Sitting of 15 May 2003

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Turkey Meat
    Mr. Mark Todd: What steps she is taking to restrict turkey meat imports from Brazil which (a) are mis-described and (b) fail to comply with EU vaccine rules. [113298]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Imports are not allowed unless controls on vaccination against major poultry diseases are the same as those in the EU. With the assistance of Customs and Excise and the European Commission, we are looking at the levels of certain turkey products imported from outside the EU during the run-up to Christmas 2002, and whether they comply with EU rules.
    Mr. Todd: I welcome the brief answer that the Minister has given. My concern relates to the use of nitrofurans as antibiotics in turkey meat from Brazil, and the mis-description of imports into this country from Brazil, where products that appear to be marginally treated are dealt with in a different tariff fashion. This has had a major impact on Brandon's Poultry in Scropton, in my constituency. I hope that the Minister can take action to remove this unfair competition.
    Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been very active on behalf of his local company and his constituents in respect of this issue. I can reassure him that there are strict controls and regulations on imports from countries such as Brazil. They must come from a slaughterhouse that meets the EU standard, and they
    442
    must go through border inspection posts, at which there is 100 per cent, inspection of documentation and 50 per cent, physical inspection of the product.
    I understand my hon. Friend's point about the use of illegal vaccinations. Tests are being carried out on poultry meat to ensure that such products are not receiving vaccinations that are banned in the EU. We are taking seriously the concerns that have been expressed, and we are currently carrying out a full investigation with the support of Customs and Excise.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: I share the concern of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) about nitrofurans in meat, and the Minister is aware of my concern about illegal meat imports generally, including turkey meat. What does he have to say in response to the comment made by the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, Dr. Jon Bell, to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday? He said that a ministerial interdepartmental committee on illegal meat imports "is being set up". What does that say about the urgency with which the Government are addressing the question of illegal meat imports, despite all the pressure that we have put on the Minister in the past two years in the wake of foot and mouth and classical swine fever? Is this committee still going to be set up, and why has it not been set up already?
    Mr. Morley: The House will know that a great deal of action has been taken in relation to illegal meat imports. On risk analysis, it is important to stress that there are a range of risks associated with importing disease and disease control, and we must address them all. Illegal imports is one of them and we take it seriously, which is why more finance has been provided, Customs and Excise has been given a stronger role, we have improved the range of publicity and information for people entering this country, and we have obtained agreement from the EU to end the derogations that allowed the importation of person al meat products.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    2. Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on the mid-term common agricultural policy review and its implications for British farmers. [113299]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Although we would have preferred the Commission proposals to be more radical, they do represent a considerable improvement and we will be working hard to secure a positive outcome to the negotiations this summer. Our analysis of the proposals concludes that overall, they would have a positive impact on UK farmers and farm incomes.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that reply. Her Department is aware of the closure of Brandon's turkey factory in Dalton, near Thirsk, in the Vale of York, because of the impact of substandard imported turkeys from Brazil. Her Department is hiding behind the fact that currently, no EU action is being taken to prevent these sub-standard imports into this country. Can she give us an assurance today that in terms of sub-standard turkey imports and cheap sugar

    443
    imports from Brazil, this House will be consulted before the final agreement is reached in the mid-term review, possibly before the end of June, in Greece?
    Margaret Beckett: Well entirely, but apart from the issue of the mid-term review and the decisions being taken, it is currently against the law for people to import material from elsewhere that does not meet EU standards. So although I understand and recognise the hon. Lady's concern, the position that she describes needs to be addressed by means of enforcement of the current rules.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear it in mind in the negotiations that many of us do not want the current system, through which farmers are subsidised for production, to be replaced by one which subsidises them simply because they own a piece of farmland or—even worse—because they once happened to be farmer. I know that she has been pushing hard for fundamental reform at European level, but I hope that she will bear in mind those concerns and press for as much funding as possible to be transferred to true rural development, rather than continuing with the current subsidy culture in another form.
    Margaret Beckett: I understand that entirely, and well recall the Select Committee expressing anxiety that we would be in danger of simply transferring money from one area in which we subsidise to another. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is very important that we make the best possible use of public funds, and that the purpose is to provide public benefit. It is desirable to support the wider rural economy as well as agri-environment measures.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an urgent need to establish what happens to the right of entitlement to the single farm payment in cases where the land has changed hands or tenancy during the reference period? If the decision is to devolve the matter to member states, will she ensure that the Government's intentions are clarified as soon as possible, and that a detailed consultation is held?
    Margaret Beckett: I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are very conscious of some of the serious and genuine practical problems that existing proposals raise. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks at present, but we believe that the talks and negotiations remain on course for basic decisions by the end of June. Once we see the shape of those decisions, we will know what impact they will have. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have received many representations about the points that he makes, and that we take them very seriously.
    Paddy Tipping: The mid-term review proposals to decouple payments do not sit easily with the Curry commission's recommendations on modulation—10 per cent., and then 20 per cent. Is my right hon. Friend confident that, in the light of that, the broad and shallow entry scheme can be funded?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right that the Curry commission proposals go further than the generality of the mid-term review reform proposals would suggest. That lends a particular importance and urgency to our efforts to have that position recognised and taken account of in the negotiations. I assure both my hon. Friend and the House that there is nothing that the Government want less than to abandon the steps that we have already taken or the plans that the Curry commission rightly put forward for further steps in the UK.
    Andrew George: Although much of the language is impenetrable to members of the public, the Secretary of State is aware that momentous decisions need to be made very shortly. What will she do to secure a deal and face down the German and French pack to protect the viability of small family farms, ensure that the nation state is able to distribute the top-sliced modulated rural development funds and, above all, significantly reduce the overall common agricultural policy budget?
    Margaret Beckett: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's final point first. He will know that there is already broad agreement about the nature of the financial framework for the future use and structure of the CAP. I share his view entirely that much of the language is impenetrable, but the numbers at least are not. In addition, we have been, and will continue to be, engaged in extensive talks, bilaterally and in small groups, with other member states and the Commission. The course of action that the Commission is pursuing is that the proposals put into the public domain by Commissioner Fischler remain on the table. It is engaged in extensive dialogue with individual member states about the concerns raised by the proposals. We anticipate that there will be further extensive discussions at the next Agriculture Council, which I think is to be held next week. However, the proposals that remain on the table are the proposals with which the House and the farming community are familiar.
    Mr. John Grogan: What estimates has my right hon. Friend made of the effect of CAP reform on the sectors that are currently unsupported, such as fruit and vegetables? Is there not a danger that some farmers will take single-farm payments, move into those sectors with a competitive advantage, and distort markets that are currently very finely balanced?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend raises another serious and valid point, which has been raised with this Government, with the Governments of many other member states, and with the Commission. I can assure him that we are mindful of the danger. We do not believe that it is as serious as some of those engaged in the sector believe, but we accept that we have to examine the position and take it into account as the final proposals begin to emerge.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady believe that a national scheme for modulation is necessary, in addition to the European modulation scheme proposed by the Commission?
    Margaret Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman will know from what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) a few moments ago, we are mindful indeed of the fact that our voluntary
    modulation—some other member states are also pursuing one—goes further than the Commission's initial proposals. We are discussing with the Commission how best to handle that in terms of the transitional scheme, which is particularly relevant to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lidington: But does the right hon. Lady not accept that the Commission's current proposals already discriminate harshly against British agriculture, which will be expected to shoulder a much greater share of the costs of common agricultural policy reform than would be borne by farmers in France or Italy, for example? Imposing a domestic scheme on top of a European scheme would weight the scales still further against the competitive interests of British farmers. What they want is a fair deal out of Europe. Can the right hon. Lady guarantee that she will be able to deliver that in June?
    Margaret Beckett: I can certainly guarantee to fight tooth and nail to secure a fair deal for British farmers. We have no wish to see British farmers placed at a competitive disadvantage. However, the hon. Gentleman will have observed that even the Commission's current proposals on the criteria of modulation funding—we are pressing to remedy some of the unfairness that has been Britain's lot in some of the negotiations in the past—would benefit the UK by 9 to 10 per cent. That compares with 3.5 per cent, now, but I accept that aspects of the proposals are unfair and we are making that plain to the Commission.

    National Air Quality Targets
    Mr. John Robertson: What progress has been made on meeting the national air quality strategy targets. [113300]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): We have met, or are on course to meet, air quality objectives for five of the nine pollutants in England—namely benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon monoxide, lead and sulphur dioxide. Significant progress has been made towards meeting air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide, particles, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and ozone. That is a result of the measures that have been implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants, and their precursors, particularly from road transport and industry.
    John Robertson: I thank the Minister for his answer and I commend the Government for the work that they have done. However, conditions such as asthma are greatly exacerbated by pollution. Pollution may not cause it, but, as I know from my experience, it certainly makes it worse. The number of asthma sufferers now totals 5 million. Has the Minister examined the research on the effects of long-term air pollution carried out by the air pollution unit of the Department of Health?
    446
    When will the measures that he has announced have a significant effect on air pollution, so that conditions such as asthma can be significantly ameliorated?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is now greater sensitivity towards pollutants and a greater understanding of their impact. We do not believe that the battle is yet won: pointing to indicators of progress does not mean that we are satisfied with the position that we have reached. Although the emissions of most pollutants are falling, concentration levels of some are not falling as fast as we would like. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we shall remain focused on the targets and work with our colleagues in the Department of Health to remain fully sensitive to the points that he makes.
    Norman Baker (Levies): Does the Minister accept that the good work done in tackling air pollution will be undermined if the airline industry is not brought under control? Is he aware that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports alone emit more than 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and 13,000 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide each year? The industry's CO2 emissions are set to double between 1990 and 2010. Will his Department support the impositicn of a European Union aviation fuel tax, and also tell the Department for Transport that it must resist the discredited predict-and-provide policy for more runways in the south-east?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman addresses transport policy and tax in his question, which confirms the important fact that many Departments make a contribution to these policy issues. We are conscious of the impact of air transport and the situation around airports, which is clear from our statement on the consultation documents on the future of air transport in the south-east.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that air pollution is not simply an urban problem? It has a worrying effect in rural areas, especially given the amount of ozone from motorways. Is it right to put special effort into monitoring that, and does he agree that that should be part of a properly constituted overall policy, instead of one that just concentrates on urban areas?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Ozone levels in rural areas are a problem, and we are not satisfied with the progress that has been made. It should be remembered that ozone is a highly trans-boundary pollutant and we are taking measures nationally to control ozone precursors, such as nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds. Internationally agreed measures are the most effective ways to tackle that pollutant, as ground-level ozone concentrations in southern England are influenced largely by trans-boundary pollution. The UK will play a key role in seeking agreements on those issues, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight them as an area for concern.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Surprisingly, many local air quality management areas exist in small market towns, and some of those are set to deteriorate further

    447
    as a result of unsympathetic planning. What discussions has the Minister had with his local government colleagues to ensure that planning guidance is tightened up to prevent that from happening?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that air pollution problems arise in areas such as market towns, where one would not expect them, and he has raised the issue in the House in the past. I can assure him that air quality issues are considered across government by this Department and our colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport.

    Sustainable Development
    Joan Ruddock: If she will make a statement on the outcomes of the 11th meeting of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development. [113301]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The 11th session of the Commission concluded last week, having agreed a reform package and a new work programme that focuses on results and actions rather than textual negotiations. The outcome holds some promise that the CSD will be able to effectively fulfil its task of following up implementation of the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development.
    Joan Ruddock: Given the lack of binding targets on renewable energy set at Johannesburg and the fact that the follow-up on energy will not begin until 2006, what strategies are the Government developing on expanding the use of renewable energy globally, and will a British Minister attend the Bonn conference on that subject next month?
    Margaret Beckett: We are mindful of the importance of the Bonn conference and we shall certainly be represented at a senior level. Unfortunately, we have not had much notice of those dates and Ministers' diaries are under considerable pressure. We are trying to find out who might be able to attend, but I cannot tell my hon. Friend at this point. I can tell her that we are involved in the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership. We are taking that forward with great vigour and there is great interest in it from many companies and organisations across the world. We hope that it will be a fruitful vehicle. We are also working with other states that are pursuing similar partnerships internationally. I can assure my hon. Friend that the coalition of people who wish to pursue the advance of renewable energy is alive and well.
    Mr. Michael Jack: On the issue of sustainable development and road fuels, the Secretary of State will be aware of the contribution that is being made by the development of biodiesel, especially from the use of oilseed rape as a feedstock. However, the 20p duty derogation is not considered sufficient to pump-prime the industry in the UK. What representations could her Department make, even at this late stage in the passage
    448
    of the Finance Bill, to try to increase the derogation from 20p to 28p, thus triggering an important development in sustainability?
    Margaret Beckett: We have had many discussions with our Treasury colleagues and I can, in all honesty, tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no unwillingness in the Treasury team to look at those issues. There have already been, and there will continue to be, extensive discussions. The industry is very aware of the position: so far, it has not been able to make its case with sufficient force to convince the Treasury about the further steps that would make the dramatic difference that has been suggested. Treasury Ministers are open to those discussions—
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Why not try it?
    Margaret Beckett: We are talking about substantial sums of money. The Treasury has already made a substantial potential concession in revenue terms and is willing to consider discussions, but the case must be made.
    Mr. David Kidney: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a growing network of eco-schools, where children of all ages learn about sustainable development in practical ways. That is a good way of embedding in future generations knowledge of, and responsibility for, sustainable development. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Department already disseminates information on sustainable development to the network of eco-schools? If not, does she not think that it is a really good idea and is a way of improving people's understanding of sustainable development?
    Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that it is a good way of improving the understanding of sustainable development. DEFRA and the Department for Education and Skills make substantial information available to schools. Offhand, I am not aware whether special information is devoted to the network of eco-schools, but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the relevant staff.

    Cormorants (Inland Fisheries)
    Mr. Martin Salter: How much public money has been spent by her Department over the last seven years on research into predation of inland fisheries by cormorants; and what conclusions have been reached. [113303]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Department has spent £1.4 million on research into predation of inland fisheries by piscivorous birds over the past eight years.The research programme significantly improved our understanding of the behaviour of fish-eating birds, their numbers and distribution and the extent of the problems they cause to

    449
    fisheries, and helped towards the development of effective management strategies. The results of the early research have been published.
    Mr. Salter: Does the Minister agree that it will come as no surprise to either anglers or the taxpayers who funded the research to learn that cormorants eat fish? The point is what will the Minister do to make it easier for fishery owners and angling clubs to protect their stocks and their livelihoods, especially in the light of the news this week that at Walthamstow reservoir, fish stocks worth £50,000 were predated in a single year?
    Mr. Morley: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. Indeed, he took me to Walthamstow reservoir to see the problem. Unfortunately, on that particular morning there was a thick fog so I can only say that I could see no problem. However, I know that there is a problem and that my hon. Friend is serious about it. As he knows, we have spent a great deal of money on looking into ways of dealing with the matter; for example, research is currently under way on fish refuges, which may be helpful in dealing with the problem. My hon. Friend will also know that in the worst-case scenario we can issue licences for control, but people have to demonstrate an economic loss and that other ways of deterring cormorants have been tried and have failed. We are willing to work with the angling world to find out how we can deter cormorants from eating its fish.
    David Burnside: May I declare an interest? I have a pond on my farm in County Antrim—[Interruption.]—I will invite the Minister there.
    At this time of year, I go to Movanagher fish farm to buy brown trout to stock the pond. All year round, I never see a cormorant, but within 24 hours cormorants come in and eat every one of those trout—[Interruption.] This is a serious point. At Movanagher fish farm, at fish farms throughout the United Kingdom and in commercial and sporting fishing, it is a disaster. The only way to deal with the problem is not to waste money on civil servants but to designate a number of days when cormorant stocks throughout the UK can be culled.
    Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course there is an issue regarding still-water fisheries and the trend towards inland cormorant breeding, but his suggested solution may not work, and non-lethal deterrents may be equally effective. We do take the problem seriously; we must identify the most effective way of deterring such predation, and to do so we must examine the whole range of options.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: We have been talking about fish-eating birds; may we discuss the situation with regard to a fish-eating animal—the otter? Only this week there has been a report that the otters are coming back in great numbers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall have to leave the otters for another day.

    Abattoirs
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: How many small to medium sized abattoirs there are in England. [113305]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): On 1 May, there were in England 116 licensed low throughput and 172 licensed full throughput red-meat abattoirs; and 43 licensed low throughput and 68 licensed full throughput white-meat abattoirs.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, which I think shows the dramatic reduction in the number of abattoirs in England and the United Kingdom as a whole. Will he share my concern that the last abattoir in my constituency, the family firm JJJ Heathcote & Son, which has been in operation for six generations, has closed because of the huge additional costs imposed upon abbatoirs by the animal by-products regulations—particularly those relating to biological testing and the disposal of blood, which will add costs to the company, which went out of active trading on 1 May, of £525 a week? The Minister can see that that is a huge additional sum. What is the Minister going to do to safeguard animal welfare and reduce the inconvenience and costs to farmers, by ensuring that in future small abattoirs remain in business?
    Alun Michael: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern because he referred to the closure of an abattoir in his constituency. I understand that the decision to close that abattoir was a commercial one, not attributable directly to the introduction of the animal by-products regulations, although they may be a factor.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton indicated dissent.
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is precisely what I understand, and I do not think that it helps to try to nail commercial decisions on to the introduction of regulations. It should be remembered that there is over-production in the abattoir industry in this country. To try to help, in view of the importance of the local and regional economy, we have refocused our policy on the abattoir sector, which means that abattoirs are eligible to apply for processing and marketing grants and to make use of rural enterprise schemes, in order to gain assistance from those elements in the England rural development programme.
    David Taylor: Should not we be doing more not only to protect existing abattoirs but to encourage the re-establishment of local abattoirs? Will not that minimise stress to animals, reduce the risk and scale of any disease outbreaks and—as important as anything—encourage the availability of locally produced meat, which many consumers say that they are looking for and would support? Cannot we do much more than we are doing?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the need to ensure the availability of abattoir

    451
    capacity in order to help local and regional products, and we are doing so in conjunction with the Government offices and the regional development agencies. However, one has to remember that we are talking about commercial activities, and the Meat and Livestock Commission has estimated that in 1999, comparing peak-week activity with average activity, the overcapacity amounted to 49 per cent, for cattle, 55 per cent, for sheep and 27 per cent, for pigs. I came across problems in the abattoir industry when I was first elected to a local authority in 1973, so many of these issues are not new. We should bear in mind, in trying to assist local and regional provision of facilities, that these are commercial activities and that there is still an element of over-provision.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that the closure of abattoirs has very serious implications for animal welfare, as of course animals have to be transported very considerable distances if local abattoirs close?
    Alun Michael: I entirely accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I can assure him that we keep that in mind, and the fact that, in no small measure, the way we try to assist the regional and local economies is associated with that issue.
    Mr. Colin Breed: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the Countryside Agency report on local food, in which it says:
    "the erosion of the infrastructure that used to support local food markets was identified as a key barrier. In particular, the closure of local abattoirs, due to increasing legislation".
    Under the heading "Legislation", it says:
    "Regulations were felt to have a disproportionately high impact on businesses in the local food sector, which tend to be small/micro businesses. Much legislation is felt to be impractical, inappropriate, and unduly expensive to implement, particularly in the meat sector."
    What response has the Department made to that very important Countryside Agency report?
    Alun Michael: Our response has to be proportionate because, on the one hand, yes, testing places burdens on industry, but many of those tests are either national or international requirements and, on the other, people want food safety to be enhanced, and they will find that encouraging. Wherever possible, we have to ensure that the burdens that we impose are proportionate and reasonable, that they are not excessive and that we do not go in for gold plating, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that food safety is of great importance. The Countryside Agency focused on the economics of the local food industry, which of course is another important aspect and something that we are very keen to develop and promote.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister has tried to gloss over the very worrying closure of small abattoirs and, in some strange way, to attribute that to commercial reasons. Of course he is quite right: those commercial decisions are taken because of the huge increase in costs to small abattoirs and the huge increase in regulation. Those commercial decisions are directly
    452
    attributable to the Government. Will he now tell the House how he perceives the additional costs that result from the animal by-products regulations, which are about to come into effect? How many small abattoirs need to have their incinerators upgraded? How much extra will that cost; and what approaches has he made to the European Commission about allowing small abattoirs grants for the capital costs that will be incurred because of the animal by-products regulations?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be more reasonable in his approach. I have not tried to gloss over anything—I have made it very clear that very difficult
    issues face those in this industry—but it is equally unreasonable and unhelpful to try to suggest that closures are always associated with a particular set of regulations.
    Mr. Gray: Why else would abattoirs close?
    Alun Michael: Because they are losing money in advance of the introduction of the regulations. That would be and is a reason in specific cases. I thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party were in favour of competition and believed in the effectiveness of the market. As for seeking to use grant schemes, I have already indicated that we have made available processing and marketing grants and rural enterprise scheme opportunities, as well as working with the regional development agencies and Government offices in the regions to consider the need for such provision in the regions. The regional and local provision of food and local sourcing are extremely important and something that we seek to support.

    Food Exports
    Mr. Tom Cox: What the value was of food exported from the UK to member states of the European Union in the last year for which figures are available. [113306]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): During 2002, the value of food, feed and drink exported from the UK to member states of the European Union was £5.6 billion.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply and I thank my right hon. Friend for it very much. It indicates the enormous value to this country of our many excellent producers, who produce a wide range of food commodities that sell well in EU countries. As the EU will very shortly have 10 new member states, many of which produce food, many of us feel that we are under very unfair conditions. Can she assure the House that British producers, who have worked so hard to establish those markets in the EU, will not be squeezed out by unfair competition from new member states?
    Margaret Beckett: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that even at present the existing member states of the European Union export more to new members joining the European Union than vice versa. That is particularly the case with regard to high-value-added products and quality products. I certainly agree that this country has many excellent producers of food and drink of very high

    453
    quality, which clearly gives us the market edge in the new member states. I anticipate that that will continue and I look forward to it doing so.
    Mr. Roger Gale: What proportion does meat on the hoof rather than on the hook represent of the food exported from this country? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that when that product is branded and sold overseas it is sold as British products, and that British lamb, for example, is not sold in France as French lamb?
    Margaret Beckett: I do not have with me figures for the proportion on the hoof rather than on the hook, although the hon. Gentleman will know that, in common with most Members, we would prefer all such exports to be on the hook. I am not aware of such exports being rebranded. If he has cause for concern in that respect, I would be grateful if he would let us know, as we will look into it.

    Farm Regulation
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What measures she will take to relieve regulatory burdens on farmers. [113308]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My Department is firmly committed to ensuring that the regulatory burden on farmers is proportionate and that any regulation is applied in a way that causes as little inconvenience to farmers as possible. Our strategy for sustainable food and farming sets out proposals for a whole farm approach that will bring together regulatory requirements affecting farmers in a single coherent framework.
    Mr. Turner: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Secretary of State agree that when there is a single regime, British farmers should have parity of treatment with others? If I may exemplify the point, my farmers are concerned that under the common agricultural policy review, agri-environment schemes may be enforced more rigidly in this country than in Europe. Secondly, my horticulturists are concerned that they must obtain licences for trickle irrigation while massive housing developments are allowed without regard to the need to extract more water to provide for those developments.
    Margaret Beckett: I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that agri-environment schemes are enforced more rigidly here than elsewhere in the European Union. Certainly, however, we believe that there should be parity, and that there should be proper enforcement, with the relevant requisite disciplines, right across the EU. Indeed, that is part of having a common agricultural policy. Equally, I am not conscious of a particular problem with regard to water whereby horticulturists are treated differently and worse than others. I will certainly look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, however, as I assure him that it is no part of our approach to want to see UK producers disadvantaged.
    Mr. Andy Reed: In discussion with farmers in my constituency last week, although they
    454
    were not over-delighted by the number of regulations, they recognised that many of them are necessary. What they really felt needed to be addressed, however, was better co-ordination by the Department of the information provided, instead of having to fill in the same information on several different forms at a time. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, while recognising that regulations are necessary, she will look at improving the technology to ensure that farmers do not have to do as much paperwork?
    Margaret Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that this is a matter of some considerable importance. Indeed, we are investigating now, in consultation with stakeholders, what kind of information would be most helpful to them and in what way we can best make it available. We would, of course, have to make the business case for the requisite systems to provide such information. I wholeheartedly assure him, however, that we are very mindful of how infuriating it is to be asked repeatedly by different groups of people for precisely the same information. That is exactly the kind of practice that we are trying to reduce.
    Mr. James Paice: The Secretary of State will be aware that a regulation that is disadvantageous not only to British farmers but to European farmers is the temporary ban on the use of fish-meal in animal feed, which sets us against imports from outside the European Union. The reason for that ban was bovine spongiform encephalopathy and testing. Is she aware that there is now a proven test, using microscopic analysis, that has been submitted to the EU and which can distinguish between fish meal and mammalian protein, which means that the temporary ban should no longer exist? Will she make representations to the EU to get the ban lifted as soon as possible so that our producers may use that excellent protein?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know, I am sure, that the Government share his concern to an extent, and we did indeed make representations on that issue. I also agree that it is important to press the Commission to examine that potential further step speedily. However, the first step is to ensure that the test is evaluated as quickly as possible. If it is successfully evaluated and it works in the way that is suggested, we can press for it to be taken into account, and I assure him that we shall do that.
    Mr. David Lidington: On the animal byproducts regulations, will the right hon. Lady confirm that we are now in the absurd situation in which the European ban on burying fallen stock came into force at the beginning at the month, but no implementing legislation has been introduced in the House to give effect to the ban or to provide for penalties for breaching it? Ministers are whispering behind their hands that everything will be enforced with a light touch for three months or so, but several local councils have already announced a strict enforcement policy. Farmers and councils alike deserve to know exactly where they stand, so surely the right policy would be for the right hon.

    455
    Lady to announce a delay on enforcing the ban until the new national collection scheme is in place and operating.
    Margaret Beckett: I think that there is a misunderstanding. The new national collection scheme is not a necessary prerequisite of the regulations' implementation. We urge farmers to sign up to the new national collection scheme because its purpose and effect is to lower the costs of implementation. We anticipate and hope—although we must always be cautious about making assumptions about how the
    House operates—that the regulations will be in place by
    the end of the month. Most farmers are clear about where they stand, although they may or may not like it.

    Recycling
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If she will make a statement on her Department's strategy for promoting recycling. [113309]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government's "Waste Strategy 2000" set national targets for the recycling or composting of at least 25 per cent, of household waste by 2005 and 30 per cent, by 2010. To underpin these national targets we have set challenging statutory recycling and composting targets for all local authorities.
    Mr. Sayeed: I welcome the Minister's support for recycling but I would like to test what it actually means in practice. The Government attempted to remove all meaningful targets from the Home Energy Conservation Bill during its passage, although they were defeated in Committee by Conservative and Labour Members. They consequently destroyed the Bill on the Floor of the House. The current Municipal Waste Recycling Bill proposes recycling targets to be achieved by 2010 that would require, in the Minister's words,
    "an increase in the level of kerbside collection in the order of 45 to 50 per cent.".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 April 2003; c. 238.]
    Do the Government intend to support those targets or will there be yet another example of when new Labour talks dirty—[Laughter.] Sorry. Will there be yet another example of when new Labour talks green but acts dirty?
    Mr. Meacher: At least we do not act dirty, which the previous Government sometimes did.
    The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I made it perfectly clear that the reason why we could not support the Home Energy Conservation Bill, although we certainly supported the overall targets, was that under the modernisation procedures through which we will finance the further burdens that we require of local authorities, which we have rightly instituted, the cost of the Bill would have been about £400 million. Following the spending review, such expenditure was not available. However, it is true that home energy conservation targets are increasing steadily and gradually.
    456
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point about kerbside recycling, I remind him that the current level is about 51 per cent, according to the latest information available to me. We believe that if we get to a national recycling rate of 25 per cent, by 2005–06, and we have every intention of ensuring that that happens, the level of kerbside recycling will have to be increased substantially by local authorities. If we were to require them to do it, we would again have to pay substantial sums of money—perhaps as much as £200 million—which is simply not available in the spending review.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the House authorities for doing their bit to promote recycling by providing Members with a separate bin for recycling waste paper? Does he agree that that promotion could be taken a step further, perhaps by having central collection points for used plastic bottles or tin cans? That might be a logical way forward.
    Mr. Meacher: I think that is a helpful suggestion. In terms of national targets and national performance, what happens in the House is infinitesimal by comparison, but it sends an important message. If we are asking other people in all households to increase recycling and recovery markedly—not just of paper, but also of plastics, aluminium steel cans, bottles and so on—it is important that we do it ourselves. I shall certainly take the matter up with the House authorities.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister is proud of his targets, but he must be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee described them as "depressingly unambitious". Does he agree with most hon. Members that bottle banks and the like will never achieve reasonable recycling targets? That can only be done by kerbside recycling, something that the Prime Minister acknowledged when he memorably said:
    "I want to see every local authority offering doorstep recycling".
    Does the Minister agree with his right hon. Friend? Does he, too, want to see every local authority offering kerbside recycling? If so, can he prove that by supporting the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), which will shortly be in Committee?
    Mr. Meacher: It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Gentleman to make a case for recycling levels when we inherited a recycling level of 6 per cent, in 1997. That has been doubled to 13 per cent, and we intend to double it again to 25 per cent, within the next two years.
    It is also unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question without realising that I had answered it in my full response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), which he would have known had he been listening. Since he obviously did not catch it, I said that we are in favour of a big increase in kerbside recycling. It is already 51 per cent. We believe that achieving 25 per cent, overall national recycling by 2005 will increase that substantially. If we are to require local authorities to do that, however, we have to finance it from central sources, and we simply do not have the capacity in our budget to do that.

    Sewerage Provision
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What plans she has to change the law to make it easier for water companies to provide mains sewerage to rural villages. [113310]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): While there are costs and technical issues, we consider water companies already have sufficient powers under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 199l to provide, improve and extend the system of public sewers.
    Dr. Ladyman: May I take issue with my hon. Friend, because they simply do not? The only way for water companies to provide mains sewerage to those rural villages in my constituency that need it is to use section 101 A of 1991 Act, which requires them to prove the case on environmental grounds, not regeneration and economic grounds. The Water Bill is just up the Corridor at the moment and it amends section 101A. Will my hon. Friend please look at it and consider the minor amendments needed to make the changes so that we can give a real boost to those rural communities that need mains drainage?
    Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He has been active on the matter and recently wrote to us on a number of suggestions. However, if properly maintained, cesspits and cesspit tanks are perfectly environmentally acceptable. I appreciate that there is a cost attached to that and that there is also an issue of rural development. We are happy to explore ways of dealing with the issue if there is a case to do so on cost benefit grounds as well as environmental grounds. One way to do that might be to consider the facility in the English rural development programme in relation to support for rural communities and infrastructure. I shall write to my hon. Friend in more detail on that and am happy to explore the options. We accept that he raises important points.

    Packaging Waste Regulation
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If she will make a statement on the packaging waste regulation and wood products. [113311]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): In view of allegations of inappropriate packaging waste recovery note issue by some reprocessors, I have asked my officials to conduct an investigation.
    Mr. Illsley: As my right hon. Friend knows, the price of packaging recovery notes for wood products slumped towards the end of last year and is quite low. There are another two issues facing wood recyclers: first, the subsidy offered by power generators for biofuels to use in power stations, where they can offer higher prices than board and wood products users. Secondly, there is the proposed removal of a packaging waste recovery target for wood products. We have heard today about
    458
    the exploitation of forests in the far east. Is it not time that we did more to encourage wood products recycling, rather than allowing barriers to occur?
    Mr. Meacher: The latest figures show a very substantial increase in the recovery and recycling of wood packaging waste. It was reported at a rate of 57 per cent, in 2001. The latest figures for 2002 are 84 per cent. That shows a substantial uplift, so large that there have been suspicions of an inappropriate allocation and use of packaging waste recovery notes. That is what I have asked my Department to investigate. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the slump in PRN prices. I have told the industry that under the EU packaging waste regulations, there will be a considerable increase in those targets, probably of the order of 60 to 65 per cent, by 2006–08. In the light of that, further investment needs to be made now in readiness to meet those higher targets. On that basis, I hope that PRN prices will begin to recover.

    Fisheries Council
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on the Government's aims at the next Fisheries Council meeting. [113312]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Agendas vary. Our aim at the May Council will be to support the development of effective measures for the future management of fishing effort in western waters.
    Mr. Carmichael: With regard to the cod recovery programme, which I presume would be an essential part of that, does the Minister agree that it will be meaningless as long as we allow the industrial fishing fleet to remove an important part of the food chain? Will he use the next Fisheries Council to instil some urgency in the EU Commission with regard to the setting up of regional advisory councils?
    Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are strong supporters of regional advisory councils. There is a great deal of activity going on in fishermen's organisations in relation to existing structures. We believe that for those councils to be effective, they should be driven from the bottom, rather than being imposed from the top. They must genuinely engage and involve the fishing industry. On industrial fishing, the hon. Gentleman knows my views. We are speaking to the Danes and to the Commission about the potential impact of industrial fishing. We have made £1 million available for scientific involvement with the English fishing industry. One of the topics that we are discussing with the industry is how we can use some of that money to fund proper examination of the by-catch and the ecological impact of industrial fishing, to strengthen the argument about its impact and to consider taking action on it.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Accepting that my hon. Friend always puts up a good fight, and a very cunning fight, on behalf of the British fishing industry, and does his best to voice the demands of the industry in

    459
    the Council, I hope that he will attempt at the next Council and succeeding Councils to put more muscle into the regional advisory councils. National management of the waters has been a longstanding demand of the industry, and the present framework is purely advisory and has no real influence and role. It needs to have a defined role in management of the waters that it covers, so that they can be removed from the general considerations of management from Brussels.
    Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He has been entirely consistent and made a powerful
    460
    argument on these issues. We had to fight hard for the regional advisory councils to be part of the reformed common fisheries policy. There were people in this country who said that we would never succeed and never get that. We did get it, and as far as we concerned, we see it as a framework for development. It is inevitable that we will have to progress step by step in the beginning to build up confidence and establish the influence of the councils. In the UK, we want them to have real power and a proper decision-making process, and to give fishermen a voice and an involvement in the management of their own fisheries.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (Day 2).
TUESDAY 20 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (Day 3).
WEDNESDAY 21 MAY—Second Reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
THURSDAY 22 MAY—Motion on General Synod Measure, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill, followed by a motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.
The provisional business for the week following the Whitsun recess will include:
MONDAY 2 JUNE—The House will not be sitting
TUESDAY 3 JUNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Fire Services Bill.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
Yesterday in PMPs, the Prime Minister finally lost his marbles. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in column 305 of Hansard that
"referendums on the European constitution are proposed in up to 10 European member states"
and very reasonably asked the Prime Minister:
"Why cannot the British people have one, too?"
My right hon. Friend may have been inspired by the fact that a Minister of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), no less, had said a few minutes earlier in the slightly different context of regional assemblies:
"It will … be for the people of each region to decide whether they want an elected regional assembly. That is democracy and choice, and we think that it is a good idea."
So the Minister of State thinks that it is a good idea to consult the people and ask them what they think about regional assemblies, but the Prime Minister was, by this time, off on another flight of fancy. In column 305, he said:
"the reason why the right hon. Gentleman"—
the Leader of the Opposition—
"wants a referendum is to vote no to enlargement".
In column 306, he went on to say:
"he wants people to say no to European enlargement"
and
"the Conservative party is … against the enlargement of the European Union".
462
Finally, the Prime Minister said:
"the European Convention … is necessary to make … accession work."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 301–6.]
Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you and the rest of the House know, there is absolutely no connection between the European Convention and constitution and enlargement of the European Union. Alarmingly, the Prime Minister of this country does not appear to understand the nature of this ghastly constitution that he now seems to want to inflict on the British people without even giving them a chance to say what they want.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the House and the Leader of the House that on 17 October 2001 at column 1184 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, no less, said of the Conservatives:
"We are the long-standing and very committed supporters of enlargement. We were pursuing enlargement in 1990–11 years ago … we remain strong supporters of enlargement".—[Official Report, 17 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1184.]
What I am therefore asking is: please can the Prime Minister come to the House, beg our forgiveness, apologise for not understanding what is going in his own Government and in the European Union and set the record straight? That is a very simple request and I hope that the Leader of the House will instruct the Prime Minister to sort himself out, get his act together and tell us what is really going on.
On Monday this week, the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) contradicted each other completely on the vital matter of the advice that the Attorney General had given the Government about the post-war Iraq settlement. What we really need to know—this is a very important constitutional matter, if nothing else—is which of them was right.
The Foreign Secretary said:
"I do not agree with my right hon. Friend's"—
that is, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood—
"view about the position of the Government."
He went on to say:
"all the actions that we have taken have been taken strictly in accordance with legal advice."
But a few minutes later the right hon. Lady said:
"I believe that the UK could and should have respected the Attorney-General's advice".
She went on to say that she was
"ashamed that the UK Government have agreed the resolution that has been tabled in New York"
and that it
"undermines all the commitments I have made in the House and elsewhere."—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 26, 37.]

This is a serious matter. A current member of the Cabinet and a former member of the Cabinet are saying completely contradictory things about exactly the same issue. Surely it is in everybody's interests that we get it straightened out. At the very least, the Foreign Secretary or the right hon. Lady should apologise to the House, but ideally the attorney-General's advice should be published, because that would put the matter beyond doubt. Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for a member of the Government to come

463
to the House as early as possible to tell us who was right—the Foreign Secretary or the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood?
This morning on the radio we heard an announcement about the latest pensions cock-up. The Pensions issue is now spiralling downwards into complete disarray, yet we still have no Minister for Pensions in the Government. So who is going to tell us what is going on? Who is going to come to the House to explain this latest insult to pensioners? Who is going to tell us the reason for this ghastly error, which will cost nearly everybody in this country a lot of money? Why have the pensioners have been sidelined by the Government? Are they so careless and casual about pensioners that they cannot even get round to appointing a representative for them in the Government? Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will get a Minister for Pensions here in this House to deal with pensions issues and to explain the latest disgrace?
A moment ago, I mentioned the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. It is worth reflecting on what she said on 12 May when she made her personal statement to the House. She said, among other things, that we are now getting
"diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought through policy initiatives that come from on high."
She then said:
"We do not need … endless new initiatives, layers of bureaucratic accountability and diktats from the centre."
She rounded it all off by saying—this is an issue directly for the Leader of the House—that
"increasingly poor policy initiatives"—
are being—
"rammed through Parliament".—[Official Report", 12 May 2003;
Vol. 405, c. 38.]Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he proposes to do as Leader of the House—the representative of this House of Commons at the highest level of Government—to prevent that? We have seen all too much of it this week with the Finance Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill, and many other measures. Will the Leader of the House tell us in terms, and in detail, how he will prevent poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament and allow this House of Commons to do its proper job?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his normal stentorian contribution, to which I look forward every Thursday, and for his request that I instruct the Prime Minister to come to this House to beg forgiveness. He is that type of guy, is he not? I will consider that request, but I will particularly consider whether I can find anything for which he should seek forgiveness. Given the number of occasions on which the Prime Minister has come to this House to make statements and to answer questions——far more, incidentally, than has any other Prime Minister—it is not obvious to me what we should ask him to beg forgiveness for.
The hon. Gentleman—
Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Reid: I beg pardon. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Convention. First, there is a difference
464
between a referendum on a national issue and on the sort of issues that he and his colleagues mentioned in the past week. They range from Iraq, which does not have the sort of established parliamentary democracy that we have, to the elections in Hartlepool, which may be interesting but are not comparable with the powers of Parliament. I am surprised because the right hon. Gentleman is normally the arch defender of the rights of Parliament rather than the arch exponent of passing major decisions out of Parliament.
Secondly, in Britain, Parliament ratifies treaties. We do not hold referendums on them, although that happens in Ireland and several other countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Tories did not hold a referendum on the Maastricht treaty or the single European issues that came before the House when they were in government.
Thirdly, the new constitutional treaty will not fundamentally alter the position of the member states of the European Union. Powers are given by member states to the Union to achieve goals that they could not attain alone. The fundamental building blocks of the European Union will remain the individual states. The right hon. Gentleman's normal position of defending Parliament's rights has been undermined by the expediency and opportunism that Conservative Members apply to everything that appears to relate to Europe, which, individually and collectively, they hate more by the day. It is another element of their extreme position.
The right hon. Gentleman does not need to take my word about the Attorney-General, who made it clear before we went into action in Iraq and subsequently that the Government have acted in accordance with international law. Any suggestion to the contrary is wrong; that should be good enough. There will be a dozen different opinions internationally on any legal issue. That is the nature of domestic and international legal debate. Again, I hope that the Conservatives would tend to accept the opinion of this country's chief legal adviser rather than that of some critics abroad who take a different position.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of pensions. This morning's report was not entirely accurate. No computer breakdown has occurred. The annual notification service to people who have gaps in their contribution records was suspended in 1998 because priority was given to processing current benefit and pension claims. That was the right thing to do because it meant that those who had immediate needs were dealt with first.
As with any Government position, Ministers will be replaced in due course. Any insinuation that we have not given due attention to pensioners is wrong: the Government introduced the minimum guaranteed pension, the winter fuel allowance, the pension credit, free television licences for those over 70 and the extra £100 for those over 80. Any suggestion from Conservative Members that the Government have not paid sufficient attention to pensioners stretches the imagination.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the scrutiny of debates in the House. Programming has brought many benefits as part of a wider package, although I accept that it is appropriate to review its workings to ascertain

465
whether they can be improved. In the past few days, I have been discussing the matter in the Modernisation Committee and we will consider a review of programming.
It is not justifiable to judge programming on this week's experience of Northern Ireland, which tends to produce the unique need for rapid legislation under all Governments. I accept that there were problems, not least because a personal statement and a statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary further reduced the limited time available to hon. Members, especially those from Northern Ireland. I am not for a minute disregarding that fact, but Northern Ireland tends to be a unique case. Nevertheless, a review of the workings of programming is something that we ought to, and indeed will, look at.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that, this time last week, we were congratulating him on his birthday? He is therefore now one year nearer to his retirement and his pension. Surely he must take more seriously the incredible cock-up at the Inland Revenue, as well as the cover-up—because that is what it is. There was no announcement about it on the radio, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested. It was only the sharp eyes of a representative of The Daily Telegraph and my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that discovered the fact that the Inland Revenue had failed in this respect. Is it not extraordinary that, for five years, there was no announcement, no admission and no apology about this extraordinary change of attitude? Is it not also extraordinary that 10 million people have been badly let down? Now, of course, the Inland Revenue is admitting the mistake by trying to put something in place to mitigate its failure. Surely, given the well-known humility of the Chancellor, we should have a statement from the head of the Department responsible about what has gone wrong and what is now going to be done to put it right.
I hope that the Leader of the House has had the opportunity this week to read "Parliament's Last Chance", produced by the Parliament First group, whose authors include some very distinguished members of his own party as well as of all the other parties. I am modest enough to admit to having made a small contribution to it. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that that report reflects the all-party concern about the way in which the House holds the Government to account. To cite a particular example to which reference has been made this afternoon, the Treasury is responsible for the Inland Revenue, and the Inland Revenue has clearly made a huge mistake, which it is now admitting. That matter should come to the Floor of the House and we should be given an explanation.
Finally, I believe that, on the "Today" programme this morning, the Leader of the House referred to Mr. Ronnie Biggs as a bank robber. Should we assume that the right hon. Gentleman's other answers this morning were equally inaccurate?
Dr. Reid: I do apologise if I said "bank robber" rather than "train robber". That no doubt means that Ronnie Biggs is utterly innocent and should never have been pursued in the first place. I think that we should deal
466
with the substance of that issue, which was that the original charges, or action taken on the basis of a decision made on evidence, should not necessarily fall merely because we do not find all the evidence after the event. A decision in the case of Ronnie Biggs, or any other matter decided in the courts, is not contingent on full discovery later.
I have already referred to pensions. When the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to pensions and the radio programme this morning, I thought that he was referring to the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has just raised. 1 have pointed out that there has not been a computer breakdown, as was apparently alleged. The annual notification service to people with gaps in their contribution records was suspended in 1998 because priority was being given to processing current benefit and pensions claims. That was the right thing to do because it meant that people with immediate needs were being dealt with first. The Inland Revenue will start writing to people later this year to let them know of any gaps in their records since the last time the notices were issued. People will not have to respond immediately; indeed, they will have until April 2008 to make payments if they wish to do so.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned Parliament First. I welcome any contribution to the debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons, but I hope that hon. Members will recognise that we have just completed a series of fairly substantial and extensive changes. I would like some time—and I think the House would be wise to take some time—to reflect on the many proposals that have already been put in place and to see how they are working. One that was introduced some time ago was programming, to which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred. I think that, in principle, that will no doubt remain, but we will want to look at the workings of the provision.
Both the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Gentleman mentioned general scrutiny of the House. We have tried to ensure that that takes place wherever possible. During the war with Iraq we arranged debates in the House in an unprecedented fashion. An unprecedented number of statements have been made to the House by Ministers, including the Prime Minister. Today we have announced an extensive period of consultation and discussion between Cabinet members on the euro, culminating in the announcement of a decision to the House on 9 June. We will ensure that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny of that important issue, along with many others.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I return to my right hon. Friend's point about Ronnie Biggs, and about not discovering all the evidence after the event? Does he agree that there is continuing public concern about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is it not the case that just a few weeks ago the UN weapons inspectors were working with some success there, but we were then told that there must be a war because they could not find the weapons, and were subsequently told that only American inspectors could find the weapons because they were concealed so well—and then learnt that the American inspectors were being withdrawn? This week we have been told that the weapons are so

467
small and so well concealed that we may never find them anyway. Do we not need a full parliamentary debate, so that we can consider all the evidence?
Dr. Reid: Actually, the evidence is starting to emerge. Coalition forces have discovered two vehicles which appear to be mobile biological weapons facilities. Testing and analysis of the vehicles is continuing. I have no doubt that if they prove to be what they appear to be, someone will say "But there are no bacterial media in them at present".
For seven years the inspectors were finding thousands of litres and tonnes of evidence, but the fact that we have not found further evidence does not mean that the intervention to reduce the threat from Saddam Hussein was either illegal or improper. That is why I drew a comparison with a bank robber whose stolen money has not been found. As I have said, I am convinced, as I was when we went into Iraq, that there was a threat from weapons of mass destruction—
Paul Flynn: Rubbish!
Dr. Reid: That is not a very constructive contribution. Moreover, it represents my hon. Friend's view against that of the united world community. The entire United Nations accepted that there was a threat from weapons of mass destruction. The only argument was about how we should deal with the threat; it was not about whether a threat existed. That is as true today as it was six months ago, and 12 years ago.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on local government which the Prime Minister might be able to attend? On two occasions I have raised the issue of local government funding and Derbyshire Dales. Yesterday I asked
"Can the Prime Minister explain why the average increase for Derbyshire districts this year was some £570,000, yet for Conservative-controlled Dales district council it was an increase of £33,000?"
The Prime Minister replied that there had been
"a substantial increase in the investment going into education."
He went on
"That is true. We are working on school funding problems in the way that we have explained."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 308.]
The fact is that district councils have no responsibility whatever for education. Should the Prime Minister not understand the functions of local government before giving us answers? That answer was inaccurate.
Dr. Reid: Let us discuss the financing rather than the function of local government. Let me put two simple facts to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid I do not know the details relating to the council that he mentioned, but I do know two things. First, since this Government came to power there has been a 7 per cent, real-terms increase in local authority funding, whereas there was a 25 per cent, cut during the final four years of the last Government. Secondly, for the first time in the country's history, every council in England has received an increase above the rate of inflation.
Anne Picking: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restrictions placed on postal services in the House recently? Some of us who work late into the night would like to have that service. Could my right hon. Friend use his good offices to improve matters?
Dr. Reid: Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the revised collection times. Having discussed the matter with Royal Mail and Postcomm, I can confirm that there has been a positive response, at least initially. Royal Mail will now discuss future arrangements for later collections with the authorities, and I will ensure that all Members are informed of the outcome. I cannot promise a substantial change, but I can prove that we are on track to secure some form of change, which I know will benefit everyone.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: It was unfortunate in the extreme that during last week's business questions the Leader of the House failed to respond to my request for a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the arrest of Liam Clarke, the Sunday Times journalist, by a large number of armed policemen in the middle of the night. The matter is not sub judice, and it does not involve the wider issues that the Leader of the House was trying to avoid.
This will not go away. This is not Iraq under Saddam Hussein; it is a civilised democracy, and we want a proper answer.
Dr. Reid: I will not respond to the last comment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not drawing any comparison between the way in which we conduct business and the way in which Saddam Hussein conducted business. [Interruption.] I think that the currency of debate is slightly demeaned if we draw such comparisons.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the case is not sub judice, but it does impinge on intelligence matters. I know that this will be disappointing and frustrating for the right hon. Gentleman, but I must repeat what I said last week: a comment has been made by the Prime Minister, and I do not want to add to it.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems involving reminders to people to top up their national insurance contributions began before this Government were elected? I seem to remember that I received reminders in 1995 and 1996, but not in 1997. We were not elected until the summer

469
of 1997, and I think that some of the responsibility for the choice and installation of computers must lie with the Conservative party.
Dr. Reid: I am not going to question my hon. Friend's memory. If it is accurate, I am sure that, as on all these occasions, the Conservative party will be only too willing to bear its share of the responsibility.
Pete Wishart: What will the right hon. Gentleman do to ensure that there is no repeat of the nonsense that occurred throughout the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? Owing to what appeared to be an extremely unseemly and childish squabble between the two Front Benches, we found ourselves discussing inconsequential clauses and amendments, and we did not reach the Scottish National party's reasoned and considered amendment on the oil industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that when the public see the House indulging in such behaviour they rightly hold it in contempt?
Dr. Reid: I think that many important issues were discussed during the Finance Bill debates, as they always are. I think that people in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom want the Finance Bill, which affects their incomes, their outgoings and their quality of life, to be discussed as fully as possible. I very much regret that we did not manage to reach an amendment that was of particular interest to the SNP, but I do not think it right to diminish everything else that was discussed because of that.
Mr. Colin Challen: In the light of this week's decision by the European Court of Justice to effectively strike down this Parliament's right to decide whether the Government should have golden shares in publicly owned companies such as Royal Mail, may we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Many people will fear that the new forms of public ownership created by the Government may suffer the same fate.
Dr. Reid: I will draw that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—I assume that she is the appropriate Secretary of State—not least because I am not entirely au fait with all the facts of the subject that my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Does the Leader of the House accept that simply because there is not yet any clear and irrefutable evidence that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers are squabbling like ferrets in a sack about the single European currency, that does not mean that it is not happening? Does he therefore accept that it is time for the House of Commons to have a full debate on this issue, so that we can find out the truth?
Dr. Reid: That is very topical, if I might say so. We have stated publicly all along the criteria on which such judgments will be made, and that the decision will be a collective one. This weekend, 18 technical documents on the Treasury's assessment will be sent to every Cabinet Minister. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor will have bilateral meetings with Cabinet members next
470
week to discuss those documents, and an initial discussion will take place at next week's Cabinet. We will of course continue to discuss them profoundly, and on 26 May we will circulate the assessment arising from the initial documents, which will be read by every member of the Cabinet during the Whitsun break. There will be further bilateral meetings between Cabinet members and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to look at the assessment, and there will be a special Cabinet on 5 or 6 June for a final discussion. An announcement will be made on 9 June, and I can confirm that a statement will be made in this House on that day. That is a fairly full, profound and collective approach to these matters.
Mr. Tony McWalter: On local government settlements, does my right hon. Friend accept that this year's local government debate was severely truncated, and that as a result many of us who wanted to make representations were unable to do so? I accept his earlier comment that the level of settlement was above the rate of inflation—at the time the rate was 2 per cent., yet Hertfordshire got 3.6 per cent,—but the reality is that inflation in the education sector is acknowledged to have been running at 10.6 per cent. As a result, the further education college in my local area, which depends for funding on the Learning and Skills Council, has not implemented any increase in lecturers' wages since 2002, is making 10 per cent, of its staff redundant and is axing many of its courses. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, overall, the local government settlement and miscalculations have in some ways done a great deal to diminish the quality of life, compared with the wonderful things that the Government have done in many other areas?
Dr. Reid: It is correct that in contrast with the overall settlement—my hon. Friend mentioned a figure of some 3.7 per cent, for his area—the rate of inflation in education was higher, but it is also true that within the overall settlement there was a higher percentage increase for education than for other areas. The burdens that were put on education through increased pensions, and so on, amounted to some 11.5 per cent., but the average increase in education provision totalled some 12.5 per cent. In all, some £2.7 billion was put into education, while the inflation constraints that he mentions constituted about £2.45 billion. So the Government made adequate provision for the pressures that he describes.
I should like to take this opportunity to correct some figures that I mixed up earlier. In fact, in terms of local authority expenditure this Government have provided a 25 per cent, increase over the past few years, while during the last few years of the previous Conservative Government there was a 6 per cent, cut.
John Barrett: Now that the Leader of the House's constituents are set to benefit from free eye tests and dental checks, will he find time to debate extending these provisions to the rest of the country?
Dr. Reid: In terms of general expenditure on the national health service and medical provision, there is no doubt that the entire country has benefited enormously from this Government. How that money is

471
applied in any given part of the country will, through devolution, be tailored to the demands in a particular part. However, it is a question of swings and roundabouts: if money is spent one aspect of medical provision, it cannot be spent on another. The point of devolution is that such suggestions can be made in each area, and we can tailor provision in each to the particular demands.
Mr. Tom Watson: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the professional duty of journalists to protect their sources? In an alarming number of cases, the courts are ordering journalists to betray confidential information given to them in the public interest. They include the case of Mr. Robin Ackroyd, on whom judgement will be made in the Court of Appeal tomorrow.
Dr. Reid: I obviously cannot comment on a specific case. A difficult balance is involved, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government's response to the Victoria Climbié inquiry, in the form of a Green Paper, is eagerly awaited. It was originally suggested that we might expect that response before the end of this month, but that now seems unlikely, given the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of business. Can he give us any idea of when we might expect the Green Paper?
Dr. Reid: I am afraid that I cannot do so from the Dispatch Box today, but I undertake to write to the right hon. Lady as expeditiously as I can with whatever details we can find out.
David Wright: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the recent Commission for Health Improvement report, "Getting Better", which discusses how increased investment in health in the UK and better national standards are leading to significant improvements? May we have a debate in the House on that matter?
Dr. Reid: I am eager that this report be debated in every conceivable forum because, as my hon. Friend says, it is the clearly stated conclusion of this independent inspection body that the national health service as a whole is getting better. There are of course areas that we want to improve, but I note that the chairman, Dame Deirdre Hine, has said:
"The bottom line is that the NHS as a whole is getting better."
The report concludes that waiting times are falling, that the NHS has made significant progress in respecting a person's right to be fully involved in decisions in the health service—that is very important—and that the service people receive from the NHS is different, and better, today than the service they would have received even a few years ago. I hope that we can deliberate on some of those findings at every conceivable opportunity.
Mr. John Taylor: May we have a ministerial statement and a debate on the seemingly becalmed
472
regional airport consultation, given the recent BAA proposals and, more importantly, that some of my constituents are having difficulty in obtaining copies of the questionnaire from the advertised distribution centre? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could get me a thousand copies or so, and I will distribute them myself.
Dr. Reid: The consultation is ongoing, but I will do what I can to look into the specific problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions if it is inconveniencing or in any way prohibiting his constituents from participating fully in any consultation.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House reconsider that part of his answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), that related to the Parliament First document, "Parliament's Last Chance"? In particular, will he recognise that there is an important distinction between modernising the procedures of this House and reforming its politics? Will he also give consideration to the several recommendations in that pamphlet about strengthening the role of Parliament in scrutinising and monitoring the Executive? They are very much in line with the Liaison Committee's report of a couple of years ago, entitled "Shifting the Balance". If put into practice, they would greatly strengthen the role of this House in relation to government—to the benefit both of government and of Parliament as a whole.
Dr. Reid: As I said, I welcome any contribution to this debate; we want a lively democracy and a lively debate about the means of it. I cannot say that I welcome a particular aspect, because I have not read the pamphlet. Obviously, scrutinising the Executive is a very important role for the legislature in this country, but we are all aware that arrangements here are not like those in the US. It is not as simple as having a legislature and an Executive: we have an Executive who are embodied in the legislature, and it is the Executive by virtue of the fact that it is part of the legislature. The relationship between Parliament and Government is very important, and I welcome all contributions as to how the relationship can be conducted to the benefit of our democracy and of the people of this country in the future.
Mr. Roy Beggs: We anticipate that announcements will be made later today that billions of pounds are to be invested so that the Olympic games can be held in the UK in the near future, yet we in Northern Ireland do not even have a national stadium. When planning our business, will the Leader of the House try to arrange for a debate on the matter? It could be held in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which is still to meet in Northern Ireland. Will he undertake to consider the matter and, I hope, arrange such a debate before too long?
Dr. Reid: I would not wish to pre-empt anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has just taken her place on the Front Bench, is due to say. However, during my period as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I gained some understanding of and sympathy with the point of

473
view expressed by the hon. Gentleman. Anything that brings people in Northern Ireland together in recognition of what they have in common is to be supported and encouraged. Although I think that it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to decide when and if such a debate should take place, I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Jon Trickett: On the European Convention, my right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the country is governed by Parliament and not by plebiscite, and that the right place for such debates is this House. However, does he share my concern that there is a widening gulf between the people and the political elites—the ones who make the decisions—about the future of Europe? If he does share my view, will he ensure that adequate time is found for discussion on the Floor of the House of any constitutional implications of the European Convention? That would also allow Labour Members to have the pleasure of seeing the continuing civil war among Opposition Members.
Dr. Reid: Yes, any time spent with the dual objective and purpose of clarifying the Government's position on the matter, and of magnifying the deep divisions among Opposition Members, is time very well spent.
Sir George Young: Further to the reply that the Leader of the House has just given, will he now answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the Prime Minister? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in terms that, if there were to be a referendum on the new European constitution and the country were to vote no, that would block enlargement. Was the Prime Minister right, or wrong?
Dr. Reid: I am not sure that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I am trying to reflect on the words used by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used the words attributed to
474
him. The case that I set out earlier was quite simple—that, in this country, Parliament ratifies treaties. That is what happened with the Maastricht treaty, when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet that supported the decision that Parliament should determine whether that treaty should be ratified. Moreover, as I pointed out, the basis for the Convention and constitutional changes is mainly consolidation, and not the introduction of new elements.
Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week on the discussions that he is having with the Israeli Foreign Minister today? Such a statement should cover the position of foreign nationals working for aid agencies in the Gaza strip and other occupied territories. My right hon. Friend will know that it was reported last week that foreign nationals were being asked to sign a waiver authorising the Israeli military to shoot them. He will be aware also that many Governments, including our own, have received a letter this week from the aid agencies, which states that visa restrictions and other restrictions make it almost impossible for them to enter the Gaza strip, or continue their vital aid work there. Does he agree that that is against the spirit of the road map? Given that levels of poverty in the area are equivalent to those in sub-Saharan Africa, is not it time for the international community to act?
Dr. Reid: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard the specific comments that my hon. Friend makes. With regard to the general issue of the middle east peace process, I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the House has spent some time discussing the matter, despite considerable time pressures, and that the Government, from the Prime Minister down, have done all that they can to bring the parties involved together, and to ensure publication of the road map so that there can be a viable state for the Palestinian people and a secure future for the state of Israel. Eventually, both sides will need to talk, and to reduce the tension in the area. Presumably, that means that they will have to deal with some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend.

Point of Order
1.16 pm
David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to ask what you can do to force Government Departments to follow the normal convention in the House that statements are given to Opposition spokesmen a reasonable time before they are made by a Secretary of State in this House. The statement that is about to be made was faxed through a mere 15 minutes ago. That is not the fault of the usual channels or of the Leader of the House's office. I believe that staff there were in despair that another Government Department had not given reasonable notice to the House authorities that an important statement was coming.
The statement has been in the pipeline since January. We all saw on the news last night that a huge press conference was planned for today; journalists are en route there at this moment. We were told that this statement was going to be made, and in those circumstances there is no justification for giving the text to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen a mere 15 minutes beforehand.
Finally, Sir, I must warn the Government that if they persist with this behaviour, as Opposition Chief Whip I will have no option but to find what measures Standing Orders allow me to take to buy some time for Opposition spokesmen to read a statement. I may have to disrupt procedures accordingly.
Mr. Speaker: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to disrupt procedures but, if what he says is true, I am very disappointed indeed. I was informed that a statement would be made this morning before my conference at 10.30 am. Therefore, I would have expected Opposition parties to be given at least an hour to examine the statement, so that they are able to put a decent case from the Dispatch Box. I shall have to investigate the matter but, if the circumstances are as described, I hope that it does not happen again.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course we will take your strictures to heart on this matter. However, I hope that you will understand that it is possible to give notice of a statement days or months in advance, but not to decide its exact terms until the
476
Cabinet has discussed the issue. We have collective Cabinet discussions of issues, in the course of which—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the right hon. Gentleman to state his case.
Dr. Reid: This is an important point about how we govern the country. Opposition Front Benchers are the first to declare at every opportunity that there is no collective Cabinet discussion. There is such discussion, and it results in decisions. Even when such a decision is known to have been reached some time in advance, its terms can still alter. The Cabinet meeting finished two hours ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has been finishing the final version of the statement that she is to make in that period.
Finally, I do not know on what evidence the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) based his statement that I was despairing this morning. First, I am not the type to despair and, secondly, that certainly did not happen this morning.
Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to prolong the argument. I can well understand that the Cabinet has to take a decision and that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport then has to prepare a statement to the House. However, the statement does not need to come before the House until circumstances allow the Opposition to be given at least an hour's notice, so that they have time to examine the statement. That is what I am saying today, and I would be very disappointed indeed if what I have heard were true. I remind the House that, less than a week ago, I used my discretion to allow a Minister to make a statement to the House at a rather strange hour. By all means allow the Cabinet to take a collective decision, but Opposition parties—I am not referring to the Conservative party alone—must be allowed an hour to examine a statement.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am sure that the House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your response. Quite apart from the startling revelation that this morning's Cabinet meeting lasted all of 20 minutes, the key point for the House—and for you, Mr. Speaker—is that the problem is partly due to the ridiculous new hours that we are forced to sit. The fact that there is now a conflict—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will now get on with the statement.

Olympic Games
1.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): May I begin by saying how seriously I take the remarks that you, Mr. Speaker, have just made? I apologise to you and I want to assure the House that no discourtesy was intended. As the Opposition spokesman will make clear, as a matter of courtesy I took the trouble to ring him at 8 o'clock this morning and, about an hour ago, I spent some time taking him through what I was going to say. I similarly informed the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
That said and placed on the record, the purpose of my statement is to inform the House that, following discussion in the Cabinet today, the Government have decided to give their wholehearted backing to a bid to host the Olympic games and the Paralympics in London in 2012. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister telephoned Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, to inform him of our decision. He has told Mr. Rogge that the Government will back to the hilt the efforts of the British Olympic Association, to which I wish to pay tribute, alongside the Greater London Authority, the London development agency and others—[Interruption.]—and, of course, the Mayor as part of the apparatus of the Greater London Authority.
The bid will be a huge stimulus for elite sport. Lottery investment in our athletes helped us to our best medal haul for decades at Sydney. A London bid will allow us to build on that and to raise standards and aspirations even higher. But our Olympic bid will also rest on our growing commitment to grassroots sport. It will be central to our efforts to increase physical activity, and identify, nurture and develop talent in our young and up-and-coming athletes.
We want to harness the power of sport to inspire people and to address some of the key issues that our nation faces—health, social inclusion, educational motivation and fighting crime. We want to spread the benefits all around the country—promoting tourism and business for the whole of the UK, staging a four-year cultural festival, investing in community sports facilities to offer to the visiting teams to prepare and train here, holding football competitions as part of the games, and staging some other events outside London.
I warmly welcome the pledge from all parties to support the bid. Such cross-party support is important, because it gives us the best chance of winning and of making the games a resounding success. I have previously set out for the House four tests, that an Olympic bid would have to meet before the Government could give it their backing. The tests were: can we afford it? Can we win? Can we deliver a strong bid and high quality games? What legacy would the games leave behind? We have spent the last few months applying those tests rigorously.
I believe, on the basis of rigorous scrutiny, that a London bid passes those tests on every count. I would like to take the House briefly through each one. First, the cost. We estimate the cost of bidding will be about £17 million. Business, the London development agency and the Government will bear that cost. If we win the bid, the cost of the Olympics should be borne, at least in
478
part, by those who will benefit most. I have therefore agreed with the Mayor of London a funding package of £2.375 billion, which includes a 50 per cent. contingency. Of that, £875 million will be borne by London through a £20 increase in council tax for band D properties and a contribution of £250 million from the London development agency. But the biggest contribution comes from the lottery. Contributions from the existing sport lottery and a new Olympic lottery game would raise an estimated £1.5 billion. We will review the package in 2005 in the light of what by then will be firmer and more detailed estimates of the costs of staging the games.
The next test is whether we can win. Other confirmed bidders to date include New York, Leipzig, Madrid and Havana. No doubt others will emerge in the coming weeks. It is a strong field, but London has many advantages over the other cities, and our bid will be the equal of any. The third test is whether a bid could really be delivered. As the jointly commissioned Arup report shows, we can deliver a high quality and competitive bid based around an Olympic zone in the Lea valley.
The last test is the legacy. The games will bring great benefits to London. The economy and tourism will benefit. The lower Lea valley will benefit from new facilities and regeneration. So the work starts now. I am perfectly realistic about the work involved and the risks that lie ahead. I know that public opinion will ebb and flow in favour of the project. We will set up a dedicated organisation to develop and market the bid, with the very best people from both the public and private sectors, and with strong leadership. The bid team will act at arm's length from the Government, but we will pull out all the stops to bring the Olympic games to London.
Staging the Olympic games in 2012 is a prize well worth the fight, and 2012 is also the diamond jubilee year of Her Majesty the Queen. We are bidding because we believe that it will be good for sport, but it will also be good for London, and good for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a declaration that we are proud of our country and confident of our ability.
London is bidding for the Olympic games. We believe that it should host the greatest games on earth. We now have two years to prove to the world that we deserve to be given that chance.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I do not wish to dwell on the previous exchange, but I can confirm that the Secretary of State rang me at 12 o'clock and I thank her for that courtesy. She will also recall that I did at that time ask for a copy of the statement.
I wish to move on to the content of the statement. First, I wish to make it clear that we welcome the Government's decision to support a London bid for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. Indeed, we have been calling for it for a long time. We strongly believe that a London Olympic games will bring incalculable benefits to this country in terms of investment, tourism, regeneration and, most of all, to British sport.
The Secretary of State will be aware that we were originally promised a decision by the end of last year, but that it has been repeatedly postponed. Of course, we understand why that was necessary, but does she agree

479
that, to avoid any impression that the Government are half-hearted in their intent, every member of the Government, starting at the very top, needs to give the bid full and enthusiastic backing from now until the day that the decision is made?
Does the right hon. Lady also agree that one lesson of our failure to win a World cup bid is that we need a high-profile figure to lead the bid and tour the world to make the case for London? When does she expect to announce that appointment? Why does she appear to have rejected the strong recommendation of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that a Minister, located at the heart of Government, should have overall responsibility for co-ordinating the bid? Has not the absence of such a Minister plagued other projects and will it not make it harder to achieve the cross-departmental co-ordination and agreement that will be vital for a successful games?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, if the bid is to be credible and command public support, it must be seen to have been fully costed and that, as far as possible, a thorough risk assessment has been made? So far, even the original Arup report has not been published in full. Instead, we have merely seen what the Select Committee described as an anaemic 12-page summary. Will she undertake to make available the full costings for the bid, including a breakdown both of the necessary expenditure and of the income that a successful games is likely to generate?
We shall want to study in detail the proposals for how the costs of the games will be met, but we support the principle of using the national lottery to meet at least a part of those costs. The Secretary of State will be aware, however, that the lottery is badly tarnished and its income is falling. It thus becomes all the more important that she act quickly to restore public trust. Will she tell us what estimate she has made of how much of the money from the lottery will be taken from the amount that would otherwise have gone to the original good causes? Will the Government consider reducing that impact by giving up the share of the proceeds from a special Olympics game that they would otherwise take in tax?
Does the Secretary of State agree that not only London but the whole UK will benefit from the Olympic games being held in the city? The burden should not, therefore, fall exclusively on Londoners. We shall want to study carefully the detail of her proposal for a council tax precept and how that figure was arrived at, but will she immediately tell us how long the £20 council tax increase will last? Does she accept that it is only fair that those who have the most to gain from a London Olympics should make the greatest contribution to the cost? Will she tell us how she expects to justify a council tax supplement for those living in boroughs on the other side of London from the Lea valley, who will receive nothing like the same benefit? Does she agree that it would be unacceptable for the Olympics to be used as an excuse for further tax increases for either London's hard-pressed businesses or its residents, and that any additional liability must rest with the Treasury?
Does the Secretary of State agree that if a bid is to be successful, we must demonstrate that the necessary improvements in the transport infrastructure will be in place? Does she think that that should include the
480
upgrade of the London underground, a new Thames crossing and, above all, Crossrail? If so, can she explain why, only two days ago, the Secretary of State for Transport was still unable to give a decision on whether Crossrail will go ahead? Will he make it his first priority to take a decision on those vital questions so that we can put an end to the uncertainty?
Will the right hon. Lady say more about what the Government intend should be the legacy of the games? By then, London will already have a brand new stadium at Wembley. Is it the intention that, after the games, there will be two major stadiums in London, one of which will be exclusively for athletics, or will another purpose be found for it?
If our bid is successful, the games will come to London in nine years' time. By then, we could be in the second term of the next Conservative Government. The Secretary of State has accepted that the attitude of the Opposition is an important factor for the credibility of a bid. Earlier this year, she said that she would consider our suggestion for a cross-party ministerial group. Is she willing to establish such a body or, if not, what mechanism does she propose to set up to ensure that all parties can participate fully in the preparations for a bid?
It has taken a long time for us to get off the starting blocks, but the Conservatives are delighted that the Government have finally committed to a bid. We look forward to working with them and the British Olympic Association over the coming months to maximise the chances of its success.
Tessa Jowell: Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) saying that he is in favour of the bid and supports it, I wonder what his questions would have been if he had been against it. I have never heard 12 such sceptical questions. He even finds it difficult to take himself seriously when he talks about the prospect of a Conservative Government.
I shall deal first with the question about timing. The hon. Gentleman shows some ignorance of the Olympic process. It is clear that Paris took longer than London to decide whether to announce its bid. When the president of the International Olympic Committee spoke to the Prime Minister this morning, he commended the Government on the rigour of our approach and said that he could not fault it. We have made a decision based on all the necessary and available evidence.
The hon. Gentleman asked when we would appoint the bid chair. There is urgency about that. He and the House should be reassured that work continued to proceed during the period when we were considering the case for a bid, and I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement about the key appointment of the bid chair in the next few weeks, and certainly before the end of June.
It is important to remind the hon. Gentleman that, first, the proposal has been fully costed and, secondly, that it has been subject to preliminary analysis by the Office of Government Commerce to assess risk. He received a briefing on the Arup costs from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.

481
Instead of carping and talking down the national lottery, I wish that the Opposition would talk up the lottery as the Government do. There is a difference between public money and the public's money. The public's money is lottery money, which will come from people living all over the country, inspired by the prospect of the Olympic dream.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on good causes. We have taken that analysis very seriously indeed. The figures show that between now and 2009, there is likely to be an attrition of 4 per cent. to other good causes through the introduction of a new dedicated lottery game. That impact is validated by the National Lottery Commission. For the three years between 2009 until the games, the impact could be greater—up to 11 or 12 per cent. All the decisions are subject to review, depending on the performance of the lottery and so forth, because all the assessments have been made at the prudent end. The council tax precept will run for 25 years, on the basis that borrowing extends to £625 million.
On transport, we have always made it clear that a decision to bid for and host the Olympics is not dependent on Crossrail. As the Secretary of State for Transport would say, if he were in the Chamber, even if Crossrail got the go-ahead tomorrow it would not be ready in time for 2012.
On the legacy, we are absolutely determined that an Olympic stadium will not become a white elephant, as other Olympic stadiums have. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, we have already begun discussions about a potential anchor tenant.
I hope that I have done justice to the hon. Gentleman's questions and that we can count on the unequivocal, unswerving support of his party, because that will substantially reinforce and strengthen the chances of our winning in 2005.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement and pay tribute to her thoroughness in the promotion of a bid. I believe that our bid will be stronger for the time that we have taken to prepare for the statement today.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that among the issues that must be at the heart of the bid team's work from now on is how an Olympic bid can be used to drive up participation in sport; to improve our sports facilities, many of which, especially in London, need renewal and refurbishment; and to develop our most talented athletes to be medal winners in 2012? If an all-party group of Back-Bench Members were formed to explore those and the other challenges facing the bid team, would she be willing to work with it?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and pay tribute to his advocacy and that of other hon. Friends in continuing to make the case for a London bid. It is an essential justification of a London bid that bidding for the Olympics is part of, not apart from, the Government's wider strategy for engaging more people in sport and identifying talent at an earlier stage. Earlier this week, I announced our new programme of talent scholarships, which will make financial support available to thousands of our most talented young athletes, who, without that extra money
482
and support, would be denied the opportunity to reach their real potential. I would be delighted to work closely with an all-party group to support the Olympics and discuss with Opposition parties how to maintain understanding, consensus and a sense of working together to drive forward to deliver the bid.
Nick Harvey: I wholeheartedly welcome the statement and the Government's decision to back an Olympic bid. A London Olympics will be good for British sport at every level, good for London, putting it at the centre of the world stage, and good for the whole country.
The Secretary of State says that the bid team will operate at arm's length from Government, but may we be reassured that there will not be too much distance between the two? The success of the Manchester games has shown that we can put on a very good show, but there is a credibility gap to be filled following the world athletics championships saga. Does she accept that, although the Prime Minister's involvement in the 2006 World cup bid was entirely positive, it transpired at the voting stage that other Heads of State had been massively more involved? We should learn a lesson from that.
On funding, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the other lottery good causes if there is a new game for the Olympics? May we be reassured that, if the lottery does not yield the anticipated sums or if the costs overrun, the Government will be fully behind the bid in a financial sense as well?
The Secretary of State says that the bid is not contingent on Crossrail being completed. Can she explain how, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has been asking, we shall get the spectators out to the new facilities without Crossrail?
Finally, on the legacy, does the Secretary of State accept that some of the most successful games have had some of the least advantageous legacies, and that Government will need to be involved completely, from the word go, to ensure a legacy for London and the country of the best possible quality?
Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their support for the London bid. We intend to implement a very clear structure for running the bid, at arm's length from Government but with accountability to what will be described as a public funders panel, on which I, the BOA and the Mayor will sit. I am the responsible Minister in Government and in Cabinet and I will report personally on progress to the Prime Minister.
We have been very mindful of the problems that have arisen for large events in the past. We have learned the lessons of the Commonwealth games, not only about what went wrong at an early stage but also about why they were such a success and did so much for Manchester. The focus on social inclusion, the nearly 10,000 volunteers and the participation of people throughout the north-west are a real inspiration for London to try to emulate.
The hon. Gentleman raised the concern about transport. It is important for hon. Members to know that a detailed transport plan is being developed with

483
the Department for Transport. Money has been allocated. Substantial money is already going into the improvement in London's transport, but those who have signed off the transport proposals are confident that they are sufficient to move people around London during the games, and there is not now and never has been any suggestion at all that transport capacity for London during the period of the games is contingent on Crossrail. Stratford station will be expanded to enable it to handle 60,000 people an hour, Bromley-by-Bow station will be substantially rebuilt, and a range of specific improvements will be made to ensure proper management of transport.
Finally, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point—it is a serious lesson—that we must address the legacy now, which is why we have emphasised the importance of ensuring that the stadium that will be the centre of the world during the Olympic games also has a useful life afterwards and that we do not have a stadium that, as Sydney has found, is a constant drain on the public finances.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fairness with which she and colleagues in her Department have approached the bid. Does she agree that, although the immediate benefits of hosting the games in London may be for the people of London, in fact it is the children who are now in years 7 and 8 in schools in Aberdeen, South, in Glasgow, Pollok and in Cardiff, Central who will be winning Britain the gold medals at those games, and that if those games are truly to have a legacy that is spread throughout the country, we must press ahead with the programme for school sports co-ordinators, and with getting coaching into schools, to get those young people the expertise that they need to become our gold medallists in 2012?
Tessa Jowell: I could not agree more. This morning, I spoke to two of our Olympic athletes, Matthew Pinsent and Paula Radcliffe, whose personal advocacy for the games has been incredibly persuasive. Of course they, as role models and great icons for our young athletes, understand precisely the importance of my hon. Friend's point.
Richard Ottaway: I give my unequivocal and unswerving support, and congratulate the Secretary of State on piloting the whole process this far. I welcome her reference to the Paralympics, whose United Kingdom branch is based in Croydon, and which is often forgotten in such circumstances.
May I probe on the question of cost overrun? The right hon. Lady said that the precept will last for 25 years in London. If there is a cost overrun, will that precept be extended or will the overrun be underwritten by other sources?
Tessa Jowell: The funding package that I have announced today, to which the Mayor is also a signatory, includes within it, based on the Arup figures, a contingency of at least £1.1 billion, so there is a very substantial contingency. In 2005, when we know whether we have won, we will obviously take stock of the costs in the light of what will by then be greater
484
certainty about the figures. At that point, we will judge whether further contingency provisions need to be made and whether further provision that will go back to the original funders will be needed to protect the taxpayer's position, but at this stage, beyond saying that we have recognised the need for that further examination, it is not particularly constructive or useful to go into more detail because the figures may change in the interim.
Ms Bridget Prentice: I am delighted by my right hon. Friend's statement today; it shows confidence and pride in London that we should all appreciate and share. The whole country should appreciate the benefits that will come to London in terms of not just sport but tourism and regeneration. Will she perhaps expand on her statement to reassure people elsewhere in the country that they, too, will benefit whether from events during the games, or in economic and other terms thereafter?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a constant advocate for the games and recognises the economic and other benefits that will come to her constituency as a result of our decision today. We made as careful an assessment as we could at this stage of the wider benefits, and it is worth noting that all the regional development agencies have expressed their support on the ground of the benefits to their regions of the games hosted in London produced by inward investment driven by tourism. It is essential that we see that as one of the important measures by which we judge the success of the games. Of course the way in which we spread the benefit is by our continued investment in grassroots sport and in sport for children in school, to build the opportunities for the champions of tomorrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) remarked, we hope that children from Inverness to Truro will have the opportunity to compete when the time comes.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Like all other hon. Members who have spoken today, I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on having the courage and the vision to take forward the Olympic bid in what could be a fantastic year to celebrate Her Majesty's jubilee if we were to be successful. The Secretary of State will face scepticism from some of the public, not least in regions such as mine, where people still do not quite understand why the bid has to be based on London. I understand that it needs to be London, but will she tell the House why it needs to be London and spell out the prospective benefits for people in the other regions, who will feel disappointed?
Tessa Jowell: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady's view. Of course, we did not rush to take a decision that London should be the bidding city without looking at the case for the alternative, but the simple fact is that the British Olympic Association advised us that the only way that we would stand a chance of winning would be to bid for London. That is why we are bidding for London—we are absolutely determined to do everything that we can to win.
Roger Casale: I welcome the statement and the exciting prospect of the Olympics coming to

485
London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to win the wholehearted support of Londoners—and, indeed, of people across the country—for the bid, we must create as many opportunities as possible for people to engage with the bid's preparation, advance their own ideas and contribute their experience both to improve the bid and to identify how they could benefit if it is successful? With that in mind, may I remind my right hon. Friend that, although we no longer have football in south-west London, at least not in my constituency, we have experience of tennis and other sports? We in south London as a whole will consider—this has sometimes not been the case in the Mayor's considerations—how we can benefit, in particular, by improving the transport infrastructure if the bid is successful.
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and hope that when the bid team is appointed and gets under way, precisely the imagination that he describes will be applied to ensuring that the Olympics means something to people throughout the country, not just in London, and to people of all ages as well.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I too unequivocally welcome the announcement that the Secretary of State has made today. She knows that I have been a passionate advocate for an Olympic bid. Does she recognise that there will be particular pleasure in my constituency because, as she will know, there is only one venue in the UK that was used for the 1948 Olympics that will be used in 2012? That venue is Bisley, for shooting, which straddles the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Will she be happy to work with all members of the all-party sports group, of which I have the honour to be deputy chairman? Of course our chairman, Lord Pendry, sits in the upper House, so he is not with us today. Does she agree that all hon. Members from whichever party have to recognise that far more of our constituents care about sport than about politics and that the bid should be a unifying force? I passionately hope that we win it.
Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I certainly agree that in any vote sport would have it over politics with all our constituents. Bisley was an extremely successful location for shooting during the Commonwealth games. Clearly, his constituents will look forward with excitement to the possibility of being part of the Olympic facilities.
Jim Dowd: May I enter a more sceptical note than seems to have been the case so far? May I tell the Secretary of State that I am persuadable on the matter, but at the moment, I am not sure that this is a wise move, and many of my constituents share that view? Given that Greater London Authority ratepayers have experienced a 30 per cent. increase this year alone, may I ask her about the £20, 25-year fund? Can she clarify whether it will start at £20 and remain like that over the 25 years, or whether it will start at £20 and end up with a much higher figure? Can she confirm that the total exposure if the bid is unsuccessful will be £17 million, which she identified, and will she say how that figure will be broken down and who will pay for it? What proportion of that £17 million will be allocated to the
486
entertainment, wining and dining, inducements and downright bribery that have been the hallmark of Olympic bids?
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is consistent in his scepticism, and I hope very much that we will prove him wrong during the months and years ahead. I think that he will take heart from the fact that there has been overwhelming support not just from people in London, but from people throughout the country. The results of the opinion polling that my Department undertook as part of the preparation for the bid were extraordinarily consistent. He refers to the costs of bidding. Those costs will be shared between the public sector and the private sector. The cost identified is up to £30 million, half of which we expect to come from the private sector and half of which will come from apportionment between the London Development Agency and my Department. There will be some acceleration in the built facilities, and we expect that work will start on an Olympic pool at Stratford ahead of a decision on whether we have won. That is an important legacy point because that part of London needs an Olympic-sized pool. I hope that that is one bit of evidence to show how the principle of ensuring a good legacy informs decisions even at this early stage.
Simon Hughes: Ministers know that I am 100 per cent. enthusiastic and committed to the bid, and if I have the privilege of being elected Mayor of London next year, I will give the Government my full support and co-operation, and make sure that we do not just win the bid, but go on to have a brilliant Olympics. In addition to the funding proposals that the Secretary of State has set out, which work out at £500 per band D household in London—not an excessive amount over 20 years—can she tell us whether, if we win the bid, the Government will reconsider whether they should put something into the kitty? At the moment, there is money in the kitty only for the bid, not for the Olympics. What is the legacy for transport, housing and jobs? As a London Member of Parliament, she knows that improvements to those will be to the benefit of London for a generation or more, and to the benefit of the country for a generation or more, too.
Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, the support for the Olympic bid will be a rare moment of consensus in the forthcoming mayoral campaign. Let me address his specific points about transport, housing and jobs. On transport, I have already identified the way in which transport infrastructure will be improved: specifically, the extension of Stratford station and the rebuilding of Bromley-by-Bow station, to ensure that they have the necessary capacity. There will be more improvements: the upgrading of certain rail links, the upgrading of motorway links and so forth. A programme has therefore been identified and costed.
On housing, the Olympic village will have accommodation for 4,000 people. After the Olympics, that will become housing for people moving into the regenerated Thames gateway. On jobs, the estimate is that the Olympics will generate in the region of 10,000

487
jobs between now and 2012–13. Not all of them will be permanent long-term jobs, but that is a huge boost for employment in east London.
Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend accept that given the corruption in the Olympic movement, the problems of drugs in some of the sports involved, and the overheating of much of the London economy, many people are not very pleased with her announcements today? Will she give a guarantee to the House that it will be paid for by the people of London, and will not be paid for at the expense of transport links, regeneration links and sport facilities in the English regions?
Tessa Jowell: In relation to my hon. Friend's point about the International Olympic Committee and its past reputation, we must recognise that that is in the past. Its reputation suffered seriously, and Jacques Rogge, the new president of the IOC, has taken vigorous and rigorous steps in rewriting the rules to ensure that corruption, wherever it is identified, is not part of the Olympic system. Tight rules are being drawn up, and it is important that we recognise that progress. On his second point, yes, London will pay a major part of the cost of the Olympics, but the lottery will do so too. That is important because of our ambition and aim that the Olympics should belong to the whole United Kingdom and not just to London.
Michael Fabricant: Despite my natural disappointment that the west midlands has not been chosen, the right hon. Lady is right to choose London. The experience of the Manchester bid showed that, unfortunately, the bids have to be based on cities that other delegates, from other parts of the world, recognise. That is unfortunate but true. She was wrong, however, to chastise my hon. Friend the Member for
488
Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) for asking about the details of costing, because the devil is in the detail. We know from the dome that while it was a good idea, costs spiralled out of control. We would therefore welcome more detail in the near future. In that respect, as the right hon. Lady recognises that the legacy is important, when will the detailed transport plan be published? That is important, given the transport difficulties in Atlanta and Sydney.
Tessa Jowell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so in touch with reality that he realises that the choice must be London not Lichfield. In relation to the steps that we have taken on costings, even at this stage—let us remember that we are talking about costings that will be realised in nine years' time—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and I have visited six previous or prospective Olympic capitals precisely to make a proper assessment of what running an Olympics costs. Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee, has commended the exemplary approach of the Government in preparing to make this decision.
Alan Keen: I was lucky to have been taken to see the 1948 Olympic games, when Herne Hill was the site for the cycle track events and Windsor Great Park for the road race. It inspired me to pursue a lifetime of active sport. Although I do not usually mention politics and sport in the same sentence, I was so inspired this morning by the shadow Secretary of State's optimism that he would be in the second term of a Tory Government in 2012 that I am going straight home to get my bike out. Whatever important position he holds in 2012, I hope that he will present me with a gold medal for the 1,000 m sprint. Let us hope that this is the last time that we mix sport and politics. Let us all work together to make sure that we win the bid and host a wonderful games.
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that characteristically generous contribution.

