high-speed service does not run at all? What about the occasions—only two or three days a year, perhaps—when the high-speed ferries are cancelled, and those occasions—fewer, but there are still some—when all ferries are suspended? That has to happen when there is a force seven gale or worse. As the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS trust has said,
"There have been several occasions in the past few weeks where ferries were unable to run and helicopters could not fly. Safe transportation of patients in a critical condition has been shown, through experience, to be difficult and the last option of choice."
Indeed, it is not an option of choice at all, as my constituents know to their cost.
What about maternity provision? I had the privilege of visiting the maternity unit at St. Mary's on the Friday before Christmas. The report says that a relatively small number of units offering the most high-tech care to women were required. In terms of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, it was suggested that two units at Southampton and Portsmouth would be sufficient. The group recognised the particular needs of the island, which it says will need careful thought. My reading of that proposal accords with that of the overwhelming majority of islanders. The Isle of Wight County Press described the report as "explosive". A packed meeting of the community health council last night rejected the proposals. The trust says that islanders
"will not take any change, meaning a reduction in services, lying down."
The strategic health authority obviously thinks that it is Moses and can make the seas part. I fear that it is more like Canute, because the islanders are not the children of Israel and accident and emergency services in Portsmouth are certainly not the promised land. If the Department of Health is really putting as much new money into the NHS as it says, the proposals should be unnecessary. Whether or not that is the case, they are unacceptable to my constituents and to me. I very much hope that they are unacceptable to the Minister, too.
Finally, I come to the receivership and possible closure of King Edward VII hospital, Midhurst. One hundred of my constituents were brought together at 24 hours' notice on Friday, and were joined by many more people today from across the south of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie),

657
I suspect, will seek to catch your eye in a moment, Mr. Speaker, to add to my comments. It was an appalling and terrible shock to hear that that fine hospital was in receivership on 30 December. The immediate reason is clear—the failure of NHS purchasers to offer dependable contracts. Patients and supporters on the Isle of Wight have been harrying me, quite rightly, since my election to prevent the cardiology contract being moved to Brighton. The primary care trusts reckoned that eight patients could be treated at King Edward VII for the same sum that could be used to treat 10 at Brighton, which has greater capacity. However, waiting times at King Edward VII were three months, but are six months or more at Brighton. Brighton only counts waiting times—this is idiosyncratic in the extreme, with one doctor describing it as scandalous—from the point of the first appointment with a consultant. Patients are now being sent to Oxford, Tooting and further afield. The PCT has to pay the trust from patients' choice funding to send the patients elsewhere, despite the fact that Brighton cannot fulfil its contract. Last Wednesday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said:
"The Government…believe in the NHS. It can become the service that we want it to be, offering more choice to patients over where and when they are treated, greater access to higher quality care and faster, more convenient treatment."—[Official Report, 8 January 2003; Vol. 397. c. 276–77.]
I asked him about King Edward VII—words came aplenty, but answer was there none. I shied away from expressing my view on the PCT's decision when it was made—after all, I have to live with its members and have no reason to distrust them. Now, however, I know of other business taken from King Edward VII by hospitals across the south of England, and can report the view of a doctor in my constituency, who told me on Monday that
"overwhelmingly, the motivation was political."
I cannot begin to understand why a hospital that was built and upgraded at no cost to the NHS is good enough for the NHS when the NHS fails to meet its waiting list targets, but not at other times. I cannot begin to understand why it is wrong for a PCT to make a contract with a hospital, but it is right for a trust to sub-contract to the same hospital. I cannot begin to understand why 400 opportunities for cardiac intervention a year are lost while my constituents are waiting—and one or two of them regrettably die on the waiting list.
Dr. Mark Connaughton, the heart doctor at St. Mary's hospital, Newport, told me:
"South coast hospitals simply cannot cope."
He said that King Edward VII is of
"good provenance…There is really no problem that would stop you referring patients there."
Most people who need cardiac intervention are old. They have paid into the NHS since its inception, yet in their hour of need they are told to wait, despite capacity being available. That is quite simply something that neither they nor I can understand. I hope that if the Under-Secretary can understand it, he can explain it.
7.34 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I should like to say a few words that follow on directly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was saying about King Edward VII hospital. The closure of that hospital, if it takes place, will indeed be dire for the citizens of the Isle of Wight and will make life difficult for many patients throughout the region.
I just want to put a few points to the Minister, so that they will be clear in his mind. First, the King Edward VII is not a private hospital. It is an independent charitable hospital that has taken roughly 50 per cent. of its patients from the NHS sector for the past 50 years. In many respects, it is a prototype of exactly what a foundation hospital should look like—that is, a genuine public-private partnership. As my hon. Friend said, many capital costs are borne by the private sector. The NHS reaps all kinds of benefits—some tangible, some less tangible—from having such a superb hospital available for its use. That is reflected in the fact that it generates enormous local charitable giving. People are keen to give to it; they want to support it. It has achieved exactly what the Secretary of State for Health has said he wants foundation hospitals to achieve: a genuine partnership with the local community.
The main reason the hospital is in trouble is that there has been a sharp drop in the NHS work being referred to it. The figures for patient discharges over the past 18 months show a drop from 270 per month to 112 per month. NHS funding has gone down 40 per cent. in the past six months. One of the reasons given for that is that the hospital is more expensive to run than others—that it costs more per unit of treatment. I notice that a press release from the strategic health authority today suggested that a coronary bypass costs 38 per cent. more at King Edward's than in Southampton. I have discussed that figure with experts, who tell me that it may look all right, but that NHS figure excludes all costs relating to consultants. There is no consultancy fee in the NHS comparator, so the figures are not comparable. I know from my time in the Treasury—I am sure that the Minister is becoming aware of this—that who really bears the costs in the NHS is a hugely complicated question. Most of the comparator figures that he is being given are questionable, to say the least. The more he delves into them and scratches them, the more he will discover that.
What will happen if the King Edward VII hospital closes? Patients from the Isle of Wight will find themselves on very long waiting lists at other hospitals—in Southampton, Portsmouth and Guildford, in particular. What will happen to waiting time targets for radiotherapy, for example? Those targets are already not being met. There is no way that the 2004 targets that have been published will be met by those hospitals, even without the closure of King Edward's. King Edward's has superb radiotherapy facilities, which would no longer be available. While all this is going on, patients are being sent abroad—for orthopaedic care, for example—at a much greater cost than that of the treatment they could get just up the road. That includes patients from the Isle of Wight. There really must be an absurdity in the NHS funding system if that is what is going on.

659
There is more to the closure of some hospitals than patients going through them like pieces of meat through a sausage factory. Here, we are talking about a centre of excellence. King Edward's has not just been a private hospital doing some routine surgery. It has been at the cutting edge of research, treatment and innovation, particularly in orthopaedics, in some aspects of cardiac care and now, with the equipment that it has, in radiotherapy. I implore the Minister to look at how these extraordinary decisions to cut NHS funding at such short notice have been taken. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will be gravely affected by this, as will mine in Chichester.
7.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing a debate on a subject that is important to the NHS and, especially, to his constituents. National health service and social services provision on the island is rightly of particular concern to him and he eloquently expressed the reasons for that. I assure him from the outset that the Government are committed to providing high-quality health services for everyone, wherever they live.
I am pleased to respond to the debate because it enables me to put on record the developments and improvements on the Isle of Wight in the past few years. Not only has health care provision been reorganised but the Government have invested considerably in NHS infrastructure and service delivery.
Health services are never stagnant: they adapt to new opportunities and challenges as they appear. That applied especially when the Government introduced the NHS plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative. In accordance with those policies, it is up to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, with their specific local knowledge and expertise, to plan and develop health services in line with the needs of their local communities.
It might help if I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point on special status for the island immediately. As he knows, the advisory committee on resource allocation—ACRA—considered any additional cost that is associated with being an island in September 2001. The announcement was made in the following December.
The committee concluded that the arguments in a local consultancy report on behalf of Isle of Wight health bodies did not constitute a convincing case. It recommended no adjustment to the Isle of Wight's target under the resource allocation formula. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted ACRA's recommendations.
Since 1997, there has been continuous investment in the Isle of Wight's health economy. It may help to remind the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) of some of that investment, which includes: £28 million to refurbish mental health accommodation; £640,000 for personal dental services; £631,000 to implement the free nursing care policy; £400,000 to improve intermediate care; £100,000 to help reduce waiting lists; £100,000 for local capital modernisation funding; £38,000 for smoking cessation programmes; £29,000 for palliative care; £17,000 to help
660
reform the emergency care that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, and a further £10,000 for the booked admissions programme.
However, we are considering not simply investment but improving health care for those who live on the Isle of Wight. I shall give one example of service improvement. The Government set ambulance services a target of reaching 75 per cent. of category A—life-threatening—calls in eight minutes. In 1997, the Isle of Wight ambulance service reached only 55 per cent. of such calls in the target time. The trust informs me that, as of January this year, the figure is 81 per cent. I congratulate the men and women who operate the Isle of Wight's ambulance service on fulfilling and exceeding the target.
The trust also anticipates reaching the 12-month in-patient waiting time, the 21-week out-patient targets and the accident and emergency access target times this year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight wishes to join me in congratulating all members of his local NHS team on their industry and hard work.
Let me consider the increases in financial resources. In 1997–98, the island received an allocation of £68 million—a 3.48 per cent. increase over the previous year. That has risen considerably to £108 million in 2001–02—a cash increase of 9.6 per cent. By any standards, those are considerable increases in financial allocation.
In fact, next year the Isle of Wight's primary care trust will receive a further increase of 9.7 per cent.—some £11.6 million. That is one of the highest increases in funding across the strategic health authority, and higher than the national average increase of 9.24 per cent. Even the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, far from the cash available for improvements to health care on the island being reduced, resources have increased dramatically during the period of office of this Government.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that that proves that the principles set out in the NHS plan were not just empty gestures. We have put the necessary money into the system to carry the reforms through and to support service delivery. Of course, we are not stopping there. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the budget allocations that PCTs will receive in the next three years. For the first time since the inception of the NHS, local organisations can plan service provision years in advance, and according to local priorities and needs, many of which were articulated by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the Isle of Wight PCT, which is the hon. Gentleman's local organisation, will receive a 9.7 per cent. cash-terms increase—a cash allocation of some £131.7 million. That is a significant amount of money.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of HealthFit. HealthFit is a process that is taking place across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to ensure that safe and sustainable health services are available for local people. We have a responsibility not just to provide health services today, but to ensure that they are fit for the future. The NHS in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight takes these responsibilities very seriously, and it is at the early stages of a process that will go on throughout this year and beyond, and which will include open discussion

661
and debate with patients, the public and partner organisations. It will ensure that local people are fully involved in that process.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned the King Edward VII hospital in Midhurst. I do not want to make the point too strongly, but there is something of a paradox here. Both hon. Members are keen to ensure central intervention and investment in that local hospital, but in some senses that is in conflict with the policy position of their party. We are putting in the money, and ensuring that such local decisions are taken by local people.
Mr. Tyrie: If the money is going in, why is there a £60 million deficit in the strategic health authority's budget?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows that, across the piece in Britain, different health economies find themselves in different positions for historical reasons. The issue that he raises goes back some considerable time, but we have reached a point where we are putting
662
in significant investment. I should point out to him that a 20 per cent. cut would make the situation even worse for his local strategic health authority.
Much has been said in the media, and recently in this House, about the future of the King Edward VII hospital, and the issue has been raised again today. Let me state from the outset that the NHS remains prepared to continue with its current commitment to the hospital. Its refusal to provide the support that was requested immediately before Christmas related to serious concerns about the additional volume required, which was at a price and through a process that could not be defended in terms of accountability in the use of public money. Officials from both the Department of Health and the strategic health authority have held discussions with hospital representatives for a number of weeks, and all parties will continue to hold discussions with the hospital and with the liquidator. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that there remains—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Equity Release Mortgages
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. McWilliam. At a previous sitting, I recall our having some interesting literary exchanges, but I will spare you those today. I do not think that the work of D. H. Lawrence is appropriate to today's debate. Our discussions will be important, although they probably cover only a small group of elderly people who were missold home income plans in the 1980s. At the end of my remarks, I shall refer to the current situation.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 11 years and I took up such cases in 1991 before I was elected. The fact that I still have some of them on the books, so to speak, is of great concern. The problem has caused anxiety to other hon. Members, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire). They would have liked to be present today, but they are in Committee this morning. What I am about to outline affects their constituents, too.
Back in the 1980s, many people who had retired on small pensions were attracted by sales people who sold them home income plans whereby they could not only increase their income but usually receive a cash sum to spend on something that they found attractive, such as a trip abroad to visit their children or a new car. Such transactions were not explained to them, however, and were clearly cases not just of mis-selling but of fraud. People were sold equity-linked, high-risk products on which they were told that they would receive a return that would not only provide them with an additional income but would pay off the interest on a mortgage if they remortgaged their property.
When I raised the matter in 1999, I received great assistance from the insurance ombudsman, who took up many individual cases in my constituency and restored several constituents to the position that they were in before they unfortunately took out the home income plans. However, five constituents have been unable to access such restoration and the interest on their properties is still mounting. The building societies that set up the mortgage have made helpful arrangements whereby they have promised not to foreclose so that people have the right of tenure in their property until they die, but many elderly people wish to sell for one reason or another—often to go into residential care. As the interest is compounding, when they die, the property is likely to be owned outright by the building society.
I draw attention to the cases in my constituency involving people who were sold policies by Sonia Thompson who worked for DBS Financial Management Ltd. The case has been before the court,
182WH
but I have clear evidence that I will share with hon. Members of that particular lady falsifying mortgage applications. Even when the building society concerned was informed about the falsified documents, it still agreed to go ahead and co-operate with Miss Thompson in arranging the home income plans. That is why the building societies that still hold the deeds for the properties should do the decent thing.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Will the hon. Lady assure us that the case to which she is referring is not lying before the courts and that it has been decided?
Mrs. Browning: The case is not lying before the court, Mr McWilliam. It went before the court, but unfortunately it was thrown out because the witnesses were elderly and unable to do justice to it. I shall quote from a letter that I received from the Britannia building society, which is one of the building societies involved in such matters in my constituency. When I raised the matter on the Floor of the House in 1999, Britannia agreed to visit my constituent. The letter stated:
"we are more than happy to try to deal sympathetically with members who have problems relating to the DBS settlement and I am hopeful that we will be able to do something positive to help."
I am sorry to say that, despite that assurance, nothing has happened with Britannia building society. The people who were involved have moved on to other departments or have left the organisation. I raised the matter because I believed that Sonia Thompson, acting on behalf of DBS, acted illegally in the way in which she carried out her work. One of the policy holders and mortgagees, a Mr. Budgen from Devon, who gave me permission to put his details before the House today, wrote to Britannia building society and explained his experience. He said:
"The Mortgage application form was completed by us and signed as true. Since then a figure of over £22,000 has been added by Miss Thompson, a representative of D.B.S. Financial Management Ltd. as being our income…Immediately we received this copy…we spoke to your manager at Barnstaple",
but they still processed the mortgage.
Unfortunately the lady was allowed off the hook by the courts, but there is an onus of responsibility on the building societies that were involved in processing the mortgages. That is an extreme case due to the way in which Miss Thompson conducted her business, but there are examples of such activity throughout the country. A couple of my constituents have other building society mortgages and there are certain requirements for building societies to check the validity of what is offered in a mortgage and the person's ability to repay that mortgage.
People may be surprised to hear me say that such requirements are not bound up in sufficient regulation, and that there is therefore a free-for-all in the area of financial services. We must bear it in mind that the purchase of a home is the biggest financial investment that any individual or family makes. Given that the problem affects people who have already paid off a mortgage and are now in retirement, it compounds the vulnerability of the people taking out the schemes. Therefore, there is a real imperative for the schemes to be brought within the remit of financial services and dealt with by the ombudsmen who handle complaints and restoration. Some schemes have been subject to such guidelines, but not all.

183WH
The difficulty is that the people so affected are now elderly and frail. They are dying without having had the benefit that others have had of their cases being brought to justice. That is why I am bringing such cases before the House. Time is running out for that vulnerable, fragile group of elderly people. It is time for some action to be taken so that at least their final years can be spent without the anguish and anxiety of compounding interest and living in what was their family home but in many cases no longer belongs to them.
Looking at what needs to be done, I am looking for a minimum of a freeze on the interest that is rolling up. I cannot believe that that would cost the building societies an arm and a leg, because there are so few of those people. Talking of arms and legs, if one considers the amount of money that has passed from the mortgagees to the building societies, one can see that the building societies have made a fair old return from those people already. It would not hurt the building societies to do the decent thing now. They should freeze the interest, look at terms of restoration as others have done in identical cases and determine how those people initially came by the policies.
We should consider how the building societies came to be involved in allowing the policies to be sold to that particular group of clients under rules quite different to those that would have applied to younger people of working age. I am aware that some building societies have tried to help, for example, by saying that those people have security of tenure for the period of their lives, and I welcome that. I feel, however, that more needs to be done.
We should be looking to bring equity release mortgages within the regulatory framework and we should consider the situation of elderly people who are remortgaging their homes. I do not say that that is always a bad thing. I know that people are interested in such policies, particularly those who do not have families to which they wish to leave the family home, or who find that they are on a very low income in retirement. None the less, such people do not seem to have the protection afforded to others and the Government have an opportunity to do something about that.
I received a letter from the National Consumer Council that said,
"We welcome the prospect of Financial Services Authority regulatory protection for consumers of lifetime mortgages from 2004. We are concerned, however, by the exclusion of home reversion schemes from the FSA's regulatory remit."
I hope that the Minister will be able to say today that she will look again at this issue. There is time to consider whether to bring such policies within the scope of the regulations. Many organisations that deal with the elderly and with such products, including Britannic Retirement Solutions Ltd, Help the Aged, Which? and the Consumers Association, are anxious to see changes in this area. I hope that the Minister will be receptive to this request today. That would not, however, necessarily help the vulnerable group about which I speak and I want to flag it up that that group is in need of urgent action.
Such cases were brought to my attention before I was elected in 1991 and, 11 years on, I cannot think of any other open casework on which I am still trying to get a
184WH
resolution. We have had meetings in the House over the years with Back Benchers of all parties, lawyers and buildings societies and Ministers have talked to us to try to find a way through. I cannot believe that the will is not there to resolve the problem for this small group of people and that we cannot find a way forward today in order to do something for them.
In 1991 I wrote to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which was at that time quite resistant to any increase in the regulation that affected it. I hope by now that it has had second thoughts, because we are 11 years down the track. Most of us recognise that there is always a need for the individual to assess risk and take some responsibility for that. However, the way in which the policies were sold, and in many cases sold fraudulently to pensioners, means that one could not realistically have expected people to realise what the full consequences would be.
There must be a greater input into the detail and the consultations that people are given, because they are jeopardising the very roof over their head. One feels that, particularly when speaking to people such as my constituent, whom I will call Mrs. X because she does not want to be named. She explained in a tearful conversation with me how she was suddenly in the frame of being able to visiting her close relatives in Australia, perhaps more than once, although she had not seen them for a long time. That was the result of a sales pitch that was put to her suggesting that not only would she have more income in retirement, but that something that she thought well beyond her reach—visiting her close relatives—was suddenly a realisable dream. One can understand that such people are severely vulnerable when small print is put before them by those who have no good intent and simply want to collect commission on a policy. On behalf of that group, I ask the Minister to bring to bear whatever influence she can on the building societies that still hold the mortgages to do the decent thing—restore people to their previous position and freeze the interest.
I ask the Minister to examine the cases because this is not the end of the story. Such practices and policies may well be put before a future generation of pensioners. It is incumbent on us to ensure that when we regulate, we regulate to protect the genuinely vulnerable. We need not overregulation but a measure so that the roofs over people's heads are not put in jeopardy as they retire.
9.46 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to contribute briefly, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the way in which she comprehensively introduced this extraordinarily sad saga. As she mentioned, there is a long history of all-party concern about this matter on behalf of our constituents. Several of my constituents were also sold dud schemes in the late 1980s, which was a classic case of mis-selling. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I shall outline more history to add to what the hon. Lady said. She will recall that the schemes were explicitly endorsed by the then Government when they were first introduced in the late 1980s. Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, went on record to support the schemes as an easy and effective way for

185WH
those in the circumstances that the hon. Lady described to release equity, to take advantage of the increasing value of their property and to get additional income for old age. The then Government were involved at that early stage.
Like the hon. Lady, I was visited in the early 1990s by constituents who realised just what they had been sold. Most were not only very elderly but in ill health. One of the reasons why many had taken up the schemes was that they needed additional income or released capital to improve their property in order to cope with the difficulties of old age and infirmity.
When I was elected in 1992, I formed a little informal group. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) here because she, I and Mr. William Powell, the then Conservative Member for Rugby—[Interruption.] For Corby—I am sorry, my memory has collapsed. The three of us tried to get some sense out of the various regulators and Treasury Ministers. Throughout the Parliament of 1992 to 1997, we fought a lonely battle on behalf of a lonely group of vulnerable and elderly people.
One of the great questions that hangs over the sad problem, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton effectively demonstrated, is why nobody was prepared to accept responsibility during those five years. The Council of Mortgage Lenders, the insurance industry, the insurance ombudsman, the Securities and Investment Board, which we visited, and Treasury Ministers were not prepared to say, "Yes, we recognise there is a problem here and we are going to take it up."
Mrs. Browning: I must put it on record that the then Insurance Ombudsman Bureau resolved several of my problem cases and restored people to the position that they had been in before they took out the policy. From my experience, if everyone had been treated by the insurance ombudsman in that way, there would be no need for me to speak in today's debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will endorse my opinion.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think that the experience that she describes came later. From 1992 to 1997, it was difficult to pin down responsibility. I endorse what she says, but, in my experience, the ombudsman was prepared to come in only somewhat later.
Lynne Jones: To clarify the hon. Gentleman's point, my recollection is that there was a different regulator for products sold with insurance policies as opposed to financial services products, which were regulated by FIMBRA. Responsibility was then taken over by the Securities and Investment Board. One problem with which we all tried to grapple was the plethora of regulatory bodies. At the point at which FIMBRA had produced a report and was starting to use its teeth, it was taken over, and the report was hushed up and not acted upon.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for succinctly making the point that I was just about to make. I do not blame anyone, but, unfortunately, the time scale of changes in the regulatory systems did not help. The hon. Lady made that point vividly.
186WH
I pay tribute to some individuals who, at their own expense and with considerable personal commitment, have tried to support those affected, especially Mr. Phillip Cheal and Mr. Tony Craven of the two support groups, who have done a fantastic job. Perhaps their most important act was to alert Members of Parliament to the fact that the individual cases brought to Ministers and the regulatory authorities were examples of a large number of cases—the tip of the proverbial iceberg. They also managed to get the commitment and interest of the Consumer Association.
I am delighted that, even at this late stage in a long and sad story, the Consumers Association has taken such an active role. I intend to use the excellent brief that it has provided for this debate to exemplify exactly what has gone wrong with the investment schemes. I shall also quote details of individual examples obtained by the association, obviously with the consent of those concerned.
The major problem is that the way in which the schemes were introduced was almost invariably linked to expectation about the rise in value of the stock market and the inevitable and continuing rise in the value of property. Hon. Members may say that anybody in their right senses would know that anything that rises that fast is likely to fall. Unfortunately, that is not always the case with forecasts. Indeed, to a large extent, when one examines the small print, the mis-selling that undoubtedly took place was dependent on a continuing and considerable rise. Therefore, those who invested in schemes in the property boom of the late 1980s suddenly found themselves at a considerable disadvantage.
As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, some of the more responsible lenders have done their best to mitigate the problem, and I pay tribute to them for that. However, many people, including some of my constituents, are considerably out of pocket. I must emphasise that those who were caught in the situation have almost invariably lost their legal right to redress. It has gone; they are out of time. Several thousand retired people have mounting debts and cannot pay them off by using interest payments or by remortgaging.
If the person in debt dies, the debt must be met through the sale of the home, which may well be repossessed and sold at a reduced price, and the family is then placed in an even more difficult situation. The most desperate part of that desperate situation is the length of time—more than 10 years, in most cases—for which uncertainty hangs over so many people. I know of people in my constituency whose lives have been ruined by the uncertainty, the constant threat to their future and their homes, and the worry about how their families will look after them if they become too ill and disabled to stay in their homes.
I shall give three examples that the Consumers Association told me about, having of course obtained the consent of those concerned. First, I give the example of Marion Grimshaw, from my county, Cornwall. The lender was the Chelsea building society. She borrowed £17,000 in 1990, ironically just before such schemes were removed from the market. She had the use of all £17,000 and has not been able to repay anything so far. The amount still owing is £60,773. Imagine such a debt hanging over an elderly woman living on her own.

187WH
Then there is the case of the scheme sold to Mabel de Morgan's mother, who is from Anglesey, in 1989, when she was 88 years old. The lender was the Staffordshire building society. The mother borrowed £15,000; she had use of £5,000 and invested the other £10,000. She has already repaid £27,900, and yet £18,800—a considerable sum—is still owing.
Mr. and Mrs. George Carrod were lent money by the West Bromwich building society. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will recall the various exchanges that we have had with that building society. Mr. and Mrs. Carrod borrowed £49,500 in 1989 and had use of £8,600. Some £5,000 was kept back from the loan, and £200 a month was taken from investments for 18 months. The amount so far repaid is £57,580 in compensation and investment value, and the amount still owing is £20,715. Those are huge sums of money.
Hon. Members will agree that such schemes are an extraordinary scandal that has affected some particularly vulnerable people. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is absolutely right to say that those lenders who have insisted on getting their pound of flesh should accept a freeze on any further interest. However, that is not enough. There should be compensation for the mis-selling of those schemes, just as there has been for the mis-selling of other financial products. Government responsibility has been acknowledged for the way in which the episode was so disastrously exploited because of the endorsement by the then Government.
My constituents and I are fed up to the teeth with the game of pass the parcel that has gone on for far too long. It has to stop at some time. As I have said, legal remedies are now effectively blocked to those affected; the cases are out of time. The Government have a responsibility, particularly to those who are not very articulate and who are not only elderly but ill and frail. Such people have been kept in an impossible situation for far too long. We are talking about classic cases of mis-selling, and the Government must act.
9.58 am
Lynne Jones: I, too, pay tribute to Phillip Cheal and Tony Craven of the home income plan scam support group, and to Vera Hawkins, who is sadly no longer with us. Perhaps her dogged work to support elderly people caught up in the home income plan scam led her to her premature death, which has come to many elderly people because of the worry resulting from such plans and from the growing debts that they have led to.
Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently well organised to bring my file on home income plans from my constituency office, so I will have to speak from memory. As far as I am aware, I no longer have any elderly constituents who continue to be dogged by increasing debts. Most reputable building societies have frozen those debts—although not before they had accumulated to unacceptable levels. Some, but by no means all, the growth in debt has been paid off by compensation. There is not a lot that the Government can do, but I ask the Minister to look in detail at the policies of different building societies and lenders and
188WH
perhaps name and shame those that are not following the practice of those that have done the best for their elderly customers.
The scandal with which I was most involved was that of the West Bromwich building society. Elderly people were encouraged to embark on financial investments by an organisation called Fisher Prew-Smith. People were signed up to schemes without being given any explanation of what was involved, and they were told to sign legal papers with a solicitor whom they had never met who was apparently acting on their behalf. That enabled the building societies subsequently to wash their hands of any responsibility—even though the suppressed FIMBRA report makes it clear that building societies such as the West Bromwich knew what they were getting into and embarked on loans to elderly people with the specific objective of increasing lending.
It took many debates and many meetings to expose what was happening. Belatedly, the West Bromwich building society accepted some responsibility when it agreed to freeze some loans. Many people have had appalling experiences. Elderly people, including at least one constituent of mine, have gone to their graves prematurely through worry over the debts with which they were burdened as a result of home income plans.
Today, elderly people own a great deal of equity in property. Elderly people come to my surgery who cannot afford to pay for essential maintenance work on their homes. Those people are on low incomes, and very little help is available to them to get work done. One way to help such people—or people who struggle on low incomes but have high capital assets—would be equity release schemes. However, adverse publicity and the worry associated with equity release and home income plans mean that many elderly people are reluctant to embark on such schemes. I am pleased that the Government have raised the issue in the Green Paper and are considering options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that.
I am thankful that our regulatory system is now less of a maze than it was in 1996–97, when my constituents and I had to attempt to grapple with a complex system in which different regulatory bodies were allowed to play off against each other, each claiming that things were not their responsibility. I congratulate the Government on having made some sense of the maze, and I look forward to hearing what they will do to help elderly people who are still struggling with mounting debt and to ensure that the elderly will be able to make the most of their capital assets.
10.5 am
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for introducing the debate. She recounted her constituents' experiences effectively, but I wish to add a different dimension to the discussion.
This is a current problem: last week I noticed a headline in the letter column of my local borough newspaper that said, "Caught in SAM Trap"—SAM stands for shared appreciation mortgages. Over the past few years hundreds of local people have bought into those schemes,

189WH
and they will be caught up in the problems that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) is so troubled about. She and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have brought a useful historical perspective to the debate.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has just said. If people's wealth is locked up in their homes, it makes sense to try to help them to liberate some of it rather than its being just paper value—and if that can be done in a safe way, we should encourage it. It is not only Mrs. Thatcher who agrees with that; it is basic common sense. The problem has been that many of the products that do that have been, and still are, unsafe.
I also wish to touch on a broader issue that the three hon. Members who have already spoken did not mention. It relates to the wider picture of heavy mortgage lending and the potential instability that that will create for the housing market.
There are two types of products. The straightforward mortgage lending type of equity release is unproblematic and uncontroversial; the mortgage is repaid on death and the products are regulated. The controversy revolves around reversion products, whereby the mortgage lenders acquire a share of the equity. The figures for the past 18 months suggest that we are dealing with a very big market: about one third of all equity release is in the form of reversion products. That amounts to £300 million over 18 months, which is very big business.
The history of reversion products is chequered, for the reasons that the three previous speakers have mentioned. Reversion products that achieve equity release were started in the 1970s, and even at that stage there were some unhappy experiences, particularly with products that had variable interest rates locked in. People were in effect giving up the equity in their home, but acquiring liabilities with very high interest rates when the economic cycle was in a phase of high rates.
The industry claims that some of those products were banned in 1990, and I would like the Minister to confirm that that is the case. Since then, the industry has been governed largely by self-regulation under the safe home income plans—or SHIP—scheme. I have just looked through the code of practice that governs safe home equity release plans, and it is fine—it has been approved by Age Concern, I think. Many of the elements in it are progressive; for example, there is a commitment to give an absolute guarantee that there will never be negative equity under these plans.
If the code of conduct were honoured and universally applied, the problems that we are debating would not be serious. However, a good deal of equity release reversion lending is operating outside the voluntary code. One of the most striking cases is that of the shared appreciation schemes that the Bank of Scotland and Barclays bank operate. Many of the people who are victims of the type of reversion scheme that I have mentioned are those who have bought into those banks' schemes.
I shall illustrate what the shared appreciation schemes do with reference to the experience of one of my constituents, a Mr. Brooking, who came to see me about the matter. His home in Twickenham was valued at £190,000 four years ago, but Twickenham, like many
190WH
other suburban areas, has witnessed an extraordinary boom in house prices. Mr. Brooking's property has now more than doubled in value to £400,000. On the back of his £190,000 home, Mr. Brooking took out a £30,000 mortgage. However, in addition, half the appreciation in value of his home—more than £100,000—also belongs to the Bank of Scotland. It has earned a return of about 250 per cent. over four years, assuming that the market stays up and that Mr. Brooking, who is an elderly gentleman, moves house or dies.
What is striking about that case is that my constituent is not naive; he is a highly sophisticated, well informed, clear-thinking man who read all the small print. However, the small print in no way prepared him for what happens in a world of rapidly rising house prices. The assumption that the Bank of Scotland used, and presented to all its clients, was that house price appreciation would continue at about 4 to 5 per cent. a year. All its modelling and examples were based on that assumption. Mr. Brooking was given no warning; he had no reason to expect such an extraordinary outcome. He has since referred the case to the ombudsman, who has been totally obtuse and completely failed to understand the issues. She had a very unsatisfactory correspondence with the ombudsman.
Thousands of people have got involved in the shared appreciation scheme and feel a serious sense of grievance as a consequence. Apart from the fact that schemes such as SAM operate outside the code of practice, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also underlined a broader point. Mortgage lending has been regulated since 2000, but reversion products are unregulated. The Government have given a commitment in the Green Paper to look into that, and perhaps the Minister will give us a few more indications today about where Government thinking is heading.
My final point relates to the broader issue of mortgage lending and what it does to the housing market. Equity release is part of a much bigger phenomenon—an enormous amount of money goes into the housing market, and that contributes to the enormous appreciation of prices that we have seen. The Government broadly take the view that we should not worry too much about that, although borrowing-to-income ratios are at record levels. The fact that interest rates are low historically means that there is no particular reason why people should have enormous difficulties in repaying those mortgages—provided that interest rates remain low.
The problem with that optimistic scenario is that should incomes fall and unemployment rise—bearing in mind the fact that there is no longer any fall-back ability to make mortgage payments through the social security system—prices could fall rapidly. That hypothesis is not mine alone. The Governor-designate of the Bank of England has already warned of the potential for a serious shock to the economy if house prices fall substantially.
Other members of the Monetary Policy Committee have said openly that they cannot do anything about the problem. They cannot deal with this bubble and the potential crash because to cut interest rates would add to inflation. Low interest rates might be good from the manufacturing sector's point of view, but they would aggravate the housing boom. On the other hand, to raise interest rates to deal with the housing boom would be

191WH
bad for the rest of the economy. The Monetary Policy Committee is trapped, because it cannot do anything through its conventional mechanisms.
Are the Government thinking at all about whether there is any way in which the asset bubble in the housing market, to which equity release has contributed substantially, can and should be managed? There are ideas out there. Some fairly conventional people have said that we should reconsider special deposits, which quarantine some of the cash in mortgage lending institutions, including that in equity release schemes. The money can then be released if the housing market crashes. However, that is an old mechanism, which may not work in our much more sophisticated times. Do the Government have any thoughts about the way in which the overall market should be managed, or should it simply be allowed to take its course?
To conclude, there are two sets of problems. First, there are the products themselves. How will the different treatment of reversion and other mortgage products be dealt with? Secondly, there is the overall housing and mortgage market, and I hope that the Minister will put the issues in that wider context. Are the Government content with the way in which the market is evolving, or have they undertaken provisional thinking on how it might be managed in future?
10.15 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for securing this timely and important debate on equity release. The subject has gained considerable attention from the press and the general public, and it is appropriate that it should be the subject of full parliamentary consideration.
In discussing equity release mortgages, it is crucial to consider equity release in general. Such provision has become increasingly important as more elderly people use the resource of their home to provide additional income in retirement. During the debate, I want to determine whether the Government are prepared to demonstrate that they understand the importance to the elderly of such income by making a commitment to introduce swiftly appropriate regulation of the market.
As Her Majesty's official Opposition spokesman on the issue, I approach it in what I hope the Minister recognises is a constructive manner. I seek the Government's support in particular on issues on which Members of Parliament can have a real and current effect. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend relate very much to the past, and I shall address some of them, but it is important, given our responsibilities in the House, that we learn from what happened in the past so that we can prevent similar problems arising in the future.
There is great confusion about what equity release is, what risks underpin it, and when it is appropriate to purchase. Equity release can simply mean down-sizing the family home, or extending an existing mortgage. I shall focus on a specific financial service product, which uses the home of an elderly person to generate income or a cash lump sum. Such schemes can take the form of a loan or a reversion: a loan is a mortgage, while a reversion is the sale of all or part of the house.
192WH
It is inevitable that more people will turn to equity release. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the average price of a house in 2001 was £115,700. By comparison, the average retirement fund in 2001 was only £24,000, according to the Association of British Insurers. That means that many so-called cash-poor pensioners are sitting on increasingly valuable assets.
For many people, equity release may be the only way in which to top up their retirement income, whether that is to fund a lifestyle need, care fees for a loved one, or policies for one's own future domiciliary care. That will be inevitable given falling annuity rates and stock markets, which are due, as much as anything, to the Chancellor's tax grab of £25 billion and £5 billion per annum on the pension schemes of those who have been doing the right thing by putting money aside during their earning lifetime to provide for their retirement. When that is coupled with low interest rates and increasing longevity, it is certain that more people will turn to their property to provide much-needed additional income in retirement.
That seems especially likely when one takes account of today's terrifying and growing retirement savings gap, which is at least £27 billion. The failure to take advantage of equity release where appropriate could increase that gap to as much as £40 billion. That is why the current, relatively small, equity release market in the United Kingdom, estimated by Datamonitor to be worth about £750 million, and by the Council of Mortgage Lenders to be worth about £1 billion, is deemed to have the potential to support sales growth of up to £4 billion or £5 billion a year for the next decade to achieve a market of £50 billion or, some would say, even £100 billion.
Two major factors have hindered the growth of that potentially critical market. The first relates to reputation. The home income plan saga of past years continues to have a serious and damaging effect, as my hon. Friend cogently described. That point that was reinforced by the examples cited by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). That can only undermine confidence generally in a potentially important market. I urge the Minister and the building societies involved to act urgently to freeze interest on those loans. I recognise that that is ultimately a decision for the building societies, but however much we in opposition prefer it were not so, the party in government unquestionably carries influence, so we urge the Minister to put her full weight behind that cause.
The second factor that hindered growth is confusion about the regulation of equity release products. In its consultation paper CP 146, the Financial Services Authority announced that it was prepared to regulate mortgage-based equity release—the regulation is due in 2004—but reversionary equity release would fall outside its remit. Therefore, the distinction described earlier, between mortgage-based and reversionary equity release, currently carries significant consequences. That would mean that cash reversions would be wholly unregulated in what we know will be an increasingly important market, but one with some identifiable risks of consumer detriment, especially for vulnerable older people.

193WH
Not surprisingly, that has caused considerable concern among several organisations, ranging from Britannic Retirement Solutions in the private sector, Help the Aged and Age Concern in the charitable sector, the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council in the consumer sector, to trade bodies, such as the Association of Independent Financial Advisers. Given the attempts at populism that inform the Government's actions in their every waking hour, the Minister should be aware—if she is not, she can certainly take it from me, as a fellow north-west Member of Parliament—that this subject currently forms a major story line in "Coronation Street". Surely the Government will now do something!
Concerns were raised that the proposed action would both fail to provide the ageing consumer with an important safeguard, and maintain confusion in the market, thereby stifling its anticipated growth and ability to provide additional income for people in retirement. The Treasury's argument for partial regulation of the equity release market appears to have been as follows. The FSA is empowered under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to regulate mortgages, but it is unable to regulate reversionary equity release as that is deemed to be a contract. In effect, caveat emptor applies under the legal doctrine of privity of contract, and reversionary equity release is not regarded as a financial services product. Consequently, equity release is not currently included in the regulated authorities order, hence the nonsense of partial regulation.
We were led to believe that the only way to bring reversionary equity release schemes under the proposed FSA equity-release regulatory umbrella was to enact primary legislation to change the Financial Services and Markets Act to include them. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when paragraph 72 of the Government's pensions Green Paper, entitled "Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement", published on 17 December 2002, announced:
"The Government needs to ensure that the market for equity release is effectively regulated and that individuals fully understand the implications and risks of the deal. One issue of potential concern is that while equity release mortgages will be regulated by the FSA from 2004, home reversion plans are outside the scope of regulation. The Government will be looking at options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better."
I am relieved that the Government have recognised the anomaly and have decided to deal with it by creating, in that important phrase "a level playing field" for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans, also known as reversionary the equity release, to protect consumers and to make the market work better. The Government have the opportunity today to tell us how and when they will do precisely that. Will the Government enact primary legislation to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to enable the FSA to regulate equity release mortgages and home reversion plans? If so, are they prepared to tell us when and whether it will be in this year's Finance Bill?
194WH
The Minister should have some very clear information and I look forward to a clear answer. Bearing in mind the importance of this market to the cash-strapped pensioner, I hope that the Government agree that the issue needs swift and prompt attention; it cannot be left to drift. Consumer protection and the confusion surrounding it, which has been highlighted yet again in this debate, show that it is unacceptable to let the matter drift.
Alternatively, do the Government now wish to change their mind on whether reversionary equity release falls within the definition of a financial services product—that is, to say that reversionary equity release is more than a mere contract? A case can be made for that less painful approach to ensure consistent regulation, not least because most consumers and intermediaries recognise reversionary equity release as a differentiated financial product targeted at a differentiated class of people, primarily the vulnerable elderly, for what is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime transaction using their main and almost always only dwelling house.
If the Government are to take that route, why were they not prepared to do so last year or earlier? The matter was raised, as I am sure the Minister is aware, during the passage of last year's Finance Bill. Failure to deal with the issue earlier has undoubtedly affected consumer confidence and the growth of an important market. However, the Government cannot and must not provide a system of regulation for reversionary equity release that is not policed in the same way and by the same body that polices mortgage-based equity release. By this I mean that if the FSA is to regulate mortgage-based equity release, and it is intended that it should do so from 2004, it must be the body that regulates reversionary equity release.
If the Government were to provide another body to carry out that task it would immediately cause additional complexity and perpetuate the consumer confusion that the regulation was intended to deal with. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out that recent experience and increasing knowledge of how market regulations operate suggest that it would be better to bring the regulatory approach under one umbrella. I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), rightly did not attribute blame, but said that we must learn from experience.
The Green Paper refers explicitly to creating "a level playing field" for the regulation of these products, and that can only mean consistent regulation; therefore the FSA should be the regulatory body for reversionary equity release products. I hope that the Government can now reassure my colleague the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, her constituents and me. Although it would be small comfort to people involved in the continuing saga, it would be at least some comfort to them to know that the pain that they have suffered will not be visited on future generations.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the Minister can help us with the older cases as well. Since initiating today's debate, I have heard from Norwich Union and Nationwide that both support changes to introduce regulation in this area. Nationwide sent me a letter, which I received only this morning, saying
"consumers that are most likely to use these products are often elderly and vulnerable. Without much-needed clear regulation, there is a danger that current practice could lead to future accusations of mis-selling."
Across the piece, even before its introduction, there seems to be great support from the industry for more regulation. That is not something that one often sees.
Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for having made that important point, because it is critical that that area of the market is appropriately regulated, not least so that it operates on a level playing field. There is also a need to enhance consumer confidence in the light of the concern provoked by home income plans. The market will certainly be a major one, even allowing for the inevitable cycles that can be predicted for property values. The capital assets locked up in people's homes are massive compared with the amount of money that is being put aside for pensions—the disparity is far greater than was formerly the case. I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. She recognises the extraordinary amount of third-party and business support from all quarters, not only for market regulation, but for that to be coupled with proper recognition of and redress for those who have suffered. I hope that the message that she takes from the debate to her constituents who have suffered so grievously will be that something is going to happen. We look forward to hearing the Minister's response to all the issues that have been raised.
It is important to recognise that, while the Green Paper's wording is somewhat woolly, it is common knowledge that the FSA is working on the assumption that the Government's intention is that the product sector should come within the FSA's remit, after what will be described as tricky boundary issues have been ironed out and the details have been discussed. I imagine that the FSA's high street firms division will deal with it. That will tie in with the long-term care issues that are already under review by the FSA. It is therefore a wholly appropriate expectation for the FSA, and one that I would encourage, as it is consistent with its stated concern about the rapid growth market in products directed at asset-rich, cash-poor, often elderly, vulnerable people. By today's standards, it is odd that reversionary equity release is not already covered and that mortgage equity release is not expected to be covered until 2004.
The Government must be in no doubt that the vulnerable elderly consumer expects and deserves a high level of protection when purchasing such products. For him or her, regulation means the guarantee of effective monitoring of and punitive systems for product providers and advisers who are in breach of regulation. Consumers also demand the confidence given by a reliable compensation scheme and an effective ombudsman. The roles and powers of such regulation should be enshrined in legislation. I hope that the Minister will agree that voluntary regulation cannot work and should not be expected to do so, given the potential size of the market and the variations within products.
196WH
My concerns have been echoed by the private sector and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, by many consumer groups and charitable associations. It might seem counter-intuitive that it is a Conservative who is calling for more regulation, when it is normally our role to try—often vainly—to stop the Government from indulging their whim for excessive and stifling regulation. However, we have a responsibility to do so in this instance, because the Government have not introduced the safeguards that both the private sector and consumers have called for, in the light of experience and of the recent exponential growth of the market, to meet their needs and release for their lifetime use the equity value that is pent up in property, rather than, as often happens, leave that value to pass to others after their death.
Concerns about the regulation of equity release have been expressed in both Houses of Parliament. Baroness Greengross is today asking an oral question in the other place to find out how the Government plan to regulate and promote the development of equity release schemes. No doubt, the Minister's colleague in the other place will read with great care what she says here, in order to guarantee consistency. We would ask that that consistent message be expressed in the terms for which we have all called.
The Conservative party is pleased to note that the Government have at last recognised the importance of the market—the elderly—and of the need for effective regulation, but it is up to them to let us know what they intend to do and when. There can be no fudge. A paragraph in a Green Paper, which is what they have provided on so many occasions, is no substitute for action. To do otherwise would be no more than disingenuous spin about their intent in a critical market. I hope that the Minister's answer will, for once, absolve the Government of that charge.
10.35 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): How pleased I am serve under your chairmanship, Mr. McWilliam.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for their campaigning. They have brought to the attention of the House and people outside the importance of these matters and the injustice that has been done to certain people by the mis-selling of certain financial products.
I am aware of the distress that has been caused by the mis-selling of these plans not only because of the representations made by hon. Members but through correspondence. However, in response to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), I must say that the Government recognise the role that assets in their broadest sense—non-pension assets and, in particular, housing and equity release—can play in the provision of retirement income. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, it is common sense that people ought to be able to secure an income from their assets in retirement if that is what they want to do. If that is done in an informed way, and if it can be done safely, such practice will grow, and rightly so, but we must ensure that those products are provided in as safe a way as possible.

197WH
Equity release schemes are financial products that allow home owners to release the value of their property over and above any amount owed on a mortgage. Those schemes involve providers giving home owners a lump sum or income, or both, based on the value of the home. The providers receive their return when the home is sold. There are two basic types of scheme. One is mortgage-based; the other is the reversion plan. In the mortgage-based scheme, the householder retains ownership of the property; but in reversion plans, the reversion provider becomes the owner of whatever proportion of the property is sold.
There are several variants of the mortgage-based scheme. The mortgage annuity scheme, usually called the home income plan, allows the home owner to take out a fixed-interest mortgage, which is used to buy an annuity for a fixed income for life. The rolled-up interest mortgage allows the interest on the mortgage to be rolled up and added to the amount owed, which is repaid on death or when the property is sold. The shared appreciation mortgage expresses the cost of the loan as a percentage of any growth in the property value, payable on death or the sale of the property. Finally, some interest-only loans are available. I am aware of the concern expressed about many of those categories.
Under the home reversion plan, home owners sell their house at a discounted rate in return for a lump sum and/or income, and they continue to live in the house rent-free or for a peppercorn rent for life. The amount paid to the house owner is based on a number of factors, including the value of the property, the proportion of the property being sold, the life expectancy of the home owner, long-term interest rates and expected house-price inflation.
As with other regulated mortgage contracts, mortgage-based equity release schemes will be covered by the Financial Services Authority's regulatory regime that is due to come into force in October 2004. The FSA considers that such mortgages, which it calls lifetime mortgages, are high risk, and it has accordingly devised a regulatory regime for them. The proposals are set out in consultation paper 146—the FSA's approach to regulating mortgage sales—which was published in August 2002.
Mr. Tyler: As the Minister has already made apparent, the schemes are extremely complicated. She has also made it clear that some are high risk. Does she accept that such schemes were sold, particularly in the late 1980s, to a large number of people who could not get independent advice and were not expert in such matters, and that the schemes were demonstrably high risk to the seller, not to the buyer? Does she accept that the worst feature of that mis-selling was the fact that salespersons were able to say that the then Government had endorsed—guaranteed, even—such schemes?
Ruth Kelly: I am not going to comment on individual cases with which building societies or others may now be dealing. I shall come on to the different types of scheme and the problems with each, but to continue on appreciation mortgages. I understand the interests of the hon. Member for Twickenham in such matters.
Concerns have been raised about the returns that lenders receive if borrowers sell their property, having received a shared appreciation mortgage. The return a
198WH
lender receives from a shared appreciation mortgage is dependent on the increase in property value. In most cases, no interest is payable. The borrower repays the amount borrowed, plus three times the agreed percentage of any increase in value. For many shared appreciation mortgages, the maximum percentage is 25 per cent., so at most the borrower will be charged three times the increase in value. With the value of some properties rising substantially, however, lenders could receive a large return—indeed, some have done so. The hon. Member for Twickenham drew attention to the example of one of his constituents. Few people could have foreseen the extent to which house prices would grow. However, if house prices had fallen or risen more slowly, borrowers would have received a lower interest or even an interest-free loan. The risks should be properly understood and explained, and people should exercise an informed choice.
I am pleased to say that, when the FSA's mortgage regulation comes into force, the proposed advice and disclosure regime will enable borrowers to become fully aware of the implications of all equity release loans before they take a decision on the right one for them. I believe that the new regime will cover the anxieties that the hon. Member for Twickenham expressed. In the meantime, if hon. Members' constituents believe that they have been badly advised, or that their mortgage was mis-sold, and, assuming that all internal complaints procedures have been completed, they may be able to seek redress from the financial ombudsman service.
Home reversion plans are not currently covered by the FSA regime. That is because they are considered to be pure sale and purchase agreements, and not financial services products, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury pointed out. Just because home reversion plans are not financial services products does not mean that there is no scope for abuse. Vulnerable consumers may still be at risk of mis-selling and a lack of redress if things go wrong. There is also the possibility of distortion of the equity release marketplace in favour of the unregulated plans if there is not a level playing field and regulation between reversion-based plans and mortgage-based plans.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned the pensions Green Paper, and acknowledged the paragraph in it in which the future of home reversion plans is considered. I also note the commitment of the hon. Member for Eddisbury. He too thinks that it is a good idea to consider the matter closely, and wants a commitment from the Government to regulate.
The Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed and are concerned—for the reasons that I have described—about creating a level playing field for the regulation of both equity release and home reversion plans, aiming to protect consumers better and to make the market work better. We have already begun to meet interested parties to find out how a system of regulation might work. We are still gathering evidence of possible and likely consumer detriment in order to decide the appropriate degree of regulation. We do not want to overregulate—I am sure that the Opposition would have us bang to rights if we pursued that route. We want to get things right and we want consumers to be properly protected. Were we to go ahead on the basis of consultation, the process would be to publish a

199WH
consultation paper—probably later this year—and then to decide after taking legal advice whether regulation could be implemented using secondary legislation or whether primary legislation should be pursued.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If it was felt that such regulation was appropriate to achieving the Green Paper's stated aim of creating a level playing field, will its introduction coincide with the introduction of regulation of mortgage equity release, which the FSA is due to introduce in 2004?
Ruth Kelly: We will keep such dates in mind when we carry out our consultation and consider the possible legislative routes. As I have suggested, we are not holding back. We have begun to meet interested parties and are in discussion with them. We are determined to find out what we can do in this area.
Dr. Cable: The Minister is clearly trying to reconcile avoiding overregulation and protecting vulnerable people who are dealing with complex products. Has she considered that the sale of such products should involve independent financial advice?
Ruth Kelly: We will consider all the options that are put to us, while bearing in mind the fact that creating as close to level a playing field as possible for different types of regulation will be desirable. After consultation, we will determine the best way of regulating. One possibility is that the FSA will carry out the function; and the FSA will have views on the best ways of conducting any such regulation.
It is not the case that consumers have no protection at present, or that they will have no protection in future. As has been pointed out, the main reversion scheme providers are members of SHIP—safe home income plans—which is supported by leading providers of equity release plans. Members of SHIP agree to comply with a code of practice and undertake to provide fair, simple and complete presentation of any plan that they offer. I understand that the charity Age Concern has welcomed that code of practice; it may well improve the code, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has suggested. A SHIP plan guarantees that consumers will not lose their home whatever happens to the stock market or interest rates. In addition, and importantly, consumers' solicitors act on consumers' behalf—they are independent of the providers—when advising on the sale.
For the future, the FSA proposes that those firms that sell both mortgage-based equity release schemes and reversion plans will be required to take account of both types of product when giving advice. The proposed training and competence requirements will also include knowledge of both lifetime mortgages and reversion schemes, whatever the Government's decision. That is because the FSA is able to make rules in respect of the unregulated activities of regulated firms.
I turn now to home income plans. There were indeed serious problems at the end of the 1980s with schemes based on investment bonds. Those schemes used the proceeds of a mortgage raised on a property to invest in
200WH
a bond designed to provide sufficient returns to repay interest on the mortgage and, in addition, to provide an income. Unfortunately, the investment bonds failed to provide the returns required and investors found themselves with rising levels of debt to their lenders. The problem is well recognised by us and a range of measures have been implemented to help.
The sale of investment bonds was regulated at the time under the Financial Services Act 1986. Effectively, the then regulators banned home income plan schemes involving such bonds in the early 1990s. Using complaints procedures that were established under the Financial Services Act, home income plan investors were able to claim against their advisers, who were required to return the capital invested. About £70 million has been paid in compensation to 4,500 home income plan investors either directly by advisers or, if they had gone out of business, by the investors compensation scheme, which was the predecessor of the financial services compensation scheme.
Mrs. Browning: On that point, may I quote from a letter that I received from a former Economic Secretary to the Treasury—a dear colleague—that was put out on 20 November 1992? On home income plans and the investors compensation scheme, it states:
"In cases where the financial adviser was not the only party responsible for investors' losses, the ICS will not delay making an offer of compensation but will attempt subsequently to recover an appropriate element of the costs of compensation. I understand that one building society has, whilst not accepting legal liability, agreed to make a contribution to the costs of compensating clients."
That is a written precedent showing that there was culpability on behalf of not only the independent financial advisers, which is clear, but building societies. We want the Minister to show those who are still caught by the policies and increasing debts that the Treasury will put its weight behind getting building societies to do something to restore people to their original position and, as a first point, to introduce a freeze on the interest that is rolling up.
Ruth Kelly: I shall come to the hon. Lady's point in a moment.
I recognise that the Financial Services Act was able only to deal with funds that had been put into an investment bond. There were other cases in which people used sums raised for other purposes that are not covered under the Act and, consequently, many were left with residual debt to their lenders even after the compensation that was allowed. Although the lenders themselves should respond to residual debt, we take a serious interest in victims.
Fortunately, most lenders have offered a package of measures to home income plan investors in respect of such residual debt. The terms of packages typically include cash payments, reductions in interest rates charged for mortgages, capping mortgage interest rates and allowing people to stay in their homes for the rest of their lives. Additionally, the then investors compensation scheme agreed additional financial benefits for former home income plan investors with several lenders.

201WH
There is still scope for negotiation with lenders on those issues and I know that the Financial Services Authority has taken an interest.
Mr. Tyler: The Minister has said that the Government are taking a serious interest in people who are still caught by the schemes to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred. What exactly does that mean? We accept that comparatively few people have not benefited from compensation in the terms to which the Minister referred. What are the Government going to do? It is 11 years since the severity of the problem was first recognised, and there are damaged, distressed and vulnerable people out there.
Ruth Kelly: The fact is that there is very little that the Government can do except bring moral pressure to bear. The lenders must resolve the situation with the people who took out the plans.
Lynne Jones: I agree that the issue comes down to moral pressure, but it would be helpful if investigations were carried out to determine which lenders have the best records. That could be benchmarked, so that pressure could be put on other lenders to be that helpful to borrowers.
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Clearly, lenders have different records on that matter. The Government and the FSA are aware of the issue, and following this debate, I shall take a closer interest in it. The investors compensation scheme has been able to negotiate settlement terms with the West Bromwich, the Cheltenham and Gloucester, and the Stroud and Swindon building societies, but other lenders have not been so co-operative.
It is interesting to consider the case of one building society that went beyond the package of terms resulting from the ICS. In a court case, it was decided that responsibility lay not just with the independent financial adviser but with the building society, and that as the two were engaged in a joint enterprise or had a common design in marketing such products, they had a joint responsibility for compensation. That creates a precedent.
Mrs. Browning: I am very pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that, because in all the outstanding cases that have come to my attention, homes were mortgaged with one branch of the Britannia building society some 60 miles away from where the people involved lived. It
202WH
was not the nearest branch, which one would think would be the obvious place to go. One has to conclude that there was a liaison between that one branch, for which Britannia's head office has responsibility, and those doing the selling.
Ruth Kelly: I acknowledge that I am not familiar with the particular branch that the hon. Lady mentions. I am more familiar with the general issues surrounding such plans.
There has been some success in persuading lenders to aid their victims and those who have been caused distress by the plans. That will continue, but we are determined to ensure, over time, that such distress will not be caused unnecessarily in future. That is why we are considering how such plans might be regulated in future. Of course, home income plans and mortgage-based plans will be brought under regulation. We hope that lenders will take account of the views that have been expressed today and in the past and will take as generous and as sympathetic an approach as possible to any residual debt.
These are involved, technical and emotive subjects that range over different types of financial products governed by different regimes and sold at different times. In the background, there is the emotive issue of home ownership and the horror that many people, particularly the elderly, feel at the thought of losing so much of what they have worked so hard to gain. We are right to be concerned about that, and I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's position. I hope that I have said enough to assure hon. Members that the victims of mis-selling have appropriate mechanisms for redress, and that the FSA takes the matter seriously and provides adequate levels of investor protection, although of course we recognise that some cases are still outstanding.
Through the great pensions Green Paper, the Government are taking the steps necessary to enable people to save with confidence, and use not just the simpler financial products but equity release—if they are properly informed and fully aware of the risks involved—as a potential additional source of retirement income. I agree with the hon. Member for Eddisbury that we are talking about a growing market, and one in which consumers should have confidence if they are to make proper investment decisions. We are putting in place a framework that is right for the future.
10.59 am
Sitting suspended till Eleven o'clock.