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  School Funding
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I should say to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A 15-minute limit has been placed on Back-Bench speeches during this debate.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's handling of the school funding crisis; regrets that the jobs of teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff have been put at risk; further regrets that these teacher redundancies, together with other cut backs imposed by the funding crisis, will have a negative impact on the education of school children; notes that Labour councils have been as badly affected as Conservative councils by the funding crisis; condemns the Government for seeking to blame local authorities for this crisis; further notes the statements of head teachers and governors across England who no longer trust the Government's ability to administer school funding; recognises the impact of the funding crisis on the Government's teacher workload agreement; believes that the Government's flawed reforms of school funding are to blame for the crisis; and calls on the Government to simplify the school funding system, giving more money direct to schools and giving head teachers more control over how to spend that money.
  I am delighted that the House and its proceedings are impinging on this Government for once. We called for this debate because the crisis in our schools is serious and wide-ranging, and the Government were forced into a response this morning in an attempt to provide themselves, prior to the debate, with a fig leaf. I welcome the fact that the House can still have an effect.
  Sadly, however, what we have seen today is a panicky short-term response that takes money out of one pocket in a school's budget and inserts into another pocket. What we should he hearing from Ministers today is an apology to heads, teachers, local authorities and parents for the spectacular cock-up that they have made of this year's education budget. Instead, they seem determined to lay the blame anywhere else.
  Since the Secretary of State has been forced into rushing out the announcement of the various pieces of sticking plaster that he is trying to put over this wound, can he answer some specific questions when he addresses the House? He is telling schools to raid their capital budgets and reserves to try to avoid teachers and teaching assistants being sacked. Can he tell the House what happens to a school facing a huge budget deficit that it cannot cover from reserves or capital, that has a central heating boiler that has just failed or a roof that is leaking directly into the classroom, and that does not therefore have capital available to try to pay salaries?
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend so early. On the point of capital expenditure, however, is he aware that a school in my constituency, Reffley county primary, which is a beacon school and one of the best and biggest primaries in Norfolk, will be short of £93,000 just by standing still? It has no money in its capital budget, and
  490
  no surplus funds, and it will have to get rid of five teaching support staff. What kind of signal does that send to hard-pressed teachers and parents in Norfolk?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. All over the country, in his constituency and elsewhere, schools will be looking at the detail of what the Secretary of State announced this morning, just as they looked at the detail of the spending announcements that he made some months ago, and they will realise that whatever hype comes from the Government, they will be worse off. If the measures that he announced this morning actually work in the schools facing the worst problems, the effect will be random.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
  David Wright rose—
  Mr. Green: I will give way to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright).
  David Wright: If we assume that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see any resource removed from any local education authority, how much more money does he think that he would need to commit, as a representative of the Opposition, to make it all the better?
  Mr. Green: I would commit that when the next Conservative Government spend money on education, we will spend it in schools rather than on bureaucracy.
  James Purnell rose—
  Jonathan Shaw rose—
  Mr. Green: I will make some progress. I know that the hon. Gentlemen will have many problems in their constituencies, from which their schools are suffering, which I am sure that they will wish to draw to the House's attention.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson rose—
  Mr. Green: In the meantime, perhaps the hon. Gentlemen would like to listen to the very sensible comments of the National Association of Head Teachers on the Secretary of State's announcement this morning:
  "Converting capital into revenue and licensing deficit budgets could help some schools but these measures, that are akin to `rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic', will not provide the relief that all schools in trouble desperately need now."
  In addition to the fact that raiding capital budgets is not really a solution, it will cause immediate problems. I am especially worried about the effect on special needs provision. If the Secretary of State tells schools to spend their capital on teachers' salaries, what will happen to schools that need to rebuild classrooms to provide proper access for pupils with disabilities? That is now a legal requirement, as he knows, so I hope that the Government have thought through all the implications

  491
  of today's announcement, especially the way in which they will affect some of the most disadvantaged children in Britain today.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in such terms because the previous Conservative Government's term in office was characterised by crumbling schools. Is he aware that under John Major's Government, schools in my constituency lost money every single year? Since 1997, Cambridgeshire has received a 16 per cent. increase in cash funding for schools.
  Mr. Green: If the hon. Lady is worried about crumbling schools, does she support her Secretary of State who has today proposed to raid the capital budgets of schools throughout the country? Her logic escapes me.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because rather than being given history lessons, most people in education want to know what will happen this year and what the effect will be on their jobs. I received a letter from Turnditch primary school, which is a small primary school, commenting on the changes that the Secretary of State has made to the standards funds, among other things. It says:
  "In other words, our total budget has gone from"
  £179,000 to £180,000, or
  "an increase of … 0.62 per cent."
  The school does not know where the extra money that the Secretary of State talks about has gone.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I shall address directly the point about the capital budget The Secretary of State knows that when we approve of things that he does, we do not indulge in knee-jerk opposition. Before today, such approval was given to the way in which he took seriously the need for steady flows of capital to keep the fabric of our schools up to date. The fact that that sensible part of the Government's education strategy has been ditched is a sign of the level of panic in the Department for Education and Skills. Schools will suffer in the long term.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Green: I shall make some progress.
  The Secretary of State rightly sets great stall by the development of specialist schools. He knows that schools in deficit cannot apply for specialist status, yet he has today encouraged schools to go into deficit. He is firing an accurate torpedo into his plans for a rapid expansion of the specialist school network.
  The written statement that the Secretary of State put before the House today fascinatingly says:
  "2003–04 is a unique year, because of both the extent of changes in the system for funding schools, and one-off pressures relating to teachers' pensions and National Insurance."
  492
  He knows that announcements on taxes are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is he committing the Chancellor not to impose further national insurance increases for the rest of the Parliament and if he is, has he told the Chancellor? If he is not saying that, his reassuring written statement has no value at all. I know that relations around the Cabinet table are worse than ever but if spending Ministers start pre-empting future Budgets, we ain't seen nothing yet.
  Mr. John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Does he agree that the absurdity of rip-off government is shown by the fact that many of the taxes wrongly imposed on the British people have been a boomerang on the public sector and have made it impossible for schools to spend what they want? Schools are not receiving the money that they should because so much is wasted, while money that they do get is used to pay taxes.
  Mr. Green: There is a circular flow of money from taxpayers' pockets into the Chancellor's pocket, but it never seems to reach the public services on which the British public want the money to be spent. That is one of the Government's central failures.
  Jonathan Shaw: How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the future of local education authorities, and would he abolish them? They have been successful and Kent local education authority, which has secured £60 million of private finance initiative credits, has been especially successful. One of the five schools affected by that is the North school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. What would be the future of LEAs under the Tories?
  Mr. Green: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Kent LEA, which is run by an extremely good and successful Conservative council.
  It is worth analysing how on earth the Government found themselves in this predicament. They have introduced more than 60 tax rises since 1997 and they spend more than £50 million every hour. Even in my most oppositional mood, I would not have expected our schools to be plunged into what the head teacher Michael Chapman, who was speaking on behalf of head teachers in east Yorkshire, said was
  "far and away the worst budget settlement I have had to manage as a head teacher".
  What a contrast there is between the problems faced by schools and colleges throughout the country and the jubilant words that surrounded last summer's spending announcement. Let us remember the incredible hubris displayed by Ministers at the time of the spending review. The Chancellor had raised taxes a few months earlier and the record £12.8 billion increase promised for the next three years would, according to the then Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris),
  "deliver higher standards, better behaviour and more choice".
  She promised:
  "investment will be matched by radical reform".

  493
  The edifice that the Government lauded at the time has fallen apart so spectacularly and quickly that it should embarrass even the Minister for School Standards, who bears direct responsibility for the relevant part of the Department for Education and Skills' budget.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he appreciate the concerns of people in schools such as Collingwood college in my constituency, which was a flagship grant-maintained school under the Conservative Government? Its chairman of governors, with all-party support, is writing to me to protest not only that Surrey local education authority has effectively received almost no funding increase, but that any increase that it passports to schools is more than wiped out by the increased cost of national insurance payments. Collingwood college and other schools in my constituency and south-east constituencies have experienced a net loss. Unless the Secretary of State does something about the situation, redundancies will be made next Wednesday morning. Surely that reinforces the urgency of the matter.
  Mr. Green: It does reinforce the urgency of the matter and it is a shame that Labour Members do not seem to take that seriously.
  We need to know why the situation occurred. The school funding system has foundered on the three vices that the Labour Government cannot resist: hype, centralisation and a refusal to accept responsibility when things go wrong. The promises of investment and reform have proved to be as empty as they were grandiose. There is no doubt that the Government are taxing and spending more than ever but what they give with one hand, they take away with the other.
  The £2.7 billion extra for schools to which the Prime Minister still referred yesterday has proved to be an incredible shrinking pot of money. By last December, it had been scaled down to £1.4 billion. Two months ago, the increase—classed as "missing"—was just over £500 million. According to the Minister for Schools Standards, it then became £250 million. Today's announcement means that we can assume that the Government are finally and belatedly admitting that the trumpeted increase was in fact a cut and that schools are being encouraged to raid other budgets to fund their basic spending.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Green: I think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) wins.
  Mr. Tom Watson: I award the hon. Gentleman grade A for effort for sketching out a higher education policy after 604 days in office. Will he use today's debate to sketch out a policy on secondary education? Would he match the Government's investment in secondary education, or will he tell us where he would make cuts?
  Mr. Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning our policy on higher education, although I was not planning to do that. I am sure that the policy is more popular among Labour Members than the
  494
  Government's policy on higher education. I dare say that at some stage we will put that to the test in the House.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Green: No, I must make progress.
  The Secretary of State then told the Secondary Heads Association that he did not believe that schools had budget problems and that schools' complaints were just "a game". The previous day, he responded to the concerns of the Association of Chief Education Officers by saying:
  "I don't listen to what you say quite frankly."
  That was not worthy of the Secretary of State.
  It is not just that the Government have fundamentally mismanaged the funding crisis. They have wilfully fiddled the local government funding settlement in a way that has made the problem in our schools worse. The Government argue that they provided an above-inflation grant increase for all councils. Such an argument is at best simplistic and at worst simply wrong. Local authorities' costs have risen faster than central Government funding as they have imposed countless new regulations, obligations and red tape. We know, and schools know, that the pay, pensions, national insurance increases and standards fund changes have taken away most of the extra funding for every school and more than the total of the extra money for too many schools.
  We need to examine how much central Government actually fund of what they estimate each local authority should be spending. According to research from the House of Commons Library, that ratio fell from 76 per cent. in 1997 to 73 per cent. in 2002–03. In other words, the Government are funding less of local authority spending needs from the centre and the shortfall has to be made up in higher council tax.
  There is nothing fair about the local government settlement this year, but even with the gerrymandering that the Government have gone in for they have managed to create acute funding crises even in Labour local authorities. The fact that they have managed to do that owes much to the complexity of the system that they have created and the obvious flaws that have now been revealed. The Minister for School Standards, with whom I have debated the matter in the media over the past few weeks, claims that he understands it—but judging by the crisis that he has presided over, he does not—and that mere mortals cannot understand it. The fact is, however, that it clearly does not work.
  There has to be a better way. When local authorities, such as Wandsworth, which has much deprivation but also an excellent Conservative council that works hard to deal with its problems, suffers because it is too successful and has too many pockets of relative affluence, then something is wrong. There are rich people in poor areas and poor people in wealthy areas. The current system, for all its complexity, fails to deal with those problems in any adequate way.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that schools have been under enormous pressure in the past few weeks. Will he explain why Tory-led Essex

  495
  county council has held on to £21 million in those weeks and told my schools that it has no money to give them? Why has it sat on that money and kept those schools under so much pressure?
  Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman should keep up. His Secretary of State stopped trying to blame local authorities for the crisis a few weeks ago.
  The Government's policy is over-hyped and over-centralised. The next phase is to deny responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman just sought to do, but that will not wash because the current situation is the result of a breakdown in communication from the centre. The Government and Labour Members know that scores of schools around the country report that they are going into budget deficit. A good example of that is the Fairway middle school in Norwich, where the chair of governors, Alison Black, made it clear in a letter to the Secretary of State—her Member of Parliament—that her school was facing the distinct possibility of having to make all seven of the school's teaching assistants redundant. It is surely a strange situation when only months after the Department announced that it saw a greater role for teaching assistants, they are under the threat of redundancy.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Just to inform the House that I met my constituents to discuss that and they are making no redundancies at Fairway middle school.
  Mr. Green: This year possibly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to respond to Richard Arrowsmith, the head teacher of Grove school in Market Drayton, who summed up the situation perfectly. He said:
  "We have lost confidence in the Government over the way in which school finance is administered … With cuts outstripping the funds available for extra support staff, it will also be difficult for us to reduce excessive workloads on teachers."
  Mr. Keith Simpson: My hon. Friend is aware that the Secretary of State is the Member of Parliament for Norwich, South, and he just replied to a specific constituency point. Does he know that in a conversation that I had with Norfolk education committee last night, it stressed that it is working hard with local schools but still anticipates 92 redundancies? Teachers and governors are in no doubt where the blame lies—it lies with the Secretary of State. It has been documented in dozens of letters and e-mails through the local Eastern Daily Press. The buck stops with him.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right. There is a crisis in the Secretary of State's constituency and crises in many other constituencies, too. In the week when the Government launched their new strategy for London schools, we hear reports of the man that they have in charge, Tim Brighouse, saying:
  "this is the worst of times"
  and
  "It is the worst dislocation of funding we have all experienced in our own working lifetime."
  496
  When the London schools tsar criticises the Government like that, Ministers' complacency is completely out of place. That man has been brought in by Labour to lead education reform in the capital.
  On top of all that, Sir Jeremy Beecham, a leading Labour councillor and leader of the Local Government Association, said:
  "Local councils are not holding back millions of pounds. Much of these funds are being allocated to a range of educational needs and some are due to be distributed in the year."
  Rather than the Department leading the partnership with all those people, we instead have confrontation and a breakdown of communication that has succeeded in alienating teachers, heads, local authorities, teacher unions and the Local Government Association. The problem is not just a one-year problem. It will continue to haunt schools in future years. Making them dig into their reserves to fund the Department's mistakes will only make matters worse and it attacks the financial security of all schools that have to do that.
  One long-term effect of the Government's policy is that it will damage their so-called historic work load agreement, which has promised so much and, on current progress, will deliver so little. Only last week, the National Association of Head Teachers, one of the teacher unions that signed up to the agreement originally, said that it would be "impossible to implement" because of the Government's cuts and that it was considering pulling out of it. On top of that, reports last week showed that the work load agreement will only continue to add to the pressures that schools face, with costs of teaching assistants expected to rise by up to 40 per cent. in some local authorities. So those schools that are short of cash now will have to contend with even more problems in the future.
  The long-term solution is a radical simplification of the funding system. The Government can no longer introduce dozens of different funding streams, each one representing a new gimmick to provide a ministerial press release. Even when they are good and useful gimmicks, the cumulative effect of the constant fiddling is to leave schools unable to take decisions. Let us take power away from Ministers and give it to heads and governors so that they make the key decisions about priorities in their schools.
  Ideally, we need to introduce a national funding formula so that never again are schools forced into a situation like the current crisis. Schools should know where they stand with regard to their funding and should be able to set budgets accordingly, securing their financial future. Instead of that, we have a classic new Labour crisis, which goes through several phases: the grand announcement, the ministerial boasting, then the investigation of the small print, the rumblings of discontent, the explosion of the crisis, the desperate search for a scapegoat, and eventually the humiliation of the ministerial climbdown. We saw it with individual learning accounts; we saw it with the A-level crisis; and now we have seen it with school funding.
  But this crisis is too important to remain with Ministers. For once they do need to accept responsibility. Let me give them one last example from a head who phoned me less than an hour ago, Mrs. Maureen Martin of Coloma convent girls school, a comprehensive in Croydon. Her school is short of

  497
  £400,000. It has no reserves and her capital budget, which the Minister wants her to raid, is £77,000. Today's announcement does not lift the cloud over her excellent school, and she, for one, is not being taken in by the ministerial spin.
  I hope that Ministers reflect on their work. If one teacher or one teaching assistant is made redundant as a result of the present crisis, one Minister should follow suit. I suspect that the Minister for School Standards is first in the queue, but I dare say that those who are trying to rescue our schools system will not mind. The Government have let down heads, parents and teachers throughout the country, and it is time that Ministers took responsibility for their failures. I commend our motion to the House.
  2.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "applauds the increased funding that the Government has made available to LEAs since 1997, which is up in real terms from £2,800 per pupil to £3,600 for 2003–04, with further planned increases to almost £3,800 by 2005–06; notes that the increase in funding for 2003–04, at £2.7 billion, more than covers the additional cost pressures from pay, pension and price increases; recognises that the new LEA funding formula constitutes a welcome move towards a fairer distribution between LEAs, but coupled with the changes to the Standards Fund has resulted in some turbulence in the system; endorses the action the Government has taken in response, namely to provide a further £11 million to London authorities and £28 million to authorities with the lowest overall increases; further notes that the performance pay grant for 2003–04 has been increased to meet all of schools' commitments arising from the grant provided in 2002–03, and to cover the costs of similar progress for teachers becoming eligible for performance pay in September; welcomes the decision by the great majority of LEAs to pass on in full the increase in schools funding to their schools budgets; supports the work the Government is doing with LEAs to understand the decisions they have taken in distributing their funding between central services and the individual budgets of schools; welcomes the further measures the Secretary of State is taking to provide LEAs and schools with flexibilities to avoid excessive instability within schools; and calls on the Government to consider what changes are needed for next year."
  I am delighted to have the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was not able to persuade the shadow Cabinet to hold it two weeks ago, as he announced to the National Union of Teachers conference, but it is important to be able to debate the subject fully and directly. We ought to start with the origins of the situation.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Medieval history.
  Mr. Clarke: Not medieval history, but practical politics today.
  The funding of schools is a shared responsibility between national and local government, and we have shown over the recent period, and will show in future, a determination to work together to resolve the issues. I take the national level first. We allocated an increase in spending of £2.7 billion to schools in this year. The funding pressures, including teachers pay, pensions and national insurance—the various issues highlighted by the hon. Member for Ashford—were about £2.45 billion nationally, so we had an excess over the funding pressures of £200 million to £250 million.
  498
  The funding was at a level of about 11.6 per cent. per pupil increase in that year—a significant increase. It was, by the way, the continuation of a long record of education investment since 1997, which has led to an extra 20,000 teachers across the country, an extra 80,000 support staff, and 20,000 schools benefiting directly from investment in them—a sharp contrast with the 20 per cent. cuts in education proposed by the Opposition.
  There were two national changes.—
  Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State may have inadvertently told an untruth to the House. As you know, no such cuts are being proposed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Clarke: I am happy to respond. On "The World at One" on Radio 4 on 30 December 2002, the Leader of the Opposition said that his colleagues, including the shadow Chief Secretary,
  "are looking at the target of 20 per cent. savings across the board in Government spending. That's what we are looking at, and we are beginning to come up with figures that will build towards that total."
  That is 20 per cent. right across the board. If the Opposition want to come off that figure, they should do so, but they have not.
  James Purnell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Tory policy on higher education involves a 20 per cent. cut? Has he noticed that the Tories have guaranteed the defence budget and the international development budget, but not the education budget? Is it not, therefore, the height of hypocrisy for them to call a debate on funding, when they are secretly planning to cut it?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. We hope that the hon. Member for Ashford might win some of his battles in the shadow Cabinet and get a commitment to education spending, alongside those to other Departments.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the funding pressures on Kent, which has received an increase in its education budget that amounts to only just over half of the funding pressures, will be repeated under the local government settlement plans for next year and the year after, so that the remarkable achievement whereby Kent has managed to passport through all the money that the schools need this year will be impossible to repeat for the next two years?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point in a moment. There is well over £10 million still to be allocated by Kent to individual schools, and I hope and am confident that it will do so.
  As the hon. Member for Ashford said, there were two significant changes in the distribution of the national resource this year. The first is the change in the local government funding formula, to which he referred, whereby we introduced a 3.2 per cent. floor for all local

  499
  education authorities to deal with the situation. The second was the decision to shift the standards fund to local government, for which colleagues in local government had pressed for a considerable time. Those changes have led to distributional effects that, as I have long acknowledged, give rise to particular issues. But the national funding has been more than enough to cover the funding pressures.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given the Secretary of State's unwise fulminations against local education authorities, and the fact that £1.2 million in leadership incentive grant has not been allocated by Buckinghamshire county council because he has not given permission to the authority to do so, does he understand why, on 23 April this year, I received a letter from a teacher in my constituency who wrote that if there were A-levels in bullying, arrogance and incompetence, he would pass all three with flying colours?
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the compliment from the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal directly with Buckinghamshire, to answer the point that he raises.
  Each local education authority has taken four decisions about distributing money to schools in its area: first, whether to passport the money through; secondly, how much to keep in its central schools budget for the LEA as a whole, and how much to distribute to individual schools; thirdly, how much to allocate from its own revenue to capital; and fourthly, what local formula the money is spent on.
  The Government position on each of those aspects is clear. First, the money should be 100 per cent. passported. Secondly, the money that goes should be passed on to individual schools, and that is where it should be spent. Thirdly, the revenue should be spent principally on revenue, because there is other capital funding. I shall deal in a moment with the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Fourthly, the local formula should be fair and not give very high increases to certain schools, and very low increases or even decreases to others.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend will know that Buckinghamshire county council has demonstrated a 10 per cent. variation in the funding that it gives to different schools. He will also be aware that in attainment in schools in Buckinghamshire, there is an extraordinary fourfold difference in the percentage of pupils in secondary schools gaining five GCSEs. Has he looked to see whether the variation in funding is aimed at improving performance in the schools performing poorly, or the opposite—giving even more money to schools that are already favoured and taking money away from less favoured schools?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I shall come to Buckinghamshire in a moment, as it illustrates the point that she makes to articulately.
  I hope that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will make clear their positions on these issues, as I have done. Conservative Westminster has passported only
  500
  73.8 per cent. of its budget. Conservative Wandsworth, which the hon. Member for Ashford favoured, has passed on only 92.9 per cent. of its increase. It is a bit of a nerve to cite Marylebone school when it is his own Tory friends in Westminster who are not providing the funds for Marylebone schools. I hope that the Lib Dems will explain why Liverpool city council has passported only 94.9 per cent. of its budget through.
  My position is clear. I urge all authorities to passport 100 per cent. of their money. My challenge to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is for them to commit themselves to the same approach in relation to their political colleagues. With reference to Westminster and Wandsworth, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the band D council tax for Wandsworth is £584, and for Westminster it is £570, compared with £1.082 for Lewisham and £1,034 for Southwark, but still they will not passport the money to fund the schools properly in their areas.
  Richard Ottaway: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a press release from Labour-controlled Croydon council entitled "Education Secretary—Climbdown on Croydon Passporting"? It states that he accepted Croydon's proposal for the schools budget, which allowed a 90.2 per cent. level of passporting. That is an acknowledgement that he agreed to £1.7 million being taken out of the schools budget and used on social services and other things.
  Mr. Clarke: I have directly intimated to Croydon that I believe that it should be passporting much more than 90.2 per cent. I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. In my opinion, Croydon, which is Labour-controlled, as he said, should be passporting in the same way as others. However, my challenge to the Conservative party and Liberal Democrat leadership is to ask whether they are prepared to join me in saying that the money should be passported in that way.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He has spoken with disapproval about authorities that have failed to passport the full amount to schools. Would he care to comment on Norfolk, where the full amount has been passported, in addition to extra funds, by the Conservative-controlled county council? As has been mentioned, however, we are also facing 92 teacher redundancies, two of which are at the Old Buckenham high school in my constituency. Is he aware that the deadline for finalising those arrangements for redundancies is the end of this month? What can he say to reassure those teachers and the governors, parents and people of Norfolk that those redundancies will not take place?
  Mr. Clarke: I am happy to pay tribute to the Conservative-run Norfolk county council—I have done so on many occasions, including in the Eastern Daily Press, which I think the right hon. Lady will read—for carrying out the passporting as it has done. Moreover, to be fair to the county, when we allocated extra money to deal with the 3.2 per cent. floor, it allocated still further money. It is trying in that respect, but the

  501
  question arises about the allocation of resources at the local education authority to individual schools. That has been the subject of debate.
  Mr. Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State give way before he moves on?
  Mr. Clarke: No—I wish to deal with school budgets and individual schools. I shall say again what I have said previously about passporting: the Government are absolutely committed to money being passported out to individual schools. However, in Conservative-controlled Cambridge, 3.3 per cent. less is going to individual schools than the budget; in Conservative Cheshire, the figure is 2.8 per cent.; in Conservative Kensington and Chelsea, 3.6 per cent.; and under the Liberal Democrats in their new position in Bournemouth, 2.9 per cent. I ask again whether the leaders of the other parties will commit themselves, as I do, to saying that the money that local education authorities have should be passed on to individual schools and not held simply for central services.
  Joan Ruddock: I agree that the other parties have much to answer for. However, I am dealing with my local authority, Lewisham. As my right hon. Friend knows, it is a beacon authority that is working well with the Government. Unfortunately—I hope that we will get some help on this—it tells me that it needs another £3 million to stave off cuts. It has done everything that he has asked it to do, but it is unable to supply moneys from the capital budget, which is needed to keep our schools safe and open. Does he agree that there is a special case in some London boroughs?
  Mr. Clarke: I acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friend. I have discussed those specific issues both with her chief education officer and with chief education officers for London as a whole. It is true that there have been particular pressures in London. I believe that the way in which we should deal with the situation is through the London challenge approach that we announced the other day.
  Mr. Bellingham: I am glad that the Secretary of State has referred to Norfolk and recognised that it has passported as much money as it can. Has he considered the case of St. Edmund's community foundation school? Some 60 per cent. of its pupils are in special needs, it has had a £98,000 cut in its budget and the 1.6 million extra that he has allocated to Norfolk schools will give it another £4,000. A £94,000 deficit will remain and one and a half full teaching posts will be cut, as well as 100 hours of support services—25 per cent. of the total—that were going to the 60 per cent. of pupils in special needs. Surely, he can do better for North Lynn in my constituency.
  Mr. Clarke: I can do better for everywhere in the country, as I shall explain. I am ready to consider the Norfolk cases, like every other case, but I do not want to make this a Norfolk debate. The issue is how local authorities behave, just as the issue for the Government is how they behave.
  On local education authorities, I wish to highlight the very sharp differences between authorities in the inter-quartile range in the distribution of money between
  502
  schools. The hon. Member for Buckingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) mentioned Buckinghamshire. As my hon. Friend said, there is a 10.2 per cent. difference in the funding per pupil between schools at the top end and those at the bottom end in Buckinghamshire. In nearby Bedfordshire, the difference is 11 per cent., and in Cumbria, it is 10.1 per cent. Those variations are much larger than those of other authorities. Again, the point that I make to the other political parties is that they should make their position clear to their colleagues in local government. Are they for these massive differentials or against them? The great virtue of the process that we have been going through is that we have exposed all the decisions to public debate, enabling much greater local discussion of the issues in a very specific way.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No; I wish to make some progress.
  That is why we have analysed extremely carefully the response of local education authorities. I thank the authorities that are distributing more money and ask them to continue the process of discussion to ensure that money gets to schools. In my Department's preliminary analysis of LEA responses, it is clear that many local authorities have taken action to manage local problems and ensure that their schools have received reasonable year-on-year increases in funding. A number of LEAs have chosen to increase their spending on schools by significantly more than the additional resources made available by central Government. Others have managed the pressures on central spending so that they increase the budgets of individual schools.
  LEAs have also confirmed that a significant proportion of the budgets that they had not allocated to individual schools by 31 March has now been allocated. For example, Bath and North-East Somerset has confirmed an additional £2.3 million; Bradford £3.6 million; and Birmingham £12.5 million. Where LEAs have indicated that they cannot yet make allocations, they have guaranteed that all the money will be received by schools during the year and confirmed that they are ensuring that all schools are notified of the sums that they can expect to receive. I think that that is a major step forward, and I thank local education authorities for it.
  However, in order to ensure that the circumstances that I have described do not adversely affect schools, I have decided that, for 2003–04 only, local education authorities and schools will be given the additional flexibility to use their devolved formula capital funding from my Department to support revenue expenditure. The decision to use a school's capital funding in that way will need to be made jointly by the school and its local education authority and should be taken only in circumstances in which failure to do so would lead to excessive instability in the school.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No—I wish to turn to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Ashford about capital.

  503
  First, he has a bit of nerve to complain about the use of devolved funding to schools. Before 1999, when we introduced in the system, under his Government, there was zero devolved capital funding for schools in the maintained sector. It did not even exist. We have introduced it, but he then complains. If he looks at capital more widely, he will see that the increase in capital spend in LEAs, which will pay for many of the things that he mentioned, such as special needs, started at £800 million in 1997–98 and has risen in successive years to £1.1 billion, £1.4 billion, £2.1 billion, £2.2 billion and £3 billion. In 2003–04, it will rise to £3.8 billion. That is a massive increase in capital funding for LEAs that supports the school investment that is being made. The Conservatives never went for such a policy at any time.
  I wish to make a final point about the issue of capital, to which the hon. Member for Ashford specifically referred. According to the responses that we have received, about £190 million is being allocated from revenue spending by LEAs to capital in their areas. That is a choice that they are making, but his trying to accuse us of ignoring capital or stealing from the capital pot is extraordinary when it comes from a party such as his.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is remarkable that the shadow Secretary of State recognised the dramatic increase in capital spending that this Government have introduced, but in each year and every Budget, he voted against it?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It really is incumbent on Conservative Members to think seriously about the integrity of the political positions that they take on these matters.
  As far as the current situation is concerned, I announced today that local education authorities should bear it in mind that they can commit schools to set a deficit budget, which they are likely to be able to repay over the next few years, and that with local agreement the collective balances of their schools can be used to cover the funding of such agreed deficits. In addition, as I have already told LEAs, I will be willing to give sympathetic consideration to proposals from local authorities to set aside restrictions on existing fair funding regulations and schemes, or on the conditions of grant for the standards fund, where the authority thinks that that would assist them in alleviating funding difficulties in particular schools.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Secretary of State started his speech by telling us how much extra money is going into education. Presumably, he knew that these pressures were coming on to schools when he made his decisions, so why, two months into the new financial year, has he had to make these announcements about capital repairs? Did he get his sums that wrong?
  Mr. Clarke: Every local authority takes decisions in setting its budget—from the level of council tax, to passporting, to the formula—in shared responsibility with ourselves. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's
  504
  question is that we knew very clearly what the situation was in respect of overall funding pressures and proceeded accordingly.
  Ms Bridget Prentice: I hope that we all welcome the flexibility that will be given to head teachers as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will he comment on the possibility of a London schools challenge fund, which would help to alleviate some of the pressures in schools—even those in boroughs such as mine, where pressures remain despite the fact that we were given quite a generous settlement to begin with?
  Mr. Clarke: We made an announcement last Monday about the London challenge, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we are considering whether there is merit in such a proposal. I made reference to that in my written answer today.
  Mr. Lloyd: Many schools will welcome the discretion that my right hon. Friend will build into this year's funding process. However, it makes sense for a school to move into a deficit budget this year only if it is able to anticipate funding flows for future years. Can he give some comfort to schools in that respect? Perhaps the most important thing that he can say today concerns not this year but future years.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I was coming to that point. My remarks have three elements: first, we must continue the process of encouraging working with LEAs to get the money out to schools; secondly, we must ensure flexibility on devolved capital; and thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, we must ensure that schools have some certainty about the funding settlement for next year, 2004–05.
  Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
  Mr. Keith Simpson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way for the moment: I want to deal with the matter in hand.
  Our key priority in securing the change for 2004–05 is to work closely with local authorities and the Local Government Association to achieve an agreed position that takes the situation forward. The critical goals are: first, to get sufficient education funding increases for every LEA; secondly, to get the right balance between support through the general grant and through ring-fenced and targeted grant; thirdly, to give schools and pupils the confidence that they will receive the money that is intended for them, which is a key element in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd); fourthly, to get the right balance between in-school and out-of-school provision—there are important out-of-school provision issues, for example in relation to special educational needs and pupil referral units; fifthly, to ensure that variations in the budget increases received by different schools within each LEA are appropriate and fair, which touches on my point about the inter-quartile range; and finally, to achieve our proposals on work force reform in line with the national agreement so that they can be sustained.

  505
  My Department will work with local education authorities to improve and clarify procedures, so that all LEAs are able to distribute their funds—notably the standards fund—to schools in a timely way.
  Mr. Hancock: Can the Secretary of State offer some advice to the 12 schools in the city of Portsmouth that are facing budget-related redundancies, many of which do not have any significant balances? If they were to use devolved capital, they would lose the opportunity to use that capital in future, because there would be no opportunity to replace it. The local education authority has in fact passported the full 3.2 per cent. across to schools. What advice can he give to those schools and to teachers who are facing the sack?
  Mr. Clarke: My advice to all schools and LEAs is to work together in precisely the way that I described—using LEA resources, considering the use of devolved capital and considering any existing balances—to try to solve problems of the type that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is clear from the large number of letters that we have received that in most LEAs a very positive and constructive dialogue is taking place to address the issues directly.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: What advice has the Secretary of State given to LEAs, for not only this year but forthcoming years, about classroom assistants? He will be aware that many classroom assistants are in post because of the statementing of children in a particular class, and there is a statutory obligation on an LEA to honour a statement that requires a classroom assistant. Can he reassure the House that he is advising LEAs that they should honour their statutory obligations as regards classroom assistants and special educational needs pupils?
  Mr. Clarke: My advice to all LEAs is to obey the law, as should be the case. If the hon. Lady is asking me to do that, I am happy to do so.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State generously said that Norfolk county council had passported on nearly all the money, but that still leaves us a problem, and he knows it. What does he therefore say to the chairman of governors and the headmaster of Buxton primary school, who had calculated that this year they would have a surplus of £22,000, but in fact have a deficit of more than £72,000? The figures do not add up. His credibility—I say this, as a parliamentary neighbour, with some regret—has been absolutely minced locally, mainly by Labour councillors. What will he do this year, rather than planning for next year?
  Mr. Clarke: I take very seriously the regret expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am weeping for it, as he will be. I am continuing to work with Norfolk county council. The issue is not the passporting percentage that he mentions: it is the money that Norfolk local education authority has and whether it has been passed on to schools directly. I am discussing that with the chief education officer and others.
  Several Opposition Members referred to the National Association of Head Teachers. Today, I received a letter from the signatories to the work load agreement asking
  506
  us to act on the situation. The letter is from the NAHT, all the other teacher unions, the non-teaching unions and the employers organisation for local government, and it is signed by Graham Lane, on behalf of those organisations. It says that the joint signatories want to emphasise
  "The need to identify possible short-term remedial measures, including
  relaxation of regulations to allow devolved capital to be transferred to revenue",
  which I announced today,
  "enabling schools to borrow from consolidated school balances",
  which I announced today, and
  "allowing local authorities to 'licence' schools to set short-term budget deficits with clear exit strategies, which will heavily depend on their confidence in the level of funding for the next two years",
  which I announced today. It goes on to ask that we encourage schools to
  "consider these options in consultation with the local authority."
  The second major measure for which the letter calls is
  "an urgent look at the impact of the next 2 years, especially Standards Fund and PRP transfers and SSG and LIG roll out. Assurances are sought that the current difficulties will not recur in 2004/05 and 2005/06."
  That is precisely the import of what I said a moment ago.
  I cite the letter because of the various quotations that the hon. Member for Ashford gave, and to give the House an assurance, which I believe and hope that most hon. Members want to hear, that we intend to work with the teacher trade unions that are signatories to the agreement and the Local Government Association to resolve the matter constructively and deal with the problem precisely as we have been asked to do. There is a long way to go. We especially need to discuss how we get a system that ensures the achievement of our goals.
  The Government, unlike the Opposition, are committed to funding schools. We could not be clearer about that, and we are determined to work together with all parts of the education system to ensure that our schools are properly funded and our children properly educated.
  3 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: We hope that the Secretary of State recovers from his mincing. The Liberal Democrats are grateful to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for choosing the subject of the debate. It clearly affects all our constituencies.
  We risk being returned to the bad old days when I was a head teacher: the Conservatives were in power and there was an annual round. It is interesting to note that, despite some valid criticism, the hon. Member for Ashford did not present an iota of an idea for a way to resolve the crisis in our schools this year. All the teachers whose letters were cited could therefore go on the redundancy list, because that, rather than dealing with the key issues, would suit Conservative Members' party political purposes.
  If we leave the Chamber without sending a clear message to schools, heads, teachers and governors that there are some solutions to the problem and that the

  507
  Government are actively seeking them, we will all have failed. Our amendment called for devolved capital to be released to schools and we are grateful to the Secretary of State for picking up that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was right when he said that many schools will have already committed their capital. That is part of a continuing process and they will not have flexibility.
  One in four schools have balances of almost zero. There is no solution for some in either promise that the Secretary of State made. It is therefore important to find other solutions.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to give the House a misleading impression. He suggested that the position occurred every year under previous Conservative Governments. I wonder whether he agrees with the findings of Mr. John Atkins, who stated in a report that was commissioned for the National Union of Teachers this year:
  "This is unprecedented since the implementation of LMS"
  in 1990. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that and apologises for the impression that he gave.
  Mr. Willis: I do not accept that and I do not apologise. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was a head teacher from 1979 to 1997. From 1988 onwards, I had to cut budgets and get rid of staff every year despite increases in my pupil numbers.
  Kevin Brennan: In those years under the Tories, were not many redundancies hidden by the fact that teachers were put on temporary contracts year after year? When they lost their jobs, they were not counted as having been made redundant.
  Mr. Willis: Exactly the same is happening today. Tens of thousands of classroom assistants will lose their jobs this year, and they are all on temporary contracts. They are expendable. We cannot simply view our schools in terms of teachers. All members of staff are valuable in providing education.
  We must be honest and admit that 2003 was always going to be difficult. Changes to local government funding, the new schools formula, national insurance and employer pension contributions, radical changes to the teachers' main pay scale as well as the post-threshold scales, changes to the standards fund, which we largely welcome, and the introduction of work-load agreements all had an impact on devolved school budgets.
  The changes involved three major Departments: the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills. That increased the complexity. However, it now emerges that no Secretary of State, Minister or ministerial team was in overall charge of the process, despite the three large Departments coming together. No effective modelling of the outcomes for local education authorities happened apart from an attempt by the Minister for School Standards to produce four models in June last year, all of which failed miserably. The Minister subsequently took his bat home and would not produce another model.
  508
  No assessment was made of the impacts on individual school budgets, although we knew that they would be diverse because of the set-up. No assessment was made of the impact of the new funding arrangements on age-weighted pupil units. The more a formula approach is taken to distributing funds, the more huge discrepancies within as well as between authorities are likely to occur.
  Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of honesty and giving clear messages in the House. I wonder whether he shares the anxiety of a chairman of resources at one of my lower schools who sent me a copy of column 558 of Hansard for 17 April 2002. The Chancellor, in his Budget speech, said that direct payments would be made to every school in the country. He stated that
  "payments to a typical primary school will rise from £33,700 last year to £39,300 this year—money that can be spent on the school's priorities, by the school and by the head teacher and the staff themselves."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 588.]
  The chairman of resources of one of my lower schools said that it had received less than half that amount—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is rather a long intervention.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am sure that the Minister who responds will pick up the point and provide the answer, which I do not know.
  There is a lack of joined-up thinking, of which I hope the Secretary of State will take account. When things went disastrously wrong, Ministers did not go back to LEAs or schools and say what had happened. They engaged in a process of misinformation that would have embarrassed the Iraqi Information Minister. The Minister for School Standards told the Association of Teachers and Lecturers conference on 15 April that LEAs were withholding £500 million from schools, but he did not have a shred of evidence to back that up. He had not spoken to a single local authority to get the details. His statement was predicated on returns from 70 local authorities, which he made up to get out of the conference with his life.
  When the Secretary of State attended the National Association of School Teachers and Union of Women Teachers conference, at which the hon. Member for Ashford and I preceded him —[Interruption.] We went down brilliantly. The hon. Member for Ashford nods. We were a duo of great quality. However, the Secretary of State made the same assertions about the missing £500 million. He then said, to great cheers, that if he did not find the answers to his questions, he would clip wings. He has the answers, and at this point he needs to clip someone else's wings.
  An article in this morning's Yorkshire Post, which is my local paper, reported that the Secretary of State had attacked the chief officer of East Yorkshire council for being explicitly political in attacking the Government for the Budget settlement. Yet the Secretary of State went through the whole pre-local election programme on a party-political ticket, attacking local authorities for not passporting money.
  We now know from a leaked memo from the Secretary of State's office to the No. 10 office, which appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on

  509
  Friday 2 May, that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister both knew that this record investment was an illusion, yet they continued with the charade. They knew that, of the £2.7 billion that was promised to schools, £2.44 billion had already been earmarked to meet additional costs imposed on the schools by the Government. Indeed, the Secretary of State acknowledged this morning on BBC television that that was exactly the case, and that this huge sum of money did not exist. The Government knew that those LEAs with a 3.2 per cent. floor in their budgets would not be able to meet the financial pressures imposed on them. That is the level of dishonesty that lies at the heart of this debate today.
  Mr. Hancock: I would like to support my hon. Friend's argument. Is he aware that on 2 May, the same day that the Secretary of State published a press release condemning LEAs, his colleagues in the Department were writing to LEAs asking them to clarify their position? He was making a statement condemning them without even giving them the benefit of allowing them to state their position with regard to section 52. How on earth could it be right for the Secretary of State to make such comments when he and his Department were far from clear as to the true position?
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We are used to such behaviour from every Minister who appears. They attack people without proper evidence, yet it is a different matter if anyone attacks the Government without evidence. [Interruption.] With respect, we have only to look at the Labour party's parliamentary briefing for this debate to see the level of misinformation that is fed to Labour Back Benchers. That is presumably why so few of them have come to support the Secretary of State today.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I will in a minute, but I want to make a bit of progress. I am enjoying this.
  I want to make a further point to the Secretary of State and to the schools Minister. When we went through the charade of debating the Education Bill in 2002—we debated only a third of it—one crucial element that the Secretary of State insisted should go into the Bill was the setting up of school forums. Those forums were to be a mandatory device to discuss the resources coming into schools from the Department. There was to be no question of "could" or "should"—they were to be a mandatory requirement.
  What is more, according to that legislation, before local authorities could set their budgets, they had to lodge with the Secretary of State a draft budget showing how they were going to spend the money. Having got those two devices in place, the Secretary of State now has the audacity to accuse local authorities of using their budgets improperly without any evidence, having had all the evidence sent to him earlier this year in order to make those decisions.
  David Wright: We have now been waiting for 13 minutes, and we have not heard a single policy proposal from the Liberal Democrats' Front Bench. Is that
  510
  because the Liberal Democrats' shadow Chancellor has instructed his team not to make any further tax and spend commitments, because they would be "unrealistic"?
  Mr. Willis: I saw that in the Labour Members' brief as well; they trot these things out. I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose company in the House I enjoy enormously: have no worries, I shall come to that in a second.
  Mr. Dhanda: I do not have a brief in my hand, but I recall a Liberal Democrat brief in my own patch in Gloucestershire calling desperately for the changes to the funding formulae that the hon. Gentleman seems to be implying should not have come about, stating that they have added to the complications this year. The Liberal Democrats in Gloucestershire called for changes, and they got a 6.7 per cent. increase in the funding formula. After that, they said, "Well, we did not really want any changes this year. Could we have a little bit longer to think about it?" That is the Liberal Democrat brief.
  Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can be so complacent that, in his schools, everybody has the budget that they require and no teachers or classroom assistants are being made redundant. If that is the case, hallelujah, I am delighted for you, brother! For many people, however, that is not the case.
  The Secretary of State challenged the hon. Member for Ashford and me to say what we would do about passporting. I am convinced—and the Secretary of State
  has brought no evidence to the Dispatch Box today to persuade me otherwise—that, having got in the section 52 returns and having got the letters back from the local authorities, every local authority has been able to account positively for every penny in its budget. That is the issue, rather than whether the Secretary of State should tell every local authority how to spend every penny.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I will just finish this point, then of course I will give way. The Secretary of State is always generous in giving way.
  The Secretary of State has his school forums, his legislation saying that schools have to lodge their budgets and his section 52 returns. He can challenge every element of those budgets. Surely that is enough for him, without having to tell every local authority how they should spend every single penny. They are accountable to their local electorate for what they do, not simply to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Clarke: My point is that the local electorate should ask themselves this question. If, in Knowsley, 104.4 per cent. can be passported; in Labour St. Helen's, 120.6 per cent. can be passported; and in Sefton, 100.3 per cent. can be passported, why is it that in Liverpool only 94.9 per cent. can be passported? That is a matter for the electorate and the council in Liverpool.
  Mr. Willis: Of course it is a matter for the electorate in Liverpool. That is why they elect Liberal Democrats

  511
  year after year, following the most decadent Labour local government ever seen in the history of local government.
  May we talk about some of the non-passporting of which the Government accuse local authorities? Let us take the issue of special educational needs. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 put huge pressures on local authorities to fund those provisions properly, because they now have a legal duty to do so. We fought in the House for a quantifiable code of practice. Yet now, when local authorities agree, through the school forum, to use their money in that way, they are pilloried by the Secretary of State.
  Let us look at capital. Local authorities have to retain capital within the schools section of the budget for the national grid for learning and the rollout of broadband. They cannot do it any other way, yet they are pilloried for doing so. Let us look at money that has been kept back in individual schools' budgets for newly qualified teachers. How can they possibly allocate money for newly qualified teachers in April when they will not be appointed until September? How can they allocate money to a new school that is not due to open until September, or to a nursery unit that will not open until September, when the Secretary of State has transferred the money for nurseries from the standards fund through to local authorities? The Secretary of State is accusing local authorities of withdrawing money in circumstances such as these.
  Money is released from the standards fund throughout the year to finance, for instance, advanced skills teachers, national literacy strategies, behaviour improvements, training for support staff—although there will not be any—beacon school awards and summer schools. It is shameful that a Secretary of State should know so little about his own funding arrangements. Rather than attacking local authorities as he has continued to do today, the Secretary of State should congratulate them on not only carrying out the Government's wishes, not only setting up the forums, not only lodging budgets, but trying to help schools deal with the current crisis.
  Let us contrast that with what the Department is doing. Last year it failed to spend £1 billion. Can anyone imagine what would happen if that amount were allocated to local authorities and they did not spend it? No doubt their wings would be clipped, and there would be naming and shaming.
  Why did Ministers fail to anticipate this year's budget problems? There were plenty of signs that things would go wrong. Surely the whole House will unite in resisting the Secretary of State's crude attempts to threaten local authorities with taking away their powers and saying that he will manage 24,000 schools centrally. If he cannot manage his own Department, how on earth will he be able to manage 24,000 departments?
  Even today the Secretary of State claimed that since the issue had first begun to embarrass him some of the missing £500 million had arrived in schools. In fact, it was always in schools; it was being held in bank accounts, ready to be spent. It will continue to find its way into school budgets, and I am not aware—certainly the Secretary of State failed to give us an example—of a
  512
  single local education authority that is changing its timetable for the distribution of allocations as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's threats and intimidation.
  The tragedy of this crisis is that while the Secretary of State tries to blame LEAs for his funding crisis, our schools, teachers and teaching assistants are paying the price. According to research by the professional associations, more than 1,000 teaching posts will be axed in the coming months; and while not all will be axed as a direct result of budget cuts, a great many will. What is more, the redundancies are not confined to a particular type of authority. We have heard about redundancies in Norfolk, but Cumbria has issued 50 redundancy notices, Northumberland 17, Leeds 43, Shropshire 20, Staffordshire 60, Kent nine, Westminster 70, Plymouth 40 and Devon 30. In Wiltshire, 53 teachers and 26 teaching assistants face redundancy. That is the human cost that the Secretary of State must face up to. This is not just a personal crisis; it is having a serious impact on the education of our children.
  Mr. Adrian Hook: It is not just a question of redundancies either. Somerset LEA has described the staff reductions that schools must make, saying that according to "anecdotal evidence"
  "many schools … will not be filling vacancies when they arise, renewing temporary contracts when they expire and part time staff, both teachers and support staff, are having their contractual hours reduced".
  Mr. Willis: I think that if they were honest with themselves, Labour Members would admit that their postbags contained similar letters.
  Dame Jean Else, head of Whalley Range school—attended by the former Secretary of State—is offering to resign over a £600,000 deficit. She says
  "I am faced with having to lose some of my incredibly valuable staff and cut aspects of the curriculum".
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I will not give way any more. I have been incredibly generous.
  In a letter to the Secretary of State, following a £155,000 loss, the chair of governors at Sir James Smith community school in Camelford, Cornwall, wrote
  "The raising achievement and reducing teacher workload agenda will be completely stalled, morale and goodwill will plummet and parent confidence in the system will be adversely affected".
  Primary schools in Minver in Cornwall are tearing up their curriculum plans and timetables because heads are having to teach two or three days a week to keep the schools running.
  The deputy head of Stourfield junior school in Bournemouth has said
  "I love my job and the depression and sense of despair I have felt these last few weeks have been a real shock to me".
  His school faces a two thirds cut in its curriculum budget, and the non-replacement of all its specialist support staff. When the problems were put to the Minister for School Standards in Bournemouth during his visit to the town, he told the Daily Echo that a meeting would be "futile". We need to do something about that arrogant disregard for what people are feeling on the ground.

  513
  It is not just a question of what is happening this year. What will happen over the next two years? The Minister thinks that the present situation is unique to the current year, but it will get worse. We will see more redundancies. Class sizes are already increasing in both primary and secondary schools. What message does that convey to those whom we are trying to recruit into teaching and teacher training? They will not want to face redundancy after just a few years. I accept that there has been significant investment in buildings and repairs, but clearly using the money this year will make a difference.
  There is a threat to the work load agreement with teachers. According to the Department, it has allocated £3 billion to implement the agreement over the next three years, yet an analysis by the National Association of Head Teachers shows that a projection of current spending trends and inflationary pressures from this year onwards will yield only £450 million. An average primary school will have £7,000 to implement the teacher work load agreement, and an average primary school only £35,000—a tenth of what the Secretary of
  State originally offered. There are things that we can do, and I want to be the helpful to the Secretary of State because he is generally helpful to me—or he was in the past. Releasing the devolved capital is a useful device, but many schools will not benefit from that at all.
  Mr. Bercow: Device is the word.
  Mr. Willis: Indeed. It is important that the Secretary of State looks at the 3.2 per cent. floor, and tries to raise it in the light of all the information that he has received from local authorities. We urge him to postpone the employer pension contribution transfer from the Treasury to the Department for Education and Skills. Clearly, the Treasury has to deal with what, in many ways, is a paper transfer but it may be the most effective way of getting £0.5 billion into the school budget this year. Will the Secretary of State use some of his reserves from the £1 billion underspend from last year to fund fully the incremental drift on the main teacher scale and the shortfalls on the post-threshold pay spines?
  This year has been a tragedy, and the script was written in the preceding two years. The Secretary of State knew what would happen, but the arrogance of his Department meant that no action was taken. Blame has been heaped on local authorities, and our schools and teachers are feeling the pain. I hope that before the Secretary of State or the Minister for School Standards achieve their aspiration to become Prime Minister they will sort this problem out.
  3.27 pm
  Jonathan Shaw: It is wrong of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of dishonesty. Clearly, many of us were taken by surprise by what happened in this year's educational settlement because, since the Government were elected, there have been year on year rises in both revenue and capital, resulting in more teachers and better buildings. It was reasonable of my right hon. Friend to want to speak to local education authorities, having received representations from them, Members of Parliament and schools, so that he could find out how the money has been allocated.
  514
  I have always believed that there should be a combination of national and local funding, and that individual authorities should determine that sum. However, if my right hon. Friend is to respond to the accusations that have been made, it is reasonable that he should engage in that dialogue. Today's announcement shows that he has responded. He said that the solution that will be put in place is not a long-term measure but a short-term one. However, he has tried to find a solution to the problem instead of imposing year-on-year cuts. We heard about the problem from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who was a distinguished head teacher in Yorkshire and, as a school governor in Kent and Medway, I, too, have had to deal with it.
  Every October, the county would advise us that there would be cuts next year, and to start taking account of that fact. That is what we did every year—it was the norm. That is the contrast, perhaps, between then and now. Did such debates take place then? No, because that was the norm for school spending the length and breadth of this country. The situation now is different, because there have been year on year increases. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's response. It shows that he wants to find solutions, and next year is obviously going to be extremely important.
  There is no doubt that the Government have made the most sustained investment in our schools for a generation. It is worth remembering where we were, and where we would certainly have remained if we still had a Conservative Government. Some might say that that would be a miracle, but it is no miracle that we have seen a transformation since 1997. Before then, our children had to use the most basic facilities, such as outside toilets. [Interruption.] The Tories may yawn, but that was the reality and all that has been abolished.
  Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a distinct possibility that those days could come back if we had the 20 per cent. cuts that the Conservatives promise—unless, of course, this is an area where they would not apply? Perhaps they could explain where the cuts would fall.
  Jonathan Shaw: The Conservatives have a lot of explaining to do between now and the next general election. Back then, there were not only outside toilets but leaking roofs and walls that appeared to have an aversion to paint. However, the only aversion was the Tories' aversion to investing in our schools. Such examples existed across the board.
  Members have asked about matters such as boilers and windows, but there is no doubt that we are dealing with them, and examples can be found in all our constituencies. A school that I visited recently had to wait 20 years—20 years—for a school hall. It has now got not only a school hall but a new music department and a new drama suite, thanks to £1.3 million of investment from this Labour Government. We are seeing such improvements throughout the country.
  A redundant and inadequate Victorian village school in my constituency is being replaced by a beautiful, shining new school, thanks to £1 million from the new deal. Indeed, the Tory education spokesman from Kent county council took part in the opening ceremony.

  515
  [Interruption.] Oh yes. He welcomed the investment, as did the local Liberal Democrats, yet back here they voted against the windfall tax. Such things are happening all the time. We see Conservatives welcoming, and taking great pleasure in, new investments in their constituencies, as the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) undoubtedly will. Kent county council is one of 15 authorities that have just received £60 million of private finance initiative credits. Of the five schools that will benefit, two are in my constituency and one—the North school—is in that of the hon. Gentleman.
  The North school will get its share of the £60 million, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless take great pleasure in watching the opening of the new buildings. We will surely see his beaming face in the local paper as he proudly says, "This is marvellous." But a transformation will take place as he leaves the school, gets on the M20 and heads to Westminster. Back here, the Tories vote against investment in our schools time and again. They tell their constituents that they are battling away for more resources for schools, hospitals and police, but they come back to Westminster and vote against investment time after time. When it comes to school funding, the Opposition must answer to the electorate for their actions.
  I turn now to the revenue funding measures. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is very welcome, but my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) was right to suggest that next year will be crucial. My authority, Medway, had to dip into reserves this year. That shows the commitment of all councillors to ensure sufficient funding for schools. We were given an increase of only 3.2 per cent., but I welcomed the additional £1.3 million announced recently by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. It has meant that there will be no teacher redundancies in my area, although some learning support assistant hours could be reduced. That matter has yet to be resolved, and I hope that today's announcements mean that that reduction will not happen.
  I very much welcome today's statement. The matter needs to be resolved, and I know that Ministers are determined to resolve it. The huge investments being made at present are very different from what happened in all the time that I was a school governor in Kent, when we had to make cuts every year.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I should make it clear at the start that, if there is a Conservative briefing note on this matter, I have not read it, as the House will not be surprised to learn.
  We are discussing a matter in respect of which all hon. Members are used to the waving of bloody stumps every year. Indeed, part of what is taught at local authority training school is that bloody stumps should be waved. Sometimes that happens in response to a synthetic crisis, and sometimes in response to one that is genuine. This is a genuine crisis, and it has been made by the Government.
  516
  The first problem is that the announcement of the Government's public expenditure figures was accompanied by a ludicrous amount of hype. The besetting sin of this Government is that they over-egg every pudding; they exaggerate what they are doing, and announce the news on several occasions. As a result of the enormous overselling, every head teacher in the country saw, like a ray of heaven above their schools, a figure of 10 or 11 per cent. in real terms written in the firmament. That was what they thought that they would get for their schools. The result, of course, is bathos.
  When it turned out that schools would not get that much, we were treated to bluster. The first set of bluster came from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. He talked about capping local authorities that put council tax up by such a wicked amount. However, the council tax rises were introduced partly to cover education, for which spending authorisation had been increased without the necessary grant to cover it. To his great discomfort, the right hon. Gentleman discovered that half the authorities that he wanted to cap had been rated E for excellent according to the Government's own Audit Commission standards. He could not touch them, and the Government have retreated from capping. I notice now that, happily, they are also retreating from the prospect of capping next year.
  That bluster was replaced by bluster from the Secretary of State, who decided that it was all the fault of the wicked local authorities, because they were withholding funds. The heart of the problem is that two sets of formulae are being applied that are not wholly compatible. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and skills are like two large, clumsy puppeteers getting their wires crossed as they try to present the Punch and Judy show. They blame the audience when they cannot get to the end of the performance because both of them have been knocked out.
  In the argument in Government about the distribution of funds, it is increasingly evident that a Hobbesian fight is being conducted between Departments. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is familiar with Hobbes. If he is, no doubt he will want wish to eliminate his recollections as rapidly as possible, on the ground that they are an out-of-date and arcane preoccupation.
  I want to touch on an important matter. We have been talking about passporting through education money, but local government funding is based on the principle of non-hypothecation. The Government talk about being friends with local government, and about unwinding direct grants to give local authorities more discretion. Yet, for Government after Government—and I include the Conservative Government—Education Ministers have adopted a Stalinist attitude, determined that their funding goes through, without caring a hoot whether social services or other sectors suffer in consequence. It was exactly the same with Home Secretaries: as long as police funding was satisfactory, they could not have cared less if the rest of the country collapsed in a heap. We can only wait to see whether the Department of Health will decide to join the

  517
  game in respect of social services. We might as well wave goodbye to any pretence that there is genuine autonomy in local authority expenditure.
  Mr. Bercow: As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the Government have a duty to explain their double standards, whereby they are in favour of hypothecation of local government expenditure, but opposed to hypothecation at central Government level?
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point.
  What happened on this occasion? Education received a 9 per cent. increase nationally, but some capital was held back for higher and further education, so the increased allocation to local government through the revenue support grant was about 6.5 per cent. Two sorts of floors and ceilings were then applied. The first was the Deputy Prime Minister's minimum and maximum grant changes, which were intended to ensure that no one lost out in the new formula, but it was done through a process of topping and tailing. We then had a separate rule from the Department for Education and Skills that no local authority should have a formula spending share of less than 3.5 per cent. or more than 7 per cent. for education. Quite frankly, the two concepts are inconsistent and we have not seen joined-up government in respect of them.
  Mr. Bellingham: Is it not extraordinary to reflect that the global settlement agreed by the Treasury was not that bad? The way the Government have managed to turn a reasonable global settlement into such a shambles beggars belief. In my constituency, the budget of the Fairstead county primary school, on which I conferred an Investors in People award, is £80,000 short.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing such a powerful example of what has happened in practice and I am going to illustrate it, too. The allocation of about 9 per cent. overall, which becomes a little more than 6 per cent. through the funding formula, ends up at between 3.5 per cent. and 7 per cent. at the level of the individual school. Local authorities divvy up that amount through their fair funding formula. Generally, schools that are gaining pupils do well, and those that are losing them have to shed teachers. No one objects to that, but it is not so simple, because some schools that are doing very well also lose out. Many individual schools have been mentioned and I am going to cite one.
  Ripon college started out as an old-fashioned secondary modern school. In 1998, it had 342 pupils, but it now has 549. The percentage of pupils gaining five or more A to Cs in GCSEs has increased from 8 per cent. to 31.5 per cent. over that time. It is doing everything that the Government could want in an environment where selective education is tough for the college. Notwithstanding its achievements, it faces a budget deficit of £88,000 and has to consider making six staff redundant—15 per cent. of its teachers—closing its social inclusion unit, cancelling the literacy and summer school programme and running on a minimum capitation for departments to balance the budget. The
  518
  school's advances are clearly being threatened. I have received similar letters from other schools in my constituency.
  Additionally, some schools have been dependent on the standards fund, and it is a matter of record that if a direct grant is devolved into a formula, there are bound to be winners and losers. Costs were higher than expected. The national insurance contribution increased by 10 per cent. People talk about 1 per cent., as if it were only I per cent. extra on the employers' bills, but it was 10 per cent. The headline rate was 1 per cent., but pensions and teachers' pay become especially onerous where teachers are clustered at the top end of the spines, which applies in many parts of the country.
  Another dislocation is resource equalisation, which takes us back to the Deputy Prime Minister. For some blocks of expenditure, the Government stopped pretending that local authorities would spend down to their notional need, and increased the spending plan without increasing the grants to cover it. That is what led to the major council tax increases, because authorisation to spend and an expectation that money will be spent is not the same as providing grant to cover it. Some local authorities have been criticised for not devolving 100 per cent. to schools—not 100 per cent. of the money that they received, but of the notional amount. They devolved only by dint of council tax increases.
  The new formula spending share is much more dependent on political interference than standard spending assessments ever were. There is much more political interference and manipulation of this formula than there was in the past. That is where the dislocations have been set up—at the heart of the Government.
  I have some seriously happy news for the Government: next year, things will get worse. The spending plans published in Command Paper 5570 show a declining rate of increase and we all know how serious the constraints on the Chancellor may be. The standards fund effect will continue as it is devolved into the formula. Furthermore, if there is council tax rebanding and local authorities with a large number of band A properties subdivide that category, they will receive lower revenues from some of those council tax payers, without compensatory increases from their relatively small volumes of high-value houses. Resource equalisation will thus have to be applied more effectively, otherwise the nearly poor will be paying for the poor through their council tax bills.
  The Secretary of State offered one formula. He said that the Department for Education and Skills might take over direct control of the allocation of money to schools. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, please do it. Make my day. I can think of nothing that would give Opposition Members greater pleasure than being able to blame the Secretary of State wholly for the funding of every school, whether it has 15 or 1,500 pupils. If he is wise, he will do what he said that he would do, but is not doing; he will give a little more trust to local authorities and apply the new localism that we all talk about ad infinitum. He will apply all the trust and partnership that he keeps talking about and trust local authorities to devolve the expenditure.
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)? In a Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "By adopting a national funding formula … we will create a system of school funding that is straightforward … and above all puts real control into the hands of … governors."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 19WH.]
  Mr. Curry: I am against anything that would centralise power in the hands of the Government. We need to have more confidence in the people we elect locally. We need to give local democratic responsibility a try. We need to experiment with it. Perhaps we should introduce it for the first time in a long time. It is no good for the Minister to look smug—he is not doing it. In relation to local government, the Labour Government are the most centralising Government in history. There is no point in pretending otherwise. There is still a chance for the Opposition to be converted and I shall work hard to make sure of it. The Minister is lost already because the two great puppeteers are on either side of him, colliding into each other and creating enormous noise and confusion.
  That is dangerous, especially if other Ministers get in on the act. The Secretary of State for Health has been remarkably well behaved, but social services are massively underfunded at local authority level and that has a spin-off effect for schools—for example, in relation to adoption problems. We all know about the increasing pressure on local authorities to look after vulnerable children. That has an impact on education.
  Unless we have a more sensible form of joined-up government that recognises the links between all those activities, we shall not end up with a sensible formula. The two puppeteers will become three; they will blunder about like drunks circling the same lamp post. There will be a great deal of noise, a great deal of illness and no light whatever will be cast.
  The Government created the crisis. They have tried to bluster their way out, but they should look hard at functions within government and make sure that their systems are compatible, the mechanisms flow properly and the lubricant is in place. Responsibility can then be attributed to the people who ought to hold it. To attribute responsibility while in fact denying it is a dishonest form of government. I do not think that either the Minister or the Secretary of State wants that, but the current system condemns them to play that charade, and schools the length and breadth of the country are suffering as a result.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the debate. The Secretary of State was right to say that he also welcomed it, because this is a serious and complex issue and it is absolutely right that the House gives it its attention.
  I am not sure that the official Opposition gave due seriousness to the issue when they opened the debate. The combination of synthetic hysteria and mind-boggling hypocrisy simply served to emphasise how peripheral the Tory party is these days to any debate about education. Following the Tories' announcement
  520
  this week on the tuition fees policy, I reflected that the more unpopular they remain, the more populist they feel they must become. That is the iron rule of Conservative politics in this country. I say this to them: it will get them nowhere.
  Mr. Brady: Would the hon. Gentleman care to confirm that in 2001 he stood on the Labour manifesto that pledged not to introduce top-up fees?
  Mr. Chaytor: I stood for Labour in the 2001 election and the 1997 election, and I have a very clear view on top-up fees, which I have expounded many times. When we get a more detailed opportunity to discuss the hon. Gentleman's views on top-up fees, I will happily engage him in debate on that again. I may be one of the very few Labour Members who were enthusiastic about the notion of top-up fees, and I am unrelenting in my support for the concept.
  That exchange was a distraction but it is important, because it shows that whatever the Tories say today—[Interruption.] Whatever the Tories say today, no one in the education service will believe them, because, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has said, throughout his teaching career—I can vouch for this, as someone who had a small responsibility for managing the chaos of the public services during the Tory years—every year of Tory rule led to cuts in education budgets. Not only were there cuts in the size of the overall cake, but there was relentless redistribution away from those who needed it most to those who needed it least. Therefore it will be many, many years before the British people—parents, teachers and governors—forget the record of those Tory years, and whatever the Tories say on this issue cannot be taken seriously.
  I was grateful for the fact that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did acknowledge the significant increase in the investment that Labour Governments have put into schools during the past six years. That was a measure of his generosity, but in demonstrating his generosity he simply exposed his hypocrisy because, as I said in my intervention, if he welcomed the increase that has made possible the current level of achievements in our schools and the current increase in capital spend in our schools, why did he vote against it every year? Budget of '97: the Tories vote against. Budget of '98: the Tories vote against. Budget of '99: the Tories vote against. They have done so every year and they will carry on doing so every year.
  We all now know, because it is well documented, that the Tories' policy is to secure an overall cut of 20 per cent. in public spending. So however often they bring to the House cuttings from their local newspaper, and letters from parents and governors of their local schools, there is no way that they can justifiably criticise the Labour Government's record on investment in schools.
  The picture across the country is, of course, hugely variable. I do not deny that this is a difficult year. The Secretary of State has described in detail, as other hon. Members have, the factors that led to the current particular difficulties. Some of those factors are not altogether to be regretted. It would have been very

  521
  unusual if there had not been an increase in the teachers' pension fund, given the new projections provided by the actuary.
  Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the cost of staffing is the lion's share of any school's budget, and that if schools have, as the schools in Havering do, a very high proportion of long-serving, experienced teachers, that has a very significant effect? Even though Havering has passported 112 per cent. of schools funding, schools are still delivering deficit budgets because of their experienced staff.
  Mr. Chaytor: I agree completely. During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, I was among those who pointed out that one deficiency of the then concept of local management of schools was that schools that happened to have more experienced staff would be screwed into the ground in their individual budgets. That effect has continued since then, although it must be said that the present Government have made greater allowance for the real costs of salaries, whereas, by contrast, under the previous regime notional costs alone were taken into account.
  A high proportion of any school's budget is spent on staffing. That is important because we have to remember that, year on year since 1997, a large proportion of that significant investment has been used to raise teachers' salaries, quite apart from the one-off contribution to the teachers' pension fund this year.
  It is dishonest for any politician, local authority member or officer, head teacher or governor somehow to pretend that an improvement in teachers' pay and conditions does not directly contribute to the quality of education, first, by offering greater motivation to the work force and, secondly, by sending the right kind of signals, so that young people entering teaching know that it is a worthwhile career. We have to recognise the important contribution that has been made by enhancing teachers' salaries and improving the teachers' pension fund.
  As I was saying, the picture across the country is hugely variable. I met the chief education officer of the local authority in Bury two or three weeks ago to talk about this issue. There are variations between schools and some schools are still in deficit, but I am not aware that any school is making people redundant. However, following this year's changes to the funding formula, local authorities such as mine and many other smaller metropolitan districts, as well as unitary authorities, that have been at the bottom of the funding league table historically, are in a much healthier position.
  This year, for the first time since 1990, the local education authority in Bury has received an increase above the national average. This year, schools in Bury can see the impact of the changes in the standard spending assessment directly in their budgets. That is not to say that no school has a deficit, but schools in my constituency have carried deficit budgets every year for the past 13 years.
  The local authorities that are now squealing the loudest are often those that have made major gains under the previous SSA formula. We have to ask what they did with that money. Why was it not used to build
  522
  up surpluses for when the system changed? Why did they not anticipate that the gravy train or the bandwagon of the previous SSA formula would come to a halt at some time? I do not criticise those head teachers, but I have to make the point that some local authorities in the United Kingdom have had an SSA per pupil at primary and secondary level two or three times greater than others. The schools at the bottom of the pile have been carrying deficit budgets for years and, thankfully, because of the courageous decision taken last year by the Government to reform the SSA formula, we are now getting a more level playing field.
  Examples of individual schools have been quoted, one by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I regret that he did not accept my attempt to intervene earlier; I simply wanted to ask him whether I could have a copy of our brief on the debate because he seemed to be the only hon. Member who had one. He mentioned several schools, one of which is in Manchester and I know it particularly well. He claimed that that school had a £600,000 deficit. He used that example to support his argument that this was the crisis year, but, as every hon. Member knows, schools with £600,000 deficits do not acquire them in a single year. He referred to the deficit, not a shortfall, and I know that there is a deficit, not a shortfall, in that case.
  Many schools have carried deficits for a number of years, and we have to ask what have those head teachers, governors and LEAs have been doing about the deficit. Is it a matter of bad management in the school, or one of exceptional costs because of the nature of the physical structure of the school, or is it simply that the school does not have enough pupils and is operating at 50 per cent. capacity? I am not saying that any of the schools that have been quoted today fall into those categories. All that I am saying is that the enormous deficits that have been quoted are not the result of this year's changes alone—they are the result of historic factors.
  We must also recognise that if we support the system of schools having their own budgets and those budgets being determined by formula, and that formula being largely, not entirely, determined by pupil numbers—given that we have a system, particularly in secondary schools and less so in primaries, that has a built-in volatility in respect of pupil numbers, and in which parents' preferences change dramatically year on year and school intakes change dramatically year on year—it inevitably follows that school budgets will vary dramatically year on year. That is the price that we pay for an extremely open, deregulated admissions system in secondary schools. It is really no good for individual chairs of governors, head teachers or Opposition politicians to start crying that there is a crisis when a particular school does not recruit to its numbers in one given year, when it has been quietly accumulating a surplus in the years in which it was full to capacity. I simply make that point.
  There is a more profound and long-term issue that is worthy of further debate. Perhaps today is not the place to discuss the issue in great detail, but it was brought to our attention by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry): the relationship between central and local government and the extent to which any central Government, in a nation of several million people, can directly influence at local level exactly what they wish to influence. The other week, the Secretary of State spoke

  523
  about taking central control of school budgets. I did not think that he was referring to taking control of the management of schools, which would be unrealistic, but to the concept of whether a national formula should be distributed directly from central government to the individual school. A bigger and more serious debate is needed. The current system—some of the flaws in that system have been brought to a head this year, but they always existed in previous years, and they will always exist—is immensely unwieldy and hugely bureaucratic. It leads to enormous loss of time and energy and to arguments about who is to blame, and it does not, and cannot, enable the Government to deliver on the ground exactly the policies that they wish to deliver. We must therefore start reconsidering the whole relationship between central and local government in respect of school funding.
  Clearly, the Education Reform Act 1988 represented the critical moment at which a historic shift was made. I suspect that in the next two to four years another moment will come at which we will need to complete that historic shift. Although the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned social services and the way in which the Secretary of State for Health may impact on them, there is no other area of the public services in which funding to a particular institution goes directly from central Government to a local authority, is jiggled about through additional formula, and finally reaches the end of the line with everybody dissatisfied. That is the central issue. We must therefore start the debate about whether the national funding formula—let us remember that the new formula spending share system is much fairer than the previous standard spending assessment system—should be distributed straight to individual schools. I think that doing that would involve huge risks, and the only solution, as the years go by, is probably a system of distribution through regional government, although that brings something else into the argument about which the Opposition will get excited. However, given that Wales manages to distribute money straight to local authorities and schools and that we can devolve power to Scotland, why can we not devolve power to the regions of England so that they can do exactly the same job?
  The debate has raised interesting and complex issues. The Opposition have tried to manufacture a crisis, although there is not really a crisis but a series of problems that need to be resolved quickly. They have pretended that the whole country is affected, but it is not. Many parts of the country have done very nicely out of this year's settlement, although they might not have received the amount that they expected when the figures were first published. We have an immensely complex system involving a national formula that is devolved to local authorities followed by devolution to schools through a further local formula, which means that we will face such problems year on year. The time has come for a major review of the way in which we fund our schools.
  4.6 pm
  Alistair Burt: I am delighted to contribute to the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). He
  524
  led the debate extremely ably and exposed yet another Government crisis in education. The Secretary of State can be changed, but the Government do not seem to be able to solve the problems. I am also pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who made an excellent contribution.
  It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). He spoke with his customary seriousness and thoughtfulness on education, although I am not sure whether his assertion that the Opposition have manufactured the crisis will be truly welcomed by teachers, governors, parents and Labour local authorities. They would attribute their problems not to Conservative Members, but to the Government. I shall speak on behalf of many people in Bedfordshire who are connected with education—parents, teachers, governors and pupils—by expressing their deep disappointment, anger and concern about the current situation, which they consider to have been a shabby business.
  There are two fundamental issues. First, the Government's miscalculation is at the heart of the crisis. The funding required to cover wage rises, superannuation rises and national insurance increases was miscalculated. No Conservative Member believes that the Government deliberately precipitated the crisis. They pulled the lever to ensure that adequate funding went through, but that patently did not work.
  Secondly, after making that miscalculation, we saw the Government make what has been their continual error: after making a mistake, they never admit to it. They make only a desperate attempt to cover it up and then blame somebody else. On this occasion, their failure to admit their error led to local authorities being blamed.
  There are two sides to the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Well, there are many sides to quite a rounded Secretary of State, but I want to talk about his political characteristics. I saw his first side when I recently shared a television studio with him to discuss the local election results as they came in. We saw a contrite Secretary of State. He made no attempt to claim that it was a great night for Labour as the results of seats and councils lost came in from throughout the country. He was quiet and well mannered. He appreciated the scale of what had happened and presented a rather decent impression of a politician facing reality. That might well have been practice for the many nights in the next few years when he will be doing exactly the same thing.
  The second side to the Secretary of State, which is probably more familiar to most of us, is shown by his extraordinary bluster when things go wrong but he cannot possibly admit it. The Secretary of State made a desperate attempt to blame local education authorities, but when that patently failed he used a subtle change in language to suggest that perhaps it was not local authorities that were at fault for holding on to the Government money, but the schools for being so wicked over the years to have built up reserves and to have capital moneys available that they should be spending. Either way, the crisis was manufactured in the Department for Education and Skills, and it is a shabby

  525
  way to treat those who have been on the wrong end of that crisis to blame them rather than to accept the blame himself.
  On Bedfordshire's specific problems, the county spends way above its standard spending assessment for education, which means that it spends more on education than the Government anticipate it should. The authority has a 100.1 per cent. passporting record, so it cannot be criticised for not doing its job properly. The problem in the county's schools was first made manifest when one or two other MPs for Bedfordshire and I recently met representatives of the local county council. We were told that some of our schools were thinking of losing teachers or were facing deficit budgets. That was quickly followed up by representations from those schools.
  I can do little better than quote extensively from a letter from the head teacher, Colin Phelps, of St. Mary's V C lower school in Stotfold, who wrote to me on 24 April. He said:
  "I am writing on behalf of Staff and Governors at St Mary's V C Lower School, Stotfold with regard to the predicament we find ourselves in concerning our budget allocation for 2003/04.
  You will be aware that this issue is causing great concern in many schools across the country, and we at St Mary's have been particularly badly hit by the increase in National Insurance and Superannuation costs … In early March, when we received our budget allocation, there was no real hint that things would be so bad. My first draft Budget, merely a standstill budget, revealed that we would have a deficit of £69,000, around 9 per cent. of our overall budget. This is due to staff costs representing a greater proportion of the budget than previously. Even though we are popular school, often oversubscribed, we are having to make several cuts, making one teacher and probably two support staff redundant. Even these cuts will not allow us to set a viable budget. Any further cuts in teaching staff would mean that we could not meet the Class Size requirements or 30 Key Stage 1 classes.
  We are a school which has received national recognition for excellence in Community Education and in our educational achievements over many years, but it is difficult to see how we can retain these high standards in the light of these savage cuts. There is no doubt that children's education will suffer … As a Headteacher of some 14 years experience, I can affirm that things have never been so bad. It gives me little comfort to know that many schools are experiencing difficulties, and I am concerned that staff morale, already low, is going to be severely affected. The very idea that the Government proposes to lighten Heads' and Teachers' workloads by providing extra funds, is like a macabre joke at our expense. We will be stretched as never before during the next year, and probably beyond."
  Almost as soon I received those details from the head of that lower school, I received representations from an upper school. Its head told me this morning that its argument is not with the local authority, with which it has discussed the problem in depth, but with overall national funding. The school reckons that every school in the county could set a deficit budget ranging from £80,000 to £140,000. Wootton upper school has a deficit budget this year of £120,000. It could consider using grants to help it, but it does not think that it should have to go outside core funding for essential basic needs. For Wootton, staffing costs have increased by 9.7 per cent., whereas its budget has increased by only 3.2 per cent. That is the real reason for the cash crisis. It should not be dealt with by asking schools to go into reserves and the like.
  526
  After concerns were expressed and the Government's consciousness was raised to such an extent that they became aware that there were real problems, their response was to blame local authorities, as the House well knows. They tried to fix the blame by writing a detailed letter to them on 2 May asking for their responses to a series of questions that revealed an extraordinary micro-interest in the budgets of devolved local authorities. I do not criticise the Government for that—it is important for them to know what is going on but the exercise was designed not to gain information, but to shift the blame.
  Let me pick out three things for which my county council was blamed which it rebutted, and I am grateful for its assistance in this matter. The first charge was that the percentage increase in devolved funding for schools in Bedfordshire was less than the overall schools' budget percentage increase. The council explained that that was caused by the reduction of Government support for standards fund projects, as other hon. Members have mentioned. I am sure that by the end of the debate, the Minister will have a copy of the letter from Bedfordshire available to him, as it is easily found. The local authority states:
  "In 2002/2003 Bedfordshire's contribution to devolved Standards Funds was £5.293 million. In 2003/2004 this has reduced to £4.216 million due mainly to the LEA needing to find £ 1.472 million to support the continuation of Standards Fund projects for which government support has been withdrawn."
  Funding for the targeted intervention strategy, LEA school improvement and intervention and newly qualified teachers are now recorded in a different pot, and all the extra money needed is due to the Government withdrawing their previous support. The LEA goes on to say that if these sums were properly accounted for as part of the devolved funding, a 7.5 per cent. increase in devolved funding would have been shown, as opposed to the 6.6 per cent. shown by Government.
  The LEA's letter continues:
  "This would also consequently impact on the £2.9 million suggested as increased funding not devolved to schools. On the basis of the revisions referred to above this sum would reduce to £1.3 million … all of this expenditure can be accounted for by the increased support for children with Special Educational Needs, none of it has been retained for other purposes."
  The local authority was taken to task by the Government for spending more on special educational needs. That, the LEA tells me, was for
  "new specialist provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties or with autism, increased funding for statements, covering reduced recoupment income where the number of children from other LEAs attending our special schools has decreased, and picking up the increased staffing costs associated with both teacher threshold payments and the teachers' pensions schemes."
  Why should not the local authority spend its money on supporting special educational needs in that way? Do the Government think that that is wrong? If not, why did they criticise it for spending more money on such provision?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Is not the problem an absence of joined-up government? The Department for Education and Skills appears to disapprove of the SEN expenditure that my hon. Friend described, whereas the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) has commended precisely such expenditure across the Floor of the House to me and to many others.
  Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes an admirable point. The Government cannot have it all ways. They cannot pit Minister against Minister and education provision against education provision, and try to come out top on all occasions. In the present case, the problem has been caused by a miscalculation of what is needed and a desperate attempt to cover it up. That is what is so wrong. Governments do not always get it right in the allocation of resources, but the least that they can do in those circumstances is say, "Sorry, we got it wrong" and not try to blame everyone else.
  The Government also criticised my local authority in respect of unallocated devolved funding, as it is called. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made clear, the money may be unallocated, but it is certainly earmarked. All the money is already designated and is needed by schools for anticipated expenditure. It is not money available, like some form of seventh cavalry, to dig out the local authority and the schools from problems of teacher wage rises, superannuation costs and national insurance. The Government cannot have apples and pears. It is grossly unfair to criticise local authorities for unallocated funding.
  My local authority, like many others, has rebutted the charge made by Government. It would do all of us some good, and it would do the Secretary of State some good, if he showed the same degree of contrition in the House this afternoon as he did on the local television
  528
  programme when he had to admit that the Labour party was losing so many seats around the country because of the Government's failure to deliver basic public services as well as people required.
  I make two points in conclusion. First, the Government should be bolder in relation to local authority control. They should give greater freedom to schools and governors, and consequently to parents and teachers, to have more control over their own budgets. Secondly, they should end their demand that everybody should bid for more and more initiatives in order to qualify for extra money. That takes time, effort and money, and schools are sick and tired and have had enough of it.
  Two issues have come together. First, there is the frustrated professionalism of teachers and those in schools who want to be left alone to get on with their job. They want the money to be given to them so that they can make the decisions about their needs. Secondly, there is a sense in Bedfordshire that schools, parents, teachers, pupils and governors are not getting a fair deal from this Government. The combination of miscalculation, failure to admit the error and blame heaped on local authorities has left a distinctly bad taste in Bedfordshire. The county, its teachers and those in schools are doing their very best. It would be appreciated if the Government could acknowledge that and make this one of the few times in their life when they say "Sorry for the mess that we have caused you."