Road Safety (Wiltshire)
11 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury): BBC Wiltshire put it to me this morning that a senior Minister's being clocked doing 99 mph along a stretch of the M4 in Wiltshire might have been the inspiration behind today's debate. That is not so, but traffic speed will feature largely in what I have to say.
Shortly after I was elected, the Wiltshire policeman who took me around pockets of petty lawlessness in my constituency was called to a traffic accident on the A36 north of Warminster. As we approached the scene, it was clear that it was a major incident, and it subsequently became apparent that a family of four had been killed when a lorry crossed to the wrong side of the road. That truly harrowing introduction left me with enormous respect for the emergency services and what they do and focused my interest in road safety. I am grateful for the opportunity to indulge that interest today.
In 1997, the Government set up the post of Minister for Public Health, and I have questioned elsewhere whether that was helpful in reducing mortality and morbidity in transportation. It was spectacularly unsuccessful in the context of road traffic accidents. After dramatic falls in road mortality in the 1980s and 1990s, progress has stalled. The Times reported only last Friday that the number killed and injured fell by less than 1 per cent. last year, which is short of the Government's 10-year plan to cut the numbers by 40 per cent. by 2010. There is a faint whiff of complacency about that and, indeed, a Department for Transport spokesman has been quoted as saying:
"Ministers are content with the progress we are making."
I invite the Minister to correct that impression—I am sure that he will do that.
Most deaths of car occupants occur on rural roads and the downward trend in total deaths since the 1980s continues at a slower rate in the countryside. Traffic is expected to increase more rapidly on rural roads than in urban areas, so it will be difficult to close the gap. I am happy to say that Wiltshire appears to be bucking the trend and, despite its rural nature, the county enjoys an enviable safety record. Against the background of the target set by the Government for the years to 2002, which was itself set against the 1981 to 1985 baseline, Wiltshire achieved a reduction of 54 per cent. in those killed or seriously injured, compared with the national average of 47 per cent. That trend was mirrored in total accidents and we appear to be doing better than Somerset, our next door neighbour, which is in many respects a similar county. It is difficult to work out the secret of Wiltshire's relative success, but one factor may be the willingness of the county to impose speed limits. In Wiltshire, less evidence has been demanded than would be required under Government guidance. For example, an accident record is not necessarily required in order for a speed limit to be imposed.
Wiltshire has been trialling vehicle-activated road signs. The success of that study should surely warrant the inclusion of such signs in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, which would allow local authorities to introduce them without prior reference to the Secretary of State. I would appreciate it
204WH
if the Minister would tell us when such an inclusion will be made, because my highways authority is keen to know.
Wiltshire has been anxious to ensure that its interventions are firmly rooted in available evidence. That is especially important in respect of road safety, because that subject is emotive and there is a tendency for politicians to want to be seen to be doing something, even if that may be neutral or worse. The use of 20 mph restrictions in the immediate vicinity of schools is one such example. Intuitively, one would think that such a measure is bound to help, but as the Government have pointed out, the evidence is less than clear cut. Children, especially young ones, are fairly well marshalled in the immediate vicinity of schools. They play close to their homes. The difficulty arises some distance away from schools, in the exact spots at which traffic speeds rise after leaving a 20 mph zone. We should not be tempted into tokenism and must look at wider areas.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that, to be respected, a 20 mph zone must be complemented by physical cues and attention to the general roadscape. Nowhere is that more true than in the linear villages of Wiltshire, where long, straight main streets encourage speed. A short while ago, the children of Dilton Marsh primary school wrote to me with their thoughts about how to improve road safety in their village, especially close to their school. The head teacher, Mrs. Judith Finney, invited me to visit and talk their thoughts through with the children.
I am sure that many hon. Members are humbled, as I am, by the sound good sense of young constituents. This occasion was no exception. The children pointed out that their main street was long and straight which encouraged people to drive fast. They said that the speed limit could be reduced, a pelican crossing could take them from school to the other side of the road where there was a post office and sweet shop and that general traffic-calming measures could be introduced. However, their most sophisticated observation was that it was difficult for children and their parents to walk to school because of the layout of the village and its pavements. The children said that it would be helpful if there were continuous pavement that did not end in a grass verge or hedge because they could then walk to school.
The children actually suggested what clever officials at the Department for Transport had come up with after months of careful consideration—so-called safe routes to school and school travel plans. In many areas, especially rural ones, there are no pavements and, where they do exist, they often end abruptly, forcing pedestrians into traffic. My young constituents rightly pointed to that as a hazard as well as an incentive for parents to take them to school by car.
In many areas, parents on the school run effectively use their cars as armoured vehicles to protect their children. We know that that sets in train bad habits that will probably stay with children for ever at great cost to public health and their health as individuals. By paying attention to how children get to school, we can demilitarise the school run.
Road safety is full of paradoxes. Until recently, I owned an elderly Nissan 1 litre car as well as an equally ancient Volvo estate. Apparently, I was more likely to injure and be injured while driving the latter than the

205WH
former because, although Volvo has an enviable and well-publicised safety record, it encourages a tank mentality. Although my Nissan was a wonderful car, it did not encourage the same sense of immortality, which made for much better driving.
Many people were initially taken aback when Wiltshire county council decided to dispense with white central markings along some stretches of road. Research and experience from abroad suggests that doing that reduces the biggest killer on our roads—speed. It removes any sense of comfort that road users may have and engenders caution. Unfortunately, that well-meant and evidence-based intervention produced some of the most craven, ill-informed opportunism that I have ever seen from the Liberal Democrats. It was shameful and I am sure that the Minister and I will find common ground about that.
Frankly, I am sure that the Minister will agree that what the Liberal Democrats say and do in Parliament does not matter much, but it does matter locally where they are often in positions of responsibility. In the context of the problem that we are discussing, they seem to be offering only a simplistic diet of speed restrictions. The evidence tells us that lower speed is necessary but by no means sufficient. Indeed, research suggests that the environmental context is the most important influence on driver's behaviour. At this point, the problem becomes a lot more difficult to solve than is implied by the Liberal Democrats' easy solution of sticking up speed signs so that they can tick the box marked road safety and consider that the job is done.
Evidence from Europe suggests that we need to improve the ability of drivers to read the road; we need legible roads. That suggests—almost counterintuitively—that the intelligent use of speed restrictions must be supported not only with physical barriers but with the absence of comfort cues that separate road users. In effect, that extends the home zone concept and the quiet lanes initiative that has had some success in Kent and Norfolk.
We learned from the Government's response to the Select Committee on Transport's report on road safety in October that demonstration projects are planned to trial suggestions for good practice in rural areas. They will be in line with the highly successful Gloucester safer city project. I think that all of us could welcome that, and I want the Minister to say how much progress has been made.
In October 2001, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions published a progress report that it had commissioned from the consultants Babtie Ross Silcock, which was entitled "Development of a Rural Road Hierarchy for Speed Management". The following month, it appeared on the Department's website. It recognised that the main killer was speed and that a blanket 60 mph limit on rural roads was inappropriate. The idea that it came up with was a reclassification of roads with easily understandable speed limits and corresponding traffic-calming measures where appropriate. It was quite far reaching and we understand from the Government's response to the Transport Committee's report of June 2002 that a working group was set up to carry the recommendations forward. Since then, we have not heard anything further, and I want the Minister to say where he has got to with this.
206WH
At the end of 2001, the Government put on ice a number of important road building and improvement projects that would undoubtedly have saved lives. Those included the A36 improvements to the road from Codford to Heytesbury; that is a notorious stretch of trunk road, which is known colloquially as "Death Valley." That project—like the Westbury bypass—was a stand-alone local project that should not have been dependent on the outcome of the south coast to Bristol and Bath superhighway consultation exercise, which, we understand, is due to report in the summer. Nevertheless, it was put on ice pending the outcome of that investigation. Such delaying tactics are transparent, and they do not help to improve our road safety record.
Public health policy is meant to focus on where the greatest potential benefit lies. Every year, about 3,500 people are killed on Britain's roads, 40,000 are seriously injured and there 300,000 casualties in total. Each year, about a fifth of all deaths of those aged between five and 19 are due to road traffic accidents. In public health terms, that is quite a lot—and things are particularly bad if the age distribution of casualties is taken into account, because that considerably magnifies the significance of road accidents in terms of quality-adjusted life years lost.
The toll from road traffic accidents vastly exceeds that from air, sea or rail travel. The tragedy at Potters Bar in May 2002 killed seven people, and all of us can recall the furore that appropriately and understandably surrounded that sad event. However, 10 people die on our roads every day, but in spite of the public health challenge that road accidents present, road safety appears to be the poor relation when one considers the effort that we put into safety elsewhere in our transport network. In The Guardian two years ago, Rob Gifford of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety was reported to have said:
"Someone needs to do some hard thinking and ask why we are prepared to invest so heavily in rail safety and so little in road safety which offers much better value for money per life saved."
As a result of the Potters Bar tragedy, we are likely to get a specialist rail investigation branch from the forthcoming Railways and Transport Safety Bill—which, I understand, we will hear more about this afternoon. That is good; it will add to similar outfits that exist for air and sea transport, and it is broadly to be welcomed. However, on road transport, policy makers are strangely silent. That is especially odd, given that there has been a Minister with responsibility for public health since 1997 and we might therefore expect a sense of proportion in policy making. If we are serious in our cross-cutting attempts to improve public health, the Government need to concentrate on where the toll is greatest. Of course, they must deal with the all-too frequent tragedies on rail, sea and air that fascinate the media, but in addressing death and serious injury from accidents, they must be less willing to be reactive. They must look first at where their capacity to do good is greatest and that is on our roads.
It is clear from the copious material that I have ploughed through over the past few days that the evidence base available to Ministers for policy making is finite. In observing the investigation held by the police following the accident that I attended on the A36, I was able better to understand the role of the police in such matters. It is clear that, appropriately, their first

207WH
consideration is law enforcement and not accident investigation. Indeed, they have neither the numbers nor the tools, given the skills that they are provided with to act as specialist accident investigators, to conduct investigations in the way that, for example, air, sea and rail investigators may.
Now is the time to set up a road casualty investigation branch to hold thematic inquiries into why certain types of accident happen. It could be located in the Department for Transport and funded through existing resources. It is worth noting that the total cost of road accidents in the United Kingdom in 1998—the latest year for which the figures are available—was £11.5 billion.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on securing the debate and on the exemplary manner in which he has presented his case today. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that he will not mind my chiding him gently on the matters on which I disagree. I share his distress at seeing major incidents such as the one that he described on the M4 in which people were killed and seriously injured. I assure him that every time such accidents happen—in my own constituency or anywhere else—they have an impact, not only on people like myself but on those in the Department. That is partly what drives us forward to do the things that we are doing.
I will chide the hon. Gentleman gently on the importance of such events to Government policy. I assure him that road safety is very prominent in the Department's thinking. It permeates our road transport policy. There is no complacency. We have a 10-year target to reduce the number of those killed and seriously injured. However, my reading of those figures is that we are now just ahead of the target. It is encouraging that we compare very well internationally—we are probably the best in terms of overall road safety—but our record on accidents involving children has not been as good as that of other countries in the European Union. It is encouraging to see that we are now making an impact on the number of accidents involving children.
I share the hon. Member's interest in the west Wiltshire "People's Voice", which sounds like the Liberal Democrat's version of "Focus". I have a saying, "In politics, there are lies, damned lies, statistics and Liberal Democrat focuses", in that order. I agree with him that there is "craven, ill-informed opportunism" in the document. It is nonsense to suggest that the whole road safety problem could be solved by spending £150,000 on 20 mph zones around schools—and that the policy was cruelly voted down by Tories and Labour councils. As the hon. Member for Westbury pointed out, our experience is that reducing speed limits and putting up signs in the road has little impact on the speed of vehicles. Such actions must be associated with other measures, such as engineering changes or speed cameras. There are many possible changes that could reduce speeds. As has rightly been pointed out, different measures can be combined. We should not detain ourselves for too long on the simplicity of the Liberal Democrats' so-called solutions.
208WH
Before I move on to some general points, I want to deal with a couple of questions that were raised. The hon. Gentleman spoke about talking to children at primary schools in his area. I have consulted widely with children in my area on what policies they think important. Interestingly, road safety features highly—children are the ones who experience the problems day by day when going to and from school and when playing. We should never ignore the sound good sense of children. We are considering ways of interacting with children in our consultations, so that we can hear some of that good sense and condense it into our thinking and our policies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about vehicle-activated signs. In some areas, they can certainly be very effective. Revised guidance will include approved legends for those signs, and the Highways Agency will soon provide guidance on approved types of equipment.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Gloucester safer city project, which I had the pleasure of visiting just under two years ago. The project has been extremely successful in involving local people and finding out the issues that they consider must be dealt with. Finding local solutions to local problems is very important. The full report on the project will be published some time in the spring of this year. It has taken time to discover what we have learned, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will learn important lessons from the experience in Gloucester, where the measures taken have led to a huge improvement in road safety and general quality of life.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience about the Codford to Heytesbury section of the A36. However, the roads programme that we are undertaking, and the amount of money that we are spending both through the Highways Agency and through local transport plans, is unprecedented in the past 50 years. Although it has made good sense to defer this particular project while the south coast to Bristol and Bath study was carried out, recommendations will be made again in the spring. It would not be sensible for me to comment further before then.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware that the Government produced in October last year a response to the report by the Select Committee on Transport on road traffic speed, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That response included mention of work that my Department is doing and will be doing to combat the effects of not only excessive but inappropriate speed. That work will help us to achieve our casualty reduction targets—a reduction of 40 per cent. in the overall figures for those killed or seriously injured, and a reduction of 50 per cent. in the figures for children, by 2010. We are aware of the problem of inappropriate and excessive speeds, especially in rural areas. We acknowledge that many of the measures that we have developed to improve safety in urban areas are not always appropriate for rural communities. We are working hard to address that imbalance.
It may be of interest to hon. Members that work is in progress or is planned for the near future. We have already begun to consider the merits and the practical implications of introducing a rural road hierarchy—which, of course, will be important in a largely rural county such as Wiltshire. We are also considering village entry signing and are simplifying the procedures for introducing 30 mph village speed limits. In addition, I

209WH
am sure that the hon. Member for Westbury will be interested to know that work has already started on the development of a framework for assessing which speeds are appropriate and comparing them with the speeds that are actually being driven on our rural roads. We expect the first results of that work to be available in the early part of this year. They will feed into our plans to revise the guidance on setting local speed limits more appropriately. We plan to publish the advice on village entry signing later this year, to assist authorities in introducing more 30 mph speed limits in rural villages.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that responsibility for safety on local roads rests largely with the local highways authority. However, the system of local transport plans requires local authorities to include separate road safety strategies for achieving the new reduction targets in their bids for capital funding for local transport measures. Wiltshire's funding for integrated transport measures, which includes measures to promote road safety, has increased from just over £350,000 in 1998–99 to almost £4 million in the current financial year. The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a substantial and welcome increase in local authority funding for transport purposes.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Wiltshire has made real improvements in road safety. They are largely consistent with the national trend and have generally exceeded the relevant targets. It is a tribute to local highways authorities and the police that they have promoted better road safety education, engineered solutions and introduced better enforcement where appropriate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, however, that is just the start, and we have no reason to be complacent. In 2002, Wiltshire county council signed a public service agreement with the Government, which included a more challenging casualty reduction target than that which applies nationally. We welcome that. The public service agreement sets a target of reducing the number of those killed or seriously injured on Wiltshire county and trunk roads to 288 by 2005. Without the public service agreement, the national target for Wiltshire would be 311. The county is half way towards achieving the national target for 2010, and I congratulate it.
The hon. Gentleman could not resist making some comparisons within Wiltshire and with the neighbouring county of Somerset. It is difficult to compare one county with another. Counties have their own problems and needs, and they must develop an appropriate road safety strategy. I have looked at Somerset's figures, however, and they show the same downward trend as those for Wiltshire. That is welcome.
210WH
We want to encourage the introduction of 20 mph speed limits outside schools, and we will do so where appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, such speed limits will often have to be associated with other measures, and I am sure that Wiltshire is considering that.
Speed limit enforcement will remain an important part of our road safety strategy. One of the most effective road safety tools that we have introduced to combat excessive speed is the netting-off scheme, which allows some fixed-penalty speeding fine revenue to be reinvested in safety cameras. The scheme has been enormously effective. Wiltshire joined in 2002 and mainly operates mobile camera units, which specifically target speed-related casualties on rural roads.
The safety camera scheme has been so successful that we expect nearly all police force areas to have joined by spring this year. Wiltshire is relatively new to the scheme, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that there was, on average, a massive 47 per cent. reduction in the number of those killed or seriously injured at camera sites in the pilot schemes. In real terms, more than 100 people are alive and well who would have been killed or seriously injured this year. That is a considerable success on the part of the schemes, and we should flag it up.
As has been highlighted, cameras are an excellent tool in helping to reduce excessive speed, but they cannot effectively combat inappropriate speeds below the speed limit. In our recent television advertising, we sought to encourage people to travel at speeds appropriate to the road conditions and the time of day—it may be raining or children may be coming out of school. Even 30 mph in a 30 mph zone may be inappropriate at certain times of day, although it will be wholly appropriate at others.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we announced SWARMMS—the south-west area multi-modal study—before Christmas. It will dual much of the A303, which passes through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Indeed, I sometimes pass along it on the way to my constituency. The study will introduce many road safety improvements, including on the stretch at Stonehenge, where tunnelling is being carried out. It is, indeed, a black spot.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising these issues. I may not have covered them all in the time at my disposal, and I will be delighted to correspond with him.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

International Criminal Court
2 pm
Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): My reason for requesting the debate is that like many Government supporters, I was extremely proud that after decades of effort, we passed legislation in 2001 to give full support to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. That was the culmination of a process that started at Nuremberg. After the second world war, a judicial system had to be created because the inadequacy of creating a new tribunal or independent process after each outrage had been brought home to people. We needed an established international court in which the perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity could be prosecuted. The sickening thought of future Idi Amins sitting safely in Saudi Arabia need be no more. If Saddam Hussein can be arrested, he can be prosecuted for any offences that he might have committed since the International Criminal Court was formed. That is truly foreign policy with an ethical dimension, if I may sound out of date.
The former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister played an active and special role in achieving the Rome statute that we incorporated into our law. Hon. Members of all parties said on Second Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill that they were in favour of the ICC in principle. Furthermore, the European Union, with our influence prominent, acted in unison with a common policy that was a formidable force for good to bring about the Rome statute. Eighty-seven countries have ratified the Rome statute to form the ICC; that has happened much more quickly than many anticipated. That was a huge triumph to end a huge injustice where, in the words of Mary Robinson:
"It's less likely that somebody who has massacred 100,000 people or has been responsible for their death would be brought before any accountable court than somebody who commits a domestic murder."
It was a therefore a great shock when I found out from isolated newspaper articles and sources abroad that my Government were leading the way in Europe to allow bilateral deals with the United States to exclude US citizens from the provisions of the ICC. In other words, we were excluding the 4 per cent. of the world's population who live in the most powerful state in the world from the International Criminal Court. That was a powerful and wrong message. Entrenching inequality before the law is a denial of the wishes of this House.
I fully accept the right of the United States not to ratify the International Criminal Court. I believe that its fears are misguided and, indeed, in the negotiations in which the United States played a full part that led up to the Rome statute people bent over backwards to accommodate its fears. The principle of complementarity was established and a role for the United Nations Security Council, on which the United States has veto powers, was written in to delay the responsibility of the ICC. Safeguards on the appointment of prosecutors were established and there was a refusal to apply the law retrospectively. However, the United States is still not satisfied.
Angus Robertson (Moray): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disappointing that the United States
212WH
maintains its position, especially when one considers that the provisions of the court would cover prosecution for the attacking or bombarding by whatever means of towns, villages, dwellings or buildings that are undefended and not military objectives, such as those in New York?
Tony Worthington: I shall come back to that point. However, the wretched events of 11 September certainly constitute war crimes, and I should have thought that the United States would welcome the establishment of an international criminal court. Unfortunately, not only is the United States not ratifying the ICC but it is seeking to undermine it. In the middle of last year, it blackmailed the United Nations by saying that it would withdraw all its peacekeeping forces from East Timor and Bosnia unless it obtained immediate agreement that none of its people would be subject to any action by the International Criminal Court and that they would have impunity. It obtained a year-long exemption from the provision of the ICC, which runs out this summer.
The United States is now aggressively seeking to negotiate bilateral impunity agreements for its citizens with every country that has signed up to the ICC. Up to now, 14 nations have signed such agreements, although none has ratified them. They tend to be weak countries that are dependent on American favours; they are heavily leaned on if they do not sign. For example, the Philippines was threatened with loss of cash for army retraining and Romania with lack of progress to NATO membership if they did not sign bilateral agreements.
In addition, the United States Congress has passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act 2002. It has sought to prohibit any US co-operation with peacekeeping operations unless US forces have been exempted. It precludes American assistance to any country unless that country has concluded a bilateral treaty with the United States that stops the surrender of US personnel to the court. Extraordinarily, the Act authorises whatever action is necessary to release from captivity any American personnel detained in The Hague or elsewhere.
Given American attitudes, it was crucial that the European Union stood together to resist demands for bilateral agreement that would undermine the International Criminal Court and that we responded with one voice to demands that severely undermined the credibility of the International Criminal Court. I am told that powerful voices in the European Union wanted to reject American demands. We were not one of them. We led those who were seeking to accommodate the Americans. That led to a position at the meeting of the Council of the European Union on 30 September that established the principles under which bilateral treaties could be signed. The Government claim that they are seeking to allow bilateral treaties with America in a way that does not undermine the ICC. I think that most people find it very difficult to square that circle.
I know that the Government are embarrassed by their role. They are not a modest Government and, rightly so. They have a lot to be proud of. They are fond of pointing out their achievements in international affairs—how they have led the way on certain matters, shown that they are at the heart of Europe, are setting the agenda and so on. However, the Government have been utterly silent on this matter, which has major implications for a

213WH
piece of legislation of which we are proud. Apart from a couple of questions in the other place and my modest contribution, they have given no information voluntarily.
As a Government supporter, I think that there should have been a statement on the International Criminal Court. I am particularly indebted to the organisation Parliamentarians for Global Action, of which I am a member and which worked successfully to persuade countries to sign up to the ICC. I am grateful to Human Rights Watch and to Amnesty International because, without them, I would have had no information about what was happening.
The debate gives the Government an opportunity to explain a policy that they have not wanted to explain voluntarily. The situation in which we find ourselves has considerable implications. The likely war with Iraq will be the first one in which British military action will be subject to ICC scrutiny. British military action, however, will not be under British military control. What discussions are taking place with the Americans to ensure that British forces are not involved in activity that could be subject to ICC concern?
I return, by way of example, to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). The ICC treaty contains a provision that outlaws attacks on military targets that clearly cause excessive harm to civilians. A court could find that the use of cluster bombs was, in some circumstances and some locations, a war crime. What action are the British Government taking to ensure that their troops are not involved in actions that could lead to charges being brought against them? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that their forces are not implicated in actions that are taken by American commanders, which may be in breach of their own statutes?
In a written answer to my questions in a debate on the action that was being taken to enact a bilateral treaty with the United States, the Minister for Europe told me that preliminary discussions had taken place with American officials on 17 October while they had been on a sweep of meetings in European capitals to negotiate bilateral deals. Other EU countries are rejecting such deals out of hand. What is the time scale on that matter? Does he intend that the bilateral deals should be completed before the summer, when the United States one-year exemption vis-à-vis peacekeeping forces will expire?
One important question is whether the Americans have accepted the terms on which the EU will negotiate bilateral deals. The Foreign Secretary and the EU have said that the bilateral deals proposed by the Americans in other cases, such as in East Timor, infringe the Rome statute. The guiding principles do not give the Americans all that they have demanded with regard to non-surrender agreements, for example, with regard to the categories of people who are granted impunity.
My information is that the Americans have not accepted the guidelines that the EU is laying down for bilateral deals. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. Will the Minister give us a cast-iron assurance that those guidelines will not be departed from and that if the Americans do not accept them then, like the other EU countries, we will not have a bilateral treaty with the Americans?
214WH
What action will the British Government take to ensure that Parliament is kept in touch with what is being done in its name? The contrast with the European Parliament and the Council of Europe is pronounced. The European Parliament debated the issue thoroughly and heartily condemned the principle of bilateral agreements. We must be informed about what is happening. Why will the Government not he open and transparent on this issue? Will the Minister give us an assurance that the House will be informed of all future developments? The EU Council instructed states to keep it in touch after its meeting on 30 September. The Government should surely be obliged to keep us in touch.
How would we respond if any other country approached us, or the EU, seeking a bilateral impunity deal? America is not the only significant country that has not ratified the ICC. If other countries, such as India, which supply peacekeepers, also sought to withdraw from UN forces, would the exemption policy also extend to them—if not, why not? Surely, we should be stressing equality before the law.
I would welcome the Government's views on the assertions made by the legal advisors of Human Rights Watch about the illegality of the use in this context of article 98 agreements. That respected and well-informed organisation believes that parties to the ICC have a legal obligation that prevents them from entering into article 98 agreements with parties such as the United States, which is the only country to have repudiated the Rome statute. Article 98 was not intended to allow a state that had refused to co-operate with the court to negotiate a web of agreements to secure exemption for its citizens or otherwise undermine the effective functioning of the ICC. It is surely common sense that signing such an agreement with the United States, which is committed to undermining the court, contravenes the obligations that Governments undertook on signing or ratifying the Rome statute. There would have been outrage if, while the Bill was passing through Parliament, a Minister had stated that if challenged by the United States, the Government would cave in and grant it impunity.
Article 27 of the statute incorporates the fundamental principle that no one is immune for crimes under international law such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It says absolutely explicitly that the Rome statute
"shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity",
yet we are sanctioning bilateral agreements with the United States that are in direct contradiction of that ethos. Does the Minister agree with the report in the Financial Times of 27 August, in which it was said that the European Union's legal experts advised that countries would be violating their obligations under the Rome statute if they entered into a US impunity agreement? To put it another way, our Government will be breaking a law passed in 2001 if they sign an impunity agreement with the United States.
Another question—my speech is bound to be all questions because we have been given no information—is whether the Minister agrees that, in the end, it will be for the international criminal court as an independent international judicial body and not states such as Britain or the United States to decide what legal effect should be given to any bilateral impunity agreement.

215WH
Is the Minister aware that if Americans who are suspected of war crimes are returned to America, they return to a country that does not have laws to deal with many international crimes under the Rome statute? As the United States cannot prosecute such crimes, a suspect would enjoy de facto impunity. We could not assume that, on the principle of complementarity, a suspect would be dealt with by the United States courts. Not all war crimes defined in the Rome statute are expressly defined as crimes under federal law when committed abroad. Crimes against humanity, apart from torture, committed abroad are not included under federal law.
Does the Minister agree with Amnesty International that if we sign an impunity agreement with the United States, we shall have to renegotiate all or almost all extradition agreements with other states, as most bilateral extradition treaties have re-extradition clauses? Such clauses provide that the state extraditing a person to another state normally retains the right to agree to the re-extradition of that person to another state or international court. If a state agreed to the US impunity agreement, it would have to renegotiate all or almost all extradition agreements that have re-extradition clauses. A new clause would have to be inserted to provide that the second state retained the right to agree to extradition except when the person was a US national or fell within other categories of persons covered by the agreement. What work will have to be done as a result of a bilateral agreement?
Does the Minister agree with Amnesty International that the US impunity agreement is designed to prevent US nationals from appearing as witnesses—even as expert witnesses—before the International Criminal Court? Since such witnesses appear only if they themselves consent, under the US impunity agreement they could be prevented from attending even if they were willing to help the court in its search for truth. The right to testify would be taken away by their own Government. Does the Minister agree that that is the meaning of the proposed bilateral agreement with the US?
Is the Minister aware of those points? What undertakings have the Americans given that they will update their laws to ensure that any war criminal from their country will face justice? A statement from the Council of the European Union confirms that:
"the European Union and the United States fully share the objective of individual accountability for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community."
However, the annex to that statement points out that
"any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity."
Is the US willing to accept the stipulation that it should amend its laws to fit in with the ICC statute?
A further question needs an answer. Does the EU remain adamant that applicant countries must ratify the ICC statute as a condition of entry into the EU and that the conditions for a bilateral agreement for applicant countries will be the same as those for current members of the EU?
216WH
Like many others, I feel great sadness about the attitude of the Bush Administration. It sends a dangerous message that the most powerful nation on earth sees itself as above international law. Enormous safeguards were included in the Rome statute to prevent politicisation of the ICC. Ironically, our stance weakens the position of any British nomination for prosecutor to safeguard the court from politicisation, because, in the eyes of most ratifiers of the convention, we have taken actions that weaken the court.
The policy followed by the Bush Administration contradicts the good work done by Americans since Nuremberg, as well as their helpful attitude in establishing the tribunals in Yugoslav and Rwanda and in helping us to establish a tribunal in Sierra Leone. I am disappointed that my own Government have undermined legislation introduced by the House less than two years ago—because that is the effect of impunity agreements.
I would like the Minister's assurance that, at the very least, he will answer my questions in a letter. Much better would be to use the facility of a written statement to the House to explain the current state of play.
2.24 pm
Angus Robertson (Moray): I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing the debate. I am a relatively new Member of this House, so I had to go back through the Hansard records of its proceedings to find out quite how many questions he has tabled and debates he has taken part in. This morning, I read his contributions to the debate of 3 April 2001 on the International Criminal Court Bill, and I supplemented my reading by looking at the substantial debates in the Scottish Parliament on the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill, which my party supported.
My interest in the International Criminal Court stems from my previous existence as a journalist—especially in the early 1990s, when I reported from the former Yugoslavia and saw scenes that were the results of clearly criminal actions by human beings against one another. My interest in history has also shown me that that is not a new development. Those are a couple of the reasons why my party and I are such strong supporters of the ICC. That is consistent with being in favour of an ethical foreign policy.
My interest in this subject was rekindled a few months ago when a constituent of mine who is an American citizen and whose father worked at the criminal trials in Japan after the second world war came to my surgery. I read about the international military tribunal for the far east with great interest and that reinforced my belief that it is right and proper for every state to support the ICC. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work that the Government have done to try to expedite the signing by the United Kingdom—which of course includes Scotland and the other jurisdictions in the UK.
My other particular interest in the ICC relates to the European dimension. That has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, and it is an extremely important dimension bearing in mind the United States of America's efforts to secure article 98 agreements, which are essentially moves to seek exemptions for US service personnel. That is a new

217WH
policy, which the George Bush Administration are pursuing; it was not pursued by the previous Democratic Administration of President Bill Clinton. Bush's Administration is clearly pressurising many international states to sign bilateral agreements that would prevent the surrender of any US citizen or anyone who has ever worked for the US military—including contractors—to the ICC, which we all hope will deal effectively with the worst crimes known to humanity.
However, after months of campaigning, the Bush Administration have concluded such agreements with only 17 countries. Only six of those countries have satisfied the Rome statute, and two of them—Romania and East Timor—are now emphasising that their Parliaments must ratify the agreement before it can take effect. Those 17 countries are Afghanistan, Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, The Gambia, Honduras, India, Israel, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Nepal, Palau, Romania, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie rightly said that those countries are particularly prone to diplomatic pressure to sign up to such agreements.
I welcome the moves of Germany—supposedly one of our close allies in the European Union—and Canada, which is a strong NATO partner. They expressly said that they will not sign such an agreement. On November 4, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Bill Graham, announced that Canada considers an existing agreement covering the conduct of United States personnel on Canadian soil sufficient to meet US concerns. After the Council of the European Union released its conclusions on 30 September, Germany's Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, announced that Germany was
"against the conclusion of special agreements and we will not conclude such an agreement."
If any right hon. or hon. Members have not yet had the chance to consider the full analysis by the German Foreign Ministry of the agreement reached at the Council, I would commend it to them. It makes it clear that pursuing the route of signing an article 98 agreement is inconsistent with the International Criminal Court as established.
The Council of the European Union discussed the matter at great length on 30 September and released guiding principles for member countries that are considering bilateral agreements with the United States. The principles state:
"Entering into US agreements—as presently drafted—would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute."
For such an agreement to be legal for those parties, it would need to include at least:
"No impunity: A guarantee that an appropriate investigation and potential prosecution would be undertaken by national jurisdictions.
No reciprocity: The exclusion of nationals of ICC States Parties from coverage of such an agreement.
No universal scope: The limitation of coverage to those persons present in a territory"—
because they have been sent by a signing state—and
"Ratification: The agreement must be approved according to the constitutional procedures of each individual state."
218WH
In addition, the Council emphasised that the
"Rome Statute provides all necessary safeguards against the use of the Court for politically motivated purposes".
I share entirely the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, especially on prosecutors. I wish any nominees from the United Kingdom every success in securing a position at the forthcoming selections. However, I would be very surprised if other signatory states did not view any candidate from one of the minority of states that have signed up to the special agreements as compromised in one way or another.
Will the Minister clarify whether he shares the opinion of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer that the principles that the European Union has outlined represent a concrete move towards a clear rejection of article 98—or does he not see the EU's principles as hindering the UK from entering such an agreement with its US allies? It has to be one or the other; it cannot be both.
Of course, it is up to the United States Administration to form their own policy on the International Criminal Court. As a great fan of the United States and a great supporter of much of its policy, I am very disappointed by the position that it is taking towards the ICC. However, I take some comfort from recent polls on the question conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. They recently released the full findings of Worldviews 2002—the most comprehensive survey ever, apparently, of US and European foreign policy attitudes. The second and final phase of the release of the survey findings shows that 71 per cent. of American respondents support the United States' participation in the International Criminal Court.
I also note with interest the findings of Monroe Leigh of the American Bar Association, which quite clearly show the United States constitution's compatibility with the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Those are matters for the United States, but I hope that it listens to the views of people around the world, and pays attention to the increasing scepticism about its diplomatic initiative.
There is another dimension to the issue that goes hand in hand with developments in and around Iraq. Clearly, if the United Kingdom, with or without a United Nations mandate, finds itself involved in armed military action in Iraq, there could be consequences, given that the ICC will shortly be up and running. We should consider the situation as outlined by the ICC:
"if nationals of States Parties to the Statute are victims of suspected crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court in the territory of a State which is not a Party to the Statute committed by persons who are not nationals of a State Party, the Court wouldn't be in a position to investigate except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the jurisdiction of the Court, or if the situation is referred to the Court by the Security Council."
If the UK and the US were to pursue a military campaign in Iraq—and I hope that that would occur only if there were a new mandate from the UN Security Council—and the regime of Saddam Hussein were toppled, it would raise some big questions. If during a future campaign against Iraq, war crimes were committed against UK troops, would the post-war military administration enter Iraq into the ICC? Bearing

219WH
in mind that one surmises that the UK would play a role in establishing the new Government in Iraq, would the UK try to pursue a policy whereby that new Government would sign up to the ICC, or would the UK request that the UN Security Council referred the matter to the prosecutor of the ICC for investigation? That point is germane when one considers that military conflict may be only a few weeks away.
I should like to touch on a point relating to the timetabling of developments at the ICC. At the February meeting, judges will be elected, and in March 2003, there will be the formal inauguration of the ICC. My question is about nominations for judges and prosecutors. The Minister will be aware that the UK nominee for the position of judge is Adrian Fulford, an English judge. I wish him success. I am interested in how future nominations for positions on the ICC, the European Court of Justice or other bodies will be pursued, particularly as the Government have said that they would like a more open system of appointment for judges, and bearing in mind that there are three criminal jurisdictions in the UK.
Of course, if Scotland were a normal independent country, a Scottish Government would—as would any other normal Government, such as that of Ireland—ensure that a nominee from the Scottish legal system were put forward at every point. That is not always so in the UK, although it sometimes happens, as with the example of Judge Edward who serves on the European Court of Justice. However, there is no guarantee, and I view that as a less than ideal circumstance. Nevertheless, I would still like to hear from the Minister what system the Government have in mind for future nominations.
I shall finish with a quotation that I think is germane to ICC developments, and which comes from the time of the Nuremberg trials. It is of the chief US prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, who said:
"The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment."
That was right then, and it is right now. If we are to reach agreements, it should be without exemptions. I look forward to the Minister's reply to my questions, and to those of the lion. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie.
2.40 pm
Ross Cranston(Dudley, North): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing the debate. He has a passionate commitment to the International Criminal Court—that is well known—and his reputation generally on matters to do with international development is widely acknowledged in the House. When I was Solicitor-General, I was privileged to play a small part in the passage of the legislation, and I support the ICC unreservedly. However. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I put to one side his concerns for a moment, though I hope to return to them at the conclusion of my remarks. I declare my membership of the Bar.
220WH
The Government are to be congratulated on their promotion of the International Criminal Court. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, the Government adopted a positive role both at the diplomatic conference at Rome and in the preparatory meetings leading up to that. After a long struggle—over decades—the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court was finally agreed in July 1998. We took that positive position despite the misgivings of our close ally, the United States. We have continued to support the court. Next month, as the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said, there will be the assembly of state parties in New York, and the judges of the court will be elected. We have nominated Mr. Justice Fulford. Before his elevation to the High Court, Sir Adrian Fulford was an eminent criminal practitioner.
The success or failure of the ICC, as with other new institutions, does not turn simply on whether Governments agree or pass the necessary legislation. An institution depends vitally on the resources—the human resources in particular—associated with it. In the case of the court, that means the quality of its judges, of both the prosecutors and defence lawyers who appear before it, and of the support staff, such as those in the registry. That quality cannot always be guaranteed. In many developing countries, the best lawyers do not want to become judges, and the judiciary must be recruited from the public sector. Practising lawyers migrate to commercial law, which is more lucrative, and abandon advocacy before the criminal courts.
As for financial resources, there are problems with the existing international criminal tribunals—or, at least, with the international criminal tribunal in Rwanda. There have been operational problems. Verdicts have been handed down in relation to only five defendants, although over 50 detainees are still on trial, or awaiting trial. At the current rate at which cases are proceeding, that court will still be trying cases in 150 years' time.
There are also problems with the UN-sponsored trials in East Timor. The court there is not an international criminal tribunal but is sponsored by the UN as a hybrid court. Again, under-funding and neglect have meant that key appointments have not been made, and cases are proceeding in a desultory fashion.
When we turn to the former Yugoslavia, we can take some comfort from the quality of the tribunal; the efforts of Governments, especially ours, have resulted in a good record. I mention particularly the contribution of the English Bar. No better illustration can be found of the contribution that the UK has made than the trial of Milosevic. The presiding judge is Judge May, whose control over an extremely difficult trial has won universal admiration—although possibly not from the defendant. The prosecutor is Geoffrey Nice QC, and the amicus—he was appointed by the court because Milosevic is defending himself—is Stephen Kay QC. This country is making a superb effort, and its high standards are acknowledged by other countries.
It would be invidious to mention other lawyers from this country, although the senior lawyers whom I have mentioned are not the only ones to have made a contribution to the ICC; many junior lawyers are involved. For example, The Times last week contained an article on the International Criminal Court by Sylvia de Bertodano, a London barrister who has practised in these various courts and is now contributing to the

221WH
hybrid court in East Timor. The international criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia augurs well for the International Criminal Court. It can work.
I wish to make one subsidiary point. Too often in the House, I have to listen to negative comments about the greed of lawyers and about their obstructionism. As with any profession, there are unattractive aspects to some lawyers' practices. As MPs, we sometimes attract opprobrium—and in some cases it is justified.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): You get it for both.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. I do not work in the international court.
Ross Cranston: English judges and lawyers have done the country proud and, as I said, that has been acknowledged well beyond our shores. Leading practitioners have been to The Hague, to Arusha, and to Indonesia to appear before and work for international criminal tribunals. Although they are paid, they earn much less than they would receive if they were still practising in London; and their practices suffer when they are absent. The English Bar has also done a considerable amount of pro-bono work; for example it has voluntarily engaged in advocacy training for lawyers from other countries who are to appear before the existing international criminal tribunals. I am sure that that will continue for the ICC. The efforts to establish an international criminal Bar for the purposes of the ICC will come to fruition in June 2003. Again, our lawyers have played an important part in that.
To conclude, I make three points. First, I hope that the successful operation of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the future success of the ICC, will convince the United States of the value of acceding to the Rome treaty. Secondly, the Government deserve credit for all that they have done within the confines of realpolitik. Finally, as well as taking credit on behalf of the Government, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe would not be remiss if he paid tribute to our legal profession for what it has done in demonstrating that an international criminal tribunal can be made to work.
2.49 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) referred to the debate on 3 April 2001 on the International Criminal Court Bill. I was privileged to take part in that debate and I outlined then six good reasons for supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The first was to punish past killers, the second to deter future killers, the third to embarrass those who shelter killers, the fourth to force countries to put killers in their midst on trial—preferably domestically—and the fifth to prove beyond doubt that the killings took place. The sixth was to bring out aspects of the truth that might otherwise remain hidden.
Like the hon. Member for Moray, I had read a great deal about former international military tribunals dealing with atrocities. I had personal reasons for doing that because my family was caught up in such events before I was born. I read of the way in which some of the
222WH
worst war criminals were sheltered after the war by countries that ought to have known better, were helped to get there by various organisations—including even some branches of the Roman Catholic Church—that ought to have known better, and were massaged by certain intelligence services that ought to have known better. There were cases that were not properly investigated, such as that of Mengele in Brazil. His family remained in regular contact with him from West Germany until his death—a contact that could easily have been found out if the West German Government had wanted to make the effort.
Like the hon. Member for Moray, I believe that there is a need for an international machine to cope with what he rightly called the worst crimes known to humanity. So far so good; however, this is the third debate on the subject in which I have participated, and it is the one that has made me most gloomy. In the first debate, I was extremely enthusiastic and in the second I was very enthusiastic, but was beginning to have doubts about the ways in which some people might regard the ICC as liable to interpret its work. In today's debate, I am becoming very concerned. If we are considering the worst crimes known to humanity, we should make sure that the ICC confines itself to those.
There are two ways of dealing with atrocities. There is the method that we have now: when the atrocities are sufficiently appalling, a special ad hoc international court is set up to deal with them—whether they be those perpetrated by the Nazis or the Japanese, or those that occurred in the Balkans or Rwanda—and only them. The disadvantage of doing it that way is that it takes a great deal of effort to set up such a court. There must be many borderline cases in which justice is not done because the countries concerned will not make the effort to set up a special court. That is the argument for having a standing court.
Unfortunately, it is beginning to dawn on me that there is a way in which the standing court could go badly wrong. Those doubts have been reinforced by some of the contributions that I have heard this afternoon. We know the saying, "The Devil makes work for idle hands." My concern is that a standing court, once set up, will look for things to investigate that might not come into the category that the hon. Member for Moray rightly defined as the worst crimes known to humanity. If a standing court is not to lose credibility, it should not be playing with definitions, as sometimes happens in domestic courts and even in quasi-legal inquiries. I heard talk of it possibly being appropriate for such a court to investigate the use of cluster bombs, but that would stretch the definition of what the court is designed to do.
I can foresee circumstances—I raised this during the debate that took place in 2001—in which there might be a danger of people trying to take a case to the international court about the fact that certain countries practise a policy of nuclear deterrence, on the basis that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons could be construed, in some bizarre way, as a war crime or a crime against humanity. We must recognise reality; we interfere with countries' sovereignty only in the most extreme and important cases in which the crimes committed are most dire. As someone who has proved myself, on two previous occasions, to be a friend of the idea of an International Criminal Court, I appeal to

223WH
Members present and to those who read the debate who want the ICC to work, as I want do, not to regard it as a tool for the creeping generalisation of some sort of world order of government. It should not be that. Its purpose should be to deal with the worst crimes known to humanity. If it confines itself to those cases, it will continue to receive cross-party support in this House.
2.56 pm
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has made a perfectly valid case. I suggest that if the court were not properly set up and did not receive the right backing from across the world, none of his worries would come to pass. We shall, indeed, be in difficult circumstances if we get ahead of ourselves, as he may, perhaps, have been suggesting.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing the debate. He has raised his concerns in various ways in the past—most recently in a debate on Europe in the Chamber—and it has been useful for us to have those concerns set out in more detail today. I look forward to the Minister's response to the points that have been raised, with which I have considerable sympathy.
Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are all horrors of the present day in just about every continent on earth, but they have been a feature of our history for many centuries. The international community has set out the principles of law that should apply to us all, from the Geneva conventions to the United Nations charter. Those principles are complex, but the principle that civilised values should be shared, imposed and supported across the world is something with which few right-thinking people would disagree.
Since the second world war, there has been widespread recognition of the need to develop a justice system that is recognised around the globe and can give effect to those international conventions and laws. The purpose of such a system is not only to bring to justice those who commit offences but to act as a deterrent to those who might be tempted to follow suit and, importantly, to ensure that the victims of crime, their relatives and countrymen do not take the law into their own hands to get retribution. The failure to tackle the Nazis after the war—alluded to by the hon. Member for New Forest, East—the troubles of investigating the Rwandan genocide and, most recently, the creation of The Hague tribunal to deal with the former Yugoslavia have taught us different lessons about how we have coped, or not, as the case may be, with the problems that international law throws up. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) rightly pointed out several of the shortcomings in the tribunals that exist.
Liberal Democrats were eager to support the International Criminal Court when it was created—while recognising such shortcomings and a desire to get rid of them—and we supported the passage of the legislation through the House. As we gather just before the judges are selected and the court begins its work, we should be celebrating. It is a fantastic achievement of
224WH
which the Government should be rightly proud. Instead, we find ourselves in considerable uncertainty as a result of the position of the US Administration.
We have always understood the American reservations. President Clinton signed the Rome statute but made sure that we were all aware that it would never be ratified. There is a world of difference between not ratifying the statute and actively trying to undermine it; unfortunately that is the US Government's present position. There are several reasons why the United States might be motivated to do that. One might be the profound issue of sovereignty, meaning that it does not accept that any body other than its sovereign courts can have jurisdiction over its citizens. That point might carry more weight if the United States showed slightly more respect for the citizens of other countries whom it alleges have committed international crimes. The people who are caught up in Guantanamo bay at the moment might like to pause and consider the irony of that.
Dr. Julian Lewis: For the sake of clarity, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that what might or might not be happening in terms of prison conditions on Guantanamo bay could be the sort of circumstance that he imagines being examined by the International Criminal Court?
Mr. Moore: I was making a separate point. We do not want to be sidetracked into a debate on Guantanamo bay, but the rights and jurisdiction of those who are there is not best practice as we would enjoy it. The Americans should not be so worried about other jurisdictions when that is the case.
Mr. Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman think perhaps that the ICC could be the ideal court to deal with people who are accused of terrorist and other offences?
Mr. Moore: It could be. There is a genuine debate to be had, but the core issue at this time is surely that we need to understand the motivation for the American action. I hope that the Minister will give us an insight into that. Attempts to sidestep the whole ICC by article 90 waivers and bilateral agreements are very worrying.
Surely at a time when we are, rightly, trying to exploit our special relationship with the United States, we should be persuading it to change its approach on this matter. Indeed, if we go back to the debate on Second Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill, the then Foreign Secretary, who is now the Leader of the House, said:
"I regret that the United States does not yet feel able to ratify a statute which it has signed…We will continue, as a friend and ally, to encourage the United States to join the International Criminal Court…the best way to do so is to show our own confidence in the court by taking part in it." —[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 223.]
Surely that is not the same as being party to the bilateral agreements that will undermine the court.
Perhaps the Minister will make the European Union position clear when he responds because it appears that the Government are in something of a bind. They are committed to exploring and finding a bilateral agreement with the United States, but they are committed also to a set of guiding principles agreed on

225WH
30 September at the Council of Ministers that suggests that the draft agreements promulgated by the United States are incompatible with the ICC itself.
Given that there is the prospect of our signing a bilateral agreement with the United States, if the Government agree to give the Americans certain rights, the Government must accept some rights themselves. I ask the Minister whether the Government have now had serious second thoughts about the criminal court. If other countries approached us, would we consider bilateral agreements with them, too? Is our position that we shall actively seek to get exemptions of bilateral agreements with other countries?
The deferral of last year's application of the International Criminal Court was a compromise designed to avoid the ICC being stillborn. What is the Minister's assessment of the prospects of that process being resolved peaceably and effectively, leaving us, at the end of the deferral period in a few months' time, with an International Criminal Court that can credibly start to do its work? If the deferral period ends, and few countries have signed up to the bilateral deals that have been mentioned already, what is the Minister's assessment of what will happen next? It is an alarming prospect that we may find ourselves without an institution that has found cross-party support, as well as worldwide support.
At a time when the United States is making a serious case that those who commit horrendous crimes should be fully accountable in the international arena, its action is deeply damaging. Our Government's connivance with that is worrying. I hope that the Minister can resolve that issue for us this afternoon.
3.6 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): I open by congratulating the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on securing this debate on a subject of considerable interest that, although it was debated some months ago, perhaps must be looked at again. We are all interested to hear the replies to the questions put by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). I also take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on a clear and incisive contribution to the debate.
Hon. Members might recall that we opposed the passage of the International Criminal Court Bill at Third Reading because of its shortcomings, which we felt would cause considerable problems in its practical operation. Support was expressed for the principles behind the establishment of such a court. It is absolutely right in theory and in practice that the international community makes judgments about crimes against humanity.
The 20th century witnessed many bloody wars and saw genocide and crimes against humanity on a scale previously unimaginable. People internationally have a right to react to that. Many of today's conflicts, upon which I shall touch later, revolve around ethnic strife and tensions. Those tensions increase the potential for genocidal acts.
I shall recount a little of the history behind the establishment of the court, and the motivation underlying it. The international community, rightly
226WH
horrified by terrible crimes against humanity and the genocide perpetrated during the second world war, determined that the guilty should be brought to justice. The principle holds good today, as it did then; that those who commit such crimes should not—cannot—be permitted to escape justice.
Ad hoc tribunals that we have seen in the past may prove necessary again in the future. They can focus on a specific incident or issue and have the flexibility to address the actual circumstances of individual situations and crimes. However, the purpose of such trials must also be one of deterrence. It is open to question how effective such tribunals that are set up for particular cases will prove to be in that respect. They do not seem to have deterred Mr. Mugabe, for example, who, by anyone's standards, is certainly on the way to conducting himself with grotesque inhumanity.
However, while no one can dispute the value of bringing war criminals to justice, we continue to worry about the blueprint for the ICC and how it will work in practice. Concern is centred on a lack of protection for our troops, who are engaged in international operations and peacekeeping. To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East, as it is currently conceived, the court runs the serious risk of becoming a political court. Despite expressing our concerns during the passage of the International Criminal Court Bill and tabling amendments to deal with them, the Government appeared unwilling to listen. The build-up to a possible war in Iraq puts the spotlight firmly on such matters.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that we are not alone in our concerns about the ICC and how it will operate in practice. Reference has been made to that this afternoon. The statute of Rome, which established the ICC in 1998, was signed by 120 countries. However, far fewer than that number have so far ratified it; I believe that 87 is the latest figure. The court entered into force in April 2002 as the 60th country ratified the statute on that date, but it is worth noting how many have not. We should question why that is so.
As we have heard at length this afternoon, the most notable country to have grave reservations is the United States. It has lead to President Bush's decision to "unsign" the statute. I can understand that country's worries, but it is not alone. Russia, China, India and Israel also have grave reservations and have not ratified the statute. That means that more than half the world's population is not technically covered and the serious concerns of many other countries have led to their securing opt-outs, such as France's seven-year opt-out. The worries at the root of those countries' reservations resonate the concerns of Opposition Members.
In today's world, peacemaking and peacekeeping play an increasingly important role, as they should do. Many countries torn apart by civil war and conflict are reliant on external peacekeepers to give them the stability that they need to rebuild their countries. Peacekeepers are provided by countries as an act of good will. As we pointed out during the Bill's passage through Parliament, at the heart of our concerns is the way in which the court could become a political court; a weapon that could be used by potential enemies to target British, American, French or other troops and officials who are behaving properly. The filing of charges in the court could leave them open to indictments for

227WH
legitimate actions in the course of their duties. The Government have failed repeatedly to secure protection for our troops in that regard.
Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the use of political and diplomatic pressure to seek exemptions by one country runs the serious risk of politicising the ICC?
Mr. Spring: Countries have to make a judgment. For example, given its huge predominance of military and economic capability and its vulnerability, especially now, the United States is sensitive to actions against its troops. We can see that at every level. We must accept that reality and try to work with it. We are particularly concerned that the Government refused repeatedly to accept our amendment that was aimed at protecting our armed forces. Their broad stance—placing human rights law above the protection of armed forces—means that British armed forces will be less able in the future to fight effectively without fear of arrest. Most ironically, it damages the cause of human rights, as countries will not risk using their troops for potential peacekeeping and humanitarian work, as witnessed by America's threatened withdrawal last summer. The provision of troops is an expression of international good will by countries; good will that may well disappear if the troops become vulnerable. At all costs, we must avoid creating a situation in which it is difficult for law-abiding nations to pursue just action because their officials or soldiers—not those from countries that scorn all law—have to answer to such a political body.
The Minister is aware that if it proves necessary for military action to take place in Iraq, and if it is carried out without the backing of a specific UN resolution, British soldiers who are simply doing their jobs could face prosecution under the terms of the court. We supported from the outset the principle of bringing to justice war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity. We still do. However, the issue is being distorted. My party's support in Parliament was conditional on the introduction of measures to protect our troops; a seven-year opt-out from jurisdiction over war crimes, greater protection for the armed forces and discretion for the Secretary of State with regard to requests for arrest and surrender.
I ask the Minister to clarify the Government's position on a number of key points. Does he accept that if the Government had adopted those measures, British troops would be better protected? Will he tell us once and for all what protection, if any, our troops will have from malicious prosecutions in the ICC? Now is an extremely important time to clarify the situation. Will he explain why the Government opted not to secure a seven-year veto from prosecution for our troops? He might argue now that a veto was not necessary. If that is the case, it was not the view taken by the French. Does he think that the French Government took an unnecessary step, or is it just another area in which our Government and that of France disagree?
What assessment has the Minister made of comments by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce that, in such circumstances, the rules of engagement might be changed to the point of giving those who do not adhere
228WH
to international laws first strike? Finally, how does the establishment of the court sit with the doctrine of preemption in foreign policy espoused by President Bush and supported by the Prime Minister?
This House, and our troops who are sent abroad on peacekeeping missions to defend our national interest, deserve answers to those questions, particularly at this most anxious time.
3.16 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) on having obtained this debate. He is right to insist that the House should debate the issue. There were debates in our Parliament leading up to the passage of the law establishing the International Criminal Court and its ratification, and we have heard some points reiterated today. I am happy to try, through normal parliamentary means, to discuss this sensitive issue with colleagues from all parties. It is not my direct responsibility, but I know, from many intense conversations that Ministers have had in the Foreign Office and from questions that have been asked in the House and in the other place, that the matter is important.
On the other hand, there has been a great deal of hypothetical questioning, which it is difficult to answer. I cannot guarantee what will happen; I am not a soothsayer. I know that the provisions of the ICC—this is an important point of debate with the United States of America—make it clear that countries have to undertake their own prosecutions against people accused of any of the serious crimes mentioned in the court's statutes. It is inconceivable that a British or American service person would not face the most relentless investigation and prosecution under British and American laws were he or she to be accused, in the course of a conflict, of any of the crimes mentioned, and I think that the same applies in the case of the other democracies. Let us be honest in admitting—I think of American servicemen, such as Lieutenant Calley after the Mai Lai massacre, who faced the severest sanctions because of such accusations—that the United States has a very good record in that respect. When it comes to motes and beams, I wonder whether every aspect of the post-1945 wars of decolonialisation in which the European powers were severally involved did not contain instances that were not perhaps investigated as fully as the misdeeds of which American servicemen were accused in Vietnam and in other conflicts.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons for the Americans' unwillingness to sign up to the ICC is that their mentality is to protect their service people at all costs? We all know that American service people committed criminal acts in this country, only to be whipped home before they could be subject to our criminal justice system.
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is perhaps taking us a little far from the International Criminal Court. We are talking, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) forcefully reminded us, of the worst crimes against humanity, not infractions, serious though they may be, that can be dealt with by military or other

229WH
discipline. The fundamental problem, if my hon. Friend will allow, is of course that although criticisms are made of the current Administration, under the American constitution it is the US Senate that is required to ratify treaties. In over 200 years of existence, it has shown a great reluctance to do so.
Presidents may sign or unsign but there was never, in anybody's judgment, a majority on the Hill for the ratification of that treaty. That is why I say now, as I have said in other debates and publicly, that we need to engage with American elected representatives. We need to engage with American public opinion before the President acts to unsign, rather than protest when the Administration, reflecting what they suspect is the view of their own legislature, cannot accede to what we would like to see happen. I had very good conversations with the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Mr. Ken Roth, who protested, much as some hon. Members have, about aspects of our Government's discussions with the United States and with our other partners on this issue.
I must say pretty bluntly to Mr. Roth that, as an American citizen, he should persuade his fellow citizens, as we have had to persuade our fellow citizens, to support the ICC. He should persuade his elected representatives, as we have persuaded ours, to support, legislate for and ratify the ICC. I found it frankly a bit much to be lectured in the Foreign Office by Mr. Roth—and I have enormous respect for Human Rights Watch—when he should be in New York or in Milwaukee or Peoria persuading his fellow Americans that this is a good and great institution.
If I may, I shall quote from an article in the excellent magazine "Renewal". It was written by the noted American political scientist and philosopher, Mr. Michael Walzer, who is on the progressive left of American politics. He says:
"Consider the issue of criminal justice: the American refusal to join the International Criminal Court…I think that the Bush administration's policy is wrong. But it is not crazy or incomprehensible"
if understood roughly along these lines: when war is just and necessary as in the Gulf in 1991 or in Kosovo in 1999, it is the United States that bears the brunt of the fighting. According to the same article, our European allies oppose American unilateralism only this far:
"they want a role in deciding when war is just and necessary, but they are content once a decision is made to leave most of the fighting to American soldiers. Americans are supposed to accept the risks of war, and now they are supposed to accept the legal liabilities. It is American soldiers, and hardly anyone else, who will be accused of war crimes—and they will be accused both when there are legal reasons to think that crimes have been committed and when there are political reasons to pretend that crimes have been committed".
That is a long quotation to read into Hansard, but that was a member of the American liberal community rightly stressing the concerns that must be felt. The famous Kipling poem about Jolly this and Jolly that reminds us that when we wants him to do the fighting, we can call on him.
Mr. Moore: I think that I can speak on behalf of the Chamber and say that we always leave debates in which the Minister is involved much better informed, and we
230WH
shall do so again today. However, will he tell us the Government's position on bilateral deals and how it fits with the EU guiding principles?
Mr. MacShane: I am happy to do so, but it needs to be set in context. It was pointed out earlier that India, the world's largest democracy, has not only refused to ratify the ICC but has now signed a bilateral deal with the United States. France, one of the leading democratic partners in Europe, is insisting on article 124, which allows a seven-year opt-out. When I discussed that with members of the Administration in Washington, France's action was thrown back in my face.
It is precisely because we need to make the court work that simply to say that we are right, that we are the only ones in step and that everyone else is wrong and should conform with us, is not sensible international policy. We understand the US objections to the court: given that country's role on the world stage, it is particularly open to the threat of frivolous or politically motivated prosecution. We do not share its fear of the court, however, because the Rome statute contains sufficient safeguards to prevent it, not least the principle of complementarity.
Mr. Savidge: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: No, I cannot. I must get these points on the record.
That is why we worked hard last July to achieve UN Security Council resolution 1422, which allowed the US to continue to contribute to peacekeeping in Bosnia without flouting the ICC.
In reply to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), I can say that the resolution allows another 12-month deferral when it comes up for reconsideration. The US is seeking more permanent solutions. It is seeking bilateral agreements under article 98.2 of the Rome statute; and it is seeking to work under the statute to protect what it sees as its own service personnel.
Tony Worthington: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: No, I cannot. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend. He asked a long list of questions; if I had done nothing but answer them, I could not have set matters in context.
The original proposal from the US for an agreement to exempt all its citizens from the jurisdiction of the court would be inconsistent with article 98.2 and consequently the statute. With our EU partners, we have drawn up guiding principles, providing that a solution to the problem should not confer immunity for US citizens; that there should be no exemptions for nationals of a state party, such as the UK; and that there should be exemptions only for citizens "sent" or mandated by their Government. We believe that those principles, which are consistent with article 98.2, provide the basis for entering into bilateral agreements. It will be up to each EU member state to decide what to do.
The British Government held a round of discussions with the US on 17 October 2002. They were of a purely preliminary nature, and the US Government have not

231WH
come back to us; they have said that they would reflect on them, but they have not yet reverted to us. The US held similar discussions with other EU partners, particularly Austria, Italy and Spain.
I cannot answer my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on whether there will be a bilateral agreement; but I can say that the House will be fully informed. I do not know whether the US is willing to amend its laws to fit in with the ICC statute. I am not an American legislator. I can say, however, that witnesses can appear before the ICC, but that will be the decision of the witnesses. If a Government choose to impose a court order preventing a citizen from participating in an ICC hearing, it will be a matter for that Government.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on the contribution of lawyers. We are creating an international legal system and we are getting there with some difficulty.
This debate reflects real difficulties and we should cease name-calling and try to work our way through the problems. The British Government want to see the ICC established and working. However, we must bring the rest of the world with us. It is no use standing alone with some of the democracies of the world, saying that everyone else must bend in with our laws when some countries have not ratified. The most important contributor to safeguarding the peace and security of the world has concerns that need to be addressed.