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003.

School Funding
Question again proposed, That the original words stand part of the Question.
4.20 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who shares a boundary with my local education authority in Cambridgeshire. I am sure that he will be one of the first to acknowledge that, in the past, Bedfordshire has done extremely well in comparison with Cambridgeshire. On many occasions, when parents, teachers and governors in my constituency have wanted to show up the unfairness of the previous funding system, they have pointed out that in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex, where authorities attracted the area cost adjustment, schools have sometimes been funded as much as £100 per pupil more than in Cambridge. It has been very hard to explain to parents why that is the case and why a child in Cambridgeshire has been worth so much less than a child in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire or Essex, when we face similar costs and circumstances, so I can understand why he may well feel a little aggrieved that the huge discrepancy and unfairness are now beginning to be put right.
Cambridgeshire has suffered for many years and is now on the road to recovery, but it is worth looking back to what happened in 1990, when we moved away from the old poll tax system and the then Government introduced standard spending assessments. At that stage, it was impossible to calculate whether an individual county council covered a high-cost area. Cambridgeshire was lumped together with Suffolk and Norfolk, which were low-cost areas, so it did not attract the area cost adjustment given to Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex. Another problem in 1990 was the fact that Conservatives controlled the county council, as they do now. Their leader, Lady Blatch, believed that it was incumbent on her to reduce spending as much as possible, as well as the poll tax, and subsequently the council tax.
In 1990, Cambridgeshire had historically low spending. The way in which the previous formula worked meant that the area continued to suffer because of the low level that applied in 1990. I am pleased that this Government have had the courage to put that formula right. I believe that we will see a much more equal distribution of funding in future. We have started the process this year and it will continue over the next few years as the damping mechanism evens itself out.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is, sadly, no longer in his place, criticise the damping mechanism. I would have been inclined to criticise it, because the funding of my local education authority, Cambridgeshire, ended up at the ceiling because the level that it had been allocated was higher than the ceiling. Cambridgeshire has lost money this year owing to the damping mechanism. I cannot complain too loudly, however, because Cambridge city council, which is the other part of my two-stage local authority system, was funded at
530
the floor, rather than at the ceiling. One of my local authorities is funded at the floor, and the other is funded at the ceilingf.
Mr. Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that those authorities that have been caught by the ceiling this year receive, as the years go by, the full award to which they are entitled through the new formula spending share, FSS, system, and that the campaign that has been orchestrated this year by the former beneficiaries of the standard spending assessment, SSA, system does not result in clawback and the ceiling being posited as the absolute limit of future grants?
Mrs. Campbell: I could not agree more. That has implications for Cambridge city council, which is at the floor. My hon. Friend will understand the dilemma that I face. I think that the money should go into education, and I concur with his view that over the next few years authorities that were funded at the ceiling this year should eventually receive their due in full.
I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that Cambridgeshire did not expect to do very well out of the local government settlement. Shortly before the settlement was announced in November, the local authority decided to hold a meeting with head teachers to warn them that although they might be hoping to get a large increase in their funding this year, they should expect very little. Expectations were therefore very low. In fact, Cambridgeshire got £20 million more than it expected in the November settlement, and people were very pleased. That is a much fairer settlement for my local authority.
I want to explain to my hon. Friend the problems that teachers face in my constituency. The average cost of a three-bedroom house in Cambridge is just over £200,000. A teacher who earns about £22,000 and has a mortgage of £150,000—that assumes that they have accumulated considerable savings—will face repayments of around £800 a month: half their take-home pay. That puts teachers in a difficult position. It also puts schools in a difficult position, in that it is hard to attract teachers to Cambridge unless they have some other form of income, such as a partner who is earning a good deal more money.
Another problem is that a teacher earning £22,000 a year will not qualify for social housing. They will have no chance of being allocated a property from a housing association or from the local authority, because they will be deemed to be earning too much money. We face a terrible problem in my constituency, in that the sums simply do not add up. A person on a very low income probably qualifies for social housing—although they will have to wait many years to get it—and a person on a high income can afford to buy into the property market, but a considerable number of people who earn about the average level of income cannot get into the housing market either in the rented sector or in the private bought sector. I am grateful to John Barrett from the Hundred Houses housing society, with whom I had a meeting yesterday, for giving those figures to me.

531
No redundancies in Cambridgeshire have been reported to me, although it is claimed that the National Union of Teachers conducted a survey in the local education authority area in Cambridge and found that there were to be 25 redundancies. The LEA challenged that and said that the figure is 17, of which seven are due to falling rolls. That leaves only 10 that are due to funding problems. I am not happy about 10 redundancies—I would not be happy about one redundancy—so I have tried to go back over the figures that the Department circulated to us. They have been extremely useful in ascertaining why my authority, which received a generous increase from the Government in November, has 10 redundancies.
My first finding was that although the increase in the schools budget is 11.9 per cent., the amount devolved to schools has increased by only 8.5 per cent. There is thus a gap of 3.3 per cent. between the amount that the schools budget received and that devolved to schools. If I have read the tables correctly, that adds up to a considerable sum of approximately £6.1 million. That buys a lot of education, and it is difficult to understand why such a huge gap exists.
Further on, the table shows an increase in special educational needs provision. That funding is retained centrally and not devolved to schools. I understood that schools were now receiving devolved funding for special needs. Cambridgeshire has increased its SEN funding by 52.8 per cent., which amounts to a large sum. Perhaps it goes to central pupil referral units, which badly need funding. I give Cambridgeshire its due for that. However, it begins to explain where some of the money is going.
Cambridgeshire is also diverting a large sum from revenue to capital, so £400,000 is being spent in capital funding although it was allocated for revenue funding. Again, the Government are right to expect an explanation for that. Capital funding from the Government has not decreased but has increased enormously. It should not be necessary to divert the money from revenue to capital.
Another large sum—£2.6 million—has gone into
school contingencies. I find it difficult to explain to my constituents why the LEA would deem it necessary to have such a large amount sitting in a reserve somewhere and not being used for education when teachers are being made redundant in some parts of the county.
My hon. Friend the Minister is right to question the schools and the local education authority about how the money has been spent, because large sums are being taken out of school budgets without any immediate and obvious explanation and spent centrally by the LEA.
I find this debate quite extraordinary. I came into the House in 1992, when local education authority budgets were being reduced year on year. I saw cuts that really hurt in my schools in Cambridgeshire. I saw teachers being made redundant, class sizes increasing, and schools having to drop subjects that they could no longer resource. Under this Government, Cambridgeshire has seen a 60 per cent. increase in funding since 1997. That is something to be proud of, and I am astonished that the Conservatives, having presided over the previous dismal decline in funding and
532
shown such a lack of appreciation for education, should now choose to criticise this Government, who have done so much for education.
4.35 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to be called to make a short contribution to this debate, and it is good to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Inevitably, and understandably, when discussing an issue such as this, we look at how it affects our local authority, and I shall be no different. The London borough of Barnet has been very badly done by on any criterion that the Secretary of State might care to choose. I shall give the House the basic facts as though looking through the other end of the telescope. In round figures, Barnet received £208 million in revenue support grant last year. This year, it will receive £216 million, which is an increase of 3.5 per cent., slightly ahead of inflation as measured by the retail prices index—I do not think that is the true measurement in relation to education expenditure—which puts it in the lowest tranche of local education authority increases.
The Department for Education and Skills has required Barnet to fund schools to the tune of £147 million this year. That means an increase of £14.5 million, but the borough has received only an additional £8.1 million to cover expenditure not only on education—which represents about half its total expenditure—but on all the other services as well. The schools have found that they need an additional 8.1 per cent. increase in funding just to stand still, never mind to make improvements. The reasons for that minimum 8.1 per cent. increase include an increase in teachers' pay, the increased employers' national insurance contributions—which will cost £1 million in Barnet—the withdrawal of some specific grants that had previously been made, and, by far the greatest item, a huge increase of £4.4 million for additional contributions to teachers' pensions.
That is not the end of the matter, however, because the Secretary of State has changed the formula for money going to schools so that some are worse off, and some are even worse off. It has been a considerable feat for Barnet council to have been able to pass on to the schools the full £14.5 million that the Department for Education and Skills advises, even though it has received only an additional £8.1 million for all services. This analysis of the schools budgets has shown a shortfall in Barnet of some £8 million, in terms of schools setting a standstill budget.
The result of all this—the matter has been carefully gone into, as my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), who is in the Chamber, will confirm—is that only five out of 27 secondary schools are able to set a balanced budget. The rest face deficits that, in the case of 14 of the schools, will be more than £100,000. In some cases, they will be substantially more. One of my own local secondary schools, East Barnet school, faces a deficit of £300,000. This affects the primary schools to a lesser extent because they are smaller, but they face similar difficulties to the secondary schools.

533
I know that the Ministers will have received papers from the chairman of our LEA, Councillor Lynne Hillan—the cabinet member for education—giving this analysis in much fuller detail, and papers on the effects that changes in the standards fund will have on Barnet and on the accelerating cost pressures on schools. I accept that all these matters relating to the funding of education involve very complicated formulae, but I sincerely believe that the Government are hiding behind these complex arrangements rather than facing up to what they should be doing.
School funds retained by Barnet amount to the absolute minimum. They have been retained for special educational needs and out-of-school education, about which much has already been said. I might add that when Labour and the Liberal Democrats ran the council it greatly underestimated the costs of SEN and providing for children with difficulties. That is why the costs had to increase this year.
Barnet was one of the 19 LEAs criticised by the Secretary of State in connection with contingency funds, but they constitute less than 1 per cent. of Barnet's entire schools budget. The money is needed to finance any changes in statutory arrangements for children with special educational needs, and to cover a possible change in pupil numbers as between schools in September. The LEA has promised that any unallocated money will go straight to schools—but, which is perhaps
more important. the schools have asked for the money to be retained, because they realise that certain schools could experience severe difficulties.
One school had announced that it was to make four people redundant, but fortunately—at least in one sense—there have been four voluntary early retirements, so redundancies may not be necessary. The school, incidentally, is a primary school, not a large secondary school. Of course, there will still be fewer teachers in the coming year following the voluntary retirements.
Barnet intends to introduce licensed deficits in an attempt to avoid staff reductions. From what the Secretary of State said earlier, I understand that it can now do that. The deficits, however, will have to be paid back somehow, at some point.
All the evidence suggests that funding will continue to be inadequate. The Government's spending assessment makes it clear that they want Barnet LEA to make spending commitments over the next three years, but they will not reveal their likely contribution, at least at this stage. It will come as no surprise that, as a result of that and other events that I cannot discuss now, Barnet has had to increase its council tax by no less than 24 per cent. this year. It could have been 35 per cent., but Barnet has tried to reduce other services—some of them badly needed—and to make efficiency savings in the non-education sector.
I believe that the Government are hiding behind complex distribution arrangements. They keep money back for special awards. A month does not go by without a Minister writing, "Please keep this confidential until tomorrow, but we are announcing beacon awards here or baubles there." Such awards, even if they relate to the previous financial year, should
534
be paid upfront at the beginning of the current year so that schools know immediately how much they will receive and can plan in a sensible and co-ordinated way.
The Secretary of State accused Barnet of holding back money that should go to schools. Barnet has brought in an independent expert, who will publish her report tomorrow. I am prepared to stand by what it says, and I hope that the Secretary of State will do the same. I hope that if he finds that Barnet is not to blame but he is, he will have the grace to apologise, and perhaps recompense Barnet for the way in which it has been treated.
Barnet's schools, I am proud to say, have a good reputation. They are among the best-performing schools in the country. They deserve something better than the treatment they have received from the Government. There is a silver lining to this murky, thunderous cloud—head teachers, staff and the local education authority are working much more closely to try to overcome those problems. I hope that they will continue to work together to understand each other's point of view, and I hope that the Government will form part of a triumvirate that will result in a fair funding settlement.
4.45 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: It is a pleasure to reply to the debate and follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), a doughty campaigner for Barnet and its excellent schools, which are suffering badly under the Government.
The Secretary of State began by saying that he no longer blamed local education authorities. He continued, in a murky, obscure part of his speech, to talk about problems in distributional respects and inter-quartile measures. He then went back to blaming local education authorities. He failed throughout to answer the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and to respond to his concerns about the future of the specialist schools programme and whether capital projects to provide facilities for disabled pupils would be protected. Above all, he failed at any point to apologise for his role in this sorry saga.
We have had an interesting day. This morning, on the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State said that he expected
"no significant redundancies amongst teachers".
Does he not understand that a single teacher redundancy resulting from the school funding crisis is significant? One teacher losing her job is more significant than one Minister losing his. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said at the outset of our debate that the Minister for School Standards should consider his position. He has now had three hours to do so, and we look forward to hearing his response—[Interruption.] He says that he is off—there will be a
celebration in staff rooms throughout the country at that news.
This morning, the Secretary of State denied that he is proposing a quick fix. He may be right about that because a quick fix is the last thing that schools will be able to achieve if all their maintenance budget is used elsewhere. As Doug McAvoy of the National Union of Teachers said this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]

535
Government Members may scoff, but it is no coincidence that the NUT now says that its relationship with the Government is the worst it has ever had with a Government. Doug McAvoy said of schools:
"What are they supposed to do when the boiler breaks down in the winter? Sack the deputy head?"
The Secretary of State has said that this is a difficult year with unique circumstances and has spoken of one-off pressures relating to teachers' pensions and national insurance. However, they are not one-off pressures—the tax on jobs and teachers' pensions will be there next year, the year after that, and the year after that.
Mr. Tom Harris rose—
Mr. Brady: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is seeking to intervene in a debate about matters affecting schools in my constituency, only if, in Scottish questions, I can ask about schools in his constituency.
Two weeks ago, the National Association of Head Teachers said that 78 per cent. of schools in England face a budget shortfall, and that 17 per cent. of schools have experienced a cut in cash terms in their budget. Mr. David Hart, the general secretary of the NAHT has said:
"The Government has failed schools on a number of counts. These decisions have led to redundancies, curriculum damage and increased class sizes. This is before schools even make a start on trying to reduce workload."
Mr. Mark Francois: My hon. Friend will be aware that in counties such as Essex a major cause of our schools' suffering is the new local government grant funding arrangements. He knows that Essex had the worst settlement of any county in England. We are extremely worried that this is not a one-off year but the start of a process in which things only get worse. People in Essex want a fair deal from the Government, but they are not getting one.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right. Essex is one of the authorities wrongly blamed by the Government, given that it has passed on to schools all the money that it was expected to pass on.
David Hart went on to say:
"This year's additional money has been completely wiped out by extra demands on budgets. We are in negative territory."
So was Mr. Hart persuaded by what the Secretary of State had to say this morning? The NAHT said this morning that
"we doubt very much whether the prospects of job losses, increased class sizes and shortened weeks can be staved off. Converting capital into revenue and licensing deficit budgets could help some schools but these measures, that are akin to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic', will not provide the relief that all schools in trouble desperately need now."
We also heard this morning from the National Union of Teachers:
"This year's quick fix is next year's major problem … His funding announcement represents no solution, just a refusal to acknowledge the obvious. The Government has got its sums wrong and schools are suffering as a result."
536
The funding crisis is so bad that, in my constituency, the head teacher of the Bollin primary school, Mrs. Marilyn Downs, and a colleague have been pushed to the point where they are prepared even to jump out of an aircraft to raise sponsorship for their school's core budget. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards has caused the problem in that budget, and I wonder whether he would care to join me now in pledging to sponsor Mrs. Downs in her efforts. He can respond when he comes to the Dispatch Box, or later on.
I should like to put this question from Mrs. Downs directly to the Minister. As she said to me:
"Isn't it appalling when we have to keep our schools going through sponsored events like this?"
Well, isn't it? Ministers will be judged not by what they say, but by what they do. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, "That's clever," but he can take no solace. His record to date in his relatively short period in office has been dismal, and the same goes for his hon. Friends.
Will the maintenance budget for Gospel Oak school, in Camden, be sufficient to stop the cuts of £127,000 that, according to Fiona Millar, it faces
"even if we use all of our reserves"?
Will today's announcement make good the £600,000 shortfall at Whalley Range high school, in Manchester, which prompted Dame Jean Else to consider resignation? Will the Minister guarantee that she will not have to make a single one of her valued staff redundant?
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Brady: Very briefly.
Mr. Simpson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have just spoken to a reporter from the Eastern Daily Press who has been following the Secretary of State's announcement with a great deal of interest. The reporter phoned a dozen headmasters in Norfolk, all of whom were amazed and outraged at the idea that money should come from contingency funds. Much of that money is for the maintenance of buildings, to which restrictions apply because of factors such as health and safety at work. So, in fact, the Secretary of State's latest announcement has been a complete and utter disaster as far as salving his reputation is concerned.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and in doing so he praises what is obviously an excellent newspaper that is doing an excellent job in holding the Secretary of State to account.
Will schools such as St. Marylebone Church of England school in London still have to ask parents for £100 donations to stave off the need for redundancies? [Interruption.] Ministers will recall that the Oratory school had to do the same thing a few years ago, although we were never told whether all the parents were prepared to put their hands in their pockets for the same purpose. Will the 92 redundancies in Norfolk that we have heard about have to go ahead?
So what will the consequences be? How many schools will still have to sack teachers? Other schools will not replace staff who leave. Necessary maintenance will go out of the window. Schools will struggle to implement

537
the first phase of the work load agreement, and the picture for next year looks even worse. We are still left with the grossest act of betrayal since Labour promised that its priorities would be education, education, education. As one head teacher told me,
"They are going back on all they have promised us—withdrawing funds bit by bit whilst blinding the general public with statements that yet more money is being put into education".
What Labour is delivering is cuts, chaos and confusion; what we are promising is a fair deal for all schools.
4.54 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It will come as a surprise to those of my hon. Friends who have joined us recently, especially having heard the previous contribution from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), that this has actually been quite an interesting debate. It has revolved around three issues: how much money has been distributed to local authorities, how they have distributed it to schools and how schools can be helped through this unique year of change in the local government funding system. I will address each of those issues.
I listened carefully to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and to those of the hon. Members for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). I shall focus, however, on two particular speeches. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) started well, but he accused me of making up figures at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers conference. He then said that I had based my remarks on a survey of 75 LEAs that showed that £250 million was still to be allocated to schools. However, by 2 May, it was clear that the amount was £533 million. The survey was very accurate. It represented half the total of LEAs, and it turned out to be true.
David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned 75 LEAs: 150 exist, and Leicestershire is the 150th in terms of grant per primary school pupil. It is a great shame that much of the great progress that has been made in the past six years—on infrastructure, class sizes and standards—is being imperilled by the very poor settlement that we have received. Will my hon. Friend return to last year's expenditure levels?
Mr. Miliband: I know that my hon. Friend shares my pleasure that every LEA in the country has benefited from the increased funding made available around the country over the past six years.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I thank the Minister for giving way. What would he say to teachers in Shropshire, whose LEA has passported 107 per cent. of the funding to schools? The LEA is faced with a cash shortfall this year of £3 million, which could result in redundancies of between 20 and 100 teachers.
Mr. Miliband: I would say to Shropshire teachers exactly what I have said to teachers elsewhere—that they must make sure that the money allocated to their LEAs is passed on to schools, and that they should make use of all the flexibilities that the Government are making available this year.
I want to pick out the speech from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). He spoke with genuine knowledge and concern about the issues. I got lost in his metaphors involving puppeteers circling around lamp posts—or was it drunks circling around lamp posts and puppeteers getting their strings tangled? However, he made a set of serious remarks, and explained very clearly the process by which the Government allocates money to LEAs, and how they then allocate it to schools. That the right hon. Gentleman was in direct contradiction to Opposition Front-Bench policy is a fact on which I shall not dwell for the moment.
Hon. Members of all parties raised issues on behalf of their constituents. We take those very seriously, as we do all the representations from head teachers and teachers. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was good enough to say that the Government take what he called a "micro-interest" in all schools. That is absolutely right: we are very concerned to understand what is going on at school level.
However, it is noteworthy that, for all the talk of the letters that have been received from head teachers and teachers in their constituencies, Opposition Members, in their motion and speeches, ignored completely the improvements achieved in our schools over the past six years. Those improvements have been delivered by precisely those professionals whom they seek to defend.
That rising achievement in our schools is now being noticed around the world. Our 10-year-olds are ahead of their counterparts in all countries, apart from the Netherlands and Sweden. Our 15-year-olds perform in the top quartile of countries in maths, English and science. More of our young people are qualifying for university with higher achievement and better qualifications.
That rising achievement is not an accident. It is the product of deliberate choices. The number of failing schools has been halved as a product of policy. The approach to teaching in primary schools has been improved, and that is a product of policy change. Standards in our toughest areas are rising at twice the national average, thanks to the introduction of the excellence in cities programme. No choice is more significant than the raising of funds for those objectives.
I am happy to correct what was said in a previous debate. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was not in charge of education policy in the No. 10 policy unit when the previous Government were in power, but it is a fact that, in that period, spending per pupil declined by more than £100 per year in real terms. It is little wonder that Britain dropped to 42nd in the world education league.
Since 1997, that trend has been reversed. When we hear crocodile tears from Opposition Members, we must remember that they are the ones who cut our

539
education system, and that the Labour Government have invested in it. We are increasing spending fast, and we have an expanding education system rather than a contracting one. The biggest threat to progress are the Opposition.
This year, there will be significant increases in spending in our schools. Cash increases of about £2.7 billion represent a rise of 11.6 per cent. The Opposition say that there are increased pressures. Of course there are, and let us look at them. There are increased pressures for money, teaching staff and support staff. The money is promoting recruitment and retention in our schools. New teachers are 70 per cent. better paid, in real terms, than in 1997. We say that that is good. Experienced teachers are 22 per cent. better paid, in real terms, than in 1997. That is also good. [Interruption.] Someone mentions pensions. The teachers' pension fund has been secured at a cost to the Government of more than £500 million. Head teachers are also better paid by between 24 per cent. and 41 per cent. Of course there are extra pressures on our education system, but are the Opposition saying that we should pay our teachers less, underfund the teachers' pension scheme and deny head teachers the salary that they deserve? They will not admit it. They are certainly not saying that we should increase education funding, because they do not support even the current level of investment.
Mr. Francois: On a day in which another pensions fiasco has been announced, the Minister is indeed brave to focus on that point. Of course teachers' pensions should be properly funded, but the Minister must realise that the cost falls on schools, which need extra resources to fund it. The Government are not providing the money to meet an important teachers' need. That is the issue.
Mr. Miliband: The House will be disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not stood up to congratulate the Government on a £610 per pupil increase in education funding, to congratulate the schools in his constituency, or to ask questions about his local authority, which has millions of pounds still to be allocated to its schools. We know that Conservative Members' compassion is skin deep and their promises empty. They complain about pressures, but will not reduce them. They are against more spending, but suggest that it is necessary. Their motion blames the new local education authority funding system, but the last one was out of date, incomplete and unfair, so it was right to reform a system that was based on the 1991 census.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It was even worse!
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) wishes to intervene, he knows the method that he should use.
Mr. Miliband: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not taking lessons from his new friends in the National Union of Teachers. I should like to present an interesting quotation:
"The Conservatives are closer now to the NUT than they've ever been and we hope for closer co-operation in the future."
That was said by Mr. Doug McAvoy, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not follow that up.
The reforms to local education funding were the product of widespread discussion, debate and consultation. We were asked to simplify the system and it is now based on only three factors: funding per pupil, recognition of need and recognition of additional cost. We were asked to make more effective recognition of poverty in the new system, notably for children coming from low-wage families. That is why for the first time we have built the working tax credit into the formula. We were asked to reduce the ring-fencing of grants, and we have transferred £500 of specific grant into general funding. The new system ensures that similar pupils in different parts of the country are given a similar level of funding by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, her constituency is now being funded on an equitable basis for the first time. That is the foundation of the new funding system.
School funding is not a matter for Whitehall alone, but a joint responsibility between central and local government. We rely on that partnership, and local government has an important and legitimate role in taking decisions about local priorities, local change and school places for every child. It is for local authorities to pass money on to schools. We give them money by a simple formula and they pass it on to schools by a formula.
On 2 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there are significant variations in the approach—not just for 19 local authorities, to which some hon. Members have referred, but for all 150 authorities listed simply in alphabetical order. The variation in the practice of local authorities makes a significant difference to the allocation of funds to schools. That is the foundation for the variation described by hon. Members today.
Mr. Swayne: How does the Minister explain the problems faced by local education authorities that have handed over all the money? That is the problem.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been listening to the debate. The simple answer is that there is a formula, which distributes money in widely different ways between schools within local education authorities. That is what explains the difference. Secondly, significant sums remain to be allocated in LEAs across the country.
Mr. Swayne indicated dissent.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can tell him that over the last three weeks, money has been delegated—and not only by North Somerset

541
and Bath. Bradford has £3.6 million, Birmingham £12.5 million, and there is also Camden and Suffolk. All those LEAs have devolved more money.
Alistair Burt: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Miliband: Yes, for the last time.
Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister—
David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put,
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 296.

Division No. 200]

[5:05 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gummer, rh John

Amess, David

Hague, rh William

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hawkins, Nick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Heald, Oliver

Bacon, Richard

Hendry, Charles

Baldry, Tony

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Barker, Gregory

Hogg, rh Douglas

Baron, John (Billericay)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Bellingham, Henry

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bercow, John

Jack, rh Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Boswell, Tim

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brady, Graham

Lansley, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Leigh, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, rh Oliver

Burns, Simon

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Burnside, David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Burt, Alistair

Lidington, David

Butterfill, John

Loughton, Tim

Cash, William

MacDougall, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Mackay, rh Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Maclean, rh David

Clappison, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Malins, Humfrey

Collins, Tim

Maples, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Curry, rh David

May, Mrs Theresa

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Mercer, Patrick

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Norman, Archie

Fallon, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Flight, Howard

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Flook, Adrian

Ottaway, Richard

Forth, rh Eric

Paice, James

Francois, Mark

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Portillo, rh Michael

Garnier, Edward

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Redwood, rh John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robathan, Andrew

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Grayling, Chris

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Rosindell, Andrew

Greenway, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Grieve, Dominic

Selous, Andrew

542

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Shepherd, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Simmonds, Mark

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Tyrie, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Whittingdale, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Wiggin, Bill

Spring, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Stanley, rh Sir John

Wilshire, David

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Swayne, Desmond

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Syms, Robert

Young, rh Sir George

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mr. Laurence Robertson and

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Angela Watkinson

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 144.

Division No. 200]

[5:05 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gummer, rh John

Amess, David

Hague, rh William

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hawkins, Nick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Heald, Oliver

Bacon, Richard

Hendry, Charles

Baldry, Tony

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Barker, Gregory

Hogg, rh Douglas

Baron, John (Billericay)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Bellingham, Henry

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bercow, John

Jack, rh Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Boswell, Tim

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brady, Graham

Lansley, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Leigh, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, rh Oliver

Burns, Simon

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Burnside, David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Burt, Alistair

Lidington, David

Butterfill, John

Loughton, Tim

Cash, William

MacDougall, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Mackay, rh Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Maclean, rh David

Clappison, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Malins, Humfrey

Collins, Tim

Maples, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Curry, rh David

May, Mrs Theresa

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Mercer, Patrick

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Moss, Malcolm

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Norman, Archie

Fallon, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Flight, Howard

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Flook, Adrian

Ottaway, Richard

Forth, rh Eric

Paice, James

Francois, Mark

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Portillo, rh Michael

Garnier, Edward

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Redwood, rh John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robathan, Andrew

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Grayling, Chris

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Rosindell, Andrew

Greenway, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Grieve, Dominic

Selous, Andrew

542

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Shepherd, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Simmonds, Mark

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Tyrie, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Whittingdale, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Wiggin, Bill

Spring, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Stanley, rh Sir John

Wilshire, David

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Swayne, Desmond

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Syms, Robert

Young, rh Sir George

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mr. Laurence Robertson and

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Angela Watkinson

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corbyn, Jeremy

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Corston, Jean

Ainger, Nick

Cotter, Brian

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Atkins, Charlotte

Crausby, David

Bailey, Adrian

Cruddas, Jon

Baird, Vera

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Barrett, John

Cummings, John

Barron, rh Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Battle, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bayley, Hugh

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benn, Hilary

David, Wayne

Bennett, Andrew

Davidson, Ian

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Blizzard, Bob

Dawson, Hilton

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Breed, Colin

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Brennan, Kevin

Doughty, Sue

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Drown, Ms Julia

Bruce, Malcolm

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bryant, Chris

Edwards, Huw

Burden, Richard

Efford, Clive

Burgon, Colin

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Burnett, John

Etherington, Bill

Burnham, Andy

Farrelly, Paul

Burstow, Paul

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Byers, rh Stephen

Fisher, Mark

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Cairns, David

Flint, Caroline

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Follett, Barbara

Carmichael, Alistair

Foster, Don (Bath)

Casale, Roger

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Caton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Challen, Colin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Chaytor, David

Gapes, Mike (IIford S)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Gardiner, Barry

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Gilroy, Linda

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Coaker, Vernon

Grogan, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coleman, Iain

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Cooper, Yvette

Hancock, Mike

543

Hanson, David

McKechin, Ann

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McKenna, Rosemary

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McWalter, Tony

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

McWilliam, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Healey, John

Mallaber, Judy

Heath, David

Mandelson, rh Peter

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hendrick, Mark

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Hepburn, Stephen

Heppell, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hesford, Stephen

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Martlew, Eric

Heyes, David

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Merron, Gillian

Hinchliffe, David

Michael, rh Alun

Hodge, Margaret

Miliband, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Miller, Andrew

Holmes, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mole, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Morgan, Julie

Morley, Elliot

Howells, Dr. Kim

Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Mudie, George

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Mullin, Chris

Hutton, rh John

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Illsley, Eric

Morris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Neill, Martin

Jamieson, David

Organ, Diana

Jenkins, Brian

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Perham, Linda

Picking, Anne

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Plaskitt, James

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Pollard, Kerry

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Pound, Stephen

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kemp, Fraser

Khabra, Piara S.

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kidney, David

Prescott, rh John

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Purchase, Ken

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Purnell, James

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lamb, Norman

Raynsford, rh Nick

Lammy, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

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

Lazarowicz, Mark

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Linton, Martin

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Love, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ruddock, Joan

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McCabe, Stephen

McCafferty, Chris

Salter, Martin

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sanders, Adrian

MacDonald, Calum

Sarwar, Mohammad

McDonnell, John

Sawford, Phil

McFall, John

Shaw, Jonathan

Mclsaac, Shona

Sheerman, Barry

544

Sheridan, Jim

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Singh, Marsha

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Wareing, Robert N.

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Watts, David

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

White, Brian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Soley, Clive

Wicks, Malcolm

Southworth, Helen

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Spellar, rh John

Willis, Phil

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Wills, Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul

Winnick, David

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stunell, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Woolas, Phil

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wright, David (Telford)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wyatt, Derek

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Trickett, Jon

Tellers for the Noes:

Truswell, Paul

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Joan Ryan

Division No. 201]

[5:18pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Clelland, David

Atkins, Charlotte

clwyd. Ann (Cynon V)

Bailey, Adrian

Coaker, Vernon

Baird, Vera

Coffey' Ms Ann

Banks Tony

Connarty, Michael

Barnes Harry

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Barron, rh Kevin

Cooper, Yvette

Battle, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bayley, Hugh

Corston, Jean

Benn, Hilary

Cousins, Jim

Bennett, Andrew

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Crausby, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cruddas Jon

Blizzard, Bob

Cryer Ann (Keighley)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cryer John (Hornchurch)

Brennan, Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Davey Valerie (Bristol W)

David Wayne

Bryant, Chris

Davidson, Ian

Burden, Richard

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Burgon, Colin

Dawson, Hilton

Burnham, Andy

Dean Mrs Janet

Byers, rh Stephen

Dhanda, Parmjit

Cairns, David

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Casale, Roger

Drown, Ms Julia

Caton, Martin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Challen, Colin

Edwards, Huw

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Efford, Clive

Chaytor, David

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Clapham, Michael

Etherington, Bill

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Farrelly, Paul

545

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fisher, Mark

Linton, Martin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Flint, Caroline

Love, Andrew

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Follett, Barbara

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

McCabe, Stephen

McCafferty, Chris

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gapes, Mike (IIford S)

MacDonald, Calum

Gardiner, Barry

McDonnell, John

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

MacDougall, John

Gilroy, Linda

McFall, John

Goggins, Paul

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McKechin, Ann

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McKenna, Rosemary

Grogan, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McWalter, Tony

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mallaber, Judy

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Mandelson, rh Peter

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Healey, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hendrick, Mark

Merron, Gillian

Hepburn, Stephen

Michael, rh Alun

Heppell, John

Miliband, David

Hesford, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Heyes, David

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mole, Chris

Hinchliffe, David

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hodge, Margaret

Morgan, Julie

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Morley, Elliot

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Mountford, Kali

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mudie, George

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Howells, Dr. Kim

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Organ, Diana

Hutton, rh John

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Illsley, Eric

Perham, Linda

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Picking, Anne

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Plaskitt, James

Jamieson, David

Pollard, Kerry

Jenkins, Brian

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Prescott, rh John

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Keeble, Ms Sally

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Purnell, James

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kemp, Fraser

Raynsford, rh Nick

Khabra, Piara S.

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Kidney, David

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

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lammy, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Ruane, Chris

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ruddock, Joan

546

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Trickett, Jon

Truswell, Paul

Salter, Martin

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Sawford, Phil

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Shaw, Jonathan

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Sheerman, Barry

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Sheridan, Jim

Wareing, Robert N.

Shipley, Ms Debra

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Watts, David

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

White, Brian

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wills, Michael

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Southworth, Helen

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Spellar, rh John

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Woodward, Shaun

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Woolas, Phil

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wright, David (Telford)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Joan Ryan

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Forth, rh Eric

Amess, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Francois, Mark

Bacon, Richard

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Baldry, Tony

Garnier, Edward

Barker, Gregory

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Barrett, John

Grayling, Chris

Bellingham, Henry

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bercow, John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Greenway, John

Boswell, Tim

Gummer, rh John

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Hague, rh William

Hancock, Mike

Brady, Graham

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Breed, Colin

Hawkins, Nick

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Heald, Oliver

Browning, Mrs Angela

Heath, David

Bruce, Malcolm

Hendry, Charles

Burnett, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Burns, Simon

Hogg, rh Douglas

Burnside, David

Holmes, Paul

Burstow, Paul

Horam, John (Orpington)

Burt, Alistair

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Butterfill, John

Jack, rh Michael

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NEFife)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Carmichael, Alistair

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Cash, William

Lamb, Norman

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Leigh, Edward

Chope, Christopher

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Clappison, James

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lilley, rh Peter

Collins, Tim

Loughton, Tim

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Cotter, Brian

Mackay, rh Andrew

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Maclean, rh David

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Doughty, Sue

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Fabricant, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Fallon, Michael

Mercer, Patrick

Flight, Howard

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Flook, Adrian

547

Moss, Malcolm

Steen, Anthony

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Streeter, Gary

Norman, Archie

Stunell, Andrew

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Swayne, Desmond

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Syms, Robert

Ottaway, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Paice, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Paterson, Owen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Portillo, rh Michael

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Redwood, rh John

Tredinnick, David

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Robathan, Andrew

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Tyrie, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Rosindell, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Sanders, Adrian

Wiggin, Bill

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wilkinson, John

Selous, Andrew

Willis, Phil

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Wilshire, David

Shepherd, Richard

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Simmonds, Mark

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

(Macclesfield)

Soames, Nicholas

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Young, rh Sir George

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Tellers for the Noes:

Spring, Richard

Mr. Laurence Robertson and

Stanley, rh Sir John

Angela Watkinson

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main
Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House applauds the increased funding that the
Government has made available to LEAs since 1997, which is up
in real terms from £2,800 per pupil to £3,600 for 2003–04, with further planned increases to almost £3,800 by 2005–06; notes that the increase in funding for 2003–04, at £2.7 billion, more than
covers the additional cost pressures from pay, pension and price
increases; recognises that the new LEA funding formula constitutes a welcome move towards a fairer distribution between LEAs, but coupled with the changes to the Standards Fund has resulted in some turbulence in the system; endorses the action the Government has taken in response, namely to provide a further
£11 million to London authorities and £28 million to authorities with the lowest overall increases; further notes that the
performance pay grant for 2003–04 has been increased to meet all of schools' commitments arising from the grant provided in 2002–03, and to cover the costs of similar progress for teachers becoming eligible for performance pay in September; welcomes the decision by the great majority of LEAs to pass on in full the increase in schools funding to their schools budgets; supports the work the Government is doing with LEAs to understand the decisions they have taken in distributing their funding between central services and the individual budgets of schools; welcomes the further measures the Secretary of State is taking to provide LEAs and schools with flexibilities to avoid excessive instability within schools; and calls on the Government to consider what changes are needed for next year.

National Skills Strategy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
5.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I am delighted to have the opportunity to consider hon. Members' views as we reach the conclusion of our consultation on the skills White Paper, which we will publish next month.
Improving our national skills performance is at the heart of the Government's overriding mission to strengthen the country on the dual and inextricably linked foundations of social justice and economic success: strengthening social justice by giving all citizens the opportunity to fulfil their potential and know the dignity of self-improvement, and strengthening economic success because skills are a crucial lever of competitiveness and productivity. Our companies will need increasingly highly skilled workers in the competitive global marketplace. Our public services will need skilled front-line staff—managers and leaders—as they strive to offer 21st century public services.
The Government have put in place many of the key building blocks that will strengthen our skills base in the longer term: universal nursery provision and sure start in the early years; literacy and numeracy strategies in our primary schools; secondary school reform through the key stage 3 strategy and specialist status; the framework for a new and distinct 14 to 19 phase of learning; the development of the Connexions service and education maintenance allowances that will be available nationally from September 2004; a renewed commitment to modern apprenticeships; significant reform and investment agendas for further and higher education sectors; and our skills for life crusade to tackle the scandal of the 7 million adults who cannot read or write to the level expected of an average 11-year-old. We have established the Learning and Skills Council and regional development agencies to drive forward social and economic regeneration.
Mr. Stephen Byers: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on his point about RDAs and the Learning and Skills Council. He will know that the north-east stands to gain considerably from Ministry of Defence orders for two new aircraft carriers, but it is important that the orders provide benefits that last beyond the life of the contracts. Will he pull together the RDA and the local learning and skills council in the north-east so that they can put to him a regional skills strategy for the north-east that will ensure that we have the trained people necessary for such orders and, most importantly, that we broaden, extend and improve our skills base in the region so that we can seize the opportunities that will come from those two orders?
Mr. Lewis: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work with employers and trade unions on the economic regeneration of the north-east. The issue that he raised underlines the importance of pilot projects on skills budgets involving RDAs and local learning and skills councils, which are designed to focus on regionally specific issues in the short, medium and longer term. I am delighted to give him the assurance that he wants. I

549
shall ask the RDA and local LSCs in the north-east to produce a specific strategy to cope with the skills needs generated by the contracts.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, does he think that the relationship between RDAs and local LSCs is good enough yet? The relationship is good in my own region of Yorkshire, but I hear that it is not as joined-up as we would like in other regions. It is important that there is a close relationship between those bodies if we are to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) asked for.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that issue, and that is why we have instituted four pilots on RDA and local LSC budgets. It is especially encouraging that even though such pilots are not being conducted formally in several regions, the good practice that is spreading means that RDAs and local LSCs in those regions are aligning their budgets more than before. There is a much more integrated and cohesive approach in each of the English regions. The pilots will move that agenda forward, but we want a far closer relationship between those two essential structures that drive both economic and social regeneration in each English region.
Mr. Mark Todd: Just to draw out my hon. Friend a little further on the role of development agencies, after substantial job losses at Rolls-Royce, an initiative was set up in the east midlands by which a taskforce engaged trade unions and others in the use of the company's resource centres. I know that he has been approached by representatives of Rolls-Royce on the model of how it tried to redeploy and reuse skills. Is he interested in that and would he like it to be pursued on a broader basis?
Mr. Lewis: Very much so. I received a delegation from Rolls-Royce positively and asked it to draw up specific proposals on how to make that model work. The days of a job for life are gone; employability for life should be our aspiration and objective now. We should increasingly pursue that policy on a region-by-region and sector-by-sector basis. We need a far more flexible approach, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome that positive proposal from my hon. Friend's region.
On the building blocks of the skills agenda, it is also important to highlight the achievements of University for Industry, which has reached nearly 800,000 learners who have taken more than 1.7 million learn direct courses. In addition, the trade union learning fund has supported 28,000 people to complete a variety of courses. That will now be supported by statutory recognition of trade union learning representatives. We have also worked closely with the Department of Trade and Industry on management and leadership, which is essential for all—sectors—public, private and voluntary—to support existing leaders and to encourage and develop the leaders of the future.
Mr. Tim Boswell: As this is at least in part a consensual debate, perhaps I can assist the Minister by asking him to comment on the links between adequate levels of education and information, and good
550
performance in the industrial relation sector. From what I have heard from industrialists, I have the strong impression that there is a much more constructive discussion with work forces that are skilled, educated and well briefed than if matters are left to megaphone diplomacy and industrial warfare.
Mr. Lewis: We seek partnership in the workplace at the beginning of the 21st century. There is no need for those old divisions to exist to undermine relationships at work. We have many models of good practice whereby good employers work with active and positive trade unionists to deliver competitive companies. That has to be a two-way relationship. Employers need to implement good practice in their relationship with their employees, and trade unions need to adopt a reasonable approach to working with management to drive forward the success of companies.
We do not focus enough on the many positive examples of that in our economy. We want such practice to grow and improve. The skills strategy is an opportunity to improve and enhance the relationship between business and the trade unions. A clear and strong consensus is emerging on the importance of skills for both the success of British industry and the advancement and development of individuals, many of whom are trade union members.
The results of our unprecedented investment in, and reform of, our education system are clear for all to see. We have the best ever results at 11 and 16 and the best ever teaching, as defined by Ofsted. The reading literacy of our 10-year-olds is among the best in the world and our 15-year-olds are among the best in the world at English, maths and science. Some 320,000 adults have achieved basic skills awards. Despite that progress, we are not complacent, and there remains a considerable amount to do.
Mr. Phil Willis: In the spirit of co-operation, every time the Minister or the Secretary of State speaks on the skills agenda, the further education sector is missed out. Some 90 per cent. of work in FE colleges inspected by Ofsted is satisfactory or better and 93 per cent. of work inspected by the adult learning inspectorate is classified as better. I wish that the Minister would occasionally give them due recognition for the huge success of the FE sector.
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should be more patient. I shall come to the further education sector in due course. I am happy to pay tribute to the work of FE. The Government have recently introduced a record level of investment into the sector. We want to raise the status and value of further education and of those who work in it. I was proud to work on the "Success for All" strategy, which has been well received in the sector. Of course there are many examples of good practice in further education, but I am sure that the sector would agree that there is also room for significant improvement. It is working with the Government to achieve that. I shall say more about FE later.
As I said, much progress has been made, but we are not complacent and there remains a great deal to do. It is essential that we bring a new cohesiveness to our approach to lifelong learning—a cross-Government strategy that will support a sustained improvement in

551
our national skills performance. Although our economy is undoubtedly fundamentally strong, our competitiveness and productivity lag behind those of other countries. Too many individuals and employers are still being left behind.
I should say at the outset that the strategy is not about introducing lots of new initiatives. We will make changes where they need to be made, but our priority will be to join up our policies across the skills agenda and across Government. It will be a strategy owned for the first time across Government, with unprecedented co-operation now existing between the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Treasury and most other Government Departments. Our shared agenda on skills will be closely linked with action on innovation, enterprise and employment, focusing on the needs of employers and individual learners. To those who, understandably, are cynical about strategies, I confirm that the strategy will also be supported by a delivery plan. We will be single-minded in prioritising sustained delivery, backed up by regular review and evaluation.
Our objectives are clear: to develop a far better synergy between demand for and supply of skills; to ensure that the provider side is fit for its purpose, focused far more on the needs of individual learners and employers than in the past; and to stimulate demand from all customers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and non-traditional learners. We need greater clarity in defining the respective responsibilities of the state, employers and individuals, and where finite Government resources should most appropriately be deployed.
The White Paper will address a number of crucial issues, first, in relation to young people. There is a consensus about the importance of creating strong, high-status vocational opportunities for 14 to 19-year-olds, leading to skilled employment directly or via higher education. The Conservatives' proposals for vocational education published this week have repeated the mistakes of the past. They present vocational education as an alternative to higher education, and attempt to sort young people into sheep and goats. That is the very reason why up till now vocational education and training has always failed in England.
The White Paper will consider employers' concerns about generic skills. We must accept that, as employers tell us, even young people leaving the education system with high-level qualifications do not have good communication, interpersonal, teamwork and problem-solving skills. The White Paper needs to address those employer concerns.
We want to support everyday dynamic relationships between schools, colleges, universities and employers. In local communities throughout the country, those educational institutions should have daily contact with employers, and vice versa, to ensure that there is a much closer relationship between what happens in the education system and the needs of the labour market.
Valerie Davey: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the situation in Bristol. I am sure
552
that the same is happening throughout the country. The Department and others have a huge capital programme that is being delivered on the ground. Our local authority, and, no doubt, others, are issuing contracts on the understanding that it will be local people who get jobs, so, particularly in the building industry, where that huge capital programme is being worked out, and where the local authorities and Government Departments are involved, it is possible that young people could be brought into those jobs with the asset of the colleges, schools, Connexions and LSC, which know the needs in an area and can offer the training that those young people would need to get a job. It is a case of our contracts—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
Valerie Davey rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. I must say that I think that she needs to hone her intervention skills. That was too long for an intervention.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I got the message.
The principle of using the procurement process, particularly in the public sector, to influence the ability to employ people locally and to get employers to invest in skills is a very good one indeed. We must get the right balance between training young people for the needs of the labour market and allowing them to have transferable and flexible skills by ensuring that we do not focus on training that is too job-specific. None the less, the principle is absolutely right.
We also need to give a strong and positive message about all progression routes and not only the conventional academic route. Every parent and commentator understands GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels, but there is not the same understanding, passion, highlighting or focus in respect of the other ways in which young people can progress, achieve and succeed in the education system. That issue is about some of the messages that we send out; we need to be much clearer and stronger about the alternative ways in which young people can progress through the system.
In turning to adults, I wish to focus on both employers and individuals. On employers, we face a particular challenge in getting far more small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in skills than hitherto. We need to do a number of things to facilitate that. First, we need to create a far more simple system enabling SMEs to access training. We need to achieve a genuinely "no wrong door" approach. We have looked at the principle of having one door, but, historically, every initiative that has sought to create one door has failed, so it is far more constructive to seek a "no wrong door" approach to accessing skills and training.
We believe that it is right to make increasing use of intermediaries who work with business day to day, such as bankers, financial advisers and legal advisers, who sometimes speak in the language of business as we as politicians in the public sector cannot do. We need to use people who deal with business day to day to get the message across about the importance of skills and the best way of accessing the skills system.

553
We should also be using the supply chain more. That can involve larger companies doing business with smaller companies and making it a part of their contractual arrangements that the smaller companies should invest in skills. Even some of the larger companies are now willing to help to train more people than they need so that their sector is strengthened overall. I am delighted that the director general of the CBI recently said that he believes that some of the larger companies should make much greater use of the supply chain in influencing investment in skills and training.
In responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), I referred to the regional development agencies and learning and skills pilots, which I think will be very important. We need to respond to employers' concerns about lack of flexibility in the current qualifications framework. Employers need a much greater input in the design content and assessment of our qualifications. I am delighted to report to the House that, for the first time, the Learning and Skills Council, the Sector Skills Development Agency and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are working together to create a far more employer-friendly and flexible qualifications system.
We need to build on fiscal incentives such as the employer training pilots and employer learning accounts, which are focused on small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We are developing the sector skills council network to replace the national training organisations. In response to some of the cynicism and concern about the pace of progress on the roll-out of sector skills councils, I point out that, in the White Paper, we will publish a clear time scale for the introduction of the councils and the coverage of a vast proportion of the UK work force. We will therefore be able to respond to concern about the time involved by making it clear how the new network will roll out in the next two to three years.
Mr. David Chaytor: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's positive remarks about the employer training pilots. Will he tell us when they will be evaluated and whether that is likely to happen in time for publication of the skills strategy? Are we likely to see an extension of the pilots in the strategy at the end of June?
Mr. Lewis: As a consequence of the evaluation of the six initial employer training pilots, we are extending them to create another six. They will now run in a total of 12 local learning and skills council areas, providing free training and subsidies to enable employers to give their workers time off to train up to level 2. Realistically, it would be difficult to evaluate by the end of June pilots that are only just beginning. We occasionally roll out programmes before we have the evaluation evidence, but having rolled out six—now 12—we shall examine them closely to inform future policy development.
Mr. Sheerman: The Minister cannot get away from the fact that there are only two. Employers are asking when they will all be up and running, because for too long they have not known what the future will be.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend was sceptical about the publication of the skills strategy in June, but I have been
554
able to confirm today that that will happen. Likewise, I can reassure him that his question will be answered in the White Paper, which will include a clear timetable for the roll-out of sector skills councils over the next two to three years. That will answer those who have raised legitimate concerns about the amount of time that it is taking. I have been very supportive of the desire of the Sector Skills Development Agency to ensure that the new councils are not merely re-badged national training organisations. If that were to happen, the initiative would be completely wasted.
Moving on from employers to individuals, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will be pleased to hear that we will announce a successor scheme to the individual learning account scheme, which will be designed to maintain the best principles that underpinned ILAs. We accept that the implementation and delivery of ILAs went terribly wrong, and we have expressed that regret on a number of occasions, but we still believe that the basic principles that underpinned ILAs then are as relevant now, and it is important that we introduce a successor scheme that maintains those principles.
We shall develop the role of the union learning fund, which has been incredibly successful, especially in getting back learners who dropped out of education and training many years ago.
We shall say more about an unprecedented level of investment in prison education and training. That investment has not received enough attention in this House or outside. We are putting more money into prison education and training over the next few years than has ever been put in. Almost the best crime-fighting policy that one can have is to give people basic skills, at minimum, or even higher-level skills. It is then far more likely that they will leave custody and not be part of the rotating door group who are the main reason why our prisons continue to overflow. As a society, we need to create a new approach whereby we give offenders opportunities to take a different course, and education is central to our capacity to do that.
We need to focus on benefit recipients. Although we have the highest employment in living memory, we need to be much better at giving people who remain close to the labour market the skills that will enable them to make the final jump into work. We also need to consider the economically inactive who are almost permanently on benefit. It is difficult to imagine them going straight from benefit into work.
Linda Gilroy: Is my hon. Friend giving serious consideration to the proposal put forward by the Foyers Federation for a further education maintenance allowance for young people in foyers, especially 19 to 30-year-olds, who are caught in a trap?
Mr. Lewis: We intend to elaborate in the White Paper on our plans for a further education maintenance allowance. It is difficult to imagine that we will be able to roll that out as a national entitlement, but we need to get on with the job of introducing the principle of such allowances, with a view to their becoming permanent in due course.
We need to be clear about the distinct and important role played in the skills strategy by adult and community learning. We need to be much clearer about its

555
contribution, the way in which we intend to support it and how it will fit in with some of the other investment in skills, education and training. I assure hon. Members that we remain committed to the principles that underpin adult and community learning.
Mr. Chaytor: I am pleased to hear those remarks. My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned retired people. Given the rapid increase in life expectancy, does he accept that it is important for those who are retired to develop skills to improve their quality of life?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Under-Secretary replies, I remind hon. Members that we have only a limited time for the debate, which has to end at 7 pm. Since several hon. Members want to contribute, perhaps everyone would bear that in mind.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that the ability to continue learning and developing skills is an important element of quality of life, especially for older people. The skills White Paper, which is published next month, will reflect that.
We need a much clearer message about the value and importance of learning to individuals. It must be about quality of life and earning potential. So many agencies are trying to promote learning that the message is often diluted by the time it reaches people, especially those who are not currently engaged in learning. We need to be much better at sending clear messages to them.
The skills strategy will try to create a position whereby policy decisions and funding mechanisms fulfil appropriate national targets but are sufficiently flexible to allow us to respond to the needs of regions and individual sectors. One of the great challenges is ensuring clear national objectives—we are elected to provide them—and sufficient flexibility in policy and resources to enable a focus on the needs of individual sectors, regions and sub-regions. The White Paper must tackle that.
The White Paper that we publish next month will deal with many of the fundamental issues that I have outlined. It will respond to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century knowledge economy. We will continue our mission to enshrine a culture of lifelong learning in citizens' and employers' everyday lives. For the first time, we shall create a cohesive, cross-
556
Government policy and financial framework to support the learning revolution that we are beginning to unleash in every community in every part of the country. I look forward to considering hon. Members' ideas and views during the debate.
5.58 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: Events this afternoon resembled an acted parable on the national attitude to skills development. A major and important statement on the same day as an Opposition Day debate inevitably meant that more politically salient matters have squeezed our important debate. However, I acknowledge that the Under-Secretary has spoken in a tone, reflected in the consultation document, that encourages the development of at least an understanding and consensus on a national skills strategy, and I have no objection to that. We shall consider it fairly on its merits.
My only reservation about the concept is that my experience of Government has shown that, from time to time, Ministers put together a rag-bag of different initiatives, badge them as a strategy and try to place everything under the same heading. That does not always work without a coherent driver. However, we shall wait and see. I say in the gentlest possible terms that I hope that the Under-Secretary will acknowledge that our party's statement on higher education this week was not intended to drive a wedge between that and further education. I assure him that as he introduces proposals for his strategy, we shall have much more to say about skills and further education.
It should be a matter of consensus that since anxiety first surfaced in the 1880s about the decline in British manufacturing pre-eminence vis-à-vis Germany and the USA, our culture has somehow turned its back on skills and—arguably more widely—on manufacturing and commerce in general. I note that the TUC, in its briefing for this debate, emphasises the need for
"a fundamental cultural change in the skills policy framework".
That is perfectly acceptable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 ( Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Question agreed to.

National Skills Strategy
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Boswell: As I was saying, I think that that is a perfectly acceptable aim and aspiration.
I should like to draw on my knowledge of the German dual system for a moment. I have always felt that that system was rightly admired in this country, although not so much for its pedagogical qualities, because it can in practice be rather wooden and limited. It really succeeds because it involves the active commitment of employers, their work force and its representatives, and the education system, and because a great deal of commitment is invested in it. If a similar commitment were to be mutually beneficial in British terms, as I expect and hope that it would be, and if it were to reflect genuine consent between the parties rather than coercion, I would welcome such principles being applied in this country.
The proper role of the Government should be to set the appropriate policy framework, bearing in mind that for all the public spend on education and training post-16, the private sector contributes two or three times as much—depending on some definitions that are rather difficult to determine. There is a huge commitment from private employers, as well as a huge investment of employee time. Unfortunately, in their initiatives in this area to date, the present Government have made some significant blunders. Indeed, the Minister admitted to one today, in the form of the individual learning accounts, which were described by the ombudsman as amounting to gross maladministration and reported by the Public Accounts Committee to have involved a loss of nearly £100 million.
I welcome the fact that Ministers have confirmed their intention of introducing "son of ILA" in their skills strategy next month. I also welcome the fact that they have said that small training providers will not be excluded. There is a real danger that we might move from failure to an excess of bureaucracy and control in this area, and therefore stifle any new scheme. I hope that there will be a more rounded approach this time, and a more successful one.
Individual learning accounts are not the only thing that Ministers have got wrong. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), has already acknowledged, there has been a hiatus in the establishment of sector skills councils. I could never quite understand why the national training organisations were abolished before the new bodies were up and ready; that has created a good deal of uncertainty. There have also been concerns about the development of modern apprenticeships, although I appreciate that the figures are expressed in a number of ways and that that might partly reflect statistically the fact that people can no longer do a foundation course as part of an advanced modern apprenticeship, then come off such a programme and get credit for it. The record on A-levels has not been very good, either, in terms of delivery, and there are continuing problems with the sagging of vocational A-levels in terms of their attractiveness to students.
558
Ministers' record in this area has been at the very best—I speak in measured terms—patchy. But we shall stand back from that on the basis of trying to consult on the matter. Perhaps more basically, we need to ask why we need a skills strategy. I attended a recent conference on this issue, under the broad sponsorship of the Learning and Skills Council, and I was particularly struck by the message delivered by Vic Seddon, the executive director of the London South learning and skills council. He has a wealth of experience in further education. In what he admitted was a personal comment, which I found very striking, he said:
"Never confuse the absence of qualifications with an absence of skill, nor the converse."
He went on to say:
"Not every profession nor skilled trade requires graduate education."
I think that those are both perfectly reasonable comments. He went on to document some interesting statistics, which confirmed my impression that, while the United Kingdom compares favourably with its European competitors in terms of participation at graduate level, it is in the crucial level 3 and level 2 skills that the disparities are least favourable to us. That is where there is a real national skills gap.
As an officer of the all-party group, I am lucky enough to receive briefing from the Aluminium Federation. Only this morning I was sent some papers expressing the view from the sharp end. They refer to the falling number of students willing and able to read for degrees in material sciences and engineering, and report that whereas typically at the department of material science at Cambridge there have been 30 graduates per annum, this year there are nine, and of those not one is going into the United Kingdom manufacturing industry.
The federation's second major concern relates to the lack of craft technicians able to operate such equipment as rolling mills and extrusion presses, and shortages of people with skills in, for instance, welding, plumbing and maintenance. It concludes that the aluminium industry
"does not believe that a target of 50 per cent. of all school-leavers undertaking a university degree of sufficiently high academic standing is either feasible or sustainable."
It adds
"We believe that far more effort should be put into skills training at a lower technical level".
In fairness to the federation, I had better not report its views on top-up fees lest the House imagine that I drafted them myself. There was, in fact, a close coincidence between those views and the Conservative view.
Mr. Willis: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is obliquely trying to justify the policy statements that he made earlier this week, but the big problem for all of us here is how to divide students into the right progressions, as it were, at an early stage. Does the hon. Gentleman think the skills document contains any attempt to lead us in that direction, encouraging us not to think in terms of sheep and goats but to keep an open mind when it comes to the progress of young people after the age of 14?
Mr. Boswell: In this instance, I think the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting and important point. Having, to an extent, experienced such treatment myself, I think it regrettable that young people should be forced to make choices affecting their long-term careers—although they are presented as academic choices—at an exceptionally early age. Whatever emerges from the strategy, it could be said that the test the Minister is setting up for it is the degree of flexibility it will involve, and the extent to which policy involving areas of weakness can be embellished or reinforced.
Conservative Members believe that the Government's pursuit of a 50 per cent. target for higher education—which has, as far as I know, no objective basis or justification—has distorted their efforts. It does not match the actual requirements of the economy, it will not bring about the right skills mix, and it is very derogatory of the 50 per cent. of young people to whom the target does not apply. We genuinely hope that as many as possible will participate in appropriate education and training after reaching the age of 16. Of course, we also hope that they will proceed to higher education in due course if they show that they can do it.
Mr. Chaytor: It is interesting that the Conservative party's education policy is now influenced by the aluminium industry. That is surely a first in British politics.
Why should there necessarily be a conflict between the objective of securing more graduates and the objective of increasing the number of level 3 qualifications? Why should the two be mutually exclusive?
Mr. Boswell: I did not intend to say that, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman should caricature what I said. My point was that the Aluminium Federation's submission happened to coincide with, and in my view expressed rather well from an independent source, much of our own thinking.
I hope that we all want greater participation among the post-16s. What divides us is resourcing to some extent, and also what constitute the right pathways for individuals.
Mr. Andrew Love: From the hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), can we assume that if the Conservatives' policy is to restrict the number of graduates, there will be additional investment in intermediate and vocational skills training?
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate what we will publish, but we have a strong interest in making sure that there is sufficient investment in that area, and have a reasonable record in securing it in the past.
The first prerequisite of a skills strategy is the active involvement of employers as well as unions. The Government have introduced some union-oriented initiatives and the hon. Gentlemen will know from our debates on statutory rights for employees who are also trade union learning representatives that I always pay appropriate tribute to the work of unions in this area,
560
but it is also important to involve employers. Interestingly, a written answer of 30 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on Connexions partnerships, to which the Minister has already referred, said that only 15 of those partnerships had two or more employer representatives. Twenty-six had one representative and six had no employer representatives on their board. That pattern is broadly reproduced in other local learning and skills organisations. It is essential that employers have some ownership in this process, and I agree very much with Dr. Ken Boston of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority that employers should have a stronger hands-on involvement in developing the right portfolio of qualifications.
On marketing the skills agenda, it is not just the credibility of qualifications among employers that is important but their acceptability to young people and employees. If there is not a consensus among students that qualifications are worthwhile or do-able, they will fail. They need to be interesting, manageable and flexible, but not at the expense of rigour. No one in the House would want to sign off a lot of second-rate vocational qualifications—I certainly do not. The qualification framework must be coherent. Mr. Seddon, whom I have previously mentioned, spoke about 40,000 qualifications and said rather briskly, "Too many." I have some sympathy with his remark.
The right framework for credit accumulation and transfer is critical to secure progression and coherence, not just upon young people's first leaving school but in their future career as well. All of that must be properly funded. The Association of Colleges has expressed concern that, despite the apparently large increases in college funding, after various things are deducted, there are functional shortfalls. We debated that in Westminster Hall only yesterday, and I do not intend to return to the subject at length. However, I wish to make particular reference to the association's concerns about cuts affecting adults who are taking A-levels and level 3 qualifications, both in vocational and academic subjects. I am afraid that, if I did not tell the Minister so, I did tell his predecessor, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). When we were discussing the Learning and Skills Act 2000, I said that increased emphasis on education for 16 to 19-year-olds has tended to displace adult provision, yet many skills problems centre on that provision. I worry that over-dependence on the foundation degree to expand numbers and trigger increases in college funding would result in a reduced number or the elimination of higher national diplomas and certificates.
Finally, a skills strategy requires an effective means of delivery. I am pleased that the Minister was prompted to refer to further education, because many of us believe that it is central to achieving a skills strategy. Vocational higher education is of course important, and much of this will be delivered in FE colleges. In any case, it is worth the House's considering whether a medical or a legal degree is not at least in part vocational, as well. So, of course, is straight workplace learning, and there is nothing whatever wrong with that. But in my view, colleges play a central role and can offer something to almost all students or learners. They deserve our active support and encouragement, and that will be a test of the coming strategy.

561
I shall close shortly and leave the path open, in this truncated debate, to at least some further contributions, in addition to those from Front Benchers. Before I do so, I should like to mention two more general educational points. First, above all we should not forget, in adult learners week—I am pleased that the Minister referred to this—that there is no absolute distinction between what I shall call "useful" and "useless" learning for shorthand. All learning is valuable in itself, and it is a good thing that people embark on it. Those who embark on the one may well end up on the other, and both have their own place. At the moment, there is definitely a run-back in participation in adult education, but I leave it for others to say whether that is directly or indirectly related to the situation that I reported in terms of vocational A-levels. Figures given to me just a few moments ago suggest a reported decline of 10,000 in adult learner participation. The system and the strategy must be robust enough—this will be a test of the Minister's bona fides—to ensure some continuity for adult and community learning. I hope—perhaps I may say that I expect—that Ministers will take the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education submission seriously on this matter.
Secondly, we all need to work together to re-emphasise the moral, as well as the material, work of skills. Of course, pay helps, and the rates available to plumbers in London, for example, indicate a real service need: they are needed and they get paid. However, there are others with high-level skills who do not perhaps get paid as much as they deserve, although that is difficult to prove in the market system.
What is missing from our debates and our approach to the skills agenda is a recognition of the need for quite proper celebration of good technical and vocational education, and of a high level of skills—regardless of whether they have been acquired through a formal process. Conservatives, at least, want a fair deal for every man and woman. We want no employee to be left out, and no employer to be a non-participant. Quite a lot of the people whom I have worked with in my life have been able to bring remarkable skills—skills that I may not have had—to bear on practical problems. I recall vividly from earlier stages in my career the impact in my own constituency of people with varied skills, such as agricultural fitters and Coventry toolmakers. They had a huge influence, and they deserve a great deal of respect. We can perhaps all agree that pride in the job needs to matter again. We need to encourage that to happen, and to celebrate it properly where it does.
6.18 pm
Linda Gilroy: In his opening comments, the Minister said that through access to learning we need to achieve both social justice and economic success, and that it should ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to obtain a minimum foundation of learning for their future employability. Nowhere is that more true than in my constituency, where adjustments to a decline in traditional industries in the defence sector have led to very high levels of unemployment. However, there has been a dramatic change in that regard. Developing the skills sector through further education, the Learning and Skills Council and the regional development agencies is playing a very important part.
562
The debate is important. As my hon. Friend outlined, the Government have already done much to identify the key issues, and the roles that individuals, Government and employers must play. I especially welcome the progress report on the Developing National Skills Strategy and Delivery Plan, which outlines just how much has been achieved.
I know that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall speak for only a few minutes. I want to touch on two areas the role of the unions, and issues relating to basic skills. My hon. Friend the Minister responded to an intervention by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) by saying that there were opportunities to build the relationship with trade unions, and that perhaps we had not focused enough on what could be done in that respect. The skills strategy progress report to which I referred earlier makes a brief mention of trade union learning representatives and of the pilot schemes that have been carried out. However, the south-west TUC has given me information as to the extent to which those measures are making a contribution, and the results are really quite impressive.
In my constituency, the union learning service, through the south-west TUC, has trained learning reps in the Land Registry, the Ministry of Defence, and the Inland Revenue, and arms such as DML and Toshiba. An interesting item in the progress report concerned ISS, Mediclean and the Derriford national health service trust. After an initial foray into the area in the computer course called "Keep up with Your Kids", three more GMB learning reps have been trained—one in Mediclean and two in the trust. Courses in basic skills and IT communications are now being planned by the GMB for trust employees later in the year. Those courses will raise skill; and confidence, and it will make people aware of the potential for raising skills in a part of the NHS work force that is often overlooked.
I could list many other items, but time does not permit. However, I want to turn to the TUC submission in respect of developing the skills strategy, which refers to the important intermediary role played by union learning reps in encouraging employees to engage in learning. That is partly acknowledged in the skills strategy document, but a great deal more could be done. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the scope for specific measures to develop a partnership between Government, employers and unions, at all levels, to implement and drive forward the national skills strategy.
I hope that my hor . Friend the Minister will look at the continental experience. For example, 63 per cent. of German workers have intermediate qualifications, compared to 28 per cent. of workers in this country. Clearly, that lends support to the Government's strategy to improve the quality of what is called the "vocational offer", and to expand its take-up. However, we need to recognise that the skills gap with countries such as Germany will not be tackled unless we take account of the social partnership model that exists in those countries. The recent Budget speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted at the need to emulate that approach, when he said:
"Moving beyond the old voluntarism of the past in this national effort for skills, everyone—government, employers, employees trades unions—has a responsibility and a part to play"—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 282.]

563
I want to touch briefly on the basic skills agenda. In Plymouth, it is incredibly important, where between 38,000 and 40,000 people lack the literacy and numeracy skills needed for even the most basic contribution in the work force. It is very important that something is done about that, and that it becomes a priority target for funds. I hope that the basic skills agency will be given sufficient funding to build on the important work that it is doing through the gremlin advertising programme that it is running. The agency gave important support to one of my constituents, Sue Torr, and her Shout It Out project. Sue has had dyslexia, but has written a play and presented it to people in the south-west and across the UK, as well as in Paris, Japan, Thailand and Africa, through UNESCO. Sue is currently seeking business backing through Co-Active in Plymouth, and I hope to be able to arrange a meeting with the Minister in a few months' time to talk more about the project.
I shall conclude my remarks on that point in order to allow others to take part in the debate.
6.25 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I congratulate the Minister on arranging the debate and I am only sorry that we will not have longer to concentrate on it. He has brought a real passion and commitment to his brief, and he has won much credit for engaging the House in the progress of the national skills strategy, especially from all the organisations with an investment in it. I say that to the Minister in a spirit of co-operation.
I am sorry that the Economic Secretary is about to leave the Chamber, because he took much unfair criticism over the individual learning account issue. While the Government handled the preparation of ILAs appallingly, the principle was right. For the Government simply to abandon the concept would be wrong, and I pay tribute to the Economic Secretary for the way in which he took the flak so politely on behalf of the Government.
We had an interesting debate earlier on education and schools funding, and this debate is not unconnected. The Minister began by talking about the way in which the Government have approached the crucial 14 to 19-year-old agenda, and he is right that schools are the bedrock of a skills agenda for later life. We need to leave behind the idea that education happens in one place and skills training happens somewhere else. One of the central strategies of the policy for schools is that every 14 to 16-year-old—irrespective of academic ability—should have the opportunity to spend one or two days on vocational courses in a further education college or with a training provider.
If youngsters choose to study vocational courses off a school site, in an FE college or with an employer—and I hope that many do—the issue of funding transfers increases in importance. Once school budgets are constrained—as at present, for whatever reason—head teachers are reluctant to invest resources in such transfers. As a former practitioner, I can confirm that that is an issue that the Minister must address. One particular problem is transport costs for youngsters moving from site to site, because it is not desirable for
564
those costs to fall on the school directly or on the individuals. Unless we can increase what is offered to young people aged 14 or over in schools and colleges, we will continue to go down separate roads. I know from my constituency experience how difficult it is to get parents out of the mindset that their children go to school and then automatically on to university.
The Liberal Democrats have championed the importance of the schools agenda and we have been at pains to point that out to the Minister. We recognise the huge challenge that the Government face in getting the national skills strategy right. Last month, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills introduced the skills agenda as part of the Budget debate, and I set out a Liberal Democrat critique of the progress report. Today, I wish to build on those comments and describe what the Government must do to bridge the gap between the thinking set out in the progress report and the action that must be outlined in the national skills strategy in June. Given that the Government—especially the DES—are so fond of tests, I decided to set them some, and thought that five would be the right number.
The first test is to create a national education and skills strategy, rather than a stand-alone skills strategy. I accept that the focus on skills has added sharpness to the overall debate, but there is still a danger that the Government will create a new rigid, horizontal silo, comprising the vocational element for 14 to 16-yearolds, 16 to 19-year-olds, FE, higher education and adult learning, without bringing any of those aspects together. Such a system would prevent individuals from moving from the vocational into the academic route. We need to create a scaffold rather than separate ladders, otherwise we shall perpetuate the education and skills divide instead of breaking it down. Integration is the key.
The foundation of an integrated education and skills system is a qualifications framework—a point emphasised by the Minister in his opening remarks. However, such a framework must facilitate movement between academic and vocational pathways. At present, we do not have that. We nearly achieved it with the GNVQ system, which was working well. However, if that system is to be abandoned we need a new framework to replace it.
The Liberal Democrats want a unit-based credit accumulation system as part and parcel of the framework, which would allow education and skills training to be broken down into small units, thus enabling the two to be brought together. The creation of a national education and skills strategy should be based on an understanding of the strategic role of further education colleges. We all try constantly to emphasise that point. However, if colleges are to fulfil their role, their funding and their mission must be secure. When I talk to the Association of Colleges and to the principals of individual colleges, it worries me that they seem to be being squeezed out. The Learning and Skills Council will not talk to them about growth and expansion, and there is a genuine fear in colleges that, unless they produce courses that form part of the national skills strategy programme, they will not receive funding and will have to take a separate road and charge full fees for the courses that they offer. That is a genuine worry in colleges and for people who are interested in adult education more generally.

565
The second test for the Government is to develop clear progression routes for individuals. The national skills strategy will need to explain how young people with different types of level 3 qualification can progress to higher education. To be blunt, the DES ministerial team seem divided. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education seem most fond of a progression route that involves increased achievement at GCSE, with five-plus subjects at that level, increased achievement of two A-levels, and then straight to university. That is a very traditional model.
The higher education White Paper, however, states that future HE expansion will take the form of foundation degrees rather than honours degrees. We support the Government in that vision—as, I think, do the Conservative Opposition. However, that gives rise to the question: why should bright 17-year-olds who stay on at school to gain two A-levels opt for a foundation degree rather than an honours degree? That is a skills mismatch if ever I saw one.
By contrast, the Minister who opened the debate believes that young people with advanced modern apprenticeships should be able to progress to a foundation degree. I support him in that aspiration. We should pursue it. However, the key question is whether such study should be full or part-time. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I put to the Secretary of State during the Budget debate: does he really think that an apprentice who has a job and a career will swap them for an income-contingent loan for living costs, and perhaps tuition fees, to study for a full-time foundation degree? The answer is that people will not do that. The vast majority of foundation degrees will be studied part-time. We must encourage people to combine their full-time job with a part-time foundation degree. That is the route forward.
The big black hole in the HE White Paper, as the Secretary of State has now conceded to the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, is the issue of part-time higher education. I put it to the Minister that it cannot be right that part-time higher education students are charged upfront market-based fees when the Government are introducing a system of deferred, regulated fees for higher education students. Part-time higher education might be an irrelevance to the higher education White Paper, but it cannot be to the national skills strategy. We are not talking here purely about low-level skills.
The third test is the introduction of a fairly coherent system of financial support for adults in higher and further education. We have made it quite clear that we believe in free tuition for all adults wishing to achieve a "first" level 2, a "first" level 3 or a "first" level 4 qualification. That means abolishing fees for part-time and full-time HE students and for part-time and full-time foundation degrees.
The Liberal Democrats have been at the front of the campaign to abolish tuition fees, and although we welcome the Tory U-turn this week, I suspect that the Tories' conversion is more to do with vote catching than principle. [Interruption.] I am glad that that raised a response.
We welcome the proposals in the progress report for free "tuition and training" for adults of working age without a "first" level 2, but we expect the Government
566
to assist all adults to achieve a "first" level 2 qualification. The Campaign for Learning has pointed out that in percentage terms the largest group who do not hold a "first" level 2 are economically inactive. Of the 8 million who were recorded as economically inactive in 2002, 4 million did not have a level 2 qualification.
However, tuition and training costs are only part of the financial barriers faced by young and mature adults wishing to enter HE and FE. There is also the question of support for living, study and travel costs, and it cannot be right for the Government to spend in excess of £2 billion a year on the living costs for full-time undergraduates but barely a tenth of that for adults wishing to study part—time in FE. The time has come for a comprehensive system of living cost support for full-time students wherever they are and for part-time students wherever they are, and we trust that the level of support will be the same as that for full-time HE students.
The time has also come for a comprehensive system of financial support for both FE and HE part-time students, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that education maintenance allowances will be extended to part-time adult students in FE, and say whether he will consider such a scheme for part-time students in HE also, because the education maintenance allowances may well be the basis for cracking this very difficult problem.
The Minister has repeatedly told the House that the national skills strategy will be truly Governmentwide, so this is our fourth test, although I am tempted to say that the DES must make a better job of joining itself up before turning on the rest of Whitehall. The progress report does not inspire confidence. I see only limited links with the Department of Health—and the national health service, even though that is the largest employer in Europe. It is astonishing that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is completely omitted from the progress report. Local authorities are often the largest employers in local communities. They, too, have skill needs to deliver world-class services. The progress report also states that one of the key drivers of skills development is physical investment, yet the progress report contains no links to the housing agenda or the regeneration agenda.
We had been led to believe that two Departments would feature highly in the national skills strategy: the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, yet the former has no input in the progress report, although this week the Minister for Work signed an accord between Jobcentre Plus and the Local Government Association to join up welfare-to-work and regeneration policy. Again the Learning and Skills Council and the national skills strategy feature nowhere.
With regard to the Department of Trade and Industry, the progress report is half-hearted. It rightly makes the link between the DTI's innovation and business support responsibility and the national skills strategy, but innovation and business support are only a tiny part of the DTI's responsibility. It also has responsibility for employment rights, yet the progress report says nothing about the national minimum wage and employer training and it shies away from the issue of collective rights over training.

567
The TUC points out in its response to the progress report that there is no reference to the DTI review in the Employment Relations Act 1999 or to whether training should be placed on the bargaining agenda alongside hours, holidays and pay. I understand that the Government have ruled out placing training on the bargaining agenda, but the national skills strategy will need to offer a full and frank explanation of why.
The last test for the Government is to clarify where they stand on the statutory intervention in skills. At the progress report's launch, the chief economic adviser to the Treasury said that Government policy was
"moving to a post-voluntary approach 10 skills training."
Two weeks later, in his Budget speech, although not in the Budget report, the Chancellor said:
"Because nobody wishes Britain to compete on the basis of low pay but on high skills, the right to education to 16 must be complemented by the right to lifelong learning".—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 282.]
Those two phrases, not the rest of the progress report, have captured the attention of the CBI and the TUC. What do they mean? Is the Financial Times accurate in its assessment that a statutory right to time off for training will be a key Government proposal? If so, we will support the Government on that proposal, because such intervention is needed to make all this a reality.
Those are the five tests that we would like to be addressed. We believe that the Government have made an admirable start in producing a national strategy, and we wish the Minister good fortune in June, when he introduces the final report.
6.41 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I shall be very brief. I often follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in debates, and he never is, but I shall take five minutes at the most. I wish that his speeches were shorter, but he does make good sense on some topics. I regret the fact that not one Opposition Member is sitting behind the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen today, but I suppose that that signals a great deal about the balance of their interest in higher education and further education.
This is a serious issue. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, may I say that the Minister knows that we will be looking with great interest at his national skills strategy when it is published in June, not only because that is our job as a scrutiny Committee but because a hell of a lot of money—billions of pounds—is poured into skills, and many of us believe that the Treasury money that we put into that sector probably provides less added value than the money that we put into many other education sectors.
We have every expectation that the improvements at pre-school and primary school level and in literacy and numeracy and much else will help as they move through the system, but there are not only skeletons but many hulks in the history of skills education—organisations that we came to know, and some of us quite liked them. We remember the Manpower Services Commission, the training and enterprise councils, the industrial training organisations and the national training organisations,
568
which are almost gone, but not quite. We are now trying to learn to work with, and even love, the new bodies that are coming along.
The fact is that we have two challenges in this country, with the dreadful under-performance of a significant tail of our population. Those people are under-skilled and challenged in what they can achieve in their personal lives, as well as in their productive, working lives—the two must go together. As someone who used to teach not only in a university but in extramural education, I know how wonderful it is when someone comes to education later and gains skills and education. Not only their ability to earn money changes, but they themselves change, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.
There is also shocking under-performance in this country's productivity. Many of us believe that we must attend to the skills, innovation and productivity circle in terms of what we do with the under-skilled people in our country. We will be considering the history and the cost in that regard, and I warn the Minister again that we need not just a new structure but the energy to make it work.
At some stage, many people, as in much of the educational world, will want a period of stability in which things settle and they get used to the institutions in which they are supposed to work. Let us determine the skills strategy and let the institutions know that they have a reasonable future and reasonable longevity.
This is the most difficult area. It will not be easy, and there will not be quick fixes. I emphasise this to the Minister: many people teaching in our colleges are on short-term contracts and have less training and less background in their subject, they are on lower pay, school teachers are earning much more than them, and many opportunities exist to go out and earn a much better living as a plumber, an electrician or an IT expert.
Lastly, the quality of the courses offered is vital. There is nothing worse than getting young people to stay on at school, or getting people to come back to college, and then giving them poor, under-resourced and poorly taught courses. There must be quality "It's quality, stupid"—whether in higher education, primary education or the further education sector.
6.47 pm
Clive Efford: I shall be brief to allow other Members to speak. Talking at speed is something that I learned in my former life.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. One of the things that I want to stress is the need to be flexible to meet varying needs and demands. I want to draw attention to some examples of excellent work going on in and around my constituency.
Last year, I gave out awards at the end-of-year ceremony at the Greenacres primary school in my constituency. I gave awards not just to the children but to their parents, who had been attending a family learning centre in the school. That centre was set up on the initiative of the school. The biggest resource that had been put into it was the school's time and effort in getting it set up—it had to beg, borrow and steal to finance it. It works in co-operation with local further education colleges, mainly Greenwich community

569
college, and provides basic numeracy and literacy skills and teaching for parents in how to help their children in GCSEs and other aspects of their education.
I have spoken to some of the parents who attended that centre, and they talked about wanting to fill the gaps in their education. They also talked about wanting to learn skills so that when their children go on to secondary school they have improved their employability. The school recognises the role that it can play in the local community by improving the education of adults in the local estate, and we need flexibility in the funding stream so that we can support that work and allow more schools to move into it. Alderwood school is now trying to follow suit and do exactly the same thing. It has already put its own money into setting up computer suites so that parents can come in and do the same work. Neighbourhood renewal money is provided for both schools, and both are working closely with the community college, as I said.
The other scheme to which I want to draw attention is the unique and innovative project set up by Greenwich community college, based at Charlton Athletic football club: the London leisure college. It is providing skills and training not just to local people but to the work force of Charlton Athletic, 400 of whose stewards are receiving health and safety training, first aid training and training in other basic skills. It has attracted the attention of Anschutz, which is one of the partners in the development of the peninsula and one of the primary leisure companies in the world, and will be running the millennium dome in the future. It wants to become a partner with the London leisure college to provide education, training and skills to its future staff—it plans to employ 500 at the centre.
Greenwich community college secured beacon status for London leisure college, based at Charlton Athletic. It works in partnership with Greenwich Leisure Ltd. and has played a significant part in the massive and rapid expansion of the business's operation by being flexible and meeting the business's varying demands for staff training. The fact that the project is based at Charlton Athletic means that sport can be used to attract people into education. Such people, especially young people, were excluded from school in the past and did not have a positive educational experience, but the popularity of sport is now attracting them to undertake basic skills training.
Flexibility is required to meet various needs. Further education colleges can adapt to meet the needs of businesses that want skills and education training and to support grass-roots initiatives such as those at primary schools.
6.51 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: I shall try to be equally as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford).
Further education colleges can and should be at the heart of the Government's skills strategy. Burton college, in my constituency, provides an outstanding service for young people, adults and employers
570
throughout east Staffordshire and neighbouring parts of Derbyshire. It has approximately 12,000 students, of whom 9,000 are on further education programmes, 940 are on adult and community education courses and 450 are in higher education. The college made a significant contribution to achie ving Government targets because more than 3,000 students progressed to level 3, half of whom were young people. Basic skills programmes were completed by 820 adults.
Burton college is especially proud of its long-standing and well-regarded services to employers. That has been nationally acknowledged and the college will form one of the case studies for best practice that Ecotec is developing. The college supported the Government's skills agenda and the Local economy by delivering a wide range of programmes designed to meet the specific needs of more than 250 local employers. The business development team at Burton college is proactive in its work with local businesses and creates opportunities for training intervention in individual businesses and across sectors.
The college has worked with large local companies to develop bespoke training for graduate recruits and to design an HND course to enable progression to middle management. It has also provided one-day courses, day-release provision and on-site training.
Local colleges are sufficiently flexible to meet the specific needs of their local economy. Their involvement with local business can bring benefits such as the development of staff so that real examples of industry can be brought to the classroom. They offer learners up-to-date technical knowledge and examples from the workplace, as well as ensuring that training is relevant to employers' needs.
Further education colleges such as Burton college are able to work with their local communities. I welcome the community-based learning projects that have taken the world of education and training to those who may not be initially willing to access courses on the college campus. Burton college also works well with East Staffordshire borough council's economic regeneration unit and is actively involved in partnerships such as the local neighbourhood management initiative. I am sure that the Minister agrees that Burton college makes an outstanding contribution to fulfilling the skills agenda and assisting its region's economic growth.
My hon. Friend will know that colleges are expected to charge employers at least 25 per cent. of the cost of delivering any training funded by the Learning and Skills Council. Will he reassure me that there is no intention to undermine the work of colleges by sponsoring competing provision delivered by private providers through i:he LSC's national contracting service? Will he confirm that national contracting service funding includes the same requirements for employers' contributions and does not create unfair competition? Such unfair competition might cause colleges to lose their long-standing employer customers and thus destabilise the continued provision of training in the area. Will he confirm whether the LSC national contracting service has supported the training of employers in my constituency alongside existing providers and, if so, how that is likely to affect the college's capacity to expand such provision?
6.54 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I want to send one clear message to my hon. Friend the Minister. I commend the Government for at last taking seriously our national weakness in education and training. I think that they have got the message that we have a problem, which they are addressing. It is instructive to examine how we used to deceive ourselves about how well we were doing. We have a talent for national self-deception in our ability to, for example, play football or run railways. We are not good at it, but we think we are. We thought that we were good at education, but we were not.
When Professors Sig Prais and Claus Moser of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research conducted research in the 1980s, they gave 30 electrical apprentices from France and 30 from Britain a simple mathematics test. The French apprentices got all the sums right and the British apprentices got all the sums wrong. There was an enormous difference. A subsequent comparison of kitchen manufacturers was featured in a television documentary. Workers on the shop floor in Germany could calculate, measure and produce a bespoke kitchen from a plan in English. In Britain, the equivalent workers could assembly standardised units and no more. The comparisons were stark. We deceived ourselves then, but things are getting better and I like to think that we will not deceive ourselves in the future.
One of the differences between Germany, France and Britain in those days was the rigour of the teaching. The classroom pedagogy was endless hours of rigorous mathematics. That is difficult and unpopular, but it is necessary. If one is to succeed in such things, one must do mathematics. I used to teach economics and statistics at A-level. One of the basic problems was that the youngsters I taught were not numerate. Many of them did not have good English either. Those problems are being addressed and that will come through in the future.
We must have rigour in the classroom from pedagogic teaching and rigour in practical skills. I should like to say much more, but that will have to suffice.
6.56 pm
Mr. Ivan Lewis: With the permission of the House, I shall do my best to respond to the contributions, but it is unlikely that I will get through them all. If that is the case, I shall write to those hon. Members whom I do not mention.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made the valid point that we must not simply have a collection of existing initiatives and that we need a step change in our approach to skills. He made the Conservative party's proposal on higher education a big part of his contribution. Its policy will deny universities the significant income that they need and cap the aspirations of many young people. When the announcement was made, we heard that the money would be used to invest in vocational education and training, the implication being that money for university
572
graduates would come from a different pot because they are a different cohort of young people from those who take vocational courses. That is not the message that we should send.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) made an extremely good point about the positive contribution of trade unions. They have been incredibly effective, especially in respect of the trade union learning fund and the individual learning account intermediary. This is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the work of John Monks at the TUC, who adopted a progressive and positive view of skills. He will soon move on to his new job and I have every confidence that Brendon Barber will adopt a similar approach.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said far too many nice things about my political future. Many people do not know that my in-laws are voters in his constituency, which may influence what he says to me because his seat is so marginal. They have admitted to voting for him from time to time. He made valid points about the importance of the ILA successor scheme, and I agree with him. He said that funding and other organisational arrangements might have a negative effect on the 14 to 16 flexible work-related learning pilots. Those are being evaluated and evidence is emerging about a positive college-school relationship. We will present that evidence to the House.
The hon. Gentleman set five tests for the skills strategy. I expect us to meet all of them with one exception—the provision of finite resources without regard for the financial consequences. No member of the Liberal Democrat Treasury team was in the Chamber to influence his comments. He wants us to fund everything for everyone without regard to the financial consequences. That is why he is such a good Liberal Democrat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will no doubt hold me to account for the skills strategy. He was cynical about our capacity to deliver it in June. We are going to deliver it in June. However, I am not cynical about his capacity to hold me and other Ministers to account on the skills agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) rightly cited examples of good practice in his constituency—Greenacres primary school, Alderwood school, and the work that Greenwich community college and Charlton Athletic are doing. Linking children's education to adult learning is a means of tackling intergenerational underperformance and deprivation. If my hon. Friend can raise aspirations in his communities and get adults learning alongside kids, that is in the best interest of our creating a lifelong learning culture and society and doing something about intergenerational—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES Ordered,
Ordered,
That Mr Derek Foster be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

PETITION

  Pharmacies
  7 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Office of Fair Trading has recommended to the Government proposals that would allow the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions. If the proposals were accepted, many local pharmacies such as Scott's pharmacy of 35 High street, Bromyard, and the Westfield Walk pharmacy, may well be at risk. That could mean that instead of prescriptions being dispensed just a walk away, they would have to be dispensed at a supermarket pharmacy or at an out-of-town shopping centre. I am grateful to Mrs. Janice Lucas, who has collected more than 2,000 signatures, including those relating to the Leominster pharmacy.
  The petition declares:
  We, the undersigned, urge this House to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  And your Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  George Atkinson
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have come to the House to speak on behalf of my constituent, Mr. George Atkinson, whose birthday, incidentally, it is tomorrow, and who will have spent six years, two months and 15 days in prison in Dubai. He is our longest-serving prisoner in the middle east region. I know that not from the answer that I received from the Minister on 5 March at column 1070 W, because he chose to withhold the information on the grounds that it was privileged—on the grounds of privacy; I know it because I was told it by Fair Trials Abroad.
  I owe the House an explanation, because I have raised the matter before. I raised it in Adjournment debates in the House on 12 June 1998 and on 13 January 1999. In those debates I concentrated on my conviction that Mr. Atkinson's conviction was entirely unsound and unjust, and my concern about his arbitrary detention. But that is all water under the bridge. What I owe to the House now is an explanation of why I have been silent these four years. Having raised the matter twice, why have I been silent for so long?
  I have been silent because Ministers told me to shut up. I distinctly remember being given that message clearly by Ministers at meetings—"Be quiet, Mr. Swayne. Leave it all to us. Keep quiet about it, and we'll fix it." We were promised as a quid pro quo for not raising the matter, for not asking parliamentary questions, and for not raising it in the House and outside, that we would be provided with a package of support. People may raise their eyebrows, but I distinctly remember Baroness Symons promising that we would be provided with expertise from the Arabists to assist us in framing the right approaches to the right people. We got nothing. As a consequence of my silence, Mr. Atkinson's release date has come and gone, but I shall return to that shortly.
  As I have been silent for so long, I shall briefly update the House about two events that have taken place in the intervening period. First, those who study these matters may recall—and if they check the record they will find—that Mr. Atkinson was convicted largely on the evidence of one Steven Trutch. That evidence was supplied to the court in Dubai by affidavits, so Mr. Atkinson's lawyers were unable to cross-examine him. Since I raised the matter in the House, Steven Trutch has been convicted and imprisoned in this country for swearing false affidavits. I think that that thoroughly undermines Mr. Atkinson's conviction.
  Equally—it was shameful that I was silent about this, but I stuck with the advice that I was given by the Minister—I was silent when, last year, Mr. Atkinson was taken from his cell and savagely beaten. I asked the Minister about the matter only recently, and he replied on 3 April:
  "During the visit, Mr. Atkinson told our consular staff that some prisoners, including himself, had been beaten during the disturbances at the prison on 30 July 2002, when, we understand, police were called to quell fighting among local prisoners."—[Official Report, 3 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 828W.]

  575
  That might be strictly true, but it creates an impression that is entirely false. Mr. Atkinson was not the victim of getting caught in the crossfire of a riot in a Dubai jail. He was deliberately taken from his cell and beaten by police officers with rubber truncheons. I wonder why. That event took place not long after the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention reminded the Government of Dubai of its opinion 17/1998, which said that Mr. Atkinson had been arbitrarily detained. I wonder whether those two events are connected.
  As a consequence of the opinion that Mr. Atkinson had been arbitrarily detained—this is the only time when the Foreign Office acted with any spunk, if that is a permissible term, during the entire process—the Government presented to the Government of Dubai a note verbale. I recently made an inquiry of the Minister about the note verbale and I received an answer on 12 May. I had asked him what happened and
  "what measures he took to follow up the note verbale."
  He replied:
  "On 4 April 1999 the Government of Dubai replied to the Note stating that they had been in contact with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention … and had received confirmation that UNWGAD had accepted the Dubai Government's clarifications."—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 84W.]
  Apparently, everything is all right, as the working group and the Government of Dubai have agreed. Mr. Atkinson is in prison and it is okay. What a false impression to give. The working group has written to me and told me that its original opinion stands. It has confirmed that opinion in its subsequent opinion 16/2002.
  In trying to pursue the matter, I asked another question of the Minister. Again, he replied on 12 May:
  "We have advised Mr. Atkinson that questions about the application and interpretation of Dubai law should be pursued through his legal representatives."—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 84W.]
  We have pursued the interpretation through legal representatives. Indeed, I now have an opinion from Professor W. M. Ballantyne, QC, the primary jurist with expertise in jurisdictions under Arabic laws. His opinion is that Mr. Atkinson's sentence was completed on 31 August 2001, after his having served four and half years of a six-year sentence and obtaining one quarter of it in remission for good behaviour. That is the learned gentleman's opinion.
  The question arises about whether that remission for good behaviour is discretionary or mandatory. Professor Ballantyne says that article 44 of the relevant law is absolutely clear. Only two conditions have to be met—public safety and good behaviour, for which the Arabic term is "mugim", which literally means "going straight". It is mandatory for all prisoners to have that relief if those two conditions are met.
  The Attorney-General in Dubai argues that an extra six months must be served owing to the non-payment of a fine. Professor Ballantyne has considered that issue, too. Article 302 of the relevant law provides for the maximum of an additional six months, but it is not automatic—it must be the result of a formal process that is properly initiated and notified. The professor concludes that as there was no such notice or formal
  576
  process in the case of Mr. Atkinson, he should have been released on 31 August 2001. Those are the facts. Let us imagine that there was a formal notice procedure whereby Mr. Atkinson was advised, "You haven't paid your fine, so you're going to serve an extra six months." That would take us to 28 February 2002—but Mr. Atkinson is still in prison. The Attorney-General said that Mr. Atkinson should not only get an extra six months for the non-payment of his fine, but lose his remission for good behaviour. We know that that cannot be true, because it would be double jeopardy. Professor Ballantyne is absolutely clear. He says:
  "In my view such a construction is entirely untenable."
  The fact is that the Dubai authorities were working to the assumption, however mistaken, that Mr. Atkinson would receive an additional six months for the nonpayment of his fine. That might be wrong, but it was nevertheless their assumption. Towards the end of February 2002, the prison authorities told him that he had to cough up another smaller fine of £16,000, and that if he paid it he would be released. He therefore paid it. The prison authorities wrote to the Attorney-General in Dubai asking for the return of Mr. Atkinson's passport so that they could release him and deport him. So why is he still in prison?
  Ministers have told me throughout this business that they cannot interfere and have referred me to the interpretation of the law by our legal representatives. The difficulty in dealing with the authorities in Dubai is that they will not respond. On 10 July last year, the Attorney-General wrote to Mr. Atkinson's legal advisers in these ringing terms: "This correspondence is at a close: we are not interested any more." For 10 months, we have had no communications because they simply do not reply; they do not deal; they are not prepared to talk. It is no good the Foreign Office saying, "You've got to talk to legal representatives and sort it out with them", if the other side will not respond.
  Ministers cling to the idea that we cannot interfere, must not get involved, and can do only what is proper in consular terms. That is a load of nonsense, because we do it all the time. I recall that when there was an outrage in Yemen in which a number of British subjects were rounded up, the next day the Secretary of State came to the House and told us that he had been on the phone to his counterpart in Yemen. We continually make representations on behalf of people in prison in Morocco, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Gary Onions came back on 9 May as a result of such action. Why has Mr. Atkinson been left behind? Why should not he have a fair deal? He was a businessman who paid his taxes: why is he not getting the benefit of the protection of the British authorities?
  Dubai—and the United Arab Emirates, of which it forms part—is a friendly nation. We do an enormous amount of trade with Dubai. There are not only formal trading links but a huge amount of social intercourse between our nations. A formal and an informal network could be exploited. Why has that not happened?
  During the six years in which Mr. Atkinson has languished in a foreign jail, how many ministerial visits have been made to Dubai? How many times did Ministers raise Mr. Atkinson's case with their counterparts, as I urged them to do through faxes to their offices whenever I discovered that they were going to Dubai?f

  577
  The position cannot be allowed to continue. A British subject cannot simply be abandoned in that way. It is monstrous and an outrage.
  7.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for raising the case of George Atkinson, a British citizen who is imprisoned in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates for financial crimes. I note that the hon. Gentleman has raised the case on at least two previous occasions, in June 1998 and January 1999. I appreciate his continued interest. We, too, are interested in it. I am sure that Mr. Atkinson, his wife, family and friends are also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's commitment.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through its consular staff in Dubai and London, is similarly committed to providing all the appropriate consular assistance to Mr. Atkinson. He is allowed to call our embassy almost daily and, as his family knows, our staff visit regularly to ensure his welfare and discuss aspects of his case. Our consular officers visited Mr. Atkinson most recently on 7 April. They confirmed that he is in good health. Another visit is planned for the end of this month.
  Mr. Atkinson completed a six-year sentence in Dubai for financial crimes on 28 February 2003. However, in accordance with Dubai law, he is now serving an additional six months for non-payment of fines.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: On this one occasion.
  Mr. Swayne: That is very generous. Given that I secured the debate, I wonder that the Minister is prepared to give way only once. Does he claim that his interpretation is correct and that Professor Ballantyne is mistaken?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to Professor Ballantyne shortly. I said that I would give way only once because the hon. Gentleman knows that the time is normally divided, and I have much to say. He has made allegations, some of which I find dubious to say the least—
  Mr. Swayne: Is the Minister questioning my honour?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I ask the Minister to continue.
  Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's honour but his hyperbole and theatrics.
  The Dubai authorities have informed Mr. Atkinson's lawyers and the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention, to which I shall refer later, that he can expect to be released on 1 September 2003.
  As well as receiving a custodial sentence, Mr. Atkinson was ordered to pay a fine of 7,720,322 dirham, which is approximately £1.5 million, and a compensation amount of 99,822 dirham, which is
  578
  approximately £19,964. After contacts in 2001 between the director of the ruler's court and a British lawyer acting on his behalf, Mr. Atkinson signed a letter to the ruler acknowledging his guilt, apologising for it, and commenting on his financial situation.
  However, the letter did not appear to give a full and detailed schedule of assets to show why Mr. Atkinson could not pay the fines. That omission appears to be crucial in the eyes of the Dubai authorities.
  Early in 2002, Mr Atkinson paid the £19,964 compensation. In the light of that, his solicitors, family and friends believe that he should have been released after having served three quarters of his sentence, as can be the case under UAE law. Mr. Atkinson shares that belief. However, I am told that, under UAE law, the decision to release a prisoner early is at the discretion of Dubai's Attorney-General and not automatic. The Attorney-General appears to have refused to exercise his discretion in this case.
  In 2001, the Dubai ruler's court told Mr. Atkinson's solicitors their legal position. It explained that, by refusing to pay the fine in full or demonstrating why he was unable to do so, Mr. Atkinson should expect to serve his full sentence plus another six months. In July 2001, the Dubai Attorney-General visited Mr. Atkinson in prison, a month before he expected to become eligible for parole, to reiterate the Dubai authorities' known position. The ruler's court repeated this advice in a letter to Mr. Atkinson's UK solicitors in May 2002, and also in its recent letter to the UN working group on arbitrary detention on 9 November 2002, a copy of which was also sent to Mr. Atkinson's lawyers. I am told that FCO officials understand that Mr. Atkinson's lawyers have not acted on the advice of the ruler's court, and have not instructed local UAE lawyers to take this matter forward. If that situation has changed, I would be interested to know about it.
  On 31 May 2002, our consul general wrote to Mr. Atkinson's lawyers, advising them of the need to take advice from a Dubai-based lawyer, and offering to provide a list of local lawyers. I am told that, to date, this offer has not been taken up. On 7 April this year, Mr. Atkinson's new UK solicitors wrote to the director of the Dubai ruler's court. They explained to the ruler's court why they thought that Mr. Atkinson should have been released early, after serving three quarters of his sentence. They also enclosed an opinion by a legal expert, Professor Ballantyne, expanding on this belief and citing relevant UAE laws. The Dubai ruler's court replied on 11 May, explaining that it maintained its position that
  "by refusing to pay the fine or demonstrating why he is unable to do so, Mr. Atkinson must serve his full sentence plus another six months."
  Our advice remains that the questions asked by Mr. Atkinson have to be addressed within the UAE legal system—not the ruler's court—by an appointed UAE lawyer.
  As I have said, we continue to provide all appropriate consular assistance to Mr. Atkinson. However, I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman of what he was told my one of my predecessors in the Adjournment debate on 13 January 1999. He was told:
  "it is not the role and responsibility of the Foreign Office to act as lawyers in court."—[Official Report, 13 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 285.]

  579
  Nevertheless, in line with our consular responsibilities, our consul general in Dubai raised Mr. Atkinson's case when he called on the Dubai ruler's court on 19 January. The ruler's court reiterated Dubai's previously stated position that Mr. Atkinson could expect to be released at midday on 1 September 2003.
  On 1 March 2003, our vice-consul met the head of the prison's public relations department to discuss the case. The official confirmed that Mr. Atkinson would have to serve an additional six months from his release date, as he had not paid the court fines in full. He told us that the jail administration had written to the Dubai public prosecutor in mid-December 2002 to advise them of the completion of sentence. The prison authorities, however, had not received any instructions from them to release Mr. Atkinson on 28 February. Our Embassy followed up this information with the public prosecutor's office and received confirmation of the procedure.
  The hon. Gentleman has tabled 12 parliamentary questions concerning Mr. Atkinson's case over recent weeks. The hon. Gentleman is not known for his silence. Indeed, he has demonstrated his capacity for holding court and commanding the House with his oratory today. I will talk to my right hon. Friend about the hon. Gentleman's comments that he was asked to be silent. As far as officials are concerned, they tell me that they are not aware that this was said, but the hon. Gentleman is an honourable Gentleman, and if he says that that was said, obviously I shall take that at face value and inquire with my colleagues. So far as I am concerned, I have certainly made no such suggestion to him, and would not seek to do so.
  A number of questions have been asked very publicly in recent months, and a number of those in turn raised questions about the stance of the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention in the case of Mr. Atkinson. As the hon. Gentleman said, the group investigates cases of individuals who have allegedly been detained either arbitrarily or in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the universal declaration of human rights or those of UN human rights treaties. It does that by seeking information confidentially about details of the detentions from Governments, nongovernmental organisations or other concerned individuals. It then gives a public but non-binding opinion on each case, issuing recommendations for corrective action to the relevant Governments.
  The working group has been involved twice in Mr. Atkinson's case. Its opinion 17/1998 of 17 September 1998 concluded that he was being detained arbitrarily, and that the Dubai Government should take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. Our embassy in Dubai sent a note verbale to the Dubai Government in November 1998, asking them to implement the working group's opinion. The Dubai Government replied that they had established contact with the group to address the open issues involved in opinion 17/1998. The Dubai authorities last corresponded on 9 November 2002 with Mr. Louis Joinet, then chairman of the UN working group. We have been made aware that there have been more contacts recently.
  580
  In paragraph 18 of its second opinion, 16/2002 of 29 November 2002, the working group concluded:
  "With regard to the present period of detention, dating from 14 December 1999, the Working Group considers that it does not have sufficient information to give an opinion on whether or not the continued detention is of an arbitrary nature, which would involve interpreting a domestic regulation on the granting of early release".

  The hon. Gentleman interpreted Foreign Office comments on that as somehow suggesting that we think it all right for Mr. Atkinson to be detained. That is complete nonsense, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We continue to provide consular assistance, although, as I have said, we cannot act as the lawyer of someone who has been detained. That is not a role that the Foreign Office adopts.
  The working group went on to say:
  "Since 14 December 1999 (Day of sentencing) not enough elements were found to state the arbitrary character or not of the detention."
  That is the view that we currently have from the group. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have repeatedly advised Mr. Atkinson that a local lawyer would be best placed to address the issues that the group raised, within the Dubai legal system.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, a letter-writing campaign on Mr. Atkinson's behalf is under way. Since mid-April, 65 supporters have submitted a template letter to the Foreign Secretary expressing their
  "deep dissatisfaction with the way in which the case of George Atkinson has been handled and continues to be handled by your office".
  The letter raises two points. It cites the opinion of Professor Ballantyne that Mr. Atkinson should have benefited from an early release according to Dubai law, and it points out that the UN working group's opinion of 29 November 2002 endorsed its opinion 17/1998.
  I have to say that that interpretation of the working group's recent opinion is, to say the least, not complete. Indeed, it is somewhat unfortunate. Although the working group upholds its previous opinion that Mr. Atkinson was arbitrarily detained until his sentencing on 13 December 1999, the thrust of the latest opinion is that the group cannot confirm whether he has been arbitrarily detained since 14 December 1999. The group states that it does not have enough information to give an opinion on that aspect.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, our opinion is very clear. We think that the matter must be taken up in the UAE legal system, and we are prepared to provide a list of lawyers capable of dealing with it. No doubt Professor Ballantyne is a wonderful lawyer. I am a lawyer myself, and I must say that whenever I had to deal with a case in another country I got hold of a lawyer who knew and was involved in the law in that country, who would be able to operate in the system there, who knew the individuals concerned, and who would ensure that I was properly briefing someone who knew exactly what he was doing. I do not wish to undermine the professor's academic qualifications—I am sure that they are excellent—but local knowledge does help. That is why we have consistently said that that is the way in which to approach this issue.
  The hon. Gentleman knows our position. We have often stated that the application of Dubai law is a matter for the Dubai legal system. An external approach could

  581
  not translate into local legal results. The idea that we can wave a political wand is pure nonsense, and to hold out that hope to the family is unfortunate. The Foreign Office is not prepared to engage in a political game. We must deal with reality and treat the law seriously. Mr. Atkinson's detention is a serious matter, and that is how
  582
  we have treated it and how we will continue to treat it. I very much hope that the family can seek Mr. Atkinson's release using the proper legal procedures in Dubai.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Human Rights Commission
[Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 67-I and HC 489-I.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
2.30 pm
Jean Corston: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I have the privilege to be Chair, into the case for a human rights commission.
I shall preface my remarks with an explanation of why Committee members are today a little thin on the ground. Two of my colleagues are unable to be present, and I want to explain why. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has an affliction of which most of us have been aware in that she has lost her voice. She wanted to take part in the debate, but will be unable to do so. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has just become a grandfather and has gone to see the baby. We would all agree that it is a proper use of his time to go to see a new addition to his family, although he would have liked to be present to support the Committee's report.
The origin of the inquiry was the 1998 Government White Paper entitled "Rights Brought Home", which said:
"The Government's priority is implementation of its Manifesto commitment to give further effect to the Convention rights in domestic law … Establishment of a new Human Rights Commission is not central to that objective.
The Government's conclusion is that, before a Human Rights Commission could be established … more consideration needs to be given to how it would work … and there needs to be a greater degree of consensus on an appropriate model among existing human rights bodies.
However, the Government has not closed its mind to the idea of a new Human Rights Commission at some stage in the future in the light of practical experience of the working of the new legislation. If Parliament establishes a Committee on Human Rights, one of its main tasks might be to conduct an inquiry into whether a Human Rights Commission is needed and how it should operate. The Government would want to give full weight to the Committee's report in considering whether to create a statutory Human Rights Commission in future."
After our Committee was established in January 2001, one of our first decisions was to rise to that challenge and launch the inquiry. The Committee was renewed after the general election, and we reported in March 2003. The Committee probably set a record, as its report probably had less attention from the media than any Select Committee report that I can think of. That is because, through an accident of timing, we published the day after Parliament voted to take military action in Iraq.
The inquiry took nearly two years, and we amassed a great deal of written evidence. Most of it was printed in our interim report, which was published in September
140WH
2002. We visited Auckland, Belfast, Canberra, Cardiff, Edinburgh, New Delhi, Sydney and Wellington in the course of the inquiry and took extensive oral evidence. Overall, we visited the devolved institutions and countries in the Commonwealth jurisdiction that have human rights commissions. We were particularly helped by the report of the British Institute of Human Rights, entitled, "Something for Everyone", which was funded by Comic Relief. We express our thanks to all concerned.
There is often talk about a culture of respect for human rights. It is important to discuss what that means. Human rights are not only about offering those in other countries protection from the worst excesses of anti-democratic and despotic regimes. Nor, despite occasional spats between judges and ministers, is the Human Rights Act 1998 the concern only of those in this country who are fundamentally at odds with society, or, to quote Richard Littlejohn in The Sun,
"a charter for terrorists, violent criminals, drug dealers, nonces, assorted troublemakers and chancers."
Human rights can be violated every day. The right to be free of degrading treatment is fundamentally disregarded when, to suit the convenience of staff, old people in a residential home are fed their breakfast while sitting on a commode, or when a terminally ill patient is denied appropriate pain relief. The right to a private life and a family life is breached when children in care are kept hundreds of miles from their siblings, or when an elderly man is left naked in public while undergoing medical procedures.
The right to life is violated by the indiscriminate use of do-not-resuscitate orders in the health system, or where traveller children have a mortality rate 10 times that of those in the settled community. The right to marry and found a family may be unfairly breached when adults with learning disabilities are indiscriminately forbidden to form intimate relationships. The right to education may be systematically denied to children from particular backgrounds who are disproportionately subject to exclusions, or where a school fails to protect a child from bullying.
The right to a fair hearing, or to receive and impart information, may be unjustifiably denied to people suffering from mental illness. Rights may be breached when a deaf person is denied an interpreter or is interviewed by someone who fails to recognise their needs. The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions may be threatened if those entitled to state benefits are treated without respect or concern for their individual circumstances. The rights of carers to a family life may be breached by the decisions of social services providers.
When the Government introduced their proposals to bring rights home by incorporating the European convention on human rights in United Kingdom law, they hoped that that would help to nurture what was described as a culture of understanding of rights and responsibilities in our society, and not simply provide remedies in the courts for individual victims for breaches of their rights.
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Lady has read out a list of matters relating to people's relationships to

141WH
one another and to public authorities that are of obvious concern. Will she explain to what extent domestic legislation could provide those remedies?
Jean Corston: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall come to that point later. I shall say simply that the illustrations that I gave are not hypothetical but were given in the report of the British Institute of Human Rights.
We know that the UK is not prone to gross violations of people's rights. We are relatively lucky. However, the transformation that it was hoped the Human Rights Act would bring about has not yet happened. The state and its representatives are required not only to avoid breaching those rights, but to take active steps to enhance people's capacity to take advantage of their rights. A culture of respect for human rights would give full recognition to that positive concept of rights. The key to making that a reality lies in creating a culture in public life in which those fundamental principles are seen as central to the design and delivery of policy, legislation and public services. It is not simply a burden on the state to create such a culture of respect for human rights: we all need to understand our obligations to uphold the rights of others, including the rights of those who work for public authorities. In such a culture, individuals would understand not only that they enjoy certain rights as an affirmation of their equal dignity and worth, but that this sense of individual worth should go with a sense of personal responsibility and social obligation. A culture of respect for human rights would create a climate in which such respect became an integral part of the state's dealing with us, our dealings with the public authorities and our dealings with one another other.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that the development of a culture of respect for human rights could help to create a more humane society, a more responsive Government and better public services. It could, we believe, help to deepen and widen democracy. We share with the Government a belief that it is a goal worth striving for.
Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the human rights in the convention are sometimes contradictory, in terms of different people exercising their rights, and that a greater understanding of the totality of the convention would also lead to a greater emphasis on people's responsibilities to others as well as their rights?
Jean Corston: I entirely agree. Indeed, I will address those issues later. While establishing the case for a commission we had to ask ourselves as a Committee whether human rights meant anything for ordinary people in Britain. As I said to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the examples of breaches of rights are not hypothetical. Most of them come from the report of the British Institute of Human Rights, which was designed to contribute to our examination of whether there was a need for a human rights commission. As the interviewee who gave the BIHR the title for its report put it, it set out to ask whether human rights could be
"something for everyone, for the good of the people."
142WH
The Joint Committee concluded that the Human Rights Act has not yet fulfilled its potential to be an agent for positive change in our society. We recognise that the Government are making some progress in trying to establish this positive change through the introduction of citizenship education in secondary schools, which started last September and which we hope will lead to more responsibility and understanding among young people as they embark on adult life.
The Committee believes that more work needs to be done to promote human rights as a set of fundamental ethical standards for the way the state treats its citizens and for all our social relations. Over the past two years, the Committee has been examining what has been happening outside the courts since the Human Rights Act became law, and we have found little evidence of the development of the culture of respect for human rights that the Government were aiming for. We asked why there seemed to be a failure to recognise the part that human rights could play in promoting social justice and social inclusion and in the drive to improve public services, despite the sterling efforts of the Lord Chancellor's Department to get this message across to public authorities.
We found widespread evidence of a lack of positive respect for the human rights of those who use public services, especially those who are most vulnerable and in need of protection. We also found that public authorities, such as local councils and hospitals, do not put respect for human rights at the heart of their policies and practices. They all try to do enough to avoid litigation, but not enough of them try to do more. However, the Committee does not conclude that that is a result of deliberate neglect for the most part. It is a result of a lack of leadership and a lack of help. There is not enough of a vision or an administrative framework and guidance reaching public authorities to tell them how a culture of respect for human rights might look or how it can be delivered. Our conclusion is that human rights, too, need a home and an independent champion.
The role of that champion would be to encourage a respect for human rights among public authorities as a matter of best practice rather than risk avoidance. It would promote an understanding that human rights principles provide a framework within which vulnerable and disadvantaged people can negotiate with public authorities for better conditions and treatment. It would conduct inquiries into systemic problems and encourage mediation in situations of conflict, participate in public debate and be a beacon and rallying point for the defence of human rights values when commitment to those was weak or under attack, whether from within Government or without. There is a compelling need for a commission with sufficient powers and independence from Government to promote and protect human rights in the United Kingdom. No competent Government need fear having a human rights commission. It can be a great asset.
I shall give two examples that I learned about when our inquiry was already under way. When there was communal violence in Gujarat, the Indian Government sent the chairman of the Indian Human Rights Commission there to conduct an investigation and to report to Parliament. When we had similar problems in Burnley, we had no such mechanism, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), then a

143WH
Home Office Minister, was sent to report. I have the greatest respect for her commitment and expertise, but she had many other responsibilities in the Home Office. In addition, because her inquiry was conducted in the full spotlight of politics, under which people expect instant reports and instant solutions, she was hidebound in ways that would not have applied to an independent body, which would have been in a position to take its time, to examine the causes and to make recommendations to Parliament in due course.
When we were in New Zealand, I was told that some difficulty had been encountered in the assimilation of asylum seekers of a certain race in relation to the Maori population. I asked the chair of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission what action had been taken, and was told, as if it were the most obvious thing in the world, that the commission mediation service had been sent to deal with it. When the identical situation occurred in my constituency, which experienced conflict between two racial groups, one comprising asylum seekers, the police had to be called. It was not a good way of dealing with a situation that involved people who had to live cheek by jowl every day.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Lady's comments have prompted two questions to occur to me. She mentions a commission's powers and independence from Government. On the basis that it: is intended to be a statutory arrangement, does she have in mind any powers of enforcement? If so, what kind, including penalties? The other question is about the use of the word victim under the convention and the Act. Has she thought about the enforceability of class actions?
Jean Corston: The report, as the hon. Gentleman will know, refers to some of those issues. We are conscious of the fact that the Committee's priority is to make the case for the commission. We have subsequently embarked on further consultation with interested groups about the kinds of powers that the commission should have. However, we are in cross-party agreement that the main jobs of the Committee are the matters to which I have referred: the promotion of a culture of respect for human rights, inquiries and mediation support. The definition of a victim was not something to which we gave particular consideration.
Halfway through our inquiry, the Government announced their decision in principle to wind up the three existing equality commissions dealing with discrimination on grounds of gender, race and disability, and to create a new single equality body that will cover discrimination on grounds of age, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Although at first glance that might look like a separate project from the one we have been examining, the two are closely related. The right to equal treatment is a fundamental human right, and the right to enjoy other rights without discrimination is also a core human right.
We made it clear in our interim report last September that we did not believe it would be either intellectually coherent or practically effective to try to resolve the issue of the single equality body without resolving the issue of a human rights commission. In October 2002, the next
144WH
consultation paper from the single equality project was published. It noted the complementary nature of equality and human rights, which it described as being
"reflected in the government's vision of a society based on fair and equal treatment for all and respect for the dignity and value of each person".
It went on to note the historical distinction between the focus of human rights on fundamental civil and political rights, designed to safeguard individuals in their relationship with the state, and the focus of equality legislation on social and economic protection, in particular protection from discrimination in employment and in the provision of education, goods and services. It also recognised that discrimination law is beginning to go beyond regulating relationships between individuals. For example, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 placed obligations on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for all races across the breadth of their activities.
Similarly, one of the Human Rights Act's aims is to drive cultural change, placing obligations on public authorities and increasingly on individuals. In our report, we examined the institutional options for the single equality body and the commission we proposed to promote and protect human rights. Although there are plausible models that separate human rights and equalities institutionally, we concluded that our preferred option was for an integrated human rights and equality commission.
Those who are sceptical of that integrated model fear that it would lead to tension within the institution. It certainly would, but there will in any event be tensions between six equality strands within a single equality body with or without human rights responsibilities. Even without responsibility for human rights protection, the single equality body will find that the rights of the minorities it protects can conflict. The new body, regardless of whether it has responsibility for human rights, will need to develop a culture in which the tensions can be resolved.
On the positive side, with the human rights responsibilities conjoined with the equality functions, using a human rights framework could provide a methodology to enable the differences to be reconciled. Some people fear that an integrated body would simply have too much to do. Any new single equality body faces a formidable challenge. We should also recognise that putting human rights in the mix will be an addition to rather than a multiplication of the challenge. It certainly seemed to work in Australia.
The champions of each of the six equality strands may express fears that their concerns will be the most controversial, least recognised or least popular. There are also concerns that the priorities of the human rights agenda could swamp or marginalise those of the equality agenda within an integrated institution. It is undeniable that a broad human rights remit would bring with it additional competing concerns to be reconciled with scarce resources. At the same time, we should recognise that in practice, while some issues would clearly engage discrimination issues and others would engage human rights issues, many would engage both: for example, an inquiry with an age focus and a human rights dimension; or a human rights inquiry with a strong focus on race, religion and belief.

145WH
The integrated commission may have the ability to adopt a more holistic approach than two separate bodies could, for example, to a situation involving discrimination on grounds of age, systemic failure in services to people with a disability and deprivations of fundamental rights.
The practical question whether to have one or two bodies must, however, be considered alongside our main principled disquiet about both models for two separate commissions. That disquiet is that those models would create an institutional divide between the equality agenda and the wider human rights agenda, weakening the principles of the interdependence and indissolubility of human rights.
Perhaps the strongest argument for bringing the equality body and the human rights body under one roof is that each would gain energy and inspiration from the other. If the focus of the organisation were to be on taking a lead in promoting a culture in Britain that respects the dignity, worth and human rights of all its members with all their differences, that would seem to favour an integrated structure for equality and human rights.
We had to consider the issue of devolution. There are problems to be resolved in matching the Committee's vision to the reality of the devolution settlement. We do not propose to interfere in the current institutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, there will be issues about how to integrate the work of the proposed Scottish human rights commission with the body that we propose.
There are two obvious solutions. One is to establish a separate Scottish equality body. The other is to have a variable geometry, with the human rights and equality commission dealing only with reserved matters in relation to Scotland. It should not be impossible to devise a protocol between the two bodies to ensure comprehensive coverage of human rights issues— coverage that would not be provided by having a human rights commission in Scotland that was a devolved body only.
In Wales, there did not appear to be a strong clamour for a separate human rights body, and it would be difficult to configure one within the devolution settlement. However, there needs to be a distinct Welsh identity within the body we propose, not least because it will have to address the specific cultural rights issues relating to bilingualism.
Mr. David Heath: The issue is the limitations of the powers that are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. England and Wales share a common jurisdiction, and to divide a commission's responsibilities within a single jurisdiction would be a recipe for a great deal of confusion.
Jean Corston: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, in terms of the common jurisdiction. It would also be right to say that, after our visit to Wales, it was clear that it was not a burning issue to the extent that it was in Scotland.
Mr. Cash: I admit to being a little puzzled. Why would the people of Wales not consider the abuses that the hon. Lady described at the beginning of her contribution to be—in her words—a burning issue? The people of one part of the United Kingdom are not so different from the others. If the case that she has put for a human rights commission has any validity, it ought to apply to everybody.
Jean Corston: The Committee is proposing a body for England and Wales; there is going to be a separate body in Scotland; and there is a separate body in Northern Ireland. We were seeking to find a way of accommodating the devolution settlement to create a human rights commission for all the peoples of the United Kingdom, while recognising the difficulties with regard to reserved powers in the various jurisdictions.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government should seize the opportunity to create a human rights and equality commission to emphasise that human rights are for everyone, and that equal treatment and respect for individual dignity are the concern of us all. Building a culture of respect for human rights is an ambitious vision, and there are many barriers to achieving it. The greatest of those is ignorance. In such a culture, people would be better informed about their rights and what those rights would mean in practice. The most vulnerable would be better protected from violations of their human rights. Government and those who work for them would promote and protect human rights standards, and we would treat each other with dignity, fairness and respect. To help to build that culture, we need a human rights commission.
I was fortunate to be assisted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose membership comprises Members of this House and of the other place, cross-party and of no party. We hope that when the Government announce their next round of decisions on the new arrangements for the promotion of equality they will set out clearly their plans for establishing a human rights and equality commission. We want an assurance from the Minister today that the issue will not be dodged.
3 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to have served under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston). We were well served by the Clerks and some of the most distinguished and clever advisers one could imagine. However, I am the author of the minority report. I am grateful for the education that the House provided in nominating me to serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as I begin to understand something about the culture of human rights.
As the Chairman said, the terms of reference of the JCHR are to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom. The fundamental rights to which Parliament has directed our attention are the convention rights as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998, which largely incorporated the European convention on human rights into UK law. However, those convention rights do not provide an exhaustive definition of the international human rights provisions relevant to the United Kingdom. They go far beyond the

147WH
political and civil freedoms that have characterised our sense of liberty and personal autonomy, what the international community refers to as "first-generation human rights".
The UK is a signatory to many international conventions, covenants and other treaties which, although they are not directly justiciable in the United Kingdom courts, or at least at present subject to determination in individual cases by bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, impose certain obligations on the UK Government in international law. By some definitions, there are more than 100 such international instruments relevant to human rights, if the optional additional protocols to various instruments are counted separately. All of those form part of what the JCHR report refers to as the culture of human rights.
In seeking to embrace those second and even third generations of social and economic rights, the Joint Committee is committed to a profound and radical programme that has never been subjected to national or democratic scrutiny. Indeed, the instruments have not even been scrutinised by the Joint Committee itself, nor have they been measured against our existing national law by the Committee. All the obligations have been assumed by the United Kingdom by the exercise of the royal prerogative and, as I said, have not received detailed democratic scrutiny and the legislative endorsement of the House of Commons. Although the instruments have not been incorporated directly into law, and therefore do not give rise to legal rights and obligations that can be directly enforced in the courts of the United Kingdom, like any other treaty they bind the UK as a contracting state in international law subject to any lawful reservations entered by the state.
The fact that no body, with the exception of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the European convention on human rights, can authoritatively adjudicate on the compatibility of the United Kingdom's actions with these instruments does not mean that the rules are not binding. Incompatible action is contrary to international law, but in the absence of an effective judicial remedy, the rules contained in the instruments are examples of what have been called rules of imperfect obligations, that is, rules that are obligatory but breach of which does not attract the imposition of a formal sanction by a judicial body.
However, despite not having been enacted in national law, the instruments are capable of having an impact on the law in the United Kingdom. The effects are broadly similar to those which the European convention on human rights had before it became part of domestic law in the United Kingdom through the Human Rights Act 1998 and the devolution legislation.
So far as it is relevant to the convention on the rights of the child, Lord Bingham described them in the pre-Human Rights Act 1998 period as follows:
"First … where a United Kingdom statute is capable of two interpretations … the courts will presume that Parliament intended to legislate in conformity with the convention and not in conflict with it …
Secondly, if the common law is uncertain, unclear or incomplete, the courts have to make a choice … they will rule, wherever possible, in a manner which conforms with the convention and does not conflict with it.
148WH
Thirdly, when the courts are called upon to construe a domestic statute enacted to fulfil a convention obligation, the courts will ordinarily assume that the statute was intended to be effective to that end …
Fourthly, where the courts have a discretion to exercise … they seek to act in a way which does not violate the convention.
Fifthly, when … courts are called upon to decide what, in a given situation, public policy demands, it has been held to be legitimate that we shall have regard to our international obligations enshrined in the convention as a source of guidance on what British public policy requires."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 1996; Vol. 573, c. 1465–67.]
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend's expert description of the position and statements of Lord Bingham deserves careful attention. Does my hon. Friend accept that irrespective of the general sweep of Lord Bingham's comments, it still remains an absolute that, provided that it is express and unambiguous, the United Kingdom Parliament can legislate inconsistently with the Human Rights Act 1998? Therefore, subject to the question of whether the European constitution will override those arrangements, we can still arrive at decisions that are thought to be expedient and right for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Shepherd: I believe that the courts still maintain the principle of the supremacy of Parliament, so my hon. Friend is right.
To continue the example, the European Court of Human Rights has used the convention on the rights of the child as a guide to the proper interpretation of rights and obligations under the European convention on human rights as they apply to children, and national courts in the UK have followed that example, as they are required by section 2 of the Human Rights Act to take account of the Court's judgments when interpreting convention rights. In doing that, UK courts have the authority of Parliament through the Human Rights Act, but there is no direct parliamentary authority for taking account of treaties in the ways outlined by Lord Bingham.
Furthermore, Parliament has no real power to control the treaty obligations to which the UK subjects itself. The House of Commons Procedure Committee noted in July 2000:
"The power to make treaties is a prerogative power vested in the Crown and exercised on the advice of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in consultation with other Ministers; there is no constitutional requirement for treaties to be laid before or approved by Parliament. While many treaty obligations necessitate the introduction of primary or secondary legislation which must be passed by Parliament, treaties which require no such legislation … or which require only secondary legislation subject to negative resolution … may come into force without any parliamentary debate having taken place."
As is the case with almost all other international agreements to which this country is a signatory—two of the most significant examples being the United Nations charter and the Washington treaty establishing NATO—the UK's ratification of the convention on the rights of the child has never been formally voted on by Parliament.
To sum up the position in national law, the provisions of the convention on the rights of the child do not have the force of those of the European convention on human rights, which have become part of the law in the UK as

149WH
mediated through the Human Rights Act and the devolution legislation. In its concluding observations published on 4 October 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child observed that:
"While noting the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law".
it was
"concerned that the provisions and principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child—which are much broader than those contained in the European Convention—have not yet been incorporated into domestic law."
It encouraged the Government
"to incorporate into domestic law the rights, principles and provisions of the Convention to ensure compliance of all legislation with the Convention"
and
"a more widespread application of the provisions and principles of the Convention in legal and administrative proceedings".
I shall quote what the then Minister with responsibilities for children and young people, the distinguished right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said when the Joint Committee asked him about the prospects of incorporation, because that is at the heart of some of the concerns about the process on which we have embarked. He said:
"In terms of incorporation certainly we are not looking to incorporate the Convention or, indeed, individual elements of it. It is really framed, virtually all of it, in very aspirational language and not in the sort of language that seems easy to put into primary legislation although I think it is possible to point to areas where legislation we have enacted is helping to enact the spirit of the Convention, for example the statutory guidance on listening to young people in schools which is part of last year's Education Act".
Despite the democratic deficit in the ratification process, the Government have assumed obligations under the convention, which include the duty to implement its provisions to the maximum extent possible within the United Kingdom, to publicise those provisions and to make periodic reports on its implementation. In addition, and more importantly, it will undoubtedly have legal effects and be used by the courts like any other treaty in the ways outlined by Lord Bingham.
With treaties in the traditional sphere of international relations, such as the Washington treaty, the lack of a requirement for explicit parliamentary consent may be acceptable, as that conforms to the traditional division of functions between the Executive and the legislature. However, when the same procedure is used for international instruments that will alter the internal law of the UK, or at least affect how the laws are interpreted and applied, that lack of parliamentary consent is no longer acceptable.
Mr. Cash: I shall try to amplify one of the points that my hon. Friend is making. In the context of the proposal, which I understand the Government have acceptable in principle, that the European Union should be endowed with a legal personality in relation to the making of treaties, is my hon. Friend concerned that the arguments that he has advanced, quite correctly, about the manner in which treaties are made in the United
150WH
Kingdom would be considerably stronger if the EU had legal personality and negotiated those treaties in the same fashion?
Mr. Shepherd: In part, my hon. Friend must be right, but the prospective treaty and change in the law to which he has referred will come before Parliament, will be legislated and will be considered according to the democratic accountability process.
I said that the lack of parliamentary consent was no longer acceptable. There is an inbuilt danger that mechanisms and structures designed to protect the broad concept that is called human rights will come into conflict with democracy and accountability. Although there is widespread agreement that a number of fundamental rights should be respected when those rights are expressed in general terms, the real difficulties come with the detailed interpretation of the general principles. That is perhaps the point alluded to by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). When human rights are applied to concrete situations, it is often the case that one person's right is another person's burden, or that a right, if interpreted in a certain way, can impose a serious burden on society as a whole. The interpretation of the scope of human rights often involves political value judgments on which there is legitimate scope for disagreement across the political spectrum or in society.
The question, therefore, is not whether human rights should be protected, but how they should be protected in a way that is compatible with democratic accountability. This country has one of the longest traditions of respecting and upholding fundamental rights and liberties. That tradition has been firmly based on the principle that it is the people's representatives in Parliament who have the primary role of protecting the liberties of the citizen. It can be argued, and I often have, that the way in which Parliament fulfils that task could be improved. However, the problem with hiving off the protection of that culture of rights to courts and bodies such as the proposed human rights commission is that that further weakens the role of Parliament and further detaches decision making in this sphere from accountability to the electorate.
Mr. Kidney: May I put an alternative view to sound the hon. Gentleman out? I have been waiting patiently to hear him argue that we are hiving off a responsibility that parliamentarians should keep for themselves. According to his argument, the courts, by virtue of their rules of interpretation, will apply conventions from outside Parliament, and the Government will approve conventions by treaty, without Parliament's consent. The only people not in the loop will be parliamentarians. Does not he agree that the report envisages the commission producing reports to Parliament and, indeed, to the Committee on which he sits? That will empower parliamentarians to have a greater influence in such matters.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman omitted the one group of people about whom I am concerned. The classes to which he referred exclude the electorate. We are the representatives of the electorate—the people out there, whose passions and opinions are part of the balance of arguments on what are often social issues.

151WH
That is what is fundamentally missing from the construct before us, as I shall explain. That is the burden of my argument.
One aspect of the proposed commission causes particular concern because it links in with the problem of a democratic deficit. It is proposed that the commission would take into account international treaties and agreements, in addition to the ECHR. It would also take account of a wide range of non-treaty materials, such as recommendations or resolutions from international committees and bodies. That is a serious challenge to democratic accountability and undermines the United Kingdom's long-standing constitutional rule that international treaties and agreements are not a source of law in this country, unless and until Parliament approves and gives force to them.
Such international agreements, resolutions and recommendations are not arrived at through a democratic mechanism. Few, if any, have ever been debated or approved by Parliament. In practice, many will not even have been considered and approved by Ministers. The details will be known only to diplomats and experts. The majority of such instruments will be unknown to the wider electorate and, indeed, to most members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Under the Committee's proposal, however, the commission would invoke that ill-defined body of materials to influence and control the behaviour of the Government, public bodies and possibly Parliament. The fact that international obligations have been assumed without Parliament's concurrence or consent will be used to argue that Parliament should go along with them, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.
Ironically, the Committee's proposal to establish the commission is founded on the so-called Paris principles, which were promulgated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Parliament has never approved that set of principles.
The fact that there are, by some definitions, more than 100 international instruments that impose obligations on the British Government and are relevant to human rights is not an argument for empowering a commission to give effect to them in the way that the Committee's majority report suggests. Rather, it is an argument for bringing democratic scrutiny to bear before more such obligations are assumed and, indeed, for Parliament to review existing obligations to ascertain whether they are indeed necessary or desirable.
The elevation of the social and economic concerns adumbrated in international instruments that have not been considered through the democratic process and of which most democratically elected representatives are unaware would pre-empt Parliament's historical purpose of ascribing priorities and allocating public finance. Through their accountable representatives, the people should determine such matters by commission, not omission.
The value of non-governmental organisation pressure groups that advocate social and economic change is not disputed; they represent a vital dynamic in our society, and their advocacy is an essential part of informing and leading public opinion. However, the determination of public policy should remain with the people and be expressed directly through Parliament.
152WH
The Prime Minister recently recognised that neither statute nor international treaties are immutable. Outside and, more recently, inside Parliament, he has said that the Government are prepared fundamentally to examine our obligations under the ECHR.
Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman has just given a strong endorsement of the role of non-governmental organisations in promoting education and understanding of public policy. Why does he exclude the human rights commission from that endorsement?
Mr. Shepherd: One is part of a public process of citizens taking on the advocacy of special interests: freedom of information, public concern at work, or disability groups. It is not a campaign set up and organised by the state. I give a cheer to those campaigns that are not part of the Government, but are emanations of citizens' individual judgments and decisions on major matters of public policy. They are entirely different.
The Human Rights Act 1998 came into effect in England and Wales in October 2000, and so there have been just over two and a half years of experience of its operation. There is still uncertainty about its implications for public policy and its effect on the democratic mandate. Our laws and the processes by which we arrive at them are the mirror of our culture. It is always possible for a Government to seek to enact the provisions of all or any of the international instruments—political, economic or social—that constitute what is called human rights.
The convention rights as set out in the 1998 Act reflect most of the essentials of what our constitution has long understood as our political and civic liberty. Those were not determined by the charter, but evolved through our legal and constitutional history. In a real sense they represent the finest emanation of our political culture and define our sense of liberty.
It should be understood that Plato's guardians, sitting as a court in Strasbourg, do not secure our liberties. The custodians of our freedom are the people themselves who, through the institutions—both Houses of Parliament, our common law and our independent judiciary—have fostered, developed and safeguarded that culture of liberty. It is the spirit and the custom of the people that developed and advanced the civic and political principles incorporated into the European convention long before it came into existence.
There needs to be a wider public understanding of how the web of treaties and instruments, which have never been democratically considered, is used by the European Court of Human Rights and, consequently, by our national courts and judges to develop a case law far beyond the declarations set out in the convention.
By bringing to bear social and economic considerations through such treaty obligations which, I emphasise again, have never been endorsed by our traditional democratic and accountable process, the European Court of Human Rights has created a body of law that is not based on any democratic mandate, and one that can frustrate and nullify that mandate. The Court's judgments form part of our law far beyond any reading of the convention rights. That legal framework circumvents what has been traditionally our constitutional process and, by detaching accountability for law from the consent of the governed, it undermines the central purpose of our legislative process.
3.23 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I am not a member of the Joint Committee, but I am enjoying the debate enormously. I want to make one small point, and I hope that I will not detain hon. Members for too long.
For a long time, I have been convinced of the need for a human rights commission in the UK, so it is delightful to me that, at long last, a parliamentary Committee has produced a report that recommends the establishment of such a commission. I therefore disagree entirely with what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, much though I admire his independence of thought and his speech. I shall make a case explaining why my view differs from his.
I thought that the Human Rights Act 1998 might be the stimulus for the establishment of a commission and, when it was debated, I asked Ministers whether a commission would be set up at that stage. I was disappointed that the 1998 Act did not involve any such thing. As we read in the Joint Committee report, the Government are not yet convinced, some five years later, that there should be such a commission. There is some convincing still to be done, and I hope that the debate will help to do that.
The Human Rights Act has brought modest successes in its wake. Every Bill produced since it came into force now carries a Minister's certificate stating that the Bill complies with the Act. That is a start, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights was created following the Act. Another positive gain, to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred in a sense, is the bringing home of the enforcement of our existing legal rights that protect our human rights in that our domestic courts can now pronounce on European convention issues when dealing with cases in the UK courts.
Some constituents now ask me at my advice surgery if their problems—typically with health treatment, education or dealing with the police—can be solved by referring to their human rights, if nothing else. Sadly, they are often disappointed. It is interesting to note that, in the report, the Joint Committee reviewed evidence of the public's awareness of their human rights since 1998. Unfortunately, they found that the awareness raised as a result of the Act has since ebbed, which is worrying.
The report acknowledges that much more needs to be done if we are to reverse the ebbing away of people's awareness and increase their understanding of what human rights mean. We must educate people, which brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills when he said that I had omitted the electorate from my list of organisations interested in human rights. The reverse is true: the human rights commission would have the role of assisting and promoting education about human rights and where they fit into people's daily lives, schools, educational institutions and public bodies.
There is a valuable role to be played in raising awareness about human rights. This week has been a particularly good week for raising awareness, as anyone who has watched the television will know. It has been difficult to miss some programme or other about human rights. In the brief time in which I watched television—I assure hon. Members that I watch television only briefly—I saw a programme about the abuse of people's rights in residential homes for the elderly and several
154WH
programmes, or rather the tail end of them, about abuses involving elderly people in our communities. I caught the last minute of the programme before the news today at 1 o'clock, which highlighted the abuse of family members, be it physical abuse or simple criminal abuse such as the theft of parents' funds.
Mr. Cash: I am bound to ask my neighbour and the Member who now represents a considerable number of my former constituents a simple question about the criminal matters to which he has just referred and other infringements of peoples' rights, a question I put to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston). What domestic law could not be made to remedy those problems?
Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman has just helped me to move on to my next point, but I will answer him directly. We undoubtedly have a well developed legal system of tribunals and courts in this country to which people can turn for help. It could also be argued that no one is excluded, as we have a system of legal aid. If he reads some of the submissions made to the Joint Committee—I was not a member of the Committee, but I read the submissions to it—he will see that several organisations say that many people do not assert their legal rights through the courts for one reason or another. Age Concern is such an organisation that comes instantly to mind. It says that many elderly people do not make complaints at all, even though some of them suffer dreadful abuse. There is nothing wrong with the courts. Indeed, one of the roles of a human rights commission would be to help people to assert their rights through the courts. However, the courts alone are not enough. That is the message of the report.
As well as assisting people to take their arguments to the courts, the commission could help people to resolve disputes in alternative ways through mediation, conciliation and so on. That would be a valuable role. Before I took over from the hon. Member for Stone as the representative for the Stafford constituency, I was as a solicitor in private practice. Whenever a person took a case to a tribunal or to a court and won, it would be at an incredible cost. There would be the time spent in preparation, the anxiety about getting there and all the uncertainty—for example, if the win were financial, would it cover all the costs?
A typical example is an employment tribunal case. What use is the decision that a person was wrongly dismissed if the person has not had a job in the intervening 12 months and does not get his job back as a result of winning the case? Those are substantial matters that affect people's lives day in, day out, yet they are never remedied.
Mr. Cash: In the interests of developing the relationship between the hon. Gentleman and myself—we have shared more or less the same constituents—I shall refer to at least two such cases. One involved an elderly couple who were separated and, more recently, I had to refer a serious matter involving the death of a child to the General Medical Council. In both cases, it was quite clear that there was an abuse of rights, but they were resolved because I was able to use the facilities

155WH
that were available. I am puzzled as to why we need a human rights commission to achieve these practical results.
Mr. Kidney: For every successful outcome there are probably dozens of cases in which that never happens. People do not know. Part of the role of a human rights commission is to assert that it is natural for people to stand up for their human rights and solve their difficulties, we hope, at an early stage and in an informal way in which nobody is upset.
I have set out the reasons why a human rights commission will help. What will it look like and how will we set it up? As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, a set of principles already applies around the world. Indeed, the report points out how the Government are not slow to comment on how other countries are performing against the Paris principles. There is nothing wrong with us deciding what we should do here with reference to them. The report goes on from those principles and sets out what the Joint Committee believes should be the powers and functions of a human rights commission. There is a full list on page 54.
I move on from that to talk about the relationship with equality bodies, which has become a hot issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) pointed out because of the Government's determination to develop our current rights commissions. We have three at the moment: the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission. The Government are looking at adding three more and having commissions on age, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. With six rather than three, the question is whether there should be an overarching body or one body to replace all six. I believe that the rights commissions and the human rights commission go together. I should like to see one body. That is important for a number of reasons.
First, it would stop the proliferation of different bodies and the confusion about whether a problem should be taken to one or to another. In practice, many people have problems that cross the boundaries of the various organisations. A human rights commission is the answer for members of the public who need help or want to know where to turn. Of course, it must respect the sensitivities of the groups of people who wish to be helped and of the different organisations and commissions that already exist to help them. A single organisation will bring benefits in terms—I am sorry about the jargon—of there being a single gateway for the public to enter and of its ability to focus its assistance on the areas in which it is needed. It will also be able to provide extra assistance in a complex case, a case of high public interest or a case in which a lot of people are affected and a lot of input is needed to direct resources.
Mr. Shepherd: Nowhere has it been stated what a human rights commission means. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is a body of information, or is it a narrowly focused body that deals with amelioration? Does he accept that the commission should have access to the entire body of United Nations instruments, some
156WH
of which might involve economic or social arrangements with which he might disagree as a legislator and the representative of the people of Stafford?
Mr. Kidney: I am not going to enumerate what I think human rights are, because there is a great discussion about that in the report and in the submissions that were made to it. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is saying that there is a growing body of international conventions and treaties that impose or grant such rights, and that it is difficult for us all to know how many there are, where they are and what they say. He seemed to suggest that there is an elite group that knows the totality of the issue, while most of us do not. If our Parliament has ratified a treaty, I expect the rights that it embodies to apply in this country. If that happens, I am concerned if nothing changes. When he quoted the report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child that criticised some of our legislation and public bodies' practices, he quoted its second report on the position of the United Kingdom. The first report contained all the same criticisms, and the second report complained that our Parliament had taken no notice of the first one.
Mr. Shepherd: That report does not identify the legislative deficiencies of the United Kingdom. It makes general comments on the state of play. One can only weigh that up by asking what the legislative provisions are. By and large, we do not have a failure of governance in this country. One can exercise one's rights and they will be enforced by the courts. The problem is that the Joint Committee has no idea of the details of the international instruments. I tried to find out through the United Nations whether we are compatible with them and where the legal deficiencies are. It was unable to give an answer, as there is no mechanism for doing that. It would have had to work through the 100 or so instruments to find out.
Mr. Kidney: I do not agree that the second report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child relating to the United Kingdom does not specify the legislative areas in which we are deficient; it does. The many lobby groups for children's rights in this country have identified a programme of work that would need to be carried out by Parliament to put us right in terms of the convention rights. I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I believe that the specialist assistance that parliamentarians would receive from a human rights commission would assist us in making the changes in this place to ensure that those rights were properly embedded in our law and properly available to our constituents.
If there were a single human rights commission, members of the public would not be confused about who was there to help them and there would be no problem with the delineation of duties. When the need arose, such as in a complex case or one with a high public interest, or if many cases were involved, adequate resources could be brought to bear. That is why I would like to see a human rights commission.
We should take more seriously the issue of human rights and age, but I ask people to bear in mind that it should include all ages and not just one group. Human rights start before birth and involve complex issues such

157WH
as research into infertility treatment and surrogacy. The issue covers children in care—childhood cannot be given back to them afterwards—and those of working age who are discriminated against because of their age. In my constituency, that problem is particularly acute for those in their 50s who have lost one job but cannot find another, even at a time of low unemployment when employers are pressing for more workers. At the other end are the elderly—particularly those who rely on others for their daily care—and the abuses that they can suffer. A range of age issues needs our serious attention.
I conclude by saying what a pleasure it was to see the publication this week not of the sixth but of the ninth report of the Joint Committee on the need for a children's commissioner for England. That is relevant because the ninth report, which harks back to the sixth report, points out that a children's commissioner for England would probably be best placed in the human rights commission, a conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree. Children's rights is one more issue on which the Government of the day have dragged their feet; children need a voice, a source of advocacy and help and, although the position is different in Wales, we have not yet risen to that challenge in England. It is time that we did so.
3.41 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), I am not a member of the Joint Committee, but I am glad to be able to participate in the debate. I congratulate the Committee on a serious piece of work. I say that not only because it was well done, but because I want it to make a difference—and there is a chance that it will. It could make most difference on an issue that the Committee focused on early in the report: a culture of rights. We have already heard that what is meant by a culture of rights is not clear, so I thought that I would try to make it clearer and say why such a culture is important.
If we had a real culture of rights, rather than the bogus one that we often see, we could shift public opinion substantially, which would be a good thing. We could do that in two ways, but the report focuses on only one: shared rights and how rights can read from one group of people to another. The second involves clashes of rights and what should be done if two groups of people, or even two individuals, find a conflict between what they or the law perceive to be their human rights.
My experience 20 years ago as general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants turned me on to the issue of shared rights. I represented a group who were reviled in the community. Public opinion was against them, but I often found that connecting the sorts of discrimination that they faced was helpful. For example, at that time British women were prohibited under immigration law from living in the country of which their husbands were citizens. I found that by connecting that right with other people's rights to enjoy family life, some of the toleration of discrimination that had existed towards that group of people began to offend the wider community. Others could see how, if they were prevented from enjoying such a right, they would be deeply offended.
158WH
More recently, I have been faced with Muslim constituents rightly arguing for more effective measures to protect them from religious discrimination. I have been able to shift their views on gay rights—an issue on which that group are not particularly tolerant—by illustrating that the rights mechanisms for which they are arguing are rights for which gay people too are arguing. That approach can build greater tolerance and better connections across communities.
The days when I worked with Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants were not long after the Smethwick by-election, when the Tory slogan was:
"If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour."
I sometimes think that we have not learned as much as we should when I look at recent election leaflets about asylum seekers, but it is inconceivable that any mainstream party would now use phraseology such as that. That is not only because society has moved forward, but because we have changed public opinion through equality legislation and through mechanisms comparable to the mechanism for which the report argues. Changing public opinion is a really important job for a human rights commission.
The model for a human rights commission should not be based on rights enforcement. The organisation that we should look to is the Electoral Commission, which has done good work on, for example, changing election methodology and ways in which different political parties can open up their systems. That work has changed how the Government go about their business. However, the commission has not enforced changes in election law; it has, rightly, left that to Parliament. That is the sort of commission from which we can learn lessons.
The most important issue is human rights conflicting with one another. I will take a United Kingdom example. Regularly in Northern Ireland the human rights of the loyalist community to conduct traditional parades—a matter of freedom of expression—are cited. Equally, arguments are advanced for the human rights of Catholic communities through which the traditional parades go: those rights include the peaceful enjoyment of family life and freedom from intimidation. The rights of the two groups are in conflict, and during the marching season we see those conflicts managed in various ways on our televisions. Those conflicts are often not managed well. I am a fan of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, but I think it has failed in that particular task. That is a great pity, but I accept that it is the most difficult part of its job to get right. The big difficulty in dealing with human rights in Britain is dealing with those moments when the human rights of one section of the community conflict with the human rights of other sections of the community.
The Committee has done a very good job in looking at how public institutions fail people's human rights. Some old people's homes do not guarantee rights. The human right that always works me up is the right of older people to family life. Homes often have impossible visiting arrangements for the families of older residents.
The job that we are failing to do is to consider what to do when rights conflict. We need a commission because that is not a job that can be dealt with properly by the courts. People have a right that is being abused and

159WH
might be able to make a court case, but we do not have a mechanism to deal with the matter. The report deals with that to some extent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) spoke about conflicts in communities. At times in my constituency violent street battles take place between young Sikh and Muslim youths. The problem has been very hard to resolve, but we have managed slowly to develop peacemakers within those communities to begin to resolve it. Some of the mediation proposals might help, but I am not talking only about mediation.
How do we help people to understand that rights are not a one-way street? There are moments when one's own human rights might conflict with those of others. If we created a society in which we properly understand that, we would have created a society in which we face fewer of those moments that I imagine every hon. Member here faces. I had one at my constituency advice surgery the other day: a mother said, "I have a human right for my child to go to that particular school". People believe that a culture of rights gives them the right to do what they would prefer to do, but of course it does not. It protects their rights from abuses and it creates a context in which some of the conflicts can be mediated.
That is why I think that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is concerned about content as opposed to process. I recognise his long-held and deep concerns about the processes, which he explained well. However, in my view, the Joint Committee's proposal is a serious way of dealing with his concerns about the context of our rights.
It seems to me probable that a human rights commission will be charged with the rights that are reflected in the European convention on human rights and in the Act that was the product of the "Bringing Rights Home" White Paper. It is proper that other international human rights instruments—which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, introduce issues of economic and social rights—should influence it.
The reason why I cannot deliver to that mum the human right for her child to go to that school is that the school's capacity is not infinite. She failed in a perfectly proper process of appeal in which she was able to put her case on why her child should go to that particular school rather than another. Sometimes schools' appeals procedures could be more open, and we might properly examine the human rights issues involved in that. Many parents feel that it is a very secret procedure—that justice is not seen to be done—but it is a proper mechanism none the less.
We should create a context to help people to understand that rights quite properly conflict, that they are not a one-way street, and that there is a mechanism to examine ways to resolve moments of conflict. They should be properly debated and if they require legislation, that is the job of Parliament. Then, we will begin to create a culture of rights, which will include a much better respect for the rights of other groups and individuals in the community.
That is why we need a body like a human rights commission. I do not think that such clashes can be resolved within our adversarial judicial system. I am not a lawyer, but from my observations I do not think that
160WH
there is a mechanism to do that. Beginning to do it can make a real difference. I noted how during preparation for the new state of South Africa, a massive human rights education process was undertaken, dealing with exactly such matters. In that country, people are acutely aware of the conflicts of rights. The process has been one of political education as well. It has engaged people even more with their democratic systems.
My response to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that although the creation of a human rights commission would not resolve all of his genuine and correct concerns about some of the mechanisms through which we engage in international treaties and take on obligations without proper scrutiny, it will give us a new mechanism to enable the people of this country to participate in debate and scrutiny and ensure that we properly represent their concerns about rights. As such, I commend the report and urge the Government to take it seriously and act urgently. Unless we adopt such a mechanism soon, we will not have a proper device for dealing with instances when rights conflict. Until we have that, we are not properly protecting the human rights of our citizens.
3.56 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: This is an important report that comes at a critical time for human rights in our society and throughout the west. I pay tribute to fellow Joint Committee members. We did not all agree all the time but we had an interesting journey in experiencing human rights throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world. I learnt a great deal and want to put on record my thanks to the Clerk and officials who serve the Joint Committee. They are a great credit to the House.
The events of 11 September held a mirror up to us all, not only in this country and the United States, but throughout the world. It forced us to see the consequences of advanced terrorism and prompted several responses. The paradox is that, while we are committed to creating a culture of freedom, democracy and human rights for others around the world, particularly at the moment in Iraq, human rights at home and in the United States are under what might be described as pressure.
We live in a time when we are exporting democracy and human rights, which serve us well and protect us. Homeland security exists in the United States to protect its citizens from the practices of fundamental terrorist regimes but the current situation involves sacrifices of some of our liberties to protect our rights to life. In discussing the importance of creating a human rights commission, it is relevant to see it in a wider context. That context is undoubtedly putting our own human rights under pressure.
It is essential to recognise how much the Government have done in the past six years. There have been huge advances in willing a stronger human rights culture, and it would be foolish not to recognise that from the start. As hon. Members may remember, I was in a different political party at the beginning of the 1997 Parliament. Along with voting against the minimum wage, that party was not content with the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Conservatives probably do not now want to repeal the minimum wage legislation or the