Landfill Tax
3.30pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): It gives me great pleasure to introduce a short debate on the landfill tax credit scheme and environmental taxation, and even greater pleasure to know that my questions will be answered by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He and I are old friends. Although it is enjoyable chairing Select Committees—I am Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee—some of us are quite glad to escape that role to speak about something else that we believe in.
I must declare an interest. Some six years ago, before the landfill tax credit scheme was introduced, I started an environmental organisation with a professor and a lawyer, which is a strange combination. We started a not-for-profit environmental group—Urban Mines Ltd.—that is now one of the largest in the country. Instead of viewing the waste flowing from our towns and cities as rubbish, we see it as a new raw material to be mined and used again—rather than digging holes in the earth's crust to take virgin material.
Over the past six years, our company has grown to employ 30 people. We have a portfolio of innovative projects and have developed a totally new methodology for identifying brownfield land and giving it new use. We have introduced a range of new businesses that use waste as a raw material—successful private sector ventures that make a profit and employ people on good wages right across the board. Our most ambitious task is to build sustainable growth parks, which are rather like themed industrial parks on which clusters of small, medium and large industries use waste as their raw material. That is the background of my special interest and explains why I am concerned about landfill tax credits.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. John McWilliam (In the Chair): Order. May I check that the hon. Gentleman has the permission of the Minister and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to intervene?
Mr. O'Brien indicated assent.
Mr. Sheerman: I give way.
Mr. O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend include in his remarks about his own programme all the other agencies that have grown out of the landfill tax credit? They are doing great work and offer tremendous value to communities. They will be hit hard if the programme described by the Chancellor goes ahead.
Mr. Sheerman: I would be happy to include those agencies. I know that my hon. Friend, who is one of the chairmen of the all-party group on sustainable waste, is concerned about the matter.
As you know, Mr. McWilliam, anyone who holds on to the job of Select Committee Chairman for even a short period becomes one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject. I have been Chairman for only

233WH
two and a half years, but all the relevant Ministers have changed in that time, apart from one whose ministerial responsibility has changed from early years to higher education. All the others have disappeared, including the present Economic Secretary. I have stayed in the field of education. The great benefit is that one learns and remembers a lot about the subject, including where the bodies are buried.
I have been involved in the sector of the environment relating to waste for a long time. I have had the role—which I have always been positive about—of trying to educate Ministers from the Treasury and elsewhere about an industry about which they know very little. Treasury Ministers usually stay in their posts for only a year or 18 months, but I have to hand it to my hon. Friend the Minister for being the fastest learner of any Treasury Minister with whom I have dealt. He actually understands the subject. He has been a very good and fast learner, so some of the remarks that I will make today are about the Government rather than him. The Government could do better. If they had listened to the people who know the industry and sector well, the proposals that the pre-Budget information suggests might be made in April's Budget would be better.
It is unsurprising that some people are not interested in waste. The Minister's constituency borders Rotherham, which has achieved the magnificent target of 5 per cent. for recycling—although that has now slipped back to 4 per cent. The Prime Minister's constituency is Sedgefield; that has achieved 5 per cent. The area that the Chancellor represents has achieved an appalling 1.7 per cent., which is probably the worst percentage in the country. One might say that it is no wonder that some of the significant actors in this House do not really know how much demand there is for changes in this practical side of environmentalism.
I like this area of environmentalism because it makes a difference at the practical level: I will leave the blue-sky and long-term thinking to people such as Jonathan Porritt. I have always concentrated on this area; if we crack what we do with waste by making a real difference in recycling and the use and the hierarchy of change, which is recommended by all the enlightened people in the environmental sector, we will make a practical difference that ordinary people can participate in. Schoolchildren, their parents and people in communities will be able to improve their locality and the global environment in a practical way—rather than in a highly theoretical way that sometimes puts them off. Sometimes, when someone on the news says that the problem is all about global warming, the people who are listening think, "What can I, as an individual, do about that?" Ever since I became involved in this area, I have responded by saying, "Here is a practical way to do something that will change the planet." That is where I am coming from.
I have also tried to educate the Government. An express train from Europe is hammering down the tracks and it is bringing regulation that is to be welcomed, but that has a dramatic effect on our lives and industries. There are the statutory targets; local authorities must meet very rigid and demanding targets for recycling over the coming years as a result of the European Union landfill directive. That is an important directive, but it means that local authorities have to make superhuman efforts to do something to their waste
234WH
other than merely dump it in a hole in the ground. Most of them will not meet their targets, and the European Commission will impose enormous financial penalties on them, which will be a great burden on the British taxpayer and council tax payer. That will have a significant impact on our national life. As is suggested by the figures that I have quoted for Rotherham and for the constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, the targets will be very difficult to meet.
The end of life vehicles directive will be introduced in September 2003. That is another very important regulation that will make a great difference to people's lives. It will be very expensive to achieve what it demands—£75 million is a conservative estimate of the cost. Following that, there is the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive: every piece of electrical and electronic equipment will have to be taken back by the retailer or the manufacturer. Then there is the hazardous waste directive, which people in the commercial waste management sector—who should know about this—say will result in billions of pounds of expenditure by the public or private sector. Both of those sectors will probably pay for some of that.
I have tried to alert the Treasury to all of this. I saw the Chancellor's chief economic advisor, Ed Balls. I have met a succession of Ministers in the Treasury to try to inform them about the scale of the problem and about how much it would cost the country if we do not act now. I have put two proposals to Ministers.
A strategic waste authority should be set up to bring together all proposals and to give us direction on the different organisations that are spread all over the place, which do nothing to help joined-up government. I see no action on that so far. The responsibility is being left with local authorities, most of which have a poor record in meeting any targets. In addition, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have a good reputation in this area, either in leadership or management. The waste sector is the Cinderella of the Environment Agency, mainly because it does not have the resources to tackle the problem in a significant way.
The country is running into real problems with waste and in meeting the European regulations that will come towards us. A key element in tackling the waste issue was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1996–97. Overnight, the landfill tax increased the cost from zero to £7 per tonne. Historically, 20 per cent. of that tax has flowed into a fund called the landfill tax credit scheme, which goes to a range of environmental initiatives, all of which are worth while.
I know about those initiatives and schemes and about how they have worked since they started. They take time to develop, to mature and to become effective. I have seen them operate from the early days, when most of the money was spent on community and environmental improvements close to landfill and other areas where waste blights the lives of citizens. Having done much work in such areas, the schemes moved on to other purposes, including the remediation of brownfield land and educational priorities in terms of the environment, and to many other things. When the Government suggested that there should be another category and that more money should be spent on recycling programmes and sustainability, the organisations that

235WH
disburse the money moved quickly to ensure that 65 per cent. of the landfill tax money flowed in that direction. At the moment, that sum is about £150 million.
The pre-Budget proposals are that £50 million should be retained in local environmental projects, but no one is clear about what those will be. Will those be the environmental projects that have already been going on and which are the most criticised part of the scheme? Why is the £100 million—two thirds of the money from the landfill tax credit scheme—going to be sucked into the public sector, into DEFRA, or to DEFRA's child, the waste and resources action programme? That will do two, very damaging, things.
First, that will withdraw the money from a large range of community, national and regional organisations that have effectively and magnificently tackled recycling and issues regarding the practical sustainability agenda. The Government underrate the effectiveness of such groups.
Secondly, that would kill the ability to use the £100 million for a multiplier effect. It has been assessed that the best schemes can, through match funding, European funding and many other routes, multiply by four or five times the original investment from the landfill tax credit scheme, which is certainly true of my group, Urban Mines Ltd. Such schemes can do that because the money is presently deemed to be private—not public—sector money, so it can be used for match funding, as a multiplier and for leverage. That will go and all that will be left for the Treasury is £100 million. What a strange way to go about things. That must be the worst investment since Jack got the beans and threw them out of the window. The Government are throwing the beans out of the window, but nothing will grow. The £100 million will now be thrown at local authorities, which will enable them to do nothing. All of the really innovative groups throughout the country will cease to get those funds and will gradually go out of business.
It is unclear whether there will be any transitional arrangements or any of the 3,000 to 5,000 jobs will survive. Not only jobs but innovation and partnerships will be lost. Things have worked best when there have been creative and innovative partnerships between universities, green groups, non-governmental organisations and the private sector. I wish that we had the American system that would allow me to read into the record. We have seen a number of magnificent proposals, such as Recycle IT in Norfolk, Cheshire's schools waste action club, Waste Watch's landfill tax case studies, the national industrial symbiosis programme, and the Furniture Recycling Network. There have been dozens and dozens of schemes, some worth £8 million. There has been tremendous innovation and that has had a great effect on our environment.
Unless the Government change their mind, we will lose that environmental innovation and the people who have been brought on—the young staff and the undergraduates and post-graduates, people who have been attracted into that part of the public sector. John Smith said that there are some jobs that are better than simply going into the City of London and making a lot of money. The sort of people who work in the
236WH
environment are the very people who want to make our country a better and more sustainable place in which to live.
I am worried about what the proposals say about the Labour Government. I have been a Labour politician for a long time; I still believe profoundly in the things that brought me into politics. One of those things is that a Labour Government will be more in touch with ordinary people, with schoolchildren and their parents, and with local communities and grass-roots organisations. However, when I talk to Treasury Ministers, I see that they have a fear of understanding community groups. They say, "Oh dear. They're not a bureaucracy. I can't get the Audit Commission to look into them. Who are they accountable to? How do I assess them? They're not local government. They're not a quango."
There was a disgraceful exhibition from the Dispatch Box during environment questions before Christmas, when the Minister for the Environment told me that the reason for some schemes disappearing was that there had been an element of "dodginess". However, over many years, only eight appeals have been made to the appeals tribunal to do with any wrongdoing. I have picked up on only two cases of any kind of fraud.
This may be unkind, and I am not suggesting any responsibility, but the Minister, who is a good friend of mine, will know that individual learning accounts are an example of a Government scheme that went wrong. My Committee looked into that in some depth. Millions of pounds disappeared and nobody has yet been successfully prosecuted. If one wanted to look for dodginess in a scheme, one would look there, or at a number of other schemes that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has promoted. There has been dodginess around a number of Government programmes. I urge the Minister to be honest and not to discard schemes for any reason such as that. If he is going to say that sort of thing, will he please stand up, be honest, and appraise any schemes in an independent fashion—or get an independent body to do so?
My sadness is that, if we are not careful, we will lose an amazing resource in the country and an amazing number of people who do a good job for the environment. If that happened, the message would go out that the Labour Government did not know how to connect with ordinary people in innovative community groups because they are small, because they are NGOs, or because they are green groups. Such groups are difficult to understand and to put into a tidy category. It is difficult for people at the Treasury to get their heads around them. However, I urge the Minister to try to do so.
3.48 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on securing this debate, which I welcome. Parliament is sometimes short of experts but my hon. Friend's expertise in this area is widely acknowledged, as is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). We have with us the current chairman and secretary of the all-party group on sustainable waste.

237WH
The Government, to reflect the interests of the group to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield belongs, are committed to a sustained approach to waste management as an essential component of an environmentally sustainable economy. We currently place too much reliance on landfill, which adversely affects the environment through greenhouse gas emissions, water pollutions, the effect on transport and visual intrusion. We give too little priority to recycling and re-use, and arguably put too little emphasis on other methods of waste disposal.
The reforms outlined in the pre-Budget report, which is the subject of this debate, are only the first of the necessary actions that the Government are taking to try to change waste management performance. Between now and the Budget, an interdepartmental ministerial group that I shall chair will co-ordinate plans on waste policy delivery across Government. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, we are acting decisively in view of the challenges we face with waste in the UK. Some, like my hon. Friend, think that they detect a lack of priority and urgency in the attention given to the issue. I hope that the work of DEFRA and the waste and resources action programme—WRAP—and the decisions and long-term signals on landfill tax in the pre-Budget report, as well as the work of the ministerial group and the reform of the landfill tax credit scheme are strong evidence to counter that criticism.
In the pre-Budget report, the Government announced that the standard rate of landfill tax would increase to £35 a tonne in the medium to long term. The current annual escalator of £1 a tonne will increase to £3 a tonne from 2005–06, and the tax will continue to increase by at least that rate thereafter. A clear signal that the tax will ultimately reach £35 a tonne will provide the necessary stimulus for the sort of investment that my hon. Friend is talking about, although we must take account of the often long time taken to develop waste management capacity. The pre-Budget report also made it clear that the measure is to he revenue neutral to business. The Government are considering a range of options for recycling revenue, and are working through some of the issues with stakeholder groups. We will announce our conclusions around the time of the Budget.
Change is always uncomfortable; it creates uncertainty. However, no one can claim that change is unexpected, particularly not in regard to the landfill tax credit scheme. In March 2001, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton is a distinguished member, reported on delivering sustainable waste management. That Select Committee described the LTCS as providing
"a convoluted and, to date, ineffective method of funding sustainable waste management."
It described the scheme as a "charade" and recommended that it be abandoned altogether.
My hon. Friend will also know that the National Audit Office examined the scheme and pointed out that the operation of the scheme
"makes external examination of the value-for-money achieved by the scheme difficult for anyone to assess."
238WH
My hon. Friend stressed several times the effectiveness of the scheme, but when the Public Accounts Committee reported in July last year, it said that there were
"complex administrative and oversight arrangements, a lack of overall accountability for the Scheme and a lack of transparency"
and that the scheme contained
"no arrangements for evaluating the success of individual projects or of the Scheme overall."
Although strictly speaking the funds flowing through the scheme are classed as private, rather than public, spending, the money is essentially tax revenue forgone. Consequently, it is the Government's responsibility and is in the public interest to ensure that the money is spent in the best possible way. It would have been wrong to take such weighty criticisms lightly.
Between April and June last year, the Government consulted on the future of the landfill tax credit scheme. Rather than abandoning the scheme altogether as the Select Committee urged, the Government recognised that, as my hon. Friend points out, the scheme has supported many worthwhile community and environmental projects that are not connected with waste. Those account for around one third of current landfill tax credit scheme spend. Consequently, the Government will continue to make available approximately one third of the funding that currently goes through the scheme—around £47 million a year—for spending on local community environmental projects. The figure of £47 million will be kept broadly constant in real terms, which will ensure that the current level of support for such projects is maintained.
The Government recognise the strength of the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. Although the scheme supports a range of worthwhile waste projects—my hon. Friend's company Urban Mines is a good example of this—the current funding arrangements do not deliver the strategic and coherent approach to waste management that is needed.
I am sometimes asked what I mean by "sustainable waste management". I have some bottom line concerns. One is waste minimisation to tackle municipal waste growth. That is currently at 3 or 4 per cent. above gross domestic product and costs an additional £70 million a year to the taxpayer. Another concern is about diversion from landfill, and, in particular, to boost the current pitiful rate of 11 per cent. We want to use the additional spending to affect the levels of such activities.
The change that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-Budget report in November will take place in April, reflecting the imperative to improve rapidly the management of waste. However, taking note of my hon. Friend's arguments, I recognise the need for those currently involved in the scheme to be able to plan ahead.
In the representations that I have so far had, a range of concerns were raised, some of which are entirely understandable, whereas others are entirely unnecessary. There is no need for landfill operators to stop allocating funding now. Customs' advice to the landfill operators and environmental bodies before Christmas made it clear that funding from tax credits under the current scheme can still be allocated to waste projects until the end of March. Beyond the end of the March, that funding can continue to be spent until either

239WH
the projects are complete or the funding allocated is spent. The LTCS successor scheme will continue to provide funds for worthwhile community environment projects that do not fall into waste management categories. For waste projects currently funded by the scheme, there are challenges during such change. I have no wish to see good projects go to the wall. I am therefore analysing the transitional challenges that my hon. Friend talked about, to see what support may be appropriate from the public spending stream post April.
I am also committed to taking the decisions necessary to give the greatest and earliest certainty possible, as those involved with the changes plan for the period ahead. That will mean confirming the new ceiling to which landfill operators can claim tax credits as a percentage of their landfill tax liability, and outlining plans for continuity of contributions to support waste projects that are up and running. It will also mean setting out the basis on which prospective waste projects that contribute significantly to our sustainable waste management strategy will be able to draw on the funding reallocated from April to public spending.
We have more work to do. I pay tribute to the co-operative approach that Entrust and the distributive environmental bodies are taking in their work with my officials. I hope to make the decisions and announcements soon. Beyond that, we shall consult the many interest groups on the ways to meet the more serious criticisms that have been made of the landfill tax credit scheme in the operation of the LTCS successor scheme. I aim to set out any plans for reform on a budget timetable.
It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the substantial level of funding currently going through the landfill tax credit scheme is used as effectively as possible, particularly in waste management. We believe that the reforms will help us to do so. Having heard my explanation of the changes, of the issues that we are currently considering, of the decisions that need to be taken in short order and of the decisions that we shall take at the time of the budget, my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield and for Normanton will, I hope, be persuaded that, rather than losing the innovation and badly needed impetus that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield talked about, the reforms—the rise in the landfill tax rates, the successor landfill tax credit scheme, and the other work, some of which we detailed in the pre-Budget report—will improve the desired objectives.
Mr. McWilliam: Order. Time is up.
Before I call the debate on education and prisons, I inform the Members concerned that at least one, and possibly two, Divisions are likely. When the Division bell goes, I shall suspend for 15 minutes. If during that 15 minutes a second Division is called, that suspension will be for half an hour.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.19 pm
On resuming—

Education (Prisons)
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): I am delighted to be able to start the Adjournment debate. When the Division was called the Minister and I thought that we might be saved by the bell. However, we are here and I shall be as brief as I can.
The debate is important and provides an opportunity to discuss an issue that is rarely discussed: what takes place in prison, and especially education in prison. The debate comes at a time when there has been much talk about being tough on criminals and about whether we should send burglars who are first offenders to jail. It also comes at a time when the Government are looking into reforming and changing the criminal justice system and when figures show that we have the biggest ever prison population—more than 70,000—and all projections suggest that that will increase.
Debate often takes place in the tabloid press about who would be tougher on criminals and why we should lock people up in prison. However, the question of what we should do with folk after they have gone to prison is often lost from the debate. We have to question why people go to prison, and punishment is an important aspect of that. However, we need to focus much more on other aspects and on the role that prison can play. Education is a vital part of that process, but it does not make good tabloid headlines. I accept that victims of crime who have just had their house burgled—or worse—do not want to hear politicians talking about providing more education for prisoners. They want to hear tough language about locking people up and throwing away the key. I argue that the tough thing to do is to improve the quality of education in prisons, because that is likely to have a greater impact on reducing crime in the first place.
I hope that the debate is topical, because I understand that the Government are considering a major report commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which examined education and the reforms that they want to make. I hope that the Minister will comment on the Government's early thinking about how they plan to respond to the report and the time scale in which they will do that.
May I refresh the Minister's memory with several harsh facts and realities about the Prison Service? Home Office statistics show that 60 per cent. of prisoners need help with basic skills. That can be further broken down: 50 per cent. of prisoners lack level 1 numeracy, which is the equivalent of an 11-year-old's achievements; 66 per cent. lack level 1 reading and 81 per cent. lack level 1 writing. There can be no greater indictment than that. We have failed prisoners and the prison system. Those figures suggest to me that only 20 per cent. of prisoners would be able to fill in an application form on release. The rest would be incapable of filling in basic job application forms after leaving prison. Moreover, 49 per cent. of male prisoners and 71 per cent. of female prisoners have no qualifications at all. To put it bluntly, there is little else for prisoners to do in prison. We have a captive audience, but we are missing an enormous opportunity to tackle the problems that those figures highlight.
Why does that matter? It matters because prison is clearly not working. Fifty-eight per cent. of prisoners released from custody in 1997 reoffended within two

241WH
years. We know that education can help to tackle that problem. The Correctional Services of Canada conducted research that suggested that vocational and basic skills training could cut reoffending by 12 per cent. That would have an enormous impact on reducing the number of crimes in this country.
What do we need to do and how can we improve the present situation? It is not all doom and gloom, because positive things are happening. I am especially taken with the work of the Prisoners' Education Trust—I met representatives of that charity a couple of months ago—and that is why I secured the debate. The trust does wonderful work in the prison system. An investment of over £200,000 a year has helped to make 852 educational awards this year. Its schemes operate in 75 prisons throughout the country. Of course, that is just one small charity, but several other charities are working in the field. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that none of that work can replace direct Government action.
We need the Government to do several things. I would like them to produce more figures and data on the impact that education can have on preventing reoffending. I have mentioned statistics from Canada, but I wonder whether the Minister would consider commissioning work in this country so that we can make the case that more education can help to reduce reoffending. We also need a major programme of reform and investment. The PricewaterhouseCoopers study is a good start, and I hope that the Minister will tell us when the Government intend to respond to some of its ideas. I also welcome the 50 per cent. increase in funding—to £87 million—for education in prisons. A large proportion of that—420 million—comes from the capital modernisation fund and is earmarked for better facilities. I welcome that. However, it is all very well having a spanking new building and computers, but unless the resources are available to enable staff to bring them to life, the money will have been used ineffectively.
The Government have recognised that they need to tackle the problem of the 60 per cent. of prisoners who have no skills, but they must also focus on the other 40 per cent. They need to ensure that the focus is not only on basic skills, but on trying to get much more out of people. The Government could learn a lot from the current work being undertaken by charities. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us his thoughts on how the Government could work with the charitable sector to make a difference, because the charitable sector gets to parts that the Government find it hard to reach. It has introduced considerable innovation, from which the Government could learn. For example, charities have considered ways of focusing education on the individual needs of each prisoner rather than trying to serve the system as a whole.
We need to examine how education is provided, physically, and the day-to-day problems in prisons. For example, there are difficulties in escorting prisoners to lessons. Sometimes, education is available but there are no prison staff to take prisoners to classrooms. Prison officers are currently under pressure, so they understandably have other priorities. Unless we make education a core function of the Prison Service, it will always be knocked down the list in a busy, pressured prison.
242WH
Education in prisons is not joined up. There is an artificial divide between some of the vocational services and training provided by prisons, which is very effective as skills are often taught in a workshop environment, and the basic skills and academic education. It makes no sense to have the two run by separate organisations, at different times. Other incentives work against education. The prison pay system allows prisoners to earn money by working, for example, in prison kitchens, but there is no financial incentive for prisoners to take an education course if that course clashes with the opportunity to earn money. That is wrong.
There should be a system of national entitlement to education for prisoners. Such a system has been laid down for young offenders by the Youth Justice Board, but with only one in five prisoners currently involved in education and about 60 per cent. not having access to any form of education, it is clear that the system is failing adult prisoners. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are prepared to make a similar commitment to give adult prisoners full access to education?
Another difficulty is that the curriculum is inflexible. We need to examine the range of courses that are available and to be more creative about the courses on offer. We also need a system that allows a prisoner who has already started a course at one prison to continue with that course if he is moved to another prison or leaves prison. At the moment, if someone is moved to a prison nearer to their home or to an open prison all their coursework is lost and wasted and they must start again. Worse still, an individual will clearly not want to remain in prison in order to complete a qualification, but the downside of being released is that that person will be unable to continue their education.
We need to reconsider how education in prisons is funded, so that money follows not, in this case, the patient but the prisoner, and so that we can track a prisoner, wherever they are and however long their sentence. At the moment, there is an enormous disparity in the range of money that prisoners receive to help with education. From a parliamentary answer to a question that I tabled a couple of months ago, I learned that the amount of money spent in Wandsworth is £257 per prisoner, whereas in my constituency of Winchester it is £576 per prisoner, and in Wetherby the figure is £2,416 per prisoner. I do not know what they are doing in Wetherby. Clearly, we need to tackle some of those disparities, but not by dragging down the money spent in Wetherby to give more to Wandsworth, because some of Wetherby's educational facilities would be lost.
The report by PricewaterhouseCooper examined different banding according to sentences. A certain amount of money could be allocated to somebody with a sentence of less than a year, an equivalent amount for sentences between one and four years, and a greater amount for those with sentences of more than four years. There is some merit in such a system, and I should welcome some early thoughts from the Minister on that.
All such issues require a change in the way that the process operates at the moment. I understand that February 2004 is when all the tenders for providing education in prisons are due. I am concerned that the Government may pick up on recommendations from PricewaterhouseCooper and try to rush them through, which would cause confusion in the re-tendering process

243WH
for contracts in February 2004. How does the Minister plan to introduce those changes? It may make sense to change the re-tender date to allow a longer period for some of the changes to be implemented to avoid chaos in the system. If not, when the new contracts come through, a new system of work for education in prisons should be clearly put into practice at the same time.
In the limited time available, I have raised a number of issues and put a number of questions to the Minister to tease out from him what priority the Government give to such matters, and particularly to find out whether they intend to pick up on the recommendations of PricewaterhouseCooper. It is a Cinderella service. It does not attract tabloid headlines, and it is difficult to communicate with the public about it. If the Government want to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, I hope that they recognise that education is not a soft option. It is a seriously tough option to improve the quality of education in prisons. If that were done, it would tackle the reoffending rate and make prisons work more effectively, which has to be in everyone's interests.
4.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing the debate, and I am delighted to hear him adopt the new Labour mantra of investment and reform. Given his contribution to the debate, we agree on a tremendous amount. I will take into account some of the positive suggestions that he made as part of our consideration of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. I share his view that a more coherent approach to the education and training of offenders, supported by increased investment, is absolutely essential. That should be seen as an integral part of the fight against crime, and provides us with a unique opportunity—I think the hon. Member made this point—to break the cycle of offending behaviour that is so prevalent among those for whom the criminal justice system is, in effect, a revolving door.
There is considerable evidence that prison education makes a significant contribution towards reducing reoffending, and that it could do more. The hon. Gentleman referred to the skills level of more than half the population; let us not exclude them from not only the labour market and further learning, but from integration into the wider community. Half of men and two thirds of women entering prison have no qualifications. The estimated cost of reconviction to the criminal justice system is an average of £13,000. For many offenders—I think the hon. Member will have seen this for himself, as I have recently—prison is their first experience of having the chance to gain a skill, which could be rebuilding a car engine or developing better communication skills. For many, it is the first opportunity to develop any kind of skill or qualification whatsoever.
I was certainly impressed by my conversations with the staff at Preston prison, which I visited recently; in circumstances that are not always easy, they are doing a tremendous job. They are being innovative, imaginative and as supportive as possible in their education and
244WH
training programmes. I also had some interesting conversations with some of the prisoners. One told me how eagerly he had learned to read and write in prison. Another said that he was looking forward to taking up a college place on release, having gained a number of credits in prison; it meant that when he left prison, the college course would form part of his resettlement programme.
As I told the Education and Skills Committee recently, it would be wrong to say that Preston was a typical prison. A lot of tremendous work is going on there. However, although there are examples of excellence across the prison estate, we have a long way to go before we can turn good practice into standard practice; a point made by the hon. Gentleman. My colleagues across Government—particularly in the Home Office—and I are fully committed to ensuring that we take a joined-up approach to prison education; that is equally important. That commitment has to be supported by investment.
The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to hear that a record level of investment is going into prison education. Core funding will increase from £65 million this year to £125 million by 2005–06. With that funding and the capital investment that we have already begun to put into the system, I aim to equip prisons with the capacity to deliver a tailored programme of learning—another point made by the hon. Gentleman—from induction and assessment on arrival in prison to resettlement in the community on release. There is no point in achieving success with people in prison if it is not consistently followed through on release.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am also considering the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which provides a number of options for achieving that aim. It is accepted that we have to move from the present inequality of funding between prisons of the same type; there is no logic to that, other than historical spending patterns. We also seek to create delivery arrangements that support high-quality educational provision. However, as well as quality, we must have the capacity to develop provisions that are relevant to individual needs and match individual starting points. We are completing consultation on that report, and we will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give me a rough time scale for when that consultation will finish and in what form? When does he expect the Government to respond formally to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report?
Mr. Lewis: We have to respond by the end of February to certain issues because of their influence on contactors.
I am in a dilemma; the hon. Gentleman spoke about the balance between getting decisions right and ensuring synergy between contractual arrangements, and wanting to see swift and radical reform. I am committed within the next month not only to being clear about my specific responses relevant to the end of the February, but to laying out a clear and transparent time scale for how to tackle all the relevant issues. I shall ensure that hon. Members have sight of that within the next month or six weeks.

245WH
The hon. Gentleman made a valid point on the use of evidence and data in terms of the impact of prison education on reoffending. We have some of that evidence now, but we could do a lot better. I take the hon. Gentleman's comments on board.
The voluntary sector is often imaginative and innovative in a way that the statutory sector never can be. We have to become better at spreading the good practice that already occurs in pockets—it is not mainstream practice—and ensuring that Prison Service officials in all parts of the country give thought to how they can engage with local voluntary organisations that may have something to bring to the table. I believe that the voluntary sector has flexibility and imagination. The community sector has an important role to play in the resettlement of offenders; there can be significant follow-through and support for people once they have been released from prison.
We shall make our position on entitlement clear later. The hon. Gentleman made a valid point; "once in a generation" might be an over-used term, but we do have a unique level of resource available and a commitment across Government—and, in many ways, across the political spectrum—which represents a unique opportunity to make a difference. If it takes an extra couple of months to get decisions right, I would rather take that time than rush the decisions, get them wrong and fail to achieve the step-change. We all accept that tinkering at the edges is not what the system needs, nor what we want.
The hon. Gentleman was honourable enough to acknowledge that there has been significant progress in recent years. It is important to say that, because I want to support the efforts of both governors and frontline staff who make the system work daily. They have not always had the central and external support that they deserve, but many of them, starting at the grass roots, have been incredibly innovative and imaginative. We should pay tribute to that, and highlight some of their achievements.
With regard to basic skills, last year prisoners gained 61,000 qualifications, some 24,000 of them in literacy and numeracy. In the first eight months of this financial year, prisoners had already achieved more than 25,000 basic skills qualifications. We are well on the way to meeting, and even exceeding, our national target of 28,800.
Not only are we meeting targets, we are ensuring that mainstream developments in literacy and numeracy practice reach prisons. It is important that we do not offer a second-rate, out of date service to prisoners; they have access to the most modern and up to date strategies.
We are also supporting prisons proactively, with a quality improvement programme. A body of professionally qualified advisers is working in every prison, advising them how to build on their strengths and how to deal with areas of deficiency. We are told by the Prison Service that the advisers are making a real impact across the country, and are supporting prisons that are preparing for inspection against the new standards of the common inspection framework. They also help prisons with their action planning in cases in which the inspections have identified weaknesses.
246WH
We have also required all prisons to set up their own quality improvement groups, bringing together staff across the establishment to improve existing learning opportunities and to introduce new ones. That is already happening across much of the estate and there is no reason why it cannot happen in every institution. We have created a standards fund to encourage prisons to support staff development and training, to share best practice and to develop local quality assurance systems.
It is important to establish a culture of learning in the Prison Service. That is important not only for the prisoners but for the staff. I am delighted that two schemes are up and running, supported by the union learning fund, at Belmarsh and Haverigg prisons, to develop basic skills. That is engaging staff in learning. I recently had a meeting with Brian Caton, the head of the Prison Officers Association, and told him that I would actively welcome further applications from prisons for the next round of union learning fund bids. That area is underdeveloped and we would want to see a considerable growth in the number of prison officers who are involved in learning. I believe that that has a knock-on beneficial effect, in that it creates a learning culture in the prison environment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to vocational training and employment. He is right to make the point about the separation. In response to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, we need to look at how we can create a more cohesive, integrated approach. In recent times, we have shifted the emphasis towards basic skills. We believe that to be right, given the low level of basic skills of more than half the prison population and the fact that there is a direct correlation between a lack of basic skills and a risk of reoffending. We must not lose sight of the need to help prisoners to improve their employability. The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about reducing the risk of reoffending. One of the great ways in which to do that is not only to support and encourage people to learn and develop within their education programme, but to ensure that they are employable in a modern labour market. That is why vocational training is so important. Those in work are half as likely to reoffend as those without a job. That is very significant.
It is interesting to note that prisoners have gained 57,000 work skills qualifications so far this year. We have met our target already, which suggests that vocational education and training is working. However, I would like to know more about what those work skills actually mean and how they will feed through. Perhaps I will obtain more information for the hon. Gentleman on that issue.
We can do a lot more. We must ensure a much closer synergy between vocational training in prisons and the labour market. That is complex, because prisoners do not always end up living in the same area as their institution. Increasingly, we are trying to close the gap between what happens in the world of education and training and what is required in the labour market. When people are moving around, there can be different regional and sub-regional economic profiles. That makes the situation complex, but we should seek to close the gap further than we have done in the past.
The hon. Gentleman said that capital investment would be important to enable prisoners to modernise and upgrade their training provisions. Investment will also be required to fund the building of classrooms on

247WH
prison wings and next to workshops, to help create a more cohesive and integrated approach between learning and more vocationally based courses. With the assistance of the CBI, Jobcentre Plus and others, we are strengthening our links with employers to improve the work opportunities that are available to prisoners during and after their time in custody. We are also using funds from the invest to save budget to develop an innovative project led by Cisco to give prisoners the opportunity to gain valuable information technology skills and either to continue learning or to gain work on release.
I do not need to say to the hon. Gentleman how important information and communications technology skills are in the modern world. They are being used increasingly in the classroom, in the workplace and at home. It is important that we bring prison learning into the 21st century with regard to e-learning. We have done some work on that relatively recently and have had learndirect pilots in five prisons during the past year. All the evidence is that the learners
248WH
are often less threatened by a computer than by traditional classroom learning, which makes them no different to others who undertake basic skills courses in the community. In the prison population, we are dealing with high numbers of learners who have had a negative experience of school. That makes it even more important to find imaginative and innovative ways of turning them on to learning and removing some of the fear that inevitably accompanies people who have had a negative experience, not only in learning but throughout their lives.
I believe that we have answered a number of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but we have a lot more work to do. I will consider carefully the lessons to be learned from our work so far and will also consider the recommendations in the report. This is a unique opportunity to get a credible reform and investment system in prison education and training. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and with others in making things happen. Education and training is one of the most powerful ways of reducing crime in our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Five o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Christmas Cards (Expenditure)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much each ministerial office in her Department spent on the printing and posting of Christmas cards in 2002. [90111]

  Dr. Howells
  Ministers sent 1,120 of the 3,800 Christmas cards produced by my Department this year. The design and print costs totalled £1,985 and the majority of cards were sent by second class post.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much producing her Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90878]

  CAPITA

  £

  1998–99 (Jan-Apr 98)

  Recruitment of Chairman and Members -New Opportunities Fund

  14,000

  1998–99 (Jan-Apr 98)

  Recruitment of Chairman and Trustees -National Endowment for

  13,000

  1998–99 (Feb-Apr 98)

  Recruitment for BBC Appointments

  12,000

  2001–02 (Oct-Nov 01)

  Training for Recruitment Scheme—Middle and Senior Managers

  17,000

  2001–02 (Feb-Mar 02)

  Providing and Marking Standard Civil Service Written Tests

  1,000

  2001–02 (Nov 01–Feb 02)

  Civil Service Junior Manager Recruitment Scheme

  8,000

  Total

  65,000

  Includes Royal Parks (nil return)

  Sporting Venues (Community Transport)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve(a) availability of, (b) access to, and (c) use of community transport for children travelling to sports facilities and events; and if she will make a statement. [90002]

  Mr. Caborn
  As part of the PE, Schools Sports and Club links Project, DCMS are liaising with colleagues from the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport to address the transport problems that arise from school children needing to travel to sporting venues after school hours.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what fair trade criteria she sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89907]
  508W
  Dr. Howells
  The cost of producing the Department's 2002 annual report was as follows:

  £

  Cost

  Design, typesetting, pdfs, etc.

  56,105

  Print (buy back of copies from The Stationery Office)

  24,774

  Proofreading

  570

  Total

  81,449

  Design costs included the development of a new template which the Department plans to follow for the next two to three years.

  1,400 copies of the final report were purchased at a discounted rate from The Stationery Office (TSO) for distribution to staff, the media and to key players within the Department's non-departmental public bodies and agencies.

  TSO are responsible for the distribution of departmental annual reports and the number of reports printed and sold is a matter for them.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by her Department. [89964]

  Dr. Howells
  The DCMS have used Capita in the past as shown but have had no dealings with that organisation since February 2002.

  Dr. Howells
  In all procurement, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport follows the requirements of Government accounting, Government procurement guidance and Office of Government Commerce advice. As with environmental considerations those of fair trade are given due consideration but the absence of fair trade credentials are not used to disqualify an otherwise suitable contractor. Where the demands of propriety and value for money can be met equally by all tenderers, the social impact of fair trade will be added to the balance.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total of payments made by NESTA, since its creation, to external businesses and individuals involved in creating, upgrading and maintaining its web site. [90003]
  509W
  Dr. Howells
  Total expenditure on the website in the four financial years from creation of NESTA to 31/03/02 has been £242,567. In addition, capital expenditure related to the website of £225,629 has been incurred.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many departmental minutes issued by her Department were outstanding on 30 November, that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89415]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: A Departmental Minute was issued on 6 December 1993, relating to the indemnity between the Royal Armouries, and the British Waterways Board, to the site of the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds. The amount was unquantifiable as at 31 March 2002. This Minute is still outstanding.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when consultations will be completed between officials and the BBC regarding amendments to the television licence fee regulations to introduce measures to preserve the rights of beneficiaries of the accommodation for residential care concessionary television licence scheme when the social mix and the level of warden cover in sheltered housing changes. [90221]
  510W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The purpose of the consultations currently in progress is to ensure that the regulations to introduce preserved rights to the accommodation for residential care concession do not create any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens. We hope to be able to bring forward amending regulations shortly.

  Tote
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to change the status of the Tote; when such proposals will be brought forward; and if she will make a statement. [90575]

  Dr. Howells
  We plan to bring forward a Bill which will include provision for the sale of the Tote. We have made it clear that our wish is to sell to a trust that represents relevant horseracing interests. The Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Theft/Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to her Department in 2002. [89868]

  Dr. Lynda Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 514W.

SCOTLAND

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Office. [89976]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No contracts have been awarded to the Capita Group by my Department.

  Population/Electorate Statistics
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her latest estimates are of(a) the population and (b) the electorate in Scotland. [90005]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Population statistics in Scotland is a matter for the General Register Office for Scotland, an associated Department of the Scottish Executive. I understand, however, that revised population statistics will be published by the end of February.

  The Office for National Statistics is responsible for the collection of electoral data. I understand that the figures for the electorate as at 1 December 2002 will be published on 27 February.

  Economy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which sectors of the Scottish economy are in recession; and if she will make a statement. [89473]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Output in the agriculture, forestry and sector has fallen for the last three consecutive quarters (to Q2 2002). The service, production and construction sectors all grew in the last quarter for which data are available. The Scottish economy as a whole is perfonning well against a backdrop of difficult global economic conditions.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the real increase in spending at the Scottish Office between 1999–2000 and 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [90440]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Office ceased to exist on 30 June 1999 and the Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. Details of expenditure by the Scotland Office are set out in the departmental report and the accounts. As the department was set up during the course of financial year 1999–2000, and expenditure since then has reflected the fact that the department is still moving towards its agreed staffing and operational levels, it would therefore be premature to make estimates of real terms changes in expenditure.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of total public spending on the Scottish Office for each year from 1999–2000 to 2005–06; and if she will make a statement. [90441]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of expenditure from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 are set out in the most recent departmental report by my department. Details for the later years will be published in future reports.

  Theft/Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89867]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No cases of theft or fraud were reported in my Department, or in the Boundary Commission for Scotland, in 2002.

TREASURY

  Gold
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the profit or loss on sales of gold by the Bank of England since May 1997, calculated by comparing the price achieved on sale with the current price of gold. [89856]

  Ruth Kelly
  The gold sales programme announced in May 1999 was part of a restructuring programme to reduce the riskiness of the Reserves portfolio.

  This was a long-term investment decision and as such it is inappropriate to measure gains or losses resulting from fluctuations in market values on a particular day or over a short-term period. Gains and losses should be measured over the longer term, taking account of all the elements of the restructuring programme. In particular, the returns gained from the foreign currency assets purchased with the proceeds of the gold sales should also be included (see Part 2 of the National Audit Office Report on "The Sale of Part of the UK Gold Reserves", published on 12 January 2001).

  Home Insurance
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce measures to abolish the switching fees which some home insurance companies charge consumers when they arrange home insurance with someone other than their mortgage providers. [90216]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is giving the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating mortgage business. I understand that the FSA will shortly be consulting on the basis that fees charged for switching insurances taken out as a condition of the mortgage, such as buildings insurance, are disclosed up front.

  Import Controls
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2003, refs 88430–88432,Official Report, column 165W, when he expects to conclude discussions between the various Departments and agencies involved and to announce the Government's decisions. [89800]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: This matter is being progressed within Government under the leadership of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who are working actively with Customs to effect the transfer as soon as possible.

  Income Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the additional yield of an income tax rate of 50 per cent. on taxable incomes exceeding(a) £100,000 per annum, (b) £125,000 per annum, (c) £150,000 per annum and (d) £200,000 per annum; and if he will make a statement; [90173]

  (2) if he will estimate the additional yield from levying a 45 per cent. rate of income tax on (a) taxable and (b) gross incomes exceeding £100,000 per annum; and if he will make a statement. [90176]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The additional yield of making the changes is set out in the table.

  Income tax yield in 2003–04

  £ billion

  (a) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £100,000

  4.9

  (b) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £125,000

  4.2

  (c) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £150,000

  3.7

  (d) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £200,000

  3.0

  (a) 45 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £100,000

  2.6

  (b) 45 per cent. rate for gross incomes over £100,000

  2.7

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2002 pre-Budget report. These estimates exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Public Borrowing
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his latest assessment of public borrowing this financial year; and whether his projections remain in accordance with those set out in the pre-budget report. [90689]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest estimate of public sector net borrowing for this financial year, in £ billion, is set out in Table B1 of the 2002 pre-budget report. Consistent with the code for fiscal stability, an update of projections for the public finances will be published in the forthcoming budget.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 680–81W, on self-assessment, if he will update the figures; and if he will make a statement. [90314]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The statistical data requested is detailed in the table:

  Tax Year/Date

  SA ITRs Issued

  SA ITRs Received

  SA ITRs Processed

  SA ITRs waiting to be processed

  2000–01

  1 July 2001

  8,940,513

  1,323,115

  864,497

  458,618

  29 July 2001

  8,990,292

  1,943,901

  1,350,597

  593,304

  2 September 2001

  8,989,043

  2,798,153

  1,966,795

  831,358

  30 September 2001

  9,152,255

  4,241,952

  2,677,145

  1,564,807

  4 November 2001

  8,842,560

  4,682,767

  3,421,658

  1,261,109

  2 December 2001

  9,360,099

  5,383,846

  4,436,261

  947,585

  30 December 2001

  9,299,623

  5,745,572

  4,839,285

  906,287

  3 February 2002

  9,552,433

  8,362,361

  5,848,319

  2,514,042

  3 March 2002

  9,610,687

  8,732,139

  6,892,084

  1,840,055

  31 March 2002

  9,644,313

  8,805,949

  8,009,457

  796,492

  514W

  Tax Year/Date

  SA ITRs Issued

  SA ITRs Received

  SA ITRs Processed

  SA ITRs waiting to be processed

  2001–02

  5 May 2002

  8,984,089

  287,223

  74,244

  212,979

  2 June 2002

  9,081,002

  751,541

  323,265

  428,276

  7 July 2002

  9,167,807

  1,397,759

  709,556

  688,203

  4 August 2002

  9,300,825

  2,717,767

  1,591,565

  1,126,202

  6 October 2002

  9,394,724

  4,475,890

  2,438,405

  2,037,485

  3 November 2002

  9,463,002

  4,948,989

  3,300,392

  1,648,597

  24 November 2002

  9,511,680

  5,280,197

  4,008,768

  1,271,429

  1 December 2002

  9,527,269

  5,395,919

  4,265,782

  1,130,137

  5 January 2003

  9,587,431

  5,955,224

  4,979,671

  975,553

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families with children aged 16 to 19 are claiming Working Families Tax Credit. [90916]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At August 2002 there were 187,000 families receiving Working Families' Tax Credit who, at the application dates, had one or more children who were aged 16 to 18 and who were in full-time education up to "A" level or equivalent standard. This is subject to seasonal variation; there were 159,000 such families at November 2001, 166,000 at February 2002 and 183,000 at May 2002.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Prime Minister if a decision to adopt a constitution for the EU will first be the subject of a referendum in the United Kingdom. [90680]

  The Prime Minister
  A new constitutional treaty would need to be ratified according to the individual constitutional arrangements in each of the member states. As with all previous EU treaties, any new treaty would be subject to rigorous scrutiny by Parliament before the UK could ratify it.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will seek assurances from the US President that intelligence from the US Security Services relating to the location of WMD in Iraq have been passed to the UN Weapons inspectors; and if he will make a statement; [90692]

  (2) whether intelligence from the security services concerning the location of WMD in Iraq has been passed to the UN weapons inspectors. [90693]

  The Prime Minister
  We regularly discuss with the US Administration issues about the provision of support for the UN inspection teams, including making intelligence material available.

  Intelligence material has been made available to UNMOVIC and the IAEA for some time. We shall continue to provide them with such material as appropriate.

  Israel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart; what recent representations he has made to Israel about possession of weapons of mass destruction; and when he last made representations to Israel on behalf of Mordecai Vanunu. [90233]

  The Prime Minister
  I wrote to Prime Minister Sharon last week about the Israeli ban on travel to London by Palestinian Authority Ministers. I last spoke to Mr. Sharon on 29 November 2002.

  The Government presses on all states the importance that we attach to universal adherence to all international non-proliferation treaties. Foreign Office officials last held non-proliferation talks with Israeli officials in March 2002.

  Our Embassy in Tel Aviv last raised our concerns about Mr. Vanunu's imprisonment with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 17 October 2002.

HEALTH

  NHS Services (South Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence about the impact of Project Allenby on the provision of NHS services in south Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [90204]

  Ms Blears
  Although Ministers have not been directly involved in the discussions that have taken place, I understand that at official level the discussions have been positive. I am advised that the Ministry of Defence planned improvements include the provision of an Army Primary Health Care Team to meet the health care needs of army personnel.

  The impact of Project Allenby on local health services is expected as a result to be minimal.

  Overseas Doctors
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what his assessment is of the speed and efficiency of procedures to assess the competence of overseas qualified doctors; and if he plans to revise them. [90205]

  Mr. Hutton
  Assessing the competence of doctors who have qualified outside the European Economic Area is the responsibility of the General Medical Council, the Specialist Training Authority and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice. At present this process can be unduly lengthy. We are consulting on legislation which will replace two of these bodies with a single new body—the Postgraduate Medical Education Training Board. The Board will be under a duty to complete the processing of applications from overseas doctors within three months.

  Health Services (East Kent)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reconfiguration of health services in East Kent. [90206]
  516W
  Ms Blears
  A decision on the reconfiguration of acute services in East Kent could not be made while the judicial review of the consultation process was under consideration. This has now been completed and Ministers will shortly be considering the recommendation made by Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS of medical negligence compensation payments was in the last year for which figures are available. [90207]

  Mr. Lammy
  The latest figure, for the financial year 2000–01, is that national health service expenditure for clinical negligence amounted to £392 million. Figures for the financial year 2001–02 are being prepared by the National Audit Office and will be available later this year.

  Nurses
  Tony Baldry
  To as the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the retention of nurses. [90208]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to retaining more staff in the national health service. As a result of the action we have taken on better pay, working conditions, and access to training and development vacancy rates for nurses are falling and the NHS Plan target for an extra 20,000 more nurses was met two years early. Since 1997, there are more than 40,000 extra nurses working in the NHS.

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Bacon
  To as the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the re-financing of the PFI project for Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust. [90210]

  Mr. Hutton
  Initial discussions have taken place involving Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust, its Private Sector Partner Octagon and the Department of Health about the possible re-financing of the PFI scheme at the trust. If an agreement is reached, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust will benefit from a 30 per cent. share of resulting gains.

  Surrey and Sussex NHS Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial position of the Surrey and Sussex NHS Healthcare Trust. [90211]

  Ms Blears
  Surrey and Sussex NHS Healthcare Trust has a budget of £140 million. The Trust has reported a deficit to the end of November of £2.8 million and is projecting a surplus of £193,000 by the year end.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the prescription plus initiative in respect of sufferers of multiple sclerosis. [90212]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey of Strategic Health Authorities conducted last autumn showed that services were being developed to initiate treatment under the scheme. We understand that the majority of designated specialist centres are now recruiting patients under the scheme.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had on the funding of hospices for children; and if he will make a statement. [90213]

  Ms Blears
  I met the Association of Children's Hospices on 9 January to discuss ways in which funding levels can he determined through negotiation with primary care trusts. We also discussed the benefits to be obtained through the New Opportunities Fund. Awards from this programme will be announced later this month.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of adults suffering from(a) ADD and (b) ADHD. [89677]

  Jacqui Smith
  No such assessment has been undertaken.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by his Department. [89969]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not centrally hold a record of individual contracts.

  Expenditure by the Department with the Capita Group for the last three years is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  £

  2000–01

  792,433

  2001–02

  250,172

  2002–03

  125,942 (to 12/02)

  The bulk of the expenditure has been in relation to contracts placed with Capita RAS (part of the Capita Group) for staff recruitment exercises.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 152W, on care home inspectors, when information on the number of different types of establishment will be available. 90119]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data will be available from the end of March.
  518W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methodology was used in indicating the increase in the number of people being supported in care homes in the next three years as set out in the document "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The next three years". [83465]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The modelling methodology took account of projected changes in the numbers of older people generally and in the numbers of emergency hospital admissions of older people between 2003–06.

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many CAMHS consultants are employed in the NHS in each health authority. [85156]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the tables. The data shows an increase since 1997 of 9.1 per cent., in the number of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

  NHS consultants, all specialties and child and adolescent psychiatry specialty

  All specialities

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  England

  1997

  21,370

  440

  1998

  22,220

  460

  1999

  23,220

  490

  2000

  24,310

  480

  2001

  25,690

  490

  2002

  26,350

  480

  Note:

  Figures are at 30 September each year, except 2002 which is at 31 March.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Hospital medical consultants in the specialty child and adolescent psychiatry by strategic health authority

  At 31 March 2002

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  20

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  10

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  20

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  20

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  20

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  10

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  10

  Dorset and Somerset

  10

  Essex

  01

  Greater Manchester

  20

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  20

  Kent and Medway

  10

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  10

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  30

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  10

  North Central London

  20

  North East London

  20

  North West London

  30

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  20

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  10

  South East London

  20

  South West London

  20

  South West Peninsula

  01

  South Yorkshire

  10

  Surrey and Sussex

  30

  Thames Valley

  30

  Trent

  30

  West Yorkshire

  20

  1 Figure less than 5.

  519W
  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2002 consultant census.

  Cumberland Infirmary
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of elective surgery operations performed at the Cumberland Infirmary related to residents of(a) Scotland and (b) Dumfries and Galloway in the last 12 months. [88596]

  Jacqui Smith
  During 2001–02, of the 29,130 elective "finished consultant episodes" (FCEs) at the North Cumbria Acute Hospitals National Health Service trust, 1.95 per cent., or 570, were reidents of Scotland and 1.77 per cent., or 520, were residents of Dumfries and Galloway.

  Note:

  A FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Figures have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Department of Health Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2002, ref 87420, if he will list the dental practices that accept NHS patients in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire. [90134]

  Mr. Lammy
  The situation as at 10 January is as follows:

  One practice in Shrewsbury accepting charge exempt adults and children only:

  David Barker Dental Practice

  Other practices in Shropshire (including Telford and Wrekin)

  Accepting all categories of new national health service patients:

  Webb Dental Practice, Dawley

  Accepting charge-exempt adults and children only:

  Albrighton Dental Surgery

  Dawley Dental Practice

  K. S. Gakhal Dental Practice, Wellington

  High Street Dental Practice, Whitchurch

  Kearney-Mitchell and Holgate Dental Practice, Whitchurch

  Only accepting children:

  I. S. Clapworthy Dental Practice, Church Stretton

  Lyness Dental Practice, Church Stretton

  Shifnal Dental Practice

  M. J. Davies Dental Practice, Wellington

  Source:

  Shropshire County Primary Care Trust

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with private companies on digital hearing aids; and whether he has communicated information on his discussions to NHS trusts. [86757]
  520W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: I met with Scrivens, a high street supplier of digital hearing aids, on 19 March 2002.

  There have been no discussions between Ministers and private companies who manufacture digital hearing aids. Manufacturers of moderate powered digital hearing aids were invited to tender for the national health service contract let in 2000 in an advertisement placed in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC). At present the NHS purchasing and supplies agency are tendering for high powered and paediatric digital hearing aids and as part of this process have been in discussions with suppliers who expressed an interest in that OJEC advert placed earlier this year. All interested suppliers were invited to a pre-offer briefing meeting where the requirements of the tender were outlined including the specifications.

  Audiology departments are informed of the products available under the NHS contract.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much trusts in England and Wales allocated to digital hearing aids in the last year for which figures are available. [90226]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has allocated £30.75 million to its modernising hearing aid services project over the financial years 2000–01 to 2002–03 to national health service trusts in England. This modernised service includes the provision of digital hearing aids. Twenty sites joined the project in the first wave, with a further 30 second-wave sites joining in 2002–03.

  For second wave sites the Department pays the cost of upgrading information technology and other systems, 75 per cent. of additional staff costs and 75 per cent. of the difference between the cost of providing digital and analogue aids. Local primary care trusts pay the remaining 25 per cent. of revenue costs.

  A further 17 sites will be receiving training and equipment, this financial year, to allow them to dispense digital hearing aids.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average period of(a) residential and (b) non-residential drug rehabilitation was in the last year for which figures are available. [85713]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: This information is not collected centrally.

  The periods will vary according to the different drug treatment modalities and depend on the clinical and social needs of each individual drug user. The variations in the length of treatment times, in individual cases, are such that comparisons could be very misleading.

  Electronic Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have online secure access to their electronic records. [88758]
  521W
  Mr. Lammy
  Trials involving a very small number of patients are currently taking place. The My Health Space project, which is the personal electronic record under development by NHS Direct Online, is conducting a pilot trial to give patients access to their records.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects electronic prescribing to be available through the NHS; [88739]

  (2) what development work has been done for the introduction of electronic prescribing. [88738]

  Mr. Lammy
  Three pilots are currently transferring prescription data electronically from general practitioners to community pharmacies and the Prescription Pricing Authority. These are being run by three private sector consortiums on behalf of the Department.

  The pilots are being fully and independently evaluated, and will inform the business case and how best to establish and rollout the electronic transmission of prescriptions in the national health service in line with "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan".

  Emergency Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the rate of growth in emergency readmissions of people over 75 per thousand emergency admissions in each of the last five years in(a) each region and (b) England. [88785]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The emergency readmission rates collected by the Department use number of discharges from hospital as the denominator, rather than number of emergency admissions. The information requested, therefore, is not available.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what fair trade criteria he sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89914]

  Mr. Lammy
  No set criteria are used but tenders are evaluated against a range of criteria to select the one giving best value for money. These include company policies in relation to environmental and similar considerations.

  Foundation Hospitals (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance will be given to foundation hospitals on recruitment from existing Scottish NHS hospitals. [90403]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts will be under a duty of partnership with NHS bodies (see paragraphs 3.21 and 6.1 of "A guide to NHS Foundation Trusts"). This duty of partnership will 522W
  apply to NHS and social care providers and commissioners in the local health economy, including where appropriate in Scotland.

  Social Care Register
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what order the General Social Care Council will register each category of care worker. [89790]

  Jacqui Smith
  The General Social Care Council will open a register of social care workers in April 2003. Professionally qualified social workers and students of social work will be the first to be registered. Heads of homes are the next priority group.

  Other parts of the register will be opened at a time determined by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the General Social Care Council has made of the number of people it will be able to register each year. [89791]

  Jacqui Smith
  Once in full operation, the General Social Care Council expects to process an average of 60,000 applications each year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on registrations by the General Social Care Council of the requirement to undertake Criminal Record Bureau checks. [89792]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no requirement on the General Social Care Council to undertake criminal checks to register an applicant. In December 2002 the GSCC provided the Department of Health with an assessment of the potential demand on the Criminal Records Bureau if the GSCC decided to make such checks. The result of this assessment was that theGSCC estimated their output, once fully operational, would be in the region of 5,000 applications per month.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the General Social Care Council will have access to the sex offenders' register when processing applications. [89793]

  Jacqui Smith
  If the General Social Care Council sets rules for registration that require such checks to be completed, then the Council will be granted the same access as any other registration body.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the planned dates were for each of the milestones in the procurement of an IT system for the General Social Care Council; and when each milestone was achieved. [89794]

  Jacqui Smith
  The delivery date for the provision of a social care register, supported by an information technology (IT) system, is 1 April 2003.

  The planned milestones and completion dates for the procurement of an IT system for the General Social Care Council social care register are as follows:

  523W

  Milestone

  Planned date

  Actual date

  1.

  Issue of Statement of Requirement

  27 March 2002

  27 March 2002

  2.

  Selection of preferred bespoke system supplier

  24 May 2002

  24 May 2002

  3.

  Completion of requirements scoping study

  9 August 2002

  23 August 2002

  4.

  Complete availability of COTS packages

  26 September 2002

  26 September 2002

  5.

  Shortlist COTS package suppliers

  11 October 2002

  11 October 2002

  6.

  Receive COTS package supplier bids

  28 November 2002

  28 November 2002

  7.

  Select preferred COTS package supplier

  10 December 2002

  10 December 2002

  8.

  Initial customer/supplier engagement complete

  20 December 2002

  20 December 2002

  9.

  Demonstration system available

  16 January 2003

  —

  10.

  Initial package configuration complete

  7 February 2003

  —

  11.

  User acceptance testing complete

  28 February 2003

  —

  12.

  Initial user training complete

  31 March 2003

  —

  13.