161WH
Human Rights Act, which goes to show how much has been achieved in six years through a courageous decision by the Labour Government when they came to power.
I regret that I did not recognise the merits of the Human Rights Act, and I must say again that life is a learning experience. What we learnt on the Joint Committee taught me just what a difference the Human Rights Act has made. The problem is what remains to be done. There is an important distinction between what can be done through legislation and establishing a culture. Legislation does not create a culture; it gives a culture parameters within which it can flourish and be nurtured. The purpose of a human rights commission, to judge by the evidence we heard, is to be one more tool in protecting human rights and ensuring that human rights issues are raised not only in the courts but at other levels. It is strange to reflect that, when we are telling the rest of the world that it needs to embrace human rights, we have not had the sense—I think that that is the appropriate word—to recognise that it would be good to ensure that our own garden was in order before we started to look at those of others.
Some members of the Joint Committee did not agree that we should have a human rights commission and that is an understandable point of difference. Although I do not share that view, I recognise that it is held as a matter of conviction and principle. Others object to the proposal as they might have done to a human rights commission in Northern Ireland a decade ago, but that Commission has been an important part of the peace process and it continues to play an important part in reconciling minority groups within the whole culture of Northern Ireland. Most people in Northern Ireland, from both sides of the historical divide, say that the work of that commission has been substantively important and not significant only at the margins.
Those who object to a human rights commission might have said the same thing in relation to Scotland a decade ago. I pay tribute to the Government for establishing a Scottish Parliament, one of the consequences of the constitutional changes that they have made in the past six years. It is significant that the Scottish Parliament has responded to the Scottish people by saying, "Those people want a commission and we think it should happen." A Human Rights Commission has been established in Northern Ireland and commissions are proposed for Scotland and other parts of the country. Should not the people of England, who have the same needs, enjoy the same rights?
I believe the Government's commitment, in respect of the Human Rights Act, to creating a culture of human rights, but in what way are the people of England different from those of Scotland or Northern Ireland? It surely cannot be argued that Northern Ireland is a separate case because of its troubles historically. The conclusion would be that, if in the near or long-term future the peace process continued to work well, the Assembly should wind up the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I do not think that the Government, or the Northern Ireland Assembly would advance such an argument.
162WH
Where does that leave people in this country? Arguably, they are in a considerably weaker position. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) spoke about some minority groups that, rightly, feel heavily discriminated against. The Government can take huge credit for their democratic principles in making constitutional changes, but the creation of Parliaments and Assemblies elsewhere is not enough. Those are the big changes, but they need to be followed through with significant changes to the infrastructure.
My hon. Friend referred to the ninth report of the Joint Committee published this week on the case for a children's commissioner. I understand that the Minister may not wish to comment on that matter this afternoon—it may be on a small scale in comparison with creating a Parliament in Scotland or a Welsh Assembly—but for the several million children of this country the absence of a children's commissioner is significant. It is interesting, and to the credit of the Government in creating the new constitutional changes, that the Welsh Assembly has created, enshrined in law and taken to its heart the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
Where devolution has been carried through, the devolved institutions want to create bodies to enshrine principles in law and to create a culture of human rights or children's rights. However, having had the necessary huge will, principle and commitment to create the big institutions, we are nervous about following through.
In relation to the children's commissioner, I have some experience of the matter because I was a founding trustee of ChildLine and because of my long association with it. It cannot be argued that we do not need a children's commissioner in England. Opposition Members worry about going too far with rights. As Esther Rantzen, the chairperson of ChildLine, said, people do get frightened and newspapers do stir up trouble when we talk about children's rights, so let us talk about children's needs. Children have significant needs, as I have seen at ChildLine. We have had more than 1 million kids counselled for sexual, emotional and physical abuse and bullying in schools. Those issues need to be raised, and not only in the courts. It is often far too late when matters reach court. In the most tragic cases, the children are dead. Those issues need to be raised much earlier.
An umbrella organisation is required that can take those issues up on behalf of children. That is the role that commissions can play, whether for children or for human rights. It is critical that commissions be independent of Government. This Government and the Labour party have a proud tradition in the fields of social justice, fairness and equality, but some people look at the Government and are slightly nervous about the fact that we have become a bit tentative on the equality front. That is not a criticism. Sometimes, there can be good arguments for being tentative but, sometimes, when the case is made, there is a need to go further and to show commitment.
Mr. Cash: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman but I am still puzzled, and not only on the point that I have already made about why we would not be able to provide whatever legislation was required to address these myriad problems. I am also deeply

163WH
concerned about the range, extent and dimensions of human rights. Just now, the hon. Gentleman distinguished between a human rights commission and a children's commissioner but, if one looks at the Human Rights Act, one sees that there is almost no area of life that could not create yet another commission. Where do we draw the line?
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is obviously a criticism that we have heard. I believe that, if the Government intend to bring together the three existing equality commissions, which include the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, the rightful place for a human rights commission is within an equalities commission. We in the Joint Committee found that there was wide scope for debate on the exact relationship between the two within one institution. Indeed, we only just, on balance, took a view that it was best to bring all the commissions together. My personal view, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, is that it is very difficult to distinguish between an issue to do with equality and an issue to do with human rights. After all, the right to be treated fairly and equally—not to have special privileges or special treatment—seems a fundamental right that we could all expect to have.
That brings me back to the importance of the institution's independence. I do not want to rake over the coals, and I do not raise the issue for the purpose of political posturing, but let us take discrimination and the issue that has caused such controversy for the Conservative party and the Government—the repeal of section 28. If we believe that people have a right to be treated fairly, we have a problem supporting something that makes that tougher for people who are gay. In an advanced democratic western culture, we should consider the desire to remove discrimination a good cause. It is sometimes troubling when political parties want to get behind discrimination. Some did so for what they regarded as principled motives—I disagree with their principles—but some were not quite so principled and it was clearly gross political expediency that motivated them.
None the less, what we needed over section 28 was an independent body that said, rightly, to either a Conservative or Labour Government, "This is discrimination. It is wrong and it should be removed. People are suffering, kids at school are being bullied, teachers, who might themselves be gay, are being bullied and young people are taking their lives because of it." This is not a political point. For those of us who thought that it was right to repeal section 28 some time ago, it is not even a human rights point. When one receives a letter from the parent of a teenager who has killed himself, it is not a matter of human rights, it is a question of life and death.
It is easy to trivialise such issues, to say that it concerns a minority group and that only a few people are affected. However, once one has read a letter from a parent whose child died because he or she was gay and was discriminated against, even one case is worth fighting for.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asks where we should draw the line. I am not going to draw a line. The point of creating a human rights commission is that it would be able to advise us on where the lines are and,
164WH
in many cases, where they need to come down. We need to recognise the value of all our institutions. We might wish to improve the work of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission; presumably that is the Government's purpose in considering merging them into one equalities commission. However, I do not think that anybody in his right mind would say that the work of the CRE, DRC or EOC is not important or will not continue to be important. If we establish a human rights commission, people will say exactly the same.
Of course, legislation was needed to create those institutions, and it will be needed to create a human rights commission. Such institutions take on the business of nurturing a culture—they make it wider and deeper—and of advancing issues of social justice. A human rights commission would do much in that regard.
In our travels, we went to Australia, where we had a profound experience with the human rights commission. The Labour party there looks proudly on the achievement of the past Labour Government who were responsible for its creation in the way that, perhaps, our Government look at previous Labour Governments and say that one of the great achievements of the Attlee Administration was the establishment of the national health service. It is interesting to note that one of the first things that the not now so new Liberal Prime Minister wanted to do was to get rid of that commission. However, he found that he could not—the organisation was valued across Australia, not just by Labour politicians but by many in the Liberal party, too. It was supported with the warmth of feeling that people in this country have about the NHS. They thought that it was absolutely essential.
Some hon. Members may be familiar with the film "Rabbit Proof Fence", which looks at the way in which babies were taken away from Aborigine families from the early to the middle part of the previous century in order for some quasi-eugenics project to be practised. It is very moving and deeply disturbing. How did the subject come to light? Was it because political parties decided that it was a good campaigning issue? No. It was because the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Australia took it up.
I return to the question of where I would draw the line. I would not draw the line—any more than a politician in Australia would be foolish enough to draw the line. The line should be drawn by those who feel that their human rights, their sense of social justice and their sense of being able to live in a society that is fair, are in some way being abused. They are the people who must draw the line and a human rights commission would help us to consider that.
It was interesting that Mr. Howard's Government did not get rid of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and I understand why the Australian Labour movement is so proud of its past. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke about our laws and our processes being a mirror of our culture. He is right, as he is on so many matters, although we disagree on this one. The absence of legislation to create a human rights commission and the processes that would be carried out by one, mirrors what we lack, not what we have. It therefore feels uncomfortable that, at a time when we are telling others

165WH
to establish democracies and to protect human rights, we ourselves are nervous about establishing a human rights commission.
We have a wonderful young people's and children's unit and huge credit must go to the Ministers and staff who work on it and do a tremendous job. However, any pretence that that unit could do the same as an independent children's commissioner is stuff for the birds. People can talk to the Welsh commissioner about that, or to every charity that works for children if they do not believe me.
The work that the Joint Committee has done and the evidence that it took from people is interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough mentioned discrimination. I suppose that some people in this country do not want to recognise the rights of minority groups. Some people take a similar view on prisoners—they think that the best thing to do would be to lock them up and throw away the key. I do not share that view but there are some people—we have all met them—who do.
It is regrettable that some take a similar, rather despicable view about some asylum seekers or about those who seek to become economic migrants to this country. I welcome such migrants to this country and I am sure that other hon. Members do, too. However, we all know of people who have an unfortunate view of people with a particular skin colour or those from particular countries, because they think that such people might be misfits.
There are also people who take an unpleasant view of people who happen to be gay, bisexual or transsexual. I encountered such people when we were repealing section 28. When I changed political parties, my brother—now sister—Lesley ended up on the front cover of The Sun and on other newspapers because he was a "freak". That was the term that was used about Lesley, who did not choose to be born inside the wrong body. He had the courage in his early 40s to change his body and to become a woman. For some reason, however, our culture decided to paste this person, who had gone through the most terrible, agonising childhood and early adulthood, on the front page of a newspaper and call her a freak. Actually, that happened because she happens to be my sister and I changed political parties, which apparently justifies such treatment.
I do not like to refer to people's personal lives and I recognise that, since I have brought my sister in, people may like to bring all that up again. Why did I do it? I did it, first, because I wanted to put on record the courage and bravery with which she withstood media intrusion and, secondly, because I wanted to ask what the hell was going on. We think of ourselves as an advanced, civilised society, yet we pick an individual living in complete obscurity in a small rented flat in Cleveland and paste them on front pages of a few tabloids because they are connected with me, a politician. I think that that is a gross intrusion. A human rights commission would look at such cases. Although the press in this country is terrific and we need a free press—I do not argue against that—we sometimes get things wrong. I get things wrong and I am sure that even you, Mr. Deputy
166WH
Speaker, occasionally get things wrong. However, there are moments when it is good to have an institution that pulls us up.
There are issues that such a commission would look into. The commission would be an important part of forward movement on the constitutional arrangements that the Government have considered, much to their credit. If we look back over the past 50 or 60 years, we see the recognition that one cannot change things just by laws; one must change things by culture, too.
In 1945, there was a seminal moment in the history of human rights around the western world and elsewhere. Getting to the point at which we are today has been a struggle. Both in creating a modern culture of human rights in which we decided to learn a great deal from the atrocities of Nazism and world war two, and in subscribing to the idea of a new legal order in which human rights might be universal and supreme over and above the respective national legal systems, we have made a real advance as a civilisation. It is no longer a defence to say, "I was only following orders", as the Nazis did, because we say that international norms within human rights are greater than the national legal issues relating to sovereignty in particular countries. That was a great moment. There are consequences for sovereignty in advancing a culture of human rights, which is a good thing.
In an advanced democracy, we need to recognise that some sovereignty may need to be subsumed to those international norms. The courts have been a guardian in such instances and are increasingly so. It is interesting that they are increasingly attacked for doing so. A human rights commission would pick up some of those issues but not all those tests and challenges need to take place in the courts and the judiciary. The human rights commission would be an element in advancing the culture, not only the legal framework.
In conclusion, I see little for us to fear in the rights of individuals being enhanced. The institution may be troublesome to the Government but it is a price that the Government and all of us in this great country should be prepared to pay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): It would be appropriate to recognise the attendance of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who is a member of the Joint Committee but cannot speak because of a throat infection. I hope that the Chamber does not mind me mentioning that. She is an expert in this area.
4.21 pm
Mr. David Heath: That was an entirely appropriate comment Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had an excellent debate on this important subject, opened by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and contributed to with powerful speeches on both sides of the Chamber. I noticed a pre-emptive contribution from the Minister in the press this morning, which we should perhaps read into the account so that we know the position from which she starts before having been persuaded by the strength of the contributions to the debate.
I pay tribute to the Joint Committee, which has been doing tremendous work on behalf of the House. Hon. Members who sat with me on the Standing Committee

167WH
that considered the Criminal Justice Bill know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol, East was prayed in aid many times during the course of our proceedings, sometimes effectively and sometimes less effectively. Nevertheless, its contribution to the debate was considerable and important, particularly in respect of home affairs and also in the context of the present Administration.
A great deal of nonsense has been spoken about the Human Rights Act 1998 over the past few years. I would like to place on the record my belief that if the first Labour Administration are remembered for anything, it will be for putting that Act on the statute book. It was an extremely important piece of legislation. It has not produced the dire consequences that some people were happy to suggest. Those who like to think that the European convention on human rights was some sort of invention or bizarre aberration on the part of the European Commission on a dull Wednesday afternoon in Brussels are clearly wrong.
As we know, the convention has lasted for 50 years. It was a creature not of the present European Union, which of course was not in existence that long ago, but of the post-war settlement where the British Government's contribution was integral to its construction. The fact that we have subscribed to that convention for so long, yet until 1998 British citizens could take action only through a court remotely situated in Strasbourg, was an absurdity that did not take the provisions of the convention seriously.
When I first came to the House, I was a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. One of our first reports in the previous Parliament was on human rights in the context of foreign affairs, and I was conscious that we were quick to adjudicate on human rights issues elsewhere in the world but much slower to examine the application of human rights in our country.
I am a great believer in the Human Rights Act. Its provisions are now justiciable in British courts, which is as it should be. That is not to decry the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) as regards other treaty obligations. He is right that they do, indeed, represent obligations placed on the British Government, that they were signed under the royal prerogative and that they have not been through Parliament. He and I have debated the issue previously, and I entirely agree that the royal prerogative is inappropriate. The issue should be dealt with by a sovereign Parliament. Irrespective of changes in primary legislation, Parliament should agree and ratify that which is agreed by the Executive. That is the proper way to do things.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman only in that I reach an entirely different conclusion on the basis of his argument. For me, the logical conclusion is not that there is no role for a human rights commission but that there is a need to incorporate other human rights treaty obligations into British law so that they become justiciable in the English and Scottish courts. The commission could have an educational role, promoting understanding of the implications of Parliament's decisions on such issues.
Mr. Shepherd: Part of the burden of my argument was that it is difficult to form a judgment in the absence of an
168WH
understanding of what the treaties do and what we have signed up to. That is an essential part of the issue. Of course, every treaty entered into by royal prerogative should come before the House of Commons and receive line-by-line scrutiny so that it at least has democratic endorsement. However, without knowing what all these treaties amount to, my conclusion as regards a human rights commission is that we should be as diffident as the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who preached caution, and the Attorney-General of India, who expressed caution in the early days of the implementation of the Human Rights Act. It is not prejudice that motivates me, but a spirit of inquiry and the need to know what we are talking about.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his spirit of inquiry could only be assisted by a commission in the form that the Committee proposes. However, we may have to differ on that.
There is some consciousness of the Human Rights Act and its consequences. As the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) suggested, people who are happy to cite a supposed right under the Act regularly turn up at all our surgeries. They do so in support of whatever contention they may be putting to us, be it their inalienable right to stop their neighbour having a bonfire or to book a five-a-side football pitch at the local sports centre whenever they want. Sadly, they are often wrong in asserting that they have such rights. Nevertheless, something has clearly happened to the national consciousness to cause people to believe that there is something to which they can have recourse if they feel that the state is acting inappropriately in its dealings with them.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman and I have a rather curious relationship, in that we quite often agree despite our political differences. That said, he may have noticed an article by Joshua Rozenberg in The Daily Telegraph today—although perhaps he does not read that newspaper. The article examines the role of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, and compares it with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. That brings me back to the point made not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) but by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the way in which the activity of the Court will expand those treaty obligations. I would like an answer to a question about the legal personality of the European Union, on the basis that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman brings his intervention fairly swiftly to a conclusion.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome probably knows what I am about to say, because I have said it already. How will the legal personality, the European Court, and the application in the European Court of Justice of the general principles of the Convention on the Future of Europe enable us to make sense of the arrangements?
Mr. Heath: I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemen's intervention, although I believe that it was longer than

169WH
the first part of my speech. He and I both know that we have not yet had confirmation of what the European constitution will contain, and so we are talking hypothetically. It is therefore perhaps idle speculation, given the existing strong disagreements between member states about what should be part of the European constitution, to try to work out what its justiciability is.
I will, however, restate the point that the more we incorporate into British law that which is determined by treaty, the more we will have a framework of English or Scottish law as a bulwark against any amendments external to that enactment within the House of Commons or the Scottish Parliament. That seems to be an appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
There is a certain consciousness of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is more often used for rather fanciful defences than for its true purpose. I believe that our courts have been good at interpreting what the human rights obligations mean. They have not been afraid to make it clear when they disagree with Ministers in their interpretation. However, I believe us to be deficient in encouraging the entrenchment and the reinvigoration of human rights throughout our society and public life. I would like to see that occurring as a natural concomitant of the passage of the Act, and the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol, East draws our attention to that point in its report. We should concentrate on that area and on the key role that the human rights commission would play.
As has been said, there are other factors to be taken into account. One key factor is the Government's commitment to establishing an equalities commission, encompassing the roles of the existing commissions. I welcome that and believe it to be a sensible move, because it will establish a stronger and more relevant body. However, human rights considerations must underpin the work of that equalities commission, irrespective of whether it should incorporate the role of a human rights commission. The equalities commission should have an expanded role that enables it actively to take forward human rights considerations in pursuit of its equality objectives.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Bristol, East that she might look favourably and carefully at the debates in another place on the Equality Bill in the name of my hon. and noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. A natural concomitant of establishing an equalities commission would be to consolidate legislation so that we had a firm body of statute on which the commission could work. That process is to be hugely recommended, and although I appreciate that adding yet more Bills from the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department into a parliamentary programme may test even the most astute business manager, I nevertheless believe that it would be well worth considering.
That leaves us having to decide whether a human rights commission should be self-standing or have a federal structure. It is extraordinary that we are again being led by the other nations of the United Kingdom. In that respect, as in many others, England and Wales find themselves lagging behind. I do not know whether that denotes indolence by our Parliament or our Government, or whether it suggests an arrogance that
170WH
assumes that everything in England will manage itself. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is right that we have a proud history in our defence of liberties, but I wonder whether we are complacent about it. Do we not see the gross inequalities that constantly develop in this country, and the abuses and discrimination that are there for all to see, which we should properly address? I suspect that the situation is a little of all those things, which is why the report is so valuable.
I agree with the Committee that the form of a commission should follow its function. The function has to be determined first, and it must give the commission the freedom to act not only on behalf of individuals in response to complaints but in its own right, so that if it sees an abuse it can take matters forward. It must have the freedom to initiate in matters of education and training, which is another important role, and it should be able to commission research and studies. It must also have the freedom to advise whom it will on its recommendations. I would like to see it have a role as amicus curiae, being directly involved in the legal system.
A commission could usefully give courts expert advice on its interpretation of statute or of our human rights legislation. A commission should also have the freedom to challenge what the House of Commons does, what the courts may do and what public bodies may do in their implementation of human rights legislation. Again, I agree with the Committee; I do not seek a body that is principally adversarial or litigious—that should not be its role. However, it should have the right to challenge; it should be able to produce a report that says, "Whoever you are, be ye never so high, you are wrong in the way that you are carrying out that function."
Although I understand the Committee's concern not to create a rival body for legislative scrutiny, I would extend its capacity at least to being able to challenge a Minister's signing off legislation as being in compliance with human rights legislation. Indeed, that should apply especially to subsequent changes to legislation, which often do not receive the same sort of certification, but which ought to because we often rewrite Bills entirely in Committee or on Report.
As many hon. Members said, a commission must be independent of Government and free of outside interference. Its structure must therefore reflect that. I agree with the Committee that it should be a statutory body rather than a non-departmental body in type, and that it should be more like the National Audit Office than the normal sort of quango that advises the Government elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Slough made an important point about conflicts of rights. I note that the recommendation is that the commission should not have an adjudicating role. However, to use the phrase of the moment, in developing road maps towards reconciling competing rights, the commission can act not as a final arbiter but as a means of encouraging the thinking that would enable a final arbitration, either in the form of revised statutes or Executive action, to be put into place. That is an important role.
Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that we are under pressure of time. The problem is that the ultimate adjudicator is the European Court of Human Rights. When the hon. Gentleman says that we can change the statute in these conflicts of rights, as adumbrated by the instruments, they can be adjudicated upon by the European Court in Strasbourg.
Mr. Heath: Courts can always adjudicate. That is the case for any statute that we care to make here. I do not think that that relinquishes either the desirability or the validity of trying to find ways of reconciling conflicting rights without recourse to the ultimate court of decision in this matter, which he rightly points out is in Strasbourg. That is a valuable function.
In conclusion, is the function that we envisage for a human rights commission of value and is it necessary? I believe that it is both valuable and necessary if we are to see the desired change in culture. Are there other ways of achieving that? I am not clear that there are. I am not clear that any amount of further legislation changes basic understanding and the culture within which we determine these things as a society. We need an adjunct to legislation that goes beyond that to illuminate, advise and take forward the principles that are enshrined in legislation. How will such a commission relate to Northern Ireland and Scotland? It is not beyond the wit of man to develop acceptable working relationships that do not undermine arrangements that are already working in Northern Ireland and will soon be working in Scotland. I am pleased to see that my former hon. Friend is back in the Scottish Executive as the Minister for Justice. With him driving things forward, we will no doubt see a swift resolution in Scotland.
The last question is whether the human rights commission can be part of the equalities commission. On that, I am agnostic. I can see merit in having a single commission. I can understand the arguments of those who say that the basic equalities principles of the equalities commission might be distorted, and that it would work better as a closely related but separate body. Whatever happens, the work of the two commissions would have to be co-ordinated; in addition the equality commission would have to have a human rights relevance. I do not want duplication; I want fortification in the actions that are taken. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us her thoughts on the subject. I should be grateful also if she could give us some thoughts on the timetable for the equalities commission. Will the Minister tell us whether she has given any serious consideration to the consolidation of equality of legislation in the Equality Bill? Will she also tell us whether she sympathises with the Committee's able proposal for a human rights commission? I suspect that she does, although the decision rests with the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I remind the House that there will be a Division in the main Chamber at about 5.5 pm. There may be two Divisions. If so, I intend to allow 15 minutes for the first Division, but if the Divisions run into each other, I shall allow only 10 minutes for the second Division, unless the Government and Opposition spokesmen conclude the debate beforehand, which I doubt.
4.45 pm
Mr. William Cash: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Some important points have been made in an important debate about matters that go beyond the question of human rights. On the Government's website about the human rights commission, I note that one of the most frequently asked questions is:
"Why is the Government not setting up a UK Human Rights Commission?"
That was on the website this afternoon, 10 minutes before I came into Westminster Hall. The answer is:
"At present the Government is not convinced that it is necessary to create a UK Human Rights Commission. The Government is not ruling out doing so in future. Some detailed issues would need to be resolved first, such as the functions and structure of a Human Rights Commission and its relationship to other bodies working in the field of human rights."
The next question is:
"But the Government is establishing a Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland?"
The answer is:
"This is one of the outcomes of the peace process and is justified in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland."
I do not know to what extent that remains a matter of record, but I copied it from the website 10 minutes before we came into the Chamber. No doubt, we shall hear from the Minister what decision, if any, the Government have decided to take.
I have heard many interesting arguments this afternoon about preventing abuses. When I try to boil them down, however, the net result is that, like motherhood and apple pie, we are all in favour. However, when I ask questions about enforcement, who will legislate and the extent to which the law could be overridden by international treaties introduced through the EU's legal personality and applied by the European Court of Justice—under the current proposals the general principles of the European convention on human rights will have to be applied through the European Court of Justice, which I do not doubt will happen as there is a serious problem of reconciliation between Strasbourg and Luxembourg—other substantial questions arise about the dimension of the subject matter within the framework of the convention, not to mention all the other international treaties, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred.
I entirely accept that there are problems of racial tension and conflict. Those who know a lot about me will know that I am greatly concerned about ensuring that people are not unfairly discriminated against. I must also say that things happened in Zimbabwe during the Iraq war that left an extremely unpleasant taste in the mouth, as did the Government's comparative lack of obvious concern to do anything about them. I feel strongly that, when we talk about human rights, which are generated from within the frameworkof international-EU law, we must focus on the need for the United Kingdom to improve its performance, and improve people's means of redress. That continuous process has been part of our democratic process since we became a democracy in the mid-19th century.
The suffragette movement emerged from protests and campaigns. I am all for protests, campaigns, and freedom of speech. I have indulged in much of that

173WH
myself. However, the question of whether a human rights commission would contribute to the process of improving the rights of people in a practical sense—compared to an educational sense—gives rise to concern.
I do not disagree with the necessity to remedy abuse or to improve the quality of redress. However, I am sceptical about the extent to which those matters would be improved by a human rights commission without powers of enforcement. One is left with an almost indefinite range of matters that could be considered, making it very difficult to draw a line, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) admitted. He would leave it to the human rights commission to draw the line. That could result in a substantial industry in its own right. As I am a solicitor, the Law Society has sent me a parliamentary brief on this subject, in which it entirely endorses the concept of a human rights commission. I understand that view, but I have reservations about the nature of the proposals in the report because I am not convinced that they will provide the solutions to the examples that have been given in the debate.
Over and again, during interventions, I have asked why we need to have a panoply of legislation and a human rights commission to deal with something that we could legislate for through our parliamentary process. I would like to have an answer to that question. I cannot understand why—with all the legislation that we have—it has not been possible to deal with the problems that are cited in the report.
Jean Corston: With legislation, if people are seeking to assert their rights, they have to go through the judicial process. A victim must be identified; a victim cannot always be found; or a victim may not wish to be identified. Would it not be better to spread the culture of human rights, so that litigation becomes unnecessary?
Mr. Cash: I have great difficulty with the opaqueness of that argument. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a remedy for a victim. That person may wish to remain anonymous, but want to translate their concern into a generalised social engineering process in which the human rights commission takes up the issue and puts it right by examining it and disseminating the outcome of its deliberations. However, I do not see why that should not be done by our Parliament. That is why we are here. I have serious doubt that there is any added value in a commission. I am not trying to be unduly negative. It may sound as if I am being extremely sceptical—which I am—but I just do not see any added value, except for the applicability of universal rights and laws, which is a philosophical or jurisprudential question. I do not see why we should not be expected to find remedies within our own legislative system, as we have done for centuries.
Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of added value, so I can perhaps offer him one that I found out about today in a conversation with a colleague in the Tea Room at lunchtime. She described a situation in her constituency in which two young women
174WH
who had come to Britain to be married were effectively kidnapped by the family of the husbands. They were kept in a cellar, not properly fed and used as skivvies.
My colleague has tried to persuade her local police force to mount a prosecution against the family because laws are being breached. However, every time that she has attempted to do that, the police have failed to prosecute, either because of pressure from social services or concerns from the families. There has not been a mechanism to deliver justice to the victims in that and similar cases. Something such as a human rights commission might be able to examine such cases and produce a better system of justice.
Mr. Cash: That was a lengthy intervention, but I welcome lengthy interventions because Members are able to explain their points properly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should say with a touch of humour that the hon. Gentleman may like lengthy interventions, but traditionally the Chair does not.
Mr. Cash: I understand that perfectly well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Lady refers to the delivery of justice, and I agree that justice should be delivered in the situation that she described, which is why I welcome the manner in which she expressed herself. However, we must recognise that a commission could not do what she wants. It could give such a case publicity, but so can the press or a Member of Parliament. Indeed, you have just done that—you can raise that case with a Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not done anything.
Mr. Cash: I am sorry—the hon. Lady can do that. However, a commission could not achieve the justice to which she refers. That point must be made.
The other important point is about victims, which I mentioned earlier in an intervention. The word "victim" is used in the Human Rights Act 1998, because it follows from the European convention on human rights. However, as I said earlier, part of the problem is that legislation does not allow for class actions. It occurred to me that one way of dealing with the problems would have been to include provision for class actions in the proposals. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) has not yet said, but she may be able to tell us why the report does not address the limitation in the scope for class actions.
There is also the question of the extent to which enforcement should be part of a process to make the human rights commission fully effective. There are a number of significant and unresolved questions that ought to have been addressed in the report. The Minister may have further thoughts on that subject.
I read with interest a useful parliamentary briefing from the Disability Rights Commission, which has not been referred to so far. It said that it is in favour of the proposals for a human rights commission. However, the Disability Rights Commission says at the end of its report—possibly because it is not entirely convinced that what it would like to happen would actually happen—that some of the problems that it faces could

175WH
be dealt with by regulations that would be made under our legislative procedures. I would have thought that, if that were the case, that would deal with the practical problems that the Disability Rights Commission describes. The hon. Member for Bristol, East properly referred to a number of significant examples in which disabled people have been abused. If there is the power to make the adjustments under the disability regulations, I sincerely hope that those matters will be taken up and remedied. That is another example of the point that I am making.
I hope that I am not over-emphasising my point, which is that we should be practical and not just resort to what would effectively be a more generalised exercise in education and information. Yet another Government agency would be built up, or at any rate an agency that, even if it were independent from the Government, would effectively mean that there was almost no point at which one could decide where the lines would be drawn in the vast arena of human rights. Almost everybody could say that they had a right to be heard and to have their particular case, grievance or cause for redress examined by the human rights commission. I see very practical problems.
I do not wish to be entirely negative, because there are serious abuses which need to be resolved and for which the legislation at the moment appears to be inadequate. We have to address that, but I suggest that we do so as a Parliament and do not hand the problem to some agency or rely on international treaties—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred—or the European Union, or even the European convention on human rights.
An important aspect has not been mentioned. Lord Hoffman made it clear in the case of Simms and O'Brien a couple of years ago that we are able to legislate inconsistently—provided that we do so expressly and unambiguously—with any legislation that falls within the remit of the Human Rights Act 1998. On that principle, in theory, we would be able to repeal the whole Act. Other similar judgments have followed. The 1998 Act is not entrenched in the way that some people might have thought. That is worth bearing in mind. If it is not entrenched, and the human rights commission is to be set up with a series of statutory functions—that is the object of the exercise—one needs to take that judgment into account. A human rights commission set up in response to the report would be given functions that would be subject to subsequent enactment by this Parliament, unless—and this is the big "unless"—the legislation itself were to be subsumed by proposals under the European Convention. It would then be the European Court of Justice that would decide whether we would be in a position to make the changes that we might like. There are some important issues lying at the heart of this matter.
5.5 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
5.30 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Cash: I would like to move on to the problem that arises between the creation of a human rights
176WH
commission and the understandable desire to produce a body that is capable of monitoring the Government in relation to human rights. Despite being in opposition and not agreeing with what the Government say, my concern is about the extent to which such a commission—funded publicly and on a substantial scale, given the range of functions that would be essential to the carrying out of its powers—would be in conflict with the Government.
In its report, the Joint Committee says that a commission would be a great help to Parliament and to the courts. I fear that it might also form a kind of trade union resistance to changes in the law that would move against human rights legislation. I refer to a couple of recent examples, to the Home Secretary's reservations about the direction in which the whole industry is going, to the role of judges and judicial activism and the implementation of European legislation and all that goes with that. I do not need to go into it in detail; it is all on the record.
Practical problems arise, and the Government have to be able to make decisions. In fairness to them, I suspect that they have had to take a deep breath before the Home Secretary has said some of the things that he has said. The Prime Minister has also had to say things in respect of issues that would come within the remit of a human rights commission. I can see the potential for serious conflict in, for example, matters relating to asylum.
In my dossier here, I have a transcript of what the Prime Minister said about asylum in an interview on 26 January. He talked about
"fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the convention of human rights."
It is an extensive statement. In the past week, the Home Secretary has raised the question of whether suspected terrorists should be held for 14 rather than seven days. Problems arise out of article 3 of the convention on human rights. In addition, we have a big concern: there is a serious clash—it is not evolving; it is already in being—between the judiciary and Government over human rights. I hope that we can avoid all that; it will not do anybody any good to have a collision between the judiciary and Parliament. However, that is on the way if it is not here already.
Other questions relate to the extent to which the role of Parliament will be subject to a reverse takeover should the Convention proposals become part of our constitutional arrangements. That raises questions on entrenchment, and implied repeal, in cases such as Thoburn and Lord Justice Laws' judgment, the Ellen Street Estates case with Lord Maugham, which goes back a long way, and the Factortame and the Simms and O'Brien cases that I mentioned. They are seminal questions.
That whole raft of matters is not much discussed. I can understand why. Not unnaturally, Parliament does not enjoy going through the case law. However, when it comes to discussing the constitutional basis for the establishment of a human rights commission and its statutory functions, we are bound to bump up against some of those more fundamental questions. Then we have the question of what resources will be needed. I suspect that much more will be needed than we start with—we had the same problem with the Electoral

177WH
Commission. There is also the matter of its range of functions and the desirability of its acquiring powers of enforcement.
When we consider the case for a human rights commission, we hear much of culture. I understand why that word has been used, but the Oxford dictionary defines "culture" as
"the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people or group."
That is not what we are debating. We are dealing with universality—not a particular nation, people or group, but universal rights. That has certain resonances with Tom Paine. I shall give a flavour of that by quoting the words of Edmund Burke, just to show how some of these things have evolved. In his "Reflections on the Revolution in France", he said:
"We know that we have made no discoveries, and we believe that no discoveries are to be made, in morality, nor in the idea of liberty, nor many of the great principles of government which were understood long before we were born … In England … we have not been drawn and trussed in order that we may be filled like stuffed birds with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of man."
I do not think that we would go that far today, but how do we manage to remedy abuse yet ensure that people's rights are protected without creating a vast agency or bureaucracy and consuming vast amounts of taxpayers' money—and all for a purpose that could be dealt with by Parliament? That is the essence of my argument, although I listened with respect to the arguments from the other side of the debate. Speaking personally, I hope to achieve the same result.
I do not want to give the impression that I would not want those serious matters to be properly remedied. However, when subjected to a rather more sceptical and forensic analysis, the more general arguments in the report come down to one basic point. As the principles are established and as the commission gets up and running, people will suggest that it can deal with all the abuses and the other matters that need to be catered for. I simply wonder where it will all end.
I doubt whether the commission would assist the courts in determining human rights questions, because the courts are quite capable of doing that for themselves. There are serious problems about whether, if a commission were established, it should be a federal system or a single body. A federal system would probably ensure that the existing bodies do not lose their current status, and that is another problem that is self-explanatory. People always want to defend their own arena, and I understand that.
I am extremely dubious about the relationship between the commission and Parliament. The hon. Member for Bristol, East referred to the question of reporting to Parliament; that is not accountability. The report states:
"A requirement to consult Parliament on the appointment of commissioners would act as a guarantee of independence and democratic accountability."
I have to pass on that one; I do not believe it. In practice, therefore, there are severe doubts about whether the proposal is practical. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
5.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): We have had an extremely good debate on a complex issue, with some excellent and thoughtful contributions from many hon. Members.
I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and to her Committee for their superb work, not simply in producing the report, which was the product of two years of detailed research and consultation, but for the huge assistance that they provide to the House and the Government in the detailed scrutiny of legislation.
A considerable amount of work passes through the Joint Committee because of the quantity of legislation and because of the work that it does in addition to its several inquiries. It is a tribute to the commitment of the members of the Committee and their staff that their work is of such a consistently high quality. I express my thanks to them, on behalf of many in the House, for the work that they do.
We should recognise how far we have travelled in the past few years. The European convention on human rights was drawn up more than 50 years ago and was signed by the UK Government 50 years ago this year. It was drawn up by British lawyers, among others, and reflects the values of the British political tradition and common law, including respect for life and liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, privacy and family life and many others.
The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law with the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 will be seen in retrospect as one of the most radical and progressive acts of the first term of the Labour Government, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was right to remark on it. It means that the UK courts can join in the development of jurisprudence on these issues and, more important, that the decisions we take, the laws we pass in the House and the decisions taken throughout the public sector and in society are judged against a set of values and standards that we have set ourselves and that Parliament has debated. However, as hon. Members have said, there are still considerable areas in which we need to make progress. It is clearly the case that there are still many vulnerable people, often those who are weak, poor or dispossessed, who need stronger protection for their human rights against discrimination and poor treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East set out forcefully examples of circumstances in which rights have not been respected. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) argued strongly about difficult situations in which rights conflict and in which powerful clashes between individuals, individuals and communities and different communities can involve human rights questions. She is right: the human rights tradition is not simply about individual entitlements, but about how we arbitrate fairly between competing needs and interests. We should be clear that the culture of human rights is not about selfish unconditional entitlements, nor is it about the classical concept of freedom or freedom from interference by the state. The culture of human rights is a much more complex and progressive framework for recognising reciprocal obligations and competing rights and needs in a just and proportionate way.

179WH
It is important, as several hon. Members have pointed out, that the culture of human rights is about everyone. Often much is made of it simply being about rights for defendants or prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East was right to highlight issues relating to the elderly and children. I have recently had conversations with someone in Victim Support about the work that it is doing to take up cases relating to the Human Rights Act 1998 and to use the human rights framework to promote respect for victims.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), in a moving speech, pointed out that we have made much progress on this issue, but clearly there is more to be done to develop the culture of values around respect for human rights.
Considerable work is under way. The Audit Commission has done much work and is doing further work to follow up its earlier findings. The human rights unit in the Lord Chancellor's Department delivers free and popular training events up and down the country to public authorities and the voluntary sector. The unit also provides free publications, runs a helpdesk for members of the public and supports a project that teaches young people throughout the country about the values in the 1998 Act that underpin citizenship. Also, work is under way to promote citizenship in schools as part of the national curriculum.
We should not forget the work done by the many bodies in the non-governmental sector, such as the British Institute of Human Rights, Justice and the Citizenship Foundation, to provide training, events and materials, all of which contribute to building the culture of human rights.
As I said, there is much to be done; we recognise that we are on a journey. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended that the next steps should be to incorporate human rights into a single commission that includes all the equality bodies. The report is strongly argued and extremely well researched. I welcome the report and the debate that we have had today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East pointed out, the Government set out during the passage of the 1998 Act that we would consider the need for a human rights commission. Since the Joint Committee began its inquiry, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion has announced a scoping project—last May—to consider the future of equality machinery. It considers whether there should be a single equality commission incorporating all equality interests, in the light of the need to introduce anti-discrimination legislation to protect the aged and to protect religious beliefs and sexual orientation. The terms of reference for that project include a requirement to
"consider the relationship between possible new arrangements for promoting equality and those for promoting and protecting human rights more widely".
That was followed by the consultation document "Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen", the responses to which the Government are considering carefully.
We have seen developments in Northern Ireland and Scotland, with the creation of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was part of the
180WH
peace process following the Good Friday agreement, and the Scottish Executive's decision to set up a human rights commission.
The Joint Committee's inquiry clearly took note of all those developments, and the report reflects many of them. The Government have not yet taken any decisions on the role of human rights in a possible single commission, but we are giving the Committee's report very serious consideration. This timely debate will make an important contribution to the decisions that need to be made across Government on this important issue. Therefore, I cannot give an extensive response to many of the issues that have been raised; I shall simply make a series of observations on some of the points, in no particular order
First, there is clearly agreement that we need further support for the most vulnerable in society, for those in greatest need and for those who have the fewest people to advocate on their behalf. Many hon. Members made a powerful case as regards what needs to be done beyond legislation and litigation. In that respect, we must think in terms of the broader creation of values, whether across the public sector or society as a whole. That includes respecting the needs of the vulnerable and providing frameworks to arbitrate between competing needs.
The case for promoting the culture and values of human rights is clear-cut. In part, our task is to challenge misconceptions and to clarify that we are talking not only about individual rights but about responsibilities and reciprocity. It is also about challenging the broader misconception that human rights is about one group rather than another.
Secondly, there are many different views on how we achieve such a cultural change and on which institutional structures have an impact. Indeed, some people argue that institutional structures do not make a massive difference in many areas. For example, the Electoral Commission does immensely important work, but no one should expect it to solve all the problems of low turnout at elections. Clearly, political parties have much wider responsibilities in that respect, and there is a much wider debate in society and the media.
Hon. Members mentioned the national minimum wage. Society's attitudes towards it have changed in a way that would make it extremely difficult for the Conservative party to repeal it. Again, that is the result of a much wider debate across society, not simply of the work of a commission or an institution.
On the other hand, one might argue that institutions can effect and support change. For example, the Equal Opportunities Commission has clearly played a powerful role in reinforcing and supporting the Equal Pay Act 1970—it was controversial 20 years ago, but is not now—hand in creating a culture that supports equal pay and opposes discrimination on gender grounds. Therefore, there is a series of different views on the issue.
Thirdly, there are issues relating to the relationship between human rights and equality. Again, some people would argue that the traditions involved in human rights and equality are different and that they have developed differently in the British political tradition, while others would argue that there is an awful lot of overlap. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South that there are underlying links between

181WH
equality and human rights issues. In the end, both traditions are based on the idea of giving people equal respect on the basis of their common humanity. Whoever we are, whatever we do, whatever our characteristics and whatever communities we belong to, there is something valuable about according us all equal respect on the basis of that humanity alone. That is common to both traditions. However, there are different views on the issue, and we shall need to take seriously the views of the commissions that already exist about the right relationship between equality and human rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made important points about a single gateway for the public. Others have suggested having a single point of advice for the public services, too. Those issues must also be taken into account.
Fourthly, I should address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We are not talking about undermining democracy, whether the issue is the Human Rights Act or the commission. As the hon. Member for Stone
182WH
(Mr. Cash) suggested, the Act gave elected representatives in Parliament the final say. It is a very sophisticated support for democracy. Democracy is strengthened by public debate and by public checks on what we do. Such things remind us of the need to respect fundamental democratic values in the interests of democracy, particularly in times of stress and insecurity. The Government still have much to consider. These are important debates, and this debate has made a very important contribution to our consideration. We need to recognise that we must all champion the Human Rights Act and the values of human rights.
Whatever decisions are taken about commissions, none of us must walk away from our responsibility as politicians to champion the values and culture of human rights across society. Wherever there are those who are vulnerable, treated badly, suffering and those who suffer most from inequality, they will need people to speak up for them. The Human Rights Act provides a great framework within which that can happen, but we all still need to speak up for them as well.
It being five minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111939]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has an Occupational Welfare Service, whose role is to help keep people effective at work through the provision of

  May 2000

  May 2001

  Officer

  Soldier

  Total

  Officer

  Soldier

  Total

  RSIGNALS

  Liability

  991

  7,668

  8,659

  991

  7,668

  8,659

  Strength

  908

  7,343

  8,251

  877

  7,198

  8,075

  REME

  Liability

  870

  9,850

  10,720

  870

  9,850

  10,720

  Strength

  817

  8,450

  9,267

  803

  8,361

  9,164

  RAC

  Liability

  866

  5,023

  5,889

  866

  5,023

  5,889

  Strength

  800

  4,812

  5,612

  825

  4,853

  5,678

  May 2002

  April 2003

  Officer

  Soldier

  Total

  Officer

  Soldier

  Total

  RSIGNALS

  Liability

  991

  7,668

  8,659

  991

  7,668

  8,659

  Strength

  908

  7,205

  8,113

  923

  7,563

  8,486

  REME

  Liability

  870

  9,850

  10,720

  870

  9,850

  10,720

  Strength

  827

  8,431

  9,258

  823

  8,741

  9,564

  RAC

  Liability

  866

  5,023

  5,889

  866

  5,023

  5,889

  Strength

  835

  4,940

  5,775

  834

  5,034

  5,868

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength of the (i) Royal Engineers, (ii) Army Corps of Music, (iii) Adjutant General's Corps and (iv) QARANC was (A) in May 2000, (B) in May 2001, (C) in May 2002 and (D) on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [113242]

  May 2000

  May 2001

  Offr

  Sldr

  Total

  Offr

  Sldr

  Total

  RE

  Liability

  1,186

  8,005

  9,191

  1,186

  8,005

  9,191

  Strength

  1,105

  7,258

  8,363

  1,124

  7,397

  8,521

  CAMus

  Liability

  36

  1,118

  1,154

  36

  1,118

  1,154

  Strength

  37

  1,011

  1,048

  35

  987

  1,022

  AGC

  Liability

  1,056

  6,150

  7,206

  1,056

  6,150

  7,206

  Strength

  1,001

  6,108

  7,109

  1,038

  5,984

  7,022

  QARANC

  Liability

  354

  651

  1,005

  354

  651

  1,005

  Strength

  272

  392

  664

  274

  391

  665

  May 2002

  April 2003

  Offr

  Sldr

  Total

  Offr

  Sldr

  Total

  RE

  Liability

  1,186

  8,005

  9,191

  1,186

  8,005

  9,191

  Strength

  1,116

  7,432

  8,548

  1,141

  7,603

  8,744

  CAMus

  Liability

  36

  1,118

  1,154

  36

  1,118

  1,154

  Strength

  33

  991

  1,024

  34

  988

  1,022

  326W
  support and advice to staff and managers. All civilian staff have access to this service and Welfare Officers are trained in counselling skills, which they use in discussions with individuals.

  Army Strength
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength of the (i) Royal Corps of Signals, (ii) Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and (iii) Royal Armoured Corps was (A) in May 2000, (B) in May 2001, (C) in May 2002 and (D) on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [113240]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following tables show the requirement and trained strength of Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and Royal Armoured Corps. Officer strengths exclude full Colonels and above.

  Dr. Moonie
  The tables show the requirement and trained strength of the Royal Engineers (RE), Army Corps of Music (CAMus), Adjutant General's Corps (AGC) and QARANC. Officer strengths exclude full Colonels and above.
  327W

  May 2002

  April 2003

  Offr

  Sldr

  Total

  Offr

  Sldr

  Total

  AGC

  Liability

  1,056

  6,150

  7,206

  1,056

  6,150

  7,206

  Strength

  1,035

  5,846

  6,881

  1,053

  5,969

  7,022

  QARANC

  Liability

  354

  651

  1,005

  354

  651

  1,005

  Strength

  285

  409

  694

  280

  428

  708

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the targets were for the trained strength of the Royal Electrical and Military Engineers battalions in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [113243]

  REME Battalions as at April 2000

  ARM

  PTE

  LCPL

  CPL

  SGT

  SSGT

  WO2

  WO1

  LT

  CAPT

  MAJ

  LTCOL

  AGCS

  17

  11

  28

  14

  7

  10

  0

  3

  6

  0

  0

  APTC

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E2

  16

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAMC

  0

  0

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  REME

  306

  405

  435

  278

  116

  69

  23

  39

  52

  25

  6

  RLC

  96

  81

  42

  33

  11

  8

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  RM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RSIG

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  435

  500

  512

  340

  138

  87

  23

  42

  62

  25

  6

  REME Battalions as at April 2001

  Army

  PTE

  LCPL

  CPL

  SGT

  SSGT

  WO2

  W01

  LT

  CAPT

  MAJ

  LTCOL

  AGCS

  22

  18

  35

  16

  8

  13

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  APTC

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E2

  2

  28

  0

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAMC

  0

  0

  11

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  REME

  345

  451

  573

  275

  140

  71

  31

  34

  82

  35

  7

  RLC

  92

  97

  59

  42

  14

  11

  3

  0

  5

  0

  0

  RSIG

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  461

  594

  678

  347

  168

  100

  34

  41

  95

  35

  7

  REME Battalions as at April 2002

  Army

  PTE

  LCPL

  CPL

  SGT

  SSGT

  W02

  W01

  LT

  CAPT

  MAJ

  LTCOL

  AGCS

  22

  19

  33

  15

  7

  14

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  APTC

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E2

  0

  34

  0

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAMC

  0

  0

  8

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  REME

  346

  368

  480

  204

  112

  65

  28

  31

  81

  34

  7

  RLC

  65

  79

  40

  28

  13

  8

  3

  0

  5

  0

  0

  RSIG

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  432

  500

  561

  261

  193

  93

  31

  38

  94

  34

  7

  REME Battalions as at April 2003

  Army

  PTE

  LCPL

  CPL

  SGT

  SSGT

  WO2

  W01

  LT

  CAPT

  MAJ

  LTCOL

  AGCS

  22

  15

  28

  15

  7

  14

  0

  6

  7

  0

  0

  APTC

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E2

  0

  24

  0

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RAMC

  0

  0

  6

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  REME

  221

  238

  324

  145

  72

  53

  23

  21

  68

  29

  7

  RLC

  45

  51

  25

  19

  11

  7

  2

  0

  3

  0

  0

  RSIG

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  288

  328

  383

  190

  97

  80

  25

  27

  79

  29

  7

  328W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) are the specialist corps responsible for the technical maintenance of equipment within the Army. The tables below show the targets for trained strength for REME battalions in each year since 2000.

  D-Day Anniversary
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government has to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of D-Day; and if he will make a statement. [113602]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although preparations have not been concluded, the intention is for the Government and armed forces to be represented at Ministerial and senior officer level at parades and services in Normandy being organised by the French Comite du Debarquement, and the Army will provide a band. Appropriate representation will also be provided at a service of remembrance and thanksgiving which will take place at St. Paul's Cathedral later in the year.

  Defence Attachés
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which UK defence attachés are in place. [112298]

  Dr. Moonie
  United Kingdom Defence Attachés/Advisors are currently serving in the following 82 locations.

  Country

  City

  Albania

  Tirana

  Angola

  Luanda

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  Australia

  Canberra

  Austria

  Veinna

  Bahrain

  Manama

  Barbados

  Bridgetown

  Belgium

  Brussels

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  Brunei

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  Bulgaria

  Sofia

  Canada

  Ottawa

  Chile

  Santiago

  China

  Beijing

  Colombia

  Bogota

  Congo DRC

  Kinshasa

  Croatia

  Zagreb

  Cyprus

  Nicosia

  Czech Republic

  Prague

  Denmark

  Copenhagen

  Egypt

  Cairo

  Ethiopia

  Addis Ababa (as from 1 June 2003)

  Finland

  Helsinki

  France

  Paris

  Georgia

  Tbilisi

  Germany

  Berlin

  Ghana

  Accra

  Greece

  Athens

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City

  Hungary

  Budapest

  India

  New Delhi

  Indonesia

  Jakarta

  Ireland

  Dublin

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  Italy

  Rome

  Jamaica

  Kingston

  Japan

  Tokyo

  Jordan

  Amman

  Kazakhstan

  Almaty

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  Korea

  Seoul

  Kuwait

  Kuwait City

  Latvia

  Riga

  Lebanon

  Beirut

  330W

  Country

  City

  Lithuania

  Vilnius

  Macedonia

  Skopje

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  Morocco

  Rabat

  Nepal

  Kathmandu

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  Nigeria

  Abuja

  Norway

  Oslo

  Oman

  Muscat

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  Philippines

  Manila

  Poland

  Warsaw

  Portugal

  Lisbon

  Qatar

  Doha

  Romania

  Bucharest

  Russia

  Moscow

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh

  Serbia & Montenegro

  Belgrade

  Sierra Leone

  Freetown

  Singapore

  Singapore

  Slovak Republic

  Bratislava

  Slovenia

  Ljubljana

  South Africa

  Pretoria

  Spain

  Madrid

  Sri Lanka

  Colombo

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  Switzerland

  Berne

  Syria

  Damascus

  Thailand

  Bangkok

  Turkey

  Ankara

  Uganda

  Kampala

  Ukraine

  Kyiv

  United Arab Emirates

  Abu Dhabi

  USA

  Washington

  Uzbekistan

  Tashkent

  Venezuela

  Caracas

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many documents are held by his Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107352]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 695W. The position is the same for the Ministry of Defence.

  Equipment and Maintenance Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength of REME and RE trades relating to the maintenance of equipment is, stating in each case the (i) trade and (ii) percentage shortfall from establishment requirement; and if he will make a statement. [113241]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) are the specialist corps responsible for the technical maintenance of equipment within the Army and not the Royal Engineers (RE). The tables below show the requirement and trained strength of REME trade groups. Information on individual trades is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  331W

  REME Trade Groups

  Army/Corps Trade Group (REME)

  Requirement

  Strength

  ±

  Percentages

  Artificer

  Aircraft

  86

  132

  46

  53.5

  Artificer

  Avionics

  46

  55

  9

  19.6

  Artificer

  Electronics

  189

  327

  138

  73.0

  Artificer

  Vehicles

  476

  520

  44

  9.2

  Artificer

  Weapons

  80

  119

  39

  48.8

  Technician

  Aircraft

  600

  602

  2

  0.3

  Technician

  Avionics

  259

  299

  40

  15.4

  Technical

  Electronics

  905

  969

  64

  7.1

  Armourer

  679

  594

  -85

  -12.5

  Metalsmith

  233

  229

  -4

  -1.7

  Recovery

  Mechanic

  591

  454

  -137

  -23.2

  Shipwright

  29

  27

  -2

  -6.9

  Technical

  Storeman

  334

  300

  -200

  -36.2

  Vehicle

  Electrician

  553

  353

  -200

  -36.2

  Vehicle

  Mechanic

  4,124

  3,432

  -692

  -16.8

  Total

  9.184

  8,412

  -772

  -8.4

  Family Aftercare
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is available for commanders on how best to address family after-care and advice in cases of bereavement or serious training injury; what changes to guidance will be made following the review undertaken by the principal personnel officers; and if he will place copies of advice in the Library. [112631]

  Mr. Moonie
  Each of the services has a well-defined and practised casualty reporting procedure with written guidance available to commanders and their staffs involved in bereavement aftercare. The guidance has recently been reviewed and new guidance issued where this was thought necessary. In addition, commanders and their visiting officers who are tasked with assisting bereaved families are able to draw upon the expertise and experience of unit welfare staffs (including service chaplains) and the Casualty Co-ordination Cell in each service. Aftercare guides and videos have been produced in order to help with the training of commanding officers, their personnel staffs and visiting officers.

  Halton Army Training Camp
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell the Halton Army Training Camp in Lancaster; and if he will make a statement. [112545]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no intention to dispose of Halton Camp. A proposal is under consideration to sell off part of the camp to finance a re-build of the retained part.

  Internal planning is at an early stage and no decisions have yet been taken.

  Iraq
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to release reservists serving in the Iraq theatre. [111357]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the Secretary of State for Defence stated on 30 April 2003,Official Report, columns 15–16WS, we will continue to withdraw assets and personnel from the region where possible, but we will maintain an appropriate military presence for as long as is necessary. The requirement for Reservists will match this pattern. As at 12 May some 533 Reservists serving on Operation Telic had been demobilised.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts are being made to return TA soldiers serving in the Gulf to their employers at the earliest opportunity. [112648]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the reservists on duty in Iraq will be brought home. [112876]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in his written ministerial statement on 30 April 2003,Official Report, columns 15–16WS, we will continue to withdraw assets and personnel from the region where possible, but we will maintain an appropriate military presence for as long as is necessary. The requirement for Reservists will match this pattern. As at 12 May 2003 some 533 Reservists serving on Op TELIC had been demobilised.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year; [111989]

  (2) how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems. [112003]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 2002, 106,081 sick days were due to mental health problems. This figure includes stress related and non-stress related mental illnesses. 2,559 staff took sick leave due to mental health problems. This figure includes civilian non-industrial staff but do not include industrial staff, Ministry of Defence trading funds and RFA's.

  MOD is committed to improving the health of its staff and managing sick absence more effectively. The department has a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for all our employees and have a commitment under the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative to meet targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally due to work related injuries and illnesses.

  Ministry Land
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) improvements to and (b) restrictions placed upon access to land owned by his Department since 1997. [112360]
  333W
  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1997 improvements to public access to the defence estate include:the continuing implementation of specific objectives published in the Estate Strategy 'In Trust and On Trust' (published in 2000), an important part of which related to the introduction of Environmental Management Systems and Integrated Rural Management Plans (IRMPs), which address public access;
  the appointment of dedicated Access and Recreation Officers for the Army Training Estate (ATE) in general, and Otterburn Training Area in particular;
  a programme of Public Access Studies which are identifying access opportunities at a number of Army Training areas;
  improved provision of information, such as site specific leaflets and the revised Walks on Ministry of Defence Lands booklet (published in 2001), and the Defence Estates Access website.

  Work is also being carried out on the development of methodology for path condition and visitor surveys; and also for disabled access provision.

  Public access to the defence estate is kept under continuous review but is, of course, subject to operational, safety and conservation requirements, as well as the interests of our tenants.

  MOD has an Access and Recreation Working Group which works closely with Statutory Bodies and Non Government Organisations through an Access and Recreation Focus Group.

  Access issues are included in the Environmental Law and Policy Course and the Conservation Course provided for MOD staff by the Department of Specialist Management Training (RAF Halton).

  Reserves
  Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the call out notices issued by his Department, broken down by type of notice, for the call out of reserves in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the unit to be called up, (b) the units to which the reserves were attached, (c) the location of the deployment, (d) the numbers of reserves sought and (e) the number achieved; and if he will make a statement. [113251]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not centrally held and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) Territorial Army, (b) Royal Naval Reserve, (c) Royal Auxiliary Air Force, (d) Royal Marines Reserve and (e) Regular Reserve were (i) deployed and (ii) called up in connection with Operation Telic. [112085]
  334W
  Dr. Moonie
  As at 2 May 2003, the information requested for Operation Telic was as follows.

  Call-out notices served

  Accepted into service

  Royal Navy

  Regular Reserve (RFR)

  0

  0

  Volunteer Reserve (RNR)

  354

  282

  Royal Marines

  Regular Reserve (RFR)

  0

  0

  Volunteer Reserve (RMR)

  136

  112

  Army

  Regular Reserve (RAR)

  1,288

  214

  Volunteer Reserve (TA)

  5,252

  3,480

  RAF

  Regular Reserve (RAFR)

  526

  148

  Volunteer Reserve (RAuxAF)

  1,150

  831

  Total

  8,706

  5,067

  Retention
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the retention rates were for(a) male and (b) female NCOs in each of the services in each of the last five years. [112622]

  Dr. Moonie
  Retention may be measured by looking at either the Premature Voluntary Release (PVR) rate that shows the number leaving voluntarily before the end of their engagement during a financial year as a proportion of trained strength, or the outflow rate, the total number of NCOs leaving the service during a financial year as a proportion of trained strength.

  Figures for each service are as follows:

  Naval Service NCO Retention

  Percentage

  NCO PVR rates

  NCO outflow rates

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1998–99

  2.6

  9.2

  9.2

  13.2

  1999–2000

  3.4

  12.6

  10.4

  16.4

  2000–01

  3.3

  7.3

  9.5

  11.4

  2001–02

  4.2

  8.7

  9.5

  12.5

  2002–03

  2.9

  5.7

  8.3

  10.1

  Notes:

  Data includes figures for Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

  NCO is taken as leading rate and above.

  2. Army NCO Retention

  Percentage

  NCO PVR rates

  NCO outflow rates

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1998–99

  5.6

  10.7

  9.3

  13.4

  1999–2000

  4.7

  9.0

  8.8

  11.6

  2000–01

  4.9

  8.0

  8.9

  10.8

  2001–02

  4.4

  8.1

  8.4

  10.3

  2002–03

  4.1

  7.6

  8.4

  11.4

  Notes:

  NCO is defined as lance corporal and above.
  335W
  Royal Air Force NCO Retention

  Percentage

  NCO PVR rates

  NCO outflow rates

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1998–99

  3.7

  4.8

  6.5

  7.8

  1999–2000

  3.9

  5.2

  7.3

  7.1

  2000–01

  3.5

  5.4

  7.3

  8.1

  2001–02

  3.8

  4.8

  7.7

  7.9

  2002–03

  3.7

  5.7

  7.9

  9.0

  Notes:

  NCO is defined as corporal and above.

  Service Medals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Committee headed by General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank will report on the review of the issuing of a Medal to those who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954; and if he will make a statement. [113601]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 May Official Report, column 274W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

TRANSPORT

  Alconbury Airfield
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proposed airfield at Alconbury would be suitable for use by 747 Jumbo aircraft. [112642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With a runway length of over 2,700 metres aircraft up to Boeing 747 size could use Alconbury (but not at maximum loads).

  The option of a small-scale development at Alconbury, presented in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East (second edition)" consultation document, allows for the use of a typical aircraft of the Boeing 737–700 type.

  Aviation Safety
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will press the Council of Ministers to refer proposals by the European Parliament for increased flying hours to the European Aviation Safety Agency. [112345]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Aviation Safety Agency, which was established in September 2002, currently has no powers in the fields of operator and personnel licensing. However the Commission is required to bring forward by October this year proposals to extend the scope of the Agency to cover these fields, which would include rules on flying hours.

  The European Parliament's proposals on flight time limitation rules take the form of a first reading amendment to a proposed Regulation which would adopt EC standards for commercial airline operations, based on Joint Aviation Authorities requirements. The Council has not yet discussed the Parliament's amendment and it is for the Presidency to decide whether and when such a discussion should take place.
  336W
  The timing and substance of any such discussion are likely to be influenced by the development of the Agency.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional information he is awaiting before responding publicly to the report of the SRA on Central Railway; and from whom. [112858]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have asked for further information from Central Railway on several matters before any decision can be taken on whether the Department should support its project.

  In particular, we need to be assured that all outstanding operational and financial issues have been resolved.

  Crossrail
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the preparatory and planning costs incurred on the proposed crossrail link in London. [113201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that, from inception to the end of the 2002/2003 financial year, Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) had incurred total costs of around £32 million on preparation and planning for Crossrail.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects an announcement to be made on the future of Crossrail; and if he will make a statement. [113254]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Transport to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 149.

  East London Line
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the future of the East London line extension. [113202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Not while there are matters before the Court of Appeal.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Due to the machinery of Government changes over the past two years, these data are not held by my Department.

  London Underground
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what limitations have been placed on Infracos involved in the refurbishment of the London Underground in passing further work to third party contractors. [113206]
  337W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A significant proportion of London Underground's engineering work has always been delivered by approved contractors, where this is the most effective means. This will continue. The standards for approving contractors have not changed, and the PPP contracts require the Infrastructure Companies to continue to follow them.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During 2002, 107 staff in the centre of the Department for Transport have taken sick leave for causes which may be considered as 'mental health problems'.

  Information from the Department's Agencies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems. [112072]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During 2002, the centre of the Department for Transport recorded 4,067 days as sick absence for causes, which may be considered as 'mental health problems'.

  Information from the Department's Agencies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Motorways
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures will be taken by his Department to reduce noise levels emitted from the M5 for Hucclecote residents in the Gloucester constituency. [113574]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has plans to lay a quieter road surface on both the northbound and southbound carriageways of the M5 motorway at Hucclecote for a length of 1.32km. This will be a continuation of the noise mitigation measures recently carried out at Upton St. Leonards.

  This work was recommended in a report on noise from the M5 at Hucclecote. I have asked the Highways Agency to send my hon. Friend a copy of the report and to keep him informed on future progress.

  National Rail Card
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received covering the introduction of a national rail card to promote railway travel at off-peak times throughout the network. [113200]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the Strategic Rail Authority's public consultation on their Fares Review, they received around a dozen responses from organisations proposing or supporting a National Railcard. This included a response sponsored by the Friends of the Earth, which consisted of around 1,200 338W
  individual postcards from members of the public. In reaching conclusions on future fares policy, Ministers will take account of these representations together with all other responses to the consultation. An announcement on the outcome of the review on national fares policy will be made shortly.

  Pay Costs
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, columns 1030–31W, on DVLA, what the total pay costs incurred by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency were in each year since 1997. [113381]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Total pay costs

  1997

  59,862

  1998

  61,068

  1999

  68,507

  2000

  75,845

  2001

  83,551

  2002

  95,634

  Extra staff were required by the Agency over this period for major new initiatives, projects to implement policy changes and safeguard delivery of the core business and increased workload. The exceptional rise in pay costs for 2002, i.e. to a greater proportion than the staff employed, was due to the fundamental restructuring of the Agency's pay system as the first and most significant impact of a five year pay deal agreed with the Unions. The restructuring is designed to address a number of issues, including:
  overcoming Equal Pay vulnerabilities
  aligning with Modernising Government agenda on Civil Service pay
  recruitment and retention of good quality staff and
  support for the Agency in taking forward a substantial programme of change.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 46W to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), on railway staff, what the total pay costs incurred by the Office of the Rail Regulator were in each year since 1997. [113382]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total pay costs incurred by the Office of the Rail Regulator since 1997 are as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  4,099

  1998–99

  4,558

  1999–2000

  5,285

  2000–01

  6,204

  2001–02

  4,982

  2002–03

  5,440

  Port Developments
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will determine the applications for port developments at(a) Dibden Bay, (b) London Gateway (Shellhaven) and (c) Bathside Bay together. [113523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are separate applications running on individual timetables and there is no compelling reason why they should be determined together.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what EU legislation sets out a safety framework for public service vehicles, with particular reference to(a) non-fluorescent lighting and (b) low floor access. [113476]

  Mr. Jamieson
  EC Directive 2001/85/EC covering the harmonisation of construction standards for the interior and bodywork design and accessibility for PSVs, includes the requirements for low floor access. The same directive also sets out the requirements for the internal lighting of these vehicles in respect of passenger safety and also the avoidance of reflective lighting for the driver. No distinction is made between fluorescent and non-fluorescent lighting.

  Exterior lighting on public service vehicles is regulated under EC Directive 76/756/EC which relates to the installation of exterior lighting and light signalling devices. EC Directives 76/758/EC, 77/759/EEC, 76/760/EC, 76/761/EC, 76/762/EC, 77/538/EC, 77/539/EC, 77/540/EC and their corresponding UNECE Regulations set standards for the individual lighting components. For all lighting other than headlamps, no distinction is made between fluorescent and non-fluorescent sources.

  UNECE Regulations 98 and 99 set specific standards for gas discharge headlamps.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the major infrastructure developments are expected on the Cheltenham to London rail line, with special reference to resignalling. [112488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail advises that it is working with the Strategic Rail Authority to jointly develop schemes that will increase the flexibility of the network by improving the signalling system as well as undertaking a combination of life extension works and like for like renewals.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's policy is on station re-opening, with special reference to parkways. [112865]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has a responsibility to promote and secure the development of the rail network. Where appropriate, this will includes appraising proposals for the re-opening of railway lines and the development of new infrastructure such as stations, including parkway stations. The SRA considers all such proposals for investment on their merits, and in accordance with its robust appraisal criteria.

  Rail Strikes
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list payments made by the Strategic Rail Authority to train operating companies to compensate for income lost due to industrial action over the past year. [113237]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: In the past year, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has made payments of £12.65 million to National Express in respect of revenue loss by ScotRail arising from industrial action. This follows the introduction of a clause into all franchise agreements allowing the SRA, at its discretion, to compensate train operators for such losses. Payments will be made only where the SRA is satisfied that operators have done all they reasonably could to settle disputes and the cost must be accommodated from within the SRA's agreed budget.

  Road Safety
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents involving motor cycles there were resulting in(a) death and (b) serious injury in each of the last five years; and how many of those involved were (i) males and (ii) females under 2 5 years old. [113025]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of road traffic accidents in Great Britain involving motorcycles which resulted in(a) death and (b) serious injury in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Fatal and serious accidents involving motorcycles:

  Accidents

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  1997

  538

  6,085

  1998

  523

  6,102

  1999

  569

  6,479

  2000

  649

  6,910

  2001

  618

  6,888

  And the number of (i) male and (ii) female casualties among motor cycle users under the age of 25 are shown in the following table:

  Motorcycle driver or rider casualties aged 24 and under, by gender and severity of casualty:

  Casualties

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Killed

  Serious

  Killed

  Serious

  1997

  138

  1,696

  14

  229

  1998

  114

  1,589

  15

  235

  1999

  132

  1,703

  17

  185

  2000

  129

  1,908

  13

  226

  2001

  136

  1,921

  7

  204

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents caused by drivers under the age of 17 years resulted in(a) death and (b) serious injury in each of the last five years. [113030]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table gives the number of fatal and serious accidents in Great Britain where at least one driver under the age of 17 was involved. We have no information on whether the accident was caused by a young driver.
  341W

  Road accidents in which at least one driver under 17 was involved

  Accidents

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  1997

  69

  1,503

  1998

  52

  1,353

  1999

  56

  1,408

  2000

  56

  1,275

  2001

  60

  1,264

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents there were in each of the last five years; and how many resulted in(a) death and (b) serious injury. [113031]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of road traffic accidents in Great Britain in the last five years; and the number which resulted in(a) death and (b) serious injury are shown in the table:

  Accidents

  Year

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  1997

  240,287

  3,298

  36,330

  1998

  238,923

  3,137

  34,633

  1999

  235,048

  3,138

  33,267

  2000

  233,729

  3,108

  32,499

  2001

  229,014

  3,176

  31,588

  Transport Statistics (London)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures he has collated on(a) average traffic speeds, (b) air pollution and (c) bus usage in central London since 17 February; and if he will make a statement. [113203]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport: does not hold the specific figures requested. It is for Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor to do detailed monitoring of the London congestion charging scheme which started on 17 February. TfL are undertaking a comprehensive monitoring programme, using standard surveying techniques, covering relevant modes of transport. They are also proposing to examine wider economic and other impacts, including air quality. They have pledged to make all results available.

  The Government will consider the evaluation of the scheme and if there are significant gaps in TfL's study programme then the Government will commission work to fill them.

  Information on traffic levels and bus services since the scheme came into operation can be found on the TfL website at the following links:

  http://www.tfl. gov.uk/buses/press_666.shtml

  http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press_cc_news_latest.shtml

  Warsaw Convention
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the Warsaw Convention in light of recent court judgments in England and Australia. [112982]
  342W
  Mr. Jamieson
  At present there are no plans to amend international agreements on air carrier liability.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Anglian Water Group
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her action to monitor the compliance of Anglian Water Group with consumer standards regulations; and what the results of her monitoring were. [112884]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) monitors the performance of water companies as part of his duty to ensure that the interests of water customers are protected.

  Each year the water companies in England and Wales provide information to Ofwat on their performance against various aspects of service. In 2001–02, Anglian Water Group were ranked sixth out of the ten water and sewerage companies, in their overall delivery of services to customers.

  Information on company performance is available in the Ofwat report, Levels of Service for the Water Industry in England and Wales 2001–02, available in the Library of the House and on Ofwat's website.

  Broadband
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of households in(a) Birmingham, Erdington, (b) the West Midlands and (c) the UK have taken up broadband connectivity. [112996]

  Alan Johnson
  According to Oftel (Internet and Broadband Brief) 7 per cent, of households in the UK had broadband connections by the end of April 2003. These data are not available for Erdington and the West Midlands.

  Construction Industry (Liability Insurance)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the work being carried out by Davis Langdon Consultants on insurance in relation to the construction industry; and when Davis Langdon Consultants will be reporting their findings to her Department. [112833]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Following representations received from the construction industry about the difficulties being experienced in obtaining insurance, as part of its sector sponsoring role within DTI, Construction Sector Unit (CSU) commissioned Davis Langdon Consultancy (DLC) to:
  establish the nature and extent of the difficulties contractors face in obtaining a range of different types of insurance;
  provide a clearer understanding of the reasons for the problems facing construction firms in terms of both insurance market aspects, operational practices and developments within construction itself, and;
  suggest how the industry could better represent its approach to risk assessment, management and control to the insurance industry, in ways that would help insurers better assess premiums.
  343W
  DLC was awarded the project following competitive tender. The project brief was designed as a 'scoping study' to provide a broad overview of the issues relatively quickly, rather than an in-depth analysis. Commenced in mid November 2002, DLC's report was submitted to the Department on 19 February 2003. The timing of the delivery of the report was in part dictated by the deadline for contributions to the DWP Review of Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI). Copies were issued to study participants, and officials leading on insurance matters at the OFT, DWP and Treasury, and since then to inquirers on request. Some minor amendments on points of detail have since been made in response to requests from two study participants and an amended version will be lodged on the DTI website in the next few days.

  The Department welcomes the report as providing a perspective on construction—specific aspects adding value to the work of the other studies in the area, and concurs with its general thrust. It is not intended, and should not be taken as pre-judging the outcome of the DWP and OFT reviews which are due to be completed shortly.

  My officials are considering whether further focus on construction-specific aspects might be appropriate in conjunction with industry contacts. A secondee with specialist expertise in insurance risk management has been appointed for a six month period to help with this work.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the number of businesses in the construction industry which are operating without employers' liability insurance cover. [113224]

  Mr. Wilson
  Responsibility for the enforcement of Employers Liability (Compulsary Insurance) (ELCI) lies with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). I understand that non-compliance is monitored by means of checks undertaken by HSE's Workplace Contact Officers and Health and Safety Inspectors.

  Prosecutions for all employers, not just construction, under ELCI is low at less than 1 per cent. HSE's estimate for non-compliance is based on the level of Enforcement Notices to Produce served for evidence of ELCI certificates. During the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 there were two Notices to Produce served on construction companies and two prosecutions.

  Domestic Energy (Mis-selling)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of energy sales mis-selling there were in each local authority area in the last year for which figures are available; if she will list for each authority the total number of incidents; and if she will make a statement on energy sales mis-selling. [112983]

  Mr. Wilson
  From April 2002 to March 2003, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch) received 109,500 complaints, of which 12,954 were 344W
  about mis-selling to domestic consumers. Energywatch does not collect figures on a local authority basis. The complaints received by its regional offices were:

  Regional office

  Number of complaints

  Central

  2,501

  Southern

  1,324

  London and South East

  3,367

  North West

  2,007

  North East

  2,015

  Scotland

  897

  Wales

  843

  I have made it clear to the industry that it must address the continuing problems of mis-selling. Over the past year, it has made considerable efforts to do so, and has introduced the EnergySure staff training scheme and a Code of Practice on direct selling. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), which regulates the sales activities of energy suppliers, may take investigative and enforcement action, including levying financial penalties, against any supplier that breaches the terms of its supply licence. In November 2002, Ofgem fined London Electricity £2 million for mis-selling under its own brand aid that of Virgin Energy.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what compensatory measures to other electricity generators are contained within the British Energy restructuring package submitted by the Secretary of State to the European Commission on 7 March. [109527]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 360W.

  In restructuring aid cases, the question of whether there should be compensatory measures is a matter for the Commission to assess based on a variety of factors including characteristics of the market and the extent of any distortion of competition.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to prevent foreign citizens who are not based in the UK from making a tribunal claim under the Employment Rights Act, following the repeal in 1999 of section 196 of the Act; and if she will make a statement. [113499]

  Alan Johnson
  None. The repeal of territorial limits in the 1996 Act ensured that the UK fulfils its EU obligations and removed an obstacle to fair treatment in a few cases. For the Act to apply to any particular case there must first be some proper connection with Great Britain.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the End of Life Vehicles Directive. [113307]
  345W
  Mr. Wilson
  Draft regulations to implement a number of provisions in the End of Life Vehicles Directive were published for consultation on 7 March. There will be further consultation in due course on draft regulations covering those provisions in the Directive which do not take effect until 2006 and beyond.

  LPG
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many liquefied petroleum gas outlets there were in the UK(a) in 1997, (b) in 2001 and (c) on the latest date for which figures are available. [113281]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association (LPGA) informed the Department of the following figures on the LPG outlets:

  End of 1997

  End of 2001

  2003

  100

  1,000

  1,260

  The latest figure of 1,260 was taken from the LPGA website (last updated on 24 April 2003).

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the timetable is for the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [112896]

  Mr. Wilson
  For planning purposes, the target date for establishing the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on a fully operational basis is April 2005. This assumes that implementing legislation can be bought forward in the next Session of Parliament but this is subject to decisions on the Government's Legislative Programme. Draft legislation will be published shortly for comment.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) DEFRA, (b) the industry and (c) green groups on the storage of nuclear waste. [112897]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has regular discussions with DEFRA and the nuclear industry on issues associated with the storage of radioactive waste. Environmental groups have also raised the issue with my officials in the context of discussions on implementation of the proposals set out in the White Paper on Managing the Nuclear Legacy (Cm5552) which was published last July.

  Small Businesses
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the services to be funded by the resources allocated to the local network category in the small business section on page 96 of the DTI's Expenditure Plans 2002–03 to 2003–04, Cm 5416; how much funding is allocated to each service; and what the function of each service is. [112881]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The activities to be funded in 2003–04 under the local network category of the DTI Expenditure Plans report for 2002–03 to 2003–04 are: Business Link Core Services Budget—£140.5 million. This budget is allocated to 45 Regional Business Link 346W
  Operators (BLOs) to deliver business support services for the benefit and the development of small and medium sized enterprises by increasing employment, productivity and helping to stimulate an increased level of business start-ups in the BLO's locality.

  Local Network Development—£3.7 million. This funding supports SBS head office and regional activities designed to enhance and develop the effectiveness of the BLO network and to support the SBS strategy.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Food Imports (Animal Welfare)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to encourage the inclusion of animal welfare considerations in bilateral agreements on food imports. [113304]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have pressed hard for animal welfare considerations to be included in the WTO multilateral negotiations for a new Agreement on Agriculture. I am pleased to say that the first draft of the new Agreement contains proposals for specific measures on this issue.

  Agriculture Discussions (Welsh Assembly)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to visit Cardiff to discuss agricultural issues of mutual interest with the First Secretary and other relevant Secretaries of the Welsh Assembly Government. [113313]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have no plans to visit Cardiff at present, but look forward to meeting the new Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside at one of my regular meetings with Ministers representing the Devolved Administrations agriculture interests.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the consultation process for GM crops. [113316]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consultation process on applications for approval to market GM crops in the European Union is carried out by the European Commission under Directive 2001/18. There are periods of public consultation on the initial application and on the assessment by the member state handling the application. Anyone can submit comments, which are circulated to all member states to inform their own scrutiny.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of progress in reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. [113317]
  347W
  Alun Michael
  Commission proposals for reform of the CAP are under active discussion and we expect these to reach a critical stage at the June Council. We are working hard for a positive outcome.