  Electronic social care register opened

  1 April 2003

  —

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to enable the General Social Care Council to check applications against the registers of the GMC, NMC and other relevant bodies. [89795]

  Jacqui Smith
  The General Social Care Council will be working with other relevant regulatory bodies on agreed protocols for the exchange of such information.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to the General Social Care Council concerning its priorities and method of working. [89796]

  Jacqui Smith
  Any guidance from the Department to the General Social Care Council concerning its priorities and method of working is contained in

  Number of genetically prescribed items and total number of prescription items that were dispensed in the community, 1997 to 2001 by regional office, England

  Million

  Regional office area

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  1997

  Generically prescribed items

  44

  31

  31

  50

  28

  36

  45

  28

  292

  Total items1

  70

  56

  55

  80

  50

  62

  77

  49

  500

  1998

  Generically prescribed items

  47

  33

  34

  53

  30

  38

  48

  31

  314

  Total items1

  73

  57

  57

  82

  52

  63

  79

  50

  513

  1999

  Generically prescribed items

  50

  36

  37

  56

  33

  41

  52

  34

  339

  Total items1

  75

  59

  59

  84

  54

  65

  82

  52

  530

  2000

  Generically prescribed items

  56

  42

  41

  61

  39

  45

  59

  38

  381

  Total items1

  78

  62

  61

  87

  57

  66

  86

  55

  552

  2001

  Generically prescribed items

  62

  47

  45

  68

  43

  49

  65

  42

  422

  Total items1

  83

  66

  65

  92

  61

  69

  91

  59

  587

  1 The total number of prescription items includes dressings and appliances.

  Notes:

  1. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system from the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) and cover prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and items personally administered.

  2. Figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest million. Therefore the sum of the Regional Offices may not equal the England total.

  524W
  the Council's management statement and financial memorandum, which was agreed with the Department in September 2002. Copies were laid in the Library. Such guidance is reflected further in the Council's business plan.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many generic drugs have been prescribed in(a) England and (b) each region in each of the last five years. [88805]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Information on the number of prescription items of generic drugs dispensed in the community in the last five years is shown in the table.

  Genetics Green Paper
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Green Paper on Genetics. [88363]

  Ms Blears
  The Green Paper on genetics will be published shortly.

  Health Screening (NHS Staff)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health screening tests are carried out on(a) existing NHS staff and (b) prospective recruits; and what are planned. [90188]

  Mr. Hutton
  Applicants for work in the national health service are required to pass a number of pre-employment checks prior to receiving an unconditional offer of employment. These include verification of qualifications, identity, professional registration, criminal records and occupational health. Guidance on pre-employment checks was issued to NHS employers under the cover of a Direction for the Secretary of State, in June 2002.

  Following the recommendations made by an expert working group the Government is currently consulting the professions and patient organisations regarding the introduction of additional health clearance for serious communicable diseases.

  Heroin
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs prescribe drugs to combat heroin addiction, broken down by region. [82274]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not available centrally in this form.

  In the six month period ending 31 March 2001 around 35,100 clients were reported at drug treatment agencies in England.

  Of these, around 1,700 or five per cent. were reported to be clients presenting to general practitioners.

  The information on the breakdown by region is shown in table 15 of the Statistical Bulletin, "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for the six months ending March 2001". The full Statistical Bulletin is available in the Library and on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0207.htm

  Table 15

  Agency episodes reported by regional office area and health authority of treatment by type of agency during the period 1 October 2000–31 March 2001, provides information on the number of NHS funded general practices that have provided prescribing services to drug users by region.

  Number

  Northern and Yorkshire

  322

  Trent

  140

  Eastern

  259

  London

  171

  526W

  Number

  South East

  564

  West Midlands

  104

  North West

  160

  South West

  Not Available

  Illness Prevention
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority his Department places on the prevention of illnesses. [90209]

  Ms Blears
  The Department—and this Government as a whole—places the highest priority on preventing illness, promoting the health of all and improving the health of the poorest fastest. This means tackling inequalities, and reducing mortality from cancer and coronary heart disease—the two biggest killers in England. As well as reducing the burden caused by infectious diseases.

  Public Health (Landfill Sites)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has received from the Health and Safety Executive regarding the effects of landfill sites on public health. [88595]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health has received no assessment from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regarding the effects of landfill sites on public health.

  The HSE, contributes to a grant to the small area health statistics unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College, jointly with the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly of Wales and the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. SAHSU was commissioned to carry out a national study of birth outcomes and cancer around landfill sites.

  The results for birth outcomes were published in the British Medical Journal in 2001 (Elliott et al BMJ 2001: 323: 363–8: available at http://www.bmj.com). The results for the cancer outcomes were published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2002 (Jarup et al 2002: 86: 1732–6). A fuller report of the study may be found at the Department of Health website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/pdfs/report aug13.pdf. The study found a small increase in congenital anomalies in populations living close to landfill sites. There was no suggestion of excess risks of cancer associated with landfill sites. The Department sought advice on the study from the independent expert Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). COT noted that the findings for birth outcomes were not consistent, and that the study provided no evidence that the rates of anomalies increased after sites had opened. The opinion of the COT may be found at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/cotnonfood/landfil.htm.

  Life Resources Incorporated
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations were(a) sought and

  527W
  (b) received from the Scottish Executive regarding the purchase of Life Resources Incorporated; and what consultations have taken place between his Department and the Scottish Executive regarding access to resources stored in Life Resources Incorporated; [88780]

  (2) what future consultations he plans with the Scottish Executive regarding access to resources stored in Life Sources Incorporated; and what financial resources (a) have been received from and (b) will be paid by the Scottish Executive regarding access to resources stored in Life Resources Incorporated; [88781]

  (3) what role the Scottish Executive played in the purchase of Life Resources Incorporated; and whether the Scottish Executive will have representation at board level; [88782]

  (4) what representations were received from the Scottish Executive regarding bonus payments to be paid out in future years to Life Resources Incorporated; [88783]

  (5) whether contracts on behalf of the NHS in Scotland have been made with Life Resources Incorporated, for the purchase of plasma products that are free of vCJD, for use within the NHS in Scotland. [88784]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) has its own independent sources of non-UK plasma. The Scottish Executive were therefore not involved in the Government's decision to purchase Life Resources Incorporated to secure supplies of non-UK plasma for the national health service in England. Accordingly, no consultations or financial transactions took place with the Scottish Executive concerning the purchase of Life Resources and the Scottish Executive will have no involvement in the future management of the company.

  SNBTS is not currently supplied with plasma by Life Resources Incorporated. Should SNBTS decide in future to tender for plasma supplies, Life Resources could be one of a number of commercial plasma suppliers that might compete for this contract.

  Maternity Units
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many maternity units do not reach recommended levels for the number of deliveries per year, as defined by the relevant Royal College. [85790]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  National health service maternity services are provided in a variety of settings, and the numbers of deliveries in each unit can vary from about five to 10 births per year in a very small midwife-led unit to large consultant-led units in hospitals with over 5,000 births.

  Information relating to maternities in the NHS is collected by trusts and is available through the Hospital Episode Statistics System at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb/o211.htm

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on promoting mental health services for(a) the disabled and (b) ethnic minorities; [86148]

  (2) what plans he has to develop a research strategy for overseeing service solutions for (a) ethnic minorities and (b) the disabled, with mental health problems. [86145]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department will be launching a comprehensive framework for black and minority ethnic mental health later this year. The framework will cover accessibility of services and relevant research. The National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) has set up a national black and ethnic minorities mental health innovations and research and development expert group to support the NIMHE research network to support implementation of the framework.

  The Government White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century", is clear that the national service framework for mental health applies to all adults of working age, including people with learning disabilities who have a mental illness. They should be enabled to use generic psychiatric services whenever possible. Each local service should have access to an acute assessment and treatment resource for the small number of individuals with significant learning disabilities and mental health problems who cannot appropriately be admitted to general psychiatric services, even with specialist support.

  "A Sign of the Times", a consultation document on modernising mental health services for people who are deaf or deaf and blind, was published in July 2002. It set out proposals aimed at making a significant difference to the lives of deaf people with mental health problems whose needs were previously overlooked.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 199W, on mental health services, what assessment he has made of the contribution that a code of conduct for mental health professionals and users can make to improvements in the treatment of users of mental health services. [90702]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have made no assessment of the contribution of professionals' codes of conduct to mental health care and treatment. Although we believe codes of conduct can contribute to the maintenance of high standards, and have a place among the several systems in place to support the highest quality care, responsibility for their development and use lies with the statutory regulatory bodies and professional organisations.

  National School Fruit Scheme
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will support the provision of organic fruit to school children as part of the national school fruit scheme; and if he will make a statement. [88256]
  529W
  Ms Blears
  Contracts to supply fruit under the National School Fruit Scheme are awarded through open, competitive tendering. The tendering process is open to all suppliers, including those who provide organically grown fruit.

  NHS (Tariff System)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the new national tariff system for NHS hospitals will vary to reflect regional differences in the cost of providing services. [89543]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The new national tariff takes account of unavoidable geographical differences in the cost of providing health care. The same market forces factor (MFF) used in the weighted capitation formula for resource allocation is used to adjust the tariff for individual providers.

  More information on how the MFF is used to determine provider specific tariffs, and the actual MFF factors for 2003–04, is set out in Annex B of the guidance published on the Department of Health website: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsfinancialreforms/

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason applicants to the NHS Appointments Commission are required to declare their political allegiance. [88318]

  Mr. Lammy
  The code of practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments that all candidates for appointment to public bodies are asked to answer the question ion political activity, as opposed to allegiance. This is for monitoring purposes only and the information is not passed on to sifting and interview panels considering candidates for appointment.

  NHS Franchises
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be responsible for assessing the impact of problems which arise when an NHS management team takes on the franchise for running a further NHS trust. [89063]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2002]: The Boards of National Health Service trusts are responsible for the performance of their own trust. The strategic health authority monitors overall performance and progress in each trust. Assessments of performance are also made in clinical governance inspections by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Register of Experts
  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) clinical and (b) non-clinical employees each of the private sector companies on the Register of Expertise has. [89060]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The applications for the National Health Service Franchising Register of Expertise were in the names f corporate bodies rather than individuals. An organisation which tenders for a franchise will be
  530W
  required to name appropriately qualified individual(s) to carry out senior management roles in a hospital trust as part of their bid.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any of the three-star NHS trusts included in the Register of Experts asked to be included. [89065]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2002]: As part of the earned autonomy package, all three star National Health Service trusts are given automatic entry to the franchising register of expertise and therefore do not need to apply. These trusts are not under any obligation to apply for franchise opportunities that arise.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) private and (b) voluntary sector organisations which applied to be included in the Register of Experts but were rejected. [89058]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2002]: The selection and rejection of applicants for the National Health Service Franchising Register of Expertise is a matter for the independent panel which was set up by the National Health Service Appointments Commission to assess the applications.

  It would not be appropriate to publish the names of organisations who applied, but were unsuccessful, as the applications were made in confidence to the independent panel.

  Mr. Frank Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS organisations will need the approval of their board before applying for a franchise to run another trust. [89059]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: A National Health Service trust would need the agreement of its Board before it could apply for a franchise to run another National Health Service trust.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each of the private sector companies on the Register of Experts, how many managers were previously employed in the NHS. [89061]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The applications for the National Health Service franchising register of expertise were in the names of corporate bodies rather than individuals. An organisation which tenders for a franchise will be required to name an appropriately qualified individuals(s) to carry out management roles in a hospital trust as part of their bid.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals are managed by each of the private sector organisations on the Register of Experts; and how many beds, emergency admissions and intensive care beds there are in each such hospital. [89064]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The independent panel set up by the National Health Service Appointments Commission assessed the general ability of each private sector organisation to run a hospital trust. The expertise and experience of every organisation which tenders for a National Health Service franchise will be thoroughly and rigorously assessed before any contract is awarded.
  531W
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the sum to be paid to franchised managements of NHS trusts will be made public. [89066]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The management fee paid to private sector organisations for any franchise agreement is amatter for the Board of the relevant National Health Service trust.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the private management of franchised NHS trusts will be able to levy fines on local authorities which fail to provide sufficient help with hospital discharges. [89067]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Subject to legislation, the ability to levy fines on local authorities that delay hospital discharges will apply to the institution, not the management of the organisation. A private sector organisation awarded the management franchise of a hospital trust would not retain any money received for itself through this arrangement, but it would go into general funds.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies exist in trusts in England and Wales. [90225]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on vacancies lasting three months or more for nursing staff in England is shown in the table.

  The three month vacancy rate was 3.1 per cent. in March 2002, a fall from 3.4 per cent. in March 2001 and the second successive fall in vacancies for qualified nursing staff.

  Information for Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002 Vacancies in NHS Trusts, qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding HA staff)

  England (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  3.1

  Three month vacancy number

  8,394

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  265,717

  Staff in post (headcount)

  329,981

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents).

  3. Three month Vacancy Rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month Vacancy Rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001.

  6. Staff in post data excludes staff employed by Health Authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from Trusts, PCTs and Special Health Authorities.

  7.Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  8. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  532W
  Sources:

  Vacancy Numbers and Rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002

  Non Medical Staff in Post: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce census September 2001

  Sleep Disorders
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to ensure that health purchasers are encouraged to diagnose and treat obstructive sleep apnoea; [88235]

  (2) if he will list the trusts and PCTs where the provision of diagnostic and therapeutic services for obstructive sleep apnoea are available; [88237]

  (3) plans he has to include sleep apnoea and other sleep disorders in his national plan. [88236]

  Mr. Hutton
  Targets for National Health Service modernisation and reform set out in the NHS Plan will help improve services for everyone using NHS services, including those with sleep apnoea and other sleep disorders.

  Substantial new investment in both health and social care services were recently announced in the Budget. The NHS will receive an annual average increase of 7.5 per cent. above inflation over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. This represents an increase of £34 billion in funding and is the highest sustained growth in funding in the history of the NHS. This increase will provide the investment needed to support services which best meet patients and users needs.

  Information on the configuration of local services such as which primary care trusts (PCTs) provide diagnostic and therapeutic services for obstructive sleep apnoea is not held centrally. However, we are aware that there are specialised sleep disorder services at St Thomas' Hospital, London and at hospitals in Cambridge and Leicester.

  PCTs, in partnership with local stakeholders, have the responsibility for deciding what services to provide for their populations including those with sleep apnoea. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  Patient Testing
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on near patient testing by NHS trusts. [87534]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan set out the vision for the national health service to offer patients fast and convenient care offered to a consistently high standard. Subsequently, Delivering the NHS Plan confirmed our commitment to substantial increases in NHS capacity and to using the extra investment to modernise the way services are provided to bring them closer to patients, to expand the choices available to them and to make better use of the NHS work force.

  The Department recognises the vital role of pathology services in the effective treatment and care of patients, and in providing fast and effective diagnoses to support improved access to services. We support the appropriate use of near patient testing in primary care, community clinics, accident and emergency

  533W
  departments and on the wards, which can provide improved service for patients, speeding up diagnoses and treatment.

  We are currently revising our draft guidance for the NHS on modernising pathology services, and will include advice on appropriate use of near patient testing in this.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the first report on the effectiveness of primary care trusts. [88524]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 204W.

  GP Recruitment
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for the recruitment of GPs in England. [84496]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The NHS Plan set a target of 2,000 extra general practitioners by 2004. Delivering the NHS Plan, published in April, set out the next stage in this expansion—15,000 more GPs and consultants working in the national health service by 2008.

  Recruitment of Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 25 November regarding ethical foreign nurse recruitment if he will list the names of the agencies that have been reported; what investigations have been undertaken; and what action has been taken against any agency found guilty of breaches. [84771]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: This information is held in confidence. In each case behaviour which appeared to be inconsistent with the Code of Practice was reported and the agency was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. In each case officials have been satisfied that the organisation in question is operating in line with the Code of Practice.

  This process will be followed in all cases, but if any allegation is substantiated, the agency will be removed from the list. At this stage, the information will be publicly available.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for his Department(a) those Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 targets that were outstanding at the time of the statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002, (b) progress on such targets since then and (c) the expected date when targets not yet achieved will be met. [87696]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 7 December 2002]: The Department publishes progress against all its outstanding Public Service Agreement targets in its Departmental Report and Autumn Performance Report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities are available to deal with a terrorist attack involving chemical or biological agents, in each region; and which of these facilities were put in place in the last twelve months. [88399]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 11 September 2001, National Health Service preparations have been stepped up to ensure we are as prepared as we can be in responding to a range of possible new threats, such as the deliberate release of chemical or biological agents.

  In the past 12 months, specific medical countermeasures have been taken. However, information about these medical countermeasures and where they are placed is not made publicly available for security reasons.

  Under a £5 million programme, the Department has funded the provision of 360 mobile decontamination units and 7,250 national specification personal protective equipment (PPE) suits which allow the ambulance service and accident and emergency departments to treat people contaminated with chemical, biological, radio-active and nuclear material. Theallocation of this equipment to health and social care regions is shown in the table.

  Region

  PPE Suits

  Mobile Decontamination Units

  London

  862

  46

  Midlands & Eastern

  1728

  88

  North

  2174

  109

  South

  2486

  117

  Urologists
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to take to increase the ratio of urologists per capita in Great Britain. [89678]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 1997, the number of consultant urologists has increased by 27 per cent. to 436 in March 2002. We are increasing the number of consultant urologists through expansion of registrar training places, improved recruitment and retention, international recruitment and promotion of flexible retirement.

  In 2001 there were 0.9 urologists per 100,000 population.

  As at 30 September 2001 there were 204 doctors in the registrar group for urology in the national health service in England. The output from these existing registrar training places, when combined with other increases and offset by expected retirements in the specialty is expected to result in around 582 trained specialists being available in surgery by 2010. The number of urologists per capita is therefore likely to increase significantly.

  Waiting Times
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 longest waiting times for NHS treatment according to the most recent data that he has available. [87538]
  535W
  Mr. Hutton
  The latest published commissioner data for England in October 2002 show there were a total of nine patients waiting over 15 months for in-patient admission.

  Welsh Health Authority Referrals
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients referred from a Welsh health authority in the last year for which records are available were treated in each of the 10 English hospitals that treated the highest numbers of such patients; for each

  Five most common in-patient procedures

  NHS trust

  Total Welsh resident patients treated

  Procedure

  Number of patients treated

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  7,729

  X35 Other intravenous injection

  332

  R24 Normal delivery

  266

  H25 Diagnostic endoscopic exam/lower bowel using fibreoptic signoidoscope

  172

  C75 Prosthesis of lens

  160

  G45 Diagnostic fibreoptic endoscopic exam

  149

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals

  6,819

  X35 Other intravenous injection

  518

  M45 Diagnostic endoscopic examination of bladder

  269

  C71 Extracapsular extraction of lens

  237

  G45 Diagnostic fibreoptic endoscopic exam

  209

  R24 Normal delivery

  199

  Hereford Hospitals

  2,949

  C75 Prosthesis of lens

  241

  R24 Normal delivery

  75

  X35 Other intravenous injection

  74

  M45 Diagnostic endoscopic examination of bladder

  54

  W37 Total prosthetic replacement of hip joint using cement

  51

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt

  2,885

  X29 Continuous infusion of therapeutic substance

  245

  W37 Total prosthetic replacement of hip joint using cement

  243

  W82 Therapeutic endoscopic operations on semilunar cartilage

  155

  W40 Total prosthetic replacement of knee joint using cement

  151

  W83 Therapeutic endoscopic operations on other articular cartilage

  130

  Royal Liverpool Children's

  1,559

  A54 Therapeutic spinal puncture

  97

  X29 Continuous infusion of therapeutic substance

  96

  T19 Simple excision of inguinal hernial sac

  59

  L91 Other vein related operations

  52

  G45 Diagnostic fibreoptic endoscopic exam

  44

  The Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool

  1,411

  K63 Contrast radiology of heart

  720

  K49 Transluminal balloon angioplasty of coronary artery

  169

  K45 Connection of thoracic artery to coronary artery

  133

  K26 Plastic repair of aortic valve

  53

  K60 Cardiac pacemaker system introduced through vein

  46

  Central Manchester and Manchester

  1,089

  K63 Contrast radiology of heart

  497

  K45 Connection of thoracic artery to coronary artery

  143

  K49 Transluminal balloon angioplasty of coronary artery

  98

  K57 Other therapeutic transluminal operations on heart

  27

  K60 Cardiac pacemaker system introduced through vein

  17

  Walton Centre for Neurology

  904

  A55 Diagnostic spinal puncture

  114

  A84 Neurophysiological operations

  86

  A08 Other biopsy of lesion of tissue of brain

  70

  X55 Other operations on unspecified organ

  69

  X29 Continuous infusion of therapeutic substance

  52

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen

  812

  C82 Destruction of lesion of retina

  61

  X29 Continuous infusion of therapeutic substance

  52

  C79 Operations on vitreous body

  40

  G45 Diagnostic fibreoptic endoscopic exam

  36

  X33 Other blood transfusion

  26

  536W
  hospital, what the most common procedures carried out on such patients were; and how many such procedures were carried out. [88283]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of Welsh patients treated as in-patients in the 10 English national health service trusts that treated the highest number of Welsh patients in 2001–02 is shown in the table.

  The five most common in-patient procedures carried out on Welsh patients in those NHS trusts are shown in the table. Data are collected on approximately 850 procedures carried out in NHS trusts.
  537W

  Five most common in-patient procedures

  NHS trust

  Total Welsh resident patients treated

  Procedure

  Number of patients treated

  United Bristol Healthcare

  768

  C79 Operations on vitreous body

  77

  X35 Other intravenous injection

  33

  C82 Destruction of lesion of retina

  31

  C75 Prosthesis of lens

  25

  W30 Other external fixation of bone

  21

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Chemicals Policy
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the European Union's chemicals management system REACH on(a) the relative costs of the manufacture and use of chemicals in member states in competition with finished manufactured articles imported into the EU and (b) the confidentiality of commercially-sensitive product manufacturing information; and if she will make a statement. [87023]

  Mr. Meacher
  In May 2001, the Government prepared a partial regulatory impact assessment to consider the impact of the European Union's chemicals management system REACH. A full regulatory impact assessment, with a more detailed cost benefit analysis, taking into account the wider economic impact will be carried out once the Commission has published its proposals.

  The Government are committed to having a transparent system and would expect to see as much information as possible made publicly available, which would certainly include basic hazard and exposure data associated with substances. However, in order to avoid free riders and to avoid stifling innovation, adequate controls on access to genuinely commercially sensitive data are needed whilst recognising the right of the public to have access to relevant and meaningful information on hazards and risk. We have had discussions with a number of stakeholders and will seek to work with the European Commission to ensure practical proposals come forward.

  The Government and devolved Administrations have agreed a position statement on the New European Chemical Strategy, a copy of this is in the House Library and can be found on the Defra website at

  Air Quality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of poor urban air quality there have been in each year since 1993. [88437]

  Margaret Beckett
  The United Kingdom Government and the devolved administrations monitor levels of a number of pollutants through a national network of air quality monitoring sites. The monitoring network has 538W
  undergone a large expansion from 24 urban sites in 1993 to 100 in 2002. Air quality monitoring data and statistics are published on the National Air Quality Information Archive website www.airquality.co.uk.

  Number of days with poor urban air quality

  Number of urban monitoring sites in operation

  1993

  99

  24

  1994

  73

  30

  1995

  51

  31

  1996

  60

  51

  1997

  64

  79

  1998

  51

  84

  1999

  52

  84

  2000

  38

  86

  2001

  61

  97

  2002

  29

  100

  The increase in the number of days with poor air quality in 2001 compared with the previous three years is partly due to the larger number of measurement sites in use in 2001 and partly due to the natural fluctuations in weather conditions leading to very localised high concentrations. The overall trend over the whole period from 1993 is downward.

  Ancient Woodland
  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change planning regulations to strengthen protection for ancient woodland in England. [89756]

  Mr. McNulty
  The statement Sustainable Communities: Delivering through planning, given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last July, confirmed that all planning policy guidance notes (PPGs) are to be reviewed. The review of PPG9 on nature conservation will consider how land-use planning can take into account all aspects of nature conservation, including whether there is sufficient protection for ancient woodland. Any changes proposed to the PPG will be subject to public consultation.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many inspectors are employed by her Department to validate claims for(a) slaughter premium and (b) beef special premium scheme. [90393]
  539W
  Alun Michael
  In England, all on-farm bovine inspections take place during a single combined visit to a producer's premises. The actual inspections included will depend on the subsidy schemes against which the producer claims. 247 inspectors in the Rural Payments Agency's Inspectorate are trained to carry out inspections across the range of bovine schemes. These inspectors also carry out inspections under a wide range of other livestock and land based schemes.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. David Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the action required in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04 to protect against the risk of coastal erosion; [89749]

  (2) what assessment her Department made in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 about the risk of coastal erosion. [89748]

  Margaret Beckett
  This Department has overall policy responsibility for coastal erosion risk but operational responsibility, for assessing risks, identifying the need for defence measures and deciding which projects to promote and their timing, rests with local authorities. However, as an aid for the planning by all flood and coastal operating authorities, DEFRA commissioned research into a National Appraisal of the Assets at Risk from flooding and coastal erosion. The results were published in 2000 and 2001.

  Local authorities submit their medium term plans for capital works to reduce the risk of coast protection to DEFRA annually to inform our decisions on the allocation of funds.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from Mr. D Paton of Pinetops Nurseries, Lymington, dated 8 October 2002. [89639]

  Alun Michael
  I cannot respond properly without knowing the subject of the letter in question.

  Information on letters sent direct to the Department from members of the public is not collated centrally. Such letters are referred to the relevant division within the Department on receipt for answer.

  Flooding
  Mr. Andrew Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to respond to the consultation on funding and organisation of flood defences. [89692]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 January 2002]: I am considering the outcome of the flood and coastal defence funding review and will make an announcement on the conclusions as soon as possible.

  Import Controls
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the transfer 540W
  to Customs and Excise of responsibility for port checks on the importing of plant and animal products will become effective. [88429]

  Margaret Beckett
  Responsibility for anti-smuggling controls of plant and animal products will pass to HM Customs and Excise as soon as practicable, which we hope will mean by 1 April 2003. We are, however, currently discussing with Customs and other enforcement agencies the legislative options for achieving this transfer and what, if any, transitional arrangements need to be made, before any firm commitments on a date can be given.

  Responsibility for port checks on plant and animal products imported legally will continue to lie respectively with the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate and the official veterinary surgeons appointed by the relevant local or port health authority.

  Odour Emissions (Mushroom Substrate)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action is being taken to ensure that odour emissions from mushroom substrate manufacturing processes are reduced; [90558]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the review of the Environment Protection Act 1990 Part 1; Processes Prescribed for Air Pollution controlled by Local Authorities; Secretary of State's Guidance Note PG6/30(97) on Mushroom Substrate Manufacturing Processes. [90559]

  Alun Michael
  Statutory guidance (PG6/30) was issued by the Government on what constitutes Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost for the mushroom substrate sector in February 1992, with a revision in February 1997. A second review of the guidance is currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit. A draft, which can be found of the Agency's website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/lapc/ is currently out for stakeholder comment, with a deadline of 20 January. The guidance will then be forwarded, within approximately two months, to my Department for a final consultation stage, and thereafter published.

  Most processes manufacturing mushroom substrate are regulated under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As such they must be authorised by the relevant local authority with the objective of using the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost to minimise air polluting emissions, including odour.

  Ultimately it is for local authorities to determine what constitutes Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost for any particular plant. While they must have regard to the statutory guidance, they are not bound by it, and could (subject to appeal) impose more stringent requirements if they considered it necessary and provided they met the relevant statutory test.

  Rural Land Register
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage
  541W
  of England's land area has been covered by the Rural Payments Agency through their Rural Land Register project. [90397]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Land Register is designed to cover all fields in England which are registered for IACS purposes. Although this does not cover all agricultural land in England, it includes forage land used to support claims for livestock subsidies. I cannot quantify this precisely but coverage is likely to be in the region of 60–90 per cent. of agricultural land.

  Shoreline Management
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which operating authorities have not updated their Shoreline Management Plans in line with High Level Target 8. [89750]

  Margaret Beckett
  The target is for relevant operating authorities to have in place, and provide to DEFRA, a programme for updating Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) in accordance with DEFRA guidance. Further to full consultation, DEFRA has provided revised SMP guidance reflecting the experience gained in producing the original plans. This will be supplemented later this year with more working guidance which is being produced by DEFRA alongside the first three updated SMPs. All the relevant authorities have advised DEFRA of their proposed starting dates for updating SMPs and these are being made available publicly on the DEFRA website.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on the competitiveness of British farming and the costs of implementation of the water framework directive. [88436]

  Margaret Beckett
  We have undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published in March 2001 as part of The First Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/waterframe/index.htm). This includes estimates of the costs of complying with the directive and discusses the implications for typical businesses, including farms. Competitiveness is affected by a multitude of factors acting in combination, and it is not possible to identify the effect of this directive in isolation.

  We are working with other members of the European Union as part of a common implementation strategy to ensure a consistent approach to implementing the directive across the European Union. Also, we are currently undertaking a review of diffuse pollution by agriculture to identify the most cost-effective mechanisms for reducing such pollution. This review is considering the full range of policy measures that could be applied, including economic instruments and voluntary action, not just regulation.

DEFENCE

  Overarching Personnel Strategy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how widely the Action Plan for the armed forces Overarching Personnel Strategy is distributed within the Armed Forces; how many people are privy to it; what proportion of the armed forces this represents; and if he will make a statement. [88257]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy Action Plan is the mechanism by which we measure and monitor the delivery of policy towards our service personnel. The Action Plan is updated annually. It is given a wide distribution to high-level management both within the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces and also to those staff who have a responsibility for delivering the goals contained within it. We do not, however, keep records of people who see the document through the year.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy. [88284]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy provides a high level framework for the delivery of service personnel policy.

  The effectiveness of the strategy is kept under review by means of the annual Action Plan which evaluates and monitors progress made in each area.

  Afghanistan Operations
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use by British operations in Afghanistan of land-based supply routes in operations(a) Fingal, (b) Jacana, (c) Neritas, (d) Ptarmigan, (e) Snipe, (f) Condor and (g) Buzzard. [89278]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been two main British operations in Afghanistan: Operation Jacana and Operation Fingal. Operation Fingal began in December 2001 and is the on-going United Kingdom support to the International Stabilisation Assistance Force (ISAF), assisting with the provision of security and stability in Kabul. Operation Jacana, which took place from April 2002 to July 2002, was the deployment of 45 commando and elements of 3 commando brigade in support of UK forces operating in south-eastern Afghanistan to deny and destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist infrastructure. Operation Veritas (rather than Neritas) is the name given to the overarching UK contribution to the US-led campaign against international terrorism, and encompasses Operations Fingal and Jacana. Ptarmigan, Snipe, Condor, and Buzzard were names given to objectives within Operation Jacana.

  Common routes have been used for supply to all UK troops in Afghanistan (including during Op Jacana). During the initial period of operations in Afghanistan, all materiel was supplied by air. As the security situation stabilised, it has been possible to develop land supply routes both within Afghanistan and between Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. However, land re-supply has been limited to common

  543W
  commodities such as food, fuel, bottled water, and building materials. Military equipment continues to be flown into Afghanistan from the UK.

  There is one land supply route between Pakistan and Afghanistan (Kabul). It has been used to supply the majority of fuel to UK armed forces in Kabul and Bagram. This route is utilised and maintained solely by contractors, who are primarily based in Pakistan. There is a further permanent land supply route within Afghanistan (between Kabul and Bagram), and this is secured and maintained by coalition (including UK) military personnel and civilian contractors.

  Army (Retention)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase salaries for soldiers as a means to encourage retention; and if he will make a statement. [90356]

  Dr. Moonie
  Pay rates for the armed forces are recommended annually to the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). Under its terms of reference, the Review Body is required to have regard to the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people, taking account of the particular circumstances of Service life. The Ministry of Defence has therefore provided the Review Body with information on the manning situation and those areas it considers merit particular attention. The AFPRB is currently considering its recommendations, and is expected to submit its 2003 report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence before the end of February 2003.

  CBW (Inoculation)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has adopted improved types of inoculation against CBW attack, developed in the United States since 1991. [89878]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are not aware of any improved types of vaccine against biological warfare agents currently licensed for use in the United States. The only vaccine against biological warfare agents currently licensed for use in the United Kingdom is a vaccine against anthrax. The Ministry of Defence has a range of research, development and procurement programmes aimed at improving our armed forces defences against chemical and biological attack, including programmes to develop new vaccines. This work includes close co-operation and liaison with the United States.

  It is not possible to immunise against chemical warfare agents.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a copy of the programme report known as CDEE 3/61 which was drawn up by scientists from the chemical and biological defence establishment has been placed in the Public Record Office by his Department; and at which classmark in the Public Record Office this document can be found. [89531]
  544W
  Dr. Moonie
  The policy of the Public Record Office is to select the final reports of research work and trials for preservation rather than the working documents. Therefore, the trial plan for Programme 3/61 has not been selected for preservation.

  However, a copy of the final report Porton Technical Paper 794, entitled "Comparison of radio xenon & zinc cadmium sulphide particle tracers over medium distances of travel", can be found at W0189/1105. Additionally, a copy of the trial plan for programme 3/61 has been located in the historic archive at Dstl Porton Down and can be made available to the hon. Member.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many courts martial have taken place in(a) the UK and (b) overseas military bases, in each of the last three years. [89664]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following courts-martial have taken place in the UK and overseas in the last three years:

  United Kingdom

  Overseas

  Year

  RN

  Army1

  RAF

  RN

  Army1

  RAF

  2000

  53

  278

  68

  Nil

  177

  13

  2001

  59

  394

  97

  Nil

  238

  12

  2002

  52

  323

  54

  Nil

  158

  6

  1Army figures represent the number of individuals tried.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women have appeared before a UK court martial in each of the last three years; what rank they were; and how many were found (i) guilty and (ii) not guilty. [89665]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following tables show the numbers of men and women, by Service and rank, that have appeared before United Kingdom courts martial in the last three years, together with the subsequent findings.

  Royal Navy

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Male

  Captain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Commander

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lt Cdr

  3

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Lieutenant

  5

  —

  8

  —

  4

  1

  Warrant Officer

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Petty Officer

  6

  —

  3

  2

  3

  1

  Petty Officer

  3

  —

  1

  2

  5

  1

  Leading Hand1

  5

  3

  8

  3

  6

  1

  Junior rate

  12

  8

  17

  4

  24

  4

  Sergeant RM

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corporal RM

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Marine

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Female

  Lieutenant

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leading Hand

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Junior rate

  1

  2

  4

  3

  2

  1

  1 Although nine Leading Hands were tried by court-martial in 2000, the trial of one was dissolved without reaching a finding.

  545W

  Army

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Male

  Lt Colonel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Major

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  Captain

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Lieutenant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Warrant Officer 1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Warrant Officer 2

  2

  2

  3

  1

  4

  1

  S Sergeant

  4

  2

  12

  4

  6

  1

  Sergeant

  10

  2

  11

  4

  11

  4

  Corporal

  14

  4

  29

  21

  15

  4

  L Corporal

  18

  5

  26

  10

  28

  5

  Private

  187

  15

  231

  25

  220

  10

  Civilian

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Female

  Corporal

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  L Corporal

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  Private

  4

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  RAF

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Male

  Sqn Leader

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Flt Lt

  3

  2

  4

  1

  1

  —

  Fg Offr

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plt Offr

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  WO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flt Sgt

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chf Tech

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  3

  3

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Corporal

  10

  0

  33

  1

  3

  —

  Jnr Tech

  1

  2

  5

  2

  1

  2

  SAC

  21

  10

  28

  9

  16

  13

  LAC

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  AC

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Male

  Female

  Year

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  2000

  9 months1

  1 year

  9 months

  9 months2

  140 days

  Nil

  2001

  9 months

  1 year 2 months 29 days

  1 year

  90 days

  112 days

  Nil

  2002

  9 months

  1 year 2 months

  9 months

  28 days

  42 days

  1 12 days

  1 Subsequently reduced to six months.

  2 Suspended.

  Detention Centres
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military detention centres in the UK [89663]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is only one military detention centre, the Military Corrective Training Centre at Berechurch Hill Camp, Colchester, Essex. Servicemen and women from all three Services who are sentenced by courts-martial to undergo periods of detention serve their sentence there.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent organisations oversee the running of UK military detention centres; and if he will make a statement. [89668]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC), Colchester, Essex, is visited on a regular basis by an independent Board of Visitors comprising twelve people. The Board is appointed by my right hon. Friend
  546W

  RAF

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Guilty

  Not guilty

  Female

  Corporal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  SAC

  1

  1

  5

  1

  6

  —

  AC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women have been sentenced to a period of detention by a UK military court martial in each of the last three years. [89666]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following number of men and women have been sentenced to a period of detention by United Kingdom courts-martial in the last three years:

  Male

  Female

  Year

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  2000

  11

  163

  19

  1

  4

  Nil

  2001

  18

  216

  30

  2

  3

  Nil

  2002

  26

  205

  12

  2

  1

  5

  The above figures included suspended sentences of detention.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the longest period of detention was to which(a) a man and (b) a woman has been sentenced by a UK military court martial in each of the last three years. [89667]

  Dr. Moonie
  The longest period of military detention which was awarded to a male and female member of each Service over the past three years is as follows:

  the Secretary of State for Defence and reports directly to him. MCTC is also included in visits by the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture, who last visited on 12 and 13 February 2001 during a tour of United Kingdom penal establishments generally.

  Development Sites
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times since 1997 his Department has claimed money back from developers under clawback in the sale of sites for development because of the change in the level of development; what the total amount claimed is; and if he will make a statement. [90133]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the total clawback receipts that have been claimed by the Ministry of Defence from the sale of sites for the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 is given in the "Stewardship Report of the Defence Estate 2001." These figures are based on the following number of cases.
  547W

  Financial Year

  Amount Claimed (£million)

  Number of cases

  1996–97

  0.781

  3

  1997–98

  1.084

  3

  1998–99

  3.386

  3

  1999–2000

  3.269

  8

  2000–01

  1.405

  9

  Further clawback receipts amounting to £4.305 million were claimed in nine cases during Financial Year 2001–02.

  Fraud
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in his Department, who are under investigation for potential fraud, have been suspended for(a) up to a year, (b) over one year and (c) over two years. [87645]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reported cases of suspected fraud are recorded centrally on a summary basis only and detailed information on periods of suspension relating to individuals under investigation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  General Service Medal (Suez)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to award a General Service Medal to those involved in the Suez Crisis in 1956. [90728]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service in Operation Musketeer, the Anglo/French Landings during the Suez Crisis of late 1956, was marked by the institution of the General Service Medal 1918–1962 with clasp near east. It has been available for many years, and is still issued by the Ministry of Defence's four medal offices to eligible veterans who may not have applied previously for the medal.

  Global Security
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what other nations are involved in discussions with the UK and the US regarding a co-operative programme to develop defences which enhance global security. [90317]

  Mr. Hoon
  In November 2002, the 19 NATO member states initiated a new feasibility study to examine options for protecting alliance territory, forces and population centres against the full range of missile threats. The United States also has bilateral discussions with a number of countries (including the United Kingdom) on territorial missile defence.

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the inoculation against CBW attack, to be given to Royal Naval and Royal Marines personnel in the event of hostilities against Iraq, will be different from that used during the 1990–91 Gulf War. [89877]

  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom anthrax vaccine is manufactured using a process developed during the 1950s and first licensed in 1979. Anthrax vaccinations 548W
  currently offered to United Kingdom Service personnel, and those used during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, were both manufactured using this process. The vaccine is manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the product licence. All doses currently being administered to Service personnel will have been manufactured within the last two years.

  It is not possible to immunise against chemical warfare agents.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received requests from the United States for(a) Royal Navy and (b) Royal Marines resources for use in a possible military campaign against Iraq. [89881]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I told the House on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 126W, the United States approached a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, seeking support in the event that military action against Iraq proves necessary. I responded to this approach on 26 November, identifying the kind of contribution we might make, should that be required.

  As I have made clear to the House, this request was part of a confidential exchange between Governments. I am withholding details of the exchange in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that information which is appropriate for his Department to release about preparations for a military campaign against Iraq is released to the House of Commons prior to release to the media. [89885]

  Mr. Hoon
  Announcements are made in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Defence Ministers take seriously their responsibilities to Parliament. I have made two oral statements to inform the House of decisions about our contingency preparations on 18 December 2002, Official Report, columns 845–58W, and 7 January 2003, Official Report, columns 23–29W.

  On that occasion, I undertook to inform the House of any further decisions at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, I will continue to keep the House informed of progress in continuing preparatory activities via written ministerial statements and other appropriate means.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what UN Resolutions(a) the no-fly zone over Iraq, (b) British participation in policing it and (c) bombing as a means of enforcement or retaliation are based. [90128]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Royal Air Force, alongside coalition partners, patrols the Iraqi no-fly zones in support of UNSCR 688, which demands that Saddam Hussein immediately end the brutal repression of his own people.

  Coalition aircraft are authorised to respond in self-defence to sustained efforts by the Iraqi air defence system to engage our aircrew carrying out these legitimate patrols. They do so, in accordance with international law, only against Iraqi integrated air defence targets posing a direct threat to the safety of our forces.
  549W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to send more troops to the Gulf; whether armoured regiments are to be sent; and what increases in naval and air forces are planned. [90328]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to my recent statement on 7 January 2003,Official Report, columns 23–39, in which I announced the deployment later this month of substantial maritime forces. The vessels will conduct training in the Mediterranean with a view to proceeding to the Gulf region if and as necessary.

  No decision has been taken to authorise military action against Iraq. Our military contingency planning aims to allow the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. This includes measures to ensure the availability of a range of units, and the preparation and movement of equipment that may be required. I will continue to inform Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity as and when decisions are taken to deploy additional forces.

  The Ministry of Defence also routinely takes part in long-planned exercises in the Gulf region at the invitation of Governments in the region with which we have strong bilateral defence relationships. Recent media reporting has confused this with deployments for potential military action against Iraq.

  NATO
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 11W, if he will make it his policy to discuss with NATO defence ministers the implications for NATO's naval capabilities of the creation of (a) an EU rapid reaction capability and (b) a France-Germany defence union. [90100]

  Mr. Hoon
  I take every opportunity to discuss with NATO colleagues the need for improved capabilities, including in the naval sphere, particularly in the context of the Prague capabilities commitment, launched at the Prague summit in November 2002, and the European security and defence policy. We are not aware of any specific plans for a France-Germany defence union.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the implications for NATO's naval capabilities of the creation of(a) an EU rapid reaction capability and (b) a France-Germany defence union. [90101]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Rapid Response concept under development by the EU will be compatible with work on the NATO Response Force, and will therefore not result in any change to the level of naval forces declared to NATO.

  We are not aware of any specific plans to create a France-Germany defence union.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many departmental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November 2002 that referred to public-private 550W
  partnerships, as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89414]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: There were none.

  Royal Army Medical Corps
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regular and reserve units are entitled to use the badge of the Royal Army Medical Corps. [90340]

  Dr. Moonie
  All regular and reserve force personnel of the Royal Army Medical Corps are entitled to wear the badge of the Royal Army Medical Corps.

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines Families' Association
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the funding of the Royal Navy and Royal Marine Families' Association (RNRMFA); [90154]

  (2) when the new agency to replace the RNRMFA will be set up; what performance indicators have been set for the new agency; who will be responsible for monitoring those indicators; and if he will make a statement; [90187]

  (3) who made the decision to withdraw funding for the RNRMFA; on what basis was the decision made to withdraw the funding; and if he will make a statement; [90155]

  (4) what performance indicators have been set for the RNRMFA; which of these has not been met in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [90156]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the independence of the agency that will replace the RNRMFA. [90158]

  Dr. Moonie
  Public funding for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Families' Association commenced under the terms of an agreed Charter in 1999. No formal performance indicators were set for the Association, but the Charter laid down its objectives and other requirements. Funding was withdrawn from October 2002 because the Association had consistently failed to meet its objectives, and had also failed to meet other requirements of the Charter, including the production of annual reports and accounts and the maintenance of an appropriate management structure. The decision to withdraw funding was made by the Second Sea Lord, as the top level budget holder accountable for these funds.

  The Department's aim in setting up the Association was to develop an independent organisation to represent the views of Naval Service families. This remains our firm intention and we intend that a new body, with the title, 'Naval Families' Federation', will be in place this spring. We are considering a number of options to ensure that the new Federation grows safely into a well-managed and independent body, preferably with charitable status. This will include the use of carefully selected performance indicators, and the achievements of the Federation against these indicators will be monitored by the Second Sea Lord's Personal and Family Service staff.

  Service Accommodation (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many single accommodation places there are for each of the services in each location in Scotland for(a) officers and (b) other ranks; how many service personnel could be accommodated on shore in Scotland if all the available accommodation was utilised; and if he will make a statement. [86391]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Terror Attacks
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities exist to protect Royal Naval(a) personnel, (b) ships, by class, and (c) shore bases from contamination by chemical, biological or radioactive attack. [89875]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Navy personnel have individual decontamination and protective equipment, which includes respirators, protective suit, boots and gloves and a range of medical countermeasures common across all three Services.

  Royal Navy warships are equipped with both fixed and portable nuclear and chemical detection equipment. All Royal Navy ships, with the exception of the survey vessels, have a citadel as an integral part of their design. This area provides a positively pressurised, toxic-free environment supplied with filtered air. In the ships with no citadel, a range of 'sanctuary procedures' is followed to avoid ingestion of contaminated materials.

  Ships can also be protected by spraying sea water over the upper deck to remove contamination and to minimise the subsequent decontamination effort. Likewise, ships carry equipment to decontaminate any aircraft and vehicles aboard.

  There is a requirement for all RN personnel, ashore in the United Kingdom, to train annually to the NATO required standard for Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) protection and for contingency forces to be trained and equipped to operate in an NBC environment. There is no specific NBC protective equipment for shore bases, but the use could be made of ships alongside at the time of an attack and ad hoc decontamination facilities would be created.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications there have been since 11 September 2001 in training of(a) Royal Naval and (b) Royal Marines personnel to deal with chemical, biological or radiological attack. [89876]

  Mr. Ingram
  The level of training given to Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel to deal with chemical, biological and nuclear attack post 11 September has been fully reviewed. As a result, one modification has been made to the training undertaken by personnel who are serving in warship and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. This is the re-introduction of practical nuclear biological and chemical (NBC) defence training as part of the core operational sea training syllabus. All naval personnel currently undertake a half day NBC defence training module prior to serving at sea at the facility located 552W
  within the Maritime Warfare School at Whale Island, in Portsmouth. An increased awareness of the NBC threat has been incorporated into all appropriate courses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89948]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what fair trade criteria she sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89910]

  Clare Short
  We take every opportunity to promote the use of fair trade products. We do not normally set fair trade criteria when deciding what suppliers to use. The contract for DFID refreshment facilities does require that a range of fair trade products is available.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries that have received help through the HIPC process who now have debt repayments that are sustainable; and if she will make a statement. [90042]

  Clare Short
  Twenty-six countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Of these, six countries (Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda) have reached their completion point and are receiving full debt relief. The remaining 20 (Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zambia) are receiving interim relief. The main objective of the initiative is to ensure that countries exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt. The HIPC Initiative has the flexibility to provide, when appropriate, additional debt relief at completion point. The UK is pressing the World bank and the IMF to widen their approach to topping up, so that any HIPC eligible country facing unsustainable debts, that has demonstrated its commitment to poverty reduction and economic reform, should qualify for this additional relief.

  Khmer Rouge
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to promote bringing to justice members of the former Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. [90277]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.
  553W
  We are working with other interested states towards the establishment of a UN-supported tribunal to bring to justice those Khmer Rouge leaders most responsible for the atrocities committed during their regime (1975–79). We therefore welcome the recent resumption of talks between Cambodian and United Nations negotiators in New York. We remain prepared to offer advice and financial support for a UN-supported tribunal.

  Swaziland
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of sex education, with particular reference to education about AIDS/HIV, for young people in Swaziland. [90410]

  Clare Short
  My Department believes that improved education about HIV/AIDS is a vital part in the effort to combat the epidemic. The Southern Africa Soul City Programme, which my Department is supporting, aims to educate young people through out-reach programmes that deal with de-stigmatisation, raising HIV/AIDS awareness and promoting behavioural change.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much money her Department gave towards AIDS/HIV programmes in Swaziland in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; [90014]

  (2) how much money her Department is giving towards AIDS/HIV programmes in Swaziland this year; and how the programmes will be delivered. [90013]

  Clare Short
  My Department currently supports the HIV/AIDS response in Swaziland through three technical assistance programmes covering the Southern Africa region: the SADC Regional HIV/AIDS programme that supports activities in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland; the Central and Southern Africa HIV/AIDS programme that focuses on strengthening the response of multilateral organisations; and the Southern Africa Soul City Programme that uses mass media to promote awareness of HIV/AIDS. Our financial year expenditure through regional HIV/AIDS programmes has been:

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  831,527

  761,134

  851,565

  It is not possible to specify the proportion of this which has been spent in Swaziland.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with NGOs on the food shortage in Swaziland; and if she will make a statement. [90015]

  Clare Short
  My Department has conducted two humanitarian assessment missions to Swaziland in the last three months. On both missions, local and international NGOs were consulted. The current humanitarian crisis in Swaziland is serious, and my Department is providing support through The World Food Programme.
  554W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with King Mswati of Swaziland on(a) the provision of antivirus drugs and (b) the food shortage in that country, and if she will make a statement. [90016]

  Clare Short
  I have not had any discussions with King Mswati of Swaziland on(a) the provision of antiviral drugs or on (b) the food shortages, but my Department and the British High Commission is in regular touch with the Government of Swaziland.

  Swaziland has benefited from our support to the World Food programme's regional humanitarian programmes covering also Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho, and Angola.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the resolution passed in November 2002 by the European Parliament on the present situation in Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement. [89771]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The European Parliament's resolution raised a number of important issues on the situation in Bangladesh, which we ourselves have raised with the Bangladeshi authorities. The Bangladesh government has argued that the resolution does not give a fully representational view of the situation in Bangladesh. We continue to work closely with our European partners in raising human rights and other concerns with the Bangladesh authorities.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the Bangladeshi government on the reported deaths that have taken place in police custody in recent months in that country; [89773]

  (2) what discussions he has had on recent reports concerning custodial deaths in Bangladesh in recent months; [89775]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Bangladeshi government on their policy known as Operation Clean Heart; and if he will make a statement. [89772]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  While the countermeasures being taken under "Operation Clean Heart" may have had some impact in combating the law and order problem in Bangladesh, we are concerned by reports of mistreatment of detainees, including deaths in custody. During her visit to Bangladesh in December, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for International Development (Sally Keeble), raised our concerns with the Bangladesh Home Minister. Our High Commission also regularly discusses human rights with the Bangladesh government. We look for the due process of law to be followed in all cases, and for the action of security forces and for the treatment of detainees to comply with internationally agreed minimum standards.
  555W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Bangladeshi Government on(a) the development of democracy and human rights, (b) the setting up of Parliamentary committees, and (c) the protection of minorities in that country. [89774]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our High Commission in Dhaka regularly raises with the Bangladesh authorities the need for Parliamentary reform and advocates the benefits of Parliamentary committees. We welcome the contact between our two parliaments, including last year's visits to London by Bangladeshi parliamentarians and to Bangladesh by members of the UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We continue to urge the Bangladesh government and opposition parties to work together in the interests of democracy. We also continue to encourage respect for human rights, including for the rights of minorities.

  Equatorial Guinea (Presidential Elections)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the fairness of the presidential elections held in Equatorial Guinea on 15 December. [88682]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned at reports of election irregularities. These concerns were reflected in the EU's Declaration of 18 December which focused on the lack of opposition representation, the fact that opposition leaders are either in prison or in exile, and that the recommendations on human rights observance and governance of the UN Special Representatives had not been followed through. The EU statement also urged the government of Equatorial Guinea to extend a political amnesty for the opposition, and, with the opposition, to hold an all-inclusive political dialogue on advancing democratisation and establishing guarantees for the respect of human rights.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have provided the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission with background intelligence briefings on the material within its dossier on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction published on 24 September 2002. [90178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of the Government's dossier on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction published on 24 September 2002 have been provided to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. [90180]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A copy of the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was passed to UNMOVIC in New York on the day of its publication. The dossier is also available on the Internet.

  It is up to UNMOVIC to decide on how further to disseminate the information contained in it.

TRANSPORT

  Air Proximity Incidents (Newcastle Airport)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are in place to reduce the risk of air proximity incidents involving civilian and RAF aircraft in the approaches of Newcastle Airport; and whether these include a corridor of controlled airspace. [90554]

  Mr. Spellar
  Aircraft on approach or departure to Newcastle Airport are protected by a Controlled Zone (CTZ) and the Northern Off-Route Co-ordination Area (NORCA) which links Newcastle and controlled airspace near Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA). NORCA is permanently active and military aircraft requiring to enter it need to obtain an Air Traffic Control (ATC) service from nominated Military ATC Units. On 20 March 2003, NORCA is to be replaced by a corridor of Class A controlled airspace. This will afford extra protection, and further measures to enhance air safety may be introduced next year.

  The MOD and CAA have also: mandated the use of a secondary radar transponder on military aircraft; instructed military pilots to make an information call to Newcastle when operating near the CTZ; improved the arrangements during military exercises near Newcastle; and arranged better co-ordination between RAF Spadeadam and Newcastle ATC.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's policy is on reducing carbon emissions from aircraft. [90631]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's policy is to work with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to limit or reduce all emissions from aircraft, including carbon. This work is essentially aimed at developing cleaner technology and operating practices, and market-based measures to incentivise the sector to use them.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of(a) the amount in tonnes of carbon emissions and (b) the proportion of total United Kindom carbon emissions represented by emissions from aircraft (i) using United Kingdom airports and (ii) overflying the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [90632]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Data on carbon emissions from aircraft and the proportion of total carbon emissions are published annually in 'Transport Statistics Great Britain' (in Tables 2.8 and 2.9 on pages 40 and 41 respectively in the 2002 Edition). The information requested on overflying aircraft is not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Links
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chief executives of Business Links are(a) men and (b) women. [90149]
  557W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The 45 Business Link Operators areas in England are covered by 42 Business Link Operator Chief Executives of which 30 are men and 12 are women.

  Company Insolvencies (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment is of the trend in company insolvencies in Scotland. [82431]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Official data indicates that company insolvencies in Scotland have generally been on an upward trend since 1995. The latest figures released show there were 184 company liquidations in the third quarter of 2002, bringing the cumulative total for the year thus far to 599. The estimated number of company insolvencies for the full year is 800, indicating an increase of around a third on the previous year. New company formation has also increased over the same period.

  The number of companies becoming insolvent in Scotland represents less than 1 per cent. of those registered and this proportion has remained fairly constant over recent years.

  European Trans-Sonic Wind Tunnel
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department is giving to the European Trans-Sonic Wind Tunnel. [88617]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department's financial contribution for operation of the ETW business is paid from the DTI's civil aeronautics research programme budget.

  The Department's share of the UK contribution is forecast at £281k for the calendar year 2002. The Ministry of Defence pays the remainder of the UK contribution, forecast at £186k, in 2002. The DTI contribution is likely to increase to £400k in 2003 when the Ministry of Defence is forecast to pay £85k, reflecting their reduced level of contribution.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many departmental minutes issued by her Department were outstanding on 30 November, that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89416]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: There were no departmental minutes, as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts, outstanding on 30th November that referred to public private partnerships.

  Project Guarantees (Qatar)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of which projects guarantees were issued with respect to Qatar in 1995. [90031]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The guarantees issued were in respect of spares for naval vessels.

  Small Business Council
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the work being carried out by the Small Business Council to lessen the impact of regulations on small businesses; and if she will make a statement. [89829]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am encouraged by the work the Small Business Council does at an early stage of policy development to inform Ministers and officials of the needs and concerns of small businesses, and by the effect this will have on the productivity and profitability of this important segment of the economy.

  The SBC has been involved in or is currently working on:
  The strengthened guidance on the Small Firms Impact Test;
  The Pensions Green Paper
  The Inland Revenue's Construction Industry Scheme (CIS);
  Flexible Working Hours and Temporary Workers (a European Directive);
  A number of the consultation documents e.g. that on commencement dates for changes to employment law on the review of Employment Status;
  The simplification of Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme;
  Other business support schemes e.g. the "time off for training" issue, suggesting possible alternatives to legislation.

  In addition the SBC has submitted evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee with regard to Planning and the Chair of the Council attends the Ministerial Panel on Regulatory Accountability.

  Staffordshire Business Link
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the performance of Staffordshire Business Link since April 2001. [90148]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link Staffordshire has performed well since April 2001. During the 2001–02 financial year the Business Link Operator had an average quarterly usage rate1 above the England average. Working with over 5,000 individual businesses they achieved an annual penetration rate of 15.8 per cent. Overall satisfaction with the service provided was 85.5 per cent. compared to the England average of 81.1 per cent.

  In 2002–03 at the six-month stage they had a penetration rate of 17.1 per cent. compared to the England average of 13.5 per cent., with overall satisfaction running at 81 per cent.

  The Business Link Operator generally performs well as part of the regional network taking its share of responsibility on regional initiatives and working with the SBS regional team and Advantage West Midlands. They also made a significant contribution with their partners in Staffordshire in response to the foot and mouth outbreak and its resultant effects on farms and businesses.
  1 Usage Rate—Number of businesses/individuals using Business Link services counted on a quarterly basis. Different from penetration rate as includes the possibility of counting a business in more than one quarter. England penetration rate not available for 2001–02.

  Theft/Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89865]

  Ms Hewitt:

  Fraud

  In the financial year 2001–02 the cost of fraud to the Department was £6k. The Department's NDPBs and Agencies are included in this figure.

  Theft

  The cost of theft for 2002 was £65,131. Items lost from non-DTI HQ premises may not have been included in this figure. The Department's NDPBs and Agencies are not included in this figure.

  The DTI does not hold information on thefts within NDPBs.

  The information on theft is being sought from Agencies and will be provided as soon as possible.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sports Colleges
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has(a) to increase the number of specialist sports colleges and (b) to speed up the process of accreditation; and if she will make a statement. [90000]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are currently 992 specialist schools in England of which 161 are specialist sports colleges. On 2 October 2002, the Prime Minister announced that there would be 240 new Specialist Sports Colleges by the end of 2005.

  On 28 November 2002, Charles Clarke announced that the cap on funding for the expansion of the Specialist Schools Programme has been lifted. This means that any school which meets the required standard will be able to become a specialist school. A new partnership fund will be set up to help schools which have experienced genuine difficulty in raising sponsorship.

  The Youth Sport Trust is part funded by the Department for Education and Skills to work with schools seeking to become specialist sports colleges to secure that sufficient high quality applications come forward.

  Union Learning Representatives
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Union Learning Representatives there are in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [88807]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: There is currently one Union Learning Representative in the Department. My officials are working with the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), the main Civil Service union, on how best to promote the development of Union Learning Representatives within the Department.

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88091]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. The Department for Education and Skills will use UKAS accreditation services whenever it is appropriate to do so. For example, we are exploring with the Guidance Accreditation Board, which is sponsored by the Department, the appropriateness of the UKAS accreditation process to its work.

  Admissions Consultation Paper
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the consultation paper on admissions did not meet the Government's code of practice on good government recommendations on minimum consultation periods. [89590]

  Mr. Miliband
  The new Regulations and Codes of Practice were finished later than planned because the Education Act 2002 did not receive Royal Assent until late July. The consultation schedule had to be compressed, to have the Regulations and Codes ready to come into effect from January 2003, so that admission authorities could have regard to them when consulting on their admission arrangements for September 2004. But much of the content was similar to that of September 2001's "Consultation on School Admissions", which had a longer consultation period; and we supported the latest written consultation with a number of meetings around the country, at which over 400 local authority representatives and head teachers were able to give their views on the Regulations and Codes.

  Social Work Students (Bursary Scheme)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will cancel all debts incurred by social work students in the two years leading to the introduction of the Bursary Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [90578]

  Margaret Hodge
  The DfES scheme of remitting student loan debt is restricted to certain teachers for whose recruitment and retention this Department has responsibility. Social work students are in the same position as any other higher education students in repaying student loans. Policy on social work training is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by his Department. [89966]
  561W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has awarded a number of contracts with Capita for a range of different services. These are as follows:

  Teachers' Pensions:

  Administration of the Teachers' Pensions Scheme.