  Waste Incinerators (Essex)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will visit Colchester to inspect sites put forward by Essex county council for waste incinerators. [113318]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit the sites put forward by Essex county council for waste incinerators. However, if the hon. Member wishes to send me an invitation, it will of course be considered.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Environment Agency on smells affecting communities. [113314]

  Alun Michael
  I meet frequently with the Environment Agency to discuss areas of concern about the operation of landfill sites and other waste facilities, including any odours that may be affecting local communities.

  Farming (Upland Areas)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prospects for farming businesses in upland areas. [113319]

  Alun Michael
  The Government recognise the importance of farming business in upland areas, and the contribution they can make to the upland environment, economy and community. I am aware of the anxiety about CAP reform and its impact on the uplands, but economic analysis undertaken by the Department suggests there will be an improvement in prospects for UK agriculture overall. These and other factors will be taken into account in our current review of Hill Farm Allowance, on which public consultation is under way.

  Steel Industry (Carbon Dioxide Emissions)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of carbon dioxide emissions was attributable to the steel industry in each of the last three years. [113321]

  Mr. Meacher
  Emissions from the UK iron and steel industry accounted for some 5.9, 5.4 and 4.5 per cent, of UK carbon dioxide emissions in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively. The corresponding figure in 2002 was provisionally 3.8 per cent.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. [113322]

  Mr. Morley
  A considerable amount of correspondence has been received about the measures agreed at the December Council on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy from a range of stakeholders.

  Animal By-product Waste
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with retailers about proposals to classify uncooked meat and fish as animal by-product waste. [113320]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal By-Products Regulation 1774/2002 maintains the same principle as the previous Council Directive 90/667/EEC (the Animal Waste Directive) which classified uncooked meat and fish as an animal by-product. This has already been transposed into domestic legislation (Animal By-Products Order 1999).

  Defra has worked closely with industry representatives and enforcement bodies during the negotiations on the EU Animal By-Products Regulation to identify practical difficulties, and where possible to secure transitional measures to give industry time to make the changes necessary to comply with the new requirements.

  Officials held meetings with food manufacturers and animal by-product disposal companies on the 11 April and again on the 29 April with retailers and the disposal industry to discuss the implementation of the new rules.

  We will continue to meet with the affected sectors to discuss the progress being made and problems that arise.

  Darwin Mounds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she will take to protect the Darwin Mounds. [113315]

  Mr. Morley
  Regulations transposing that Directive are currently being prepared. I expect these to be the subject of a public consultation exercise shortly. As soon as they are in place the site will be formally proposed by the UK to the European Commission. In parallel, the UK is actively discussing emergency fisheries measures with the European Commission aimed at protecting the site.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average income of farming families in Shrewsbury and Atcham was in the last year for which figures are available. [109679]

  Mr. Morley
  No information is available on the personal incomes of farming families. Estimates of farm business income are obtainable from a sample survey, but results are not available at constituency level because the size of the sample is too small.

  Net farm income for full-time farms in the West Midlands Government Office Region in 2001–02, excluding farms involved in the compulsory FMD cull, was £12,200/farm. This compares with £13,600/farm for England as a whole.

  Net farm income is the return to the principle farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and to the tenant-type capital of the business.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection will visit Brixham to discuss with fishermen the future of the fishing industry. [R] [113128]

  Mr. Morley
  I hope to meet with representatives from the leading fishermen's organisations in the south west in early July.

  GM Field Trials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the Ministers who will be involved in deciding the Government's response to the results of the GM field trials. [110378]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's response to the results of the GM field trials will be decided through the SCI(BIO) Cabinet Sub-Committee and in consultation with the devolved Administrations.

  Harbinson Agreement
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the Harbinson draft framework agreement on agriculture recently published by the WTO. [111872]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: The Government welcome the level of ambition in the Harbinson proposals and the ideas to help developing countries. However the Government are concerned at a lack of balance, which requires far more from the EU than from some of our other major trading partners, including the USA. Nevertheless the Harbinson paper provides a negotiating basis on which we can build. The Government will continue to work hard within the EU and with other trading partners to achieve an agreement acceptable to all parties as part of the outcome to the 5th Meeting of the WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Cancun, Mexico, this September.

  Landfill
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many co-disposal hazardous waste sites will close as a result of the United Kingdom's implementation of the EU Landfill Directive of 1999; and what volume of waste is involved in such closures. [111795]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, co-disposal of waste will end in July 2004. While it is unlikely that many landfill sites will close as a result of this provision, it is expected that a large number will change classification from hazardous to non-hazardous landfill sites at that time.

  What this constitutes in terms of waste cannot at present be estimated, but all waste generated has to be either re-used, recycled, recovered or disposed of regardless of the number of landfill sites available. It is Government policy to move waste up the hierarchy and thereby move towards more sustainable ways of dealing with waste than is achieved by disposal to landfill.

  Ofwat
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the penalties that Ofwat may impose on water companies to improve customer service and satisfaction. [112878]

  Mr. Morley
  The Water Bill, which was published on 20 February, brings forward proposals to impose penalties of up to 10 per cent, of companies' turnover where they contravene the conditions of their licences or other statutory requirements. The Bill, once it becomes law, will require Ofwat to consult on and publish a statement of its policies with regard to the imposition of such penalties.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers Ofwat has to insist that water companies should backdate refunds or rebates to 1 April 2000. [112879]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State supports the provision of rebates for customers whose surface water does not flow into public sewers. This involves a reallocation of charges between non-connected customers and other customers, which is taken into account on a year-by-year basis. Neither Ofwat nor the Government can require companies to offer retrospective rebates, or periods with no charge in lieu of past payments. Such a scheme would imply retrospective increases for other customers, which is against the Government's policy of stable and predictable charging.

  Packaging Regulations
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those European Union measures, pursuant to Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste, which are under discussion at European Union level, which have an impact on produce packaging by the food industry. [112500]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The current revision to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive primarily relates to increased targets for recovery and recycling of all packaging, irrespective of type. Produce packaging is not specifically mentioned.

  Pay Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 133W, on the pay review, if she will place a copy of her Department's action plan in the Library. [112324]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has completed an Equal Pay Review in line with guidance from the Cabinet Office. A draft action plan has been submitted to the Cabinet Office by the deadline of the 30 April. Defra senior management are considering the review's conclusions and the ways in which the action plan can be implemented. Once these discussions have been concluded, a copy of the Defra action plan will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Salmon
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the Scottish Executive on preventing the crossbreeding, disease and pollution of wild salmon in the rivers of north east England from farmed salmon in Scotland. [113070]

  Mr. Morley
  No such representations have been made.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken with the Scottish Executive to jointly manage the Tweed and its tributaries to protect wild salmon from pollution, disease and crossbreeding with farmed salmon. [113071]

  Mr. Morley
  Management responsibilities for the River Tweed and its tributaries lie with the River Tweed Commissioners, and the River Tweed Council which acts on their behalf. The Scottish Executive maintains dialogue with the Commissioners on a range of issues. Freshwater aquaculture units are subject to inspection by the Fish Health Inspectorate. Defra and the Scottish Executive operate surveillance programmes with a view to maintaining freedom from serious fish diseases.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Schools (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from headteachers in Barnet on their ability(a) to set a standstill budget this year and (b) to fund the work/life balance reforms due this autumn; and if he will make a statement. [109187]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: The Department has received a number of representations from headteachers and governors of schools in Barnet expressing concern regarding the budget allocations they have received from their local education authority. Among these, some have raised related issues such as the lack of sufficient funding to enable other school staff to support teachers. I understand that although the London borough of Barnet has increased its schools budget by 11 per cent, or £17 million the individual schools budget has only been increased by 7.8 per cent, or £10.5 million. Schools that followed earlier advice on freeing teachers from administrative duties should find that implementing the commitments on school workforce reform this autumn makes no additional demand on their resources. Other schools, working where necessary with fellow schools and their LEA, should aim to follow their example.

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111937]
  352W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department recognises the importance of offering support to staff to help them manage difficulties that may arise from their work or home lives and has a contract with Care First Welfare to provide counselling services.

  The contract provides all members of staff with access to confidential counselling 24 hours a day, every day of the year via a free phone number. In addition, there is face to face counselling, debt management advice, a legal help line, and an information service on a wide range of issues including national and local helping agencies.

  Pupil Spending
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the per pupil spending figure was in(a) South Tyneside, (b) the North East and (c) England in each year since 1997. [108737]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  South Tyneside LEA and the North East of England: Average expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  Pre-primary, primary and secondary

  South Tyneside

  1997–98

  1,960

  2,650

  2,230

  1998–99

  2,120

  2,760

  2,370

  1999–00

  2,300

  2,780

  2,500

  2000–01

  2,620

  2,970

  2,770

  2001–02

  2,910

  3,430

  3,130

  North East

  1997–98

  2,070

  2,720

  2,350

  1998–99

  2,190

  2,780

  2,440

  1999–00

  2,360

  2,870

  2,580

  2000–01

  2,550

  3,070

  2,780

  2001–02

  2,810

  3,330

  3,050

  England

  1997–98

  2,150

  2,900

  2,420

  1998–99

  2,270

  2,940

  2,520

  1999–00

  2,410

  2,980

  2,650

  2000–01

  2,610

  3,140

  2,830

  2001–02

  2,850

  3,400

  3,090

  Notes:

  1. Net Current Expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by LEAs. The spend per pupil figures for pre-primary/primary relate the gross current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  2. Real Terms figures are adjusted to 2001–02 prices using the March 2003 GDP deflators.

  3. Pre-primary, primary and secondary column contains the per pupil costs across all three phases of education. The figure is not a 'sum' but a weighted average of the previous two columns figures.

  4. Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  5. Financial data are drawn from the RO1 forms up to 1998–99 and from the DfES Section 52 outturn statements from 1999–2000.

  6. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  7. SEN Schools expenditure not included because it distorts the unit costs and can make meaningful comparison difficult.

  Schools Assessment Criteria
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are used to assess the gap between the best and worst performing(a) secondary and (b) primary schools; whether this gap is widening or narrowing; and at what rate. [106506]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department uses a range of Key Stage and GCSE/GNVQ performance measures to report publicly on the attainment of pupils in their schools. Achievement information for individual schools is published in Performance Tables, and the Department's autumn package of pupil performance contains several school level attainment distributions for groups of schools categorised by different proportions of pupils 'known to be eligible for free school meals', and by different levels of aggregate pupil prior attainment.

  The following tables show two changes in the national distributions of school performances:

  (a) Percentage of pupils achieving 5 + A*-C at GCSE/ GNVQ.

  Year

  Percentile

  1997

  2002

  Percentage point Change

  95th

  89

  93

  4

  Upper quartile

  55

  62

  7

  60th

  46

  53

  7

  Median

  41

  48

  7

  40th

  36

  43

  7

  Lower quartile

  27

  34

  7

  5th

  14

  18

  4

  (b) Percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 + at Key Stage 2 English.

  Source:

  DfES Autumn Package

  Year

  Percentile

  1997

  2002

  Percentage Point Change

  95th

  93

  97

  4

  Upper quartile

  78

  87

  9

  60th

  71

  82

  11

  Median

  67

  78

  11

  40th

  61

  73

  12

  Lower quartile

  52

  66

  14

  5th

  32

  46

  14

  Source:

  DfES Autumn Package

  These show that since 1997 the range of performance at Key Stage 2 has decreased with the performance of schools in the lowest quartile increasing faster than the national average. Improvement in school performance for the GCSE/GNVQ measure has been broadly the same across the attainment distribution.

  Skills Development
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what figures he collated for annual expenditure on skills development for persons over 16(a) by publicly-financed and (b) by private sector providers in the last three years. [112202]
  354W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Latest figures for expenditure and training by my Department on education and training over the last three years will be contained in the Departmental Report which was published on Wednesday 14 May 2003. Information is not available on expenditure on skills development by all private sector providers. A survey conducted in 2000 estimated that the cost of providing off-the-job training for employers with 10 or more employees is £9 billion per year, excluding trainee wages, and that employers with 10 or more employees incur total costs on training of £23.5 billion per year, including trainee wages and on-the job training.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage supply teachers represent of the total number of teachers in(a)Jarrow, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) England; [108739]

  (2) how many supply teachers have worked in (a) Jarrow, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) England in each year since 1997; [108740]

  (3) how many supply teachers are working in (a) Jarrow, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) England. [108741]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available at constituency level.

  Table 1 shows occasional teachers as a percentage of the full-time equivalent teachers in the maintained sector at January 20021.

  Table 1

  South Tyneside

  Tyne and Wear2

  England

  Regular teachers3

  1,460

  9,710

  419,620

  Occasional teachers4

  100

  450

  17,470

  All teachers

  1,560

  10,170

  437,100

  Occasional teachers as percentage of all teachers

  6.4

  4.4

  4.0

  Table 2 shows occasional4 teacher numbers in the maintained schools sector in January of each of the years shown.

  Table 2

  South Tyneside

  Tyen and Wear2

  England

  1997

  50

  2290

  13,610

  1998

  30

  330

  13,150

  1999

  60

  360

  14,120

  2000

  60

  400

  16,660

  2001

  70

  500

  19,590

  20021

  100

  450

  17,470

  1 January 2002 is the most recent information currently available.

  2 Tyne and Wear includes Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland authorities.

  3 All teachers (FTE) on contracts of a month or more in service on the survey date (17 January 2002).

  4 Teachers on contracts of less than one month in service for the whole of the day on the survey date.

  Source:

  DfES annual 618G survey
  355W
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the total number of teachers in(a) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Essex, (e) Cambridgeshire and (f) England supply teachers represent. [109340]

  Suffolk

  Norfolk

  Essex

  Cambridgeshire

  England

  Regular teachers2

  5,660

  6,150

  10,920

  4,060

  419,620

  Occasional teachers3

  280

  340

  390

  110

  17,470

  All teachers

  5,940

  6,490

  11,300

  4,170

  437,100

  Occasional teachers as percentage of all teachers

  4.7

  5.2

  3.4

  2.7

  4.0

  1 January 2002 is the most recent information currently available.

  2 All teachers (FTE) on contracts of a month or more in service on the survey date (17 January 2002).

  3 Teachers on contracts of less than one month in service for the whole of the day on the survey date.

  Note:

  Teacher numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DIES annual 618G survey.

  Standards Fund
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been provided through the Raising Standards Fund in each year since the fund began for each maintained school in the East Riding of Yorkshire. [108288]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Standards Fund is paid to local education authorities and most is then devolved to schools. The amount of grant each school receives will depend on decisions made by the authority in consultation with its schools. The following table shows the Standards Fund grant for East Riding of Yorkshire since the Council became a local education authority in 1996–1997. The figures for 2003–04 are the grant allocated to date.

  Standards Fund Grant allowed to East Riding of Yorkshire

  £

  Year

  Revenue Grant

  Capital Grant

  Total Grant

  1996–97

  1,046,700

  0

  1,046,700

  1997–98

  1,459,767

  0

  1,459,767

  1998–99

  2,341,534

  85,000

  2,426,534

  1999–2000

  4,217,082

  1,297,275

  5,514,357

  2000–01

  6,824,041

  4,151,200

  10,975,241

  2001–02

  8,555,372

  6,423,442

  14,978,814

  2002–03

  8,685,748

  9,083,498

  17,769,246

  2003–04

  5,872,779

  10,846,811

  16,719,590

  The figures include Government grant only, they do not include local authority contributions to the Standards Fund.

  The recurrent figure for 2002–03 includes class size grant of £1.7 million. The funding for class size grant is now distributed via the Education Formula Spending Shares (EFSS). East Riding of Yorkshire received an increase in EFSS per pupil of 4.9 per cent, on alike for like basis.
  356W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available at constituency level.

  The table shows occasional teachers as a percentage of the full-time equivalent teachers in the maintained sector in schools on the 17 January 20021.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Antiquities Trade
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the(a) United Nations, (b) the United States and (c) others regarding the effect on trade in antiquities of the lifting of sanctions on Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [113415]

  Tessa Jowell
  I and my officials, have had discussions with the US State Department, UNESCO, and others on the effect on trade in antiquities of the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. We support UNESCO's aim to ensure that restrictions remain on the import of Iraqi cultural property once UN sanctions are lifted and we are discussing this in the Security Council.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of regional variations in staff turnover in her Department. [112754]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has no Regional Offices and all staff are based in London.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her Answer of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 730W, on Iraq (Cultural Heritage), what progress has been made on implementing recommendation 6 of the Report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade; and if she will make a statement. [113004]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have been active in pursuing a permanent, single, widely accessible database of stolen and unlawfully removed cultural objects and is currently finalising an outline business case for this. Such a database is considered by the art trade and museums to be an important part of the package of measures designed to curb the illicit trade. We welcome the announcement made by UNESCO on
  357W
  29 April that it intends to establish a database of items believed to have been stolen from Iraq and we will be working closely with them to ensure that this database is as comprehensive as possible.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts her Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113680]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has awarded one contract to KPMG since 1997:

  KPMG

  Advice on Risk Management Systems

  1999

  £23,000

  This answer includes the Royal Parks Agency.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many organisations in the Birmingham, Erdington constituency have(a) applied for and (b) claimed awards from the Arts Council in each year since the National Lottery began. [112993]

  Dr. Howells
  According to figures supplied to us by Arts Council England, the total funding awarded to arts organisations in the Birmingham, Erdington constituency since the inception of the National Lottery is £445,998 (26 projects) against a total of £1,214,734 applied for (35 projects).

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the spending per capita for National Lottery grants was in(a) Birmingham, Erdington, (b) Birmingham and (c) the West Midlands in the last year for which figures are available. [112999]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the Birmingham, Erdington constituency has been awarded £2.60 per Capita between 1 May 2002 and 30 April 2003. As we do not hold population details for all Counties or Regions we are unable to provide per Capita data for these areas. However, Birmingham has been awarded £29,770,542 in Lottery funding and the West Midlands £89,922,749 between 1 May 2002 and 30 April 2003.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of her Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time-period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if she will make a statement. [112395]
  358W
  Dr. Howells
  Details of any individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 would be published in my Department's annual report, copies of which are made available in the Libraries of the House. There were no such instances during the last financial year.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she has made of the development by Sport England of women's participation in(a) football, (b) rugby and (c) cricket; [113665]

  (2) if she will make a statement in her policy on (a) increasing participation and (b) promoting excellence in (i) women's football, (ii) women's cricket and (iii) women's rugby. [113667]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Strategy Unit Report "Game Plan" sets out Government's determination to improve opportunities for women at all levels in sport, whether as participants, competitors, coaches, or administrators. Sport England have published sports development framework documents through its Active Sports programme for girls' football, cricket and rugby. Women's cricket will receive nearly £2 million from 1/4/03 to 31/3/04, and women's rugby £1,188,000 from 1/8/02 to 31/7/03 through the World Class programmes to support elite athletes. Elite female football players are supported through the FA.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Football Association on developing a professional women's football league; and what support she is giving to developing the professionalisation of women's football. [113666]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have had discussions with the Football Association on the development of professional women's football.

  The development of the women's game is the responsibility of the FA. However, DCMS officials are working closely with the football authorities and other sporting organisations to raise the profile of the women's sport in this country.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the statutory instruments issued by her Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106330]

  Dr. Howells
  The Statutory Instruments issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the period 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 and their respective purposes are set out in the table. Also included are Instruments which have been originated in this Department but eventually made by the Privy Council. The information sought under(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  359W

  Serial number

  Formal title

  Purpose of Order

  2002/10621

  The Regulatory Reform (Golden Jubilee) Order 2002

  Order relaxed alcohol licensing hours between 11 pm on 3 June 2002 and I am on 4 June 2002 to allow the public to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. It removed the need for businesses to apply for permission from the magistrates to extend the permitted licensing hours, which would have ended at 11 pm on that night

  2002/1130

  The Gaming Clubs (Bankers' Games) Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Allows casinos to introduce three new games: The Big Six, Sic Bo and Three Card to introduce three some of the game rules in Roulette, Dice. Blackjack, and Casino Stud Poker

  2002/1398

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production (Amendment) Order 20022

  Order adds Romania to the list of countries from which film producers would be eligible to co-produce cinema films with British film producers under the Council of Europe's European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production in order to obtain the fiscal benefits available in the UK for British films

  2002/1407

  The Gaming Clubs (Bankers' Games)(Amendment)(No.2) Regulations 2002

  Amends a defect in the game rules for Three Card Poker introduced by SI 2002/1130

  2002/1410

  The Lotteries (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2002

  Increases the price of a ticket in societies lottery from £1 to £2, the maximum value of tickets or chances which may be sold in one such lottery from, £2,000,000, and the maximum value of tickets or chances sold in all such lotteries held in any one year and promoted on behalf of the same society or local authority from £5,000,000, to £10,000,000

  2002/1754

  The Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 2002

  Under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 the Secretary of State may designate sports grounds with accommodation fro more than 10,000 spectators, and football grounds occupied by Football League or FA Premiee League clubs with accommodation for more than 5,000 spectators, as requiring a safety certificate from a local authority. Safety certificates contain such terms and conditions as local authorities may consider necessary of expedient to secure reasonable safety at the ground. This Order designates the new Walker's Stadium occupied by a Premier League club Leicester City FC

  2002/1755

  The Football Spectators (Seating) Order 2002

  Under the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football Licensing Authority grants licences to allow spectators to be admitted to premises at which designated football matches are held, which include football matches played at the home ground of Football League and FA Premier League clubs. The Secretary of State may direct the FLA to include seating requirements in any licence. The Secretary of State's policy is that all football clubs in the top two divisions are required to have all-seater grounds. This Order therefore requires the FLA to include a condition in the licences in respect of the Burnley FC, Fulham FC, Leicester City FC and Reading FC's football grounds requiring that only seated accommodation shall be provided at designated matches at these grounds

  2002/1858

  The Protection of Wrecks (Designation) Order 2002

  Order designates as a restricted area the site where the eighteenth century wreck of the Bonhomme Richard is believed to lie, under section 1(1) of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. Designation protects wreck sites of historic, archaeological or artistic importance by making it a criminal offence, in particular, for a person to tamper with, damage or remove part of the wreck or any objects formerly contained in the wreck or carrying out diving or salvage operations on the wreck unless a licence is obtained to do so from the Secretary of State

  2002/19011

  The Gaming Clubs (Multiple Bingo) Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Increases the number of games of multiple bingo that can be played on licensed bingo club premises in a 24 hour period from three to five

  2002/19021

  The Gaming Clubs (Charges) Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Increases the maximum admission charge to a bingo club from £10 to £20 and the maximum participation charge in a game of bingo from £5 to £10

  2002/1903

  The Cinematography (Safety) Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Regulations lower the minimum age for employment in certain roles within a cinema from 21 to 18. The roles concerned are the person responsible for the premises when the public are present, the person responsible for the electrical installations and equipment in the projection room and the person in charge of the projection room when inflammable film is being projected

  2002/19041

  The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2002

  Increases the maximum weekly added prize money for bingo games in a club from 10,000 to 20,000; increases the aggregate weekly prize in linked bingo games played in any club from 55,000 to 500,000 and increases the total take and total prizes in prize bingo games from 1 20 to 500.

  2002/19091

  The Gaming (Bingo) Act Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2002

  Provides that the maximum amount to be paid as a prize in respect of a game of multiple bingo to be £2,000,000

  2002/19101

  The Gaming Clubs licensing) Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Removes requirement that licensing authorities must impose a restriction on casino premises prohibiting the premises from being used for dancing, or live music or entertainment

  2002/1930

  The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4)(Amendment) Order 2002

  Removes the restrictions on the form of refreshments, other than alcohol, which may be sold in a licensed betting office

  2002/2427

  The National Heritage (Territorial Waters Adjacent to England) Order 2002

  Specifies the boundaries of UK territorial waters adjacent to England and is required as part of the National Heritage Act 2002 in order to define English Heritage's area of operation with regards to underwater archaeology

  360W

  361W

  Serial number

  Formal title

  Purpose of Order

  2002/2635

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production (Amendment)(No.2) Order 20022

  Order adds Greece to the list of countries from which film producers would be eligible to co-produce cinema films with British film producers under the Council of Europe's European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production in order to obtain the fiscal benefits available in the UK for British films

  2002/2666

  The Treasure (Designation) Order 2002

  Extends the definition of Treasure under the 1996 Act to deposits of base metal objects (other than coins) of prehistoric date; and to objects of prehistoric date, any part of which is gold or silver

  2002/2893

  The Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) (No.2) Order 2002

  Under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 the Secretary of State may designate sports grounds with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators, and football grounds occupied by Football League or FA Premier League clubs with accommodation for more than 5,000 spectators, as requiring a safety certificate from a local authority. Safety certificates contain such terms and conditions as local authorities consider necessary or expedient to secure reasonable safety at the ground. This Order designates Hull City FC's new ground, the Kingston Communications Stadium

  2002/3123

  The Public Lending Right Scheme 1982 (Commencement of Variations) Order 2002

  Order increased the rate per loan paid to authors from 2.67 pence to 4.21 pence for 2002–03

  2002/31241

  The National Lottery (Licence Fees) Amendment) Order 2002

  The 2001 Fees Order was amended to prescribe the fee payable on the grant of a licence under section 6 of the National Lottery Act, which authorises the promotion by the licensee of an unrestricted number of lotteries which fall within a description specified in the licence. It does not amend the fees payable on any other licences granted under sections 5 or 6 of the Act

  2002/32051

  The Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002

  Order relaxed alcohol licensing hours throughout the night on all future new year's eves. It removed the need for businesses to apply for permission from the magistrates to extend the permitted licensing hours, which would have ended at 10.30 pm or 11 pm on those nights

  2003/235

  The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Increase of Endowment) Order 2003

  Order permits the Secretary of State to increase NESTA's endowment by £95 million. This sum is to be drawn from resources held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund for meeting expenditure on or connected with health, education and the environment. £50 million of these additional funds will be used to restore NESTA's annual endowment income to £10–12 million pa, and the remaining £45 million to fund new initiatives over the next three years

  2003/5081

  The Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) England and Wales) Order 2003

  Increases gaming licence fees

  2003/5091

  The Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2003

  Increases gaming licence fees

  2003/663

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2003

  Regulations brought into effect certain increases in television licence fees and extended the scope of premises which qualify as accommodation for residential care under the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1997

  2003/664

  The Awards for All (England) Joint Scheme (Authorisation) Order 2003

  To vary the proportions attributable to each of the participating Lottery distributors in the Awards for All (England) joint scheme to reflect revised grant budget contributions from the participating distributors for the second year of the scheme

  2003/828

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production (Amendment) Order 20032

  Order adds Georgia and Poland to the list of countries from which film producers would be eligible to co-produce cinema films with British film producers under the Council of Europe's European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production in order to obtain the fiscal benefits available in the UK for British films

  2003/829

  The Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2003

  Provides for Government grants to the Churches Conservation Trust in the next three financial years up to a maximum of £9 million

  2003/839

  The Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 2003

  To allow the Government to increase the limit of the PLR Fund from £5.5 million to £14.252 million for 2003–04 financial year and £8 million for subsequent financial years

  1 Denotes that Regulatory Impact Assessments have also been prepared for each of the Statutory Instruments. These are available in the House Libraries.

  2 Denotes Orders in Council.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the personal statement of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 36 to the right hon. Member for Birmingham,
  362W
  Lady wood (Clare Short), if he will publish the advice of the Attorney General on the question of the post-war situation in Iraq to which she referred. [113489]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) at Prime Minister's questions on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 310.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council (1) how many times the House of Lords Appointments Commission has met in the last 12 months; [113590]

  (2) what the annual cost is of running the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [113591]

  Dr. John Reid
  The House of Lords Appointments Commission has met twice in the past year.

  The estimated cost in the financial year 2002–03 was approximately £120,000.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 Departmental Report. [112821]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Privy Council Office 2001 Departmental Report was not published as a separate volume, but was included in the same volume as the Cabinet Office Departmental Report. No publishing costs were charged to the Department.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the President of the Council how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111492]

  Dr. John Reid
  None.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104283]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right, hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what progress has been made with the pay review in her Department, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [106746]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

SCOTLAND

  Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102332]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date, expenditure on advertising and publicity has been as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  26,861

  2000–01

  270,494

  2001–02

  186,564

  2002–031

  10,390

  1 Estimated

  Most of the expenditure related to electoral registration information. The breakdown of costs relating to television, newspapers, radio and magazines is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department did not use billboard advertising or advertising at sporting events.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's total spending was on advertising and promotional campaigns between April 2002 and March 2003; and what the cost of each campaign was, broken down by costs relating to(a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. [106436]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There has been no expenditure by my Department on advertising and promotional campaigns in 2002–03.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps her Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109451]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has taken steps to integrate age into its equal opportunity policies and remains committed to ensuring there is no unfair discrimination on the basis of age. Action on diversity has and will continue to tackle any negative attitudes towards older staff particularly through the training and development of managers and through the monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics. Staff over 60 can remain in employment on a year to year basis, subject to certain criteria.

  Commemorative Plaques
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what the average cost was of erecting a blue commemorative plaque in the last 12 months; [111621]

  (2) who (a) sets the criteria of selection and (b) is responsible for the erection of blue commemorative plaques; [111627]
  365W
  (3) how many blue commemorative plaques were erected in each of the last five years; and, for each year, what the cost was to public funds; [111624]

  (4) what the policy and criteria are for the erection of blue plaques to commemorate distinguished citizens in their native localities. [111630]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a devolved matter. There is no national scheme for erecting blue commemorative plaques in Scotland.

  Departmental Establishment
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will provide a breakdown by formal job description of the total establishment at the Scotland Office. [104605]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: My Department has 121 staff in post, of which 35 are in the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland.

  The job descriptions for staff in the Office of the Secretary of State cover the provision of advice to Ministers on the implementation and operation of the Scotland Act 1998 and a wide range of policy matters in reserved areas, under the broad headings of Economy, Industry, Home and Social Affairs and Parliamentary and Constitutional policy. A number of staff provide finance, personnel and administrative services across the Department as a whole.

  Staff in the Office of the Advocate General provide legal advice in relation to Scots Law; instructing United Kingdom legislation applying to Scotland, representing departments in litigation in the Scottish Courts and supporting the Advocate General in her role as a Law Officer and under the Scotland Act. They act in Scotland for most Whitehall Departments in any aspect of Scots Law within their particular responsibilities.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104284]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the pay review in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible., with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [106747]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An equal pay review covering staff of the Scotland Office is expected to be completed shortly.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the 2002 annual report of the Department will be published. [107874]
  366W
  Mrs. Liddell
  16 May.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scotland Office Departmental Report will be published. [104019]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]: I expect the Scotland Office Departmental Report to be published on 16 May.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the(a) cost of and (b) number of visitors to each website operated by her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible in each year since its establishment. [107630]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office website is www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk, which was set up in 1999 by departmental staff. Operating costs for the site are estimated at £300 per year. The numbers of page impressions recorded for the site in each year are as follows:

  Number

  1999–2000

  26,092

  2000–01

  194,981

  2000–02

  356,122

  2000–03

  1454,482

  1 Figures to end February

  My Department is also responsible for the Friends of Scotland website (www.friendsofscotland.gov.uk), which was established in July 2002. The cost of developing the website was £95,804. Details of annual operating costs are not yet available but the network support and development costs to date are £12,435. The number of page impressions recorded between July 2002 and March 2003 was 479,242.

  The only non-departmental body for which my Department is responsible is the Boundary Commission. The Commission's website was established in June 2001 and came fully into operation in February 2002. Since that time the site has recorded approximately 10,000 page impressions. The cost of developing and maintaining the site was £5,125.

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in her Department have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999. [108348]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list events at which her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible have exhibited in each of the
  367W
  last three years, stating for each (a) the purpose of exhibiting, (b) the cost of exhibiting and (c) the number of staff attending for the exhibition. [107625]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has not exhibited at any events.

  NHS Treatment Delays
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health and the Scottish Parliament concerning a definition for an unreasonable period of delay for treatment within the NHS, as phrased in the European Court of Justice ruling on treatment of patients abroad for patients from Wales. [109879]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Treatment on the national health service is a devolved matter in Scotland, for the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the Department of Health and the other UK health departments with regard to EU and other international health matters.

  Parliament Elections
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will introduce legislation to allow voters whose principal residence is in England but who own property and businesses in Scotland to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament. [112596]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Section 11 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that persons entitled to vote as electors at an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament are those who on the date of the poll would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election and are registered in the register of local government electors. I have no plans to change this.

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which her Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if she will make a statement. [104922]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no responsibility for any public sector pension schemes.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of her Department. [109473]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no public service agreements.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax is per dwelling this year in(a) England and (b) Newark and Sherwood District Council. [112894]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average area council tax per dwelling in England in 2003–04 is £908.

  The average area council tax per dwelling in Newark and Sherwood in 2003–04 is £1,009.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mir. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the 2002 annual report of his Department will be published. [107877]

  Mr. Leslie
  Departmental Annual Reports for 2003, covering the financial year 2002–03, are due to be published by 16 May 2003. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to meet this deadline.

  Fire Brigades Union
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has held with the Women's Action Committee of the Fire Brigades Union about family-friendly modernisation of working hours. [111741]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be publishing a white paper setting out our proposals for the future of the Fire Service, and will include measures to make the service more attractive to groups who are currently seriously under represented in the workforce, including women who currently account for 1.7 per cent, of firefighter posts.

  Fire Statistics
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many false alarms per 100,000 population there were in each fire authority in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; [112984]

  (2) how many deaths from accidental fires in dwellings per 100,000 head of population there were in each fire authority area in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; [112986]

  (3) how many accidental fires in dwellings per 10,000 dwellings there were in each fire authority area in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; [112985]

  (4) how many injuries from accidental fires in dwellings per 100,000 population there were in each fire authority in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [112987]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The requested information is available in the Library of the House.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111494]
  369W
  Mr. Leslie
  Due to the recent machinery of government changes, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold the information requested centrally and it could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Housing
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he plans to take in the next two years to tackle the housing shortage in Luton. [110664]

  Mr. McNulty
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear when he launched the "Sustainable Communities: building for the future"(SCP), some 22 billion is being invested, across England over the next three years. The East of England will share in the £4.7 billion being provided for housing investment in the three South-Eastern regions over the next three years. The recently established Regional Housing Board (RHB) will have a pivotal role in ensuring that the priorities set out in the forthcoming Regional Housing Strategy (RHS) are addressed and are adequately funded through the single housing pot.

  Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the South East calls for an additional 2,430 new homes per year in Luton and Bedfordshire. Luton and Bedfordshire, also fall into one of the four "Growth Areas" identified in that RPG, which have in total, been earmarked for an additional 200,000 new homes by 2016. The area will benefit from a share of £164 million allocated in the SCP to expedite delivery of housing. All this will help ease the strain on the housing market and enable more people in Luton to have the opportunity to own their own home, and will promote regeneration in the town, higher standards in design and efficient use of land.

  Luton has a number of affordable housing schemes already underway, in partnership with the Housing Corporation and Registered Social Landlords, to increase the amount of affordable housing. The development of the former Electrolux site will provide over 50 dwellings of affordable accommodation, the redevelopment of disused elderly homes to create sheltered accommodation for the frail and needy will also provide over 50 homes with care facilities. Other schemes are also in progress increasing the amount of affordable accommodation and other tenures in Luton.

  Luton's issues, as detailed in the "Luton Factors 2002–2003" document, are being addressed by a number of Government led incentives, designed to alleviate the housing situation that this country finds itself in. The emergence of RPG 14, the RHS and the developing sub-regional strategies, will enable the Government Office for the East of England to work together with regional and local partners to put policies into practice and deliver the housing so desperately needed.

  Local Authority Cabinets
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities have appointed assistants to Cabinet members and given the assistants additional responsibility allowances. [112988]
  370W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not collect information from councils on the number of councillors serving as assistants to members of local authority executives, or the allowance levels paid to council members.

  Local authorities may also appoint political assistants, who are employees of the council. There may be no more than three political assistants in a Local Authority. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not collect information from councils on these appointments, or on how they are remunerated.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received concerning the allocation of funds to local education authorities. [113569]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since the announcement of the local government finance settlement on 5 February, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received 24 letters from MPs or local authorities that are wholly or mainly concerned with education funding.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether high performing local authorities granted new freedom and autonomy by the Government and who bid successfully for ring fenced, specific grants are able to spend them on what they wish. [112975]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to give greater freedom to high performing authorities, it has unfenced the following revenue ring-fenced specific grants for excellent authorities, for which authorities bid.

  Rural Bus Challenge Fund

  Waste Recycling Challenge Fund

  Playing for Success

  There are no conditions attached to the use of these grants. In addition, Parliamentary approval will be sought shortly to pay the part of the Training Support Programme grant which is bid for unfenced.

  On capital, Contaminated Land Grant, Air Quality Grant, Local Government Online and Local PSA bid based grants have been unfenced for all authorities. All other capital expenditure is unfenced for excellent and good authorities, including bid-based grants except for:

  Personal Social Services (Children Services Grant) which runs for two years only

  Flood defence and coastal protection and the following grants which are paid in respect of expenditure previously incurred:

  Secure accommodation.

  Flood defence and coastal protection.

  Remote Controlled Aircraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what regulations are in place to control the(a) size, (b) speed and (c) height of remote controlled planes and other leisure aircraft flown in public areas. [112832]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  371W
  All aircraft, including remote controlled planes and leisure aircraft are subject to regulation by the Air Navigation Order 2000.

  Size is determined by weight and regulated by Article 129. This defines any unmanned aircraft, other than a balloon or kite, weighing not more than 20 kg without its fuel, as a 'small aircraft'. The speed of small aircraft is not specifically regulated but they are subject to Article 64 which states that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Article 87 limits recreational model aircraft to a maximum height of 400 ft above the surface.

  Remote controlled model aircraft weighing more than 20 kg are only permitted to operate in accordance with an exemption issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. They are subject to Article 23(1) of the Rules of the Air 1996 which limits an aircraft flying below 10,000 ft to 250 knots.

  Rent Service
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will allow the Rent Service to publish local reference rent determinations on its website. [112430]

  Mr. McNulty
  In keeping with its aims of openness and transparency, The Rent Service plans to publish statistical data about the private rented sector housing market in England, on its website. This includes a range of information about local reference rents for different parts of the country.

TREASURY

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which elements of his strategy for relieving child poverty contain measures to increase family incomes. [113297]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As outlined in the December 2001 paper 'Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life', the Government's strategy to tackle child poverty includes:helping to ensure a decent family income, with work for those who can and support for those who can't;
  delivering excellent public services for all neighbourhoods and targeted interventions for those with additional needs;
  support for parents so that parents can provide better support for their children; and
  harnessing the power and expertise of the voluntary and community sectors, providing support for innovation and good practice.

  The main measures the Government have taken to increase family incomes to relieve child poverty include:
  The introduction of the new Child and Working Tax Credits from April this year, to tackle child poverty and make work pay, ensuring that those who need the most help receive the greatest support. Nine out of 10 families with children are expected to benefit, those with incomes of up to £50,000 will receive at least £545 a year. From April 2004, the child element of the Child Tax Credit will be uprated at least in line with earnings rather than prices for the rest of the Parliament;
  The child care element available through the Working Tax Credit, which has been extended from April 2003 to include approved child care in parent's own home, provides additional
  372W
  support for families for whom the cost of child care is a barrier to work parents can receive up to 70 per cent, of eligible child care costs up to £135 a week for one child, up to £200 for two;
  Increases in the rates of Child Benefit—this April rates were increased in line with prices from £15.75 to £16.05 a week for the first child in every family, and from £10.55 to £10.75 a week for subsequent children. The rate for the first child is now 25 per cent, higher in real terms than it was in 1997;
  Increases in the children's allowances in Income Support and other income related benefits, with rates for children under 11 rising by 80 per cent, in real terms since 1997;
  The introduction of the National Minimum Wage in 1999. By October this year, lowest paid workers will have seen an increase in their wages of 25 per cent, since 1999.
  Active Labour Market Programmes, such as the New Deal for lone parents, which provides help with training, education and child care, to help lone-parents into work. The employment rate of lone-parents has increased to 54 per cent, year compared to 46 per cent, in 1997.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 409W, on the construction industry, what estimates he has made since May 1997 of the loss of tax revenue as a result of tax evasion in the construction industry. [95007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates about the amount of tax that might be lost through tax evasion in the construction industry.

  Discounts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) of 18 March 2003,Official Report, columns 674–76W, what the take-up assumption for the discounts and offsetting benefits to council tax were; and if he will publish an equivalent table for council tax as a percentage of income by decile for the over 60s. [113059]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr Jim Cousins, dated 15 May 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the proportion of income that over 60s pay in council tax within each income decile. I am replying in his absence. (113059)
  Estimates given in the answer of 18 March 2003, Official Report, columns 674–76W, to Mr Matthew Taylor MP, are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01" which was produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and published on the ONS website on April 19th 2002 and in Economic Trends in the May 2002 edition. Since this reply was given, results for 2001–02 have been published on the ONS website on April 11 th 2003 and in Economic Trends in May 2003. The analyses include measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole and can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.
  The analysis for 2000–01 is based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) and for 2001–02 the Expenditure and Food Survey (EPS) which was introduced from 2001–02 to replace the FES and the National Food Survey. Sample sizes for the over 60s are only sufficient to allow a break down to be given by quintiles of income distribution and not by decile.

  373W
  Households for the over 60s have been defined as those where the Household Reference Person is aged 60 or over. The Household Reference Person is identified during the interview and is defined as the member of the household who:

  a. owns the household accommodation, or

  b. is legally responsible for the rent of the accommodation, or

  c. has the household accommodation as an emolument or perquisite, or

  d. has the household accommodation by virtue of some relationship to the owner who is not a member of the household.

  If there are joint householders, the Household Reference Person will be the householder with the highest income. If the income is the same, then the eldest householder is taken

  Council tax as a percentage of gross income for the over 60s1—Great Britain

  Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  All households

  Quintile points2 (£ per year)

  2000–01

  8,726

  10,969

  14,100

  19,844

  2001–02

  9,445

  11,900

  15,079

  20,300

  Gross council tax (% of gross income)

  2001–01

  9.8

  6.6

  5.3

  4.0

  2.6

  4.3

  2001–02

  9.4

  6.6

  5.3

  4.2

  2.4

  4.3

  Net council tax3 (% of gross income)

  2000–01

  6.7

  4.7

  4.2

  3.4

  2.4

  3.5

  2001–02

  7.0

  4.6

  4.1

  3.7

  2.3

  3.6

  1 Household reference person aged 60 or over

  2 Equivalised disposable income at the boundary between two quintile groups

  3 Net council taxes after deducting discounts

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income', published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends No. 582 May 2002 and No. 594 May 2003.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114108]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury's targets are set out in its Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery Agreement.

  Employers Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to use the increased tax revenues resulting from higher insurance premiums to set up a fund to cover employers against remote risks. [100087]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Euro
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on manufacturing in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom if the UK does not become part of the Eurozone. [113538]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is committed to publishing a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. A number of detailed supporting studies will be published alongside the assessment. As set out in the 6 September 2002 'Paper for the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work', a supporting study will be published on "The impact of EMU on business in different manufacturing and service sectors of the UK economy".
  374W The attached table gives the estimated gross and net council tax for the over 60s as a percentage of gross income for 2000–01 and 2001–02 in each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. As council tax does not exist in Northern Ireland, the figures shown relate to Great Britain only. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less benefits and discounts.The analysis does not make assumptions about the take-up of council tax benefit, but collects actual data on benefit received. Council tax benefit is available to low income households to help them meet their local tax liability. The FES and EPS collect data on the amount of council tax benefit received by households who take up their entitlement. Where a household reports taking up their council tax benefit entitlement, this has been deducted from the council tax liability to produce the net figures.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is towards the proposed changes in the(a) voting and (b) decision making procedures of the European Central Bank. May [112287]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are keen that any changes to the ECB's voting modalities secure an effective decision-making body in the ECB.

  Given the provisions of the "enabling clause" inserted into the ESCB Statute under the Treaty of Nice and the requirement for unanimity in both the Governing Council and the Council, the Government believe that the proposed changes represent a feasible option for achieving this at the current stage.

  Financial Advisers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of financial advisers who are operating without professional indemnity insurance. [113223]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA tell me that, as at 6 May 2003, 1,741 out of 2,674 (65 per cent.) of IFAs (whose PII expired between 1 September 2002 and 30 April 2003) have told the FSA that they have obtained cover.

  An analysis of the information they provided shows that 94 per cent, of IFAs due to renew their cover in September have done so. The figure for October is 96 per cent., November 87 per cent., December 75 per cent., January 62 per cent., February 63 per cent., March 34 per cent., and April 13 per cent.

  This does not necessarily mean that the other IFAs have not got cover. IFAs are reluctant to confirm that they have cover until they have received a cover note

  375W
  even though they may have agreed terms with their broker. This means that there is usually a gap between the expiry of an IFA's PII policy and the receipt of confirmation that the policy has been renewed, by the FSA. The FSA are contacting the remaining firms to establish their position.

  Consumer Prices
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the measurement of inflation of moving from the RPIX method to the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices method in(a) each of the last five years and (b) the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [113577]

  Ruth Kelly
  RPIX and HICP inflation data are published monthly by the ONS in their First Release on consumer price indices. Projections for RPIX and HICP inflation to 2005 were presented in Box B7 of the 2003 Budget report.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures have been taken by his Department to increase creditor participation in debt alleviation for heavily indebted poor countries; [112917]

  (2) whether creditor participation has been added to the status of implementation reports for heavily indebted poor countries; [112915]

  (3) what progress has been made by the Government in restricting vulture funds and other debt brokers purchasing the debts of heavily indebted poor countries; [112914]

  (4) that plans the Government has for reform of the laws governing litigation against heavily indebted poor countries; [112918]

  (5) what progress has been made by G8 governments on compiling a report of creditor participation for heavily indebted poor countries; [112916]

  (6) if he will convene a conference to persuade creditors of the value of participating in debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; [112920]

  (7) what progress has been made by the World Bank to provide reports on legal action brought against heavily indebted poor countries by creditors not participating in the HIPC initiative; [113397]

  (8) what progress has been made by the World Bank to provide technical assistance to heavily indebted poor countries involved in litigation with creditors not participating in the HIPC initiative; [113398]

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals the Government has made since the Kananaskis G8 summit(a) to provide more relief than envisaged at completion point for HIPCs that have debts above the thresholds as a result of commodity price shocks within the HIPC rules and (b) to press for a change in the rules to ensure that additional relief provided beyond HIPC by some bilateral donors is excluded from the calculations; what response the Government has received from other G8 members to its proposals; and if he will make a statement. [113651]
  376W
  John Healey
  At the G7 Kananaskis summit in 2002 the UK was instrumental in securing agreement that action was necessary to increase creditor participation in the HIPC initiative.

  The G7 agreed to ask the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to:
  include, in HIPCs' Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility reviews and Completion Point documents, more detailed information on the respective countries' success in obtaining comparable treatment; post comprehensive information on creditor participation on the Bank and Fund Web sites, including creditors' explanations for non-participation;
  continue to work with regional and small multilateral development institutions to encourage and facilitate their participation in the Initiative;
  and noting the importance of commercial creditor participation, to prepare a comprehensive report on legal action brought against HIPCs by non-participating creditors, including by commercial creditors, and on options for HIPCs to obtain technical assistance to facilitate resolution of disputes;
  continue to encourage bilateral creditors not to sell their claims on HIPCs in the secondary debt market;
  to include participation in the HIPC Initiative in reporting under Article IV as well as other Fund and Bank documents.

  As far as non-Paris Club official bilateral creditors are concerned, the G7 asked the IMF and World Bank to encourage creditors who are members of the two organisations to participate fully in the HIPC Initiative, particularly relatively wealthy creditors that have a significant amount of claims. In addition, the G7 urged the IMF to identify creditor countries' participation in the Initiative ahead of any debt rescheduling with the Paris Club.

  The G7 also agreed to ask the Chair of the Paris Club to consider inviting, on a case-by-case basis, non-member official creditors to participate in its negotiations with HIPC countries on the understanding that these creditors will join a satisfactory consensus and will abide by Paris Club principles.

  The September 2002 HIPC Status of Implementation Report, prepared jointly by the staffs of the Fund and the World Bank, reported via a survey of HIPC countries on pending and completed creditor litigation. It also reported more generally on the status of creditor participation. At the Spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF the Development Committee welcomed the recent paper by the Bank and the Fund that reviewed the difficult issues of creditor participation, including HIPC-to-HIPC debt relief and creditor litigation and welcomed the decision by the Bank to explore options to assist with HIPC-to-HIPC debt. The Development Committee agreed to discuss these issues again at the next meeting, and reiterated its request to creditors that had not yet done so to participate fully in the initiative. For its part the UK in a statement to the Development Committee by the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged the Bank and Fund to explore further the issue of a 'donor funded' technical assistance facility to provide advice to HIPC countries facing litigation. The UK will pursue this issue and other outstanding HIPC issues such as the topping-up methodology at the forthcoming G8 summit in Evian and the next annual meetings of the Bank and Fund in September.
  377W
  The September 2002 HIPC Status of Implementation Report and the paper on creditor participation issues in the enhanced HIPC initiative are available from the World Bank website at www.worldbank.org/hipc.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress the World Bank and the IMF have made in developing a HIPC-to-HIPC trust fund. [112919]

  John Healey
  At the Spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF the Development Committee welcomed the recent paper by the Bank and the Fund that reviewed the difficult issues of creditor participation, including HIPC-to-HIPC debt relief and creditor litigation and welcomed the decision by the Bank to explore options to assist with HIPC-to-HIPC debt. Where HIPCs find it difficult to deliver full HIPC relief due to financial constraints, one option would be a donor-financed trust fund to resolve these claims. The UK believes it is worth exploring this option further and will continue to work with the Bank and Fund to examine it in more detail.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress there has been on organising an international conference on innovative mechanisms for providing debt relief, as advocated by the HIPC ministerial network. [112921]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor has proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015. The IFF could also be used to help fund further debt relief for existing debts, which for some poor and indebted countries is a valuable instrument to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

  At their eighth meeting in Kigali, Rwanda on 28–29 April 2003 36 HIPC Finance Ministers endorsed the UK proposal for an International Finance Facility, and urged that its funding should be fully additional and channelled to grants. The UK is promoting the IFF through a range of international fora and the communiqué from the April 2003 G7 Finance Ministers' meeting agreed they would continue to focus on the Millennium Development goals and their financing, including facilities, with a view to progress by the Evian Summit.

  Income Tax
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much revenue

  Inflation Measures 1997–2002

  Change on previous year (per cent)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Household Consumption Expenditure Deflator (Total)

  2.2

  2.9

  1.5

  0.8

  0.9

  0.7

  Household Consumption Expenditure Deflator (Services)

  1.4

  0.8

  -0.7

  -1.6

  -1.8

  -1.9

  Household Consumption Expenditure Deflator (Goods)

  4.2

  5.4

  4.1

  3.7

  4.0

  4.1

  Government Consumption Expenditure Deflator

  1.6

  2.2

  4.4

  4.6

  5.1

  5.1

  Gross Fixed Capital Formation Deflator

  -0.2

  -0.4

  1.2

  1.7

  2.4

  3.4

  378W
  would have been raised in the financial year 2002–03 by a 50 per cent, rate of tax on taxable income over £100,000 pa. [113412]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The additional full-year yield of a 50 per cent, rate of tax on taxable income over £100,000 in 2002–03 is £4.2 billion. This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the April 2003 Budget.

  This estimate excludes any behavioural response to the tax change.

  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in residential care homes in England and Wales pay income tax. [113777]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret the requested information is not available.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Inland Revenue holds from overpayment of income tax. [112926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount of money held at any one time for income tax overpayments is not accurately identifiable. This is because several systems cover different groups of taxpayers and an overpayment may not arise until an Income Tax liability has been established. How overpayments and potential repayments are identified and dealt with will depend on the group of taxpayers being considered. For example different procedures apply for employees and for Self Assessment taxpayers.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who overpaid income tax in each of the last five years; and If he will make a statement. [112927]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Inflation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average levels of inflation of(a) public and (b) private sector costs have been in each year since 1997 on (i) goods, (ii) services and (iii) labour. [112740]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 15 May 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on levels of inflation of public and private sector costs on goods, services and labour. (112740)
  Data that exactly match those requested in the question are not available. The attached table shows the nearest available figures.

  379W

  Inflation Measures 1997–2002

  Change on previous year (per cent)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Average Earnings Index (Public sector)

  2.2

  3.3

  4.1

  3.8

  5.0

  4.0

  Average Earnings Index (Private sector)

  4.7

  5.6

  5.0

  4.7

  4.3

  3.5

  Retail Prices Index (Goods)

  2.2

  1.6

  0.9

  0.3

  0.3

  -0.5

  Retail Prices Index (Services)

  3.1

  3.2

  3.5

  3.5

  3.8

  4.6

  The household consumption deflator measures the change in prices of all goods and services purchased by households regardless of whether they are purchased from public or private sectors.

  The government consumption deflator measures the change in prices of goods and services produced by government.

  As with all deflators, this may not fully reflect the change in quality of the services produced.

  The gross fixed capital formation deflator measures the price of capital goods. There is no separate deflator for public and private sector purchases.

  The average earnings index covers earnings; but not include other components of labour costs.

  The Retail Prices Index is the main domestic measure of inflation in the United Kingdom. It measures the average change in the prices of goods and services purchased by most households in the UK.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the take-home pay of those in low paid work. [113276]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government introduced the first ever National Minimum Wage in April 1999 and has recently announced that, from October 2003, the National Minimum Wage will increase from £4.20 to £4.50. Subject to an assessment of the future economic situation, it will increase again to £4.85 in October 2004. At least 1.3 million workers stand to benefit from the 2003 increase, and 1.7 million from the 2004 increase. Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in 1999, low paid workers will have seen their wages increase by 25 per cent, by October 2003.

  The Government have reduced taxes for lower-paid workers. As a consequence of the introduction of the lOp rate of income tax in 1999, and the subsequent to the basic rate down to 22p in 2000, 3 million low paid workers now pay lower taxes. The reforms to the National Insurance Contributions have removed the unfair "entry fee" and have raised the point at which employees start paying NICs from £66 in 1999 to £89 per week now, while leaving their entitlement to contributory benefits protected.

  In 1999 the Government introduced the Working Families Tax Credit, which reached nearly 1.4 million families with children, helping around 550,000 more families than the old Family Credit at its peak. Building on this success, from April 2003 the Working Tax Credit improves support for workers on low and moderate earnings and for the first time extends support to single people and couples without children, provided they are aged 25 or over and they work at least 30 hours per week. Alongside the Working Tax Credit, the Government have introduced the Child Tax Credit, that supports families with children and it is paid in and out of work. The Child Tax Credit is expected to benefit 5.75 million families, and will channel £13 billion in support to families, most of them on low and moderate incomes.

  As a consequence of the reforms illustrated above, from October 2003 a family with one child and one adult working 35 hours per week at the National Minimum Wage will be guaranteed an income of £241 per week, while a couple without children and one adult working
  380W
  35 hours a week will take home at least £187 per week. These figures compare with £182 in April 1999 for a family with one child and £117 for a childless couple. Before the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, no minimum income from work could be guaranteed.

  Manx Government
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what issues his Department has discussed with the Manx Government since the beginning of 2002. [113066]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 104–05W.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women pay reduced rate Class I National Insurance Contributions; what estimate he has made of their level of earnings; and what their percentage increase in national insurance contributions was in April. [113067]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimated 50,000 women will pay the reduced rate of Class 1 National Insurance Contributions in 2003–04 and their estimated average earnings is £290 per week. These estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary Department and are consistent with Budget 2003.

  The married women's reduced rate was increased by 1 percentage point in April this year.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of SARS on(a) the economy in Asia and (b) the world economy. [113735]

  Mr. Boateng
  Paragraph B13 of chapter B of the April 2003 Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 500) discussed the potential consequences of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The government continues to monitor the situation closely

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of recent reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact. [114102]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are committed to publishing a comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. A number of detailed supporting studies will be published alongside the assessment. As set out in the 6 September 2002 'Paper for the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work', a supporting study will be published on "The robustness of the arrangements for macroeconomic stability—including the Stability and Growth Pact—and their contribution to overall economic performance".

  We continue to discuss with our EU colleagues our support for a prudent interpretation of the SGP, which takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make an assessment of the performance of the working tax credit and child tax credit helpline; and if he will make a statement. [111380]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 791W.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advertising and publicity has been devoted to the Inland Revenue's helpline for the new tax credit system; and at what cost. [113003]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new tax credits—Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit—were introduced in April. A high-profile publicity campaign has been running since last autumn to alert people to their entitlement and to encourage them to claim. The campaign has so far included national television advertising, national and local radio advertising, adverts in the national press as well as on-line publicity.

  All of the publicity material including the claim form, award notices and letters from the Revenue, have included details of either the Tax Credit Helpline or the advertising response line as appropriate but there has been no specific advertising of the lines separately from the overall tax credit publicity campaign

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the average time has been since the introduction of working tax credits from application to first payment in(a) Angus constituency and (b) Scotland; [114006]

  (2) how many persons in (a) Angus constituency and (b) Scotland have applied for working tax credit; [114008]

  (3) what the average time has been for dealing with applications for working tax credit in (a) Angus constituency and (b) Scotland. [114007]
  382W
  Dawn Primarolo
  No figures on Working Tax Credit or Child Tax Credit are yet available for Angus or Scotland. For the time taken to process applications, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 161W. Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published in August.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people applied for the new tax credits in Northern Ireland by 1 April; and what the average time taken to process applications was. [113494]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the United Kingdom as a whole, 3.9 million applications for Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit were received by 9 April. The number received from applicants in Northern Ireland is not available; statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published in August.

  For the time taken to process applications, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr Hughes) on 28 April 2003, Official Report, column 161W.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of an increase in the amount of tax credit received by an individual on their(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [113515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Awards of new tax credits count as income in the assessment of HB and Council Tax Benefit awards. For each additional £1 of income earned through work or tax credits, entitlement to HB and CTB is withdrawn at a rate of 85 pence.

  For 2003–04, the allowances in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit have been increased in line with the maximum amount for each element of the Child Tax Credit. As a result no family on Child Tax Credit will lose out through a reduced Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit award.

  In addition Budget 2003 announced that from 2004–05 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit will disregard the first £11.90 of weekly earnings rather than the current disregard of the premium in Working Tax Credit paid to those working 30 hours or more per week. This will improve gains to work for tenants with children or a disability, working between 16 and 30 hours per week.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Birmingham, Erdington have taken up the Child Tax Credit. [113296]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on the number of Child and Working Tax Credit awards will be published quarterly, beginning in August 2003. The first set of statistics will cover awards at early July 2003.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Working Tax Credit Helpline; [113513]

  (2) how many telephone lines are dedicated to dealing with queries from the general public who telephone the Working Tax Credit Helpline; what monitoring is conducted on the time taken to respond to messages left

  383W
  in the helpline; what the average response time for messages is; and what representations he has received about response times. [113514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made to the House on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 53 and to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham, Dr. Cable on 8 May 2003, Official Report, column 791W.

  At present there are around 4,800 telephone lines servicing the Tax Credit Helpline in Great Britain. The helpline does not offer facilities for leaving recorded messages.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what plans the G8 has to publish progress reports on the implementation of its G8 Africa Action Plan(a) after the Evian Summit and (b) in future years; and how it intends to maintain the commitment of G8 countries to the Africa Action Plan over the longer term. [113634]

  Hilary Benn
  The G8 Africa Personal Representatives will be presenting a progress report to G8 heads at the Evian Summit. Additionally the UK, USA, Japan, France, Canada and Germany will be publishing reports detailing bilateral progress. These will be added to the APR report as appendices. The Evian Summit represents a milestone in the achievement of objectives set out in the G8 Africa Action Plan but it is not a final deadline. Progress will continue after Evian. G8 Heads will consider at Evian how to continue high level political engagement with African governments; and discussions are ongoing regarding the potential for focus on Africa under the UK Presidency in 2005.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the UK Government in consultation with other donor countries will be doing to achieve the 2005 Millennium Development Goals on gender parity and access to primary and secondary education. [112186]

  Hilary Benn
  The 2005 Millennium Development Goal on gender parity and access to primary and secondary education is a key priority of DFID. We believe that achieving the MDGs requires learning lesson from past efforts, encouraging and supporting governments in developing countries to implement sound policies, and in providing countries with the necessary resources.

  The Government are committed to collaborating with a variety of partners to accelerate progress on girls' education. Like most donor countries, gender is now mainstreamed into all our development work. We are working with the UN Girls' Education Initiative to ensure stronger collaboration and co-ordination among donors at the global and the national level. And we are
  384W
  working with the World bank and UNICEF to develop sustainable strategies for girls' education in several countries.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Millennium Development Goals on universal primary education gender parity in access to primary and secondary education will be a priority for governments at the G8 summit. [112188]

  Hilary Benn
  The main output of the 2002 G8 meeting in Kananaskis was the G8 Africa Action Plan. In response to this we announced an increase in bilateral spending to Africa from around £650 million a year then, to £1 billion by 2006. The provision of adequate and appropriate support to countries with credible plans to achieve UPE was integral to the Action Plan. Education is not likely to feature so prominently in this year's meeting. Nevertheless, the international community remains committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goals on universal primary education and gender parity in access to primary and secondary education. The Fast Track Initiative illustrates this commitment and could improve donor harmonisation in the education sector.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the total cost of the reconstruction of Afghanistan. [112200]

  Hilary Benn
  A preliminary Reconstruction Needs Assessment was carried out in late 2001/early 2002 by UNDP, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. This estimated that US$18 billion was required over 10 years to reconstruct Afghanistan. This assessment was carried out quickly in order to provide a basis for pledges at the Tokyo Ministerial meeting in January 2002.

  Since then more detailed needs assessments have been carried out in several sectors, including agriculture, education, transport and environment. The Afghan Transitional Administration now estimates that they require US$15 billion over the next five years to reconstruct the country.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the security situation upon the distribution of food in Afghanistan. [112738]

  Hilary Benn
  Food aid continues to reach those who need it in most areas of Afghanistan. Some UNHCR field operations have been suspended due to the security situation on the border with Pakistan, and the situation remains fluid in the north of the country, with WFP unable to access a district in Balkh province due to inter-factional fighting. The security situation and restrictions on operations are reviewed regularly, however.

  Approximately 5.8 million people will receive food aid in 2003 through a partnership between the Afghan Transitional Administration and WFP. WFP is also

  385W
  working in partnership with UNHCR to provide food aid to returning refugees and those who remain in refugee camps.

  The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan has improved over the last year, with the drought easing due to increased rainfall and an 80 per cent. increase in crop yield over the previous year.

  Aid (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what level of aid is being provided to uprooted people in developing countries; and to what extent the Government has acted upon the agreements made at the Montevideo Convention in 2001. [110707]

  Hilary Benn
  People may be displaced from or forced to leave their homes and livelihoods for many different reasons. It is not possible to provide information on the level of assistance related to such a wide range of circumstances without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Argentina
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources her Department has allocated in response to the severe flooding in northern Argentina. [112728]

  Hilary Benn
  Our assessment of the situation in Santa Fe Province is that while the flooding is serious, the national structures in place are proving sufficient in providing appropriate assistance. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

  China
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being made available to the People's Republic of China in regard to the SARS outbreak. [112605]

  Hilary Benn
  We will provide around £3.25 million as part of a co-ordinated donor response to help Chinese efforts to deal with SARS. DFID funding is likely to focus in the short term on: support to the Ministry of Health for immediate medical requirements via a World Bank Trust Fund; and strengthening the World Health Organisation in China. In the longer term, it will be important to address health systems and governance issues, particularly as they relate to access to services for the poorest.

  Coffee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had regarding support programmes for coffee farmers facing poverty following the collapse of coffee prices; and if she will make a statement. [111563]

  Hilary Benn
  Last November (2002), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) attended the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) at which proposals for addressing the coffee crisis was discussed by EU Ministers.
  386W
  We remain concerned about the plight of those whose livelihoods have been, and continue to be, affected by the depressed producer prices that have prevailed in the coffee market over the last few years. Commodity dependence is a complex problem and there is no simple solution.

  DFID are providing support to many countries affected by a decline in coffee prices we attempt wherever possible to help poor people recover from falling incomes and help commodity dependent countries diversify.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources her Department has allocated to helping coffee producers gain organic certification for their coffee; and to which countries. [111582]

  Hilary Benn
  There can be no automatic presumption that organic certification will deliver improved livelihoods for poor coffee producers. It is important that careful consideration is given to ensuring that any additional premium generated from the production and sale of organic produce justifies any additional costs that may be incurred, including associated certification costs. In 2000, DFID financed a study to examine the opportunities and constraints for resource poor farmers in organic production and trade. DFID is supporting a coffee certification feasibility analysis in Uganda.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources her Department has allocated to enable small coffee producers in developing countries to diversify into alternative livelihoods, and to which countries. [111583]

  Hilary Benn
  UK development assistance is provided on a bilateral basis to a significant number of coffee producing countries including Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. UK bilateral assistance to these six countries in 2001–02 amounted to £200 million. Additional financial resources are also provided through multilateral channels including the European Commission's external aid programme and the Common Fund for Commodities. UK support to poverty reduction strategies, and other national strategic planning processes, provides an important contribution to livelihood diversification.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources her Department has allocated to enable coffee farmers to form co-operatives; and if she will make a statement. [111668]

  Hilary Benn
  UK development assistance is provided to a significant number of coffee producing countries.

  The decision to establish a co-operative, or indeed any other organised grouping must be voluntary and based on a shared commitment. Activities must be bound by agreed rules including those relating to the behaviour and conduct of members and accountability. The lessons from past experience, particularly of the state-led drive to establish co-operatives in Africa in the 70s, highlight the difficulties that can arise when decisions to form a co-operative are imposed by external agents. UK development assistance lends support to a range of institutional arrangements as deemed appropriate.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of total investments by the Commonwealth Development Corporation were in the agricultural sector in each of the last five years. [112729]

  Hilary Benn
  The percentages of total investments held in the agricultural sector by CDC Group plc (known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation until 1999) in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Percentage

  1998

  23

  1999

  23

  2000

  20

  2001

  10.2

  2002

  11.3

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 44W, on departmental pay, if she will list the areas requiring further analysis to which her answer referred. [112319]

  Hilary Benn
  The main areas requiring further analysis are a full assessment of the impact of length of service in grade, and a more detailed survey of overtime arrangements. We expect to complete both exercises by the autumn of 2003. Other areas for further analysis in the medium term include the impact of qualifications, experience, overseas postings, career breaks, and secondments on rates of pay by gender, ethnicity and disability. We are currently introducing an electronic database which will greatly help with this further analysis. We hope to undertake it in early 2004 but the timetable is subject to employees providing the data and consenting to our access to it.

  Education for All Fast Track Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources her Department has allocated to expand the Education for All Fast Track Initiative to enable all low-income countries with sound education plans to receive full donor support. [112726]

  Hilary Benn
  Our approach to the Fast Track Initiative is to ensure that it focuses on encouraging Governments with large numbers of children out of schools to develop credible education plans that will enable them to achieve the aim of universal primary education. We have successfully pressed for the inclusion of those countries with the most children out of school—like India (with 30 million children out of school), Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. A working group of which DFID is a member has been established to take this forward. In countries where we are engaged, we will consider increasing our support in the context of their PRSP and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. We will continue to engage with the Fast: Track Initiative at 388W
  all levels but do not envisage diverting existing anticipated commitments in order to support specific Fast Track Initiative proposals.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the UK Government will follow up on commitments made at the IMF and World bank spring meetings on the Education for all Fast Track Initiative; and if she will make a statement. [112187]

  Hilary Benn
  The continuing progress that is being made on the Fast Track Initiative was welcomed at the IMF and World bank spring meetings. Our approach to the Fast Track Initiative is to shape it to focus on encouraging governments with large numbers of children out of schools put the policies and plans in place that will enable them to achieve the aim of universal primary education. We have successfully pressed for the inclusion of those countries with the most children out of school—like India (with 30 million children out of school), Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. A working group of which my Department is a member has been established to take this forward. The key challenge for the working group would be to encourage the countries concerned to commit themselves to making progress and to provide the necessary support and technical resources to develop costed credible education plans within the context of an overall PRSP.

  Ethiopia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources her Department has allocated in response to the appeal made by the Ethiopian Ministry of Health for medical assistance on 16 December 2002. [112737]

  Hilary Benn
  In December 2002 the Ethiopian Ministry of Health requested $21 million to address drought related health problems. Since then the UK has provided £5.12 million for health and nutrition related humanitarian activities through international NGOs and UN agencies, and contributed a further £18.38 million in emergency food aid.

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid has been sent to help those suffering from drought in Ethiopia. [112603]

  Hilary Benn
  The humanitarian situation in Ethiopia remains a matter of concern.

  DFID has made available some £37.6 million for humanitarian support since the beginning of 2002. This has included £17 million for food-aid through the UN World Food Programme for Ethiopia since the end of December. In addition DFID also contributes about 19 per cent, of EC assistance.

  We will continue to closely monitor the situation in Ethiopia, and we remain fully committed as always to playing our part in responding rapidly to urgent humanitarian need.

  Delivery
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development whether the OECD Development Assistance Committee has produced
  389W
  practical guidance on how to (a) reduce the costs for recipients of aid and (b) promote their ownership of it; whether an action plan to implement this has been issued; whether other G7 members have responded to the DAC guidance; and how these statements will be monitored. [113619]

  Hilary Benn
  The OECD Development Assistance Committee has published a reference document entitled "Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery". This includes a set of good practice papers intended to change donors' operational procedures in order to reduce the costs of aid to partner countries. The Department for International Development published in February 2003 an "Action plan to promote harmonisation" setting out what DFID will do to improve the effectiveness of its development assistance in line with the good practices set out in the DAC document. An assessment of performance against this Plan will be produced by the second quarter of 2004. To date Canada, France, Japan and the US have produced statements of action on harmonisation, other countries are expected to do so. Progress on implementing the good practice papers will be reviewed at the DAC Senior Level Meeting at the end of 2004.

  HIV/AIDS (Africa)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what level of assistance is being given by the Government to education projects regarding AIDS and HIV in Africa. [110708]

  Hilary Benn
  HIV/AIDS is one of the most important development challenges facing Africa. DFID is working with development partners to ensure that HIV is mainstreamed throughout education systems, plans and interventions in all African countries where we are providing education support.

  We are also making progress by piloting targeted school-based HIV prevention programmes—the Nigeria Extended Life Planning Education Project is one such initiative.

  DFID is also supporting innovative "edutainment" programmes in Southern Africa, using multiple media such as radio drama, pamphlets and cartoon books to communicate about HIV prevention.

  It should be noted that most of our HIV/AIDS investments across all sectors have an education component to them. As our HIV/AIDS response becomes increasingly multi-sectoral and integrated into other development activities, it is increasingly difficult to quantify the level of investment in the education component per se. Furthermore, DFID is supporting a number of African countries through direct budget support for their own pro-poor policy priorities across the board. This again makes it difficult to quantify the exact level of assistance directed to HIV/AIDS activities. In addition, we provide support through our contributions to multilateral organisations.

  That said, HIV/AIDS is recognised by DFID as one of the most significant development challenges facing Africa and it will remain one of the highest priorities for the Africa region as DFID's bilateral programme in Africa increases from £640 million to £1 billion by 2005–06.

  India
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on health services in India of the recruitment by NHS hospitals of nurses from India; and if she will make a statement. [112656]

  Hilary Benn
  The international movement of health personnel has the potential to undermine the human resource base of many developing country health systems. DFID has worked closely with the Department of Health to develop guidelines to ensure that nurses and other personnel are only recruited from countries where there is a surplus. Mutually beneficial arrangements are also encouraged so that aspects of human resource management can be strengthened in return.

  Given the size of India there is a scarcity of precise information concerning human resources. We know that in some states there is a surplus of staff. We also know that there have been private companies recruiting nurses in India for the global market and that the Government of India has been interested in a more formal bilateral arrangement to manage this process.

  DFID have proposed to the Department of Health and the Government of India that reliable data should be collected concerning the place of origin for personnel that are recruited, as well as information concerning their current practice.

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that Iraqi women and Iraqi womens' organisations are included in all stages of preparation for the Iraqi interim authority and for the preparation of the new Iraqi constitution; [111910]

  (2) what discussions she has had with Unifem regarding the involvement of Iraqi women in preparations for the Iraqi interim authority. [111911]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID—within the influence available to us—will strive to ensure women are included in all aspects of reconstruction in Iraq. We must help Iraqi women to ensure that women's rights are a central part of Iraq's post-war agenda. We are discussing these issues with our partners, including UNIFEM.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial help her Department is proposing to give to Iraq for health and education services with special reference to young people; and if she will make a statement. [112053]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has committed £115 million to support work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis. This includes 32m to the International Red Cross/Red Crescent movement, £9 million to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and £6 million to the World Health Organisation (WHO) which will assist their work to improve health and education facilities for the whole Iraqi population, including vulnerable groups such as children and young people. DFID has also funded NGOs working in the health sector including Merlin, International Medical Corps, Save the Children UK and GOAL.
  391W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many schools are open in Iraq; who is responsible for the running of them; and what discussions her Department is having with this authority. [112199]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), UN Educational Scientific Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) are working with the Iraqi Ministry of Education to get schools back up and running throughout Iraq as soon as possible. DFID is not engaged in detailed discussions but is monitoring the situation closely.

  The UN Office of the Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq (UNOCHI) reports that schools have resumed operating in the north, and are beginning to resume in central and southern Iraq. UNICEF report that primary schools in Baghdad resumed on May 4, though fuel shortages and security concerns have kept many students and teachers away. Secondary schools in Baghdad began to reopen on May 10 and universities are scheduled to open on May 17.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the level of disease among the population of(a) southern Iraq and (b) Basra. [112600]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) is monitoring the level of disease in southern Iraq, including the reported outbreak of cholera in Basra, It is difficult to establish an accurate picture of disease trends in these areas, as a pre-existing Iraqi disease surveillance system is no longer functioning. The reactivation of this system is a priority for the WHO. DFID is monitoring the situation closely and has stationed limited stocks of medical supplies in the region to fill any emergency requirements that might arise.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to adjust levels of overseas aid contributions following the war in Iraq. [112650]

  Hilary Benn
  We have no plans to adjust the level of overseas aid contributions following the war in Iraq. Funds from existing DFID programmes will not be diverted to fund our assistance to Iraq or redirected from other emergencies such as Southern Africa, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Afghanistan or the West Bank and Gaza.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether training sessions have been established for food agents in Iraq. [112679]

  Hilary Benn
  Many existing Iraqi food agents want to resume work and have been reporting to public distribution centres. It is unlikely that these agents will require further training to fulfil their previous responsibilities;

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts are being taken to increase the use of domestically produced food in the rations provided by the Oil for Food Programme; and whether her Department has specific targets for the increased use of domestic produce in Iraq. [112680]
  392W
  Hilary Benn
  Discussions are currently under way between the World Food Programme (WFP), the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) and the Iraqi Ministry of Trade to see how locally produced food can be integrated into food distribution activities in Iraq. WFP are already procuring some foodstuffs from the region.

  We have not set any specific targets for the increased use of domestic produce in Iraq. DFID has been actively engaged in promoting the development of the agricultural sector and has provided £1.5 million to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to support agricultural and poultry production in conflict-affected areas of southern Iraq.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessments she has made of the agricultural sector in Iraq. [112681]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID maintains close contact with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) who are monitoring developments in the agricultural sector in Iraq. Current estimates indicate that the May to June harvest will produce 850,000 to 1,000,000 metric tonnes of wheat. In September to October FAO estimates local production of 100,000 metric tonnes of paddy rice and 80,000 metric tonnes of maize.

  DFID has provided £1.5 million to the FAO to support agricultural and poultry production in conflict-affected areas of southern Iraq.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources her Department has allocated for clearing unexploded cluster munitions in Iraq. [112736]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has committed £4 million to the UN Mine Action service (UNMAS) and £80,883 to the Mines Advisory Group (MAG). £9 million has been committed to UNICEF, part of which is for mines education.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact the allocation of resources to Iraq is having on decisions by her Department on whether to accept external bid s for project funding in other countries. [112922]

  Hilary Benn
  Funds from existing DFID programmes will not be diverted to fund our assistance to Iraq or redirected from other emergencies such as Southern Africa, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Afghanistan or the West Bank and Gaza.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the increase in cases of gastroenteritis among children in Iraq; and what resources are in place to respond to this. [112923]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) is monitoring the level of disease in Iraq, including gastroenteritis. It is difficult to establish an accurate picture of disease trends, as a pre-existing Iraqi disease surveillance system is no longer functioning. The reactivation of this system is a priority for the WHO. UNICEF has delivered oral rehydration salts, including an extra 200,000 sachets which are being pre-positioned in the region to deal with diarrhoeal disease outbreaks.
  393W
  WHO'S latest assessment is that there is not an overall shortage of medical supplies in Iraq, though there are shortages of drugs for a few specific conditions. DFID is monitoring the situation closely and has stationed limited stocks of medical supplies in the region to fill any emergency requirements that might arise.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to(a) support local markets and (b) encourage local purchase of goods in the reconstruction of Iraq. [112924]

  Hilary Benn
  With DFID support, discussions are currently under way between the World Food Programme (WFP), the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA) and the Iraqi Ministry of Trade to see how locally produced food can be integrated into food distribution activities in Iraq.

  DFID's longer-term reconstruction priorities will be to reduce Iraqi's dependence on emergency assistance as quickly as possible and create transparent economic, governance and legislative structures which support broad-based economic development.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of how long food stocks will last in(a) Northern Iraq and (b) Central and Southern Iraq. [112925]

  Hilary Benn
  World Food Programme (WFP) reports indicate that the amount of food distributed by the Oil for Food Programme (OFF) prior to the start of the conflict varies by region. WFP is currently in discussion with Iraq's Ministry of Trade and OFF Public Distribution System officials to ascertain the levels of food pre-positioned at local level. WFP estimates that existing family food stocks could begin running out soon.

  The WFP has pipeline stocks for May and June, although there are shortages of some other commodities. On 24 April 2003, the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to extend provisions of resolution 1,472 from 12 May until 3 June 2003. This enables the UN to process those existing orders under the Oil for Food (OFF) programme which can be dispatched to Iraq by 3 June. Outside of OFF, WFP are also procuring some foodstuffs from the region. They are aiming to build up supplies similar to those previously supplied by the Oil for Food Programme (480,000 tonnes of food per month) as soon as possible. Meanwhile, food continues to be distributed through the OFF Public Distribution System wherever possible.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what medical assistance is being given to hospitals in Iraq. [113048]

  Hilary Benn
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been active in Iraq throughout the conflict supplying hospitals with water, power and medical supplies. ICRC has also been helping-replace missing equipment. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is co-ordinating the sectoral response. Its latest assessment is that there is not an overall shortage of medical supplies in Iraq, though there are shortages of drugs for a few specific conditions.
  394W
  Since the start of the current crisis DFID has supported the following agencies to provide assistance to the Iraqi health sector.
  International Red Cross/Red Crescent movement: £32 million;UNICEF: £9 million (£2 million for contingency planning and preparedness measures, £7 million as part of the UN flash appeal);WHO: £6 million (£1 million for contingency planning and preparedness measures,£5 million as part of the UN flash appeal); and NGOs including Merlin, International Medical Corps, Save the Children, UK and GOAL.
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department plans to give to combat(a) diarrhoea, (b) gastro-enteritis and (c) dehydration among young children in Iraq. [113112]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO), UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and others are monitoring the health situation in Iraq closely. WHO's latest assessment is that there is not an overall shortage of medical supplies in Iraq, though there are shortages of drugs for a few specific conditions.