  Connexions Card:

  Development of the Connexions Card.

  Consultancy Framework Contracts:

  Framework contract to provide general management consultancy support and consultancy support for LEA interventions.

  Executive Recruitment and Search:

  Framework contract to provide executive recruitment services.

  The above are all existing contracts within my Department.

  Class Sizes
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will include a question concerning pupil turnover in future Form 7 measures of class size and composition. [88853]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are no plans to analyse routinely class size statistics by pupil turnover.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many infant classes had 31 or more pupils as a result of a statement of special educational needs specifying that a child should attend a particular school in September 2002. [88890]

  Mr. Miliband
  Provisional figures show that in September 2002 there were 47 infant classes taught by one teacher which had 31 or more pupils as a result of a statement of special educational needs specifying that a child should attend a particular school.

  Provisional infant class size information for September 2002 was published on 20 November 2002 in the statistical first release entitled, "Infant Class Sizes in England: September 2002". This showed that nationally there were 307 classes of 31 or more pupils of which 288 were recorded as acceptable under the Education (Infant Class Sizes) Regulations 1998.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he has estimated what impact the introduction of classroom assistants has made on teacher workload; and if he will make a statement. [89304]

  Mr. Miliband
  This will depend on exactly how the support staff are deployed and managed but we have estimated that every additional 10,000 support staff could save every teacher on average at least 50 minutes per week.

  We shortly expect to conclude a Workforce Reform Agreement with virtually all the teacher unions and support staff unions and employers, who agree with us that extra support staff are critical to tackling excessive teacher workload.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which Connexions Partnerships 562W
  (a) are operational, (b) are still to take effect, (c) offer a one-stop shop service and(d) offer Connexions Direct. [89571]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There are currently 46 out of 47 Connexions Partnerships operating in England.

  (b) Just one remaining Partnership, Northumberland, has yet to start and is aiming to commence operation from April 2003.

  (c) All Connexions Partnerships are developing one-stop services where a range of multi-agency services can easily be accessed in a single location, with flexible opening hours to suit the needs of young people.

  (d) The Connexions Partnerships currently operating in the Connexions Direct pilot are Durham, Tyne and Wear, Tees Valley, Cheshire and Warrington, Greater Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Suffolk and Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) young people of the relevant age group and (b) personal advisors there are in the area of each Connexions Partnership; and what the ratio of (a) to (b) is in each case. [89572]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  The majority of Connexions Partnerships are currently in the process of recruiting Personal Advisers and securing support from other agencies working with young people. In most case the figures in the table do not therefore reflect the final complement of Personal Advisers in Partnerships. In addition to the 6,952 Personal Advisers in post in Partnerships in November 2002, Connexions services are being delivered by a further 1,652 front line delivery staff whose main role is client/customer contact making a total of 8,604 Connexions delivery staff available to help young people.

  (a) Connexions partnerships (000s) personal advisers (Pas)

  (b) 13–19 Cohort: PA

  (c) Ratio

  Bedfordshire

  56

  101

  554

  Birmingham and Solihull

  120

  195

  616

  Black Country

  115

  168

  683

  Bournemouth Dorset and Poole

  49

  80

  610

  Cambs and Peterbro

  63

  82

  770

  Central London

  77

  235

  326

  Cheshire and Warrington

  85

  183

  468

  Cornwall and Devon

  137

  201

  682

  County Durham

  45

  67

  664

  Coventry and Warwick

  68

  152

  446

  Cumbria

  48

  103

  471

  Derbyshire

  79

  157

  501

  East London

  186

  285

  652

  Essex Southend and Thurrock

  153

  144

  1,059

  Gloucestershire

  45

  51

  881

  Greater Manchester

  261

  406

  643

  Greater Merseyside

  140

  342

  408

  Hereford and Worcester

  65

  110

  590

  Hertfordshire

  84

  95

  880

  Humber

  84

  227

  370

  Kent

  124

  150

  823

  Lancashire

  124

  201

  617

  Leicestershire

  76

  110

  691

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  57

  68

  827

  Milton Keynes Ox and Bucks

  106

  199

  530

  North London

  74

  149

  498

  North Yorkshire

  66

  128

  518

  Northamptonshire

  55

  57

  978

  563W

  (a) Connexions partnerships (000s) personal advisers (Pas)

  (b) 13–19 Cohort: PA

  (c) Ratio

  Nottinghamshire

  96

  135

  705

  Shropshire Telford and Wrekin

  32

  69

  458

  Somerset

  37

  80

  455

  South Central

  147

  168

  874

  South London

  96

  152

  630

  South Yorkshire

  120

  261

  460

  Staffordshire

  92

  149

  618

  Suffolk

  66

  78

  845

  Surrey

  68

  72

  939

  Sussex

  103

  173

  595

  Tees Valley

  75

  117

  643

  Tyne and Wear

  100

  193

  518

  West London

  94

  113

  831

  West Yorkshire

  79

  282

  706

  West of England

  199

  409

  192

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  45

  55

  812

  England

  4,088

  6,952

  588

  Notes:

  1. Data relates to November 2002—the latest period for which information is available and is taken from NEXUS, the Connexions Service National Unit management information system.

  2. No data is included for Norfolk and Berkshire Partnerships which started in January 2003 and Northumberland which will start in April 2003.

  3. Personal Adviser numbers include those funded through the Connexions Services Grant and those seconded and supported by other organisations in the Partnership.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his target maximum wait is for an appointment with(a) a Connexions personal adviser and (b) a careers adviser. [89573]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Connexions service has a broad remit: to offer to all young people between 13 and 19 information, advice and guidance (including on careers) to improve participation and achievement in learning, and to signpost personal development opportunities. Since type and level of need is a key determinant of the kind of personal adviser support made available, it is not appropriate to set maximum waiting times. Rather, the Connexions service has developed access to personal adviser support via a wide range of traditional and modern-day channels. In addition to conventional appointment systems, personal advisers are available on a "drop-in" basis in schools or colleges as well as in High Street Connexions centres, that are open at times young people want. Instant access is a key feature of Connexions Direct, a telephone and web-based service currently being trialled in several areas of England. Here, support is available from 8 am to 2 am seven days per week and 365 days per year. This is in fulfilment of one of the key Connexions principles: to design and deliver the service around the needs of young people and to listen to their views.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria he will use to judge the effectiveness of Connexions Partnerships in(a) providing a vibrant high quality youth service, (b) making many more young people active citizens, (c) engaging many more young people in developmental activities and (d) ensuring that parents,
  564W
  carers and teachers are supportive of Connexions, as set out in Youth Support Services for 13 to 19-year-olds: A Vision for 2006. [89574]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government set out its future vision for the Connexions Service in "Youth Support Services for 13 to 19-year-olds: A vision for 2006". This is a forward-looking document, which shows how Connexions will bring together a range of existing agencies to deliver seamless support for 13 to 19-year-olds, and reduce the number of 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in learning or work. We will use the following criteria to judge progress towards meeting the vision:

  Youth Services

  The Department has published a clear statement of what is expected of local education authorities who are responsible for delivering youth services. In December 2002 the Government launched the document "Transforming Youth Work Resourcing Excellent Youth Services" which provides a cross-Government view of the key elements of a high quality, well managed and properly resourced youth service. The document underpins the Transforming Youth Work programme and the Government's commitment to work with local authorities to ensure the delivery of a high quality youth service for young people which is at the heart of the Connexions Service.

  Making more young people active citizens and engaging them in developmental activities

  This aspect will be assessed by the extent to which Connexions Partnerships provide access to opportunities for young people to broaden their horizons, develop their talents and become actively engaged in their communities, through for example Millennium Volunteers and other volunteering initiatives, sports, arts and recreational activities; and through specific programmes such as the Neighbourhood Support Fund.

  Support for Connexions from parents, carers and teachers

  The views of young people and a range of key stakeholders involved in Partnerships will be sought on a regular basis through a comprehensive programme of opinion surveys starting in December 2002. In addition, the findings of national and local evaluations, the self-assessments undertaken by Partnerships and the outcome of Ofsted inspections will be used to assess progress and inform the development of Connexions Partnerships.

  One of the key criteria for judging the overall effectiveness of Connexions Partnerships will be the progress they make towards meeting their target of reducing the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in learning and work. With the exception of recently established Partnerships, all Partnerships have been set a target of reducing by 10 per cent. the proportion of young people who are not in education, employment and training by November 2004.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 16 to 18 year-olds are not in education, training or employment in each of the Connexions Partnership areas. [89575]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is given in the table.
  565W

  Connexions Partnerships

  Percentage NEET

  Bedfordshire

  11

  Birmingham and Solihull

  14

  Black Country

  13

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  7

  Cambridge and Peterborough

  10

  Central London

  15

  Cheshire and Warrington

  7

  Cornwall and Devon

  7

  County Durham

  18

  Coventry and Warwick

  10

  Cumbria

  8

  Derbyshire

  10

  East London

  12

  Essex, Southend and Thurrock

  8

  Gloucestershire

  4

  Greater Manchester

  10

  Greater Merseyside

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  7

  Hertfordshire

  5

  Humber

  10

  Kent

  5

  Lancashire

  10

  Leicestershire

  9

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  6

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  6

  North London

  10

  North Yorkshire

  6

  Northamptonshire

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

  6

  Somerset

  5

  South Central

  5

  South London

  8

  South Yorkshire

  12

  Staffordshire

  11

  Suffolk

  8

  Surrey

  2

  Sussex

  6

  Tees Valley

  14

  Tyne and Wear

  17

  West London

  10

  West of England

  7

  West Yorkshire

  10

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  6

  England

  9

  Notes:

  1. Data relate to November 2002—the latest period for which information is available and is taken from NEXUS, the Connexions Service National Unit management information system.

  2. No data are included for Norfolk and Berkshire Partnerships which started in January 2003, and Northumberland which will start in April 2003.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what outcome-driven performance targets he has set for(a) the Connexions service and (b) each Connexions Partnership. [89576]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Connexions Partnerships have been set a target of reducing by 10 per cent. the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds that are not participating in employment, education and training between November 2002 and 2004.

  Connexions Partnerships are also working in support of a range of other local and nationally based targets covering young people aged 13–19, with a particular focus on those young people who require intensive support.
  566W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual budget is of(a) the Connexions Service National Unit and (b) each Connexions Partnership. [89578]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The total running costs budget for the Connexions Service National Unit (CSNU) in 2002–03 is £5.791 million (budgets are not yet agreed for 2003–04).

  CSNU is responsible for a range of programme budgets including the main Connexions Service budget, which totals £449 million in 2002–03. Of that total, £337 million is allocated directly to Connexions Partnerships through the Connexions grant, while roughly one half of the remainder (c. £52 million) is used to maintain careers services in those areas where Connexions Partnerships are not yet operational. A further third (c. £35 million) goes to Partnerships to fund the pre-launch development costs of those starting during the year and to support Summer Plus activity in response to the Government's street crime agenda. The remaining funds are used centrally to support the Partnership network, for example, through the training of Personal Advisers and the development of tracking systems.

  In 2003–04, the total Connexions Service budget will be £475 million, of which £439 million will be allocated directly to Partnerships through the Connexions grant. Of the remainder, £17 million will go to Partnerships to continue supporting Summer Plus while £20 million will, as this year, fund work centrally in support of the Partnership network.

  The table shows the funding allocated via the grant to each Connexions Partnership in both 2002–03 and 2003–04. In addition to the main Connexions budget, CSNU is responsible for a range of other initiatives such as the Neighbourhood Support Fund, the Millennium Volunteers programme and a number of Youth Service funds. The total programme funding available for these other initiatives is £77.4 million in 2002–03 and £62.9 million in 2003–04.

  Connexions Partnership grant allocations (2002–03 and 2003–04)

  £

  Connexions Partnership

  Total grant allocation (2002–03)

  Total grant allocation (2003–04)

  South East

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  10,588,239

  10,293,332

  Berkshire

  1,541,001

  6,233,298

  Surrey

  3,137,474

  7,866,666

  Kent and Medway

  5,095,843

  12,940,734

  Sussex

  6,026,723

  11,075,372

  South Central

  7,686,156

  14,244,717

  London

  West London

  6,488,117

  12,056,005

  Central London

  11,423,073

  15,335,249

  North London

  9,750,365

  9,774,835

  East London

  20,397,939

  21,649,094

  South London

  10,032,454

  10,330,508

  East of England

  Norfolk

  1,538,022

  6,270,498

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  5,621,638

  5,839,068

  Suffolk

  5,054,563

  5,157,784

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2,647,824

  4,738,377

  Hertfordshire

  7,187,852

  7,584,278

  567W

  Connexions Partnership grant allocations (2002–03 and 2003–04)

  £

  Connexions Partnership

  Total grant allocation (2002–03)

  Total grant allocation (2003–04)

  Essex, Southend and Thurrock

  7,013,929

  12,621,280

  South West

  Gloucestershire

  4,240,416

  4,386,413

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  2,608,196

  4,778,769

  West of England

  7,633,433

  7,889,859

  Somerset

  3,569,999

  3,719,593

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  4,691,357

  5,005,025

  Cornwall and Devon

  11,901,551

  12,511,182

  West Midlands

  Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

  3,676,722

  3,628,394

  Staffordshire

  8,825,967

  9,234,154

  Black Country

  12,534,131

  11,471,386

  Birmingham and Solihull

  7,399,741

  13,035,551

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  7,011,770

  6,959,745

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,410,214

  5,495,746

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  4,752,302

  7,817,476

  Nottinghamshire

  9,372,847

  9,642,650

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  5,290,596

  5,392,320

  Leicestershire

  4,522,509

  8,188,625

  Northamptonshire

  2,952,352

  5,563,219

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  York and North Yorkshire

  3,042,748

  5,391,600

  West Yorkshire

  9,904,637

  20,541,868

  Humber

  8,737,279

  8,531,852

  South Yorkshire

  12,941,348

  12,356,833

  North West

  Cumbria

  4,270,474

  4,211,678

  Lancashire

  12,234,170

  12,709,953

  Greater Manchester

  13,511,486

  26,251,106

  Greater Merseyside

  17,098,257

  17,407,792

  Cheshire and Warrington

  6,979,313

  6,849,066

  North East

  Northumberland

  0

  2,875,134

  Tyne and Wear

  11,318,694

  11,664,903

  County Durham

  4,651,170

  4,691,191

  Tees Valley

  4,314,803

  7,142,333

  Total England

  336,629,693

  439,356,511

  Notes:

  1. The allocations for 2002–03 reflect the fact that several Partnerships were launched during the year so, in some cases, represent only a proportion of the hypothetical full-year cost (e.g. the South Central Partnership was launched on 1 September so its 2002–03 allocation is 7/12 of what it would have been had the Partnership operated for the full year).

  2. Those Partnerships starting during the current year received additional development funding to help them prepare for full operation. Those same areas have also received funding to maintain careers service operation prior to the launch of their Connexions Partnerships.

  3. Some Partnerships have received further funding during 2002–03 for Summer Plus activities, Personal Adviser Drugs Education, etc.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) qualifications and (b) professional standards are required of Connexions personal advisers. [89579]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Connexions personal advisers are drawn from a range of professional backgrounds. To be fully qualified they must possess an NVQ level 4 or equivalent in a relevant professional discipline 568W
  (e.g. careers, youth work, social work) and have attended a bespoke training programme, either Understanding Connexions or the Diploma for Connexions Personal Advisers. Training is delivered at higher education institutions approved by the Connexions Service National Unit. A guide to professional practice for Connexions personal advisers is currently in draft and has been the subject of wide consultation.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was raised via the Construction Industry Training Board Levy in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the last three financial years. [89429]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) raised the following amounts from employers paying Levy in the last three financial years in Scotland, England and Wales. The CITB has no authority in Northern Ireland, which has its own body, the CITB Northern Ireland.

  £

  2002

  2001

  2000

  Scotland

  6,363,352

  6,571,868

  6,700,813

  England

  70,755,226

  70,781,703

  71,518,909

  Wales

  2,214,494

  2,544,784

  2,770,784

  The Construction Industry Training Board's financial year runs from 1 January to 31 December and the above information is prepared on that basis.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) organisations and (b) plant hire organisations in Scotland have paid into the Construction Industry Training Board Levy in each of the past five financial years. [89431]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Construction Industry Training Board have received levy from registered construction employers in Scotland as shown in the table.

  Registered construction employers paying levy

  Registered construction employers declaring their main activity to be plant hire or repair paying levy

  1998

  2,109

  97

  1999

  2,173

  103

  2000

  1,670

  76

  2001

  2,007

  95

  2002

  2,257

  116

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) organisations and (b) plant hire organisations in Scotland have claimed the training grants from the Construction Industry Training Board Levy in each of the past five financial years. [89432]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Construction Industry Training Board received claims for Training Grants from registered construction employers in Scotland as shown in the table.
  569W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Registered construction employers claiming grants

  2,780

  2,672

  2,846

  2,771

  2,488

  Registered construction employers declaring their main activity to be plant hire of repair claiming grants

  95

  94

  76

  65

  64

  The CITB's "grant year" is aligned with the academic year and runs therefore from August to July, the figures shown in the table are prepared on that basis.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authority areas for which the proposed rise in the schools' block of their education formula spending share exceeds total increase in formula grant for the local authority, giving the amount of the excess in each case. [90140]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are two local education authorities for which the proposed rise in the schools' block of the education formula spending share exceeds the total increase in formula grant for the local authority; Barnet where the excess is £1.2 million, and Essex with an excess of £0.3 million. There are a further 10 authorities where the proposed rise in the schools' block would exceed the total increase in formula grant after taking into account burdens faced by other services. These are:

  Bromley

  Devon

  Dorset

  East Sussex

  Hampshire

  Kent

  Richmond upon Thames

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Wokingham

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has increased per pupil in real terms for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Leicestershire since 1996–97. [88624]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following information details funding per pupil in primary and secondary education in Leicestershire from 1997–98 to 2002–03. The information for 1996–97 is not available as Leicestershire LEA did not come into being until 1997–98 as a result of the local government reorganisation.

  £

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Primary

  1997–98

  2,090

  40

  2,130

  1998–99

  2,150

  50

  2,190

  1999–2000

  2,210

  110

  2,320

  2000–01

  2,250

  250

  2,500

  2001–02

  2,290

  370

  2,660

  2002–03

  2,350

  380

  2,730

  Change1

  260

  340

  600

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,750

  30

  2,780

  1998–99

  2,800

  40

  2,840

  1999–2000

  2,840

  70

  2,920

  570W

  £

  SSA

  Grants

  Total

  2000–01

  2,910

  210

  3,120

  2001–02

  2,960

  290

  3,250

  2002–03

  3,020

  290

  3,310

  Change1

  270

  260

  530

  1 Change since 1997–98.

  Notes:

  1.Coverage: figures reflect education SSA settlement figures (primary and secondary sub-blocks), plus all relevant grants in DfES's Departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to pupils aged 5 to 10 and 11 to 15 (excluding EMA and a handful of others where it is not possible to get figures on a comparables basis overtime).

  2. Expenditure data are taken from the Leicestershire LEA's section 52 Budget statements submitted to the DfES.

  3. The pupil numbers used to convert £ million figures to £ per pupil are the maintained pupils underlying the SSA settlement calculations.

  4. 1997–98 figures for LEAs subject to local government reorganisation in that year have been estimated, pro-rata, to their post LGR figures.

  5. 2002–03 figures are provisional.

  6. Real terms 2001–02 prices, based on GDP deflators as at September 2002.

  7. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proposals he plans to make in the EMAG distribution formula; and if he will make a statement; [89596]

  (2) what responses he received on the consultation on EMAG distribution; and if he will make a statement. [89597]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Plans to consult last year on the arrangements for distributing EMAG were deferred pending the outcome of the Spending Review and the Local Government Finance Review. The Department is currently developing for consultation in spring 2003 proposals for a new strategy on raising the achievement of minority ethnic pupils. This will include proposals for the future distribution and use of EMAG.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the comparative EMAG funding at a constant value basis for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [89599]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Ethnic Minority Achievement Element of the Standards Fund (EMAG) was introduced by the DfES (then the DfEE) in April 1999. The breakdown of EMAG funding from April 1999 to March 2003 by financial year is provided in the table. It shows that the EMAG programme (including the LEA contribution) has increased by over £6.2 million in real terms over the last 4 years. To facilitate comparison at a constant value the allocations have been calculated using the GDP deflator formula
  571W
  based on the current standard base year of 2001–02. The 2002–03 calculation is based on GDP working assumptions for 2002–03.

  Total allocations

  Comparison of total allocations in real terms using standard GDP deflator formula with cash figure value of 2001—02 prices as the base year

  1999–2000

  139.2

  145.8

  2000–01

  147.21

  150.71

  2001–02

  153.9

  153.9

  2002–03

  155.8

  152.02

  1 For 2000–01 the traveller achievement grant was combined with EMAG. The total allocation of the traveller element for 2000–01 was £15.7 million and is not shown in this table.

  2 Based on 2002–03 GDP working assumptions.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been(a) permanently and (b) temporarily excluded from maintained schools in relation to drugs offences in each of the last five years. [88884]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Participation in Education in England

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  End of year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1991

  66.6

  9.7

  48.8

  13.7

  28.3

  13.2

  1992

  70.0

  8.0

  54.1

  11.0

  33.1

  11.6

  1993

  72.6

  7.5

  57.5

  9.7

  37.0

  10.3

  1994

  71.0

  8.1

  58.7

  9.9

  38.4

  10.0

  1995

  70.4

  7.3

  58.4

  8.9

  39.4

  9.5

  1996

  69.7

  7.8

  57.9

  9.2

  38.4

  10.1

  1997

  69.4

  6.7

  57.4

  8.4

  37.7

  9.4

  1998

  69.8

  6.6

  57.8

  8.5

  37.2

  9.6

  1999

  71.3

  6.6

  58.7

  8.7

  37.3

  9.8

  2000

  71.4

  6.5

  59.0

  8.2

  37.1

  9.3

  2001

  71.2

  7.3

  58.4

  9.6

  36.6

  9.9

  Equivalent overall participation rates are not produced by the Department for those aged 19 and over.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will introduce the new voluntary recognition system for language skills; which body will operate the system, including the setting and monitoring of standards; and what he expects the cost to be in each of the next five years. [89330]

  Mr. Miliband
  The voluntary recognition system will be formally introduced in 2005. Prior to that, the system will be trialled. The Department is working with a number of key partners, including the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT) and the Nuffield Languages Programme to
  572W
  Information on permanent exclusions is derived from Annual Schools' Census returns made by schools to the Department in January each year. This includes characteristics of the excluded pupil such as the pupil's age, gender and ethnicity. However, the reason for exclusion is not collected.

  However, on 20 January 2003 the Education (Pupil Exclusions and Appeals) (Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2002 will come into force, which require schools to report all fixed term exclusions to their local education authority.

  We are planning to collect information from local education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis from this summer. This will capture the reason for the exclusion.

  Further Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) 16-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds, (c) 18-year-olds, (d) 19-year-olds, (e) 20-year-olds, (f) 21-year-olds, (g) 22-year-olds and (h) 23-year-olds were in (i) full-time and (ii) part-time education in each year since 1992. [89293]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentages of 16,17 and 18-year-olds participating in full-time and part-time education, end 1991 to end 2001, are set out in the table. These are taken from the annual statistical first release, "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16 to 18-Year-Olds in England". Figures for end 2001 are provisional.

  develop the system. We will work with the QCA in inviting the national awarding bodies to tender for the opportunity to operate the system. The level of funding will depend on the pace of implementation and the number of languages covered by the system.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list schools with sixth forms which will face a reduced budget in the next financial year as a result of decisions of the Learning and Skills Councils, giving the percentage reduction proposed in each case. [88891]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The effect of 2003–04 sixth form allocations by the Learning and Skills Council on schools' budgets cannot be calculated at present. These allocations are added into the budget share calculated
  573W
  by the local education authority for the whole school using its own funding formula; and in doing so, the authority is permitted to make a range of adjustments, both up and down, before the total budget share for the school is finalised. Local education authorities are obliged to publish details of 2003–04 budget shares by 31 March 2003, and will be calculating them in the months leading up to that date.

  The LSC allocations for 2003–04 were announced on 11 December 2002. The quantum distributed was £1.428 billion, which is 5.3 per cent. higher than the quantum for 2002–03. The allocations have not yet been finalised and are the subject of consultation with LEAs and schools. The allocations are primarily the

  LEA name:

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Secondary education

  Special Schools

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  556,272

  309,210

  1,197,303

  Barnet

  0

  195,264

  436,260

  1,887,871

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  418,279

  979,653

  733,486

  Bedfordshire

  0

  592,000

  3,542,700

  2,820,000

  Bexley

  0

  333,000

  106,000

  1,572,000

  Birmingham

  5,483

  1,235,734

  889,667

  9,315,605

  Blackburn

  0

  141,666

  441,754

  833,239

  Blackpool

  0

  24,508

  19,773

  521,914

  Bolton

  1

  107,196

  153,394

  577,174

  Bournemouth

  0

  76,144

  165,388

  733,285

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  37,565

  497,273

  968,638

  Bradford

  1,358

  1,232,478

  1,941,675

  1,753,978

  Brent

  0

  457,000

  476,000

  1,902,000

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  23,748

  551,700

  348,844

  1,746,803

  Buckinghamshire

  19,466

  1,846,286

  6,380,213

  2,571,587

  Bury

  0

  232,041

  226,207

  912,407

  Calderdale

  0

  186,768

  675,040

  962,587

  Cambridgeshire

  105,315

  1,758,565

  4,235,868

  2,785,303

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  1,674,597

  4,620,374

  3,130,612

  City of Bristol

  51,599

  96,139

  389,568

  731,654

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City of London

  17,764

  248

  8,615

  27,006

  Cornwall

  88,067

  1,188,855

  3,771,242

  1,346,783

  Coventry

  42,260

  118,448

  374,480

  970,911

  Croydon

  32

  0

  0

  2,624,743

  Cumbria

  17,027

  2,215,052

  4,405,232

  1,322,707

  Darlington

  1,459

  73,727

  430,277

  418,231

  Derby

  0

  453,920

  173,388

  1,329,306

  Derbyshire

  0

  979,000

  3,626,000

  2,621,000

  Devon

  19

  3,076,798

  7,519,964

  2,571,980

  Doncaster

  0

  12,743

  26

  0

  Dorset

  4,156

  1,402,700

  3,768,864

  2,293,919

  Dudley

  0

  174,462

  121,237

  1,408,805

  Durham

  33,607

  973,003

  4,488,932

  2,488,208

  Ealing

  0

  377,776

  258,043

  2,814,569

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  1,089,303

  2,830,130

  1,899,254

  East Sussex

  0

  368,889

  2,090,370

  2,459,259

  Enfield

  1,327

  409,252

  541,205

  2,605,101

  Essex

  0

  5,059,519

  7,783,730

  7,271,403

  Gateshead

  0

  111,858

  98,321

  898,896

  Gloucestershire

  100,387

  1,288,224

  3,222,346

  2,416,953

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  2,299,550

  Hackney

  1,333

  0

  0

  0

  Halton

  0

  421

  182,418

  1,108,493

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  42,605

  170,421

  1,485,939

  Hampshire

  0

  2,424,000

  4,470,000

  5,778,000

  Haringey

  0

  312,822

  261,834

  1,541,271

  Harrow

  0

  64,742

  17,504

  1,960

  Hartlepool

  0

  21,523

  180,162

  396,942

  Havering

  0

  72,829

  235,198

  641,142

  Herefordshire

  78

  1,409,106

  1,966,239

  1,031,053

  Hertfordshire

  0

  1,991,053

  4,850,372

  5,995,644

  Hillingdon

  1,601

  381,667

  277,025

  2,009,241

  Hounslow

  0

  311,062

  116,124

  1,430,000

  Isle of Wight Council

  0

  67,213

  980,664

  179,824

  574W
  responsibility of the LSC, and John Harwood, the Chief Executive of the LSC, will write to the hon. Member about them. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Libraries.

  School Transport
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what school transport costs were for each local education authority in England in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [89367]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following information details the home to school/college transport expenditure returned by local education authorities for 2000–01 financial year:
  575W

  LEA name:

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Secondary education

  Special Schools

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  11,076

  8,462

  0

  Islington

  0

  11,250

  7,224

  15,239

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,774

  61,635

  45,283

  15,094

  Kent

  0

  3,854,782

  11,987,257

  5,611,489

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  43,973

  69,915

  1,162,444

  Kirklees

  0

  462,900

  280,000

  1,803,600

  Knowsley

  0

  5,010

  207,295

  1,272,842

  Lambeth

  0

  234,808

  234,808

  2,113,844

  Lancashire

  0

  1,119,824

  6,524,843

  7,286,324

  Leeds

  0

  157,465

  10,138

  3,949,392

  Leicester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  759,261

  4,315,277

  4,252,856

  Lewisham

  47,637

  37,209

  54,566

  2,172,244

  Lincolnshire

  0

  2,339,989

  5,917,882

  4,068,068

  Liverpool

  0

  1,319

  585,579

  3,274,923

  Luton

  67,808

  121,140

  33,750

  1,024,430

  Manchester

  0

  0

  192,497

  5,467,276

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  1,042,949

  Middlesbrough

  39,693

  186,022

  169,598

  396,979

  Milton Keynes

  47,474

  431,528

  574,060

  958,588

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  0

  806,981

  Newham

  0

  866,350

  538,602

  789,327

  Norfolk

  0

  2,531,792

  7,595,377

  3,533,812

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  139,483

  286,715

  760,754

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  487,060

  1,073,780

  839,979

  North Somerset

  0

  615,261

  1,090,804

  625,292

  North Tyneside

  0

  94,766

  59,154

  970,753

  North Yorkshire

  372,151

  2,991,141

  5,080,018

  2,020,754

  Northamptonshire

  0

  2,126,191

  2,052,429

  3,098,523

  Northumberland

  0

  1,809,426

  857,618

  3,930,583

  Nottingham City

  0

  138,216

  277,021

  1,374,234

  Nottinghamshire

  22,474

  2,023,816

  3,008,785

  2,273,379

  Oldham

  17,939

  113,014

  109,522

  1,262,509

  Oxfordshire

  113

  3,284,713

  2,895,945

  3,727,772

  Peterborough

  0

  345,015

  427,518

  1,107,438

  Plymouth

  0

  288,065

  835,992

  1,156,850

  Poole

  0

  109,458

  444,040

  671,789

  Portsmouth

  0

  148,353

  420,050

  449,704

  Reading

  0

  0

  0

  33,724

  Redbridge

  0

  266,461

  576,305

  1,655,378

  Redcar and Cleveland

  8,335

  56,192

  77,635

  2,712

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  100,318

  1,942

  224,345

  1,201,082

  Rochester and Gillingham

  0

  1,198,200

  958,500

  723,500

  Rotherham

  69,224

  140,088

  248,801

  1,118,730

  Rutland

  0

  178,231

  503,295

  167,913

  Salford

  0

  82,739

  94,559

  1,073,968

  Sandwell

  0

  271,970

  427,692

  1,302,821

  Sefton

  0

  101,463

  262,945

  1,637,520

  Sheffield

  0

  5,227

  3,795

  2,735,746

  Shropshire

  0

  1,718,677

  1,988,957

  1,700,132

  Slough

  0

  250,042

  187,532

  801,588

  Solihull

  0

  516,000

  601,000

  562,000

  Somerset

  0

  3,128,172

  3,295,276

  260,681

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  1,348,792

  541,955

  428,044

  South Tyneside

  0

  193,212

  124,902

  388,349

  Southampton

  67,718

  55,825

  56,838

  822,903

  Southend

  0

  23,028

  137,011

  1,054,754

  Southwark

  158,250

  0

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  32,722

  18,647

  401,547

  1,192,292

  Staffordshire

  0

  537,456

  4,710,974

  3,760,251

  Stockport

  0

  10,791

  117,483

  1,747,441

  Stockton-on-Tees

  759

  393,681

  393,945

  680,367

  Stoke on Trent

  132

  410,881

  262,829

  885,927

  Suffolk

  0

  5,539,700

  3,416,149

  276,984

  Sunderland

  89

  416

  75,476

  1,507,243

  Surrey

  147,894

  2,708,624

  5,476,770

  6,483,764

  Sutton

  0

  233,344

  122,889

  910,898

  Swindon

  0

  367,969

  367,969

  1,259,761

  Tameside

  0

  69,902

  205,450

  888,882

  The Wrekin

  0

  0

  5,075

  0

  Thurrock

  0

  171,626

  463,070

  408,451

  Torbay

  0

  123,732

  526,707

  549,948

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  12,048

  108,428

  2,357,473

  Trafford

  0

  238,945

  342,326

  1,466,249

  Wakefield

  0

  191,673

  346,735

  833,715

  576W 577W

  LEA name:

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Secondary education

  Special Schools

  Walsall

  136

  107,069

  228,402

  1,148,377

  Waltham Forest

  1,460

  1,618,318

  393,881

  173,305

  Wandsworth

  0

  34,457

  208,028

  1,887,246

  Warrington

  0

  182,610

  635,171

  823,705

  Warwickshire

  4,782

  2,870,428

  4,190,863

  2,814,722

  West Berkshire

  6

  303,410

  803,145

  1,420,492

  West Sussex

  0

  433,940

  2,894,622

  4,299,504

  Westminster

  0

  19,972

  15,692

  2,410,074

  Wigan

  0

  33,260

  282,621

  1,487,741

  Wiltshire

  0

  1,237,410

  3,556,142

  1,454

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  105

  114,441

  448,558

  1,279,029

  Wirral

  0

  320,236

  658,174

  1,314,616

  Wokingham

  0

  43,660

  679,587

  999,626

  Wolverhampton

  0

  277,966

  281,431

  1,304,636

  Worcestershire

  0

  1,151,413

  3,492,660

  3,546,787

  York

  0

  93,985

  632,929

  746,429

  Source:

  School Budget data for 2000–01 is taken from section 52 budget statements completed by Local Education Authorities and returned to the DfES

  Schools (Departmental Documents)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the documents issued between 1 January and 19 December by his Department to schools that deal with(a) discipline, (b) truancy, (c) bureaucracy and (d) teacher workload; and how many pages were in each document. [89298]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following documents issued between 1 January and 19 December to schools that deal with(a) discipline, (b) truancy, (c) bureaucracy and (d) teacher workload:

  1. Revised Guidance on Exclusion from School—Draft for Consultation

  Nursery, Sample Primary, Sample Secondary

  Sent: 21 January 2002—Pages: 17

  2. Workload pack—letter from Secretary of State and guidance

  All maintained schools, schools with sixth form and sixth form colleges

  Sent: 11 March 2002—Pages: 6

  3. Survey of absences in schools

  All schools

  Sent: 01 May 2002—Pages: 5

  Schools' Budgets
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if it is his intention to use reserve powers under the Education Act 2002 to determine a minimum level of schools' budgets for the coming year. [90126]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Act 2002 requires local education authorities to notify the Secretary of State of their proposed schools budget by 31 January 2003. My right hon. Friend will decide in the light of the proposed budgets whether it is necessary to use the reserve power.

  SSA Allocation (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what SSA allocation the City of Newcastle received in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; and what was (i) the LEA spend and (ii) the size of the schools budget in (A) 2001–02 and (B) 2002–03. [89106]
  578W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 9 January 2003]: The following table contains the information requested. The Department is in the process of collecting spend data for the 2001–02 financial year and I will write to my hon. friend when it is available. The Department is not due to collect data for 2002–03 until September 2003.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  SSA

  Budget

  2001–02

  117.95

  111.11

  2002–03

  115.33

  104.78

  2003–04

  126.74 (provisional)

  Notes:

  The SSA figure for 2003–04 is provisional and not comparable with 2002–03. The figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 exclude provision transferred to the LSC from 2002–03. The figure for 2003–04 includes grant and pension funding transferred into EFS in 2003–04.

  In 2003–04 Newcastle's Education Formula Spending Share rose by 6 per cent. per pupil or 5.7 per cent. in cash terms. The overall cash increase does not compare with last year's Education SSA because of the transfers mentioned above.

  The education budgets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are derived from Newcastle's S52 Budget Statements for those years—as submitted to the Department.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89838]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The number of statutory instruments issued by my Department, and its predecessor Departments, since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of statutory instruments issued

  1979

  81

  1980

  105

  1981

  101

  1982

  90

  1983

  79

  1984

  61

  1985

  72

  1986

  53

  1987

  71

  1988

  79

  579W

  Year

  Number of statutory instruments issued

  1989

  94

  1990

  78

  1991

  92

  1992

  107

  1993

  74

  1994

  103

  1995

  84

  1996

  88

  1997

  70

  1998

  144

  1999

  206

  2000

  148

  2001

  167

  2002

  165

  Teaching Regulations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it a policy of the Government to limit relevant employment under the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999 to teaching; and if he will make a statement. [90435]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Teachers and those who work with children and young persons, in effect, act in loco parents for those in their charge, and they require a high standard of physical and mental fitness to undertake the demands involved. The provisions of the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999 ensure that such workers are fit for the job, and are essential in adding to the safeguards aimed at protecting the health, welfare and education of children.

  It is vital that people who work on a regular basis with children and young persons (for example, home tutors, support staff, and welfare officers) are fit to do so. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to limit this requirement to teachers.

  Visual Needs
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent programmes have been initiated by his Department to(a) promote early detection of specific ophthalmic conditions in children and (b) monitor their visual development; and what evaluation has been carried out as to the benefits of such programmes; [88369]

  (2) what proportion of schools in England conduct vision screening for children (a) at school entry, (b) at age seven and (c) at age 11; [88370]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to gather data on the number of children with undiagnosed visual needs in (a) mainstream and (b) special school provision; [88371]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of undetected sight problems on the educational achievement and inclusion of children in (a) mainstream and (b) special schools; [88372]

  (5) what assessment he has made of current arrangements for eye health education in schools; [88373]
  580W
  (6) what guidance his Department provides to teachers on the identification of sight problems among children in (a) early years provision, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools; [88374]

  (7) whether it is his Department's policy that children with (a) suspected reading difficulties, (b) behavioural problems and (c) other forms of special educational needs should be offered a full visual assessment. [88375]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has provided £1 million to support an Early Support Pilot Programme, which is a pan-disability national initiative aimed at identifying and developing good service provision for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities and their families. The Programme includes a number of projects looking at services for children with visual impairment. It will support development in a number of areas, including: initial assessment of need; co-ordination/multi-agency support for families; better information and access for families; improved professional knowledge and skills; service review and development; and improved partnership across agencies and geographical boundaries.

  The Programme is being evaluated by a team from the National Children's' Bureau on an ongoing basis. The evaluation will inform the future development of the Programme.

  The Department of Health is responsible for the provision of eye checks undertaken by local primary health care teams in accordance with professional advice. The principal threats to eye health and impaired vision development should be detected at or before school age is reached and be identified during a visual screening on school entry. Consideration is currently being given to the introduction of a universal test for all children when they start school at four or five. Older children may develop myopia (short sight) which is usually recognised when they complain of difficulty seeing clearly at distance. Since the onset of myopia commonly occurs between the ages of nine and 16 it is not possible to identify optimum ages for screening. Children may "pass" a routine screening examination only to find problems within the next few months. There is then a possibility that some children might not receive advice to attend an optometrist until after their next routine screening appointment. All children up to the age of 15 are entitled to a free sight test as are children aged 16–18 if they are in full-time education. Whenever parents or carers suspect that there is a problem with their child's sight they should take them to the optician's.

  There are no plans to collect data on children in school, whose visual needs have not been diagnosed. However, from January 2004 the DfES will be collecting data by type of SEN as part of the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census. Information will be collected on pupils with statements of special educational need and those receiving additional or different help to support their SEN—School Action and School Action Plus. One of the categories will be visual impairment and schools will be able to record it as either a primary need or a secondary need. It is hoped that this will provide more detailed data on pupils with a range of SEN, including visual impairment.
  581W
  No assessment has been made of the impact of undetected sight problems on the educational attainment and inclusion of children in school. Nor has an assessment been made of current arrangements for eye health education in schools.

  Students undertaking initial teacher training are required to understand their responsibilities under the DfES's SEN Code of Practice and to know where to go to seek advice. They are also required to be able to demonstrate that they can differentiate their teaching to meet the individual needs of pupils with SEN, including those with visual impairment.

  Support for training and development in relation to SEN and disabilities is available to local education authorities (LEAs) and schools through the SEN component of the DfES's Standards Fund. The funding is designed to be used flexibly to support developmental opportunities ranging from basic awareness-raising to more in-depth studies, possibly leading to formal qualifications. It is for individual LEAs and schools to determine expenditure priorities according to local needs and circumstances, but it would certainly be possible to use the funding to support training for teachers in the area of visual impairment.

  The SEN Code of Practice provides practical advice to LEAs, maintained schools and others on carrying out their statutory duties to identify, assess and make provision for children's SEN, including for children with visual impairment. The Code aims to promote consistency of approach, but, within its guidelines, it is for individual schools and LEAs to determine appropriate intervention based on an assessment of each child's individual needs and circumstances.

  It would be for schools and LEAs to decide whether it was appropriate to carry out a specific visual assessment, if it was thought that visual impairment was contributing to a child's other educational difficulties.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Asbestos Leaks
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many asbestos leaks occurred in buildings owned or leased by(a) the Department of Education in Northern Ireland and (b) South Eastern Education and Library Board since 1973; where these leaks occurred; and how many people were exposed in each case. [89457]

  Jane Kennedy
  (a) The Department of Education does not own or lease any buildings. Departmental staff occupy buildings at two locations, Rathgael House in Bangor and Waterside House in Londonderry. Both sites are owned or leased by the Department of Finance and Personnel, Office Accommodation Branch (OAB).

  (b) I have been advised by the South Eastern Education and Library Board that it does not retain records on this issue dating back to 1973. Neither is it aware of any instances of asbestos leakage at any of its
  582W
  schools. In addition to the leak at the board headquarters in September 2002, the details of which you are aware from my recent replies to you, the SEELB has advised that there have been three occasions involving disturbances of asbestos during the carrying out of maintenance work. These were at:

  Killyleagh Outdoor Education Centre in December 1999;

  Board Headquarters in September 2000; and

  Castlewellan Library in November 2001.

  On none of these occasions were any staff or members of the public affected by asbestos.

  Department for Regional Development (Funding)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why £48 million allocated to the Department for Regional Development for the financial 2002–03 year had to be handed back to the Northern Ireland central administration in autumn 2002; and if he will make a statement. [89822]

  Mr. Pearson
  Clarification of the nature of stage payments to Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) to purchase new trains confirmed that they did not create an asset, and hence those payments were not a charge on the Department's departmental expenditure limit (DEL). Although the Department for Regional Development made substantial grant payments to NIR in 2001–02 and 2002–03 in respect of trains, none of this scores in the budget under the resource budgeting rules that apply for those two financial years. As soon as this technicality was clarified, in August 2002, £49 million was made available for re-allocation, under the normal rules that apply to all Departments. This funding, together with other funds identified by Departments, has been allocated to good effect across Departments and is profiled to be spent in the current financial year. The revised budget for 2003–04 to 2005–06 published on 11 December 2002 includes the required provision for the purchase of the new trains and delivery in 2004 is on schedule.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the five most significant individual projects which contributed to departmental underspends in Northern Ireland during the past five years; and what the value was of each project. [90021]

  Mr. Pearson
  The introduction of Devolution in 1999 involved the restructuring of NI Departments, and an increase in number from six to 11. This factor, combined with the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting in the 2001–02 financial year, means it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between outturn information across the span of five years requested. However, the table shows the five most significant capital projects which contributed to departmental underspends in Northern Ireland in 2001–02, the latest year for which information is available.
  583W

  2001–02 most significant capital project underspends

  Department

  Project

  £ million

  DEL

  Research Institute for Electronics, Communications and IT Technologies

  3.0

  DETI

  Telecommunications Initiative

  7.2

  DHSSPS

  Trusts Capital Programme

  9.2

  Centralised IT Projects

  4.5

  DRD

  NITHCo: Purchase of Rolling Stock1

  13.0

  1 This arose due to technical issues associated with the transition to RAB, rather than project management issues.

  Model Primary School
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure the completion of renovation work at the Model Primary School in Newtownards. [89450]

  Jane Kennedy
  A scheme for the extension and refurbishment of the Model Primary School in Newtownards is on my Department's school capital priority list.

  In May 2002 a draft economic appraisal on the options for meeting the school's needs was submitted to the Department by the South-Eastern Education and Library Board. The board is currently revising the draft and the updated version is expected to be with the Department in the near future.

  Subject to agreement on the conclusions and recommendations of the economic appraisal, and bearing in mind the constraints in relation to the listed building status of the school, planning of the scheme may then commence.

  South Eastern Education Library Board
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to institute a public inquiry into(a) the asbestos leak at the Headquarters of the South Eastern Education Library Board in September 2002 and (b) steps taken to address the consequences. [89533]

  Jane Kennedy
  No. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland has carried out an investigation into this issue and I do not consider that there is need for a further investigation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Retail Industry Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on crime in the retail industry. [R] [88647]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I recognise the detrimental impact that crime has on the retail industry and other business sectors. That is why I launched a consultation process in December to seek the views of business organisations and other stakeholders on the best means of creating and maintaining effective partnerships to reduce the opportunities for crime against business and enhance the contribution that business can make to crime reduction.
  584W
  It is our intention to build on the good work already done by organisations like the British Retail Consortium in the development of retail crime reduction partnerships in main town and shopping centres. We will continue to support such partnerships.

  The Home Secretary announced in April last year a new survey of crime affecting retail and manufacturing business. This will give a range of information about the types of crime which most impact on these business sectors and provide insights into the most effective interventions to address them. Results of the survey should be available in the summer.

  The Government have allocated £15 million over the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 to improve the security of small retail businesses in deprived areas. Nearly 3,000 shops benefited from the first year's funding and a further 4,500 individual shops and businesses will benefit directly from the £6 million made available under the second year of the scheme. A further £6 million will be available in the third year to enable more shopkeepers to benefit from extra security.

  Many of the Government's crime reduction initiatives, such as the closed circuit television initiative with nearly 700 schemes approved, also have a beneficial impact on retail crime.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of crime in the retail industry in(a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England and (c) Wales; [R] [88653]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the financial cost of petty crime on small retail businesses in the UK. [R] [88648]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The total cost of all commercial and public sector victimisation in England and Wales was estimated to be £9.1 billion in 1999–2000, of which around £3.1 billion was due to theft from shops. Figures are not available regionally nor by the size of establishment.

  The 1994 Commercial Victimisation Survey gives average yearly costs of crime in 1993 across all small employers (1–10 employees) in the retail sector in England and Wales. These are shown in the table by product sold.

  Average yearly costs (1993) of crime for all small employers in the retailing sector, whether victimised or not

  Product sold

  Average cost (£)

  Food

  2,040

  Alcohol/tobacco

  2,730

  High value electrical/patented goods

  2,250

  Furniture/clothing

  2,040

  Jewellery/precious metal

  1,880

  None of the above

  1,500

  All

  1,850

  585W
  A new survey of crime affecting retail and manufacturing business is currently being carried out and the results should be available later in the year.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what command and control measures will be introduced in the event of a major terrorist incident; and how long this would take to set up in the event of such an emergency. [88387]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The police have the primary role in responding to a terrorist incident and the force in whose area the incident takes place would take operational control and command of the incident at the scene. The Government response is co-ordinated at ministerial level through the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR) in London. COBR is responsible for determining the overall political strategy in relation to the incident including responding to any political demands made by a terrorist group. COBR would also arrange for the provision of any necessary assistance requested by the police incident commander. In the event of a terrorist incident, the police and Government level response would be deployed as a matter of urgency.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a central directive instructing each of the Government agencies in what to do in the event of a terrorist incident. [88487]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office takes lead responsibility for co-ordinating the response to a terrorist incident within the UK. A set of classified contingency plans exist for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats. The response to any terrorist incident relies upon a co-ordinated approach and the Government draws upon the resources of other Departments, the security and intelligence agencies, the police, the military, scientific and other specialist advice, local authorities and the emergency services.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had, and with which local authorities, on the protection of people living in Dudley from terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement. [87376]

  Mr. Blunkett
  At the local level, counter terrorism is the responsibility of the police. This work is carried out in close conjunction with the Home Office, which has lead responsibility for this issue. Police forces will issue advice as necessary, as well as taking the lead as and when a terrorist incident arises. Local authorities do not have a direct involvement in counter terrorism.

  Local authorities have a general role in emergency planning, dealing with the consequences of all emergencies, including those arising from terrorist attack. My right hon. Friend the Lord Macdonald of Tradeston and Cabinet Office officials have regular contact with local authorities on this issue, through the provision of formal guidance, funding and co-ordination of local arrangements with national policy.

  Terrorist Threats
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates on which arrests were made in connection with recent terrorist threats in the United Kingdom. [90146]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Since 1 December 2002 and to date, a total of 50 arrests have been made under the Terrorism Act 2000. 29 of those were released without charge and 20 were charged with a range of offences under the Terrorism Act. A further one still remains in custody.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with other Departments about the timing of announcements relating to the discovery of terrorist threats in Britain. [90147]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: There are regular discussions on the whole range of counter terrorist issues through a number of committees. Where intelligence exists about specific threats we seek to thwart them and take whatever response we believe necessary to ensure the protection of the public. If the Government or the police thought it was necessary to give the public a specific warning we would do it without hesitation. Our prime consideration is their safety.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation was carried out with voluntary organisations in receipt of funding for the training and education of asylum seekers before the decision was made to end the concession enabling asylum seekers to work if no decision had been made on their case after six months. [R] [89778]

  Beverley Hughes
  Wherever possible we consult publicly on proposed changes in policy. But on this occasion the need to act quickly meant that there was no time for public consultation.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the European Council of Ministers recommendation concerning minimum standards for the reception conditions of asylum-seekers. [R] [89783]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK will participate in the Directive on Reception Conditions, which forms part of the first stage of a Common European Asylum System, which the council committed to in the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997. The Reception Conditions Directive is expected to be adopted shortly.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if asylum seekers who do not have a decision after one year will be allowed access to the labour market, as recommended by the Council of Ministers report on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. [R] [89784]

  Beverley Hughes
  In accordance with the Directive of Minimum Reception Conditions for asylum seekers, which is expected to enter into force in 2005, access to the labour market will be granted to any applicant who has not received an initial decision within 12 months.
  587W
  However, given that around 80 per cent. of initial asylum decisions are made well within half this time, this provision is unlikely to have any practical significance.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the report on the Landmark Co. in Liverpool concerning housing and support services for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [90627]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have received the report into the Inquiry into Landmark. I am currently considering the contents of the report.

  Children's Internet Sites
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make Criminal Records Bureau checks mandatory for moderators of children's internet sites. [86423]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no provision in Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, which established the Criminal Records Bureau, by which checks can be made mandatory.

  We introduced in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 (2002 No. 441), an exception for "Any employment which is concerned with the monitoring, for the purposes of child protection, of communications by means of the internet". This makes checks on moderators of chat rooms, and other forms of internet communication, used by children, possible. We are encouraging this in good practice models and guidance for the internet industry, which will be published by the task force on child protection on the internet early in the new year and are confident that operators in this country will take advantage of this possibility.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Rizgar Ghalib Ali. [89235]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 13 January 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 14 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to the Nawab International Restaurant Group. [89240]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 2 January 2003.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 26 November 2002, regarding a constituent, ref 24367/2. [90259]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: A reply to the letter was sent on 10 January.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East of(a) 18 July
  588W
  2002, (b) 20 September 2002, (c) 4 November 2002 and (d) 4 December 2002 regarding the case of Miss Zakiya Motala. [90285]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 January 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time between receipt of a communication by the Criminal Records Bureau and an answer being sent has been in(a) each week and (b) each month of the last 12 months [87945]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) offers three different ways to contact the bureau—by telephone, by post or by e-mail. The CRB aims to deal with all inquiries quickly and efficiently. Its target is to answer 90 per cent. of all telephone calls within 20 seconds. The call centre has consistently exceeded this service standard.

  The CRB aims to reply to all e-mails that are sent to the CRB website address within 24 hours of receipt and indications are that this target is currently being met.

  The CRB aims to provide a response to written correspondence within one week of receipt. At present there is no information available to confirm to what extent this target is being met, as the details are not collated centrally, but the target is not yet being fully achieved.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money is owed within the Criminal Records Bureau; and(a) by and (b) to whom it is owed. [87946]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: As at 31 October 2002 the Passport and Records Agency owed £350,902 to Capita in unpaid invoices. In addition to this £5,033,514.07 was accrued for charges incurred in the month that had yet to be invoiced by Capita.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties have been incurred by Capita on the Criminal Records Bureau contract. [87947]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: There is provision under the terms of the contract between Capita and the Home Office for penalties for delay or poor performance. Capita has incurred liquidated damages, although, as is normal in such contracts the details remain commercial in confidence. The main priority is for the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita to collaborate in order to achieve further improvement in the quality of service.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which staff get priority treatment for their Criminal Record Bureau checks; and how this is assessed. [87948]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no priority treatment given to any staff from any sector for their Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks. The CRB did take on extra resources in August/September 2002 to process those applications from teachers and classroom assistants.
  589W
  The CRB does, where possible, seek to expedite individual applications from any sector, which are exceptionally delayed.

  Cultural Integration and Co-operation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to combat terrorism through cultural integration and co-operation. [887281

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government are committed to ensuring the fair treatment and inclusion of all communities within our society. We are actively working to ensure that where there are divisions along lines of race, religion, class—or any other cultural factor—barriers are broken down, discrimination is eradicated and positive relationships are encouraged.

  In addition, we attach great importance to helping those who settle here—and existing British citizens—gain a fuller appreciation of the civic and political dimensions of British citizenship and, in particular, to understand the rights and responsibilities that come with British citizenship. This will help to strengthen active participation in our democracy and a sense of community belonging. This is why we introduced the citizenship curriculum in schools in September and why we have appointed an independent group under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Bernard Crick to make recommendations on the standard of language skills it might be reasonable to expect of someone seeking naturalisation. The group will also be advising on the content and delivery of a "Living in the United Kingdom" programme.

  Taken together these measures will help to reduce the risk of disaffection that can lead, in some extreme cases, to support for terrorism.

  Domestic Violence
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were reported in the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London in each year since 1992; how many people died in these incidents in each area; and if he will make a statement. [88816]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 January 2003]: Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects figures from police forces on best value performance indicators (BVPIs) broken down by force and basic command unit (BCU) area.

  BVPI 153a records the number of domestic violence incidents where there was a power of arrest. Domestic violence is defined as an incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or who have been intimate partners (defined as more than just friends or acquaintances) of family members, regardless of gender. Family members are defined as mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandparents, in-laws and step family.
  590W
  Richmond BCU is co-terminus with the London borough and figures can be provided for that area but the data does not enable the number of incidents in Twickenham to be identified. This information has been collected only for the last two years. Previous records were compiled on a different basis and not to BCU level.

  There were 329 domestic violence incidents (as defined above) in Richmond BCU in 2000–01 and 384 in 2001–02. In the Metropolitan police area there were 27,681 incidents in 2000–01 and 28,794 in 2001–02.

  It is not possible to say how many of these figures were homicides.

  The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence at all levels. It is a serious and abhorrent crime that accounts for one quarter of all violent crime and claims the lives of two women a week. Nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner or an ex-partner. The Government will do everything it can to tackle it and ensure that victims receive the highest levels of support and protection.

  My right hon. Friend Home Secretary recently announced a consultation paper setting out proposals to prevent domestic violence, which will be published by spring 2003. This consultation will build on the initial consultation on domestic violence in the White Paper, "Justice for All", and the on-going work of the inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence.

  The inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence brings together eight Ministers to progress five priority areas for action.

  Increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children;

  Developing early and effective health care interventions;

  Improving the interface between the criminal and civil law;

  Ensuring a consistent and appropriate response from the police and Crown Prosecution Service; and

  Promoting Education and Awareness Raising.

  Tackling the problem means more than just providing initial support for victims. We want to ensure that offenders are prosecuted, help the police to prevent repeat victimisation, and protect the lives of the vulnerable.

  Estonian Baltic Dancers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an official of the Immigration Service visited the residence in Northern Ireland of the Estonian Baltic Dancers; whether the dancers overstayed their 12 week group permit; and what attempt was made to verify their ages and the travel documents they were using. [90044]

  Beverley Hughes
  The residence of foreign nationals believed to be employed at the Movie Star Cafe was visited by the United Kingdom Immigration Service (UKIS) on 18 December 2002. Four female foreign nationals were encountered (one Latvian, one Estonian, one Russian and one Colombian) who all declared they were employed at the club.

  The Latvian and Estonian females confirmed they were part of a group of 17 dancers who were granted a 12 week work permit on 1 July 2002. These two

  591W
  individuals advised that they had entered the UK (Northern Ireland) overland via the Irish Republic on a number of occasions since 1 July and had not seen an immigration officer on arrival. A provision of The Variation of Leave (Entry through Ireland) Order 1981 is that persons arriving in the United Kingdom by this route are deemed to have leave for a specific period as a visitor. They have, however, not been granted leave to work by an immigration officer and without doing so are not allowed to take employment. The individuals and the club owner were advised of this and that the deemed leave was due to expire the following day. The Immigration Service has confirmed that the two women departed the UK in order to avoid overstaying their leave.

  The Russian and Colombian females were both visa nationals but neither held valid UK visas. The Immigration Service therefore served illegal entry

  Recipient

  Amount (£)

  2002–03

  From Community Champions to Mohammed Wali for running activities and establishing services for the Somalian

  2,000

  Refugee Community in Handsworth Bham.

  Community Cohesion Summer Activity Scheme paid to Regent College, Leicester for a sport and leisure

  33,780

  programme for local Somali and Montserrat young people. Somali young people were also encouraged to go to other summer schemes but this was the only one funded specifically for the Somali new comer communities in this region.

  Purposeful Activity for Asylum Seekers

  Somali Advice and Information Centre, Leicester

  2,170

  Bariimo Somali Youth Project, Harrow

  2,100

  2001–02

  Refugee Community Development Fund

  Somali Physical Disabled Support Group, Sheffield

  4,930

  Somali Youth Association, Milton Keynes

  4,150

  Somaliland Health and Education Project, London SE19

  3,650

  Stonebridge Somali Centre, London

  4,789

  Somali Community Support Centre, London W14

  4,861

  Horn Stars Sports Club, London NW10

  5,000

  East London Somali Association

  5,000

  European Refugee Fund

  (The accounting periods are calendar years)

  2002

  East London Somali Association

  28,847

  Somali Advisory Bureau, London W2

  9,230

  2001

  East London Somali Association

  21,318

  Somali Advisory Bureau, London W2

  9,730

  Somali Cultural Centre, London NW6

  18,650

  2000

  Somali Advisory Bureau, London W2

  4,865

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been introduced(a) to assist the police in combating football hooliganism in the UK and (b) to ensure that people who organise fights are prosecuted. [88726]

  Mr. Denham
  Government works closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers, individual forces and the National Criminal Intelligence Service in tackling football disorder. The police and courts in 592W
  papers on them and the Russian national made a voluntary departure on 20 December. The Colombian national has submitted an application to remain in the United Kingdom and has been granted temporary release pending consideration of her case.