  Since the start of the current crisis DFID has supported the following agencies to provide assistance to the Iraqi health sector.
  International Red Cross/Red Crescent movement £32 million,UNICEF £9 million (£2 million for contingency planning and preparedness measures, £7 million as part of the UN Flash appeal),WHO £6 million (£1 million for contingency planning and preparedness measures,£5 million as part of the UN Flash appeal)NGOs including Merlin, International Medical Corps, Save the Children UK and GOAL.
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department intends to give to combat cholera in southern Iraq; and what assessment she has made of the scale of the cholera outbreak in southern Iraq. [113113]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) has confirmed 18 cases of cholera in Basra. No deaths have yet been reported. A cholera task force has been established in Basra consisting of the Ministry of Health, the World Health Organisation, the UN Children's Fund and NGOs. DFID has cholera kits sufficient to treat 11,000 people on standby in Kuwait in case any are needed and is monitoring the situation closely.

  Malaria
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to make anti-malaria drugs available(a) cheaply and (b) in sufficient quantities to African countries seriously affected by the disease. [112535]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organization recognises for diseases prevalent in poor countries—including AIDS, TB and Malaria—four key factors that can improve access to medicines: affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems, and the rational selection of drugs.
  395W
  Availability of affordable medicines was one of a number of issues my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) looked into when she chaired a recent High Level Working Group on increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the developing world. DFID is firmly committed to increasing access to medicines for the poorest, in line with the WHO strategy. For example, we have committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support the strengthening of health systems, which will build capacity to deliver medicines to the poor and to make effective choices about the selection of drugs.

  DFID is currently working with a number of key stakeholders, including the Pharmaceutical industry, for an integrated approach to increasing access to medicines for the poor, including tackling affordability. This will focus on the major diseases of the poor including Malaria.

  The UK has committed over $200 million over five years to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria for the procurement of drugs and commodities and some associated strengthening of health systems. We have already disbursed $80 million to the fund.

  The UK is strongly committed to tackling Malaria, recognising its importance not just in terms of burden of disease, but also in terms of the impact Malaria has on economic development, particularly in Africa where this has been an increasing problem. The UK Government are committed to the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goal to halt, and begin to reverse the incidence of Malaria by 2015. At the 1998 G8 summit in Birmingham the UK Government pledged £60 million to support action on Malaria, and financial commitments since then have far exceeded this figure. To date the UK has provided in excess of £110 million to support Malaria control globally and at country-level. This includes a contribution to basic Malaria support through the Medical Research Council (MRC) and support to the Malaria Consortium resource centre. We are supporting the development of new drugs appropriate for developing countries through partnerships such as the Medicines for Malaria Venture and programmes that help find new low-cost Malaria treatments, for example Lapdap.

  Malawi
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the amounts of financial aid given to Malawi over the last 12 months; and when they were given. [111916]

  Hilary Benn
  During the financial year 2002–03, DFID spent a total of £51.7 million in development assistance to Malawi. Of this £19.3 was financial aid, which was administered directly by the Government of Malawi. Financial aid was disbursed regularly throughout the year in a number of key areas, notably in the education and health sectors where funds were used to build education and medical facilities as well as supplying drugs.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111960]

  Hilary Benn
  Given the very small numbers of staff who retired on mental health grounds the identity of individuals may become obvious should this question be answered.

  Exemption 12 (Privacy of an individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, therefore, applies.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many sick days were lost in the last year by her Department through staff mental health problems; [111 996]

  (2) how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111982]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not centrally recorded and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  DFID is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to meeting the target in our Public Service Agreement.

  Philippines
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid and assistance she has provided to the government of the Philippines in the last three years. [112607]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not provided direct bilateral aid to the Philippines since 1996, although £184,000 is provided through our Small Grants Scheme (SGS). This is administered by the British Embassy in Manila and is intended for small scale interventions. Indirect support is provided through our contributions to the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, EC and UN development agencies.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the potential consequences of an outbreak of SARS in Sub-Saharan Africa. [112734]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has not made any specific assessment of the potential consequences of an outbreak of SARS in Sub-Saharan Africa. We look to the World Health Organization to provide a technical lead on this issue.

  South Africa
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what programmes she supports which aim to prevent South African children becoming infected with HIV through the use of dirty needles. [112539]

  Hilary Benn
  In November 2002, the findings of a study commissioned by the Nelson Mandela Foundation (with funding from DFID) reported higher than expected rates of HIV infection among children in
  397W
  South Africa. The causes are still being investigated, but there is no concrete evidence linking the higher infection rates to the use of dirty needles.

  DFID has recently approved a new 30m programme to help South Africa tackle HIV/AIDS. This includes further support for the Nelson Mandela Foundation to enable a repeat of the 2002 study to be undertaken.

  Sri Lanka
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many scholarships have been awarded to Sri Lankan students to study in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [112173]

  Hilary Benn
  Figures for students undertaking scholarships funded by the Government of the United Kingdom with time spent in the United Kingdom in 2002–03 are as follows:
  Primary English Language Project: 15 students funded to undertake short-term teacher training and English language courses under the Regent Language Centre, London.Primary Mathematics Unit: 20 students undertaking courses which have three month attachments in the UK incorporated into the course framework; 15 MEd Students under the University of Sussex and five studying under the University of the West of England.Chevening Scholarships: Three fully funded, two part funded and two joint funded students.Commonwealth Scholars and Fellows: 10 Commonwealth fellowships and nine Commonwealth scholarships covering PhDs, MScs, MPhils and research studies.
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of students in Sri Lanka go on to university(a) in Sri Lanka and (b) abroad. [112174]

  Hilary Benn
  Approximately 2–3 per cent, of the age cohort attend higher education institutes in Sri Lanka. In 2002–03 218,000 students sat A-levels of which 11,514 were selected for entry into tertiary education institutions issues.

  DFID is not able to obtain details of the total number of students from Sri Lanka going on to university in the UK. However, details of students financed by DFID are provided in my answer to your parliamentary question ref. 112173.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid was given to the education sector in Sri Lanka for(a) primary education, (b) secondary education, (c) higher education and (d) vocational training in each year since 1997. [112175]

  Hilary Benn
  Available statistics on Sri Lanka by education sector code, from 1998–99, are as follows:

  Figures in £000

  Education policy

  Education facilities

  Advance technical

  Primary

  Totals

  1998–99

  204

  33

  301

  1,181

  1,719

  1999–2000

  169

  30

  -43

  1,410

  1,567

  2000–01

  223

  50

  0

  1,259

  1,532

  2001–02

  137

  83

  0

  1,334

  1,555

  2002–031

  1166

  1154

  10

  1938

  11,258

  1figures for 2002–03 provisional

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she is having with the Sudanese Government regarding sector wide approaches to(a) health and (b) education in that country. [112176]

  Hilary Benn
  DFlD's programme in Sudan since 1991 has been focussed on responding to humanitarian needs. DFID has not engaged in substantive discussion with the Government of Sudan on longer-term development issues and would not do so in the absence of a peace agreement.

  When there is peace, the key next step in planning for reconstruction of the education and health sectors will be the preparation of a comprehensive development plan. UNICEF and other agencies have already carried out considerable work on data collection and analysis, particularly in the south. The priority will be to build local capacity.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in providing education to the children of Southern Sudan. [112177]

  Hilary Benn
  We have contributed US$2 million to UNICEF for schools rehabilitation throughout Sudan. Basic materials (1,500 school kits, 1,000 textbooks and 500 headteacher kits) will be distributed to every primary school in southern Sudan over the next three months in time for the start of the next school year. The textbooks will be prepared at low cost locally using the recently developed curriculum.

  We are also working closely with the World bank on the preparation of the Country Status Report over the next few months to ensure that the particular needs of the south are fully reflected in the future development plans for the sector.

  Turkey
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Turkey regarding the recent earthquake in Southern Turkey. [l 12710]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's Emergency Response Team was activated within 2 hours of the earthquake and was on standby to assist the Turkish Government should it have been deemed necessary. The Turkish authorities were notified of our willingness to help. In the event the Turkish authorities did not request international assistance.

  While the earthquake caused considerable damage to infrastructure in Bingol, sufficient assistance has been provided locally to meet the immediate needs of those affected.

  Waste Treatment
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to encourage the treatment of domestic and village waste in the most impoverished countries. [111855]
  399W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID is advocating an integrated approach to environmental health to improve health and combat poverty. The challenge today is to build upon models of best practice to expand service delivery in solid waste management, sanitation coverage, access to clean water and hygiene education.

  DFID adopted the target of reducing by half the proportion of people without access to hygienic sanitation facilities by 2015 in the Target Strategy Paper 'Addressing the Water Crisis', produced in March 2001. We worked hard to win international agreement to this target at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and will continue to emphasise sustainable and pro-poor sanitation and hygiene programmes.

  Through our commitment to multi-lateral initiatives and bi-lateral agreements we are prioritising support to national governments and civil society organisations to accelerate work in environmental health in the countries of greatest need. In particular, we currently support comprehensive solid waste management programmes in a number of countries including Egypt, West Bank/Gaza, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Caribbean.

  DFID also funds Resource Centres dedicated to enhancing communication, knowledge transfer and co-operation between DFID, its developing country partners and other organisations in the fields of environmental health, water supply and sanitation. We continue to push

  Government car and despatch agency

  Opinion poll

  Purpose

  Estimated cost (£)1

  Customer Satisfaction Survey

  A customer satisfaction survey conducted by NOP to meet one of their published Key Performance Targets

  18,000

  Total

  18,000

  Government Information and Communication Service

  Focus group

  Purpose

  Estimated cost (£)1

  Phillis review into government communications

  Focus group with members of the public to provide up to date knowledge of the public's views on sources of information and how they prefer to receive such information

  57,000

  Total

  57,000

  Office of Public Services Reform

  Market research

  Purpose

  Estimated cost (£)1

  Police Service Users Satisfaction Survey

  To ensure that our work with the Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on developing standards of customer service for the police are informed by a full understanding of the public's attitudes and expectations.

  37,000

  Attitudes to Public Services Inspections

  To inform our review of external inspection by investigation how effective inspectorates are at assuring the public and informing Service users.

  13,000

  Total

  50,000

  Office of the e-Envoy e-Government

  Market research

  Purpose

  Estimated cost (£)1

  Office for National Statistics (ONS) Omnibus Survey

  The objectives are to ask additional questions relevant to e-Envoy programme, above and beyond the core questions that ONS ask on internet take-up and use, i.e. specific use of e-government etc.

  11,000

  Total

  11,000

  1 Excluding VAT

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Alice Coy/Nick Durie
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Alice Coy and Nick Durie who are being held by the Israeli authorities near Eretz. [113668]400W
  for the inclusion of sanitation, water supply and hygiene into individual country Poverty Reduction Strategies Papers (PRSPs). Through the Knowledge and Research (KaR) programme, DFID is funding research projects that investigate the cost effective approaches of providing basic services for all, and ensuring the poorest are served, be that through a transparent and efficient public sector, or innovative private sector partnerships.

CABINET OFFICE

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106263]

  Mr. Alexander
  The following tables show expenditure incurred by the Cabinet Office and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in the 2002–03 financial year on (1) opinion polling (2) focus groups (3) other forms of market research; with list of the survey commissioned and purpose of each.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Alice Coy and Nick Durie, both activists of the International Solidarity Movement, were detained at the crossing of the Gaza Strip on 8 May. They were released and subsequently deported by the Israeli authorities. We understand that they left Israel on 13 May.

  Our travel advice advises against travel to Gaza. We have updated our travel advice in the light of Alice Coy's and Nick Durie's experience.

  Antarctica
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects agreement to be reached with the Antarctic Treaty nations on the future of the secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [113204]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The establishment of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat will next be discussed by Treaty Parties, including the UK, at the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Madrid, 9–20 June. Progress was made on a suite of texts relating to the Secretariat at a recent informal meeting in Buenos Aires amongst Treaty Parties. It is hoped that these texts, to be presented in Madrid, may form the basis of agreement on the Secretariat.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs in which countries Ministers in his Department conducted arms promotion activities in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 to date; and if he will make a statement. [112293]

  Mr. Straw
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers regularly conduct overseas visits in the course of which they promote British exports, including those of defence equipment.

  For 2002, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers carried out such promotion activities in Chile, Czech Republic, India, Singapore, Slovakia and Tanzania; and in 2003 to date, in India and Singapore.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 10 April 2003 concerning a constituent. [113409]

  Mr. Rammell
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend had not received a substantive reply to his letter of 10 April 2003. UK visas sent an interim reply on 12 May 2003 whilst awaiting further information from our overseas post. A substantive reply was sent by fax on 13 May 2003.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, columns 369–70W, on departmental pay, if he will place a copy of his action plan in the Library. [112323]

  Mr. Straw
  Once the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has concluded its discussion with the Cabinet Office on the Equal Pay Audit action plan, we will place a copy in the Library.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 Departmental Report. [112818]

  Mr. Straw
  Production of the 2001 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report cost £24,314. This covered design, photography,402W
  proofreading and indexing expenses, as well as the cost of copies supplied to the FCO by The Stationery Office Limited (TSO). Other costs of printing and publication are met by TSO, and do not fall to government. The figure does not include staff time which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112749]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff in the United Kingdom are based in the South East of England so there is no requirement for assessment of regional variations.

  ICMB 2003 Programme
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the set of criteria established for the Information and Communication 2003 Multi-beneficiary Programme, as referred to in the minute of the 97th Meeting of the Phare Management Committee (7 February 2003); which organisations received funding under this process; and if he will make a statement. [111075]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Phare 2003 Information and Communication Programme has not begun spending as yet. It is not due to begin until the end of the current funding, which will expire between August and December 2003. As stated in the minutes of the 97th meeting of the Phare Management Committee the allocation for each country will be given to the respective EC Delegations in two segments. The first of these is to cover running costs and ensure continuity of the programme. The second will be allocated to each country on the basis of the following criteria; the referenda in each country, the state of public opinion in the country concerned (the main parameter used will be the Eurobarometer survey), the quality of the work programmes submitted by the EC Delegations and the administrative capacity of the delegation.

  The relevant EC Delegation administers the sums allocated to each country. Some of the work carried out by the delegation, such as the publication of brochures, may have been subcontracted to local organisations and/or businesses. No data is centrally available on this.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his US counterparts concerning safeguards to monitor the performance of the Bechtel Group in their new contract to re-establish water and electricity services in Iraq. [112170]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The US has awarded contracts for companies such as the Bechtel Group in line with US policy and practice. Performance against the contract is a matter for the US.
  403W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the scale of looting in schools in southern Iraq. [112601]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK forces are in contact with the Basra local education authority. The majority of schools in the UK area of operations have reopened. The military have helped refurbish four schools and provided materials to over 100 others.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the contents and (b) the value of the contents of (i) Iraqi Government documents and (ii) Ba'ath party documents discovered by Coalition forces in Iraq, with particular reference to links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and (A) al-Qaeda and (B) other terrorist organisations; and if he will make a statement. [113284]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is the practice of successive governments not to comment on intelligence matters. The Security and Intelligence agencies are not within the scope of the code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to obtain(a) intelligence and (b) military and other Iraqi Government and Ba'ath party documents in (i) abandoned offices, (ii) palaces and (iii) private property for examination by Coalition partners; and if he will make a statement. [113285]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Americans in Baghdad and the British in Basra are seeking to obtain available information and documents. It is the practice of successive governments not to comment on intelligence matters and I will not comment further.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements there are for the Coalition partners to make available to each other on a reciprocal basis copies of military and Ba'ath party documents; and according to what timetable. [113408]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We routinely share such information with Coalition partners.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his statement of 12th May 2003 on Iraq, how and when invitations will be issued for the national conference; and what steps are being taken to ensure an equal participation of Iraqi women in the conference. [113491]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At the Central Iraq Meeting of 28 April 2003, it was agreed to arrange a national conference to establish an Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA). A number of leading Iraqis are being consulted on creating a broad spectrum of Iraqi opinion at the conference. There is a Steering Committee which may issue the invitations to the national conference as soon as is practicable. The UK Special Representative for Iraq, John Sawers, is working with the US and the Iraqi representatives to facilitate this process and has raised with all parties the issue of women's participation.

  Kashmir
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the killings at(a) Nadimarg, Kashmir on 23 March 2003 and (b) Chatisisingpurol in March 2000; and what representations he has made to the Governments of (i) India and (ii) Pakistan. [112972]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 294W.

  North Korea
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made from information published by the Government of North Korea of whether the DPRK possesses nuclear weapons; and if he will place in the Library copies of primary source material. [112595]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is difficult to make an accurate assessment based on information from the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Much of their published information is ambiguous and, in some cases, contradictory. Our assessment of DPRK's nuclear weapons programme is drawn from the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s and from intelligence reporting.

  Peace Activists
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Israeli authorities on the subject of their treatment of peace activists. [113669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials at our embassy in Tel Aviv and our Consulate-General in Jerusalem have taken up individual cases with the Israeli authorities and will do all they properly can to help British nationals in difficulty in the region.

  On 11 April, I spoke to the Israeli ambassador to raise our concerns about the case of Thomas Hurndall, a British peace activist shot in Gaza on 11 April. On 8 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, about the shooting of Thomas Hurndall (and also of James Miller, a British cameraman). We both called for a full and transparent investigation into the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) shooting to be carried out by the Israeli Military Police. Our ambassador in Tel Aviv also raised our concerns locally with the Israeli authorities. The Israeli Government took note of our concerns and promised to cooperate.

  Philippines
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the level of bombing in the Philippines. [112608]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our Ambassador in the Philippines has regular discussions with a range of contacts, including Philippine government representatives, about the continuing terrorist threat in the Philippines and how
  405W
  best to address it. The British Government has been providing training to help the Philippines authorities deal with the terrorist threat.

  When they met President Arroyo in January 2002 and December 2001 respectively, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, the then FCO Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Ben Bradshaw), both commended the Philippines government's efforts to tackle its domestic terrorist threat and its support for the international campaign against terrorism. I also raised these issues with the Philippines' Foreign Minister Guingona when we met in June 2002. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no opportunity to discuss terrorism with members of the Philippines' government.

  UN Firearms Protocol
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UK has ratified the UN Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition; and which other states have ratified the Protocol. [112976]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Jenny Tonge) on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 297W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) the additional cost and (b) the number of beneficiaries of reforming attendance allowance by (i) reducing the amount of time a person has to be ill to receive the benefit of three months, (ii) introducing a lower rate care component, (iii) introducing a lower and higher rate mobility component and (iv) abolishing attendance allowance and removing the upper age limit on claiming disability living allowance; and if he will set out the take-up assumptions used in making these estimates. [111678]

  Maria Eagle
  Estimates are not available in the form requested. However, if the qualifying period for Attendance Allowance, during which a severely disabled person must meet the main qualifying conditions (ie must require, or be likely to require either frequent attention from another person in connection with their bodily functions or continual supervision or watching over to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others) was reduced from 6 months to 3 months, the 406W
  annual extra spend on the benefit would be about £50 million1 at current benefit rates and some 320,000 successful claimants a year would be affected2.

  Up-to-date estimates are not available. However, information from the 1996/97 Disability Survey suggested that with a take-up rate of 50 per cent, the annual cost of extending entitlement to the mobility component and to the lowest rate care component of Disability Living Allowance to people who claim after the age of 65 would be in the region of £3.1 billion3 at current benefit rates. Some 1.35 million people would gain a mobility component and about 0.3 million people would gain the lowest rate care component.
  1 Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.2 Caseloads based on data taken from Attendance Allowance administrative records, and projected forward to 2003/04 by PBR forecast changes in new claims.3 Costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million and are subject to a significant margin of error reflecting underlying uncertainties of modelling entitlement from available survey data. Costs include effects on income related benefits.

  Pension Plans
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of working-age(a) adults, (b) men and (c) women in the (i) North West of England and (ii) the UK are members of a pension plan. [112714]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of working age adults contributing to a private pension in the north-west and Mersey side and Great Britain (2001–02)

  North-west and Merseyside

  Great Britain

  Adults

  32

  33

  Men

  37

  40

  Women

  27

  27

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  2. Family Resources Survey only covers Great Britain. Therefore figures for the UK are not available.

  3. Figures relate to the north-west and Merseyside Government office regions.

  4. Working age is defined as 16-State Pension Age (65 for men and 60 for women).

  5. Numbers contributing to a private pension include all those contributing to an occupational, personal pension or stakeholder pension.

  Source:

  2001–02 Family Resources Survey.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the salary bill was for special advisers in his Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108500]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right, hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 24 April 2003,Official Report, column 45W.

HEALTH

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide specific funding for the implementation of the Government's commitment to end ageism in the NHS. [110594]

  Jacqui Smith
  Implementation of the national service framework (NSF) for older people, including the standard to root out age discrimination, is supported by the substantial additional investment that has been provided for the national health service since the NSF's publication in 2001. In 2001–02 and 2002–03, the NHS received average annual increases of 6.3 per cent, above inflation. Cash allocations to primary care trusts in the three years from 2003–04 will provide an average increase over the three years of 30.83 per cent.

  Since publication of the NSF, significant progress has been made in tackling age discrimination. NHS organisations have checked their written policies to ensure they have no inappropriate age discrimination. Only a small number of age-related written policies were found, and the evidence base for them is being reviewed. A tool to help identify incidence of implicit age discrimination—by comparing, across the country, the rates of 10 hospital procedures by different age groups—has been provided and this is currently being developed further. We have funded Age Concern to run eight events on age discrimination across England later this year.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance has been available from his Department in each of the last five years for initiatives to tackle anti-social behaviour. [110318]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the period in question, the Home Office has provided programme funding to tackle crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. We have also provided record numbers of police officers and police support staff, and tackling anti-social behaviour is firmly embedded as one of our four key priorities in the National Policing Plan. As part of the Crime Reduction Programme the CCTV Initiative has provided £170 million across England and Wales. The Communities Against Drugs programme provided crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) with a share of £120 million over 2001–03 with £50 million allocated in year one and £70 million in year two. The Safer Communities Initiative provided additional funding of £20 million in 2002–03. In 2002–03 £ 19 million was available for the new community support officer initiative, and £41 million will be available in 2003–04.
  408W
  Each of these initiatives has enabled partnerships to fund a wide range of interventions, including means to tackle anti-social behaviour where this has been identified as a local priority. £75 million is being made available over the next three years, specifically to support the drive to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  The Home Office also contributes to various diversionary schemes for young people. The results have been encouraging and evidence from them suggests strong arguments for the potentially positive contribution that diversionary activities can make in helping and preventing young people who are involved, or are at risk of becoming involved in crime and antisocial behaviour.

  Autism
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the National Autism Plan for Children; and if he will make a statement. [112244]

  Jacqui Smith
  We welcome this plan and its recommendations for good practice in providing for the increasing numbers of children being identified with autistic spectrum disorders. The plan will inform the care pathway for autism that is being developed for the forthcoming children's national service framework.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that the rights of autistic people are protected under the Mental Health Acts. [112678]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is Government policy to ensure that the rights of all patients treated under mental health legislation are protected, particularly those of vulnerable groups such as people with autism.

  The Mental Health Act 1983 sets out the circumstances in which someone with a mental disorder may be treated without their consent, provides rights of access to review by an independent tribunal and other safeguards for the patient. The proposals set out in the draft Mental Health Bill, as published in June 2002, would improve the protection of patients' rights by, for example, requiring all compulsory treatment beyond 28 days to be independently authorised by the new Mental Health Tribunal and by providing specialist advocacy.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines 1988 Guidelines that benzodiazepines should not be prescribed for longer than four weeks; [113170]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the scale of benzodiazepine addiction; [113172]

  (3) what plans he has to improve the provision of treatment for benzodiazepine addicts. [113173]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is concerned to prevent benzodiazepine dependence as well as to ensure treatment is available for those who have developed
  409W
  such dependence in both primary and secondary mental health care settings as well as within specialist drug misuse services.

  A range of talking therapies, such as anxiety management, which often includes reduction or cessation of tranquillisers, are available in the national health service, provided by clinical psychology departments, via day hospitals or community mental health teams.

  Improvements to the provision of such services are being carried out as part of the wide-ranging mental health modernisation programme. Supported by additional investment of over £300 million by 2004, national service framework for mental health (1999) provides in detail targets and milestones for the improvement of mental health services in primary and secondary care.

  There has been a steady decline in prescriptions for benzodiazepines from 23.9 million in 1980 to 13.0 million in 2001. This is in line with the Committee on the Safety of Medicines' 1988 advice which has been reiterated in the "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence" (Mental Health Foundation, 1994), "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" (Department of Health, 1999) and the "British National Formulary" (biannual, British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain), all of which has been distributed to every doctor in England free of charge.

  Information on the scale of the benzodiazepine addiction is not collected centrally.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the transition of nursing care costs in care homes from local councils to the NHS in St. Helens. [110005]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have taken measures to deliver all nursing care through the national health service, because this will be free at the point of use, and to remove the previous overlap whereby both the NHS and councils could provide nursing care. To effect this change, it has been necessary to extract from councils the funds spent on nursing care by local government, and to pass them to the NHS for re-allocation to primary care trusts.

  A survey of PCTs was carried out in December 2002 to establish the number of self-funders and the number of residents in care homes providing nursing care. Included within the survey was a request for information on the number of local authority supported residents for whom a Registered Nursing Care Contribution determination had been completed. This information has informed the allocation of funding to PCTs for 2003–04.

  St. Helens PCT declared 587 care home beds in its survey return, and has been allocated £2,632 million for NHS funded nursing care in 2003–04.
  410W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 96W, on care homes, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the package announced on 11 March in ensuring care home providers passed on the free nursing care contribution. [110251]

  Jacqui Smith
  The way that care homes take account of national health service funding when setting fees is a matter for them. The announcement on 11 March last year was about strengthening and safeguarding the rights of residents of care homes providing nursing care and ensuring that they have accurate information about the costs of providing that care. Following consultation on draft regulations earlier this year, we will shortly be bringing forward an amendment to the Care Homes Regulations that will ensure that residents get access to such information.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a person placed in a care home found on a first assessment not to be eligible for continuing care will be reassessed periodically. [112355]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance issued under cover of Local Authority Circular LAC(2002)13, that took effect from 7 April 2003, requires councils to review and re-assess the needs and circumstances of all care home residents admitted under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 on a routine basis. The guidance suggests that first reviews should be completed within three months of admission and thereafter reviews should be conducted at least annually. If a review indicated the possible need for substantial health services, then a comprehensive assessment, informed by the single assessment process, should be completed.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of care homes are(a) privately owned and run, (b) publicly owned and privately run and (c) publicly owned and run. [112696]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not centrally available. At 31 March 2001 the latest date for which information is available, 93 per cent, of care homes were registered as being in the independent sector, the remaining 7 per cent, were local authority establishments.

  Care of Elderly (Hemsworth)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for care of the elderly in the Hemsworth constituency in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [109867]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: Wakefield has benefited from the increases in social services funding in recent years. In 2002–03—the authority's total social services resources increased, on a like for like basis, by 5.9 per cent, which followed on from a 6.9 per cent, increase in 2001–02. In 2003–04, Wakefield has received a 3.9 per cent, increase in their personal social services formula spending share. In addition, they received substantial additional resources from grants paid by the Department of Health. Most resources are allocated on an unhypothecated basis and it is for Wakefield to decide how much to use on services for older people.
  411W
  The allocations to the Eastern Wakefield and West Wakefield Primary Care Trusts are shown in the table.

  Eastern Wakefield PCT

  Wakefield West PCT

  2003–04

  Allocation (£000)

  171,930

  131,156

  Percentage

  9.24

  8.59

  2004–05

  Allocation (£000)

  189,117

  143,375

  Percentage

  10.0

  9.32

  2005–06

  Allocation (£000)

  208,492

  156,303

  Percentage

  10.24

  9.02

  Total

  Increase (£000)

  51,104

  35,519

  Percentage

  32.47

  29.41

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from each parliamentary constituency in the area(a) applied and (b) were interviewed for the post of chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority. [112300]

  Jacqui Smith
  Applications were received from people living in the following parliamentary constituencies:

  Number of applications

  City of Chester

  1

  Congleton

  1

  Crewe and Nantwich

  1

  Delyn

  1

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  2

  Macclesfield

  1

  Southport

  2

  St. Helens South

  1

  Wallasey

  1

  Warrington North

  2

  Warrington South

  1

  Wirral West

  1

  Following sifting of these applications, interviews were held with people living in the following constituencies:

  Number of interviews

  Delyn

  1

  Southport

  1

  St. Helens South

  1

  Warrington South

  1

  Wirral West

  1

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what payments were made to the chair of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in the last year for which figures are available. [112301]

  Jacqui Smith
  The chair received £20,420 annual remuneration, plus £3,257.77 or expenses incurred while undertaking her duties on behalf of the strategic health authority.
  412W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and job titles of those who served on the interviewing panel when the current chair of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority was appointed. [112303]

  Jacqui Smith
  The interview panel was made up of the following people:Mr. Michael Taylor—National Health Service Appointments Commission regional commissioner for the north west.
  Mrs. Jane Isaacs—NHS Appointments Commission regional commissioner for the west midlands.
  Mrs. Dorothy Greenhalgh—independent assessor.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for meetings the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has received from individual hon. Members since her appointment. [112306]

  Jacqui Smith
  According to records held by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority, four requests have been received by the chief executive from hon. Members between 1 April 2002 and 12 May 2003, two of which were from my hon. Friend for Warrington, North (Helen Jones).

  However, since her appointment on 1 April, the chief executive has been actively seeking to meet with each of the 27 hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the Cheshire and Merseyside boundary. She has met collectively with 17 hon. Members on 29 October 2002 and with 14 hon. Members on an individual basis. Six further one-to-one meetings have been arranged.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual salary is of the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority; and how much was claimed in expenses by the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in the last financial year. [112311]

  Jacqui Smith
  The annual salary of the chief executive of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is £118,1041 and the total amount reimbursed to her in respect of expenses incurred while undertaking duties on behalf of the SHA from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 was £1,317.79.
  1 This is within the range specified in the national advertisement for the post, uplifted by 3.5 per cent, (inflationary increase) on 1 April 2003.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average time taken by the Chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority to reply to letters from hon. Members has been in the last 12 months; and what the average time between the receipt of a letter from an hon. Member requesting a meeting with the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority and such a meeting taking place was in the last 12 months. [112312]

  Jacqui Smith
  The average time taken by the chair of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (CMSHA) to reply to the six letters she has received from hon. Members in the last 12 months is four days. The average time between receipt of a letter from an hon. Member requesting a meeting with the Chief Executive of the CMSHA and the meeting taking place was 26 days.
  413W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority spent on recruitment consultants during 2002–03; how much is budgeted for 2003–04; and if he will list consultants used. [112385]

  Jacqui Smith
  There was no spending on recruitment consultation by Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in 2002–03, and there is no expenditure planned on such services for 2003–04.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff members of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority have cars provided as part of their package of remuneration; and at what cost. [112386]

  Jacqui Smith
  Some staff who were transferred into Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) have cars provided as part of their package of remuneration under preserved terms and conditions of employment.

  For new staff, the SHA operates a lease car scheme, which is subject to a value for money test. Under this scheme, 17 staff have lease cars at a total annual cost of £54,167. The average cost is £3,186.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Cheshire and Merseyside Health Authority spent on(a) contracted architectural services and (b) controlled chartered surveyors in 2002–03; and if he will list the firms used. [112387]

  Jacqui Smith
  No costs were incurred by Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority on architectural or chartered surveyor services in 2002–03.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits to EU countries have been made by officials on behalf of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority during 2002–03; what the cost was of such visits; how many non-executive directors were involved in each case; what the average cost was per visit; and what the purpose was of the visit in each case. [112388]

  Jacqui Smith
  Officials from the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) made two visits to European Union countries in 2002–03. The total cost of these visits was £834.20, at an average cost of £417.10. No non-executive directors of the SHA were involved in these visits.

  The visits were to Rotterdam to attend a course for SHA medical and national health service human resource directors sponsored by the NHS Leadership Centre and to Copenhagen to present at a conference on health inequalities.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits to non-EU countries have been made by officials on behalf of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority during 2002–03; and what was the(a) destination, (b) cost and (c) purpose in each case. [112389]

  Jacqui Smith
  There have been no visits to non-European Union countries during 2002–03 by officials of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority.
  414W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employment tribunals are in progress for(a) staff and (b) former staff of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority. [112413]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no employment tribunals in progress involving staff currently employed by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) or involving staff who were employed by the SHA during 2002–03.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff directly employed by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority are in receipt of performance-related pay; what the total cost of performance-related pay for staff is in 2003; and what the average value of such payments is. [112414]

  Jacqui Smith
  20 staff employed by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority transferred from the Department of Health on protected terms and conditions of employment, including performance-related payments. £30,000 was paid to these staff in 2002–03, an average value of £1,500.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority spent on entertaining during 2002–03. [112415]

  Jacqui Smith
  There was no spending on entertaining by Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in 2002–03. There was some spending on refreshments and food at meetings.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings the chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has had with(a) hon. Members, (b) regional public bodies and (c) individual trust chairs since her appointment. [112302]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since the establishment of the Cheshire and Mersey Strategic Health Authority on 1 April 2002, the chair has met collectively with hon. Members on one occasion, on 29 October at the House and individually with hon. Members on six occasions, with ministerial colleagues on four occasions, with representatives of the north west Government Office and/or the North West Development Agency on three occasions and with individual trust chairs on 97 occasions.

  Child Prisoners
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what adjustments have been made to central Government financial support for councils to enable them to assume obligations for children in prisons within their boundaries under the Children Act 1989; [112532]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the financial implications for local authorities of their responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 for children in prisons within their boundary. [112533]

  Jacqui Smith
  Prison Service establishments are one of a number of institutions that lead to 'out of area' children creating demands on local services in the areas where the institutions are situated. The duties of councils with social services responsibilities towards
  415W
  children, including those in prisons, are set out in the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulations and guidance. In order to assist councils in making their decisions, the Government are committed to reducing the level of ring fencing. As the Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" noted, too high a level of ring fencing undermines local management and democracy, leading to inefficiency in service delivery.

  The Formula Spending Share (F'SS) was last reviewed in 2002 with the new formula being introduced from April 2003, to create the current children's distribution of children's allocations. The FSS will now be stable until 2006–07.

  Children's Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 605W, on children's trusts, when the pilot schemes will begin; how long they will run for; and when an assessment of their success will be completed. [111558]

  Jacqui Smith
  The successful pilot children's trusts will begin in 2003. These trusts will be on-going and an evaluation will be undertaken covering the period from establishment through the first three years of operation.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 605W, on children's trusts, if he will list the criteria that his Department will use to assess the proposals for each children's trust; when he expects to make an announcement regarding who has been successful; and when the children's trusts will become operational. [111559]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children's trusts will be assessed on the basis of the criteria set out in annex B of the guide published on 28 January on children's trusts. Potential sites are still being assessed. Ministers will make an announcement about successful applications once they have had time to consider in detail the information gained through the assessment process. Children's trusts will become operational in 2003.

  Choice of Doctor
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions his Department has held with the Southend-on-Sea Primary Care Trust on the application of the Choice of Doctor Regulations 1998; and what powers he has in the event of a breach of these regulations. [113125]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: These regulations place duties on primary care trusts (PCTs) to assist patients to register with a general practitioner or personal medical services pilot provider. On 16 April, Southend-on-Sea PCT sought advice from the Department on the effect of the regulations. In reply, also on 16 April, the Department confirmed its agreement with the PCT's interpretation of the regulations.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to ensure that residents in Castle Point affected by closure of the Walker Drive general practitioners practice are given a choice of new general practitioner. [113126]
  416W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: This is a matter for the local primary care trusts, which are both taking steps to increase primary care capacity and to ensure that the patients concerned are aware of the options open to them.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him of 7 April 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Marion Ratnor. [113439]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 14 May 2003.

  Dementia
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to provide additional financial support towards care costs of sufferers of dementia. [109339]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to improving standards of health and social care and people with dementia will benefit from the new investment that is being made available to support this commitment.

  For example this financial year the Government have made £584 million available to fund care home residents' nursing care costs. Anyone in a care home providing nursing care will have benefited from this including people with dementia. Recently issued guidance emphasises that nurses, in determining residents' needs for nursing care, should be particularly mindful of the needs of people with dementia.

  £100 million has been awarded in 2003–04 under the Carers Grant to local councils to provide short-term breaks for carers to enable them to continue their caring role: carers of people with dementia will benefit from this grant. The Carers Grant has been extended to 2006 during which time it will more than double to £185 million to provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks for carers.

  There have been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 17 April 2002 our intention to increase resources to social services by an annual average of 6 per cent, in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. In addition the very significant increases in national health service funding will help provide new and better health services for people with dementia.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether persons suffering from dementia are tagged in(a) NHS hospitals and (b) nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [111478]

  Jacqui Smith
  The routine use of electronic tagging is not acceptable but it may be justified on an individual basis. It is very rare for people with dementia to be tagged.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts have fitted digital hearing aids; and how many they have fitted. [112429]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows those national health service trusts and primary care trusts that have fitted digital hearing aids as part of the modernising hearing aid services (MHAS) project, along with the sites where

  Modernised Sites

  Addenbroke's NHS Trust

  Addenbrooke's Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oldchurch Hospital

  Adult

  Barking and Dagenham PCT

  Vicarage Fields Health Centre

  Child

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Basildon and Thurrock Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  Birmingham Children's Hospital

  Child

  Bolton Primary Care NHS Trust

  Royal Bolton Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Bournemouth Primary Care Trust

  Boscombe Community Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bradford Royal Infirmary

  Adult/Child

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  Royal Sussex County Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Manchester Royal Infirmary

  Adult/Child

  Central Manchester PCT

  Moss Side Health Centre

  Child

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Sunderland Royal Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Croydon PCT

  Crystal Centre, Croydon

  Child

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  Macclesfield District General Hospital

  Adult/Child

  East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust

  Conquest Hospital/ Princess Alice Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Essex County Hospital

  Adult/Child

  George Elliot Hospital NHS Trust

  George Elliot Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Gloucestershire Royal Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

  Child

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  Charing Cross Hospital

  Adult/Child

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  James Paget Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leeds General Infirmary

  Adult/Child

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mayday University Hospital

  Adult

  Mid Cheshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Leighton Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Morecombe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  Westmorland General Hospital

  Adult

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Hampshire Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Northern Devon NHS Healthcare Trust

  North Devon District Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Edith Cavell Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham University NHS Trust

  Queens Medical Centre

  Adult/Child

  Rochdale NHS Trust

  Birch Hill Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Royal Berkshire And Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading

  Adult/Child

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Cornwall Hospital

  Adult

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  Adult

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  Royal Free Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  Adult

  Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospitals

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  Adult

  Salford Primary Care NHS Trust

  Hope Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust

  City Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  Sheffield Children's Hospital

  Child

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  King's Mill Centre

  Adult

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  King's Mill Centre

  Child

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal South Hants Hospital

  Adult

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Princess Margaret Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  Trafford General Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  Hearing Assessment Centre for Children

  Child

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust (Child)

  Bristol Children's Hospital

  Child

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  Selly Oak Hospital

  Adult

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Adult/Child

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dorset County Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  Hurst Road Health Centre

  Adult/Child

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Royal Hampshire County Hospital

  Adult

  Windsor and Maidenhead PCT

  King Edward VII Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  Arrowe Park Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Wolverhampton Health Care NHS Trust

  West Park Rehabilitation Hospital

  Adult/Child

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  Thomas Linacre Centre

  Child

  418W
  the aids are fitted. It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of the number of aids fitted at each site but a total of 83,397 digital hearing aids, including about 1,600 children's hearing aids, were fitted as part of the MHAS project by the end of April 2003. In addition, a number of sites have applied for access to the Purchasing and Supply Agency's contracts for digital hearing aids outside the project. Information is not held centrally regarding the number of digital aids fitted outside the MHAS programme.

  Doctors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 606W, on doctor numbers (Lancashire), when the number of doctors per 100 beds in each of the

  Medical and dental staff, available beds and staff per 100 beds within trusts in Lancashire: 2001–02

  Number (headcount)

  Staff

  Beds1

  Staff per 100 beds

  All Lancashire Trusts

  1,931

  5,438

  35.5

  RBV

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  111

  268

  41.5

  REU

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  252

  810

  31.1

  RJX

  Calderstones Hospital NHS Trust

  15

  232

  6.5

  RMB

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care

  269

  825

  32.6

  RMC

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  282

  994

  28.4

  RME

  Communicare NHS Trust

  74

  93

  79.4

  RMG

  Guild Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  56

  214

  26.2

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria

  326

  726

  44.9

  RVT

  North Sefton and West Lancashire Community NHS Trust

  16

  49

  32.7

  RJU and RMF

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust2 and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust2

  530

  1,228

  43.2

  1 Average daily number of available beds

  2 These two trusts merged on 1 August 2002. For 2001–02 they provided a combined return on bed numbers and therefore it is not possible to show the number of staff per 100 beds on an independent trust basis.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census, as at 30 September 2001

  Department of Health form KH03, 2001–02

  Electronic Magnifiers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make electronic magnifiers available on the NHS. [R] [112851]

  Mr. Lammy
  Electronic magnifiers are considered to be aids to daily living and as such, their provision is the responsibility of social services departments. They can provide these if they are felt to be warranted. However hand-held, stand and spectacle-mounted magnifiers are considered to be more widely available, more accessible, easier to use and more cost effective.

  The hospital eye service is responsible for providing optical devices and loans, low vision aids, such as high powered reading lenses, hand-held and stand magnifiers and telescopes to visually impaired people.

  In some parts of the country low vision aids are provided by community based opticians, the service being funded by primary care trusts.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which NHS trusts he will give approval to apply for first-wave NHS foundation trust status. [113670]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement that I gave yesterday, 14 May 2003,Official Report, columns 9–10WS.

  Home Adaptations
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of individuals who are unable to return home from
  420W
  Lancashire NHS trusts will have been validated; and if he will write to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley with the information about how many have been validated. [112103]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  hospital because of the need for adaptations to their homes in (a) England, (b) Staffordshire and (c) East Staffordshire. [113157]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111963]

  Mr. Lammy
  Records are not maintained by the Department of Health which enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as mental health related. For the Department of Health, the number of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the Civil Service pension scheme medical adviser for the period 1 April 2002–30 April 2003 was four.

  As to the matter of costs, expenditure for medical retirement is not met by the employing departments, but centrally funded from the Civil Superannuation Vote.

  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111984]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not currently gather information in the form requested.

  Mental Health Bill
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a summary of the responses his Department has received on the consultation for the draft Mental Health Bill; and if he will make a statement on the progress made in redrafting the draft Mental Health Bill. [113962]
  421W
  Jacqui Smith
  We received almost 2,000 responses to the consultation. Work on the Mental Health Bill continues carefully and a Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. The results of the consultation will be made public before the introduction of the Bill.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure per head for mental health services was in each English county in the last five years; and how many(a) consultants and (b) nurses were engaged in mental health in each health authority area in the last five years. [108637]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the expenditure per head on mental illness by health authorities and primary care trusts between 1997–98 and 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. The data relates to the commissioning of secondary mental illness only, information on primary expenditure is note collected centrally. Information on the number of consultants and nurses working within mental health by strategic health authority between 1997 to 2001 has also been placed in the Library.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the unit cost of each category of inspection undertaken by the National Care Standard Commission(a) was in 2002–03 and (b) will be in 2003–04. [112349]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not currently available. The National Care Standards Commission is undertaking an analysis of activity and financial data in order to estimate unit costs for 2002–03. The results of this work are expected to be available at the end of July.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the views of consumers are obtained by the National Care Standards Commission; and how those views influence its work. [112334]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) attaches a high priority to ensuring that service users are fully engaged in all that it does. The NCSC, as part of the implementation of its service user strategy, uses a mix of focus groups and inspection feedback tools to help evaluate the difference it is making to service users.

  National Patients Survey
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the results of the first national patients' survey; and how much the survey cost. [112156]

  Mr. Lammy
  Inpatient and general practitioner services were surveyed as part of the 2002 patient survey programme. The results have been disseminated to participating trusts on a strategic health authority-wide basis, to allow for cross-comparison and local benchmarking. This approach enabled strategic health authorities to maintain an overview of how results were formulated into trust-based follow-up plans.
  422W
  The average cost per participating trust in 2002 was £7,000 for National Health Service trusts and £3,000 for primary care trusts.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many training places are available in 2003–04 for(a) dentists, (b) dental therapists, (c) dental hygienists and (d) dental nurses; and what the figures were in 1997–98. [112280]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on intake to dental schools and training commissions for professionals complementary to dentistry for 1997–98 and provisional figures for 2002–03 is shown in the table. We are committed to increasing the number of training commissions for dental therapists by 150 by 2004–05.

  1997–98

  2002–031

  Dental students

  668

  696

  Dental therapists

  38

  40

  Dental hygienists

  86

  94

  Dental nurses

  177

  228

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) dentists, (b) therapists, (c) hygienists and (d) nurses work in dental practices in which NHS dentistry is available. [112281]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of dentists on primary care trusts' lists or employed by the national health service at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both the personal dental service (PDS) and the general dental service (GDS), who are counted in the CDS only.

  NHS Dental Services: Number of dentists at 30 September 2001 in England

  Number

  General dental services

  18,354

  Salaried service of GDS

  86

  Personal dental services

  467

  Community dental service

  1,348

  Hospital dental services

  2,184

  It is estimated that 380 therapists were registered with the General Dental Council (GDC) in England in 2001, of whom 350 have been employed as therapists. It is not possible to determine the proportion of therapists currently performing NHS treatment.

  It is estimated that 3,400 dental hygienists were registered with the GDC in England in 2001 and that 89 per cent, of these were actually working as hygienists. It is not currently possible to determine what proportion of these hygienists undertake NHS work.

  There are around 27,000 dental nurses at present in the United Kingdom. However, registration is not compulsory and it is not possible to confirm this figure or to determine what proportion are working in the NHS.
  423W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of training programmes to meet future levels of demand for NHS dentistry. [112282]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are undertaking the first dental work force review since 1987 in consultation with the dental profession. We hope to publish a report later this year, together with work force planning assumptions for national health service work force development confederations and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We are also committed to ensuring the review is regularly updated in future, to take account of policy development and change

  Nurses
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses there were per head of population in(a) Lancashire and (b) the North West of England in each year since 1997. [112104]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Over-Medication
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken since 4 December 2001 concerning over-medication of older people; and what progress has been made on the points listed in the reply to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam by the Minister. [107371]

  Jacqui Smith
  The hon. Member's concern was about inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics. We have been monitoring the use of antipsychotics among older people. The rates per 1,000 population have remained fairly steady since 1999, with an increase in the proportion of atypical antipsychotics—which is likely to be because they are better tolerated than traditional antipsychotics.

  Progress in relation to the main points covered by the reply is as follows:
  as part of the eighth wave of its work, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be producing a guideline on dementia, which will cover the use of antipsychotics for people with dementia
  the new national minimum standards for care homes have been introduced, with standards relating to the administration of medicines
  the Medicines Partnership Taskforce and the National Prescribing Centre have developed a guide on medication review for practitioners and managers to optimise the use of medicines in older people and reduce the unwanted effects of medication and wastage from unused medicines
  many primary care trusts have devised innovative schemes where professionals review older people who are on four or more medicines regularly ensuring that they are still required and appropriately taken

  Petitions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary petitions were referred to his Department in the last 12 months; and on how many were no government observations issued. [112862]
  424W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: Fifteen parliamentary petitions were referred to the Department of Health in the last 12 months. No government observations were provided for 10 of these.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce waste in prescription arrangements, with particular reference to carrying out investigations as to how patients may avoid re-ordering medicines they do not need. [112453]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are introducing a number of measures to reduce wastage of medicines.

  We have set up medicines management schemes to promote better use of medicines. 106 schemes are now in operation around the country and we are aiming for all primary care trusts to have schemes by 2004. One such scheme in Coventry recently reported it might save £150,000 per year through a range of measures designed to improve the effectiveness of local prescribing. Many general practitioner (GP) practices have hands-on support to help set up repeat prescribing systems, which will help reduce the re-ordering of medicines that patients do not need.

  We are funding a joint task force based at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to lead implementation of a national strategy to spread better understanding and partnerships between patients and health professionals on taking their medicines. This will promote the benefits of helping patients to take a more active role in managing their own care.

  We are introducing repeat dispensing, beginning with 30 "pathfinder" sites, and with the aim of having schemes in place nationwide by 2004. These will enable patients to have their medicines dispensed for up to a year by their pharmacy without having to go back to their GP. It will allow the pharmacist to check that the medicines are needed. Evidence from pilot studies has shown that repeat dispensing helps reduce waste.

  Prison Health Services
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each prison the average amount of time available each week to give dental treatment to prisoners by qualified NHS dentists. [111925]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1997 the percentage of(a) women and (b) girls aged 15 to 17 years in prison with (i) drug problems and (ii) alcohol problems. [112515]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available in the form requested. A survey of psychiatric morbidity among prisoners in England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics, showed that 44 per cent, of the women in the sample reported dependence on drugs and 38 per cent, reported hazardous levels of alcohol consumption in the year before coming into prison. Within these figures, the rates for young women aged between 16 and 20 were 57 per cent, and 50 per cent, respectively.
  425W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mental health services available to girls aged 15 to 17 in prison. [112518]

  Jacqui Smith
  All Prison Service establishments and their national health service partners are working to implement the improvements to mental health services set out in "Changing the Outlook, a Strategy for Developing and Modernising Mental Health Services in Prisons" published in December 2001. Prisoners who need in-patient treatment for mental disorder may be transferred to psychiatric hospitals. The care and treatment of mentally disordered prisoners who do not need to be admitted to hospital is generally undertaken by prison healthcare staff under the supervision of NHS specialists and, increasingly, by NHS-funded, multi-disciplinary, mental health in-reach teams. Such teams are already in operation or being developed at six of the establishments that hold young women aged 15 to 17 and one is to be introduced at the seventh during this financial year.

  Registered Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many self-funders there are in each of the bands of registered nursing care. [112163]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 April 2003,Official Report, columns 107–08W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public funding has been allocated for capital expenditure projects to the maintained and controlled education sectors in Northern Ireland in the last five years. [112350]

  Jane Kennedy
  The amount of public funding allocated for major capital projects1 and for capital projects under my Department's Specialist Accommodation Programme, to improve facilities in Science, Technology and Design and ICT, over the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Controlled Schools Sector

  29

  35

  73

  72

  139

  Maintained Schools Sector2

  25

  27

  67

  55

  29

  1 Funding announced in March preceding the financial year.

  2 Includes Catholic Maintained Schools and Irish Medium schools but excludes Voluntary Grammar Schools and Grant Maintained Integrated schools

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) clinical staff and (b) non-clinical staff are employed on health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. [113448]
  426W
  Mr. Browne
  Figures showing the number of clinical and non-clinical staff working in health and personal social services in Northern Ireland are shown separately in the following tables.

  Table 1: Clinical staff in HPSS organisations as at 31 March 20031

  Terms and conditions group

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  19,273

  16,425.18

  Social Services

  4,391

  4,037.64

  Professional and Technical

  5,598

  4,949.91

  Medical and Dental

  3,072

  2,781.22

  Ambulance

  111

  774.38

  Total

  33,111

  28,968.33

  1 Bank staff and home helps have been removed from these figures

  2 Whole time equivalent

  Table 2: Non-clinical staff in HPSS organisations as at 31 March 20031

  Terms and conditions group

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Admin and clerical

  11,582

  10,199.10

  Works and maintenance

  554

  554.00

  Ancillary and general

  7,242

  5,299.01

  Total

  19,378

  16,052.11

  1 Bank staff and home helps have been removed from these figures

  2 Whole time equivalent

  Job Opportunities
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have(a) been created and (b) disappeared in Northern Ireland in the last five years. [113580]

  Mr. Pearson
  An exact figure for the number of jobs created and disappeared in the period requested is not available. However, figures from the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) can be used to estimate the net change in the employee job level in the last five years. The latest seasonally adjusted figures from the QES show that between December 1997 and December 2002 there was a net increase of 54,470 ( + 9.0 per cent.) employee jobs in Northern Ireland.

  Over the five year period to May 2003, there were 23,951 redundancies in Northern Ireland confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what after school provision exists in Northern Ireland for young people with moderate learning difficulties; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of such provision. [113867]

  Jane Kennedy
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 334W. A working group has been established to consider what could be done to better meet the needs of these young people. Work is on-going.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget on manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland. [112614]
  427W
  Mr. Pearson
  Productivity is vital in improving the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. Budget 2003 introduced a number of new measures that should enable United Kingdom companies, including those in Northern Ireland, to meet the productivity challenge.

  The Research and Development tax credit will be made more accessible to small companies in particular through a number of measures including a reduction in the minimum expenditure threshold from £25,000 to £10,000. This will increase the number of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) benefiting from the scheme. There will also be a one year extension of the 100 per cent. First Year ICT capital allowances scheme. This will be available to 89,000 small businesses in Northern Ireland.

  VAT compliance costs will be reduced for small and newly registered businesses thus benefiting 13,000 businesses in Northern Ireland. In addition, further steps have been taken to further boost enterprise in enterprise areas, which includes 230 wards in Northern Ireland. From 10 April 2003 all non-residential transactions are now exempt from stamp duty in these enterprise areas.

  The measures announced in Budget 2003 build on those announced in previous budgets (such as the introduction of the 125 per cent. R&D tax credit for large companies and the reduction in the corporation tax starting rate for small companies). The net effect of the Government's corporation tax changes since 1997 is to reduce the corporation tax rates to the lowest in UK history. Manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland now faces one of the lowest tax burdens in the EU.

  Nursery Schemes
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will increase the level of funding for nursery scheme places in the private and voluntary playschool sector. [112419]

  Jane Kennedy
  Under the Pie-School Education Expansion Programme, the rate of funding for places in the private/voluntary sector is increased each academic year in line with inflation. In the current year (2002–03) the grant to playgroups for each funded place is £1,230. From September 2003 the rate will rise to £1,265 per place.

  Primary School Transfer Tests
  Mrs. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure consistency in the marking of the transfer tests for pupils attending all types of primary education. [112411]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has responsibility for setting and marking the transfer tests and takes all necessary steps to ensure consistency in the marking of the tests for all pupils.

  The test papers completed by the pupils are identified through school and pupil numbers only. Neither the names of the schools nor the names of the pupils appear anywhere on the test papers. Only senior supervisory staff have access to the list connecting school names and numbers.
  428W
  The test papers are marked under strictly controlled conditions by temporary staff employed for the purpose. A different marker marks each section on a test paper. Every question of every paper is marked at least twice. All papers close to borderlines are marked a third time. Senior professional staff, who have been involved in the process of test construction, are required to adjudicate on any answers given by pupils that are not clearly accommodated by the marking scheme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ali Serir
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed deportation to Algeria of Ali Serir; and whether his marriage to Karen Serir is recognised. [112455]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mr. Serir is due to be removed from the United Kingdom on 16 May 2003, under administrative powers contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; he is not being deported. Mr. Serir lodged an application for leave to remain on 24 March 2003 on the basis of his marriage to a British citizen. This application was refused on 25 March 2003.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the accuracy and consistency of data on anti-social behaviour collected by constabularies; and if he will make a statement. [112663]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office is currently undertaking work to establish a common definition for anti-social behaviour to enable more accurate statistical data to be collected.

  Recorded crime statistics do not currently include figures on anti-social behaviour although statistics are published for certain offences that might be regarded as anti social, e.g. criminal damage Recorded crime statistics are collected in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules which are instructions aimed at providing consistency across all police forces in England and Wales. The introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard nationally from 1 April 2002 further aims to improve the consistency of data collected by forces.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects data on calls for service on community disorder although these are primarily for inspection purposes. Returns are accepted as accurate if they are consistent with returns for the previous year. Guidance to forces asks for an explanation where data differ to what might be expected.

  Asylum Seekers
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the backlog in asylum claims. [112538]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have already delivered a substantial reduction in the number of outstanding asylum claims from 121,200 at the end of January 2000.
  429W
  Through a range of measures, including more efficient processes and additional resources, the number of outstanding applications had reduced to 40,800 at the end of December 2002 (the latest date for which published data are currently available).

  We are determined to reduce the number of outstanding applications to normal work in progress levels as quickly as possible in order to achieve this, we are pursuing a clear strategy to reduce the intake of new, unfounded claims, including further radical reform of the asylum system through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, tighter border controls, new visa regimes, and the replacement of exceptional leave to remain with a new narrower category of humanitarian protection, as well as increasing the proportion of failed asylum seekers who are removed. In addition, we will continue to speed up the decision making process whilst maintaining high quality decisions.

  Information on the number of outstanding asylum applications is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeqfflce.gov.uk/rds/imm igrationl.html

  Information on the number of outstanding asylum applications at the end of March will be published on 22 May.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer of 3 March, Official Report, column 824W, on asylum support, what the 3 digit postcode location is of the accommodation provided by the private companies with NASS contracts. [113058]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Community Support Officers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers will be funded by his Department in North Yorkshire; how long the community support grant will last; and what funding will be available after the community support grant ends. [112866]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  On 2 May my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary allocated Home Office funding for 30 community support officers in North Yorkshire. This funding provides 50 per cent of the salary and direct on costs for these officers until the end of financial year 2005–06.

  North Yorkshire, as with all other forces in this round of funding, has secured commitments for the remainder of the cost of its community support officers from local partners. Extending as it does for the next two years, the funding structure allows forces to develop local arrangements to cover the full costs by 2006.

  Distraction Burglaries
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported incidences of distraction burglary there were in each of the last five 430W
  years; and what estimate he has made of the number of incidences of distraction burglary that go unreported each year. [102736]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: [pursuant to his answer, 21 March 2003, c. 969W,]
  Owing to an administrative error the answer given was incorrect information. The correct answer is as follows:

  There is no separate recordable offence of distraction burglary and figures for distraction burglaries have not been routinely collected centrally. However, figures we have received from police forces in special exercises indicate the following numbers of domestic burglaries in England and Wales were recorded as distraction burglaries:

  1998–99

  15,526

  2000–01

  15,882

  2001–02

  19,397

  The figure of 19,397 for 2001–02, which was quoted in a previous reply to the hon. Member on 21 October 2002, Official Report, column 98W, was based on estimates in the case of those forces for which we had not received figures. The revised figure reflects data, which has since been received.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS2002), which includes crimes not reported to or recorded by the police, estimated that six per cent of burglaries involve gaining access by false pretences. The BCS also estimates that there were 991,000 burglaries in England and Wales in 2001–02, which suggests that there were some 60,000 distraction burglaries.

  From 2003–04 we will be collecting numbers of recorded distraction burglaries centrally from police forces.

  European Union Vignettes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce which company has been awarded the tender for provision of a system to issue European Union vignettes. [113575]

  Beverley Hughes
  Discussions are still on-going on this tender and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to announce which company has been awarded the tender by mid June.

  G8
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Meeting of G8 Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in Paris on 5 May; and what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed. [113421]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Goldsmith attended the meeting, which focused on global terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime.

  G8 Ministers agreed to set up a high-level working group to examine the technical options for Biometrics, such as facial or iris recognition and fingerprints, and to produce recommendations for international standards before the end of the year. Ministers also strongly

  431W
  supported the G8 strategy on 'Protecting Children from Sexual Exploitation on the Internet', agreed in October 2002 including the development of a new International Child Pornography Image Database.

  G8 Ministers also discussed the following issues:
  ways of evaluating and preventing the threat of terrorism
  proposals for taking forward work on special investigative techniques
  future work of the Roma and Lyon expert groups on terrorism and organised crime
  endorsement of G8 Principles on the protection of Critical Information Infrastructures, the tracing, freezing and confiscation of assets and the sharing of DNA data.

  The conclusions of the meeting are set out in full in a Presidency Communiqué, a copy of which I shall place in the Library.

  The Government are committed to combating global terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime and fully support the G8 initiatives.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following the recent changes made to paragraph 284 of the Immigration Rules, he will take steps to make it clear that the holder of a fiancé(e) visa of six months' duration can apply for their spouse visa in the UK. [113293]

  Beverley Hughes
  It was never intended that the "no switching" provision—prohibiting those given leave to enter for six months or less from switching into marriage—would include those given leave to enter as fiancés. This will be made absolutely clear in the next rules change.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, following the recent changes made to paragraph 287 of the Immigration Rules, the current holder of a 12 month duration spouse visa issued in March or earlier can apply for their Indefinite Leave to Remain visa; and whether such a person may apply for indefinite leave to remain near the end of their current 12 month visa. [113294]

  Beverley Hughes
  The recent increase in the probationary period on marriage to two years will not affect applications to remain on the basis of marriage made before 1 April. The probationary period in these cases will remain one year and applications for settlement can be made no more than one month in advance of the end of the probationary period.

  Israeli Embassy Bombing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions the British scientists investigating the 1994 Israeli embassy and Balfour house bombings reached on(a) the type and amount of explosive and mechanism used in the bombings, (b) where the explosives were made up, (c) where the car bombs were assembled, (d) who wrote the letters claiming responsibility and (e) who drove the cars; and what reports were received from Israeli scientists following removal of samples from the sites. [111005]
  432W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I have arranged for my officials to place copies of such transcripts of the original trial as are available in the Library. From which my hon. Friend will be able to draw relevant conclusions.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Veria on 28 and 29 March 2003; and what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed. [112134]

  Mr. Blunkett
  At the meeting in Veria on 28–29 March 2003, Ministers discussed current developments in the area of asylum, in particular hearing from Ruud Lubbers, head of the United Nations' High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). I set out the Government's ideas on establishing zones of protection and transit processing centres for refugees outside the EU's borders. Ministers also examined the effectiveness of financial resources available at Community level to take forward the work mandated by the Seville European Council on management of the external EU border and co-operation with third countries on returning illegal immigrants. The Commission also confirmed the arrangements put in place at EU level to cope with the potential influx of refugees from Iraq.

  John Bruton, Chairman of the JHA Working Group in the Future of Europe Convention, gave details of the proposed JHA Treaty Articles. During the subsequent discussion my noble Friend (Lord Filkin) stressed the importance of ensuring that the new Treaty clearly defined those tasks which were necessary at European Union level and those which were for Member States. At European level, the focus should be on cross-border issues where there would be proper facilitation of mutual recognition. Lord Filkin also noted that the idea of a European Public Prosecutor presented real problems of accountability.

  Justice Ministers also discussed the Commission's recent Green Paper on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings. Lord Filkin said that action at EU level should be based on the principles of mutual recognition and subsidiarity and should avoid over-regulation.

  Mosques
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to monitor attacks on mosques in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [112240]

  Beverley Hughes
  The police are alert to the risk of attacks on mosques and other places of worship, and have arrangements for reporting such incidents centrally. A Muslim Safety Forum, which includes a wide range of Muslim community representation, meets monthly with the police to discuss community safety issues.

  The Government are fully committed to tackling Islamophobia wherever it occurs. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 introduced nine new religiously-aggravated offences, including assault and criminal damage, where the maximum penalties

  433W
  available to the courts are substantially increased if it can be shown that there was evidence of religious hostility to the offences.

  The investigation of possible breaches of these laws is an operational matter for the police and then the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue. We would therefore urge anyone who believes these laws to have been breached to report the matter to the police.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the incidence of attacks on mosques in the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [112241]

  Beverley Hughes
  According to police figures, between 14 February and 26 March there were eight recorded instances of attacks on mosques, resulting in each case in minor criminal damage. Since 26 March there have been only two further recorded instances of criminal damage to mosques.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the directional signing to the Immigration Reception Centre, Oakington, from the A14. [112421]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office will give consideration to the issue of additional directional signage to ensure that the apparent confusion over access to the Reception Centre is minimised. We will also take steps to ensure that all staff and visitors are aware of the most appropriate access to the Reception Centre to avoid the use of less suitable approaches to the Centre.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects no longer to require the use of the barracks at Oakington, Cambridgeshire, as an immigration reception centre. [112422]

  Beverley Hughes
  The use of the Oakington Reception Centre remains under consideration and I will write to the hon. Member when a final decision has been taken.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to change the legal status of the Immigration Reception Centre at Oakington. [112423]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to change the legal status of the Immigration Reception Centre at Oakington.

  Mr. Andrew Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to protect staff and residents at the Immigration Reception Centre, Oakington, from the risk of transmission of the SARS virus from newly-arrived asylum applicants. [112426]

  Beverley Hughes
  We place great importance on the health and well-being of staff, process stakeholders and detainees at Oakington.

  Guidance from the World Health Organisation and the Public Health Laboratory Service in relation to SARS has been applied across the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as a whole, with managers carrying out additional local risk assessments. An
  434W
  additional risk assessment has been undertaken at Oakington. Any person displaying symptoms of SARS would not be detained there. In addition, persons who have travelled directly from Hong Kong or China, or who have otherwise been in Hong King or China in the last 14 days are not accepted.

  The situation in respect of SARS is being closely monitored in the light of advice from the Public Health Laboratory Service, and the risk assessment regularly reviewed and updated.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 8 May, Ref 112425, what plans he has to increase expenditure on security at Oakington Immigration Reception Centre. [113576]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will carefully consider any recommendations made by the Immigration Security advisors, to increase security at the Oakington Immigration Reception Centre.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department gives to members of the public on posting passports to the Passport Agency. [113033]

  Beverley Hughes
  Passport applicants have the choice of using the guaranteed services available at the Passport Service's public counters, handing in their application to one of the Service's partners offering the Check and Send service, or using the addressed envelope supplied with application forms, which is large enough to contain passports. No advice on how to post passports is given.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for lost passports the Passport Agency has received in each of the last five years. [113034]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Passport Service records information on passports reported missing after being posted by the Service. The information recorded for each of the last five years is shown in the table:

  Number

  1998

  not available

  1999

  2,359

  2000

  3,851

  2001

  2,541

  2002

  2,982

  Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 202W, on the police, what the total expenditure by the Metropolitan Police on rental vehicles was in each of the last five years and for each month from April 2002 to March 2003. [112109]
  435W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is set out in the tables, provided by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Due to changes in financial recording systems, the information for 1998–99 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Totals for 1999–2003

  Total (£000)

  1999–2000

  4,188

  2000–01

  6,199

  2001–02

  7,042

  2002–03

  7,525

  Breakdown for each month: April 2002 to March 2003

  Total (£000)

  April 2002

  120

  May 2002

  311

  June 2002

  514

  July 2002

  659

  August 2002

  616

  September 2002

  542

  October 2002

  583

  November 2002

  592

  December 2002

  384

  January 2003

  750

  February 2003

  527

  March 2003

  1,927

  Total

  7,525

  Stolen Goods
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the market in stolen goods. [112132]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Under the Targeted Policing Initiative (part of the Crime Reduction Programme), which ran from 1999 to 2003, the Home Office provided funding totalling around £1.4 million to three market reduction projects in Stockport, Kent and West Mercia.
  436W
  We have also funded research into the impact of local legislation intended to regulate second-hand traders (particularly the Kent and Medway Acts 2001, but also other existing local legislation).

  The research undertaken on these market reduction projects is in the process of being completed. When the final results are available, we intend to convene a working group to consider the most effective way of reducing the market for stolen goods nationally (including the possibility of national legislation) and advise on the best way of disseminating the emerging good practice.

  The "Immobilise Phone Crime" campaign was launched on Tuesday 4 March. The industry can now stop stolen and lost phones being used on any network. The Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act 2002, came into force on 4 October 2002. The new legislation means up to five years in prison and/or unlimited fines for those reprogramming the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number on mobile phones, and those possessing, supplying or offering to supply equipment for that purpose.

  The barring of mobile phones reported as stolen across all UK networks should remove much of the incentive for stealing mobile phones.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Registration
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much(a) agricultural and (b) other categories of land are not registered in the United Kingdom. [113020]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not currently collected centrally.

  One of the Land Registry's strategic objectives is to create a register with comprehensive content and national coverage of England and Wales by 2012. Currently, 19 million titles are registered and it has been estimated that in excess of 4 million titles could still remain to be registered throughout England and Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  The targets, which have been set for 2003–04, are based on the corporate aims and objectives of the Agency as set out in Section five of its Corporate and Business Plan. The targets are in line with the Department's policy of seeking to improve the service provided to the Agency's clients in terms of both quality and value for money and I am satisfied that they present a demanding challenge for the Agency. A copy of the Corporate and Business Plan will be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  The targets are as follows:

  Quality
  Ninety per cent. of external clients to regard the quality of the Agency's Client Support services as satisfactory, of which 30 per cent. regard the quality as either very good or excellent.
  Ninety per cent. of external clients to regard the quality of the Agency's Project Management services as satisfactory, of which 30 per cent. regard the quality as either very good or excellent.
  Ninety per cent. of external clients to regard the quality of the Agency's Trust Consultancy Support services as satisfactory, of which 30 per cent. regard the quality as either very good or excellent.
  Eighty five per cent. of external clients to regard the quality of the Agency's Specialist Engineering services as satisfactory, of which 25 per cent. regard the quality as either very good or excellent.

  Throughput/Service Delivery
  Complete eight Firecode audits on HSS bodies by 31 March 2004.
  Support the Department in any accepted recommendations of the Northern Ireland Audit Office on Departmental and Trust surplus land and property holdings.
  Complete testing against Health Service guidance and relevant British and European Standards and issue test reports to the Authorised Person in respect of 145 sterilisers and washer disinfectors by 31 March 2004.
  Respond to requests indicating a proposed programme for medical devices services within 10 working days of receipt of a written request.
  Issue all Hazards Notices and Advice Notes initiated by the Medicine & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) within three working days from receipt of the final MHRA Notice, (provided that no further consultation is involved).
  Issue all Safety Notices indicated by MHRA within five working days from receipt of final MHRA Notices, (provided no further consultation is involved).
  12WS
  Financial
  Ensure that the Agency lives within its running cost allocation for the year.
  Demonstrate that the full costs the Agency are recouped, on a notional basis, through Service Level Agreements with its clients.

  Baton Rounds
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have today written a letter to the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures, Mr. Jim McDonald, in response to his report on the military use of baton rounds.

  The Government are grateful to Mr. McDonald for carrying out this independent review.

  I have placed copies of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Payments Agency
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  I have set the Rural Payments Agency the following performance targets for 2003–04:

  CUSTOMERS
  To process and pay at least 96.14 per cent. of valid IACS claims by value within the EU deadline.
  To process and pay at least 80 per cent. of valid non-IACS claims by volume within ministerial guidelines and 99 per cent. within the set EU Commission deadlines or in their absence 60 days.
  To process and pay at least 98.5 per cent. of valid claims correctly.
  To develop by 31 March 2004 a customer focused communications plan that builds on the findings of the Agency's Annual Customer Survey and supports the achievement of its e-take-up target for 2005.

  FINANCE
  To ensure that disallowance within the control of RPA due to non-compliance with EU requirements remain below 2.5 per cent. of the value of CAP payments made by the Agency.
  To carry out 85 per cent. of the on-the-spot inspections for CAP schemes in accordance with EU regulatory requirements, taking into account any agreed derogations.

  BUSINESS PROCESSES
  To have the Rural Land Register in place by 31 March 2004.
  To have the new integrated financial, e-procurement and HR systems in place by 31 March 2004.
  To have developed the new AAPS system in preparation for processing 2004 AAPS claims in 2004–05.
  To provide accurate and timely operational advice in support of policy development and Defra business systems.
  To merge BCMS within RPA's governance, management and operational structures by 31 March 2004.

  PEOPLE
  To complete a baseline skills analysis of existing staff and to define the skills required for 90 per cent. of future posts by 31 March 2004.
  To implement the Agency's EFQM and HP action plans.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Bankruptcy and Student Loans
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge)
  It has become clear that under current legislation student loans are written off on bankruptcy. I have, therefore, instructed the Student Loans Company (SLC) to pay back student loan repayments to bankrupt student loan borrowers.

  This issue came to light during the passage of the Enterprise Bill in Parliament last year. Prior to that, we believed that bankruptcy had been ruled out in legislation as grounds for write off of student loans.

  We have announced in the Higher Education White Paper that we will be amending our legislation so that graduates will have to continue repaying their student loans, even if they declare themselves bankrupt, and we hope to do so as soon as possible.

  One hundred and ninety eight borrowers have continued to repay their student loans after notifying the SLC that they have declared themselves bankrupt. The SLC have collected a total of around £75,000 from these borrowers and will now return this to them, together with interest compensation.

  Government policy is, and always has been, that student loan debt should not be written off with bankruptcy. Graduates should not see bankruptcy as an easy route to repaying the money they have borrowed through the generously subsided student loan system. Bankruptcy could have an adverse affect on graduates' employment prospects, future earnings, credit rating and their ability to take out loans and mortgages.

  School Budgets
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  On Friday 2 May I published a detailed analysis of the school budgets of local education authorities for 2003–04, based on authorities' own statements, and my Department wrote to all LEAs to ask questions about the spending decisions that that analysis had raised. LEAs were asked to reply by 12 May.

  My Department has now received replies from every LEA. I would like to record my gratitude for the speed and comprehensive nature of their responses.

  The funding of schools is a shared responsibility of central and local Government. In 2003–04, there have been a number of very significant pressures on LEA and school spending. Nationally, the additional resources provided for education more than match those pressures. However, central Government—partly in response to the requests of LEAs and schools—have introduced a number of changes to both education funding and the wider local government finance system. In particular, changes to the distribution formula for Education Formula Spending, together with the ending of a substantial body of ring-fenced grants from my Department's Standards Fund, have meant that different LEAs and schools have received a wide range of year-on-year increases in overall support for education.
  14WS
  I have already taken steps through an additional grant of £28 million to ensure that all LEAs have at least a minimum increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil, in addition to taking account of the effect of the Standards Fund and teachers' pension changes. I have also provided a special grant costing £11 million to 18 London LEAs to help them fund this year's increases in London weighting. The full cost of the teachers' Threshold will continue to be paid by additional grant from my Department. And, as made clear in the letter sent to all LEAs on 2 May, the £205 million performance-related pay grant that my Department will be paying in 2003–04 will be sufficient to meet all of schools' on-going commitments arising from the performance-related pay grant provided in 2002–03, and to cover the costs of similar progress along the Upper Pay Spine for those teachers becoming eligible for performance points in September 2003.

  From my Department's preliminary analysis of LEAs' responses, it is clear that many local authorities have taken action to manage local problems, and to ensure that their schools have received reasonable year-on-year increases in funding. A number of LEAs have chosen to increase their spending on schools by significantly more than the additional resources that central Government have made available. Others have managed the pressures on central spending so that they can increase the budgets of individual schools.

  LEAs have also confirmed that a significant proportion of the budgets they had not allocated to individual schools by 31 March has now been allocated. For example, Bath and North-East Somerset has confirmed an additional £2.3 million has been allocated; Bradford an additional £3.6 million; and Birmingham £12.5 million. Where LEAs have indicated that they cannot make allocations yet, they have guaranteed that all the money will be received by schools during the year, and confirmed that they are ensuring that all schools are being notified of the sums that they can expect to receive.

  However, my Department's preliminary analysis of LEAs' budget statements, and responses to the questions asked of them, show that some local decisions have contributed to schools experiencing financial difficulties for 2003–04. In particular, we note that:
  some LEAs are still not increasing their schools budget to match in full the increase in education resources from central Government;
  the great majority of LEAs have decided to increase the budgets they hold for centrally-provided and centrally-funded pupil provision at a significantly higher rate than the increase in the budget they delegate to schools. While these central services are important, it is vital that all LEAs also ensure that their schools receive appropriate budgetary increases;
  in particular, some LEAs have greatly increased their central spending on special educational needs; we need to work with authorities to understand better why this is happening and how SEN funding can be used to best effect; and
  many LEAs have provided very different budget increases to different schools, with some schools receiving much smaller budget increases than the local average. While a number of LEAs' local distribution formulae place a limit on the year-on-year losses that a school may receive, these in general still allow some schools to face very significant budget reductions.
  15WS
  Further analysis of LEAs' individual responses is currently underway within my Department, but it is clear that the budgets that LEAs have set for 2003–04 cannot, in general, be reopened.

  2003–04 is a unique year, because of both the extent of changes in the system for funding schools, and one-off pressures relating to teachers' pensions and National Insurance. It is clear that there has been very real uncertainty over this year's funding allocations.

  To ensure that these special circumstances do not adversely affect schools, I have decided that, for 2003–04 only, LEAs and schools will be given the additional flexibility to use their devolved formula capital funding from my Department to support revenue expenditure. The decision to use a school's capital funding in this way will need to be made jointly by the school and its LEA, and should only be taken in those circumstances where failure to do so would lead to excessive instability within that school.

  I wish to reaffirm the importance that I place on schools and LEAs making proper provision for capital expenditure on schools. Since 1997, this Government have increased the total support made available for capital spending on schools from £700 million to £3.8 billion, with further rises planned to £5.1 billion by 2005–06. Devolved formula capital is intended for much needed maintenance of school buildings. The new flexibility over the use of this funding should, therefore, only be used where all other options have been exhausted. It will be allowed for one year only, in advance of the further changes that I intend to introduce for 2004–05. My officials will be contacting every LEA today to inform them of this change.

  My officials are also discussing with the LSC what flexibility it can offer in the way it reduces schools' funding allocations where sixth form numbers are lower than expected. On Monday I published the London Challenge strategy which is aimed at transforming secondary education in London. I intend to keep under review the resources available to ensure that this important initiative is successfully implemented.

  Schools and LEAs now need to consider how, making use of existing school reserves, other local flexibilities, and, if necessary, the flexibility in devolved formula capital, they can ensure that schools can properly manage within their overall budgets this year. LEAs should bear in mind that they can permit schools to set a deficit budget which they are likely to be able to repay over the next few years; and that, with local agreement, the collective balances of their schools can be used to cover the funding of such agreed deficits. In addition, as I have already indicated to LEAs, I will be willing to give sympathetic consideration to proposals from local authorities to set aside restrictions in existing Fair Funding Regulations and schemes, or in the conditions of grant for the Standards Fund, where the authority thinks that this would assist them in alleviating funding difficulties in particular schools.

  Schools and LEAs will also wish to be reassured that next years settlement will offer them a clear and stable platform on which to deliver high standards of education. Many of the changes that have been introduced in 2003–04 will cause less turbulence in
  16WS
  2004–05. In that context, my Department's analysis of this year's settlement, and LEAs' responses to the questions we have asked them, will underpin the introduction of changes to education funding for 2004–05, as promised in my statement on 6 May.

  The key priority will be to identify the changes that need to be made so that all schools can expect to receive a reasonable per pupil settlement in 2004–05. In order to achieve that, we are committed to working closely with representatives of local government, teachers and head teachers, starting with the Central Local Partnership Meeting on 21 May. We believe that to meet our shared goal we need to discuss how best to ensure:
  sufficient education funding increases for every LEA;
  the right balance between support through general grant and through ring-fenced and targeted grant;
  confidence that schools and pupils will receive the money intended for them;
  the right balance between in-school and out-of-school provision;
  variations in the budget increases received by different schools within each LEA are appropriate and fair;
  workforce reform, in line with the National Agreement, can be sustained.

  My Department will also work with local education authorities to improve and clarify its procedures so that all LEAs are able to distribute their funds, notably Standards Fund, to schools in a timely way.