  An immigration officer examined the passports of the four foreign nationals encountered at the club and noted that all four were of adult age.

  Somali Groups (Financial Support)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support has been given to Somali groups in each of the past five years. [89374]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 January 2003]: The financial support that the Home Department has directly paid to Somali groups between 1998–99 and 2002–03 were as follows.

  England and Wales have been provided with extensive legislative powers for combating football hooliganism. This includes empowering the police to seek football banning orders against individuals who pose a risk of violence or disorder in connection with football matches. The orders prevent attendance at domestic matches and travel to matches played overseas. There are currently over 1,400 people subject to banning orders. There is no comparable legislation in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Gloucester Prison
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the governor of HMP Gloucester regarding(a) the removal of young adults from the prison in June 2001 and (b) the reintroduction of young adults to the prison in June 2002; [89044]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the governor of HMP Gloucester regarding conditions for young adults at the prison. [89043]

  Hilary Benn
  Minor and temporary changes to the population of a prison for operational reasons are a matter for the Director General of the Prison Service.

  The young offender population was removed from Gloucester prison in 2001 as there was sufficient accommodation available at other establishments, including Ashfield prison. In June 2002, the rapid growth in the prison population as a whole resulted in Gloucester prison again being used to accommodate young offenders. I am assured by the area manager and the governing governor responsible for Gloucester prison that conditions for young offenders at Gloucester are satisfactory.

  Oakington
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a removal centre alongside the immigration reception centre at Oakington in Cambridgeshire. [89801]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: No decision has been made to alter the current status of Oakington. I am currently looking at this matter and will write to the hon. Member once a decision has been made.

  Refugee Integration
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the impact upon refugee integration of the reduced entitlement to guidance and language training due to the withdrawal of the work concession for asylum-seekers who do not have an initial decision after six months; [R] [89782]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the withdrawal of the work concession for asylum-seekers who will eventually receive permission to remain in the UK upon their ability to develop their English language and other skills. [R] [89780]

  Beverley Hughes
  By the time the concession was abolished about 80 per cent. of new applications were receiving an initial decision within the initial six months. The number of new asylum seekers able to benefit from the concession was therefore falling and will continue to do so. Asylum seekers who had permission to work or who had sought permission to do so before the concession was abolished continue to be able to work and receive work based training.
  594W
  Asylum seekers remain eligible to attend a range of courses to assist in the development of English for speaker of other languages (ESOL) and other basic skills in the short period before a decision is taken on their claim.

  Settlement Visa Applications
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time for the Home Office immigration department to process a settlement visa application for the spouse of a British citizen was over the last 12 months; and what the expected length of time is, as outlined in the Home Office guidelines, for the Department to process a settlement visa application for the spouse of a British citizen. [90120]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no published data on decision times specifically to determine applications for settlement of spouses of British citizens. We aim to screen all postal applications within three weeks and decide those that are straightforward at that point. However, because of the high number of applications in the latter part of 2002 this is currently taking around 10 weeks on average. Some that need further inquiries or more detailed consideration can take around 12 months to decide subject to how easy it is to obtain the information and how quickly applicants respond to such requests. We are taking measures to improve this situation and expect to make significant progress towards our three week target for initial screening over the next two to three months, and to reduce the turnaround time for deciding more complex cases. There are no guidelines on average processing times for specific types of application.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88028]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the Statutory Instruments (SIs) made each session by Home Office Ministers, which came into force, are not held and such information could not be made available other than at disproportionate cost. However, statistics on the number of negative instruments made by Home Office Ministers each year, are kept. The numbers for negative instruments for each of the past three years are as follows, none have been annulled.

  Negative instruments

  Year

  Number of SIs made

  2000

  73

  2001

  61

  20021

  60

  1 Provisional figure

  The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considers all negative Statutory Instruments once they have been made.

  Sussex Traffic Police
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on changes to traffic policing within Sussex; [89347]

  (2) if he will make a statement on changes in shift patterns for Sussex traffic police; [89350]

  (3) what police traffic operations will be based within (a) Adur and (b) Worthing following current reorganisation proposals. [89348]

  Mr. Denham
  These are matters for the Chief Constable of Sussex. I understand that the changes in question stem from a force operational review that the chief constable established with the aim of getting more capacity at the front line of policing. The review acknowledged the important role the traffic division played in the policing of Sussex and concluded that the best way forward was the establishment of a smaller road policing unit (RPU) and a dedicated force wide unit taking advantage of automatic number plate recognition technology. The RPU will concentrate on the investigation of road death, potential road death and serious injury collisions, on patrolling and dealing with incidents on the strategic road network, and on assisting district commanders by providing specialist expertise.

  These changes reflect the priorities contained within the National Policing Plan 2003£06. They will enable officers to concentrate on core police business and ensure a high level of service to the community, while also allowing the effective use of specialist skills.

  I understand from the chief constable that within the new arrangements the established RPU base at Chichester will remain, with an enhanced staffing and vehicle level. Adur and Worthing, with Chichester, are within the West Downs division. Deployment profiles are in the process of being established to provide a response across the division. Road policing lends itself to a flexible approach and support will also be provided from other base areas such as North Downs and Brighton and Hove.

  The chief constable and force operational review identified the number of differing shift and rest day patterns across the force area as adversely affecting the force's ability to mobilise resources quickly and effectively. A force working pattern was therefore proposed. In line with Police Regulations this pattern was put to the workforce, who voted overwhelmingly for its adoption. A shift pattern has now been developed by the RPU, which maximises resourcing levels at times of operational need such as the morning and evening traffic peaks.

CABINET OFFICE

  Contingency Planning
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment the Department has made of the effect of devolution on comprehensive contingency provision in the United Kingdom. [86601]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.
  596W
  The Government are satisfied that arrangements for contingency planning between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom have not suffered any detriment due to devolution. Every effort has been made to ensure consistency and proper co-ordination.

  The devolved Administrations participate in the Civil Contingencies Committee and its sub-committees. Cabinet Office officials work closely with the devolved Administrations to facilitate the provision of comprehensive contingency arrangements in the United Kingdom.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements are made to ensure that contingency provision exists to safeguard the public in the event of a major civil disaster; when such arrangements were last updated; and what changes were made. [86596]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are well established arrangements for civil protection at national and regional level, involving Government Ministers, Government Departments, emergency services, local authorities and others. The Government support these arrangements by providing funding and guidance, as appropriate.

  The Government reviewed general emergency planning arrangements in 2001. It also reviewed and updated its management in light of the fuel protests, the foot and mouth outbreak, recent flooding and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. As a result, measures have been taken by Government Departments, the emergency services and local authorities to improve assessment, detection, protection, planning and response to a wide range of threats. This work continues to develop according to risks and capabilities.

  The Government recognise that the current legislative framework for civil protection needs updating to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It plans to introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Work involving a wide range of stakeholders is well under way to develop this legislation.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what common standards are set across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to ensure good and proper contingency provision; and what arrangements exist for their inspection. [86598]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply.

  Consistency between the guidance documents is ensured by liaison between the Cabinet Office and the devolved Administrations, who work together to deliver co-ordinated contingency planning across the United Kingdom.

  The core guidance documents for contingency planning arrangements for England and Wales are: "Dealing With Disaster" (3rd Edition) and "Standards for Civil Protection in England and Wales" produced by the Home Office in October 1999. A revised version of "Dealing With Disaster" is scheduled for publication in the first half of 2003. The arrangements are under the oversight of the Cabinet Committee on Civil Contingencies and Resilience which I chair.
  597W
  Emergency planning in Scotland is a devolved responsibility. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the guidance reflects the principles and methodology of the above documents but is adapted to take account of local circumstances.

  The main guidance document in Scotland is: "Dealing With Disaster Together" produced by the Scottish Executive Justice Department.

  In Northern Ireland, the key documents are: "A Guide to Emergency Planning in Northern Ireland", which is currently under review, and "Northern Ireland Standards in Civil Protection".

  Auditing is carried out by a range of bodies. For example, the emergency services are monitored by service inspectorates, and the National Audit Office monitors the work of central Government Departments.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Decontamination
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many firefighters have been trained in decontamination techniques to help the general public; how many protective suits are available in each fire authority area; and what expenditure has been incurred; [89904]

  (2) whether the funds made available in February 2002 for mass decontamination service have been drawn upon. [89903]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Individual records of fire fighter training are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In December 2001 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued guidance on the provision of interim mass decontamination facilities using existing equipment. All fire authorities have trained their personnel who need to use this equipment and approximately 120 of the service's senior commanders have received multi agency training, which will continue. Currently the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that there are 3,900 protective suits available throughout the UK Fire Service.

  Under the new dimension mass decontamination programme announced last year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will, by the end of 2002–03, have spent over £8 million on new equipment as well as the costs of training and the regional implementation teams. A further £27.7 million expenditure on equipment costs is already committed in 2003–04. The full programme will provide an extra 4,000 protective suits.

  Environmental Protective and Cultural Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local government services are funded via the environmental protective and cultural services standard spending assessment. [90658]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The environmental protective and cultural services covers corporate and democratic core costs and all local government services not included under the education, personal social services, police, fire, highways and capital financing blocks.

  Fire Safety Legislation
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the Government's consultation, when consultation on changes to fire safety legislation through a regulatory reform order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 will be completed; when the final version of the regulatory reform order will be published; and how many responses to the consultation expressed concerns relating to fires in very large single storey buildings. [89759]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Consultation on the Government's proposals for reform of fire safety legislation closed on 22 November 2002. A number of responses were received after the closing date and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the detail of all comments received. Of the consultation responses assessed so far, four have mentioned concerns about fire in large single storey buildings.

  The order will be published, in accordance with normal practice for Statutory Instruments, when it is laid before the House. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister anticipates this being later this year.

  Housing Standards
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to develop a housing poverty indicator to enable the development of more accurate evidence-based policies. [88541]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Department is currently involved in a project to consider options for strengthening and updating the Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000), including the way housing deprivation is measured. Preliminary proposals for improving the housing domain were published in the Stage One Consultation report, which is out to consultation until 15 January 2003. These proposals include:Using the most up-to-date information including data from the 2001 Census and the 2001 English. House Condition Survey to update current indicators;
  Investigating the possibility of adding new indicators to measure children living in unsuitable accommodation, households lacking amenities and houses without central heating; and
  Considering how the 2002 English House Condition Survey might be used to model further indicators on housing quality.

  Once the consultation is over, the next step would be to draft a blue print setting out actual plans for updating the ID 2000, taking on board consultation responses. This blue print will then be subject to an independent peer review and a further period of consultation before the ID 2000 is updated.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his housing decency standard relating heat loss to energy input is; and what temperature that standard is designed to maintain. [89570]

  Mr. McNulty
  The decent home standard does not include a measure of energy efficiency. There are two measures in the standard that will impact on the energy efficiency of homes. The standard requires dwellings to achieve a reasonable degree of thermal comfort through provision of efficient heating and effective insulation.
  599W
  Guidance on implementing the standard encourages landlords to maximise energy efficiency where feasible when installing new heating systems.

  Under the fitness standard, which is another component of the decent home standard, a property must have adequate provision for heating. This is defined as sufficient to achieve a temperature of 18°C in the main living room and 16°C in other habitable rooms when the outside temperature is minus 1°C.

  Planning Law (Enforcement)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to encourage planning authorities into the appropriate enforcement action when planning law is breached. [89556]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local planning authorities have a wide range of enforcement powers to enable them to deal with unauthorised development that is harming amenity in the neighbourhood. If they consider that unauthorised development is unacceptable on planning grounds, they have the power to take enforcement action. It is however a matter for the council to decide in each case whether to take enforcement action and, if so, the most appropriate course of action, taking account of local circumstances.

  The Government have already set out policy and procedural good practice guidance for local authorities on enforcing planning control. A consultation paper on the effectiveness of planning enforcement was published last September. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the responses to that exercise.

  Public Conveniences
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require local authorities to respond annually to him on the number of public conveniences they operate and maintain; and if he will make a statement. [90700]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local authorities have a power, but are under no duty, to provide public conveniences under section 87 of the Public Health Act 1936. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to introduce additional reporting requirements in respect of provision of public conveniences.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost is of the soundings exercise on the level of interest in holding a referendum about an elective assembly in each English region. [90345]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The soundings document has been produced in-house, from the design and printing to its dissemination through the Government's distribution centre at Wetherby. It is also available on-line and 600W
  respondents have been able to e-mail their views if they so wish. Production and distribution (including postage) has cost less than £700 to date.

  Additional costs may be incurred if it is necessary to print extra copies in the future. There will be some staff costs in recording and considering responses to the soundings exercise.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88037]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister came into existence at the end of May 2002. Since then 22 statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure for which the office is responsible have come into force. In the same period, four statutory instruments subject to that procedure for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible have been the subject of a motion to revoke debated in standing committee.

  Mobile Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made by his Department in implementing each of the recommendations of the Stewart report into mobile telecommunications masts. [89786]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 22 August 2001, following public consultation, and taking into account the recommendations in the Stewart report, published in May 2000, we introduced changes to the planning procedures and guidance (PPG8) for telecommunications mast development which significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development. Our changes included:strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are the same as for planning applications;
  increased the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days;
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; and
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation

  In November 2000, we published a revised Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. This is a tripartite document between central and local Government and the telecommunications industry and builds on the advice in PPG8 "Telecommunications" and the operators' 10 commitments to improve consultation on mast proposals with local communities and local planning authorities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to amend further the planning arrangements for telecommunications development.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Documents (King Edward VIII)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will make a decision on the release of documents relating to King Edward VIII. [90626]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside to the written statement I made on 18 December 2002,Official Report, column 64WS.

  EU Applicant Countries
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many visits to EU applicant countries he made in 2002. [90104]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and Baroness Scotland both visited a number of EU applicant countries during 2002. The dates are provided in the table.

  Minister

  Country visited

  Date

  Baroness Scotland

  Poland

  24–25 January 2002

  Baroness Scotland

  Bulgaria

  29–31 May 2002

  Lord Chancellor

  Czech Republic

  9–10 September 2002

  Lord Chancellor

  Hungary

  10–13 September 2002

  Lord Chancellor

  Poland

  13–17 September 2002

  Lord Chancellor

  Slovenia

  17–18 September 2002

  Baroness Scotland

  Poland

  7–8 November 2002

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance the Department gives to magistrates about sentences for fly-tipping and other breaches of waste legislation; if she plans to review that guidance; and if she will make a statement. [89619]

  Yvette Cooper
  No specific guidance is provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department to magistrates on sentences for fly-tipping and other breaches of waste legislation, but an Information Toolkit for Magistrates on Environmental Crime was produced jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Magistrates' Association in November 2002.

  The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines, produced by the Magistrates' Association, provide a sentencing structure for magistrates including an indication of levels of seriousness and aggravating and mitigating features for offences that are most commonly presented before magistrates. For offences that appear in the magistrates courts less frequently magistrates will seek the advice of their legal adviser, who has access to up to date information on the relevant case law.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal (Personal Adviser Discretion Fund)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the levels are of(a) payments in
  602W
  error and (b) fraud in respect of the Adviser Discretion Fund; and if he will make a statement. [88473]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Adviser Discretion Fund was introduced to give personal advisers more flexibility in the help they can offer their new deal clients. Advisers have the discretion to make awards from the fund, normally up to a maximum of £300, to pay for any goods and services needed to help an individual overcome the barriers preventing them applying for or taking up a job.

  The Adviser Discretion Fund cannot be used: as a cash inducement to take up a job; to pay for things funded in other ways under the new deal; to pay for Criminal Records Bureau disclosure certificates; or once a client has taken up a job. Payments can be made in error if an adviser mistakenly makes awards for these purposes, or in cases where the total monetary value of the awards made to an individual exceeds £300 (without prior authorisation from the Jobcentre Plus business manager). Information on the level of such erroneous payments is not available.

  Since the launch of the Adviser Discretion Fund in July 2001, 56 allegations of fraud have been or are currently being investigated, involving a total of £10,921. This represents 0.03 per cent. of awards made and 0.07 per cent. of their total monetary value.

  Benefit Applicants (Hardship Cases)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) discretionary payments on account and (b) Crisis Loan alignment payments were made to applicants for benefit who faced hardship while their benefit application was being considered in the last four years for which figures are available; and what the total expenditure was on these payments. [85152]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise that many people making a claim to benefit will be in need of immediate financial support. To avoid unnecessary hardship, discretionary payments on account of benefit (interim payments) can be made where a claim has not been determined but the Decision Maker is satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement for the benefit are likely to be met. The amount of any interim payment is automatically recoverable from the main benefit when it is awarded. No record is kept of the number or value of interim payments made.

  Crisis Loan alignment payments can be made to people awaiting their first payment of benefit which is paid in arrears, or their first payment of wages. Crisis Loans made to people awaiting benefit payments will cover their needs until their first benefit pay-day, following which full or interim payments of benefit can be made. In the main, these payments are made to people of working age (as pensioners are generally paid in advance). Information is not collected separately on the number or value of alignment payments made to people awaiting a first payment of benefit.

  The available information is in the table. The figures show the total number and value of Crisis Loan alignment payments made, including those made to people awaiting payment of their first wage.
  603W

  Social Fund Crisis Loan alignment payments

  Year

  Number of payments

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1998–99

  433,851

  20

  1999–2000

  474,076

  23

  2000–01

  476,936

  24

  2001–02

  486,031

  27

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  2. Awards including alignment payments may include other items.

  3. Technical problems with the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System mean that figures for 1998–99 may be subject to a margin of error of 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. and should therefore be treated as a guide only.

  Sources:

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1998–99 to 2001–02; and the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

  Divorcees
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether a divorced woman can claim a full category A retirement pension on the basis of her ex-husband's contributions when she reaches the age of 60; [90498]

  (2) whether a divorced woman who previously paid national insurance contributions at the reduced rate for married women can substitute her ex-husband's contributions record in respect of any year in which she paid contributions at the reduced rate. [90499]

  Mr. McCartney
  The following women whose marriages ended by divorce or annulment, may use the record of qualifying years of their former husband instead of their own, if their category A state pension does not reach the full rate:Women who have not reached state pension age when their marriage ended and who have not remarried by the time they reach state pension age; and
  Women over state pension age when their marriage ended.

  The above conditions can apply irrespective of whether the woman was paying the married womens' reduced contributions, or full rate contributions as they are entitlements which accrue as a consequence of marriage.

  However, this may not necessarily mean a woman will get a full category A state pension. The amount of state pension she gets will depend on her former husband's and her own national insurance records.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89921]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department has not concluded any contracts as a result of a Government commitment to support ethical banking. There is nothing currently within the Department's procurement policy that would prevent such contracts from being let. The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of "ethical" products. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government exclusively to support 604W
  the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  Maternity Pay
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase maternity pay to parents of premature babies. [87151]

  Maria Eagle
  We are improving maternity benefits as part of our drive to help pregnant women and parents financially and to achieve a better balance between their work and home lives.

  Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance were raised to £75 a week from April 2002. From April 2003, the standard rate for both payments will be increased further; a woman will receive the lesser of £100 a week or 90 per cent. of her average earnings. This is the largest increase since maternity benefits were introduced. We are also extending the payment period from 18 to 26 weeks for women expecting their babies on or after 6 April 2003—this will apply regardless of when the baby is actually born.

  Women can choose to receive these benefits from up to 11 weeks before their baby is due. However, when a baby is born earlier than the date the mother has nominated or before the start of the 11-week period, benefit is automatically paid.

  We have no plans to make separate provision for women who have their babies prematurely, as the current rules ensure that they receive their full entitlement to maternity benefits.

  Pensioner Incomes (Mitcham and Morden)
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact Government policy is having on the income of pensioners in Mitcham and Morden. [89834]

  Mr. McCartney
  This Government have done much to assist pensioners. The Government want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. The first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.

  From April 2002, the Government are spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £2½ billion more on the poorest third of pensioners. Three times more than an earnings link since 1998 would have given them.

  The basic state pension is the foundation of income in retirement. The Government increased rates in April 2002 by £3 a week for single pensioners, to £75.50, and for couples by £4.80 a week, to £120.70. From April 2003, there will be further above inflation increases of £1.95 a week, to £77.45, and for couples by £3.10 a week to £123.80.

  As at March 2002, around 13,100 people in Mitcham and Morden were in receipt of state pension.
  605W
  From April 2003, no pensioner will have to get by on less than £102.10 (£155.80 for married couples). Mitcham and Morden has approximately 2,500 people claiming the minimum income guarantee receiving on average approximately £57 per week compared to £32 per week in 1997.

  Around half of all pensioner households will benefit from the new groundbreaking pension credit being introduced in October.

  In addition, other initiatives have significantly helped pensioners. These include winter fuel payments (WFPs), which will continue to be paid to qualifying households at £200 a year throughout this Parliament. In winter 2001–02, there were approximately 14,300 recipients of a winter fuel payment in Mitcham and Morden.

  Free TV licences are available for the over 75s, worth £104 a year. The WFPs and TV licences are non income-related and are tax free.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what action he is taking to encourage the take-up of post office card accounts; [90756]

  (2) what action he is taking to encourage benefit recipients to opt for post office card accounts when order books are replaced. [90757]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 604W.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87741]
  606W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Department makes limited use of postcodes to assist policy development and the delivery of services to our customers.

  We do not publish any statistical information by postcode areas in their own right. However, it does use information based on postcodes as a building block to publish statistics on administrative or electoral districts, such as Government Office Regions or Parliamentary Constituencies. All of the department's National Statistics outputs are published on a regular basis and copies are placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

  Most of the grants and awards made by the Department are distributed on criteria devised at a national level. However, the award Cold Weather Payments is based on local conditions and does use postcodes to define eligible areas.

  The delivery of services to our customers has been re-organised following the creation of the Department in 2001. In most cases, the departmental agencies are organised into regions and districts whose boundaries are aligned with Government Office Regions and one or more Local/Unitary Authorities.

  Jobcentre Plus customers can access services through their nearest or most convenient Jobcentre Plus Office, Jobcentre or Social Security Office, regardless of their postcode. Postcodes are used to identify customers required to attend a work- focused meeting as the new integrated Jobcentre Plus service is introduced, in areas where ONE pilots operate and in some other parts of the office network.

  The Pension Service will comprise of a network of 26 pension centres, supported by a national local service, dedicated to the needs of today's and tomorrow's pensioners. Customers can access services through an 0845 local rate telephone number. Each pension centre handles the work of a defined geographical area aligned to Government Office Regions.

  Postcode listings used within the Department are updated each quarter. The use of postcodes to produce information, distribute grants and awards and deliver services in the most efficient manner possible is reviewed on a regular basis.

TRANSPORT

  Braer Oil Spill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  On 5 January 1993, the Liberian oil tanker Braer ran ashore in the Shetland Isles, spilling its cargo of 84,700 tonnes of crude oil and some 1,600 tonnes of heavy fuel oil bunkers. The consequences of the spill were serious. Since then, a large number of actions have been taken nationally, regionally and internationally.

  In many ways the Braer marked a defining point in the effort to address pollution and its consequences. The Braer still ranks as the world's twelfth largest oil spill—84,700 tonnes of cargo and 1,600 tonnes of fuel oil. A pollution incident of such magnitude inevitably brought major hardships for many people. It is a tribute to the resilience of local people that they coped so well with the consequences which such a devastating incident had. The Braer raised many new compensation issues which, once resolved, assisted in the handling of similar issues which arose subsequently with the Sea Empress and with other oil spills elsewhere in the world.

  No matter what measures are taken to minimise the risks of accidents, we must still ensure that we have careful plans in the event of a major incident occurring. Having such contingency plans in place demonstrates our commitment to protecting human life and the environment, and to promoting the safe and efficient movement of goods.

  Following the Braer, Lord Donaldson's report in 1994 'Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas' set out 103 recommendations to improve ship safety and protection of the marine environment. The vast majority of these recommendations were accepted and most have now been implemented. This report effectively became a blueprint for redefining shipping policy in the UK but also became an important influence in determining the international efforts at the IMO.

  Many lessons had to be learned and applied as a result of the Braer and subsequently the Sea Empress (spilling 72,000 tonnes of oil) as well as other major spills that have followed.

  The UK has played a key role in bringing in many measures which have substantially improved the position, internationally, regionally and nationally, during the ten years since the Braer ran onto the rocks at Garths Ness, in Shetland, on 5 January 1993.
  20WS
  The key developments since the Braer incident may be summarised as follows:

  Compensation and liability
  The 1992 Civil Liability and Fund Protocols were introduced in mid-1996—more than doubling the limit of compensation from the £51.6 million available at the time of the Braer to £118 million.
  In 2000 the UK initiated action at the IMO to increase the limit of compensation under the 1992 CLC/Fund regime by a further 50 per cent. to £177 million, with effect from 1 November 2003.
  In 2001, along with six other states, the UK pressed for a world-wide initiative to create a Supplementary Fund to the 1992 CLC/Fund to provide further substantial compensation for the most serious oil spills. This Supplementary Fund is due to be adopted at the IMO in May 2003.
  The UK took a lead role in calling for a clearer policy on coverage by the 1992 CLC/Fund regime to cover the costs of environmental assessment following major oil pollution and for appropriate reinstatement afterwards.
  The UK participated fully in the adoption in 1996 of the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention which will provide cover similar to the CLC/Fund regime but for chemicals and other pollutants and for explosion, death or injury from such products. The limit of compensation will be equivalent to £220 million. The UK is co-ordinating the international effort to bring this key convention into force soon.
  The UK was one of the countries which developed the Bunkers Convention 2001, which will set liability and compensation rules for pollution from ships' fuel oils.
  The UK has ratified the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. This should enter into force quite soon and will increase limits of liability for most third party claims arising from damage form shipping by an average of 250 per cent., but in some cases as much as 600 per cent.
  The UK has been pressing at a European level for EU states to ratify the LLMC Protocol, the Bunkers and HNS conventions quickly so as to help bring them into force soon.

  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS)
  The UK became party to UNCLOS in August 1997. This sets out the framework of customary international maritime law. It is a key convention setting out coastal states', port states' and flag states' responsibilities, obligations and rights. It is an important means of protecting the marine environment from adverse consequences from shipping, while protecting the UK's shipping interests.

  Protecting the UK coastline and waters
  In 1996 the UK declared a counter pollution zone which extends to the fullest extent allowed under UNCLOS which, around much of the coastline, is out to 200 nautical miles.
  In 1997 the UK co-ordinated an EU Member States' initiative at the IMO to have the whole of the North Sea, and all waters around the UK and Ireland, declared a special area for the purposes of protecting those waters from operational discharges of oil from shipping.
  The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a dedicated Enforcement Unit, and this has led to a large number of prosecutions and a very high success rate. In 1997, legislation was passed to enable magistrates to impose a fine of up to £250,000 on either the master or the shipowner for an oil pollution offence; this is the highest fine for any offence in a Magistrates' Court.
  In 1997 the UK was the first state in the world to introduce a statutory requirement on each port to prepare a port waste management plan to address the waste disposal needs of all types of ships calling. This requirement has since been incorporated into a Directive, which the UK and other EU Member States are in the process of implementing.

  21WS
  The UK played an active part in the work leading to the development of the Vessel traffic monitoring and information system Directive which EU Member States are required to implement by 5 February 2004.

  ETVs
  In 1994, recognising the value of tugs in preventing groundings and other incidents, the UK introduced Emergency Towing Vessels (ETVs) on a trial basis. Initially ETVs were stationed at Dover and Stornoway for the winter months only. After further review, the number of ETVs was increased to four—stationed at Dover, Stornoway, the Fair Isle Channel, and in the South West approaches—and since October 2001 all four ETVs have been on station all year round.

  Protecting the public interest during incidents
  In 2000, following a wide-ranging review, the UK published a revised National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, setting out how the relevant agencies and authorities in the UK will respond to such incidents. The UK has also created the role of the Secretary of State's Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP). On behalf of the Secretary of State, SOSREP has the power to oversee, control and—if necessary—intervene in salvage operations within UK waters involving vessels or fixed platforms where there is a significant risk of pollution. To reduce the risk of pollution of our seas and coasts, SOSREP can direct vessels which are in difficulties to a suitable place of refuge. The powers of direction invested in SOSREP are extensive, and are called into play when he believes that the public interest is not being adequately protected. The SOSREP role has proved very successful, as well as being an international first for the UK.

  Quality Shipping Campaign
  In 1997, the UK played a leading role in launching the Quality Shipping Campaign at the IMO and in the EU. The main problem of substandard shipping and marine pollution is not the result of inadequate international standards, but of failure by some owners and flag States to fulfil their responsibilities under the conventions. The Quality Shipping Campaign engages all those involved in shipping ventures; owners, flag States, brokers, charterers, insurers, financiers, etc, with a view to rewarding the responsible in the industry and to increasingly marginalise substandard ships, owners and flags.

  Double hull tankers
  Following the loss of the ERIKA in 1999, the UK played a leading role in the EU and the MO to secure international agreement to accelerate the phasing out of single hull tankers. Double hulls are not a panacea, but they do provide additional protection against spillage in the event of collisions and groundings.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The latest Progress Report on BSE in Great Britain will be placed in the Library of the House today.

  The Report explains how we have managed BSE during the period 1 January—30 June 2002. The encouraging reduction in BSE in cattle continues. This shows that the controls which have been put in place are continuing to have an important effect.
  22WS
  The Report discusses the introduction of an enhanced active TSE, surveillance programme and the Food Standards Agency's review of the Over Thirty Month Rule. It covers issues bearing on European matters and the TSE research programme. It also sets out progress on the National Scrapie Plan and the results of enforcement visits to ensure compliance with the rules on specified risk material and animal feed.

  The report is being published on Defra's website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  On 10 January 2003, following the receipt of information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, I exercised my powers under section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995 and revoked the licence granted to John James Adair. He has since been arrested and returned to prison.

  I revoked his licence because it appeared to me that his continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others and that he was likely to commit further offences. Unless I exercise my powers under section 1(5) of the 1995 Act, which I have not plans to do, he will remain in prison until 13 January 2005.

  I have put in place additional safeguards for persons whose licences are revoked. These include the appointment of independent Commissioners, who hold or have held judicial office, to consider and advise me upon any representations made by recalled prisoners. I will also make available funds to meet the reasonable legal expenses of prisoners in connection with making such representations whether in writing or at any oral hearing the Commissioner may decide is necessary. Further details of the procedures and how they will operate will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  These additional safeguards will, remain in place until superseded by amending legislation and I commit the Government to them until that legislation is in place.

  Northern Ireland Prison Service
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  Following the closure of Belfast and Maze Prisons and the release of prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement, the Northern Ireland Prison Service established a project to develop a Strategic Estate Plan for a 20-year period commensurate with the Prison Service's Statement of Purpose, and its Vision and Values, as set out in its Corporate and Business Plan.

  That project is now complete and NIPS has concluded that it should retain and progressively upgrade the existing three sites, with the possibility of females being moved to Hydebank Wood being the subject of a feasibility study.

  Copies of the report can be obtained through the Northern Ireland Prison Service website at www.niprisonservice.gov.uk.

  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of a report entitled "Race Equality—The Home Secretary's Employment Targets—Milestone Report". The targets cover recruitment, retention and career progression for minority ethnic staff in the Home Office, the prison, the police, and probation services.

HEALTH

  Patients' Facilities
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  In our 1997 manifesto, we promised to end mixed-sex accommodation in national health service hospitals. In February 1998, we set a target for the achievement of three objectives which were designed to deliver separate sleeping areas, separate toilet and washing facilities and safe facilities for the mentally ill. Our target was that 95 per cent. of trusts would meet these new standards by December 2002.

  We have exceeded the target to provide good standards of privacy and dignity, ensuring single-sex sleeping accommodation and robust operational policies which protect patients' privacy and dignity in 98 per cent. of NHS trusts.

  We have met the target set to ensure the safety of people who are mentally ill—95 per cent. of NHS trusts meet additional criteria set for this patient group, offering for example day rooms which are "off limits" to both patients and visitors of the opposite sex.

  The target to provide separate toilet and washing facilities for men and women will be met by the end of March. Progress to date means that 93 per cent. of NHS trusts provide properly segregated bathroom and toilet facilities for men and women. A further 2 per cent. of NHS trusts have works underway to deliver the required standard, affecting just 32 wards, which will be completed by the end of the March.

  Over 98 per cent. of NHS wards meet our guidelines. As there are approximately 10,000 wards currently in use across the NHS, this is a significant achievement.
  24WS
  New hospitals and hospital facilities currently being built will bring the remaining wards to the necessary standard.

  This has been a particularly challenging target, which the NHS has met with enthusiasm and fervour. Meeting the target has taken time, energy and commitment from a wide range of professionals. The extremely high level of compliance achieved is a testament to their hard work and commitment to the interests of NHS patients.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In my oral statement to the House on 7 January 2002,Official Report column 23, I announced the deployment of naval and amphibious forces, including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines with all supporting elements. They will conduct training in the Mediterranean, with a view to proceeding to the Gulf region if and as required.

  3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines will have an integral reconnaissance capability. This will be provided by a number of tracked vehicles. These will be moved by ship and loading will begin shortly. Despatch of Royal Marines personnel and other equipment by air will also begin shortly.

  In parallel, preparatory activity continues to ensure the availability and readiness of a range of military options, should they be required. This includes continuing planning activity, exploratory visits and liaison with other military staffs in the region. It also includes the preparation, movement and deployment of enabling equipment that might be required in the event of operations, including logistics, engineering, signals and command vehicles and equipment. This will involve major road movements in the United Kingdom and Germany, and the loading of ships which will sail in the next few days.

  As soon as any decision to deploy additional British combat forces to the region is taken, I will inform the House at the earliest opportunity.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Cyprus: UK Sovereign Bases
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom sovereign bases in Cyprus will become part of the European Union on the accession of Cyprus.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, it has been agreed that following Cyprus's accession the sovereign based areas will remain outside the EU, with technical adjustments to ensure the continued smooth functioning of the relationship between Cyprus and the SBAs to ensure that Cypriots who live and work in the SBAs benefit from Cyprus's EU membership.
My noble friend Lady Amos updated the House in a Written Answer on 12th December 2002 on progress in implementing this policy. We expect the detail of the arrangements to take the form of a protocol which will be part of the terms of Cyprus's accession. The accession treaty is due to be signed on 16th April in a Bill introduced to enable its ratification by the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Is she confident that this rather anomalous arrangement will not risk another Gibraltarian situation in which having elements under British sovereignty on the edge but partly within a member state gets us into all sorts of complications with the other member states?
I note that in the written statement there was reference to co-operation on asylum seekers. What will happen when asylum seekers perhaps succeed in landing in the sovereign based areas and then move across what I understand is an open frontier with Cyprus? Is there any plan to fortify or at least fence properly the frontier between the SBAs and Cyprus itself?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the UK will, as now, exercise controls at the external borders of the SBAs. There will continue to be no controls on the land boundary with the Republic of Cyprus. The situation between Gibraltar and Cyprus is not analogous. The sovereign based areas are completely different from those in Gibraltar. Through our undertaking of the 1960 Treaty of Establishment, the UK is committed not to allow economic development within the SBA.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, given that the majority of Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated
124
that they want to join the European Union and want a settlement to the problems on the island, will the Minister explain what further help the United Kingdom Government can give to both communities to reach a settlement based on the Annan proposals?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I understand that there is a demonstration today in Nicosia in favour of the UN plan. Up to 50,000 people have attended, which was larger than the Boxing Day demonstration. The United Kingdom will continue to do all that it can consistent with the UN proposals. Your Lordships will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has—as a former member of the diplomatic service of this country—been of great value in those discussions. Of course, we shall continue to give them all the support that we can.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sovereign based areas are even more crucial to global security today than when they were first set up in 1960? Does she accept that we, on this side, strongly welcome the negotiation which has secured a proper status for them? I do not expect her to comment on this, but would mention that their value as a listening post for intelligence right through the wedge up into the Middle East is very great indeed and must be protected. We would expect the full support of all member states of the EU for what has been agreed. Will the Minister tell us, if the UN plan goes forward—as obviously we hope—and Cyprus enters the EU as a united country, whether that would further affect the arrangements that have been worked out?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords. I do not believe that that will affect the arrangements that have been worked out. Those arrangements are enshrined in the protocol to which I referred in my original answer. I welcome the noble Lord's support for the stance that Her Majesty's Government have taken on this. The sovereign based areas are currently outside the EU; it is our firm belief that they should remain so.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the question of asylum seekers. The sovereign based areas have a substantial coastline which is part of the European Union's external border; it is difficult to defend, particularly at night. If asylum seekers succeed in landing within the sovereign based areas do they become Britain's responsibility? Do we accept them therefore into the United Kingdom or do we pass them on to the Republic of Cyprus?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, anyone who requires a visa to enter the Republic of Cyprus will also be required to hold a valid Republic of Cyprus visa in order to enter the SBAs through any external border. The question concerning whether any such individuals would be the responsibility of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Cyprus is a matter on which I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

Iraq
2.41p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy towards Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I set out our policy objectives in a Written Answer on 7th January. Iraq must comply with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. UNSCR 1441 has served notice on the Iraqi regime that it must now give up its weapons of mass destruction or face serious consequences.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, in addition to the risk of serious damage to the United Nations which could result from military action against Iraq—unless the issue is handled with great skill and care in the United Nations—is there not another perhaps even more serious risk regarding military action? Unless the Government of the United States put a more urgent and stronger effort into resolving the appalling conflict between Israel and the Palestinians— with a result that is fair to the Palestinians—will not the Arab world be confirmed in its suspicion that the United States is in the pocket of Israel? Will not the likely result be that there will be even more instability and terrorism in the Middle East?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that it is important that the authority of the United Nations is upheld. That is one of the reasons why the United Kingdom has been so concerned that, in so far as is humanly possible, the issue is dealt with under the auspices of the United Nations.
The problems that prevail in Israel and the Palestinian Authority are of enormous concern, but they are free-standing problems. The issues around weapons of mass destruction in Iraq might be solved and there still might be an outstanding and terrible problem in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. However, I acknowledge the noble Lord's point that they are linked in many minds. That is one of the many reasons why my right honourable friend has held discussions today to look at ways in which the Palestinian Authority might be reformed.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that within the context of the Government's policy, as she has described it, there is room for anxiety about how well equipped the United Nations inspectors are to complete their task? Will she explain to the House why there has been a delay in sharing intelligence with the inspectors? Obviously, if they are to do their job, they need all the available intelligence.
Can my noble friend assure us that all the available intelligence is now at the disposal of the inspectors and that we are determined that they should be able to complete their task with full intelligence and report back to the United Nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not going to give the absolute categoric assurance that
126
my noble friend has asked of me. I cannot assure him that all available intelligence is communicated to the inspectors. I can assure him that all intelligence that is consistent with the security of this country is conveyed to the inspectors. I do not know whether my noble friend heard the interview with Dr Blix on the radio this morning, but I heard it and thought that he was positive about the co-operation he was receiving from American and British sources.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister who said yesterday at his press conference that there had been only one week in which the full complement of inspectors had been available? The Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, speaking for the United States, indicated that their intelligence had been made available only last week.
In view of that, will the Government consider sympathetically any requests from the inspectors for a greater amount of time to work on the inspection of what evidence there may be? Furthermore, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom and France are permanent members of the Security Council, will the Government consider permitting a debate immediately after the report of the inspectors to enable the opinions of this House and another place to be considered in the work which our United Nations representatives will do on a second resolution, should their be one, so that they may take into account the views of Parliament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the issue of a further debate, I am personally sympathetic to what the noble Baroness says. This is an important issue, as the whole House knows, but that matter will be decided in the normal way through the usual channels. As to whether or not I agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, yes, of course I agree with my right honourable friend. There has been only one week in which the full complement of inspectors has been available. In the time available, they have undertaken some 200 inspections—not in the past week, but in the whole time available.
We expect there to be a report on 27th January. That is specified in UNSCR 1441. However, UNSCR 1441 is not time limited, so greater time is not an issue, and there is no deadline on reports. A progress report must be made by that date, but further reports can of course be made.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the Iraq dossier the Prime Minister wrote:
"What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme"?
Has the Minister or the Government learnt anything from the United Nations inspectors in Iraq that corroborates the Prime Minister's belief?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the facts drawn together in the Iraq dossier to which the

127
noble and gallant Lord refers indicated a formidable set of circumstances. There was not one single fact which would automatically lead one to say that, as night follows day, there were weapons of mass destruction, but, none the less, the accumulation of facts was such that a powerful case was made.
From what Dr Blix said this morning on the radio, he believes that there has been evidence that Iraq has been importing weapons-related material in violation of the prohibitions placed on it by the Security Council. However, he went on to say:
"Whether the discovery of these items is related to weapons of mass destruction is a matter that still needs to be determined".
I hope that we will have further information on that on 27th January.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, is the Minister able to share the Government's response to the report presented to the United Nations Security Council last month, setting out the likely outcomes of military action for the Iraqi infrastructure? The report indicates the serious degradation of electricity supplies, with a knock-on effect on good water, food, health and sanitation. The report goes on to warn that a refugee migration is inevitable. Given the recent mobilisation of British forces to the Gulf, is the Minister able to give details of any contingency humanitarian plans the Government have in hand or in prospect?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are enormously aware of the problems that would arise from military action, not only through the serious degradation of infrastructure, to which the right reverend prelate refers, but through the appalling loss of life that would occur in an overwhelmingly young population, a matter to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred last week. All these issues are important. Of course Her Majesty's Government must give thought to the serious consequences of taking military action, but we very much hope that there is still time to persuade Saddam Hussein that that will not be necessary if he complies with UNSCR 1441.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, can the House assume that American and British intelligence, with proper safeguards and through their governments, will now supply Mr Blix, as he requests, with the details of where the weapons of mass destruction are hidden in this enormous country? Will that request be granted? Does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House welcome the emphasis that the Prime Minister rightly put yesterday on both British interests in an early attack on Iraq and the linkages between rogue states and global terrorism generally? Does she agree that if ultimately we have to proceed under the authority of UNSCR 1441 without a further resolution, much more emphasis needs to placed on those elements and the case for an attack in order to reassure a confused and sceptical British public?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the British public are sceptical but, in the
128
interests of clarity, we must be careful about the direct links we make between terrorism and Iraq. Of course there are issues concerning rogue states and, as we have discussed before in your Lordships' House, there are issues about certain terrorist organisations which find safety and succour within Iraq. The noble Lord asked a specific question about intelligence. Consistent with our own security—by that I mean the security of our sources of intelligence as well as the security of our Armed Forces should there be a necessity for military conflict in the region—we try to make what we can available from our intelligence resources. I cannot give an absolute guarantee that all our intelligence goes to the inspectors. The noble Lord would not expect that—I hope he would not expect that. I hope that he will read very carefully what I said to my noble friend Lord Judd a moment ago.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Government appear to be advancing the proposition that, even if the Security Council does not wish action to be taken, the United States and this country will certainly consider, and probably take, action in order to enforce a resolution in circumstances in which the Security Council does not wish that resolution to be enforced. If that is the situation, perhaps we should be told. I should be grateful for my noble friend's comments.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have not said that. I hope that my noble friend will read what I said. What I have said before in your Lordships' House—and what my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said—is that, if possible, we would like to secure another Security Council resolution before any military action is taken. But my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in answering questions from the press yesterday, made it clear that it might not be possible to obtain such a Security Council resolution. In those circumstances, we would have to consider our position very carefully. I stress to my noble friend that it is our wish and our intention to pursue another Security Council resolution. That is the Government's position.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am afraid that we are well overdue now. We have had rather more than 10 minutes on this Question.

Equity Release Schemes
2.53p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to regulate and promote the development of equity release schemes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are giving the Financial Services Authority responsibility for regulating mortgage business, including mortgage-based equity release

129
arrangements. In August last year, the FSA published its consultation paper CP 146 setting out its approach to regulating mortgage sales, including lifetime mortgages, which is the FSA's term for regulated equity release mortgages. It is expected that regulation of lifetime and other mortgages will come into force in October 2004.
As for home reversions, we announced in the Green Paper on pensions that we would be looking at options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans. If we decide to regulate home reversions, the likely timescale would be a consultation later this year and we would then decide, on the basis of legal advice, whether secondary or primary legislation was necessary.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the announcement about regulation. It is important that at last we can lay to rest the home income plans scandals of the 1980s. Can the Minister confirm that regulation across the equity release product range will be clear and consistent? That will be very important for consumer confidence and for the industry itself. Does the Minister agree that the vast potential for most older people in releasing housing equity to increase their retirement income is not being met and that only a very narrow band of people benefit? What more can the Government do to promote equity release—for instance, through tax credits or by looking again at eligibility for means-tested benefits?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has read the consultation paper issued by the FSA. It promises a clear regulatory system in accordance with the Sandler report, which is in favour of simplified products and simplified sales processes. While recommending that report to her, perhaps I may commend the Age Concern document, published in July last year, on raising capital or income from your home. I found it excellent and very easy to understand.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it not right that in the good old days, when people called a spade a spade, home equity release plans were known by their true name—that is, second mortgages—and seen as a rather dangerous way of raising money? Since then, have not the Government taught people the lesson that if you change the name of a product you can make it appear much less harmful? That is why the Government like to call means testing "targeting", spending "investment" and benefits "credits". Is it not as a result of those practices that the second mortgage, now sanitised with its new name, is responsible for pushing up the level of household debt in this country as a percentage of household income to a higher level than ever before in recorded history?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, calls "the good old days" were the good old days of home income plans which,
130
in the absence of adequate financial regulation brought in by his government, caused great scandals. If the noble Lord had listened to Angela Browning in the House of Commons today in an Adjournment debate on the subject, he would know how strongly she and other Conservative MPs feel about how badly the matter was resolved when his party was in power. As to changes of names, he should recognise that there is a difference between increasing an existing mortgage and some of the equity plans which apply whether or not there is a mortgage.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in principle there is no difference between home reversion plans—where, as he said, the Government are looking at options for creating a level playing field—and equity release and annuity schemes, which will definitely be regulated by the FSA from 2004? Given that under home reversion plans old people sell their homes outright, can we be assured that they will be treated in exactly the same way? Do the Government accept that, given the problems that pension funds now have, many old people will have to rely on their home for income in old age? Do the Government further accept that if that is not properly regulated, we risk another major misselling crisis, possibly on the scale of the pension misselling crisis of a few years ago?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear in my original Answer that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. It is an historical fact that because home reversion plans are sale and purchase arrangements rather than financial services, they are not included in the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act, but that does not mean that there should be any less protection for people who opt for home reversion plans. That is why I made it clear that we are looking at options to create a level playing field. We have to look at whether there is consumer detriment and at what should be the appropriate level of regulation. I am not saying that it will be exactly the same as for home equity plans, but the principle behind what the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said is entirely true.

Genetically Modified Organisms
3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they have put in place to involve the public in their proposed public debate on genetically modified organisms; and how they propose to evaluate the public's opinion at the conclusion of the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the public debate on GM issues is being managed by an independent steering board, which is drawing up proposals on the best way

131
to involve the public. It has begun with a series of discussion workshops to identify the questions and concerns that the public have on GM. The steering board will submit a final report on the debate to the Government by the end of June. The Government will then consider the report very carefully.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he accept that it is far from satisfactory that we are half way through the timetable proposed by Mrs Beckett for public debate and the public have not been involved at all? Will the Minister re-consider his phrase "independent steering board"—when the group includes the head of communications at DEFRA, who is in my view far from independent? Lastly, given that this matter is of intense importance to public health and to the environment in Britain, do not the public have the right to a far greater input than is currently planned by the Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the steering board has already set up a number of public workshops, and more are to be set up in the coming two or three months. There will, therefore, be a substantial opportunity for members of the public and organisations interested in this subject to give their views. As to the independence of the board, the chair was designated and was asked to run matters by the Government, but he had complete independence in terms of choosing the other members of the board. The communications director is there in order to ensure adequate communications. That does not indicate that the board is a government-controlled body.
As to additional activity, the Government are currently considering requests for additional resources. I think that we shall look favourably on that, but we have yet to make a final decision as to whether this exercise needs more resources. What the board al ready has in the pipeline is adequate public consultation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when the Government come to consider this subject, will they take account of the experience in America? Is my noble friend aware that a substantial proportion of food crops in America are genetically modified—a high proportion of the soya bean crop, for example, which is used in food? Is there any record of ill effects on human health, or have any agronomic or environmental problems arisen in America from the use of GM crops over a number of years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, public consultation is only part of the exercise in which the Government are engaged. We are examining the whole range of GM matters, not simply crops. Scientific and economic assessments are taking place. In that context, we shall look at the experience in other countries. The experience in the United States is that a high proportion of both soya and maize is genetically modified. GM proposals that have been licensed in the United States have clearly passed safety tests; there is,
132
therefore, no safety implication. On the issue of environmental damage, the jury is to some extent still out. That is the area being addressed by the current farm-scale trials in the UK, rather than the issue of human health. It is not yet clear what the balance will be in terms of the environmental impact.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the scale of the English countryside is so small, and its biodiversity is so great, that it requires far greater care than is needed, say, in the American prairies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, agricultural methods, topography and size of operation are different. The same considerations are necessary in relation to public health and environmental damage. There are two issues: first, whether there is direct environmental damage; and, secondly, how far—if in general the European public want to have a choice between GM and non-GM—the growth of GM crops within Europe might contaminate non-GM crops. That is one of the issues that we are addressing.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that bodies with different points of view on GM organisms are properly funded, so that their views can be put forward? Or do the Government intend to fund only their own point of view?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are funding the operation of the steering board to allow every point of view to come into play. We are funding neither pro-GM nor anti-GM groups, commercial or voluntary; we are allowing the debate to take place.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Carter, will the Minister confirm that in regard to GMOs not only have there been no reports of adverse health implications, but there is considerable evidence of the beneficial effect of GMOs in the production of medicines, and in particular of vaccines?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. In the medical field there have been substantial developments which depend on GM technology, some of which have been put to use.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the spirit of my noble friend's Question, which relates to public engagement. Is it not necessary for the Government to be a great deal more imaginative and to attempt to draw into this debate a much wider slice of the public? It is no good confining the debate to those who are already in the know. Surely we need to spend some money on producing the kind of materials that will reach out to a much greater part of the population if we are not to run into the usual argument that Parliament carries on its affairs over the heads of the public.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is exactly what this exercise is designed to do. We have produced materials

133
to present the arguments and the facts in an understandable and attractive way. The workshops and the various proposals for further activities proposed by the steering board are not based on the parti pris companies and lobby groups on either side of the argument; they are based on a more random selection of members of the public.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, just what is a public workshop? How many are there, or will there be, in this context; and how often will they meet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are currently nine public workshops and the steering board is about to begin a full roll-out of the programme. Roughly speaking, there might be 100 people at each workshop. But there are other activities besides the workshops and it is open to any individual or organisation to submit their views to the steering board and have them reflected in this process.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that crop trials are an important ingredient in this context? Why is this debate due to take place before the results of the crop trials become available?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the debate that we are stimulating relates to the issue of GM in all its contexts. The issue of the farm-scale trials is a relatively narrow aspect; namely, whether, on what basis, and under what regulation one might allow the commercialisation of particular crops. That is a specific question which requires a commercial-scale trial evaluation, the results of which will begin to come through in the next three months, with completion due to take place next year.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there has been a general failure on the part of the public to recognise that, in the past 20 years, genetic modification in the case of animals has led to one of the most important advances in our understanding of a whole range of medical issues such as cancer? Does he further agree that genetic modification holds huge prospects for parts of the world where people are starving, or are short of water? The modification of crops could lead to alleviation of the effects of drought and to an improvement in much-needed food sources in the under-developed world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that there are substantial potential advantages from certain forms of genetic modification. As I said, some have been demonstrated in the medical field. I accept, however, that there are significant public anxieties about how, and how far, we allow the commercial development of genetic modification in the provision of foodstuffs and its impact on the environment as a whole. Therefore, there is a valid and profound discussion to be had. The whole point of this public debate is to ensure that all points of view are considered and, we hope, to create a greater consensus. One of the difficulties is that
134
supporters of GM are gung-ho about its benefits, while opponents are equally doom-laden about its likely effects. We need to attempt to find an area where the point of view of each side can be taken into account and be recognised, and where there is a rational basis for going forward.

Schools: Literacy and Numeracy Strategies
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes are being made to the literacy and numeracy strategies in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, there are no substantive changes to the core literacy and numeracy strategy. We will continue to develop and to raise standards. We will intensify support to schools, examine further the success of phonics teaching in the light of good practice, and introduce a major new leadership programme for primary head teachers. Our literacy and numeracy strategies will be at the centre of our over-arching strategy for improving teaching and learning within a broad and enriched curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but her colleague Mr Stephen Twigg in another place did, in fact, announce changes to the literacy and numeracy strategy. Why are the Government so prescriptive? Why can they not leave the best schools and the best teachers to teach literacy and numeracy in the way they know best and at the time they believe appropriate, and instead concentrate their efforts on failing schools and teachers?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my honourable friend Mr Stephen Twigg announced that we would appoint a national primary strategy director and bring together the field forces. The Question that I answered was about the substantive changes in schools. There will not be substantive changes. We believe that the numeracy and literacy strategies have been successful.
As for prescription, the results speak for themselves. The literacy and numeracy strategies were based on good work undertaken by teachers and developed to enable other schools to benefit from that good practice. The results have been good. We will continue to build on that work and enable schools to develop the strategies in the way that best suits them and their pupils.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, do the Government's strategies in this area include the use of broadband communication? In the rural and upland areas of Scotland and northern England, access to broadband looks as if it is a long way off. That must include schools. Will any financial help be given to small

135
communities not big enough to influence BT and other companies to produce broadband? How will schools in those areas produce the strategies referred to by the Minister without access to broadband?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, broadband is an important part of the ICT strategy in the department. It will be important as we develop Curriculum Online to ensure that schools can access broadband. That is part of a strategy towards which we shall move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Ofsted, in recent reports, said that numeracy and literacy strategies work best and achievements are highest when teachers combine them within the general curriculum? Why, therefore, do the Government continue to pursue the strategies as independent programmes rather than encourage teachers to broaden out and do what they want and so bring the strategies within the curriculum?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that I partly addressed that question in my Answer. We believe that there is one primary school curriculum: it is an enriched curriculum. It is very important, as the noble Baroness said, that we build on the success in the primary schools that have strengthened and developed the literacy and numeracy strategies right across the curriculum. It is our wish to build on the best and to ensure that all schools are involved.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the Minister talked about leadership programmes for primary head teachers. What do those programmes consist of? What would be the cost of funding them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my honourable friend Mr Twigg is holding conferences with primary head teachers. The ambition within the Government is to ensure that primary head teachers have the opportunity to develop leadership skills. I do not have the figures before me. I will write to the noble Lord. I can tell him that this year we have made available £42 million to support head teachers in providing booster classes for children. We have made available a further £11 million to enable local education authorities to develop the kind of workshops that will support classroom assistants and enable schools to have booster classes and teaching within the Easter period if they so wish.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, in today's world, literacy includes foreign language literacy? Given that, and the considerable shortage of teachers in this area, does she agree that the BBC's approach to producing help with online curriculum studies is a plus rather than, as some people think, a minus?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Department for Education and Skills has been
136
involved with the BBC in determining the proposals that have come forward. We have been supportive of the work that my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell has done with the BBC in Curriculum Online. Having said that, we recognise that many companies and organisations make an enormous contribution and will continue to do so as we progress. We believe that, with Curriculum Online, we will be able to provide opportunities for teachers to have greater teaching materials and for students to access the kind of high-quality and, dare I say, exciting teaching materials that will enhance their skills in English, other languages and other subjects.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister said that there would be more exploration of phonics teaching. Until a greater proportion of teacher training deals with phonics teaching, that progress cannot be made. Are there any plans to beef up the proportion of phonics teaching for teachers in teacher training?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in the next few weeks, the department will be looking at bringing together experts on phonics to help to examine how best we might develop a more supportive framework for those in teacher training and teachers themselves. I can tell the noble Baroness that, in the next financial year, we are supporting year 3 teachers, in particular, in attending training on phonics. We think that year 3 is the right point to focus on at this time. I shall come to the House and talk further about our phonics strategy as it develops. The noble Baroness's point is well made.

Equality Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of age, gender reassignment, religion or belief or sexual orientation; to make new provision with respect to discrimination on the grounds of disability, race or sex; to make provision making it unlawful to harass or victimise another person on any of those grounds; to make provision facilitating progress towards the achievement of equality as between persons of certain descriptions; to establish and provide for the functions of the Equality Commission for Great Britain; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 19) be agreed to. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the

137
committee's recommendation would be to approve the publication, from autumn 2004, of information relating to Members' expenses in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information, which would be published annually thereafter, would set out the aggregate expenses claimed by each Member during the year. Those figures would be calculated by the Accountant's Office on the basis of claims submitted by the Members. Similar information is already published by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand that similar conclusions have been reached in the House of Commons with regard to the publication of expenses claimed by Members of that House.
Legal advice considered by the House Committee suggests that the two Houses could not easily justify doing less than that in fulfilling their obligations under the Act. I should draw your Lordships' attention to one point in the report. Publication in autumn 2004 would include claims made in the three previous financial years—2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. The Act, which comes into effect on 1st January 2005, is fully retrospective, and, as the report states, data are retained by the Accountant's Office for three years with the agreement of the National Audit Office.
I do not think that I need to go into further detail at this point, although I shall do my best to answer any questions put to me. I believe that the method proposed by the committee will enable the House to present information on expenses to the public in a balanced, fair and comprehensive form. The alternative of requiring the House authorities to respond on a case-by-case basis to requests from the media or the public once the Act comes into force in January 2005 would be time-consuming and expensive.
Finally, I believe that this method of publication strikes the right balance between the rights of individual Members and the public interest, and that it will fully satisfy the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 19) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO MEMBERS' CLAIMS FOR EXPENSES
1. Earlier this year the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee twice considered the question whether information relating to claims for expenses submitted by Members would need to be disclosed when the rights of access to information held by public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 come into force on 1 January 2005; and whether the House should publish such information in advance of that date. The Committee has given further consideration to this question and now makes this report to the House.
Background
2. The Freedom of Information Act gives a general right of access to all types of recorded information held by public authorities and sets out exemptions from that right. The Act applies to both Houses of Parliament and specifically identifies them as public authorities.
3. As required by section 19 of the Act, the House has agreed a Publication Scheme setting out the classes of information which it publishes or intends to publish. The Scheme, which must be periodically reviewed under the Act, was itself published in November.
4. The Finance and Staff Sub-Committee took the view that disclosure of information relating to expenses was likely to be required from January 2005 and favoured publication of such information before that date. However, it did not. recommend that Members' expenses should be included in the initial Publication Scheme pending legal advice on the matter which had been sought by both Houses of Parliament.
5. Allowances claimed by Members of the Scottish Parliament are published in the annual report of the Parliament's Corporate Body in aggregate form, broken down by Member and by each allowance, in accordance with section 83 of the Scotland Act 1998. A Standing Order of the Northern Ireland Assembly provides for similar publication by that Assembly.
Legal Advice
6. Legal advice suggested that the House should publish, in aggregate form, the expenses claimed by each Member, broken down by the main categories of expenses, and that it could not easily justify doing less. It would still be open to individual Members to give notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 if they consider that the disclosure of the expenses claimed by them would, or would be likely to, cause them substantial damage or distress that would be unwarranted. Any such notice would be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that section.
Recommendations
7. The Committee makes the following recommendations:

(a) The House of Lords' Publication Scheme should be amended to include information relating to Members' expenses. This information should be published annually (related to financial years), broken down by the main categories of expenses available, namely: travelling expenses, day subsistence, night subsistence, secretarial etc. costs and the costs of the post-paid envelope scheme for correspondence on parliamentary business. Since travel costs vary widely, an indication should be given of the location of each Member's main residence.

(b) Details of expenditure on select committee and parliamentary delegation travel should be published separately.

(c) Details held by the House of claims for Financial Assistance to the Opposition parties and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers ("Cranborne money") should also be published.

(d) This information should be made available before the rights of access under the Freedom of Information Act come into force on 1 January 2005. It should be published in Autumn 2004, once all claims by Lords for the financial year 2003–04 have been submitted and paid. The House should also publish information in respect of the financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 because the Act is fully retrospective and records of expenses are retained in the Accountant's Office for a period of three years, as agreed by the National Audit Office.

The Committee understands that these recommendations are broadly in line with policy developed in the House of Commons.
8. Before Autumn 2004 the Committee will give further consideration to this matter. It will ensure that all Members are notified in person of the decision of the House and that they are given the opportunity to see in advance the data relating to their own claims. The Committee will also consider in detail the categories of expenses to be disclosed and the form in which the information should be published. The Committee will report further to the House as appropriate.
9. The Committee recognises the sensitivity of these recommendations. We strongly believe that, since public funds are involved, accountability and transparency are necessary in this area. Our recommendations strike the correct balance between the rights of individual Members of the House and the public interest, and they are necessary to ensure compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have a slight feeling that I handed a hospital pass to my noble successor in the first meeting of the House Committee, but clearly the committee has done well and made some progress, on which I congratulate it. It is quite clear—as it was to the old Offices Committee, that terrible machine which we managed to get rid of—that it is necessary for us to be open about the question of expenses because we are spending taxpayers' money.
I have just one question for the noble Lord which has crept in since he took over from me. Paragraph 7(b) of the report, on page 2, states:
"Details of expenditure on select committee and parliamentary delegation travel should be published separately".
Is that to be done against individual Members? If so, I think that it should be made clear that they are operating on behalf of the House and not on their own behalf.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is in order to raise another point at this stage, but I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees for clarification on Paragraph 8. The paragraph states:
"Before Autumn 2004 the Committee will give further consideration to this matter".
It goes on to say:
"The Committee will also consider in detail the categories of expenses to be disclosed and the form in which the information should be published".
Finally, it states:
"The Committee will report further to the House as appropriate".
Does the Chairman of Committees envisage that a further report will be made to the House before autumn 2004 and that the House will have a chance to discuss it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Geddes has started the ball rolling with questions to the Chairman of Committees, I have a question of my own. As I understand it, the recommendations before us are to publish details of Members' expenses by the headings—this is the important point—to which they relate: daily, overnight, secretarial and so on. As this is to be a published document, it is inconceivable that the press will not occasionally make use of it, no doubt annually in the autumn when, as the noble Lord said, it is published. That would not matter if all noble Lords were treated equally, so that a fair comparison of individuals could be made. However, I find it hard to believe that the press will not print expenses in a global fashion, rather than by heading of expense to which I have just referred, and so produce a batting order of Members' costs.
If that were done fairly, it is clearly in the public interest that daily, overnight and secretarial expenses are revealed and a fair batting order could be obtained.
140
Surely, however, it will be skewed by the inclusion of travel expenses. A noble Lord residing in Northern Ireland or the north of Scotland, for example, will certainly claim more than a noble Lord living, for example, in Nottinghamshire or the Midlands. It is a truism that for any given number of days, the further away from Westminster one lives the more one will claim. We immediately see a built-in unfairness.
It is true that the Committee intends that an indication of where Members live will be given. I have no idea whether the press will use that information, but it raises another point. How detailed will the indication be? There could be security implications in this for many noble Lords. If the Chairman of Committees could answer those points, I for one would be considerably happier.
Lord Roper:My Lords, we on these Benches are broadly in favour of the proposals. However, I should like to reiterate one point that has been raised. In publishing this information, will there be reference to the number of days on which individual peers attended?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees could deal with one or two points. First, what exactly is the purpose of this? Who is going to make use of the divulged information other than the press who go round ferreting in order perhaps to make trouble? Secondly, will noble Lords at the top of the list as the greatest attenders and drawing the greatest expenses emerge as good people and good followers of the second Chamber in so far as they have attended regularly, or will they go down as baddies who have attended as otter as they can in order to collect their expenses?
The Chairman of Committees: If I may, my Lords, I shall answer the last question from the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, first. We are obliged by the Freedom of Information Act to publish this information whether it be for the benefit of the press or the public. I do not intend, nor is it my role, to comment on the merits or otherwise of the Freedom of Information Act. If the noble Earl does not like the Freedom of Information Act, he should not have allowed it to be passed. As to whether those who attend most days are goodies or baddies, I must leave that to others to judge. It is certainly not a matter for me.
I turn to the more substantial points. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—to whom I am grateful, I think, for his work in starting this process—asked how the expenditure of Select Committee and parliamentary delegation travel would be eventually published. That has not yet been decided, but we have quite a long time further to refine the details.
I think that that also answers the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. As the report says,
"The Committee will report further to the House as appropriate",
on further matters of detail. The report also says that, before this information is published, noble Lords will be shown what will be published about them, If the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, looks at the last sentence in Paragraph 8, he will see it says that,
"The Committee will report further to the House as appropriate".

141
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, travel will indeed be itemised separately, as all the headings are going to be. It is suggested that an indication should be given of the location of each Member's main residence. The suggestion was made because those living in the outer Hebrides, for example, might claim 10 times as much in travel expenses as those, for example, living in Surrey. We hope that the press will not leap on that difference and say that it is outrageous, but genuinely understand the reason for some travel expenses being that much more. It will not be compulsory to publish the location of one's main residence, and I appreciate that some noble Lords feel quite strongly about that. The location would, however, be given only by county, or perhaps by region, and certainly not in further detail than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked whether the number of days that noble Lords attended would be included in the figures. As those figures are already published, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be included in the table produced.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the noble Lord quite rightly referred me to the last, short sentence of Paragraph 8. I became confused by the words "as appropriate". It could be interpreted either as "the committee will report if it feels that it is appropriate", or as "the committee will, willy-nilly, report on whatever happens to be appropriate". Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten us on that.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I think that it is fairly obviously the second one—if there are matters on which it is appropriate to report, they will be reported. The scheme will not come into force for 18 months. We can use that time to refine the details.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Chairman of Committees said that the different categories of expense, including travel, will be itemised. Will that include the means of travel, whether that be air, car, bicycle or bus?
The Chairman of Committees: No, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Labour Markets
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond rose to call attention to the flexibility of European labour markets in the light of the report of the European Union Select Committee Working in Europe: Access for all (Session 2001–02, 15th Report, HL 88); and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I commend to the House the report by the Select Committee on the European Union on European labour markets. It is rather unfortunate that it has taken such a long time to bring the debate before your Lordships' House—11 months, to be exact. Nevertheless, it remains an
142
important and relevant report. It is wide-ranging, and touches on the work of a number of Government departments, principally the Departments for Education and Skills and for Work and Pensions, but also the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Health, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue.
I am grateful to Professor Roger Vickerman, our specialist adviser, who drew on his considerable expertise to guide us through the many different aspects of policies that are affected by the desire to increase the flexibility of labour markets. I should also like to thank most sincerely Dr. Richard McLean, our Clerk, who has moved on to other areas of work in the EU committee structure, and Dr. Valsamis Mitsilegas, our legal adviser, who is thankfully still with us. They gave us invaluable assistance.
The wording of today's Motion has deliberately been chosen so as to allow a wide debate that covers the economic impact of flexible labour markets as well as the educational and social issues, on which the report primarily focuses.
As Members will be aware, the Treasury's second test for UK entry to the euro is,
"whether there is enough flexibility to cope with economic change"—
and a key component of the test is the flexibility of labour markets. The test asks whether, if problems emerge, the economy is sufficiently flexible to deal with them. In particular, the Treasury is assessing whether labour markets can respond flexibly to skill shortages and unemployment in either areas or sectors, and thereby sustain economic growth.
We were not attempting to mirror this wide test on the flexibility of the economy, or to pre-empt the important work of the Treasury. Rather, our inquiry focused specifically on the flexibility of European labour markets and was based on a Commission communication on New European Labour Markets, Open to All, with Access for All, which was submitted to the Stockholm European Council in March 2001.
The committee concluded that it is important to work towards removing inefficiencies within labour markets, thereby making them more flexible, so that they are able to respond quickly to these changing times, when we have so many changes in technologies and demand.
There are various ways in which labour markets can be flexible, such as being flexible about wages or working patterns. The committee therefore questioned what the best way was of achieving flexibility in labour markets. The inquiry focused in particular on two forms of flexibility: occupational or skill mobility, enabling workers to be flexible about what work they do; and geographical mobility, enabling workers to be flexible about where they work.
On the first of these, the Committee wholly supported the Commission's objective of improving skills and thereby attaining higher occupational mobility. Indeed, the committee called on the Government to come up with additional policies in order to achieve an increase in the skill level of workers. I will return to these shortly.
On geographical mobility, which was the second form of flexibility examined during the inquiry, the committee concluded that,
"a degree of geographical mobility is desirable for European labour markets to work efficiently and thus for the economy to be prosperous".
People who wish to move for work should not be prevented from doing so.
The principle that, as a single market, the European Union should comprise an area without internal frontiers, is long-established. One of the Community's key objectives is the abolition of obstacles to freedom of movement for workers and services between member states. Furthermore, free movement within the Union is a right of EU citizens, added by the Maastricht Treaty and reiterated recently in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. While a number of steps have been taken to secure the free movement of workers, it is clear that barriers inhibiting their mobility still remain. The committee therefore considered that securing the right of freedom of movement through the removal of barriers is essential.
The committee analysed several different barriers to movement that still exist in Europe and made recommendations as to how these might be eliminated, and I shall return to these in a minute. However, the committee received no evidence of the number of people who currently want to move, but are frustrated from doing so. The committee therefore questioned the need for policies whose objective is to increase the aggregate level of geographical mobility in Europe. The aim should be to provide a framework within which those who wish to move can do so easily and not to increase geographical mobility for its own sake.
There is a complete lack of evidence on the factors influencing people not to move. The extent to which geographical mobility is artificially restricted by barriers is not known. It is not clear whether the low levels of mobility observed are an expression of individuals' general reluctance to move or of their inability to do so because of barriers. The committee was extremely concerned that policy is being drafted despite the absence of significant statistical information in this area. We strongly believe that the Commission and member states should invest in research in order to be able to judge effectively to what extent geographical mobility is an important factor in the development of flexible European labour markets.
The Government response frequently acknowledges the limited amount of research on migration patterns within the EU and on the reasons why individuals decide not to move. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, the then Chairman of the Select Committee, on 16th May 2002, Margaret Hodge said that the Government had noted the committee's concerns in this area and were,
"considering raising the issue about research with the Commission",
as the Government felt that the Commission was best placed to undertake an EU-wide survey.
144
I therefore ask the Minister what representations the Government have made to the Commission on this issue. Are they putting pressure on the Commission to initiate such research? Until we know the reasons why few people move between member states for work, governments cannot sensibly draft policies.
We examined several of the potential barriers to people's geographic mobility. We looked at the economic and administrative barriers, such as the difficulties people face trying to understand different systems of housing, taxation, pensions and social security. It is important to increase understanding of these issues so that people understand their rights. The committee recommends that basic information on such rights should be freely available to all as part of a publicly-provided service, and hopes that the Commission further develops its website in this way.
We found clear evidence that the lack of mutual recognition of qualifications is a barrier to individuals and employers. The committee welcomes the Commission's intention to propose a simplified, more uniform, transparent and flexible regime of recognition for vocational qualifications in the regulated professions. However, as the committee is concerned that the benefits of mobility to the individual should be available to all groups in society, initiatives should be encouraged concerning the mutual recognition of qualifications in non-regulated professional and other vocational skills, in order to ensure the removal of barriers for all. The committee is also in favour of the Commission developing art overarching transparent framework for the assessment and recognition of non-formal and informal learning. Could the Minister please update us on the work of the European forum on the transparency of vocational qualifications?
The committee agrees with the Commission that a lack of language skills represents a significant barrier for those considering geographical mobility. The UK record here is appalling and shameful. Yet still the Government are not doing enough to rectify the problem of our poor ability to speak foreign languages. The Government's announcement just before Christmas on the teaching of foreign languages in schools is very disappointing. The leaching of the first foreign language to all pupils should start from age eight at the latest. An entitlement to some teaching, perhaps to be administered by someone with no teaching qualification, is not enough. Furthermore, we consider that it should remain a statutory requirement for all pupils to continue studying a foreign language until the age of 16.
I turn now to occupational or skill mobility. The globalisation of markets, industrial change and the unprecedented rate of technological innovation are producing rapid changes in the types of skills that are considered valuable and relevant in the labour markets. As a consequence, an increasing number of people may have to adapt to a change of job or career, involving different skills, during their working life. It is vital that people are equipped with the skills to adapt to these changes.
A workforce that has high levels of skill mobility can adapt to labour market shocks more easily and respond to increasing unemployment in one sector by moving to another. Conversely, a low level of occupational mobility constrains the ability to fill job vacancies. Moreover, the CBI ranked skills among "the most important areas" for creating open, flexible labour markets.
I welcome the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council and the national Skills for Life strategy. These are encouraging developments. However, they are also much needed developments and are still at an early stage. The CBI maintained that, while the Government had improved the situations in schools, they had done little to address the needs of the older workforce. The CBI warned that the size of this problem should not be underestimated. Based on the findings of the working group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, the CBI said that in the UK 20 per cent of the workforce are functionally innumerate or illiterate. This is an appalling figure and is by far the highest in Europe. We cannot just address the UK's skills problems overnight. They are very difficult issues that will require a lot of time and probably a lot of money. The upskilling of the workforce must be an urgent priority for the UK. In order to increase occupational mobility and fill the identified skill gaps, the teaching of basic skills has to be coupled with the provision of lifelong learning. The committee supports the targeting of lifelong learning and training initiatives at third country nationals, women and older workers.
Yet, as the Government acknowledge in their written response to our report:
"little progress has been made across the EU to turn lifelong learning into a daily reality for most adults".
There is a consensus, shared by the Government, experts, the TUC and the CBI, on the need to raise the skills of the UK workforce. There is a particular need to address poor basic skills of literacy and numeracy. Will the Minister tell us if the Government are planning to introduce a statutory right to time off for training to tackle the problem?
I very much look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and I commend the report to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I welcome the debate, which the committee's members have long awaited. I place on record my congratulations and thanks to the chair of the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for her patient, kind, but firm guidance of what was, on occasions, her wayward group of Peers.
The report concentrates on the major barriers to labour force mobility within the European Union. We started from the agreed premise of the importance of the issue for workers in the UK and the need to equip them with the skills necessary to compete in the European labour market. Whether we like it or not—
146
and personally I do—we are part of the European Union and therefore we have to consider the position of our workforce within the Union. As has been said and as the TUC pointed out in its evidence to the committee, the right to move and work within the European Union is a fundamental right of EU citizens.
We cannot mention today all the findings of the report, so ably highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I want to concentrate on what for me are the key issues. First, I want to consider how to establish skills across various workplaces. The need for increasing numeracy and literacy skills became ever more obvious as we gathered evidence for the report.
Over recent decades the labour market has changed substantially. More women have entered that market, the flexibility of working patterns has increased and information technology has changed working lives beyond all recognition in many areas. Workforces and their skills training have to improve.
We are talking about encouraging employees to gain basic and fundamental skills, but also about employers assisting in the task. That involves all citizens, regardless of age. Consideration must be given to expanding skills training to the newer entrants to the labour market, such as women, and to third country nationals, and to the retention and reskilling where necessary of older workers whose knowledge gained during their working lives is invaluable to a country's wellbeing. Basic skills are vital for increasing choices for workers, but alongside these we have to consider providing and improving academic skills and vocational skills as well as recognising the skills picked up through life which can be such an asset in a workplace.
I am mindful here of the undervaluing of women's skills which have arisen from bringing up and playing a pivotal role in a family. These include the organisational skills developed in ensuring that the family get to the workplace and/or to the school, on time; the financial skills gained by juggling the family budget, which is often still left to the female partner or the single parent; and the skills of dealing with people, gained by stopping siblings arguing and creating harmony in the family. These are all instances of what I am talking about.
Closely associated with these foundation skills is the question of language skills. As we continued our work in the sub-committee, it became ever more evident that language was undoubtedly a barrier to the movement of workers within the European Union. As the TUC said in its evidence, while English is widely taught and spoken as an additional language throughout the world, the language skills of the indigenous British workforce remain poor. This reduces significantly the scope for such workers to seek employment in non-English-speaking countries. I am afraid that in some quarters the myth remains that if we, the English, shout loud enough, we can make ourselves understood. I shall give a little anecdote. Some years ago, I went on a trip to Spain. On the first morning in the hotel, I came across two of our party bellowing at

147
one of the waitresses, "Where is the local market?". On receiving no response, one turned to the other and said, "Ridiculous. She doesn't appear to understand English.".
Matters have improved somewhat, but there is still a large language gap. That became increasingly clear as witnesses gave evidence. The committee feels very strongly that the Government should concentrate urgently on remedying that situation. The fear arose in our discussions, based on elements of the educational Green Paper, that the Government might be travelling in the opposite direction to that we had hoped. I ask the Minister to bring us up to date with the Government's thinking.
We recognise that some employers provide language training, for which they should be praised. Rather than a hit-and-miss approach, however, we feel that it should be part of the scheme for lifelong learning. We also feel very strongly that it should not be up to employees to use their own free time for such learning. Competent basic language skills would also help employers.
The question of mutual recognition of qualifications arose frequently in our deliberations. It was obvious from the evidence we received that the lack of such recognition proves a barrier to both individual workers and employers. The CBI, in its evidence, recognised that the question had been under consideration for a long time without a solution, but it believes, as does the TUC, that it must be overcome if workers are to be able to move within the EU effectively.
The CBI points out that employers remain unfamiliar with foreign qualifications. It would like to see a system that is able to,
"read across each EU country",
and relate to all qualifications including a degree and professional qualifications. It would be interesting to hear from my noble friend any ideas that the Government have about the mutual recognition of qualifications.
Obviously, as a former trade union official, the question of workers' rights was high in my mind during our considerations. As has been pointed out, they differ from country to country. If there is to be true mobility and access to employment, far more consideration of that problem is needed. The TUC pointed out in its evidence the difficulties that workers face in understanding employment contracts when moving to another country and finding on arrival that the terms and conditions are not what they expected. The workers involved frequently lack both the knowledge and language skills to enforce their basic rights.
Workers' rights cover many areas, such as pensions, health service provision and better information on taxation. Especially needed are full details of taxation liability. The subject exercises the minds of both sides of industry. The CBI confirmed,
"that the current social security and pensions regulations also proved to be a burden for firms, especially smaller firms".
148
Various proposals were made during the taking of evidence as to how some solutions could be reached. I ask the Minister what the Government's reaction would be to a social security card system. It might simplify procedures without changing existing rights and obligations.
My final subject is the obvious difficulty we face in gathering our evidence on mobility of the workforce, which is vitally important to us. That difficulty is a lack—I would go so far as to say a drastic lack—of information available, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who outlined proposals on the matter. The sub-committee became increasingly concerned about lack of information. I await with interest the Minister's response to those proposals. We believe that they could help to encourage more mobility and therefore flexibility for both EU employers and employees.
There is much more in the report than the issues I have raised. It deals with housing, children's education and providing assistance to the partners of those planning to move so that they can find employment too. However, the issues to which I have drawn attention—skills and qualifications, the mutual recognition of those skills, the importance of language and its teaching, the co-ordination of workers' rights, and the increase of information about mobility—are linked. I look forward to my noble friend's response.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, I welcome the debate, because of the importance of the subject and the excellence of the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and her committee. I have an extra reason for welcoming the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is that, when I was the Member of Parliament for Richmond, she was a distinguished constituent of mine.
The report points out the low levels of mobility in the European Union, and also that there is no evidence as to the extent to which that is caused by barriers to mobility as opposed to other factors. None the less, it is clearly desirable that whatever barriers there are should be removed. Therefore, I very much welcome what is said in the report about mutual recognition of qualifications, the lack of language skills, the importance of improving people's knowledge of their rights and, with regard to occupational mobility, what is said about lifelong learning.
Perhaps the most important statement in the report is about putting geographical mobility of labour into its proper context. Paragraph 26 states:
"When looking at ways to improve the efficiency of labour markets, it is widely recognised that geographical mobility should not be considered in isolation. The Commission's Communication points out that occupational (or skill) mobility should be considered as equally important … The CBI went further and in a report identified six forms of flexibility, of which geographical mobility was one. The others were: flexibility in working patterns [hours flexibility]; wage flexibility [pay]; skills flexibility; numerical flexibility [such as limited by employment protection legislation]; functional flexibility or internal flexibility [how much people are moving within jobs or within the organisation]".

149
Continuing with the subject of rotation:
"They found that 'the overall level of flexibility' of labour markets, rather than any single dimension, was important".
In paragraph 186, the committee said:
"The Committee appreciates that it is important to work towards removing inefficiencies within labour markets, so that they are able to respond quickly to changes in demand. Yet increasing geographical mobility is only one means of improving the flexibility of labour markets, and improving flexibility by other means … can reduce the need for geographical mobility".
That being the case, I very much welcome the fact that the debate is stated to be about the flexibility of labour markets more broadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, pointed out, and not just about the mobility of labour. The point that I want to stress is that there is a clear and strong relationship between the introduction of the euro and the flexibility of labour markets.
One can say that there have been three phases in the results of the introduction of the euro. The first phase was the preparation for the introduction, with the need for those who wished to participate in the euro to conform to the Maastricht criteria, which were essentially criteria about introducing sound finance where it had not previously existed. That meant changing countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece from having high inflation and high budget deficits into following sound financial policies. That was a remarkable and beneficial transformation over a wide part of the European Union.
The second phase in the introduction of the euro occurred when the euro was actually introduced; I refer not simply to the movement to notes and coins but to the period before then, when the euro was introduced as a virtual currency. We then saw corporate restructuring because, as a result of the removal of the exchange rate risk, we saw a great bout of mergers and acquisitions in the European Union and the massive explosion of the corporate bond market—the growth of corporate bonds across the EU. There was also reorganisation within companies of distribution arrangements because it was no longer necessary to have distribution arrangements in penny packets because of the risk of exchange rate changes. All of that is beneficial, although the full benefit takes a long time to come forward, as we found in relation to the changes in the early 1980s in this country.
The third phase in terms of the results and consequences of the introduction of the euro is only just starting. It involves economic restructuring and in particular moves towards labour market flexibility, which is the subject of this debate. The relationship between the introduction of the euro and the gradual start of much-needed economic restructuring, including labour market flexibility involves the introduction of the euro and removes and prevents the possibility of soft—
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am most grateful. If I have interrupted a sentence, I am more than happy to wait until it has been completed.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Go on.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, it may be relevant at this point that on two occasions, when we were taking evidence from witnesses on these matters, I raised the question of the euro and Britain's membership of it and was told that that was not relevant to the matters that we were discussing. The witnesses were unable to answer.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, that is why it is so beneficial that this debate is not just about the report but also about the flexibility of labour markets more generally. I welcome the fact that if the committee was constrained, the House is liberated.
I was going to say that the third phase of the evolution of the euro is economic restructuring and in particular moves to labour market flexibility. That came about because the creation of the euro has removed the soft options that governments of all political complexions are tempted to follow when they get into difficulties. I refer to soft options such as devaluation, which governments cannot pursue because there is a currency for the whole of Europe, not for any one country. Another soft option is that of artificially low interest rates and exactly the same reason applies—there is one interest rate for the whole of Europe. The result is that countries are gradually but increasingly being forced to face up to fundamental structural problems such as the inflexibility of labour markets. Such problems are painful to deal with but it is essential to do so if European competitiveness is to increase.
The stability and growth pact plays a positive role in this regard. I add in parenthesis that I fully support the modifications of that pact that were proposed by the UK Government and the Commission to take account of the full economic cycle and to distinguish between capital and current expenditure. The main thrust of the pact is wholly positive. In this country, governments of both major parties learned very painfully that you cannot spend your way out of recession. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, was the first major British leader who said so and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, reinforced that approach, in word and deed, in spades. Commissioner Pedro Solbes, who was the economics Minister in the Spanish socialist government, did so recently in the call for Germany to put its finances in order. He said:
"Sound public finances are a condition for durable growth and rising employment".
By insisting on that—by removing the alibis that otherwise might be resorted to and the drugs of inflationary finance and devaluation—the single currency and the stability pact are proving to be the greatest possible spur to structural reform, including increased flexibility of labour markets. A vivid example of that is being played out in Germany today. Far from the euro being the cause of Germany's problems, it may be the single greatest spur to its solution.

151
As has been pointed out in recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times by two prominent Liberal Democrat MEPs, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, real interest rates in Germany are at the lowest level since 1980 and are substantially below the level that obtained in several periods when there was more spare capacity in the German economy than there is now. It is probable therefore that if the Bundesbank was still in charge, interest rates in Germany would have been higher, not lower, than they are today. There is no justification for making the euro the scapegoat for Germany's problems. The real problem is that instead of using a period of strong growth to put public finances in order and to introduce labour market flexibility and other changes, Germany introduced cumulative tax cuts and public spending increases, which amounted in total to 1.9 per cent of GDP. That failure to deal with structural issues, such as the lack of labour market flexibility, is the real cause of Germany's problems.
It is significant that when telling Germany that it must curb its excessive budget deficit, as the Commission has just done, what else did it say? It told Germany to introduce,
"far reaching structural reforms to raise Germany's low growth potential".
That, in the Commission's view, should include liberalisation of Germany's sclerotic labour market, reform of the overburdened social security and benefits system and a radical reduction in the layers of red tape imposed on German businesses by federal and regional governments. That is what the European Commission is demanding. I believe that this is a seminal moment in the evolution of the euro.
I hope that the pressure of the stability pact and what has been said by the Commission will have a major impact on the debate in Germany. I hope that what has been done will make it clearer to those who rightly deplore the rigidity of labour markets in continental Europe that it is the impact of the euro and the rules associated with it that are by far the most powerful force for genuine structural reform, where such reform is so sorely needed.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I start by saying that it is a great privilege to have served on the subcommittee that addressed these issues. I congratulate our excellent chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on guiding us with such sensitivity and clarity in our work.
I want to highlight a few points that struck me as being of extreme importance; many of them have already been mentioned in this debate. The first point, which has been mentioned, is that of the lack of information held by government authorities across government departments about what is possible and feasible in terms of flexibility of labour markets across the European Union. I refer also to the lack of information for individuals who wish to broaden their experience and travel, as they have a right to do, across different countries of the Union in the course of their working life.
152
It is awfully difficult if one's qualifications are not recognised. We seem to do much better in that regard with academic qualifications than with manual or professional vocational qualifications. Some of those difficulties are quite simple. We mean different things if we compare an engineer in Germany with one in Britain: a host of different meanings and various levels of qualifications are involved. We need to get that right. The issue is more important than it sounds. We need to get equivalence at many levels in relation to qualifications. That is particularly important in the caring, health and social care fields, such as child care, nursing and teaching. However, I believe that it is also important across the board.
Another issue that was highlighted for me was the importance of true portability of benefits, including pensions, across the Union. Much more work needs to be done along these lines, and it is important that the Government facilitate that work so that it can move along. We also need to remember the self-employed. Although we concentrated a great deal on what employers can and need to do in order to help their employees to be flexible and move across the Union, far less help seemed to be generated towards the self-employed.
I was very aware that we kept comparing what goes on in this country and Europe generally in terms of mobility—I am talking here mostly of geographical mobility—with what goes on in the United States. I accept that there is a big difference when everyone shares the culture. And, although there are huge differences between people in the United States because of their origins, it is one country and it has a common language. Mobility presents an enormous barrier and it will continue to do so, however well we achieve in language skills and so on.
However, we also have to accept that the level of geographical mobility in Europe, and, in particular, in this country, is too low for greater efficiency. That mobility needs to be increased and to become easier. In order for that to happen, we need to improve our language skills and our knowledge generally of the cultures of other countries in the Union.
The irony of the Government's announcement about the importance of language skills in secondary schools and about when they should begin is not lost on many members of the committee. I hope that, in some ways, the Government will address that issue because those conflicting announcements seem to be made at the wrong time. One topical way to make it easier for people to travel and to increase their mobility would be to use the international baccalaureate a little more than is currently the case in this country. That would ease the difficulties experienced by people.
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, in particular, we considered the role of lifelong learning and its current importance when the demographic picture across the Union is one of an ageing situation. We can take that situation as being of great benefit to all of us or a threat. If we are to treat it positively, we must make it easy for people to return

153
to the labour market and not so easy for them to leave it. Wherever they work in the Union, their skills and experience must be recognised. We must make it easier for them to travel and to gain the opportunity to continue working. Indeed, we must also encourage people to be retrained for new occupations in later life.
We also have to take seriously the difficulties that dual-career families face when they want to move. We should address what employers can do to help employees who are part of dual-career families and consider the opportunities available. The difficulties faced are partly due to a lack of information but it is also partly a case of making the opportunities for such families more trans-national across the Union. Those opportunities include schooling but they go wider than that. We must also address the question of how people with careers can travel so that they at least have the opportunity to live with their partner, husband or wife.
As mentioned by other speakers, the need for occupational as well as geographical mobility has highlighted the appalling level of basic skills in this country. If there is one priority, it is to get that right in terms of labour efficiency and flexibility here as well as across the Union.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I shall make some brief points on geographical mobility—brief partly because so many other points have already been so ably made and partly because my voice may not hold out.
All of us on the committee which produced this report appreciated the skill with which our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, guided us through some very surprisingly uncharted territory. Surprisingly uncharted because when one considers the founding of the European Community from its earliest days, free movement of labour was one of the cardinal principles of the single market and one of the first to be implemented. Yet when we took evidence for our inquiry all these decades afterwards, we could find virtually nothing to tell us how mobility of labour within the European Union works for the people who move, and not much to confirm its economic advantages, though common sense indicates there are many.
So the need for more research, as the noble Baroness said, is one of our key conclusions. It is of particular importance because when someone moves countries to take new employment, more than a job is at stake. A family will often move too. The culture and values of one community will be substituted for another. A community network will be left behind. Children's schools, and in our case the public examination system will be new; as has been said, healthcare, social security and tax will be different; even the weather might take some getting used to.
Fortunately, the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights can make a sort of bedrock of common values; but above that there are many pressure points, positive and negative, which it would be very helpful to know more about. What are the
154
reasons people do not move to work, when it would help their own economy as well as the wider one to do so?
When I was in the Employment Department, as it then was, the UK was famous for not having much of an internal mobile labour market. People would not get on their bikes. They would face unemployment or less attractive employment in order to remain close to their community and their extended family. It was the despair of the planners. But were these people so wrong? Is not the reliability, flexibility and cheapness of childcare provided by the extended family an advantage? Is not the company of friends worth balancing against a bigger income? Some disadvantages of moving can be compensated for: childcare arrangements, facilities for dependent relatives, ease of transport to visit back home and so on. But if we do not know what the key factors are, we cannot give relevant information about them and we cannot plan to accommodate them.
Information about the new workplace was another surprising gap. As has been said, we did not find systematic provision of information, nor a harmonised system of mutual recognition of qualifications, particularly at ancillary and skilled levels as opposed to professional and academic levels. We welcome, as does the CBI, the European Commission's intention to close this gap, and hope your Lordships' House will have an opportunity to look at the proposals. May I ask my noble friend more precisely what the state of play is on this draft directive?
When we looked at the part schools play in mobility decisions we saw two striking opportunities. One was in our schools, to provide the sort of information which meant that life in another member state was not such an unknown quantity, particularly again, not for those intending to work in professional and academic spheres, who already have more access to such information, but for precisely the people who could take advantage of particular skill or labour shortages. As Professor Christoph Schmidt of Heidelberg University told us:
"the attitude towards Europe as a whole or the European Union is shaped very much early on in school age … would be scope for improving knowledge and acceptance in European countries for the idea of being a member of a larger common Europe".
The other striking opportunity was the possibility of mutual recognition of public education examinations. The barrier to mobility most consistently cited was anxiety about the education of the children of the potential mobile worker. Children were at particular stages which should not be disturbed, they would have to face teaching in an unfamiliar language, they would not manage in a different public examination system, they would lose out when they returned home—all real and significant problems.
When we took evidence for this report, the Government had not completed their "Languages for All" strategy and so our recommendations have been overtaken by events—or perhaps, they even influenced events. However it came about, the Government's undertaking to give more stimulus to early learning of a foreign language, including our neighbour European

155
ones, is in keeping with the European High Level Skills and Mobility Task Force's recommendation that foreign language teaching should begin at eight and our recommendation, supported, as my noble friend Lady Gibson said, by the TUC evidence, that it should continue to 16. I echo the call to my noble friend the Minister to update us on progress in achievement of the strategy.
But finally, my Lords, there is a ready-made tool for making the lives of schoolchildren who move within Europe easier and more educationally rewarding—the adoption of the international baccalaureate, which is available in very few UK schools at the moment, but is consonant with all the continental public examination systems and acceptable as an entry to many universities in this country. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel asked, in his very timely debate a year ago why this could not be done—in his words,
"an 'international baccalaureate' … would enable school leavers to go to university or into the job market with an educational qualification—including that of foreign languages which would allow them to choose where in the European Union they want to work and live".—[Official Report, 16/1/02; col. 1117.]
He did not, I am sorry to say, receive an answer from the Government. Perhaps we could have one now. I commend this report to your Lordships.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is an interesting report, although in some ways the debate is more interesting, despite the lack of an official contribution from the Liberal Benches. My noble friend Lord Brittan of Spennithorne said that the committee was confined but that the House is liberated. I confess that I do not understand why the committee felt confined. This is an issue that needs to be put in the widest possible context, as some of the contributors have sought to do.
There is certainly no lack of documentation on this issue. In February 2001 the Commission adopted a new strategy for a new European labour market by 2005. In March 2001 there was the communication on which the noble Baroness's committee has commented. In June 2001 there was the establishment of a high-level task force and so on, and in February last year there was the publication of this report. I join those expressing some regret and surprise that the report has not been debated earlier. Inevitably, if one delays for a year, there is a possibility that matters may be overtaken by events.
That appears to be so because in July 2002, after the publication of the committee's report, the Government, through the Treasury, the DTI and the Department for Work and Pensions, published a good document entitled Towards Full Employment in the European Union. So far as I can see, that does not refer at all to the report of the committee, which is rather extraordinary. One would have expected that it would.
As has been pointed out, the report deals, on the one hand, with skills mobility and, on the other, with geographic mobility. In a sense the mobility in relation to skills is vertical and in relation to the location of jobs it is horizontal. As my noble friend Lord Brittan
156
pointed out, there is a clear link between the two and the extent to which there is geographical mobility may well depend on the extent to which a particular country's workforce has a degree of vertical or skill mobility.
There is much in the report with which one can agree, although to some extent parts of it express a view that is fairly apparent. Noble Lords have stressed the matter of education, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, particularly with regard to language. The committee rightly said that it found the situation in that regard appalling.
We are not simply talking about language in terms of tourists. The kind of training concerned here relates to the language skill that would enable someone from one country to work in another. A vastly greater level of language ability is required for that than if one simply wants to spend a weekend in Calais. I speak from experience, having spent much of my time in Holland. In regard to language I do not believe that many Dutchmen would have great trouble acquiring a job in this country, but I believe that a number of people in this country would have considerable trouble acquiring a job in Holland. I give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Does he also recognise that many people come to this country for a brief time as seasonal workers to pick a crop or to work in the catering or hotel industry? I support what he is saying—it is not quite the be all and end all that it may appear.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right. It is a matter of the level of skill. Working in the catering industry one can probably survive with relatively little English; it is another matter if one wants to work as a doctor in this country. Those two matters clearly interact, as a number of speakers have pointed out.
I believe we can all agree about the argument on qualifications, as mentioned in the report. It is unfortunate that someone who is equally as good at carrying out a particular job as someone else finds him or herself immobilised—that is the strict way of putting it—from acquiring such a job in another country because his or her qualifications are not accepted. Surely, that is an area in which the European Union can take a positive line, as the committee suggests. As the committee points out, it is true that the language side—I am a victim of the English educational system in that respect—is a real problem.
I turn to a point on which a great deal of time was spent in the committee, although it has not been referred to at all in the debate. It concerns whether one should have a benchmark for mobility and whether the United States could provide such a benchmark. I believe it was suggested that the level of mobility in the United States may provide a benchmark for the European Union. By and large the committee is sceptical about that—I understand its view—not least because any such comparison is pretty invalid given

157
the problem to which we have been referring, namely language. Given the level of immigration over the southern borders of the United States, on the whole it does not have a language problem in relation to mobility.
The committee makes an interesting point that the United States' market is somewhat different because in many places there is a kind of specialised local skill, say in silicon valley in California or wherever, that is not reflected to the same extent in the European Union. The committee was right to be sceptical about that matter. What I find more puzzling is the committee's very clear statement regarding lack of information about barriers to mobility. It categorically states that there is a need for greater study of that.
We are talking largely of geographical mobility. I have some experience in the study of that. A long while ago I was an economic adviser to Unilever. I had to look into the question of whether and where we should site a factory in Italy. I reached the conclusion—I was very young at the time—that it would be best situated in the southern part of Italy because that was an area of low labour costs. I returned to Milan and told them that that was the situation but that there would need to be a three-shift system of work. That was greeted with howls of laughter. It was pointed out that no lady in the southern part of Italy would be very happy if her husband was on the night shift. But, we have a lot of data—more than the committee says—about barriers to mobility.
The other point that I am not clear about is that the committee does not appear to have gone to any great lengths in academic circles to see what the literature says about barriers to mobility, although there is a large amount of academic study on these matters.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that our specialist adviser was recruited to do that very job? He looked everywhere. We certainly could have found out about professional and academic mobility to a degree, but not about lesser skilled mobility. So if the noble Lord has any sources it would greatly enlighten the House if he could produce them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am out of date. But even 20 years ago there was a degree of information on this issue. The committee draws attention to some of the barriers, which we have been debating today. It will not do any harm to get more information on those barriers. One or two particular barriers have been mentioned this afternoon; for example, problems as to housing, childcare or the existing structure of pensions. There is a range of fairly obvious barriers which inhibit geographical mobility, and certainly more work in that regard is needed. But it might have been worthwhile to have taken rather more specific evidence on this issue, given the powers which the committee has to send for persons and papers.
I wish to make one or two other points. I said at the beginning of my contribution that it was important for the study to be placed in the widest possible context. A huge change will be taking place in the European
158
Union with regard to immigration and to the extension of the Community to new countries. The same problems of language and disqualifications and so on will arise with regard to immigration, both legal and illegal and the extent to which those barriers affecting mobility within the previous size of the European Union will change. One has a slight feeling that to some extent immigrants to the European Union will be more mobile when moving from one country to another—and certainly that is suggested by the situation at the Channel ports and so on—than previously was the case, but the committee does not touch on that area.
There is also no discussion with regard to particular markets; for example, agriculture, where it is clear that the effect of the common agricultural policy, in terms of product markets, has a considerable impact.
Finally, there is the very important point made by my noble friend Lord Brittan as to the single currency issue. That matter is not touched on in the report. But the reality is that if one adopts a single currency over any given area—which area will vary a great deal with the accession of the new countries—it is apparent that mobility not only of labour but of factors of production generally are extremely important in the adoption of that currency. If there is the adoption of "one size fits all" interest rates, which are in existence in a large part of the European Union, although not of course in the United Kingdom, and if the factors of production are as immobile as this report clearly illustrates, there is a considerable transitional problem which may last a considerable time.
My noble friend Lord Brittan took an optimistic view that if one introduced a single currency, that is fine, everyone will adjust, Thatcherite-type deregulations will take place, and there will be nothing to worry about. The reality I believe is that, given the level of immobility suggested in the report, there will be a considerable period when those in the euro currency area will find that the stresses and strains are considerable. If, as a result of that, there is unemployment in one part of the European Union, it would obviously be greatly alleviated if the individuals concerned moved to another part. But, if they are, for whatever reason, immobilised, that unemployment is likely to remain for a considerable time before the immense but very strategic pressures, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, have the desirable longer-term effect.
None the less, this is an interesting report and we have had a fascinating debate. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, in particular in relation to his own government report which appears to deal with these issues but to be unaware of the committee's report. At least now the Government are aware of the report, and the debate has been very useful in that respect.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can certainly assure the House that the Government are well aware of the report. I shall seek to establish their awareness as I develop my speech in reply to the debate.

159
I am in a little difficulty—not a completely unpredictable difficulty—because I did say to my officials after the debate had been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that it might operate on more than one level. There was the possibility of it being substantially about the report and the issues contained in it and the advantages which we could derive from that substantial body of work, to which I pay tribute, but it might also be an occasion where a number of our well known colleagues rode their hobby-horses into the European debate as yet another opportunity to brief the Government on the great decision that lies ahead of us with regard to the euro and allied matters.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, rode a hobby-horse but a great white charger for his presentation and advocacy of the euro and its significance in the context of this debate. Of course he is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right to follow the position that the nature of the macro-economy is absolutely crucial to the question of the labour market and other price factors in the development of our economies and the general European position.
So I am in no way critical of the introduction of that dimension to the debate. I merely stress that inevitably, given the nature of that introduction based on the report from the Committee, most of my remarks are directed at that point. The noble Lord will forgive me if I resile from this wonderful opportunity to engage from the Government's perspective on the exciting opportunities that lie ahead in resolving this debate, which certainly exercises members of his party with great frequency, both in this House and in another place. It is also a matter for government as to the decisions to be taken about the economic tests and the eventual referendum, if one takes place, on the euro. Suffice it to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced that broader context to our debate. However, I shall primarily seek to respond to the other issues raised, predominantly by members of the committee.
I ask the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Brittan, this question. Is it not refreshing and a sign of changing times that we should have a debate about labour mobility, manpower, job opportunities and employment in which most of the participants in the debate are Baronesses rather than Lords? Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Gibson, emphasised that in today's labour market, women play such an increasingly significant part that one cannot approach the matter without recognising the need to attune to those changes. The increased employment of women is reflected right across Europe, although our country represents a significant example.
Let me emphasise—I suppose that I am reflecting the element of gentle criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—that a year has now gone by since the report, and things have consequently moved on. The Government are eager for work to develop in the context of the single market and the Lisbon agenda. The principle that the European Union should comprise an area without internal frontiers is long
160
established. As the noble Lord, Lord Brit tan, emphasised, we need the context in which that will be effectively advanced.
It is vital that we work to remove the clear obstacles to freedom of movement for workers and services between member states. The Government believe that if we are to achieve the Lisbon goals, we must concentrate both on removing the barriers to mobility—which have been so accurately identified in the report and today's debate—and on increasing the level and transferability of skills. Several contributions to the debate emphasised the necessity of improving skills, to which I shall turn in a moment.
The Government have placed the achievement of the Lisbon strategy at the heart of our European labour market policy. At the Spring Council in 2000, heads of government signed up to an ambitious objective for the EU, which is:
"to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the World by 2010, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion".
That is a significant objective to which to sign up— not least, as has been mentioned, because other markets of some significance, not least the United States, have some of the attendant advantages of a common language—or, perhaps increasingly, two languages—and a single state structure.
The European Union is aiming for an overall employment target of 70 per cent by 2010. That is a good measure of people's ability to engage in work and have valid skills for the job market. Let us not be too bashful about our achievements. The UK, alongside Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, already operates at that 70 per cent level of employment. We have met the target; more work needs to be done in other member states that fall considerably below it.
If Europe is serious about becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world we must equip our people with the skills and knowledge that the digital age demands. That is why UK Ministers argued vigorously for education ministers as well as employment ministers in the European Union to take seriously the role that education has to play in meeting the Lisbon goals. That is also why the Government are, as will be recognised throughout the House, making such major investments in education, training, skills and lifelong learning, all of which are geared to achievement, attainment and the effective equipping of our people with the requisite skills.
We are engaged in many of the areas raised in the report introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. We are working in partnership at the national level with the devolved administrations and at the EU level with our counterparts. Working groups have been established at EU level to take forward work in the areas of education and training. We have been urging the Commission and our European counterparts to adopt an approach that is practical, timely, flexible, non-bureaucratic and responsive to the needs of our citizens. We have taken the initiative by pioneering an innovative approach in the field of basic skills for adults.

161
The deficiencies in our society were rightly identified and should be recognised when there is such a high percentage of people who lack basic skills. In a sophisticated labour market, that significantly devalues their opportunities to engage in work and to contribute fully as citizens to their society. However, it was suggested that Britain was poorly placed in those terms—perhaps even uniquely so. That is not the case. Other European countries are as anxious as us—indeed, have every right to be more anxious than us—about that problem. Illiteracy and innumeracy are European-wide features. Other countries are desperately worried about that and, at times, have been only too keen to embrace the kind of strategies that we have been employing in the UK and apply them within their borders.
A few years ago, I recall attending a European meeting at which it was recognised that we in Britain had identified and taken the first significant steps to deal with what is a problem that goes back for generations—certainly decades. It was recognised that Britain was in the lead, first, in having analysed the issue and, secondly, in pursuing strategies to cope with it. I do not decry the significance of the role that we must play in improving basic skill levels; I am merely saying that we ought not to hide our light under a bushel. We should not suggest that the problem is unique to Britain—it is certainly not; it is one that we all need to tackle.
We should also recognise that a considerable amount of work has been done to improve movement of skilled people between countries. It is true that that tends to be at the higher levels of qualification, for all the reasons accurately identified in the debate, but we are also all too well aware that our health service—at high levels but also at some more basic levels—is dependent on significant contributions from those here from overseas. We should not underestimate the European contribution to that.
Following a pilot study, the Anglo-Spanish programme has recruited more than 520 Spanish nurses and more than 30 doctors to work in England, with more to come. A pilot campaign to recruit pharmacists has been initiated. Last year, nearly 10,000 nurses from outside the UK were accepted onto the Nursing and Midwifery Council register. Those health professionals have an opportunity to gain experience working in a different healthcare system and they, in turn, can share their experience and expertise with new colleagues.
As the House debated at considerable length on many occasions during the desperate days of the acute period of the foot and mouth disease crisis, we were able to bring in trained veterinary inspectors and veterinarians from Europe to assist our over-pressed colleagues working in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly alluded to the enlargement of the Community, which will bring a fresh dimension to the issue. We have co-operation agreements in place with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Estonia that are the
162
basis for active exchanges of best practice in education, including higher education and lifelong learning. We also have good relations with the accession countries in the field of education, youth and training programmes. We are mindful of that important dimension, to which the report alluded.
The importance of lifelong learning was emphasised by nearly all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I emphasise that the Government are committed not just to extending the concept of lifelong learning at a European level but to extending opportunities in our own country as effectively and rapidly as we can. Tribute has been paid to the initiatives taken. The Learning and Skills Council is a dramatically significant body in the process of enhancing the skills level of our people. It is still in its early days, and it has much to prove, but, together with the sector skills councils, learndirect and the Union Learning Fund, it is part of our strategy to create opportunities for learning for mature people, people at work and those looking for work throughout the nation.
Today, as we all recognise, no one trains for a career for life. There is inevitable mobility between jobs for all our people. So, it is essential that the structure for lifelong learning and training is reinforced. I have also mentioned the extent to which the Learning and Skills Council will reinforce our strategy on basic skills, to ensure that we continue to address ourselves to that issue. That is another matter that was raised in the report and in our discussion this evening.
The committee rightly flagged up the importance of making information on mobility and skills available to our citizens. The UK has played an instrumental role in pushing for the development of a one-stop European information mobility site. Progress has not been as rapid as we might have wished, but the building blocks are in place, and most member states have now integrated the European Employment Services database into their employment service sites. The website receives 25,000 visitors a week. Vacancy information will be available to all job seekers throughout the European economic area—the 15 member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
The prototype for the Portal on Learning Opportunities Throughout the European Space was launched by the European Commission in November and is being tested. The "Dialogue with Citizens" portal provides practical information on other member states, such as access to work, study, goods, services and travel. We are trying to meet the point that was made about our people being less than well equipped with the information that they need to obtain jobs in the European Community and recognise the opportunities there.
Language is the one great barrier that all noble Lords mentioned. That is the most obvious factor that differentiates our single market from that in the United States. Several speakers suggested that the Government were going the wrong way. I think that my noble friend Lady Whitaker suggested that we were

163
pointing in the wrong direction. We do not think that that is so. We seek to extend language teaching to the crucial early years at the junior school stage—ages seven to 11—so that all our students will get exposure to languages, at the time when they are most enthusiastic about learning and most open to it. That has occurred in other countries but not this one. It is a major and significant step forward in encouraging enthusiasm for languages.
It is true that we suggest that language teaching after the age of 14 should be concentrated on students who choose to follow language courses at that time and have developed the necessary enthusiasm and commitment.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, for the record, I said—I meant to say—that the Government were moving very much in the right direction with language teaching at an early age. I should not like Hansard to show the opposite.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted my noble friend's original remarks. My noble friend will recognise that anxiety was expressed in the report about the position on languages in this country. I emphasise that the Government regard language teaching as an important part of the education of our young people. That is the strategy that we propose to adopt.
The recognition of qualifications is of surpassing importance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, it is more apparent and more readily achievable with higher-level qualifications at graduate level. At that level, institutions are more successful and work hard for mutual recognition of achievement. The noble Baroness was right to emphasise that it is, at least, as important in the broader vocational areas. That is where a great deal of work must be done. Under the Danish presidency, education ministers from 31 European countries adopted the Copenhagen Declaration on enhanced European co-operation in vocational education and training. We are committed to developing that and to developing credit transfer for vocational education and training. That is some way off, but it is the right way to go and will allow people who have achieved qualifications at a certain level to take them to institutions in other parts of Europe to develop their skills and get recognition for that.
I recognise that, even in this lengthy contribution, I have still not done full justice to the report and all the issues that it raises. That is probably because the subject is a major one and is probably the most fundamental issue relating to the economies of our country and of all European countries. The wealth of our countries depends on the skills of our people. That means that we must have strategies for guaranteeing that we develop those skills to the highest level and increase the opportunities for such development to all who seek to enhance their opportunities. Without those skill levels, people cannot be mobile in Europe. It is important that we get standardisation and understanding of different qualifications in different
164
areas and respect for those. However, if the skill levels are not attained, employers here will not take seriously applications from people who come from elsewhere in Europe to our country or vice versa, as the report points out.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for introducing the debate. I appreciate the contributions that have been made. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, for the fact that, after he elevated the debate to a particular level, we were not all able to operate at that macro-economic level on the role of the euro. However, our debate has put the general issues into the context of a developing European economy.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it has been an interesting and enjoyable debate. I thank the noble Lords who made such kind remarks about my chairmanship of the sub-committee. I can assure your Lordships that it was always an enormous pleasure and privilege to work with my colleagues on the subcommittee. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
I shall raise some of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, said that there was still a great deal of work to be done and spoke about the value of experience gained during life, especially the skills gained by women, who have to juggle so many roles in their life. That was particularly appropriate.
All noble Lords referred to the language gap. It was interesting to hear from the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Whitaker, and from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the international baccalaureate and the problems of dual-career families.
The mutual recognition of qualifications was mentioned particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I refer also to workers' rights and the understanding of workers' contracts when people move between countries. The security card system which the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, mentioned is an interesting idea, and perhaps the Minister will reflect on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned the portability of benefits. She reminded us of the lack of help for the self-employed. That area could certainly be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, said that it is not just a matter of the mobility of labour. He mentioned the thorny issue of the introduction of the euro which, as I said, we did not touch on during the course of our inquiry. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter in the debate. I had hoped that the debate would be broader than its title and, indeed, that has been the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked for more research, especially in schools, and spoke of the scope in our schools as regards knowledge of other EU countries and the need to understand the skills that are required to obtain work abroad. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for mentioning the time that

165
elapsed before the report was debated. Indeed, we were concerned about that time lapse. I am glad that he shared our view that we should not compare the US with the EU. We did not consider that a useful comparison. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that with the best will in the world an inquiry can cover only so much. Our difficulty was to ensure that we focused on the Commission's proposals. That was our brief and we tried to keep to it. It was extremely difficult to do so as there were so many directions that we could have taken.
I thank the Minister for his contribution. I was disappointed that he did not take up the challenge to discuss the euro, if only on the margins of the debate. On behalf of the committee I accept his apology for the time lapse before the report was debated. I was disappointed by the rather rosy glow that he put on the areas that the Government are tackling, especially as regards education and training. The Minister reminded us that illiteracy and innumeracy constitute an EU-wide problem. Indeed, they do, but as the report reminded us, we have a serious problem in that regard. I do not think that we should keep repeating that the EU also has the problem. We have a serious problem as regards illiteracy and innumeracy that we must address. I congratulate and encourage the Minister with regard to some of the measures that the Government are taking to try to overcome some of these great difficulties.
However, the situation with regard to language teaching is not good enough. I wonder how the Minister reacts to the suggestion that half of secondary schools are preparing to drop language teaching when pupils reach the age of 14. That cannot be the right way forward. Does he not consider that full-time language teachers are required rather than assistants with no teaching skills? I am sure that we shall return to that matter in the future.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Delegated Legislation
5.4 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf rose to move, That this House takes note of the third report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on Henry VIII powers to make incidental, consequential and similar provision (HL Paper 21).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the special report by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform on Henry VIII powers is in one sense highly technical. It is concerned with the proper wording of certain enabling clauses which appear in many Bills before this House. In another sense, however, this technical report goes right to the heart of the key constitutional question of the limits of executive power, and of the ability as well as the duty of Parliament to prevent the unchecked extension of these limits.
Let me remind the House of the immediate reason for the Delegated Powers Committee report. In the course of the Third Reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill on 31st October 2002, the Government introduced an amendment to the effect that,
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act".—[Official Report, 31/10/02; col. 417.]
The Delegated Powers Committee happened to meet on the day between the tabling of this amendment and the Third Reading debate. It reacted with the promptness which the House has come to expect of it. While the committee accepted the thrust of the amendment which it found had numerous precedents, it commented adversely on the late tabling of
"a significant Henry VIII power"
which made effective scrutiny impossible, and also on the vagueness of the reasons given for the amendment. Your Lordships were less charitable in the ensuing debate and used strong language to express their feelings. For example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said,
"I regret to have to say this, but I should feel ashamed if I were a member of any government who brought forward a provision of this character at any stage of a Bill, let alone at Third Reading".— [Official Report, 31/10/02; col. 301.]
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, at col. 302, added for good measure:
"I have been in Parliament for 57 years and I have never known any provision that went as far as this one".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, also at col. 302, concurred for his own reasons:
"A wide-ranging and general power of this sort is open to deep question when it relates to people with the sort of vulnerability who are dealt with by this legislation".
After a Division confirming that this was indeed the majority view of your Lordships' House, the Government amended the clause to say,
"The Secretary of State may by order make consequential or incidental provision in connection with a provision of this Act".
The amendment, in this more specific and restricted form, the House found acceptable. In the course of the debate on Commons amendments on 6th November 2002 which led to this conclusion, I promised the House a report on the precedents and arguments for Henry VIII clauses of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, speaking for the Government acknowledged this intention and added:
"No doubt the Government will want to reflect on [the Delegated Powers Committee's] comments and give their views on any report that it produces".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 766.]
Here, then, is the opportunity to do so.
The report is brief but it has a long history. After all, Henry VIII's infamous Statute of Proclamations—enabling the king to legislate by royal proclamation rather than due parliamentary process—was issued in 1539. It had a relatively early sunset as it was repealed on the king's death in 1547. The statute was not then called a Henry VIII power. In fact, I had some difficulty tracing the origin of this intriguing "nickname" as the then Chairman of Committees, Lord Donoughmore, called it in his 1932 report by a

167
committee on Ministers' powers. When our legal adviser asked the omniscient Internet about Henry VIII powers, the ever mysterious Web came up, lo and behold, with our own report, which we are debating today, which was flattering for your Lordships' Delegated Powers Committee but less than wholly informative. Fortunately, it is clear what the powers in question are about.
The first report by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, as it was then called, in 1993 stated:
"A 'Henry VIII' clause is a provision in a Bill which enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further Parliamentary scrutiny".
In an address to the Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation in 1989, the first chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee—the late Lord Rippon of Hexham—cast the net wider and defined the "so-called 'Henry VIII' clause" by referring to,
"the way in which primary legislation includes clauses providing that the Minister may amend or at times even repeal not only the primary legislation by order but sometimes other Public or even Private Acts".
It is worth reminding the House that in 1989 Lord Rippon emphasised how rare such clauses had been after the first one appeared in the Local Government Act 1888. Between that Act and 1932—in other words, in 44 years—there were only nine instances of such clauses, all of limited scope and validity and usually coupled with a sunset clause. Lord Rippon deplored the fact that by the late 1980s Henry VIII clauses were used,
"in Act after Act on a scale that would have been absolutely unthinkable until recently".
He explained this sprouting of executive powers by insufficient,
"forethought in drafting the legislation"
and warned,
"Ministers now take power to amend and even repeal primary legislation almost as a matter of common form … In effect we are continually passing legislation which virtually permits Governments to make new laws as they go along".
I have already referred to the Donoughmore Committee set up 60 years earlier, in 1929, which reported in April 1932. To the present day, that report is the most detailed and trenchant analysis of delegated powers, of their origins and their less than felicitous effects. Lord Donoughmore commented on the growing number of laws and the shortage of time for parliamentary scrutiny, on the curiously unsystematic growth of delegated powers and on the need to heed what the Select Committee called the two "distinguishing characteristics" of delegated legislation,
"one positive and the other negative".
I quote from the committee report:
"The positive characteristic is that the limits of the delegated power are defined so clearly by the enabling Act as to be made plainly known to Parliament, to the Executive and to the Public, and to be readily enforceable by the Judiciary.
168
The negative characteristic is that the powers delegated do not include power to do certain things, namely—

(i) to legislate on matters of principle or to impose taxation;

(ii) to amend Acts of Parliament, either the Act by which the powers are delegated, or other Acts".

I shall not dwell further on the parliamentary history of Henry VIII powers except to emphasise that today, as three-quarters of a century ago, it is important to resist what Lord Donoughmore called, "executive autocracy" even if one agrees with him that the comparison of current governments with Henry VIII "is certainly far-fetched".
In the light of these reminiscences, however, it will be clear to the House that its Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has produced a measured and modest report, although there should be no doubt in your Lordships' minds that we shall endeavour to live up to the high standards set by earlier guardians of parliamentary rights.
The Delegated Powers Committee, in producing its report, was well-served by its new legal adviser, Mr Allan Roberts, who examined precedents and consulted widely, not least with the parliamentary draftsman. The result of his labours can be seen in Annexes 1 to 12 to Appendix 2 of the report. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House also to the helpful letter by first parliamentary counsel to the legal adviser, which is reproduced in Appendix 3.
The core of our report and the recommendations are simple and largely self-explanatory. In our first recommendation we recognise that,
s"there are occasions when Henry VIII powers to make incidental, consequential and similar provisions are justified".
Such occasions arise above all from practical considerations such as the length of the Bill or the need to accommodate unforeseeable technical adjustments.
The second recommendation tries to deal with the fact that standard Henry VIII clauses on,
"incidental, consequential and similar provisions"
are nevertheless worded in varying ways. First parliamentary counsel has given some reasons for such variations. There is possibly a risk that the "one clause fits all" principle would in some cases lead to a wider empowerment of the executive than is either necessary or desirable. Still, I would note that even in 1932 the Donoughmore committee referred to,
"opportunist considerations, peculiar to the occasion"
leading to an "accidental" choice of terminology, as a result of which,
"the nomenclature of delegated legislation is confused".
Your Lordships' Select Committee suggests therefore that the Explanatory Notes sent to the committee with each Bill should include reasons,
"why a particular form of wording has been adopted in each case".
A more systematic approach is desirable also with regard to our third recommendation which concerns the level of parliamentary scrutiny. That is a major issue to which the House may well wish to return on another occasion. The present report merely states that in the case of Henry VIII powers there may be cases in which the negative procedure is sufficient, but

169
there should always be a presumption in favour of the affirmative procedure. That means that whenever it is not adopted reasons must be given in the Explanatory Notes accompanying Bills why this should be so.
I must resist the temptation to return once again to my hobby horse—sunset clauses. It is all the harder to resist the temptation in view of the fact that the Donoughmore committee in 1932, to which I have made many an appreciative reference, recommended that all Henry VIII clauses should,
"be subject to a time limit of one year from the passing of the Act".
Were I to add such a revolutionary proposal to the recommendations in the committee report, I should be transgressing my chairman's remit considerably. Let me stick therefore to the present text and invite the House to take note of the special report by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the third report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on Henry VIII powers to make incidental, consequential and similar provision (HL Paper 21).—(Lord Dahrendorf.)
5.19 p.m.
Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me, as the new boy on the committee on which I am pleased to serve, to follow my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The committee is specialised, it tends to be legalistic and it is extremely important. Its subject matter is very much business for your Lordships' House: it is a specialist area which down the corridor in another place would not attract much attention. I leave out the question of Whips, control and so forth. In judging these matters the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in the leadership of the committee, appreciates more than anyone the importance of the subject.
I was party to the report and agree with every word of it. In following the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I want to emphasise his words that the duty of Parliament is to prevent the unjustified extension of Henry VIII powers. I also underline his interesting observation that historically they have been rarely taken up. However, as Lord Rippon of Hexham pointed out, their use has recently become more frequent and therefore they must be monitored. Your Lordships' House must take care.
I turn to the cause of the report and the debate: it was the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I must plead guilty to your Lordships because I was not in the Chamber during the debate on the legislation. It has proved illuminating to me to read the debate; perhaps more so than had I been in the Chamber. It was an outstanding debate; one in which legal expertise was displayed around the House. The Minister answering, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, took a reasonable attitude, but it transpired that his legal advice was, if anything, inferior to that given by noble Lords in this Chamber.
170
To me, as a new boy, it was interesting to see that and to realise—I cannot resist saying this because of the facility for appointment rather than election—that we can field various people who are qualified to "out gun" the government department of the day. I was delighted that in the Commons the Government gave way on the proposal and that throughout the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was that it was extremely reasonable.
If anyone checks the voting list, they will see that I voted, as ever, with the Government. Many years ago at the beginning of my career in another place, a deputy chief whip said to me, "You don't want to worry, Temple-Morris, about knowing anything about what's going on in the Chamber. The more you know about it, the more difficult you are as far as we are concerned". Having gone into the Chamber and voted on an issue without knowing what it was about, the process was made more illuminating after having read your Lordships' debate.
I have to say that had I been in the Chamber and listened to every word, I would have congratulated those who drew the Government's attention to the particular facet of the clause. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who is a long-standing friend of mine across the divide—formerly we were not divided—is not in the Chamber. His contribution to the debate at all stages was outstanding and I want to pay him a small compliment. I do not need to go into the detail of the clause, but it was draconian. One facet was gripped by various Members present and the Government sensibly surrendered on it.
I return to the report. The overall power to make consequential and secondary legislation is necessary. No government of the day can foresee everything and legislation is complex enough. If in such an atmosphere one tells the draftsmen that it is necessary to cater for everything, there will be no end to the legislation concerned. Such a power is therefore necessary in order to conserve parliamentary time, particularly in this day and age when it is under increasing demand.
The emphasis must therefore be on control and scrutiny on three levels. I pray in aid my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because he heads the special services in this regard. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is the first into the breach. Although I am a new member, I have been most impressed by the way in which it works. It is totally non-party political and works for the benefit of servicing this House. It is unique. I congratulate the noble Lord on his leadership of it and it has a valuable job to do.
Furthermore, it is indicative of the balance, which we seem to have got right and the government of the day—not just this Government—tend to go along with its observations. Indeed, tomorrow we shall consider sensible responses that have been made by the Government. We do not abuse our powers, but it must be said that we will not hesitate to take them.

171
That leads me to the second level of control, which is your Lordships' House. If we get into difficulty, we must depend upon this Chamber, and the debate on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was an outstanding example of how that can be displayed. The Select Committee reports and the House must then use its experience to sort out aspects that have gone wrong. It did so excellently in regard to that Bill. Ultimately, at the third level we can turn to the law and the courts; they are the end of the line in any challenge of constitutional abuse. However, I would have thought that your Lordships' House should be available, willing and capable of dealing with such matters.
Finally, there is the question of whether we should have a standard form for the legislative expression "delegated powers". The Select Committee considered the matter in detail and with a certain expertise. I believe that it is unnecessary. It will lead to more complication and is impractical. It will lead to my legal colleagues having a field day, applying lengthy, all-embracing formulae. It will also lead to more powers, not fewer, being taken.
In conclusion, I want to refer to the excellent response by the first parliamentary counsel. It deserves quoting, but I shall mention only paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the letter contained in the report. They say it all and I shall paraphrase them for the sake of brevity. As regards the various kinds of delegated powers, we have mention of "consequential provisions"—that is the one to which we always refer. We also have mention of "incidental or supplementary provisions" and "transitional, transitory or saving provisions". In addition to that, and coming to dear King Henry VIII, we must decide whether the power should be given to amend primary legislation and also to amend the very Act itself.
As is said by the first parliamentary counsel, all those issues cross borderlines but all have different ingredients. Ultimately, it is an art form—he suggested that in his letter—as regards the necessary blend and choice which befits any Bill or Act of Parliament. I do not believe that it should be put into some kind of great big formulae which will not work.
I turn to the best answer that we can put forward. It emerges from the report and it is up to us to demand it; that is; a sufficient explanation from the department. As regards the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, we had that; it was astonishing that a department of state should come forward and say, "We ain't got time here. This is too late. We have to take all these enormous powers because we haven't got time to bring it before you chaps". That was what, in effect, was going on and therefore there was a frankness which was commendable in the circumstances.
We must have a sufficient explanation from the department—and it is the duty of the Select Committee to ensure that it is sufficient. Above all, we must have scrutiny from the Select Committee under the wise leadership which presently prevails and with the support and help recently shown by your Lordships' House.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it seems to me an extremely good thing that the House is considering this important matter outside the discussion that takes place during the passage of a Bill. We can thus sand back and ask ourselves about the principle at stake. Is it really right and proper for the government of the day so frequently to take powers to enable them to alter in the future any part of a particular Act of Parliament that they feel like altering, and to do so simply by order and possibly by negative resolution?
With 12 examples of such provisions in recent Acts of Parliament before us in the report—nine introduced by this Government and three by the previous government—we can ask ourselves whether such clauses should be acceptable at all to Parliament. If they are acceptable—or, at least, if they seem unavoidable—should Parliament insist on parameters limiting their use? It is a point of democratic principle, and an important one for the future.
In introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, reminded the House of how the committee came to report. He gave a very interesting historical account of how we got to where we are. He explained how the committee accepted that it would be difficult to ban these clauses altogether and what the conditions for acceptability set by Parliament might be. Like the noble Lord. Lord Temple-Morris, as a member of the committee I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on his admirably clear explanation. The House can see for itself—if it has not seen already—how fortunate the committee is to have the noble Lord as its chairman and how worthy a successor he is to his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon.
From a personal point of view, I should like to add a word about what the committee did not say. This was touched on in a subtle, sideways fashion by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and by the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, perhaps in a more friendly way than I feel is possible. The committee did not say it because it eschews, as far as possible, what it sees as politically controversial points.
It did not say this: that the problem is a good deal more than the fact that this most extreme form of Henry VIII clause is of itself undemocratic; the problem is also, perhaps primarily, the way that governments—at present this Government—use such clauses and the way in which future, less responsible, governments might use them.
We were reminded by both noble Lords of the latest example of this in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I am sorry that the timetable for the House was changed at very short notice and that my noble friend Lady Anelay, who was deeply involved in the Bill, is not able to speak today. That Bill, after months of Home Office research and a White Paper, had been through all its stages in both Houses. At the last moment, at Third Reading in this House and with no time left before the end of the Session, the Government introduced a very wide-ranging Henry

173
VIII clause, stating quite openly that the Bill was still incomplete and that they must continue to amend it after it became law.
The Home Office had not done its work in time and the Home Secretary felt justified in using this device to get it out of the hole it was in. That is what happened, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, agrees. Both opposition parties here expressed deep concern, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, from the Government Benches. It should be emphasised that no Member of this House, apart from the Minister, argued in favour of this particular clause and, on a Division, the House removed it from the Bill. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, reminded us, the Government amended it slightly, the House of Commons reinstated it into the Bill, and it is now the law of the land.
That is what I mean when I suggest that it is the way in which governments use such clauses, as well as the clauses themselves, that is dangerous. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was urgently needed—the asylum problem was acute and is still mounting—and the Government knew that this House was therefore unlikely to refuse to give it a Third Reading because, in the very last days of the Session, that would have meant the Bill falling and having to be reintroduced in the current Session. I do not believe that anyone wanted that to happen.
So the Government forced through a Henry VIII clause——it is still very much a Henry VIII clause—which, until then, had not been considered necessary. At the very last moment the Government forced it through simply to enable them to go on making outstanding amendments by order. In doing so, they have opened the way for changes to the Bill which may be much less innocent and go quite beyond the reasons they gave at the time. Indeed, another government might do the same.
There have been, and doubtless will continue to be, many proposed clauses used for good and less good purposes, each of which may have a different effect and different wording but which open the way to the kind of changes we are discussing. The least Parliament can do is to establish the kind of parameters the report suggests, or perhaps stronger parameters, before it accepts such clauses. I shall be extremely interested to hear what other speakers have to say on this matter.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, like other speakers, I am grateful to my noble friend and to the committee for this valuable report. Although I am not a member of the committee, I am speaking in the debate because I believe it to be an extremely important one, not only in regard to the incident which provoked the study but because the whole question of the balance between primary and secondary legislation is central to the way in which we in this House scrutinise the process of government.
174
The report is brief and is a model of how a short report can be extremely useful. It says all that needs to be said. Other Select Committees may learn from this report, which will have more impact because of its length.
In his magisterial introduction, my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf set the scene, and I shall return to some of the points he raised. Clearly there were particular problems with the late introduction at Third Reading of the clause in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, but it is extremely useful that, as a result, the committee has had an opportunity to examine the issue and we now have an opportunity to debate it.
Annexes 2 to 9 of the report, which were compiled by the staff of the committee and its new legal adviser, set out in detail different Henry VIII clauses and explain why, in different contexts, they are needed and important. These will be important documents for all those considering legislation and its preparation, in this country and perhaps well beyond in other countries which follow similar procedures in drafting.
As has been said, Henry VIII clauses are important because they deprive Parliament of its power to legislate directly. They enable primary legislation to be altered without a full opportunity to debate and, particularly, to amend. Any changes which are made by regulation under a Henry VIII power can be debated if they are brought forward under an affirmative order, but they cannot be amended. Therefore it is a significant restriction on the powers of Parliament and of parliamentary scrutiny.
Secondly—I raise this issue as a Back-Bencher, because I may have a slightly heretical viewpoint on the matter—why are Henry VIII clauses necessary in general terms; and why have they become more frequent over the period so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf? The noble Lord said that nine such clauses had been introduced between 1888 and 1932; and since then an accelerating number, growing at an exponential rate over recent years. Why does legislation now contain so many Henry VIII clauses?
One of the reasons—set out in detail in the annexes—is to provide a certain degree of flexibility, to enable us to deal with changes that could not be foreseen when the primary legislation was prepared; or, for example, in such matters as the pay-as-you-earn legislation, where it would be inappropriate each year to return to the Finance Bill and deal with the detail of the legislation and all the consequential changes. Those examples are relatively straightforward.
But there is a further point which presents a dilemma for parliamentarians—the point on which I suspect I may be considered by many of my noble friends to be presenting a slightly heretical or unusual point of view. There is a dilemma as between the pressure—with which I have engaged, like members of most Opposition parties—to press for as much detail as possible on the face of the Bill, at the same time probably generating a need for more Henry VIII type powers. The more one insists on detail on the face of a

175
Bill, the greater is the risk of including ephemeral matters which may subsequently have to be changed. Therefore, there is a dilemma in our arguments: as between the relative importance of primary and secondary legislation, the kind of detail that should appear on the face of the Bill and how we wish to have it altered. Provision of a detailed kind may in itself generate the need for Henry VIII type powers. So there is a fundamental dilemma in regard to the drafting of legislation.
The committee or this House may need to return to this matter in considering issues of statute law and how it is prepared. I put the issue forward for consideration. I am not sure what the right answer is, but the problem needs to be considered.
I take the point, which was raised in the report and mentioned in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, that a standard form of words, as explained by the first parliamentary counsel, would possibly create more problems than it would solve. None the less, the committee recommends that, where it is necessary to have a particular form of words., the reasons should be made clear in the Explanatory Notes, as well as in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and that the committee should, as a matter of course, when it receives a note on the matter, report to the House on the reason why a particular form of Henry VIII clause has been necessary.
I return to the issue raised in paragraph 6 of the report—which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf; namely, the question of the negative or affirmative procedure. As the committee states, whenever a Henry VIII clause is used, the presumption should be that the affirmative rather than negative procedure will be used. If in the future a scrutiny committee comes into existence—the sifting committee on statutory instruments derived from the work of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and those of us who served with him on the working practices committee—I believe that it will want to give attention to this matter as part of its sifting process in reporting matters to the House.
Like my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, I am tempted to return to the idea of sunset clauses. 'The model that he gave—of an automatic period of a year being imposed by means of a sunset clause—may be considered somewhat excessive by some, particularly by those on the other side of the Chamber. None the less, we shall need to re-examine the issue of sunset clauses in relation to Henry VIII powers.
As I have said, this is an extraordinarily valuable report. Together with the debate that we have been able to have today, it will be invaluable for the future scrutiny of legislation.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as the fifth speaker on a fairly short report, it is difficult to say anything that has not already been said. So I shall be brief.
Why do governments use Henry VIII clauses? As has been argued by the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Roper, it is for convenience. It is obviously
176
hard to foresee everything that might happen, go wrong or change. Therefore, some such provision is necessary.
The more complex Bills become—as has happened even in the brief time that I have been in this House—the more one needs Henry VIII clauses. Indeed, I believe that every Bill should have a standard Henry VIII clause—it would save us all time and effort!
At the same time, although governments may require such clauses for their convenience, we as parliamentarians must be suspicious of all governments, of whatever party. We cannot allow governments to get away with Henry VIII clauses without giving a proper explanation of why that is being done. That battle will continue.
It is always a good thing to be able to spot a Henry VIII clause in all its various forms and then to hold the Government to account in explaining why they have introduced the clause. Although the explanation may not vary too much from Bill to Bill, it is still good to have it.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Roper, I believe that it is good to have as much detail as possible on the face of the Bill, even though it complicates matters. In my personal activity, I find it difficult to concentrate on instruments when they occur later, negative or affirmative. It is very hard to keep track of what is going on.
I should like to see a study of how often, in relation to a particular Bill, the Government return to the House with instruments, negative or affirmative. If we had such a study, we might be able to understand whether it is necessary for governments to do this. We may have a belt-and-braces provision in the form of a Henry VIII clause, but how often do we use it? Having made a great deal of fuss about a Henry VIII clause during the stages of a Bill, has the House been able to discuss what has come subsequently by way of amendments? It is inevitable that Bills will command more attention than subsequent instruments. That is a law of life. Therefore, there is a tension in terms of how often we allow governments to do this.
It was all right to regard Henry VIII with great suspicion in terms of what he was up to. When governments are democratically elected, we can be slightly kinder; but we must still maintain vigilance and make sure that governments do not get away with what they want to get away with.
I want to make a further point which is not germane but is somewhat relevant. I find the language of legislation very complex. I have been a Member of the House for 11 years but I still do not understand Bills. I must wait for either a probing amendment or a Minister's explanation to find out what certain clauses say. They are written in English, but not in plain English. This is not a controversial remark: the Maastricht Treaty is much easier to read than any legislation I have read in this House. I was told that that is because it must make sense in 12 different languages so it cannot be obscure. But, believe me. I do not understand legislation. Something must be done

177
about it—I do not know what. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for his excellent introduction to the debate.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I met the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in the corridor shortly after this debate was reintroduced to the Order Paper late last week. I asked whether he would mind if I introduced a subject closely related to Henry VIII clauses but not specifically in the committee report that we are considering. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for not raising the matter with him, but I was not sure whether he was making the winding-up speech on this debate until I saw the list of speakers today. If, at the end of the debate, he says only that he will consider further the issue that I have raised, I will be pleased.
The issue I raise, which is a slightly different aspect of the same subject, is what I regard as Henry VIII Bills. They are skeleton Bills that consist of nothing but powers to make regulations. The first Bill I had to introduce on the Front Bench of this House was such a Bill. I was exercised as to how to introduce it. I am afraid that I hit on the slightly dubious wheeze of using the main part of my remarks to quote the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, then under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. After I introduced the debate from our side, I knew what it was like to be an infantryman in a landing craft approaching the beaches on D-day; because, having quoted the report, such was the depth of its criticism of the Bill, there were salvos from the battleships behind me. One could see them scoring on the shores opposite. It was an interesting experience.
I am now dealing with a second skeleton Bill—the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. The first was the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill. The noble Baroness sitting next to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will recognise it. The point about both Bills is that there is almost nothing in them to discuss. We do our best; we debate it in detail. But the Executive action in those Bills is wholly dependent on regulation. We must debate the Bills without any sight of that regulation so that we are flying blind with few instruments to guide us. Is that an appropriate procedure?
Both skeleton Bills—the first is now an Act—were responses to European directives. It is normal procedure to deal with European directives as far as possible by regulation. But, are those procedures satisfactory with regard to primary legislation? That is why I raise the issue.
A second related matter—it is not essentially part of the report—is that, as a consequence of our approach, this sort of legislation is the subject of three levels of discussion in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom Parliament, we discuss the framework Bill in such detail as we can. We try to probe from the Government what lies behind the legislation and what its meaning is. The Bill then goes to Scotland where,
178
within the framework that the United Kingdom Parliament has defined, the Scottish Parliament can have full discussion and debate and pass its own laws, provided that they are consistent with the framework law that we have passed. The National Assembly for Wales has a different function. Its function is very much to consider the question of regulations. So, the regulations receive detailed, careful consideration there.
Here, in England, regulations that require the positive assent of the House are none the less take-it-or-leave-it regulations. One cannot amend them. They must be accepted or rejected. In many cases, the need to pass the good elements of the regulation mean that one cannot deal with the flaws. Whether that is a satisfactory procedure is a serious question, particularly when under the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill one of the regulations brought forward was 150 pages long. Despite that, it had to be passed on the nod.
This is a serious aspect of our legislative process. I accept entirely that it is not the sort of subject that we could, or should, deal with hastily. It needs careful consideration. I wish to see the matter referred to a Select Committee. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would be an appropriate forum for dealing with it, so I would be happy to see it referred there. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to raise the issue, which, although appropriate, cannot be dealt with today.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having my name on the list. I intervene merely to make one point. I am happy to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I do not criticise the report, certainly not the important and erudite opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. It may be one of the most important reports since the Donoughmore report of 1932. One is tempted to reflect on the increased need for measures such as Henry VIII clauses arising, at any rate at the same time as, and possibly as a result of, the increase in social legislation. One need only look at social security Bills to understand the need for more and more detail.
My point may fall outside the examples in the report's annexes. We have had recent examples not exactly of skeleton Bills but of those purporting to tell the legislature what they are about. They contain Henry VIII-type provisions that allow the Minister, by order or regulations, to change the very core of the Bill, and thereby the Act. They are, I suppose, not skeleton Bills but what might be called narcissistic Henry VIII clauses.
One such example is in Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. Subsection (8) provided that the Secretary of State could by order,
"(a) amend, repeal or replace any of subsections (2) to (4);
(b) amend Schedule 4".

179
Those were the very core of the provisions that limited access to justice for workers whose rights had been infringed and whose complaint would go to an employment tribunal.
That section was largely conceived out of a genuflection and response to employers' complaints that workers' complaints to employment tribunals were too costly. In the nine weeks in which my noble friends and I sought to retain that Bill in the Grand Committee to which it was sent without many people knowing what was going on, we got no alteration of that particular response from the Government at all. The CBI, quite naturally, thought that that was the Bill's most important clause. Your Lordships' joint Committee on Human Rights had two whole sittings on that section and the Bill and eventually concluded that it was valid as being proportionate. Yet, what the Human Rights Committee judged was valid and proportionate could be totally changed by the Minister by order. If ever there were an example of the correctness of the report now before us, surely that was it.
I make no apology for raising this point. It was a matter of principle for some of us but was ultimately ignored by both Houses. The Government knew what they were doing. Indeed, in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, my noble friends and I suggested that the Minister, in proposing Part 3, should come forward, as I put it on 26th February, with a spirited rendering of that grand old Harry Champion number, "I'm Henry The Eighth, I Am". We got no such rendering. Nor did we get a clear explanation of why the Minister should have power to amend by order the core of the Bill.
My time is up. However, if ever there were a recent example justifying this report, it is that.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform for producing this excellent report. My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf has, through this report and his speech in introducing it, shown himself to be a worthy successor to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. who I am extremely pleased to see in the Chamber to listen to the debate. I was a member of the committee when the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill was going through your Lordships' House, but I have since been rotated off it. I have therefore played no part in the drafting of this report.
Henry VIII powers have become increasingly common. It should, I think, be particularly noted that the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 provides for regulatory reform orders that use Henry VIII powers on an exceptionally wide scale. They will need to be monitored very carefully to see that they are not exceeding the legitimate purposes for which they were created.
Today's debate, however, concentrates on one particular type of Henry VIII power—the power to make consequential provision orders. I say
180
"consequential provision" as a type of shorthand to include orders that cover matters which may be described also as "incidental", "supplementary", "transitional" or by one or two other adjectives as well. Such powers are, of course, not included in all Bills or even in all major Bills, but they have certainly become quite common in major Bills. They have been used, as Appendix 2 to the report shows, at least nine times in the past three years. The reasons, as explained it this debate, are uncertainty about whether the schedules amending or repealing existing legislation are complete, and uncertainty as to what consequential powers will be needed.
There is, however, one lacuna in this debate, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which is that we do not know how these powers have in fact been used. I should be very interested to know whether any or all of the powers listed in the second appendix to the report have been exercised, for what purpose, and how long after the power came into force. While I do not expect the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to be able to provide that information now, I should be most grateful if he could obtain that information and provide it in a letter to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
These consequential provisions clauses have been going through the Delegated Powers Committee on a regular basis without attracting a great deal of attention. Sometimes the affirmative procedure has been used, and sometimes the negative procedure. It may be that the committee should have paid a little more attention to these clauses than we did. The situation changed because of the late introduction into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill of an amendment introducing wide consequential powers. Those powers were wide but were not unprecedented. Several of the other clauses set out in the annexes to Appendix 2 to the report contain rather similar powers. However, the fact that that particular clause did not appear in the original Bill, but was introduced at a very late stage, did indeed concentrate people's minds.
Some speakers have attributed sinister motives to the Government which I do not believe exist or existed. However, the challenge to that clause not only resulted in the modification of the clause itself., but performed what I believe is a very useful service in making your Lordships' House think again about the role of consequential provisions clauses.
I believe, with some regret, that such clauses are sometimes justified. Legislation is now so complex t hat we cannot be sure that everything in previous legislation that should be changed has in fact been changed. It would be a waste of time to have to introduce primary legislation to correct a minor oversight. However, I believe that the report is absolutely right in saying that there should be a presumption in favour of affirmative procedure when a Henry VIII power is created.
There are, I think, sometimes circumstances in which, even for a Henry VIII power, the negative procedure might be adequate. For example, the Act

181
may create for some purpose an express time limit and then give power to extend that limit by statutory instrument. Depending on the circumstances, that may be a case in which the negative procedure would be sufficient. However, I think that there should be something close to an absolute rule that a consequential provisions clause should require the affirmative procedure in so far as it modifies or repeals primary legislation.
Consequential provisions clauses are, of course, limited by their wording. The changes must be generally "consequential" or "incidental"—or whichever adjective is used. If not, then an order made in purported exercise of that power will be ultra vires and can be challenged in a court. However, within the bounds of that wording, the Government are effectively being given something of a blank cheque. By definition, more or less, they do not know why or when that power is going to be used. In those circumstances, I believe that we should not rely on someone checking all statutory instruments which may be adopted under the negative procedure to determine whether it is an order that deserves to be prayed against. There should be actual parliamentary approval of any change to primary legislation made in exercise of a consequential provisions clause, which means that the affirmative procedure should be used more or less as a matter of course.
I also support the proposition that the consequential provisions clause should be exercisable for only a limited time after the power comes into force. A time limit sunset clause concentrates the mind. If anything is truly consequential or incidental it must be capable of being identified in a fairly limited time after the Bill becomes an Act and comes into force. Speaking for myself, I would not dissent from the one-year time limit proposed by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, although that is, of course, a matter for debate.
The debate has been useful. I hope that the Government are listening carefully to what is being said. I look forward to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in this short but important debate. I would like to thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, in particular, their chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I am told that the noble Lord was recently honoured by the President of Italy. I hope that that is right, because it attests to the wide respect in which he is rightly held in this country and overseas, not least for his observations on constitutional matters.
The problem of how to make incidental changes to primary legislation is not only encountered in the UK. Indeed, to return to Italy for a moment, the legislature there spent a great deal of time, until recent reforms, passing so-called leggine, "little laws", that served to clarify, amend or explain main legislation. There we
182
now see greater use of ministerial decree to make such changes. I am not sure that that is the way I would want to go. We should not be under any illusion but that secondary legislation is, in effect, rule by ministerial decree. "Take it or leave it", as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, but one cannot even give or take a dot or comma. That is why the power is so attractive to departments, and why we should be careful that what masquerades as a convenience should not become a contrivance to avoid scrutiny.
Neither House can amend legislation made under Henry VIII powers, which can have far-reaching effects. The affirmative procedure, while offering some safeguard, does not really address the problem, as any noble Lord who has missed his kidneys and bacon to listen to dinner-time orders can testify. The Wakeham commission wrestled with that problem but its proposed delaying power offered no solution—indeed, it would have stripped Parliament of a power that it does have to threaten rejection.
The rejection power is a nuclear one. It is unwise to threaten to use it or actually to use it too often, but it can serve, as it did in the context of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 when this House successfully vindicated the right of electors to receive a free election address from all candidates. Far greater thought needs to be given to that problem. It is one task for the Joint Committee of both Houses in the next stage of its deliberations on the future of this House.
The number of statutory instruments is now immense. There were 3,264 in 2002 and 4,150 in 2001. Those figures do not include Welsh and Scottish orders that once came before us. That compares with some 2,279 statutory instruments in 1987. The House is examining ways of improving scrutiny of the use of secondary powers, and I welcome that. But today we are considering an aspect of what is, in essence, the front line of defence—namely, the framing of legislation.
Few will doubt that the institution of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, as it was called when set up by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, was farsighted. Since then, it has carved out a place of great authority, and is being emulated in another place. Despite one or two unfortunate waverings at the Dispatch Box, no government have yet rejected warnings from the committee over attempts to take excessive Henry VIII powers, and I hope that it stays that way. It will when there is again a Conservative government, and no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will give an assurance to cover the short intervening period before that.
I strongly support the specific recommendation of the report, which I hope the noble and learned Lord will confirm will be put into operation on all future Bills presented to Parliament. I understand the point made by parliamentary counsel that wording may need to vary from Bill to Bill, but it is a sensible suggestion that Explanatory Notes should lay out in each case why a form of wording has been used. I also agree with a presumption in favour of the affirmative

183
procedure, and that government should specifically explain with a Bill why they do not consider that to be necessary when seeking a Henry VIII power. Some say that use of the affirmative procedure might take too much time on the Floor of the House, but impatience about time rarely makes for good law. Would it not fit with the radical nature of the noble and learned Lord's leadership of this House to stage some debates on orders in the Moses Room?
All that said, I confess to the very faintest sense of disappointment with the limited scope of this report— at least, the scope is limited at this stage and in this particular report. I hope that we will see more special reports from the committee, reaching beyond the merely responsive reports that comment on specific Bills. It may be a function of the stretched clerking resources of the House that the report was unable to drive into deeper detail about the examples it cites and the nature of the use made of Henry VIII powers. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Goodhart, on that point.
There is a perception that Henry VIII powers are being increasingly sought and increasingly used, but I do not know if that is right, and this report did not set out to answer that question. Perhaps it should, and perhaps Henry VIII powers should be subject to a five-year life; if unused, they would fall. The report does not test the extent to which unamendable legislation is used to change the lives of our citizens and whether it is beyond the extent acceptable in a free society. People affected by primary legislation are able to bring their case to this House and seek change, other than by pleasure of Ministers and their civil servants. We are seeing that exercise in train in the fascinating debates on the Licensing Bill, now in Committee in your Lordships' House. In the case of secondary legislation, that is simply not possible.
Until the parliamentary settlement that will follow the work of the Joint Committee, we should be doubly cautious about allowing a doctrine to grow up that Henry VIII powers enabling unamendable legislation are a given in our constitution, as this report does. The precedent book is a dangerous thing. Something that first time round is highly controversial, the second time round becomes of interest only to constitutional anoraks and the third time round becomes part of the acquis gouvernementaire—if I may use that phrase.
That is the nub of the problem. Is that the seductive road down which we are being tempted to stray? If so, the executive are the winners and a Parliament that has never been weaker is once again the loser. Most noble Lords can recognise when government oversteps the mark, but it is no good crying foul, if one cannot also say "No". from time to time. I hope that the committee will review firmer guidelines to prevent encroachment by executive fiat.
I tentatively suggest two approaches. First, no Bill that is primarily a skeleton Bill should be passed by the House. I recall the deplorable example of a pollution Bill a few years ago, which consisted of a couple of pages of Henry VIII powers that would have given the Secretary of State power to do almost anything. My
184
noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith is right on that point. I would like Bills of that kind to be considered in a future report and ground rules laid down which might serve at the pre-legislative stage.
Secondly, when a Bill contains Henry VIII powers, which are claimed on the basis that they cover detailed matters better dealt with in regulation, the House should not agree to proceed with that Bill until final draft guidance on the use of the powers or draft regulations has been published. The current Licensing Bill may be a case in point. Perhaps in a memorandum to the committee the department should explain why it is impossible to publish such draft regulations alongside the Bill.
The whole House owes the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, a debt of gratitude. The report is a useful step forward. There is a major constitutional issue lurking in this undergrowth that we cannot solve tonight. I very much hope that the House, the Joint Committee and the noble Lord's committee will soon return to the matter of the use of secondary powers.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not want to introduce any jarring note. I begin by saying what a personal pleasure it is to see my old friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in his place and I to pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and his committee. As I have said on previous occasions, the committee has made its own authority and has therefore become extremely authoritative with all governments. That remains the case.
The indefatigable energies of Mr Daniel Greenberg from the parliamentary counsel office have produced a report that has not yet been mentioned. It is therefore incumbent on me to mention it. The report, from October 1953, contains an extremely good encapsulation of our problems by that radical parliamentarian, Aneurin Bevan, who said:
"There is now general agreement about the necessity for delegated legislation; the real problem is how this legislation can be reconciled with the processes of democratic consultation, scrutiny and control".
One always needs a Welshman to put it economically. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, using a European language, but I think we pronounce it differently in Swansea.
The debate has demonstrated a general feeling that our procedures and processes for dealing with legislation are inadequate. I agree with two propositions. First, European legislation is not sufficiently scrutinised. We know that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is attending to that. Secondly, the vast body of secondary legislation, which may affect the individual citizen more than does the primary legislation, is not properly attended to.
I hope we shall soon start with the sifting committee. That is a very important step forward for this place. In some ways it is easier to do that here, because we do not have the partisan politics that I am told there are in the other part of the Palace—although I have been

185
fortunate enough never to be an ignoble denizen of that end—and the Whips have far less power here. I think we are capable of doing that work well. Having listened carefully to all the contributions that your Lordships have made and re-read the committee's report, it is interesting how little difference there is between those who have spoken, from whatever side. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I understand the difficulty in trying to deal in a legislative context with what he described as a skeleton Bill, giving the example of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Committee looked at that Bill with some care and said:
"We appreciate that the highly unusual structure of the bill was to some extent dictated by the different legislative procedures under the devolution arrangements".
The noble Lord touched on that point.
In many ways, this is our opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said. The Joint Committee ought to return further not simply to composition, but to precisely how we use the powers and functions that we already have. We do not do the work sufficiently well.
Without undue complacency, I think that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 showed that our procedure is capable of working. In his masterly exposition, at the outset of his speech, after the historical review, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out that the Government were made to think again. An amendment was brought forward and the Bill was improved. To that extent, it worked well. If I may be absolutely candid, on the basis that this is not being recorded, the real mischief there was that the matter was brought forward too late. A number of your Lordships have referred to that. This is a legitimately proud House. It does not wish material to be brought forward late. That lesson may be capable of being well learnt.
We have sunset clauses quite often. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and I were looking at one the other day in the Grand Committee on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill about 50:50 recruitment in the post-Patten proposals. That is quite a useful scheme, providing for statutory review not more than every three years and a requirement for renewal not more than every three years. That is a device. I cannot be quite as nuclear as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because the sunset clause would become, by and large, eclipse legislation and we would spend a disproportionate amount of time every year looking at sunset clauses.
Some specific questions have been put. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, dealt with the sifting committee. That is an extremely important way in which we could do work well without clashing with the entrenched privilege and superiority of the Commons.
The report posed three questions. First, is there a case for using Henry VIII powers to make incidental, consequential and similar provisions? I do not think that anyone has dissented from that. The real approach, with which I join, is that we must be
186
proportionate in the use made, we must be meticulous about the occasions and we must always consider scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that he would not be surprised if I were not able to give all the material to him. It will take some little research, but I shall undertake to have that done. That ought to inform our discussions. Are these Henry VIII powers properly sought on a particular occasion? If so, how well do they work and should there be any further scrutiny? I do not regard this as a party political or partisan matter.
Secondly, should there be a presumption that the same form of words should be used in every case? Proper tribute was paid to the thoughtful letter from chief parliamentary counsel. I do not think that the case is made that we ought to have a standard form of wording in every case. That would be disproportionate and we ought to be much more selective.
A number of your Lordships made the extremely important point that we now have an opportunity to use pre-legislative scrutiny in a way that it has not been used at the other end of the Palace. The package that your Lordships have approved says that eventually virtually all significant government Bills should have pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that is an accurate paraphrase. That is a significant way forward. I have no doubt that that general approach could be accommodated on appropriate occasions to deal with the sort of matter that we are looking at at the moment. There would be an opportunity at a much earlier stage—that is crucial—to identify the areas of concern, sometimes profound concern, about the nature of prospective legislation. If that is done and we are then able to use Grand Committee and carry-over, that would be a way of doing our work better. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that some of these orders might usefully be debated in the Moses Room. I know that his deputy leader does not really like the Moses Room, but a committee, which might not be called Moses, is certainly a possibility.
The third question was about the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. I agree with those who have said that one size will not fit all. There are aspects that do not require the heavy artillery brought out. It is better to go forward case by case, not because that is a particularly English approach, but because it is a pragmatic approach that has proved of virtue and value under the chairmanship of both noble Lords who are here present.
This has been a short debate.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, the committee made a clear recommendation on the level of scrutiny. It said that there should be a presumption in favour of affirmative legislation. In saying that it should be on a case by case basis, is the noble and learned Lord rejecting the argument in favour of that presumption?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is better to rely on the committee, which has the expertise and is non-partisan. Our experience has been rather

187
successful. Rather than having an overall presumption, I suggest that it is better to rely on the specific, distinct expertise of the committee in any particular case. We are certainly more than happy to follow that line. As I have said in the past, in my experience since 1997, I do not believe that we have ever gone against a recommendation from the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and now that of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. We should move forward in that way.
I was about to say that this has been quite a short debate, but surprisingly and hearteningly well attended—a double first!
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who took part in this short but well-attended debate, including those who are members of the committee, who were members of the committee, and those who may one day advance from their present Front Bench positions to membership of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I do not want to miss out my old friend—by the customs of the House I cannot call him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, a colleague from LSE days who may not fall into any of those categories.
I am naturally particularly pleased by the friendly comment by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I hope if I say that I agree with his comments on Italian legislative practice, as I do, that will not lead to the withdrawal of the honour recently bestowed on me by the President of Italy.
I am sure that I am right in saying that the committee will on the whole feel encouraged by the debate. It is also clear that there is more work of a specialised kind to do. Like others, I am delighted to see my predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, here. I know that he agrees with me that every now and again the Delegated Powers Committee should produce special reports for debates of this kind. I therefore take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the question left open by the latest exchange in the Chamber as an encouragement to look further at what is really behind the extraordinary process over the past decades by which what we call Henry VIII powers have become almost an automatic part of legislation.
Before I moved the Motion for this discussion I was told to avoid one thing above all, which was to end by saying, "I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name". That is quite often said at the end of such debates, but I will do exactly the opposite. I beg leave to move that the House takes note; in many ways it should do more than take note—it should act on the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (increase of Endowment) Order 2003
6.33 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 2002 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The order increases the endowment of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts under powers conferred on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by certain sections of the 1993 and1998 national lottery Acts. I am satisfied that the draft order before the House is compatible with convention rights.
We propose to increase NESTA's endowment by £95 million out of money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund for expenditure on health, education and the environment. The increase will serve two purposes. There will be an addition of £50 million to the existing £200 million endowment to enhance NESTA's income, which has fallen considerably since its inception, and a further £45 million will be used over the next three years to launch a range of new initiatives.
NESTA was established under the National Lottery Act 1998 in recognition of the need to enhance the UK's capacity to develop and commercialise ideas. Its overarching objective is to support and promote talent, innovation and creativity in the fields of science, technology and the arts. The initial endowment of £200 million from the lottery was granted in 1998 and was expected to generate annual income of around £12 million. With that income, NESTA funds three programmes: invention and innovation; fellowships; and education. It also runs projects, such as Science Year.
NESTA has already achieved much, but it is still relatively young and its success will be seen more clearly in the long term. Under the strong and determined leadership of NESTA's chairman, my noble friend Lord Puttnam, significant progress has been made. Since the first awards in 2000, NESTA has awarded more than £34 million to cover 270 people across its three core programmes. More than 30 new patents have been filed, 25 new companies have been registered and the first royalty cheque has been received. Some of NESTA's fellows have already produced significant bodies of work. Funding of more than 75 education projects has led to the development of national models of excellence.
NESTA has also attracted significant support from government departments. It won the contract to deliver the Government's Science Year in 2001–02, since extended to the current academic year. With substantial support from the DfES and the DTI, it has established the NESTA FutureLab, a research and development facility bringing together the academic community and cutting-edge creative industries to develop educational software. NESTA has won awards for the way it conducts its business, and has

189
received increasingly positive and widespread recognition from the business and investment communities and the media
NESTA was set up to take risks and that means we should expect some failures. What is important is that it learns from experience as it evolves. NESTA is doing just that and it has carried out initial evaluations of its programmes. Those have led to improvements in application processes; an increase in the diversity and range of its fellows; improved communications with applicants; and a redesign of its website. It is also taking positive steps to raise its profile and increase applications in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in regions such as the North West and the East Midlands.
That is encouraging, but as the recent report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on NESTA's achievements made clear, there are a number of areas where NESTA could and should do better. The Government have responded to that report, and we expect that response to be published very shortly. However, noble Lords will wish to be aware that, although we support a number of the committee's recommendations, we do not accept the committee's view that it is premature for NESTA to receive an increase in its endowment.
We believe that that recommendation arose from difficulties in interpreting NESTA's financial information, which led the committee to conclude that NESTA did not have a sufficient grip on its finances. I can give an assurance that that is not the case and that we are satisfied that the financial information contained in NESTA's reports is accurate and reliable. However, we agree with the committee that NESTA must take steps to ensure that in future it presents financial information in the clearest possible manner and that its running costs are limited. We have given a clear and unequivocal assurance that we will work with NESTA to address those key issues identified in the committee's report over the next few months.
I turn to the reasons for proposing the increase. When NESTA was established, provision was made in the National Lottery Act for the endowment to be increased by order of the Secretary of State. That provision recognised that the initial endowment alone might not be sufficient in the longer term for NESTA to achieve its ambitious and challenging objectives.
In 2001, NESTA submitted a proposal for an increase in its endowment of around £300 million. That increase would have provided income to extend significantly its three core programmes, to launch a number of new initiatives and to counter the effects of prolonged low interest rates. We have considered this proposal and believe that it is too soon to approve such a significant increase in the endowment. NESTA must clearly show that it can walk before it runs, and we do not believe that the time is right for such a radical change.
However, NESTA's annual income has fallen significantly from £12 million to £8 million because of low interest rates, and its reserves are being used to
190
sustain current levels of programme expenditure. We believe that that is unsustainable and that it is vital that NESTA is able to maintain its core programmes at an effective level. Any reduction in the level of awards would send out a very negative message about our support for developing the nation's talent. Therefore, in this order we propose to increase the endowment by £50 million to provide a return which restores annual income to around £10 million to £12 million and to provide a cushion against future fluctuations in interest rates.
We would also like NESTA to be in a position to move forward and to have the capacity for modest growth in the short to medium term. We are keen for NESTA to develop and launch a number of new initiatives over the next three years, particularly those which support our objectives for children and young people, education, social inclusion, sustainable development and the economy. We therefore propose to increase the endowment by a further £45 million and to allow NESTA to draw down up to £15 million a year of that over the next three years in order to fund a range of new projects. Those include: a scheme to support the best talent emerging from art and design colleges; a fellowship scheme for young people; promoting entrepreneurial talent in schoolchildren; and broadening the scope of existing programmes.
Longer-term decisions on NESTA's funding will be made in the light of a full evaluation of programmes which NESTA is undertaking and further independent reviews which are scheduled to take place over the next few years.
We propose to fund the £95 million increase by a one-off transfer of uncommitted funds from the New Opportunities Fund. The transfer will not affect existing NOF programmes and is not intended to alter the balance of funding between lottery distributors. The Government have given a commitment to maintain the percentage share that goes to the original good causes, and that commitment will not be affected by these proposals.
It is also important to note that the transfer is in no way meant to denigrate the invaluable contribution made by the New Opportunities Fund to thousands of health, education and environment projects around the country. The Government remain committed to ensuring that those important areas continue to benefit from lottery funding.
Finally, we do not propose to present NESTA with a blank cheque. The Secretary of State has sought firm undertakings from NESTA that it will address issues of cost-effectiveness, demonstrate how it might contribute further to our social inclusion and sustainable development agendas and take steps to ensure a balanced distribution of funds across the whole United Kingdom. She has also sought an undertaking that all the issues raised by the Science and Technology Committee report have been properly addressed.
The Secretary of State has consulted her Cabinet colleagues and the devolved administrations on this proposal. They are broadly content, but the devolved

191
administrations have asked that we ensure that there is a more even distribution of funding across the UK. As required by the National Lottery Act 1998, we have consulted the New Opportunities Fund and the other lottery distributors and they are content with the proposed transfer of funds.
In conclusion, we believe there is a sound case for providing NESTA with an increase in its endowment to help to restore its income and to enable it to take forward new initiatives. We believe that that is best effected by a transfer of £95 million from unallocated funds in the National Lottery Distribution Fund. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 2002 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate on this important order. We have devoted some time to it because, in our heart of hearts, we want to be supportive of NESTA. In some ways, it would have been nice if we had simply been able to stand up and say, "We support it unequivocally", and then to have sat down. But that is not possible.
We have questions about some aspects of the funding; there are some areas where, to be brutal, the figures do not seem to add up; and we are concerned about some of the issues raised in the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's report, National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts: A follow-up (6th Report of Session 2001–02). I believe that those issues should be aired, as, indeed, they were last week in another place in a debate about this order. In a moment, I shall come to some of the issues raised in that debate which, I suspect, will make the Government feel a little uncomfortable. Some of it was quite amusing.
When I first became Shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport for Her Majesty's Opposition, one of the first pieces of information—if it can be called that—that I received was from NESTA. I did not understand it or have a clue what it was about. That matter was raised by the Select Committee and I notice that Members in another place have referred to it.
There is no doubt that the objectives of NESTA are extremely worth while and worth repeating: to support and promote talent, innovation and creativity in the field of science, technology and the arts. The objectives were set out in the enabling legislation of the National Lottery Act 1998. The core goals to be achieved by NESTA were: to be a helping hand to talented individuals or groups in the field of science, technology and the arts; to help individuals and groups to realise their potential; to help to turn inventions into ideas in those fields and into products and services which can be effectively exploited and the rights to which can be effectively protected; and, by contributing to public knowledge, to promote an appreciation of science, technology and the arts.
192
Those are all good goals but they do not seem entirely to marry with the order, which talks about the need for additional funds for expenditure on or connected with health, education and the environment. When the Minister comes to reply, I should like him to reassure your Lordships' House and me that there is not some skew or hidden agenda here. Why does the order not make it absolutely clear that this is additional funding required for the core objectives relating to science, technology and the arts? Why are we suddenly looking at wording connected with health, education or the environment? Is that to pacify all the other worthy groups which feel hard done by because they believe that they should have received this type of funding? Do they feel that because, as a Member in another place said, NESTA is rather trendy, it is more likely to receive this substantial funding so early in its life, whereas village halls and other community projects are losing oat? I believe that, for the sake of clarity and for the benefit of NESTA, it would be a good idea if we were all to be clear that the funds are straightforwardly for science, technology and the arts.
I said at the outset that I was unsure as to the meaning of "NESTA". Therefore, I asked a researcher to look up some information about it on the website so that I could fully understand what it is all about. Some of the journals—I have one here entitled, NESTA Journal Issue 02—are incredibly glossy. I should love to know from the Minister the amount of expenditure on that kind of material. I assume it was free, which is probably quite right. At whom is it aimed? Who, in addition to privileged individuals like myself, is able to receive this kind of literature? It is well set out but—NESTA may not like me saying this—frankly it lacks clarity in terms of its goals, achievements and objectives.
People want to know how their money is being spent. The money comes from lottery tickets that people cherish. When people spend their money on the lottery they want to be sure that the money goes to good causes. In October we looked on the website of NESTA. It read well:
"Moving forward, our programmes went live in December 1999 and since then we have made steady progress supporting over 225 awards worth £15 million".
In May of last year—I jump further back—we received a NESTA briefing that stated that NESTA has made 248 awards at a total commitment of £17.7 million. So in May there were 248 awards worth £17.7 million; in October on the website there were 225 awards worth £15 million; and now the Minister reports to the House that NESTA has made 273 awards worth £34 million. That shows a huge discrepancy or jump in the figures.
Talking of a huge jump in the figures, we found it remarkable to learn from our inquiries that NESTA had been so bold as to ask for an additional £300 million only 18 months into its lifetime. I accept that the Government turned down that request, but that leads us to question whether it is fair to give NESTA £200 million partly on the basis—I put it as simply as that—of the problem with lower interest

193
rates. That is a problem that all businesses have to confront, but unlike NESTA other businesses have to re-jig the management of their money accordingly.
I read the debate in the Commons. There were a number of stinging references to the achievements of NESTA that I do not feel were answered properly in another place. I believe that it is worth asking the Minister whether we could have some salient examples of the achievement of NESTA during its short life to indicate that it seriously deserves such an increase in funding.
As I have already said, there was reference to NESTA being seen, in the eyes of the Government, as more deserving because it is trendy. It was suggested that,
"Carol Vorderman is on the board on NESTA, so how could it be anything but trendy?".—[Official Report, Commons First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation; 9/1/03; col. 13.]
I think that is a rather unfair reference, but the Minister may like the opportunity to respond to it. Later in the debate at col. 15 there was this comment:
"The point was that much of the money appears to be heaped on the Islington dinner party set and not enough on causes to inspire the people who buy a lottery ticket on a Saturday morning".
Quite understandably, there were also references to the expenditure by NESTA on a wonderful building and on the style of reports that it produces—not just the glossy magazine that I have shown today, but also its annual report. I read many annual reports but I have never seen one in hardback before. It is stylish but the Sixth Report of Session 2001–02 said, quite rightly, that,
"Annual reports should not read"—
this is the important point—
"like the production notes in a theatre programme. Creativity should not be at the expense of clarity. We recommend that NESTA in future provide Annual Reports which contain clear and full information on expenditure, including awards made; the targets; and expenditure plans".
I heard what the Minister said, that the Government do not accept that there was a lack of clarity, but I believe, as I have said before, that it is important for NESTA to ensure that its credibility is sustained and enhanced by listening and responding to the criticisms contained in the Sixth Report of Session 2001–02.
We are sure that many good works are under way. We welcome NESTA. We want to give it support into the future, but we ask that the Government continue to scrutinise closely the spending by NESTA on projects and that NESTA does not feel obliged to respond too closely to the wishes and the will of the Government, thereby compromising or diffusing its core objects in any way. That is probably our priority. We want to be sure that the additional funding really will be spent on the core objectives because it is those objectives that we applauded at the outset and that we want to support.
6.57 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister explained clearly, for which we are grateful, what the order is about. We accept the order; it would be pointless to do otherwise. It appears to be a simple proposition. I do not intend to go much further than to welcome it and to make one or two comments about NESTA, but the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has taken the debate into other interesting areas so perhaps I may go further than I had originally intended. I believe that most of us would find much of what she said appropriate and would agree with her.
I declare that I opposed the extension of the good causes to health education and the environment, and I still do. I say that personally because I am unsure that I carry all my colleagues on these Benches with me. However, NESTA appeared to me to be the one area that had an interesting prospectus. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, at that stage there was a certain lack of clarity about what it intended to do in science, technology and the arts. There is a certain lack of clarity in the explanation of the purpose which was there originally.
When faced with the order I asked my researcher to ring NESTA and ask some simple questions that may help me in my response. I asked what was NESTA's level of satisfaction with the current operation of the funds that were allotted to it. It replied that it was very satisfied with the operation of the current funds. It revealed that its endowment was invested in government stocks in order to maximise the safety of the investment. Safe it may be, but it certainly has not resulted in a happy situation. It did not show much financial foresight because the return on its investment was linked to interest rates. Interest rates have been low, as has been explained so ably by the Minister, to such an extent that this increase in the endowment is to counterbalance that loss of previous endowments. The return has been less than anticipated.
NESTA says that of the £95 million, which is the sum mentioned in the order, £50 million will be used to redress the loss of those investments. I do not blame it for that. Why should NESTA be an investment expert? It chose what it thought was the safest form of investment in order to protect its money and it has not been particularly beneficial.
I then asked what in particular the funds resulting from the order would be spent on; that is the remaining £45 million. NESTA explained that that sum would be drawn down at up to £15 million a year over the next three years, which would allow it to expand its work and to begin to meet its statutory role in new ways. That is very strange and is not clear. Noble Lords will forgive me and the noble Baroness for talking about clarity, but we have been involved in legislation passing through this House which is singularly lacking in clarity. We have that matter very much on our minds. We are looking all the time for clarity.
NESTA says that it will specifically be starting work on a programme of entrepreneurship education for young people. That sounds very worthy and interesting. I wonder exactly what it means. I have

195
spent much of my working life dealing with entrepreneurs and few of the best ones have been educated. It also mentioned a programme of support for new graduates. Perhaps the Minister will tell me what that means. It is undoubtedly very worthy. The last programme is an extension of its existing fellowship programme to provide support for younger people. What does that mean? I wish explanations were given about matters that concern public funds. We will argue in the House that lottery funds are public Funds. The public has a right to know what is happening to these funds.
The falling sales of lottery tickets is an important debate for another day. I look forward to that debate. I have, and I daresay the noble Baroness has, very strong views about why the sales of lottery tickets are falling so dramatically. I do not agree that those moneys set out to support those areas of our life cannot be taken from direct taxation proceeds. The original good causes were, after all, the reason why the National Lottery Act originally passed through this House with little opposition. The case was well made that the arts, charities, sport and so on were deserving causes for such moneys.
One would have been extremely naive not to expect a government sooner or later to put their hand in the till and try to improve their image by spreading the money further. People who buy lottery tickets do not mind that at all. Most of them think that the operator Camelot distributes the funds. Their knowledge of how the mechanics work is slender. It is clear that people are now beginning to be concerned about where money from lottery sales ends up. It may be a kind of—without maligning taxi drivers—taxi drivers' view, but they do not like money to be given to causes relating to immigrants and asylum seekers, and they do not like grand projects, such as the Dome, because they have seen what happens. There has been an enormous wastage of lottery money since the inception of the dispersal of these funds. My particular hates are money given for film production and the Wembley Stadium project, among a few others.
NESTA seems to be a deserving area if only the situation could be made clear. I agree with the noble Baroness that a lot of glossy material is sent out, such as impressive letters and invitations signed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. Even now we are still fairly much in the dark about what is happening with NESTA. Having said that, I hope the money is put to good use. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, could enlighten me as to his view of the purposes of the NESTA projects. It will then be on the record. People may pick it up and read about it, and when we next talk about the matter we shall be better informed.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both Front Benches for their contributions. While asking proper questions about issues that need to be probed, they have been broadly supportive of the objectives of NESTA and of the work it has done.
196
I begin by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that of course the allocation of increased money to NESTA is for it to fulfil the objectives laid down; namely, to support and promote talent, innovation and creativity in the fields of science, technology and the arts.
As to the reference to the broader issues of health, education and the environment, the unallocated National Opportunities Fund money is governed by those categories. But the money allocated to NESTA will be directed to the objectives. The noble Baroness required proper reassurance about that.
I suppose that I had a little difficulty in accepting the challenges made about the glossiness of the publications of NESTA. I do not think that there has ever been an organisation asking for more money that has not attracted criticism if people receive from it an artefact, a leaflet or a report which looks as if there has been a substantial investment of money in it. But I think one probably recognises that if one has portrayed oneself as a significant contributor to the improvement of, in particular, design and education in this country and at the edge of creativity, to produce documents which fall far short of desirable standards in that respect would be to do a disservice to the cause. So, I accept on behalf of NESTA that element of criticism that the annual report may have looked a little overweight. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that it far surpasses a number of annual reports I have received from a number of worthy organisations. However, I am sure that the criticism would have been much more intensive if the noble Baroness and other significant figures had received a report that looked tatty and fell below standard, but purported to come from a body concerned to improve design in this country. That is a proper justification.
Where the noble Baroness is on stronger ground is in pointing to the discrepancy in the figures on the website. I can say only that the reason why the figures have changed is that the Government rightly recognised what the Select Committee in another place pointed out: that NESTA's accounts left something to be desired in their clarity and accuracy. Earlier reports refer to accounts that are not on the same basis as that which we now demand of NESTA. The changes effected are designed to apportion the full costs of supporting and promoting awardees to each programme, so that we know what each programme actually costs.
Previously, those were shown as central administrative costs. The House will recognise the problem with that: first, it inflated administrative costs to what appeared to be an unacceptably high level; secondly, it did not give us accurate information about the costs of individual programmes, which are the very costs that we want to scrutinise. That is the reason for those changes. The discrepancies are to be deplored, but now that we have accounts on a proper basis, we shall have figures that are directly comparable year on year—dare I say it, even month on month.
The noble Baroness also referred to something that she called the Islington factor. I shall not take that criticism as being too sharply intended. Suffice it to say

197
that we—and NESTA—are cognisant of the fact that there is enormous concern that the scheme should be fair across our country, across the United Kingdom as a whole. NESTA is therefore under an obligation to ensure that Scotland, Wales, the regions of England and Northern Ireland receive their proper share of its initiatives. I can only state that that is our intention. When we come to debate these issues next year—not necessarily on an increase of endowment order, but perhaps on the broader issues of the lottery—we may see improvement on that.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that people want value for money, but people do not buy lottery tickets on the basis of an accurate identification of exactly where the money is going. In my experience, the average lottery buyer—there may be a few of us present in the House—approves of the good causes concept behind the lottery. Of course we do. We all expect good causes to benefit and want our favourite good causes to benefit, but one cannot suggest that the decline in lottery sales is because people think that money is going in the wrong direction. First, we are discussing fractional amounts, in terms of the lottery.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I was not suggesting that. I tried to suggest that falling lottery sales were for reasons that we must discuss at a later date. I did not want to give the impression that I was linking the falling lottery takings to the view of ticket buyers about the good causes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that intervention. If I slightly
198
misinterpreted what the noble Viscount said earlier, I apologise. I merely sought to emphasise that we have a real anxiety about falling lottery sales—that goes without saying, because it means that the good causes that we hold dear will receive less as time goes by. That affects all the good causes, but, as we shall have the opportunity more appropriately to debate, that is not the root cause of the lottery's present problems. In any case, we hope that sales may pick up again in due course.
I reiterate that there are proper criticisms to advance about this relatively new, young body, which itself is involved in promoting initiatives. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will recognise my difficulty in discussing its achievements. It is a relatively new organisation that is pump-priming to get initiatives and new, creative ideas off the ground. To expect it to achieve a return on its capital in the limited time involved is asking a great deal. There are successes among its initiatives, but the real successes will show themselves over a rather longer time span than we have thus far had.
Suffice it to say that we now have an accounting procedure and a recognition of how NESTA's reports should be presented that will guarantee that we can effectively monitor the use of the additional money that I hope will be agreed for it to further its objectives, which are shared in all parts of the House. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Home Office: Race Equality Employment Targets
  Home Office: Race Equality Employment Targets
  MV "Prestige"
  MV "Prestige"
  Iraq
  Iraq
  DTI: Consultancy Contracts
  DTI: Consultancy Contracts
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships
  Pension Benefits: Unmarried Long-term Cohabiting Partners
  Pension Benefits: Unmarried Long-term Cohabiting Partners
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Recruitment Policies
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Recruitment Policies
  Armagh: Barrier at Tower Hill
  Armagh: Barrier at Tower Hill
  Northern Ireland: Irish and Ulster Seats
  Northern Ireland: Irish and Ulster Seats
  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Government Departments: London Weighting Allowance
  Government Departments: London Weighting Allowance
  Airports: Frontier Control System
  Airports: Frontier Control System
  Non-departmental Public Body Appointments
  Non-departmental Public Body Appointments
  English Channel: Collisions
  English Channel: Collisions
  Rear Seat Belts
  Rear Seat Belts
  Paddington Underground Station
  Paddington Underground Station
  Bus Stop Clearways
  Bus Stop Clearways
  Safeguarding Children
  Safeguarding Children
  NHS: Staffing
  NHS: Staffing
  Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocational Centre
  Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocational Centre
  NHS Foundation Trusts
  NHS Foundation Trusts