  My intention is to ensure that changes are in place in good time to allow schools and LEAs to plan for 2004–05 and so provide increased predictability and stability in school funding.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have today published my Department's Annual Report for 2003. Copies have been laid before Parliament and placed in the House Libraries.

  The Report sets out the Department's activities and achievements over the last year and it shows that progress has been made. It also describes the Department's future expenditure plans for the period of the spending review 2002 and how the strategy and resources have been put in place to deliver our aim of transport that works for everyone.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I am announcing the publication of the 2002–03 third quarter's performance statistics for local authority administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (HB and CTB). A copy of the
  17WS
  quarterly statistics for all local authorities in Great Britain has been placed in the library and has been published on the Department for Work and Pensions web-site at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/other_stats.html. Publishing these statistics is part of our strategy for reforming Housing Benefit. It is right and proper that the public see how well or how badly their council is doing. We are using these statistics to challenge poor performance.

  Statistics for the third quarter of 2002–03 show that across the country performance has improved with processing of new claims dropping from an average eight weeks between July and September to seven and a half weeks in the following three months.

  The statistics are un-audited and are provided quarterly by local authorities to my Department.

  The latest annual audited Best Value performance information for English local authorities is for 2001–02 and was published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 12 December 2002 on the Best Value Performance Indicators website at: http://www.bvpi.gov.uk/home.asp. A copy is in the Library.

  The most recent corresponding data for local authorities in Wales is for 2001–02. This is published on the Audit Commission website at http://ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/pis/pi_data_01.shtml. A copy of the relevant extract from this site is in the Library.

  The most recent corresponding data for local authorities in Scotland is also for 2001–02 and is in the Accounts Commission publication "Performance Indicators 2001–2002: Benefits, Finance and Corporate Issues", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Departmental Report
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am today able to announce the publication of the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Report. The report provides details of the Departments performance in 2002–03 against its Public Service Agreement targets and sets out the Department's expenditure plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  2001

  2002

  Department of Agency

  Target set For reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  % of replied within target

  Target set For reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  % of replies within target

  Cabinet Office2

  15

  599

  90

  15

  475

  73

  Leader of the House of Lords

  15

  53

  80

  15

  155

  96

  Crown Prosecution Service3

  15

  97

  94

  15

  366

  85

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  18

  4,416

  90

  18

  4,747

  83

  HM Customs and Excise3 4

  18

  2,452

  62

  18

  1,616

  59

  Ministry of Defence4

  15

  5,350

  85

  15

  5,381

  83

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  18

  100

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  —

  —

  —

  10

  14

  100

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Access Radio
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  the Government has considered Professor Everitt's report "New Voices: an evaluation of 15 access radio stations" and is minded to bring forward a draft order which would introduce a new tier of access radio stations once the Communications Bill becomes law.

  Before beginning to draft an Order, I am writing to the Radio Authority, the Commercial Radio Companies Association and the Community Media Association so that they have an opportunity to express their views at this stage. We intend to produce a draft Order for formal consultation in the autumn. No decisions have yet been taken on Government funding.

  DCMS Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I am today arranging for my Department's Annual Report [Cm 5920] to be laid before Parliament in advance of publication tomorrow (16 May).

  Copies will also be deposited in the House Libraries and the text made available on the Department's website at http://www.culture.gov.uk.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I am today publishing a report on Departments' and Agencies' performance in handling Members' and Peers' correspondence during the 2002 calendar year. Details are set out in the attached table. Departmental figures, where possible, are based on substantive replies.

  For the first time, the report includes performance on handling correspondence received from Members of the House of Lords across all Departments since 1 June 2002.

  The footnotes to the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.
  19WS

  2001

  2002

  Department of Agency

  Target set For reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  % of replies within target

  Target set For reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  % of replies within target

  Met Office

  15

  20

  80

  15

  14

  100

  Veterans Agency

  20

  279

  99

  15

  265

  99

  Department for Education and Skills4

  15

  18,237

  76

  15

  15,595

  84

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs5

  15

  9,905

  34

  15

  11,241

  47

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  20

  10,275

  79

  20

  15,535

  83

  UK Visas

  15

  8,276

  78

  15

  10,322

  98

  Department of Health6

  20

  19,665

  60

  20

  17,942

  29

  NHS Pensions Agency

  15

  65

  98

  15

  65

  95

  Medicines Control Agency

  10

  17

  82

  15

  36

  89

  Home Office7

  *Non Prison Service correspondence

  15

  *16,251

  35

  15

  *26,053

  35

  **Prison Service correspondence

  20

  **1,210

  78

  20

  **1,267

  86

  Criminal Records Bureau8

  —

  —

  —

  5

  632

  N/A

  HM Prison Service

  20

  1,272

  75

  20

  942

  77

  UK Passport Service

  10

  279

  87

  10

  132

  97

  Inland Revenue3 4

  *Local Tax Office delegated figures

  18

  3,356

  77

  18

  3,157

  71

  (where local tax offices have replied direct to MPs)

  18

  382

  75

  18

  *439

  80

  Valuation Office

  23

  30

  90

  18

  20

  75

  Department for International Development4

  15

  1,740

  87

  15

  2,612

  96

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers2

  15

  284

  96

  15

  378

  63

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  1,737

  74

  20

  2,577

  54

  Court Service

  15

  591

  68

  20

  230

  84

  *15

  593

  78

  HM Land Registry

  20

  24

  79

  20

  32

  100

  Public Records Office

  10

  11

  100

  15

  166

  98

  **10

  61

  98

  Public Guardianship Office9

  15

  120

  62

  15

  261

  31

  *Target for correspondence sent direct to

  Agency Chief Executive.

  **Target for correspondence sent direct to

  Agency Chief Executive.

  Northern Ireland Office

  10

  358

  49

  10

  501

  59

  Compensation Agency for NI

  7

  27

  93

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  10

  27

  78

  10

  33

  91

  National Savings and Investments4

  15

  63

  62

  15

  44

  66

  National Statistics4

  *Letters where Chief Executive

  15

  192

  77

  20

  212

  82

  replied on Minister's behalf.

  10

  *154

  63

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister3

  —

  —

  —

  15

  5,523

  76

  Planning Inspectorate

  8

  364

  94

  8

  291

  90

  Privy Council Office

  15

  237

  74

  15

  488

  95

  Scotland Office

  15

  96

  75

  15

  115

  73

  Department for Trade and Industry10

  10

  9,260

  49

  10

  11,565

  41

  10

  Companies House*

  10

  50

  100

  10

  45

  100

  Employment Tribunals Service**

  15

  12

  100

  6

  46

  93

  Insolvency Service

  10

  292

  80

  10

  398

  96

  Patent Office

  10

  154

  95

  10

  367

  98

  Radiocommunication Agency

  15

  15

  100

  10

  44

  89

  20WS 21WS

  2001

  2002

  Department of Agency

  Target set For reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  % of replies within target

  Target set For reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  % of replies within target

  Small Business Service***

  10

  47

  96

  —

  —

  —

  *Letters sent direct to Agency Chief Executive.

  **Target date for letters sent direct to

  Agency = 15 working days.

  ***Figures included in main DTI return.

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions3

  15

  14,375

  84

  15

  7,671

  83

  Department for Transport3

  —

  —

  —

  15

  6,505

  84

  Driving Standards Agency3

  15

  82

  100

  15

  56

  98

  DVLA

  10

  915

  98

  10

  729

  99

  Highways Agency3

  15

  322

  96

  15

  273

  96

  Maritime and coastguard Agency

  15

  21

  95

  15

  27

  100

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  32

  94

  15

  27

  100

  HM Treasury3

  15

  4,039

  78

  15

  4,647

  78

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  10

  39

  100

  10

  26

  100

  Wales Office3

  15

  91

  63

  15

  118

  97

  Department for Work and Pensions

  20

  12,698

  66

  20

  14,297

  65

  Appeals Service

  15

  87

  64

  15

  52

  88

  Benefits Agency

  20

  2,529

  90

  20

  504

  87

  Child Support Agency

  20

  3,293

  58

  20

  3,194

  51

  Employment Service

  15

  520

  94

  15

  72

  95

  Jobcentre Plus

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1,103

  57

  The Pension Service

  —

  —

  —

  15

  511

  71

  Disability and Carers Service

  —

  —

  —

  15

  749

  100

  Debt Management

  —

  —

  —

  15

  30

  86

  Child Benefit Centre

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20

  95

  1 Departments and Agencies who received a total of 10 MPs/Peers letters or less during 2002 are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated.

  2 2002 statistics no longer include interim or holding replies details of which had been included in previous annual reports.

  3 Includes interim or holding replies.

  4 Includes all Ministerial correspondence eg letters from MEPs, Members of Devolved Legislatures etc.

  5 The performance reflects problems in early part of 2002. DEFRA has taken steps to improve performance. Currently answering 74 per cent. correspondence within targets.

  6 Poor performance was partly due to problems with a new internal tracking system and problems interfacing with the Agencies. Robust action is now taking place to address these problems including the setting up of a new Customer Service Centre to ensure that problems that occurred in 2002 do not happen again. Also includes figures for the Food Standards Agency as such correspondence is replied to by Department of Health Ministers.

  7 The large increase in letters received relating to immigration matters has affected the overall performance. Home Office has made the improvement of performance a high priority with more robust systems being put in place to monitor the progress of correspondence and provide early indications of any outstanding or newly emerging problems, this includes the introduction of a new IT tracking system.

  8 Figures for 2002 are not currently available.

  9 A major restructuring programme has led to a large backlog of correspondence. There has also been a substantial increase in complaints to Ministers. A major recovery programme was launched to deal with this. 89 per cent. of Ministerial correspondence was answered within target by the end of 2002.

  10 Due to problems in meeting the 10 working days target, DTI have raised their target for reply from 10 to 15 working days (in line with majority of other Government departments) for correspondence received in 2003. Raising the level to 15 working days will help improve performance to a more acceptable level.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Care Homes
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government recognise the need to address the question of council tax liability for self-contained units within care homes, in the light of appeals involving the John Grooms organisation and the Royal National Institute of the Blind.
  22WS
  We have concluded that in future where individuals live in registered care homes, in accordance with Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000, they should not be separately assessed for the purposes of council tax.

  In such cases, the care home owner rather than individual residents, should be liable for the council tax. I have agreed with my colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult shortly on the necessary

  23WS
  changes to the relevant statutory instruments. Subject to this consultation, we aim to change the legislation later this year.

DEFENCE

  Baton Rounds
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  On 23 October 2002, I placed in the Library of the House details of the guidelines on the Rules of Engagement for the use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland. I did this as an exceptional measure aimed at 24WS
  building confidence in Northern Ireland following a request from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

  Since then, a change has been made to the guidelines in the light of a recommendation made by the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in his report on the military use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland. This report was placed in the Library of the House in December 2002. As such I am now placing the updated extract in the Library of the House. It is drawn from a more general guidance card and includes all the relevant guidance on the Rules of Engagement for the use of Baton Rounds by the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Communications Bill
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Duty to publish and meet promptness standards]:
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 9, line 31, after "publish" insert ", and on an annual basis review,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. These amendments relate to Clause 8, which concerns the duty to publish and meet promptness standards. The clause requires that Ofcom sets out its policy, keeps the fulfilment of any objectives under review and publishes its success. The intention behind our amendments is to strengthen those requirements so that expectations of Ofcom are clear and there is no room for doubt.
Ofcom is an immensely powerful regulator and accountability will be vital to its success, particularly to its relationship with those supplying or using communications services. Ofcom's reputation as a fair and effective regulator will depend on its ability to be responsive to developments in the industry. Ofcom's expectation that industry stakeholders provide information accurately and promptly is reciprocal. We have all heard examples of problems with regulators taking inordinate amounts of time to process information and reach decisions.
I do not want to appear to be asking too much of Ofcom, hence the words in Amendment No. 36:
"unless exceptional circumstances prevent this".
I simply wish to see on the face of the Bill the requirement that Ofcom does its utmost to comply with its own standards rather than simply "have regard to" them. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: This clause contains some of the matters referred to by me and my colleagues. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is also eager to
318
enter the ranks. I merely draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph 85 of the Puttnam report which states:
"Patricia Hewitt thought it was best for OFCOM to set its own promptness standards, after consultation. We do not believe this is an adequate discipline".
It is that thought which is behind these amendments. We hope the Government will reconsider the matter.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, a great deal of Ofcom's credibility as a regulator will be in its capacity—the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will later deal with these matters—and resources to match the massive advisory power of the various vested interests with which it will have to deal, and the speed with which it is able to deliver satisfactory judgments. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Evidence was given to our committee from those with experience of other regulators of the skills of various vested interests to spin out inquiries. Because regulators were under-resourced that in the end became justice denied. We really want to see the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his assembled regulators as a kind of Elliott Ness and the Untouchables; people who will strike fear into the hearts of wrongdoers in this sector. We believe that these amendments will give them the necessary discipline so to do.
Lord Crickhowell: Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 103 and 144, for the reasons he gave. Like my noble friend Lady Buscombe, I believe that this is an important set of amendments. I agree with what she had to say. We in the joint committee thought it was important because of the evidence that we heard from many witnesses about the delays that had taken place before existing regulators. Some telecommunications operators considered that Oftel's decision making is still so slow that there is often no point in complaining to the regulators at all. We were not terribly impressed when we presented these arguments to David Edmonds in the joint committee on 27th May 2002. We asked him whether the provisions of Clause 6, as it then was, would affect his work at Oftel and at paragraph 84 he replied,
"Promptness would not. I have tough targets already. We meet those targets. … I think the promptness clause is important underpinning but in terms of how I operate at the moment it would not make a difference".
The committee felt that we should have a clause that did make a difference. It was for that reason that we made the recommendations to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred.
In choosing the words of this clause—we did not draft them out of the blue—we thought that the Government had given us a good precedent because they are based on almost identical words in the Competition Act 1998. It is true that the relevant clause in the Competition Act 1998 has never been introduced by the Government. Perhaps one of the questions we should again put to them, as it was put in Committee in another place, is "Why not?" Clearly, there is nothing wrong with the drafting and that clause stands as a guide.

319
I shall make a couple of references in this context to the debate in Committee in another place on 12th December. The Minister, Dr Howells, in commenting not on this particular amendment but on one in the group dealing with the same point, made this remark about Ofcom:
"Ofcom will understand far better than the Government or. indeed, hon. Members. It will be able to set its standards with an understanding of its resources, the urgency of each matter and the impact of not acting in a timely manner".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 143.]
I pick up on the words "its resources" because they raise alarm bells with me. They carry us forward to a debate that is likely to take place later today on the financing of Ofcom and "its resources". The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that I would be speaking on that. Sadly, I cannot be in the Chamber on that occasion. However, I have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He will be saying very much what I would say and probably with greater force and effect. But this is an important issue because if delay is caused by lack of resources we shall be in a considerable mess. So I point the way forward to that debate.
The Minister in replying in another place said that it would be a great mistake to have time limits for Ofcom because unless analogous time limits were imposed on stakeholders, Ofcom would be in a mess. That is not a happy argument. Yes, of course major stakeholders do from time to time deliberately delay things, but that should not be the reason that lets Ofcom off the hook. Indeed, it is almost an invitation to stakeholders to delay things in the comfortable knowledge that if they do so Ofcom will say, "Well, it's not our fault. It's all those beastly stakeholders who aren't producing their evidence". So I think that is a poor argument.
I finish, as indeed did honourable Members in another place, and Mr Lansley in particular, by referring to the part of the 1998 Act, asking why it has not been implemented and suggesting that it is entirely appropriate that it should apply to the Bill.
11.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I intervene briefly to support Amendment No. 35. It is not a good idea for Ofcom to have an objective placed upon it that would be difficult to meet because of its imprecision. It does not meet all the requirements of being what these days is often referred to as "smart"—that is, while it is specific, measurable and perhaps even achievable, it is not realistically time-based. Ofcom is asked to set promptness standards. It is permitted to review them, but it is not told how often that review should take place. Even a minimum or maximum timescale is omitted.
I suggest that the provision, as it stands, is open to abuse and that that is corrected by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Viscount Astor: I support Amendment No. 38 about undue delay, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, It is extremely important in the
320
broadcasting industry—and indeed in any industry—that undue delay is not caused by the decisions of regulators. Sadly, in the past few years, because of the complexities and with different regulators being responsible for different parts of broadcasting, there has been undue delay in the industry. There has been undue delay in decisions by the ITC. However, by far the worst offender has been the OFT. It has taken an enormously long time to make some decisions. Indeed, in one case it took a year to decide that it was not able to make a decision. Surely, it should have been able to do so faster than that. I am sure it would not have taken so long in the days when the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was in charge.
It is important that the regulators have the power and the capability to come to quick decisions. There is nothing worse for the industry than not knowing where it is.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My noble friend Lord Davies is in hospital having a small nose operation. I am sure all noble Lords will join with me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
We have always said that we expect Ofcom to be a good regulator. We know that the industry will judge some of Ofcom's success, at least, on its ability to act promptly. We feel that to be tarred with the brush of other regulators which have not been successful is an unfair assertion for this brand new body with its very good chairman and staff.
Clause 8 gives Ofcom a duty to publish and meet promptness standards. Read alongside Clause 9, which we added to the Bill in response to concerns expressed by the Joint Scrutiny Committee, our policy intention is clear— Ofcom will be set promptness standards for carrying out is functions and business and meeting them.
I am more than aware that there are calls that the clause is not strong enough. Amendment No. 36 seeks to toughen it. The underlying assumption of the amendment is that the words in the Bill that Ofcom must "have regard" to the standards is a woolly concept with no legal effect. That is not the case. If Ofcom does not organise itself so as to be able to meet its promptness standards whenever possible, it exposes itself to legal proceedings. Amendment No. 36 would not give any greater legal force to the obligation which has already been placed on Ofcom.
I turn to Amendment No. 38. It follows similar provisions in the Competition Act 1998 for dealing with notifications. Ofcom's promptness standards will cover all its functions and business related to those functions. Delays in missing some deadlines may not be very important but Amendment No. 38 would apply regardless. The equivalent of Amendment No. 38 is specific in the Competition Act. Its application here is not and for that reason, I am not at all comfortable in accepting it.
I am not sure what additional benefit would be derived from Amendment No. 37, as subsection (7) of Clause 8 requires Ofcom to include in its annual report a summary of its compliance with the promptness

321
standards. A dedicated report would be enormous and bureaucratic; the cost of its production would greatly outweigh its benefit.
Amendment No. 35 would require Ofcom to review its promptness standards annually. We should not include such a review in the Bill. Let Ofcom consider how it will manage the setting and review of its standards. There is always the spur of the Secretary of State's power in Clause 9 to keep it up to scratch.
Amendment No. 103, which would place a time limit on the process of market analysis, at first sight seems attractive, but it does not take into account all the steps involved in the process, which would have to be telescoped into those four months. I know that the amendment would start the time limit running only after the markets had been identified, but it would still require Ofcom to shoehorn into four months the analysis of the markets identified and the making of any determination.
A significant slice of the timeline is devoted to collecting information from stakeholders, responding and consulting. Consultation by Oftel is for 10 weeks —a period requested by stakeholders after Oftel had originally proposed six weeks. Moreover, Clause 78 requires certain proposals to be sent to the European Commission. In specific circumstances, the European Commission can within one month demand an extra two months to review the proposal. So four months could not possibly be made the maximum time in all cases.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 144. Of course we recognise the concerns raised about the risks of delay in the resolution of appeals, which may be systematically used by powerful interests to obstruct decisions that are not to their liking. We agree that the appeal process should be as speedy as is reconcilable with the interests of justice. However, we explained in our reply to the Joint Committee's report that it would be impractical to set statutory time limits for the consideration of issues that may be raised by the parties in proceedings before a court of law, because the court must ultimately have sufficient flexibility to give consideration to issues raised by any of the parties at any stage.
It is still our view that that consideration rules out binding deadlines. The amendment does not seem to dissent from that view, because it does not in reality impose binding deadlines. It provides significant flexibility to depart from the four-month deadline, which thus becomes something more like a target.
The tribunal has a good record on prompt decision making in the discharge of its existing responsibilities, and I am confident that it will be equally effective in respect of the new responsibilities proposed by the Bill. The amendment would not have any material effect in speeding those processes. Having heard my remarks on the amendments, I hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Puttnam: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question that may help him when we reach Report. Much of what he said was perfectly reasonable until he
322
used the terrible phrase, "wherever possible". In my experience of legislation, "wherever possible" becomes a catch-all get-out and effectively makes everything meaningless. Perhaps the Government can return on Report with an illustration of what they mean by "wherever possible". When does "wherever possible" become a legitimate delay, and when does it become an escape clause?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. We will hold discussions with him on the matter before Report.
Lord Crickhowell: I listened with considerable interest to the Minister's reply. Much of what he said reinforced the arguments advanced from my Front Bench and others who spoke in the debate. I was again worried by the repeated reference to the time that would be taken by stakeholders. We shall want to consider that carefully before Report, because we must not allow Ofcom to be dictated to by the actions of stakeholders. We must try to find a way around that and return to the matter on Report.
I was also interested in the Minister's argument about Amendment No. 38. Basically, he said. "Well, it should apply only to part of the Bill; it is a question of the extent of the coverage". I thought that that was a Minister saying, "Well, this is not actually a bad provision, but it needs a little amendment and modification so that it applies only to the relevant parts of the Bill". Again, we must consider that before Report.
We have not reached the end of this discussion, although I am most grateful to the Minister for elaborating on the arguments advanced in another place. He has given us enough material to see whether we can reach a more workable solution.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, for their support. I begin with what the right reverend Prelate said about Amendment No. 35. Obviously, we do not want to put Ofcom in an impossible position by giving it unrealistic timescales. On the other hand, as noble Lords have pointed out, there is a history here of regulators' seeming inability to provide answers within a reasonable period. The phrase, "wherever possible'', alludes to that problem.
The Minister said that Ofcom would be open to legal proceedings if it did not meet the time-frame but, using the example cited by my noble friend Lord Astor. the Office of Fair Trading has consistently failed in recent years to provide answers within a sensible time-frame. Legal proceedings are possible in that case, but they have never been able to stick.
Looking at the matter in as practical a way as possible, there is a history of problems with other regulators. The Minister said at the outset that to suggest that there might be a problem with Ofcom and to compare it with other regulators was unfair. That is the very reason for the amendments: we want to avoid Ofcom being, as the Minister put it, tarred with that

323
brush. We want Ofcom to be a successful regulator, able to respond to different difficult situations with due promptness and as efficiently as possible.
This whole debate impinges directly on later debates, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said. The question of the ability to produce reports within a reasonable time frame will impinge directly on resources, which is a subject to which we shall return. I hope, later today.
I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. All the amendments, including those in the names of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally and Lord Hussey, are entirely reasonable. They would not put Ofcom in a difficult position; they would help to protect it from suggestions that it was spinning things out, creating a situation in which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, justice delayed is justice denied. We will go away and reconsider an amendment to table on Report that meets our concerns. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
11.30 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope the Government will dismiss any lurking suspicion that the Motion to oppose the clause is in any way hostile or that it seeks to exacerbate the real difficulties now being faced by the Government, even though those are, to a certain extent, of their own making.
It is with concern, even dismay, that I point out that here we are, on the third day in Committee, having not yet disposed of Clause 8. Some 395 clauses and 18 schedules are to come. This could develop into an almost endless process which would be highly embarrassing to the Government and damaging to an industry which cannot tolerate protracted uncertainty. In my view, it will make your Lordships' House appear just plain silly. We shall look rather like mice in a cage, scrabbling about on the floor, not knowing where the door is or how to open it.
Let me make it clear in passing that I have nothing against Clause 8. It is simply the last of five or six clauses setting out the duties of Ofcom. I am happy to admit that the Motion to oppose could have applied equally to any one of those clauses. However, this appears to be the appropriate moment to consider the matter.
The first major point I want to make is that Bills of such huge dimensions are very nasty and unattractive objects. If Bills carry on growing at this rate, some of the weaker among us will need to seek the assistance of a caddie to carry the wretched things about. I hope that the Government will pay attention to that remark. Bills are becoming collections of suggestions that anyone may care to make. As a result they are far too heavy a meal, and clarity simply goes by the board.
324
I remind noble Lords of paragraph 26 of the report of the Select Committee:
"The draft Bill as it stands does not provide the clarity of duties and objectives that the Government itself has sought".
I concede that improvements have been made, but I do not think they go anything like far enough. In a Bill of this length a good deal of confusion and uncertainty, along with lack of clarity, is bound to arise. I hope that the Government will record and take seriously the warning that if they pack a mass of detail into their Bills, then that mass will certainly attract suggestions as to how it could be improved. The discussion of suggested improvements is likely to take up a great deal of time.
It is of the utmost importance that Ofcom and its chairman should have sight of the wood and not become lost under the trees in a labyrinth constructed by those who believe that they are being helpful. I put in a plea to noble friends on my own Front Bench: as the Bill progresses, I hope that they will realise that the scene is changing from what it was when the Bill was handled in another place and that they will not become hog-tied to foolish advice received from party sources down the corridor. Indeed, that applies to both Front Benches.
An overload of duties, functions and guidance will be a major handicap to the noble Lord, Lord Currie. What he is going to need is the freedom to perform broad duties laid out in a way appropriate to Acts of Parliament. What he deserves—he is neither a fool nor a rogue—is to be trusted. I recognise that modern governments find it extremely difficult to trust almost anyone. They put people in important positions but will not give them the discretion and the freedom they need; they harass them at all stages. I see my friend the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his place on the Cross Benches, with whom I have dealt in the past on transport issues. I learned then that if Ministers do not trust those whom they appoint, the most ghastly muddle ensues. We are pretty good at creating the scenery in which such muddles can arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Currie, spoke clearly at Second Reading:
"I hope that your Lordships will avoid the temptation to add many more specifics on one aspect of the Bill or another. Ofcom needs some freedom of manoeuvre to carry out its duties".
He added:
"It is tempting, to shift metaphor, to see Ofcom as a Christmas tree on which to hang one's favourite decoration".
It had not occurred to me to compare amendments tabled in either House with Christmas decorations, thus suggesting that they are in any way decorative. Most are usually anything but, and they are not intended to be; they are usually rather ugly and not well framed.
The noble Lord's third point was one of great importance:
"We have a real opportunity to look afresh at the way we do regulation".—[Official Report, 25/3/03; cols. 683–4.]
Anyone ready and able to look again at the way we do regulation must be someone we would cheer to the echo and welcome with the utmost enthusiasm. When

325
considering the morass of regulation that is shunted through Parliament day after day and week after week, no one could suggest that we should be proud of it. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Currie, well, in particular as regards his fulfilment of that promise.
The last of the quotations I wish to cite from the noble Lord is one that I believe to be singularly important. As Bills drag their weary way through Parliament, the point made by the noble Lord, at col. 684, is one that we rather ignore:
"But Ofcom has been long in the making and this has meant a lot of uncertainty for many in the communications sector as well as for the staff of the … regulatory bodies".
I believe those arguments to be unanswerable. I hope that they do much more than just puzzle the Government. The Government should pause, reflect, and see what can be done to meet them. Otherwise, the uncertainty and muddle we see already will become intolerable.
I hope that I have the Minister's attention because I have not finished yet. It is our habit in this country to set up organisations that are eminently satisfactory to those who conceived them, but nightmares to those who must operate them. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity in this short debate to say that they will look at the situation to see whether they can modify the Bill to accelerate its progress considerably; otherwise, the uncertainty will be very damaging, not least to themselves.
Lord McNally: A Committee stage is always a pilgrim's progress. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has invited us to pause at a friendly inn to refresh ourselves. That is a legitimate thing to do on a long journey, but I say to the Ministers that we should press on. It is a long, complicated process, but the Bill is very, very important. From the beginning, I have felt that it is as important as the 1920s legislation that set up the BBC, giving us, for the 20th century, the magnificent legacy of culture, democracy and communications that the BBC underpinned. I welcome our approach to this Bill. This Parliament is preparing a similar legacy for the 21st century. From the beginning, my approach has been to get right the balance between competition and the concerns of the citizen and the community.
I appreciate and welcome the thoroughness with which the Government have approached the task. Sitting on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was one of the most rewarding exercises of my political life. Pre-legislative scrutiny has been immeasurably advantageous in trying to get the Bill right. It has allowed the expertise outside Parliament and Whitehall to have an input. My approach and that of the committee, which I hope I have carried on to these Benches, is a consistent attempt to make a good Bill better, not to wreck it.
I was surprised that Ray Snoddy, in The Times last Saturday, suggested that procedure in this House might even cause the Bill to be withdrawn. That is absolute rubbish. So long as Ministers keep their nerve and this House keeps to its task, there is no reason why we should not complete the Committee stage in the
326
time allotted. As the Minister knows, I have indicated the full co-operation of these Benches in ensuring that we progress. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, muttering from a sedentary position. It is important to get it right at this stage, which is why I welcome the pit stop proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Let us have an end to ministerial and Whips' briefings that we are in the business of wrecking the Bill. We are trying to improve it to get the balance right. If we get the balance wrong, the error will be there for many years to come. I appreciate the concerns about uncertainty. But this is not a private debate for the communications industry; it is about our culture and democracy. There is an onus on this House to get the balance right. Be of good heart, Ministers; keep progressing, and we will help you along the way.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I fully agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the Bill. I should tell him, since the BBC was created a long time before he was born, that no Bill was passed in either House of Parliament at that time. It was created by an Order in Council. That sustains some of the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord McNally: I am grateful to my noble friend for that stab in the back. I am not sure that that trust exists these days. But the point still remains: we are setting legislation that will exist for a very long time. We should not lose our nerve in trying to get it right.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: In response to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I sit in the Whips' Office, and I know all the Ministers involved with this Bill. I have never heard one of them say that this House is trying to wreck the Bill. There are time frustrations, to which we must face up.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his Motion to oppose. I am particularly grateful to him for warning me about it and sharing some of the substance of his points. I agree with much of what he said. But it might be important to tell noble Lords of our progress with this Bill. We have now had two days in Committee, during which time we have discussed 21 groups of amendments at an average of 33 minutes per group. There are 102 further groups tabled so far. Should we take anything like the length of time to debate the remaining groups that are listed so far, we would need a further 56 hours—just over nine more days in Committee, to say nothing of Report and Third Reading. I am sure that the Committee understands that no Bill can be given such a large proportion of a Session's legislative time. Having said that, we are very grateful to all Committee Members who have grouped amendments to reduce the length of the debate.
The thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is that there is over-regulation. In the short time that I have been in this House, it is a theme about which I have heard the noble Lord talk often. I

327
agree with him. However, we should return to the policy document issued when the draft Bill was published. It states:
"Unnecessary regulations need to be removed wherever possible. By eliminating undue burdens on business we can drive innovation, increase investment, raise employment and bring better services to consumers".
The overall thrust of the Government's proposals in the draft Bill is, in their own assessment, deregulatory.
In some amendments, including those to which I spoke earlier, Committee Members, for all the good reasons raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, may be proposing to put further restrictions on Ofcom. At paragraph 83 the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill stated:
"Clause 6 seeks to give effect to this policy commitment, which is reflected in the title of the Clause—'Duty to publish and meet promptness standards'. The duty to publish promptness standards is evident in the provisions of the Clause; the duty to meet them is not so evident".
It is a personal thing, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I believe strongly in trust rather than in mindless accountability. We have a new body that has a very good chairman and is likely to have a very good board, chief executive and infrastructure. We must have confidence that they will do the things we want them to do. We must have confidence that they will interpret not only the fact of the Bill but the spirit of the Bill. That is how I would like to see things happen.
Lord McNally: I understand the philosophy, but special pleading about the shortness of time seems a bit rum when, next week, we are going on another four days' holiday, 17 working days after we finished the Easter break. If we want to get business through the House, we cannot casually take days off when there is no reason to do so.
Viscount Astor: Is the noble Lord aware that it was his party and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House who changed the hours the House sits? If we had gone back to the previous arrangements, there would have been plenty of time, and we could have had as many hours as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Tordoff: It was not the Opposition Front Bench that changed the hours; it was the House as a whole, on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: What a can of worms I have opened. I was responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I do not wish to get drawn into a debate about a "casual" holiday next week, but I gather that the House has always taken a holiday at Whitsun, so it is not as if we have suddenly decided to have a couple of days off.
328
I had more or less finished what I wished to say. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I agree with much of what he said but, when he argues that the Bill is in danger of being over-regulatory, I disagree.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was struck with grief and sorrow to see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could not go just an inch or so down the road of agreeing with me that long Bills are not particularly to be welcomed and that length is not a virtue in a Bill. I was pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, administered that well deserved stab in the back.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was absolutely unmoved by my references—friendly and constructive, I thought—to the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, who will carry the burden of all that we do. My plea was that we should be careful before we tie the noble Lord down and increase the load that he must carry.
The Minister was gracious in what he said. I am glad that he acknowledges that there is no essence of a party manoeuvre here. However, he quoted a policy document. I must say that he was looking at something that is very unreliable. Policy documents are full of acceptable things, often quite inane. They are put out as a sort of decoration, and people have no intention of taking any notice of them at a later stage. I have great respect and regard for the Minister. I hope that he will not be led astray into thinking that he can rely on policy documents as a source of wisdom and general righteousness. They are nothing of the kind.
I am glad that I opposed the Question. I hope that it will not be the end of the matter. I hope that the Government will give serious thought to what they might do by way of modifying the Bill and leaving out some things that are contentious. That would, with the minimum of further delay, bring about the arrival on the scene of Ofcom.
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Ashley of Stokemoved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO PROMOTE INCLUSIVE DESIGN AND DISABLED ACCESS
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to take such steps, and to enter into such arrangements, as appear to them calculated—

(a) to bring about a better awareness and understanding of inclusive design principles, techniques and standards among—

(i) the designers and manufacturers of apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with electronic communications services or associated facilities; and

(ii) the providers of electronic communications services;

329

(b) to encourage the designers, manufacturers and service providers mentioned in paragraph (a) to adopt inclusive design principles and techniques in the development of new apparatus, facilities and services; and

(c) to bring about a better public awareness and understanding of inclusive design in relation to electronic communications apparatus, facilities and services.

(2) It shall he the duty of OFCOM to encourage electronic communications network operators to co-operate with—

(a) the manufacturers of apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with electronic communications services or associated facilities; and

(b) the manufacturers of assistive devices for disabled people, in order to facilitate access by disabled users to electronic communications services.

(3) References in this section to "inclusive design" are references to designs which result in apparatus and services which are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible, and to the greatest extent possible, without the need for special adaptation or specialised design.
(4) References in this section to "electronic communications services" includes web sites."
The noble Lord said: "Inclusive design" is a formal term for a simple but important concept. It means the designing of products and services so as deliberately to make them available or accessible to as many different users as possible. In that context it is aimed at enabling disabled people to use communications equipment and services immediately and without adaptation.
Without inclusive design, disabled people are excluded and frustrated. In addition, they face extra costs. Video recorders are a good example: had they been inclusively designed originally, they would automatically have recorded sub-titles, and deaf people would have been spared years of frustration and extra cost. It did not happen. Deaf people have been deprived of video recordings for years because of the failure to have inclusive design.
Inclusive design is an effective, cost-efficient way of providing for disabled people. If any required features are included in the original design, rather than added on later, the cost is often minimal. A Phone Ability study, carried out in 1999, found that 20 out of 44 features required to make telephones more accessible could have been added initially at no, or minimal, cost.
Design with disabled use in mind often benefits other people, not just disabled people. For example, an Easy TV study for the Independent Television Commission, the Consumers' Association and the Design Council found that all users had problems with digital equipment—I know I do. They wanted fewer buttons, clearer labelling on remote controls, quicker responses to pressing the buttons and simpler user manuals. All those features are important to people with impaired eyesight and other disabilities.
Technological developments are racing ahead, leaving many people behind. Almost daily—certainly, almost weekly—new products emerge aimed at confident, fit, lively young people who thrive on complexity and sophistication. The rest of us struggle and ask our grandchildren for assistance. I am always begging my grandchildren to explain things, and they
330
do it confidently and with no problems. Inclusive design would mitigate and alleviate many such difficulties. It is wrong in principle and unnecessary in practice to have a divide between the young, quick and nimble and those of us who are a bit slower, possibly less agile or, perhaps, with a disability.
I conclude by making clear to my noble friend the Minister that the amendment would not allow or encourage Ofcom to regulate or set standards in the field. That would be inappropriate. Instead, the amendment would give Ofcom a responsibility to promote inclusive design so as to combat exclusion and make equipment more accessible and usable. It would also ensure that Ofcom encouraged co-operation between network operators and the manufacturers of relevant equipment.
I hope that my noble friend will give a sympathetic response. The issue is of enormous importance to many disabled people, quite apart from the general benefits that would accrue from pursuing the policy. I beg to move.
Noon
Lord Addington: The noble Lord has very ably introduced this amendment, which I think is one of the potentially most useful amendments for the disabled. As the noble Lord said, it will also be helpful for those people who are dealing with a barrage of new technology. My daughter is now eight months old and has realised that the video recorder will look wonderful with toast inside it. I am sure that within a year she will be programming it herself. But if we can make it so that these devices are easier to use, we shall not be dependent upon the current generation of crawlers to show us how to use the next generation of machines.
The idea that we promote usability in a body such as Ofcom is very sensible. Computers, and anything with computing design, generally have spare capacity to take on board many new projects and, thus, make use of existing capacity. This amendment also ties in with the Disability Discrimination Act, which refers to the concept of reasonableness when making some kind of allowance. Such a duty is probably hinted at in existing law. We are trying to build on what we have and to do as much as we reasonably can to ensure that the new technology is usable by everyone. Surely that is at least hinted at by the amendment.
I suggest that if the amendment is not acceptable, the Government should look long and hard at ensuring that capacity to promote inclusive design is somewhere within the legal framework. That would head off many problems and would probably save money; for example, if disabled people are to have access to multi-media, expensive adaptations would not have to be made. The intentions of the amendment are good, but if this is not the right form I should be very interested to hear what is.
Baroness Buscombe: I, too, support the amendment, having added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Addington and the

331
noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. While we welcome Clause 3(3)(i), which states that Ofcom must have regard to,
"the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes",
we question whether the clause goes far enough to specify some of the key aspects of need pertinent to broadcasting and telecommunications if those with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes are to access and enjoy the benefits of this fast-moving sector.
The amendment, as we have heard so eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, deals specifically with design and usability of telecoms and broadcasting equipment. As other noble Lords have said. in practice we are all keen on more ease of application of apparatus. I must admit that I often find it extremely difficult to utilise properly the television zapper. I now have a fantastic and amazing new telephone which has many capabilities, but I find myself carrying around a rather weighty book of instructions. For some of us, there is no question that the more advanced the technology, the more complicated it becomes.
I think that, to a large extent, it is generational. It is always my children teaching me how to use this equipment. That said, there is no doubt a need to develop a much greater awareness in terms of usability and the understanding of inclusive design in relation to electronic communications, apparatus, facilities and services.
While this is already happening to some extent, we believe that it would be very helpful to underpin the objective by placing this amendment on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we strongly support the amendment. It may be said that it is not profitable to develop equipment designed specifically for certain disabilities. My response is that it would be extremely profitable. Indeed, it is profitable, as is often shown by equipment designed for mainstream use which everyone can access, use efficiently and enjoy.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, admit to being part of the club which finds the different techniques and the complications of accessing the parts of the media which one wants to access particularly irritating. I certainly support the proposed new clause, which I shall illustrate by reference to the needs of those who are hard of hearing and deaf. These people are the largest disabled group in the UK. In order for them to enjoy the kind of media literacy to be debated in the next clause, it is essential that Ofcom is responsible for ensuring that access is both universal and of a high quality as well as easy. As we have heard, the costs are fairly small. I believe subtitling costs in the region of £400 per hour and is decreasing.
Sadly, hearing loss increases with age. Fifty per cent of people over 60 have a hearing loss. Yet there is considerable evidence that many who would benefit, including the over-60s, do not know how to access the service. Worryingly, use of subtitles does not increase
332
with age. That is almost certainly due to lack of awareness even when such a service is available. Another group of under-users are the 50,000 people whose first language is British sign language. Of course, many of those people do not have the literary skills to follow subtitles.
For Ofcom to be given a specific duty to ensure that broadcasters promote this kind of service and, particularly, how to use it—information that is currently almost non-existent—would certainly be consistent with the objectives of the Bill to promote media literacy and would make a considerable difference to people's lives. Therefore, I hope that this will be taken into account; that this clause will be accepted in principle, whether it can be accepted in totality or not; and that this group of people, who have an added need for access to the type of information that the rest of us perhaps take for granted, are properly prioritised.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I agree that this is a significant amendment. The interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on these matters are always pertinent. What he said today goes to the heart of the issues about disabled access to broadcasting and communication technology. I do not wish to add any detail to what has been said but I want to record the support from these Benches for the valuable points that have been made. In addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, the noble Baroness. Lady Buscombe, spoke about wishing to explore further important issues about disabled access and inclusive design. The noble Baroness. Lady Howe, spoke on behalf of the deaf. These are all issues which I am very aware of in my own ministry among "dear' churches over the past 10 years. I support the amendment from these Benches.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I support the amendment, but perhaps I may draw the attention of the Minister to the recent report of your Lordships' Science and Technology Select Committee into the future of microprocessing, which identifies the technology that now exists for the development of what we call in our report, "ambient computing". It makes possible all that has been suggested should be done to be done very quickly if there is encouragement for the development of the technology. We also draw attention to the importance of the Government as a customer for these new developments. I recommend that the Minister has a glance at our report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My apologies for any delay. My noble friend Lord Ashley is without his Palantype operator. I gave him a copy of my closing speech and discovered that my remaining copy was incomplete. I am glad to have the complete copy returned.
Lord McNally: If the Minister were to do that for the whole of the Committee we might make the progress we desire.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I remember occasions when we were in Opposition when David Blunkett

333
used to receive Braille discs. The discs enabled us to receive government statements rather earlier than we otherwise would have. They were very helpful.
I was somewhat dismissive of earlier amendments relating to disabilities but I am certainly not dismissive of this one. It makes a real contribution to the debate and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for bringing it forward.
There are two elements to the proposed new clause. First, it seeks to impose a duty in relation to inclusive design; secondly, it seeks to impose a duty to encourage co-operation between network operators and relevant manufacturers to facilitate access by disabled users to electronic communications services.
As to the first element, we are sympathetic to the aim of encouraging designers and manufacturers to consider the needs and preferences of all potential customers and to consider the advantages of designing equipment so that it is suitable for use by the widest practical range of users. But, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, this should be pursued through encouragement, not regulation.
Design is an important aspect of innovation. We are strongly in favour of promoting innovation in electronic communications in all other fields—I shall draw the attention of officials to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton—but to attempt to regulate creative and inventive processes such as design would be counter-productive and damaging to the growth of the sector.
The Government are very active in the field of inclusive design and believe that they are better placed to act than a national regulator. We have previously supported the work of the advisory committee, TCAM, which has, within the framework of the Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive, been advising the European Commission on how to improve access for disabled users.
We shall pursue these issues positively through the work of the new committee, INCOM, which the Commission has established to look at these issues within the framework of the four directives implemented by Part 2 of the Bill. As the title of the new committee refers specifically to "inclusive communications", it is clear that the encouragement of inclusive design is on its agenda.
We are not sure that Ofcom is particularly well placed to take this work forward or that we should give it a particular duty in this area. Inclusive design is a matter for manufacturers, not regulation, and the role of encouraging inclusive design is best performed by government, which has broader relationships with manufacturers and other people concerned. So, although we are not able to accept the first part of the amendment as it stands, we shall look at the contribution that Ofcom can make on inclusive design and consider whether there should be, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, some addition to Ofcom's duties consistent with the rest of its responsibilities.
334
The second part of the amendment is partly based on Recital 8 of the framework directive. We are confident that, because of the provision in Clause 3(3)(i), to which I have already referred, it is unnecessary to have regard to the needs of disabled persons. In so far as Ofcom can take practical steps to encourage co-operation between network operators and manufacturers as envisaged by the recital, we are in no doubt that the general duty we have provided will lead it to do so.
There are one or two other detailed difficulties in the amendment but I do not need to go into them. I can sum up by saying that, although we cannot accept the amendment as it stands, we shall look again at the question of inclusive design in the light of the points that have been made today.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to my noble friend for his original and imaginative consideration of the special difficulties we face. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. As the Minister will have heard, they are all supportive of the amendment and have underlined the importance of inclusive design. I am glad that my noble friend has offered to look again at the issue. He has outlined the Government's difficulties—which I appreciate—but I am sure that we can establish some kind of modus vivendi and move forward on this very important principle which will help millions of disabled people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Duty to promote media literacy]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 11, line 15, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. We believe that Clause 10(1)(e) is ambiguous. We entirely support media literacy—we have supported it throughout the passage of the Bill, both in another place and in your Lordships' House—but there is one issue on which we seek further clarification.
Media literacy should, by definition, refer only to the promotion of public understanding of the workings of media services and how best to access them —for example, an understanding of how to use the Internet and parental control options. However, Clause 10(1)(e) states that it shall be the duty of Ofcom,
"to encourage the development and use of technologies and systems for regulating access",
to electronic media content, and for,
"facilitating control over what material is received".
It is those words that we are concerned about.
It is not clear what kind of "encouragement" Ofcom may undertake in this area or whether the provision would allow it to use its considerable powers to "pick winners" in terms of the technologies or systems used in the market place; or, indeed, whether it will allow Ofcom to impose on electronic communications networks or services, through its broadcasting licences, requirements that may adversely effect them.

335
For example, under Clause 10(1)(e), Ofcom's duty will require it to encourage the use of technologies and systems for regulating access to content that it determines are both,
"effective and easy to use".
But Ofcom's judgment of the effectiveness or ease of use of particular technologies and systems may differ from that of others or be superseded by fast-moving developments in technologies and services; or its preferred standards or systems may be incompatible with those already in use and require changes that damage the investments and operations of market players.
The intention behind the provision is no doubt laudable—who would not wish to support effective and easy-to-use technologies and systems for facilitating access and control over content in the digital world?—but it is another matter if the regulating body can substitute its judgment over that of the market in this area. Indeed, the regulator would not need to impose particular requirements on operators or licensees to tilt the playing field if, for instance, Ofcom chose to "encourage" the development or use of particular technologies or systems through its own research and development or funding initiatives in ways that affected the investments and operations of others and worked against rather than with the grain of the market place.
I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is not the Government's intention that Ofcom should be able to promote particular technologies over others, or to impose requirements that could have adverse effects such as those I have mentioned in pursuit of its media literacy objectives. It would also be helpful to know why, if the existing provision does not indeed allow such intervention, Clause 10(1)(e) should not be deleted from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Baroness said. We believe that there is a distinction between paragraph (e) and the remainder of the clause. In that paragraph Ofcom is given an active role in encouraging the development and use of technologies and systems as opposed to regulating the activities of other people doing those things. Paragraphs (a) to (d) all give Ofcom the duty to bring about, or to encourage others to bring about, various aspects of public awareness, but paragraph (e) is directly concerned not with public awareness but with the actual means of access and of facilitating control.
The Explanatory Notes state that these could include Internet filtering systems, rating systems by which programmes and videos are given a classification that indicates the nature of their content, and other technical devices for access, such as PIN-based systems. The notes envisage a role for Ofcom in the promotion of these systems and in the development of related educational materials. There are already Internet filtering systems and I doubt whether it is sensible for Ofcom to get involved in the global marketplace, as it would have to be to influence that
336
technology. For Ofcom to favour a particular system to pick winners, as the noble Baroness pointed out, would be to risk shutting off the UK from the developments that might take place in the rest of the world, particularly in the US, and that would be extremely foolish. Technical devices for access and PIN-based systems in particular are matters for the industry rather than the regulator. Going down that route might lead to the point of saying that even things such as modems, modem drivers, routers, 802.11 add-on cards and anything else which makes it easier for consumers to gain access to web-based material should be susceptible to the encouragement of the regulator under this heading.
Rating systems are another matter, because they are not likely to be developed or agreed voluntarily by communications providers. If the subsection were more tightly drawn to cover this problem alone, it could be useful, but we think that as it stands it is far too broad.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment. Clause 10 is to be welcomed; it imposes a fairly wide duty on Ofcom, but this amendment would make it wider. On the actual scope of duty to promote media literacy, how far does it extend, or is it intended to extend, to children? I assume it is intended to extend to parents, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said.
It is interesting to note that little, if any, attention is given to the particular needs of children in this or, indeed, any part of the Bill. I have been able to see only one reference in the standards code covered in Clause 312(2), and that is to those under 18, so it is important to have an answer. Certainly, Ofcom will need to encourage, promote and consolidate best practice because it is clear that the multiplicity of such guidelines already developed by government departments, ISPs or lobby agencies have not yet reached families.
Media education, particularly for the young, is probably the most crucial component for the future. So far, what little there is has taken place in an overcrowded curriculum. The new citizenship course has a small element built in, but much more is and will be needed.
We have all acknowledged, at least tacitly, the growing influence of the electronic communications in our lives, not just our lives as we live them, but our culture, our attitudes and sometimes even our behaviour. We need think back only a few years to the impact of 9/11.
Coming back to the importance of instilling values in the young, perhaps the most important is a degree of scepticism about what they watch, certainly in the citizenship course. As one teacher put it, the easily led or unwary citizen is disempowered. For that teacher,
"media understanding and awareness are a significant and possibly essential aspect of political literacy"
and what being part of society is about. That is why the ability to evaluate the message being sold in a programme and to detect, for example, any vested interest, will be increasingly important.

337
In the very early days of television, I remember hearing Malcolm Muggeridge0 say in a discussion programme that he could make two television programmes on exactly the same issue which would lead the viewer to opposite conclusions. A rather chilling thought, despite the reputation for objectivity and impartiality enjoyed by British broadcasting, about the power, if unregulated, of the moving image combined with the spoken word.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, recognises the importance of Ofcom's duty to promote media literacy. This is a positive step towards empowering people. Let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that of course "people" means "children". Of course children are included when it comes to taking greater responsibility for their use of the electronic media.
Media literacy is part of the citizenship curriculum. We would expect schools to take this issue and make sure that young people are given the opportunity to become more media literate. But I do not really think that we need a specific reference to children on the face of the Bill. This is exactly the sort of issue that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to earlier, if I can say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
I recognise that there was some concern in relation to the draft Bill that Ofcom should not become involved in the development of systems to support its media literacy duty. The drafting has been tightened up to make it clear that Ofcom's role is to encourage others to do so. That might be broadcasters, the electronics industry or software designers.
It is important that Ofcom retains its duty to encourage the development and use of systems and technologies to help people regulate what they view. It is equally important that these systems are effective and easy to use. There are many systems available; there is also a great deal of confusion about what they do and how they work. We see Ofcom's role as a facilitator. It is important that it retains the role of bringing stakeholders together and encouraging the development of tools which are likely to he increasingly important to the public.
I can give the noble Baroness the reassurance that I think she wants. This is not about picking winners; it would not be right for the regulator to start trying to tilt the playing field in the direction of any particular technology. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to that too.
If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted—and she made it clear that it was a probing amendment—Ofcom would have no duty to encourage the development of easy-to-use systems for regulating access which are very important tools with which to protect the public, particularly children, from unsuitable contents. I hope I have given the noble Baroness the reassurance she wants.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister very much for her response. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for her support.
338
Notwithstanding the fact that I entirely accept the Minister's comments that children come within the meaning of the word "people", it is helpful to have that clear in Hansard, as much of this relates to children and the next generation. It is helpful to have had that discussion.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his support and contribution to the debate. It is an important area although this is, as I made clear, a probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurance that it is not the role of Ofcom, nor should it be, to tilt the playing field in the direction of any particular technology or manufacturer of that technology. We do not want the clause deleted, as that would negate the possibility of developing the use of technologies and systems for media literacy. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Duty to establish and maintain Contort Board]:
12.30 p.m.
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 31, after "OFCOM:" insert—
"(aa) a member who is a non-executive member of OFCOM but is not either the chairman of OFCOM or the chairman of the content board:"
The noble Lord said: We move to the clauses setting out the content board. Before we all get carried away with Peytonitis, let me state one important thing. We have had the experience that, if we do not write specific powers and duties into a Bill, very clever lawyers afterwards can say, "It's not in the Bill, so the regulator can't or shouldn't do it". Ministers should not get too attracted to the idea that broadbrush or light legislation will deliver what Parliament wants.
As for my noble friend Lord Thomson's idea of government by Orders in Council, No. 10 will probably be studying his remarks as a possible new initiative. Perhaps that is the third way.
I shall be brief because we have already heard the arguments, certainly to the amendments in my name, in the pre-legislative Select Committee. The amendment would give a central role to the content board. Our request for an extra member is so that content matters do not become only the isolated responsibility of a single member who is simply seen as Mr or Mrs Content. It would mean that there was a body of weight on the main board.
The amendments also seek to give the content board executive teeth—probably to the chagrin of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Tessa Jowell said earlier that she wanted the executive and advisory balance to develop over time. It is all very well to have such faith in organic growth. but it is just as well to have those responsibilities written in from the beginning so that the content board has real weight within the Ofcom structure. That would allow the main board to

339
concentrate on strategic issues and economic regulation while giving the content board a degree of autonomy and authority. To have that autonomy and authority, however, it must have powers and teeth. Through that, it would not become mere window-dressing, as some have feared, but a body in which external lay influences and authorities can have real confidence. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I notice that my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is not in his place to speak to Amendment No. 43A, so I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 50, 53, 58 and 60. I also wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 57.
All the amendments relate to the content board. It seems rather strange that we are here debating the make-up and constituents of the content board and their duties. A newspaper article tells me that the content board—albeit the shadow content board— is holding its inaugural meeting today. I find it extraordinary that we are considering legislation that is still in draft form, as a Bill, when a content board is already in place. It will be argued that it is only a shadow board, but it has gone ahead and been sorted out before we have had a chance to debate these clauses. That said, I wish the board well with its inaugural meeting.
Amendment No. 44 seeks to ensure that, as far as is practicable, the membership of the content board shall be representative of the full range of significant political, cultural and religious attitudes in the UK. As the Bill stands, there are few constraints on whom Ofcom may appoint to the content board, subject to very general principles of good governance.
The make-up of the board—that is, its constituents—is particularly important, because the Bill envisages Ofcom's role primarily as a commercial regulator, which is a very different function to that of broadcasting regulation. The argument that Ofcom should be left to its own devices does not stand in this area. Principles such as "due impartiality" are timeless and have little to do with the rapidly changing commercial market place that the Bill is designed to address. For example, on issues of political opinion, religious belief or cultural values, many people might find themselves in a minority, so the solution is increased access for minority groups. The legal framework to achieve that is already in place—due impartiality and balance—but the problem is to make those principles work in a pluralistic society. The amendment would ensure that Ofcom selects a content board that is minded to give concepts such as balance and due impartiality real meaning as it sets about its task of reviewing broadcasting codes of conduct for a pluralistic society.
I turn to Amendment No. 50. Throughout the passage of the Bill, confusion has arisen as to the nature of the functions conferred on the content board. The amendment would ensure that, if a function were bestowed on the content board, the main board would not concurrently exercise its jurisdiction. As the Bill stands, there is no mechanism
340
to prohibit this duplication; both boards could effectively exercise immediate responsibility on a particular matter. The amendment does not propose that ultimate and determinative responsibility should be transferred to the content board, only that the limitations within which it is to operate should be clearly defined.
In another place the Minister for Broadcasting referred to the possibility that Ofcom and its content board would work together to establish a memorandum of understanding—or something similar. We do not believe that the informal approach to the issue adopted by the Government addresses the significant concerns of businesses facing double jeopardy. The confines within which each board functions must be established in the Bill. Our amendment makes clear those confines and so avoids the possibility of confusion and, worse still, of double jeopardy.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 53 and 58. Amendment No. 53 would give the content board a duty to evaluate what impact its actions have on business competitiveness. We have in mind in particular businesses that use broadcasting—or anything that will come under the remit of the content board—as a central part of its functioning. For example, a number of businesses are looking to use interactive digital television as a medium for communicating with customers, and it is unclear what the role of the content board will be in such cases. Will the content board be able to rule on issues even if that leads to the distortion of markets and companies being put out of business? If so, what assurance do we have that the content board even took that into consideration when making its decision?
The amendment has the support of the CBI, which is concerned that UK business will not be a priority for Ofcom. What is worrying is that there is a consumer panel and content board but business is not represented in the same way in Ofcom and will not therefore have the clout to resist measures that result in an anti-competitive outcome. With that in mind, it is all the more important to include some detail in the Bill on the extent of the content board's intended powers so that there is no chance of their being misapplied in the future.
"Content" is an integral part of the commercial service offering of broadcasting companies and companies producing multimedia services, but the changing nature of the market could mean that in future it will represent a key part of a much wider variety of businesses. Therefore we believe that a clause should be added to ensure that the content board has to take into account the impact of its decisions on companies that both now and into the future will use anything that comes under its remit as an integral part of their commercial service offerings.
Amendment No. 58 is an attempt to rectify the imbalance which I outlined concerning the absence of a formal body or procedure whereby business interests are represented on Ofcom. It states that the content board's role of keeping OFCOM informed about,

341
"the different interests and other factors",
in Clause 12(4) which are relevant to the carrying out of Ofcom's functions should include information on how business competitiveness is or could be affected. We believe that that would go some way to ensuring that Ofcom is kept in touch with business and ensure that the regulator is aware of the potential impact of any regulations on competitiveness in this increasingly important area of economic activity and growth.
Without the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill, there is a real danger that Ofcom, perhaps without realising, will do pointless damage to areas of British business owing to a lack of representation and information on the interaction of Ofcom's activities and the business community. We believe that our amendment would rectify that omission.
Amendment No. 60 enables the content board to give informed advice on the provision and quality of content services for disabled and older people. Disabled and older viewers form a major public interest in relation to television and radio content yet they are not even mentioned in Clause 12. If the content board is to function effectively and perform its duties, this interest group must be effectively represented. We believe that the appointment of Kevin Carey, who is visually impaired, to the shadow Ofcom content board is very welcome. Kevin's experience as a director of Humanity and as vice-chairman of the RNIB has seen him work determinedly for the inclusion of all in the information society. We hope that the content board will, with his influence, work to champion the interests of disabled people.
Amendment No. 60 seeks to provide a mechanism for ensuring that the content board is able to derive maximum benefit for those who may be disadvantaged within broadcasting. It would grant Ofcom the power to establish a committee or panel focusing on the interests of people with disabilities or special needs resulting from age or personal circumstance. For example, the content board will have a role in monitoring the quality of specific content services designed to maximise visually impaired and deaf people's enjoyment of television programmes. Those services also benefit older people and those with learning difficulties. In addition, the content board's function with regard to media literacy must target disabled people and other excluded groups as a priority. For that it will need an effective, co-ordinated input with a committee or panel dedicated to those interests. Such a committee or panel would greatly assist the content board in the execution of those functions. The profile of such initiatives must remain high and effectual.
Finally, I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell along with the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally and Lord Hussey of North Bradley. As we heard, this provision grants the content board the power to publish information as it feels appropriate, reflecting the recommendation of Professor Eric Barendt given in evidence to the Joint Scrutiny Committee. While we welcome the creation of a content board. the confines within which the
342
board will operate should be clearly defined. A framework needs to be established to ensure that the board enjoys public confidence and legitimacy. There has been considerable debate regarding its potential executive or advisory responsibilities and the interrelationship with Ofcom to which I have already alluded.
We agree that ultimate responsibility for the content board should rest with Ofcom, but are concerned that the position of the board within the structure of the main regulator has not been properly considered. By publishing its views about conclusions and recommendations regarding its functions, the content board would enjoy greater popular confidence. That would allow a more lively and vigorous public debate on issues that directly interest and concern all members of society. We believe that this amendment provides a mechanism through which the functions of the content board will become less ambiguous and more transparent.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 45 in my name which seeks the deletion of subsection (8). I do so not because I object to the provisions of subsection (8), but because it seems that they are subsumed in the more general provision of subsection (9) which requires Ofcom to satisfy itself that the person to be appointed will not have a,
"financial or other interest which would be likely prejudicially to affect the carrying out by him … of his functions".
That seems perfectly adequate. I see no reason uniquely to single out the BBC and Channel 4 and simply to leave, for example, the MD of Sky, Channel 3 or an independent radio company for that matter to be caught under the provisions of subsection (9).
Lord Addington: I should like very briefly to add my support particularly for Amendment No. 60. I must apologise to the noble Baroness for not putting my name to the amendment— I think it a very good idea. It proposes establishing an advisory panel that actually knows about the issues affecting the various groups which can be sidelined. That is very important. We have had many discussions highlighting the fact that one such person on a board is probably not enough for the disability movement, and I think that the same applies to other groups. I hope that the Government can reassure us that there will be a mechanism in place to ensure adequate representation. One person on a board is simply not enough. One person often does not know enough about other types of disability. As I have said before, I know that from personal experience, having held the disability portfolio. I have often had to seek the expertise of others on specific issues and groups. I therefore hope that the provision will be accepted.
Lord Puttnam: I rise to speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 43 and 57, which I think deal with essentially the same problem. The Government must by now be very aware that there are enormous

343
anxieties in various communities—the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has just mentioned that the business community has its own anxieties—about the role and responsibility of the content board. We feel that Amendments Nos. 43 and 57 are totally sensible. Amendment No. 43 is sensible and is effectively already operating, as two non-executive members of the board will he members of the content board, which is just as it should be. If there is anxiety, surely it is in the Government's interest to alleviate it whenever and wherever possible. Here is a marvellous opportunity, at no cost and with no dispute, to put on the face of the Bill that the content board will in perpetuity contain at least two non-executive members of the Ofcom board.
Amendment No. 57 deals with the right to publish. For all the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, it is common sense that the transparency and reasoning behind the decisions of the content board should he made evident on at least an annual basis. It is the type of reassurance that every community wants and is entitled to have.
All of that brings us back to Clause 3. These anxieties exist fundamentally because of the confusion in Clause 3 as to whether Ofcom's decision will be primarily market driven or citizen driven. Here is a marvellous opportunity to make clear to everyone what is driving these decisions.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 44, 60, 46, 48 and 57. I am perplexed about how Ofcom can be challenged over its failure to have regard to the desirability of reflecting the interests and opinions of people living in different parts of the UK. How is such failure to be measured? On what basis would evidence be produced? So I support the replacement of what seems to me to be a rather otiose provision with a provision that seeks to distil something of the essence of our community and our rich cultural and religious identity, and for that to be reflected in the make-up of the content board. I think that the inclusion of the word "significant" makes that a reasonable and achievable task. I think that Amendment No. 44 achieves a simple statement of key attitudes and sensibilities that colour views of broadcast content.
Amendment No. 60 recognises that those needs must be spelled out. This provision is about those who are on the margins. We talk much and often about being an inclusive society, but, as we have already been reminded this morning, we must also remember to include the less visible, the young, the old, the sick and the housebound elderly. I give an example from a religious viewpoint. Very often people who are housebound, and therefore often invisible to most of us, are, as I know from my pastoral experience, among the most devoted audiences of religious provision and broadcast worship on television. This is no fringe sport. "Songs of Praise" shown on peak time regularly attracts an audience of over 5 million. Despite the unjustified complaints that have been made about ITV's religious remit and the showing of short services
344
of worship, "My Favourite Hymns" on a Sunday has a smaller but still strong audience, particularly among the group that I have mentioned.
Television worship has declined in the past three years whereas radio worship has not: yet I know directly from many elderly people, as well as from broadcasters, that the elderly and disabled find the presence of television worship a very great comfort. Many of them also find it easier to operate television than radio. These are issues that can be easily overlooked by those of us who are not disabled or have special needs. Therefore, a special committee or panel to keep in mind those kind of issues could he very helpful.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 46, 48 and 57. It is most welcome that there is to be a separate content board within Ofcom, but to be effective it must have independence from government and industry. I cite what the noble Lord. Lord Dubs—who is not present at the moment—said at the Broadcasting Standards Commission annual review last year.
I believe that the content board's independence is buttressed by giving it the statutory remit set out in Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 rather than one determined wholly by Ofcom. I believe that that is also true of Amendment No. 57 which gives the content board an independent voice rather than one subject to Ofcom's own communications needs and imperatives. I rather suspect that if Ofcom is to have the task of holding competitive freedom and quality regulation in creative tension, these competing demands will need to have their own voices. But it is not just independent voices that are needed. Especially when the reporting cycle for Ofcom is up to five years, voices are needed that can hold a broadcaster to account while the recollection of the broadcast is still vivid in the public memory.
These amendments would reassure the public that the concerns of the listener and the viewer about content, which have certainly been addressed often to the Broadcasting Standards Commission. will still be seen to matter to the regulator.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wish to support Amendment No. 43. It seems to me to be almost common sense to bind in, and have horizontal co-ordination between, Ofcom and the content board in the manner in which they are devised. I should also like to speak in favour of Amendment No. 44, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Wilcox. I am not sure whether the precise formulation of the intent is perfect but the general intention of the content board to ensure that those matters are considered, by itself in particular, makes much sense to me and addresses a considerable amount of anxiety about imbalance in the Bill in terms of underrating political, cultural and religious areas of concern.
I am afraid that I at least wonder at, and probably oppose, Amendments Nos. 53 and 58, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Wilcox. It seems to me that to require the content

345
board to have special regard to business interests in the manner prescribed in the amendments is unnecessary and imbalancing. I say that with regard to the keystone Clause 3 which tries to establish a balance between business and non-business issues, if I may put it so simply. Therefore, I doubt the wisdom of those two amendments.
On the other hand, I strongly endorse Amendment No. 57. It seems to me self-obviously virtuous to allow the content board to publish information. It should do a great deal of that. Finally, I support Amendment No. 60, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, which seems to me to be meritorious.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I should clarify that I have no delegated authority from my noble friend Lord Peyton to represent him in the context of his Amendment No. 43A. Even if I were a delegated proxy for my noble friend. I should be a pale simulacrum of him although I can guess what his purpose was in putting down Amendment No. 43A. In his absence I ask a probing question of the Minister; namely, to tell us what purpose Clause 11(6), which my noble friend wishes to delete, fulfils. Is it the sort of copper bottoming to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred as an amulet against marauding lawyers? If that is not its purpose, Clause 11(6) carries the unfortunate implication that the Government believe that it might slip Ofcom's mind to carry out the provisions of Clauses 11(4) and 11(5), in which case they would effectively become academic within the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that I believe she would be critical were the preparation not to be begun that is needed to ensure that Ofcom and, indeed, all its constituent parts, are ready to function on the prescribed date. No functions have yet been conferred on the content board nor are such functions predetermined while the Bill is still being debated in this House. It is a matter of the shadow board meeting and starting preparatory work. I am sure that the noble Baroness would welcome that.
With one exception the Government resist the amendments in the group we are discussing, but I shall explain in some detail why we consider that the amendments, many of which lie within the grain of the Government's and Ofcom's thinking, should not form part of the primary legislation. I shall also move a minor government drafting amendment.
Ofcom is aware that it remains ultimately responsible and accountable for the work and decisions of the content board. That is the fundamental point which lies behind everything that I shall now say in response to individual amendments. The appointment of Richard Hooper and Sarah Nathan from the main Ofcom board, as chairman and deputy chairman respectively of the shadow content board, along with Kip Meek from the Ofcom executive, demonstrates Ofcom's commitment
346
to have the work of the content board fully within the ambit of the main board. I am sure that they will continue to make appointments with that in mind.
Amendment No. 43 reflects a recommendation made by the joint committee. In the government response we recognised that there was a great deal of merit in the committee's proposal, but we concluded that that did not need to be specified in the legislation. However, having listened to the debate today, I can still see the merit in the amendment, especially in the light of the increase in the size of the main board, following another recommendation of the joint committee. The Government will therefore consider bringing forward an amendment at Report stage to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, seeks. I say to the noble Lord—this is relevant to many of the amendments we are discussing—that the content board can clearly have executive functions in the sense that it can carry out Ofcom's content functions. It will not simply advise Ofcom. That is an important point to remember.
I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Amendment No. 45 has the effect of removing one of the key provisions in Clause 11 which protects against conflicts of interest. I fail to see what benefits the removal of that protection would bring. The content board has the status of being the only committee Ofcom is required to establish, and it will play an important role. Therefore, it is crucial that adequate provisions exist to prevent members being compromised by other interests.
We believe that those with a risk of self-interest in the decisions of the board should be disbarred from membership, and that membership of those bodies listed in subsection (8) can be clearly identified as posing such a risk. I would not be comfortable with having, to take one example, a governor of the BBC chairing a board examining and adjudicating on content issues across the whole broadcasting sector.
1 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Will the Minister reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, about figures representative of various other aspects of the telecommunications and broadcasting industry who could, equally with those three named, have conflicts of interest? Why are those three exclusively mentioned?
Baroness Blackstone: That is because the content board is concerned with issues that particularly affect the interests stated in the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sorry to persist, but what about Sky, for example? Does it not make programmes and so raise exactly the same issues of conflict?
Baroness Blackstone: I am perfectly willing to take away the particular issue of Sky, and perhaps write to the noble Lord as to why Sky is not mentioned

347
in the Bill. However, the broader issues of telecommunications are not relevant, or are much less relevant, to the content board.
Lord McNally: Fully in line with the Peyton doctrine, subsection (8) can be subsumed by subsection (9). The Minister would do far better to look at strengthening subsection (9) rather than leaving subsection (8) with what seem some arbitrarily chosen organisations when, as my noble friend points out, many organisations could be put into the list. Instead of having a long list in subsection (8), a redrawn and tightened subsection (9) might do the job.
Baroness Blackstone: I have been reminded that other commercial interests are covered as well. I could write to the Members of the Committee who have raised the points and set out rather more clearly how we see them being resolved.
Amendments Nos. 43A and 44 would remove a simple and standard provision similar to ones already in the Broadcasting Act 1990, to ensure that the decisions of the content board are not invalidated by a simple procedural error in appointment. I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and say that that safeguard will protect the validity of the proceedings of the content board, so that a simple defect in procedure does not invalidate what could be a number of decisions.
There is a similar provision in the Office of Communications Act 2002, as well as in many other Acts. I assure the noble Lord that such a standard provision is in no way intended to provide an excuse for deliberately evading the requirements of the legislation for proper representation. Without the provision, there could be serious consequences for the whole operation of the regime governing content standards.
I shall deal with Amendment No. 44. The content board will have the principal function of ensuring that the public interest in the nature and quality of television and radio programmes is sufficiently represented within Ofcom's overall structure. To do that, it will have to be representative of many different aspects of the public interest, including different political, cultural and religious attitudes. Members will need to be able to respond effectively and convincingly to many matters to which Ofcom is to have regard as set out in Clause 3, so far as they are relevant to their work.
Our first objection to the amendment is that the content board is not intended to be a balance of different interests. Each member has a responsibility to represent the wider public interest rather than a narrow sectional interest. The risk of a provision of such a nature is that, first, the content board would end up becoming simply a board representing the noisiest interest groups, and, secondly, any excluded group would challenge its validity. I am sure that Members of the Committee will see the sense in what I say.
348
Amendment No. 60 focuses on a particular bureaucratic solution to ensure that the interests of certain groups are taken into account. The key point is that the Bill establishes the various interests that Ofcom has to take into account, including, for example, the needs of persons with disabilities. The content board is part of Ofcom—I keep having to repeat that—so that applies to it as well, so far as is relevant to the functions that Ofcom gives it. How that is done is up to Ofcom and the content board to decide. For example, it could be done through advisory committees of the content board, through its relationship with the consumer panel or other committees, or through membership of the content board itself.
The amendment is unnecessary. However. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I of course very much welcome the appointment of Kevin Carey to the content board. That is one way in which it can be said that it will fully discharge Ofcom's duties in favour of people with disabilities. We must leave exactly how Ofcom wants to follow that up—for example, perhaps through separate advisory committees—to it.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 58 assume a particular relationship between the Ofcom board and the content board, and then seek to intervene in it. Ofcom has a broad obligation under Clause 3 to balance a number of factors, including its duty to promote competition. Its arrangements for the work of the content board must not upset that balance.
If Ofcom felt that it needed the content board to advise on the effect of its activities on competitiveness, the board could do so, but that again has to remain Ofcom's decision, with regard to obligations placed on it in other parts of the Bill. However, it seems more likely that Ofcom, two of whose non-executive members are currently on the shadow content board, will want to take their views of any risks to competitiveness which might arise in determining the extent of the discretion allowed to the content board. To ensure that there is no uncertainty once Ofcom assumes its powers, we expect it to provide a clear statement or memorandum setting out in detail the extent of the functions of the content board, giving its members, the public and the communications industry proper clarity about its role.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 are in a similar vein, and seek to ensure that the content board undertakes Ofcom's function to promote media literacy under Clause 10. Ofcom is currently developing the precise remit of the content board and its relationship with the main board. We made clear in Clause 12(2) that, whatever functions Ofcom devolves to the content board, they must include the contents of material broadcast or otherwise transmitted by means of electronic communications networks, and with the promotion of public understanding or awareness.
It therefore seems highly likely that the content board will have an important role in Ofcom's media literacy work. Indeed, the advertisements for content board members indicated that. However, it would be wrong to specify in legislation that the board should be

349
entirely responsible for the function. We should not, for example, preclude in the legislation the establishment within Ofcom of a separate media literacy committee at some point in the future.
The matters referred to in Amendment No. 52 fall, with one exception, within the description of functions in Clause 12(2) that Ofcom must confer on the board, to such extent and subject to such restrictions and approvals as Ofcom may determine. The exception is the reference in the amendment to Schedule 8. That schedule does not confer any function on Ofcom, but simply identifies various decisions—albeit that such decisions may he made in pursuit of Ofcom functions—which are not subject to appeal.
Amendment No. 50 is also directed towards specifying more closely the relationship between the content board and the main Ofcom board; in this case, by ensuring that Ofcom and its content board do not undertake the same function. I recognise the risks of the possibility of double jeopardy occurring, where a business could be overseen by Ofcom and the content board; that was discussed in another place. Our position remains that despite its superficial appeal, the amendment could unhelpfully restrict the way in which Ofcom undertakes its functions. It may be the case, for example, that Ofcom wants to give the content board a function, while reserving for the main board decisions which relate to that same function, but which have an impact beyond a particular financial threshold. That should remain possible.
We have placed on Ofcom a responsibility to have regard to good regulatory practice, including transparency. We anticipate that Ofcom will therefore be aware of the potential for double jeopardy and of course seek to preclude it wherever possible.
On Amendment No. 57, although it may be appropriate at times for the content board to publish information, it would be undesirable for the legislation to place that discretion with the content board itself. I must repeat—in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—that Ofcom remains responsible and accountable for the work and decisions of the content board. The work of the content board must fit in with Ofcom's overall strategy. Therefore, it should be for Ofcom to decide when and what to publish.
I hope I have explained fully why the Government, while sympathetic to many of the views that noble Lords have put forward in speaking to the amendments, believe that it would be wrong to include them on the face of the Bill. The Government will consider Amendment No. 43 further, but I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Finally, I turn briefly to Amendment No. 44A. The amendment simply corrects an earlier drafting error in order to make clear that paragraph 14(3) lies in the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002. The earlier drafting omitted the word "schedule". I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord winds up. I followed
350
precisely what the Minister said about Amendment No. 43A. However, it appears to me that if Ofcom or the content board were to fail to fulfil any of the Bill's provisions—I am not suggesting that they would be perverse—the wording of the amendment would offer them an amulet against judicial review. That seems curiously comprehensive. but I totally understand that the Government are trying to protect them against a simple slip of procedure.
Baroness Buscombe: I would also like briefly to respond to some of the Minister's replies to our amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Addington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for supporting Amendment No. 60. I also thank the right reverend Prelate for his support for Amendment No. 44.
We believe that this is an important subject. It would be inappropriate now to debate what different noble Lords might consider to be the wider public interest compared with the narrower sections of our public life or our citizens. Some might disagree with the Minister's interpretation of what the wider public interest might include in terms of those attributes that different members of the content board might bring. Perhaps that is a debate for another day.
I understood the Minister's concerns about the wording of Amendment No. 50 in relation to the possibility of double jeopardy in terms of decision-making of the content board and Ofcom. Since the Minister's response was similar to that of the Minister in another place, perhaps I may suggest to her that consideration be given to Ofcom and the content board establishing a memorandum of understanding to ensure, as best as is possible, up-front that there is an avoidance of double jeopardy. While I accept the Minister's reasons for not including the amendment in the Bill and recognise the difficulty of finding the right wording to meet the possible problem, it would be helpful if there were such a memorandum of understanding.
I heard what the Minister said about the amendments relating to the concerns of business. As I have already said, the amendment has the support of the CBI. It is deeply concerned about the interests of business. It does not believe that its concerns are answered in Clause 3 of the Bill. I will take back to the CBI the Minister's response to those amendments and will see if we might return to that subject on Report.
1.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: By my count, we had one correcting amendment, one concession and one promise to write, so we are getting there. This clutch of amendments involves an attempt to get, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly said, the balance right between the content board and the duties of the main Ofcom board. We moved the amendment because we were concerned by fears expressed to the Joint Select Committee that the content board would be mere window dressing. We were concerned that it should have proper autonomy in its operations. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, like me, is happy

351
that Ofcom is not just waiting around but making active preparations for its job. We will study what the Minister said before considering how we might continue on Report the process of making this good Bill better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43A and 44 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I remind the Committee that there is a mistake in the printing of Amendment No. 44A in the Marshalled List. It should read "after 'first' insert 'the Schedule to'".
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 44A:
Page 12, line 6, after "of" insert "the Schedule to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Functions of the Content Board]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 13, line 14, after "factors" insert "inter alia"
The noble Lord said: I hope that we can deal swiftly with this amendment and those grouped with it. Clause 12 describes the functions of the content board. Some noble Lords may have been perplexed when trying to get to the bottom of the wording of the clause. There is an anticlimactic quality about many of its subsections. Subsection (3) starts off boldly by stating that Ofcom "must have particular regard". It then refers to,
"the desirability of securing that the Board have at least a significant influence".
All in all, the discretion that Ofcom has over the powers and engagement of the content board is probably wider than some of us would have liked. However, there is one point at least that I commend to the Committee. Subsections (3) and (4), in prescribing what duties may be cast upon the content board, refer to matters,
"of different interests and other factors as respects different parts of the United Kingdom".
That phrase is used twice and indicates that although Ofcom has complete discretion in what it puts to the content board, it must have particular regard to,
"different interests and other factors as respects different parts of the United Kingdom".
That implies a regional bias or concern on the part of Ofcom, with which none of us would argue. My amendments seek to ensure that "different interests" is not confined to interests which are regionally based. It allows non-geographical "different interests" which cross regions—be they political, quasi-political, charitable, cultural or religious—to be given the same level of importance as regional and geographical "different interests". That is the purport of Amendments Nos. 54 and 56.
352
In Amendment No. 55, I seek simply to replace the word "need"—that is, what needs to be taken into account in the views of the content board—with the less-demanding test of "ought reasonably". It reduces the threshold. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: We do not want to prescribe further in the legislation the precise functions of the content board. Clause 12(3) and (4) have been drafted to embody the role that the content board has to play in ensuring that the particular interests of nations and regions are taken into account in Ofcom's work in licensing and setting standards for TV and radio.
I do not believe that we should extend that to encompass other interests, nor is it necessary. The effects of an extension of this kind could be, in practice, to dissipate the focus of the content board on its responsibilities to the nations and regions, or on the matters which Ofcom has devolved to it.
Of course, to the extent that Ofcom requires the content board to reflect diverse views in its work, that can be secured through the remit that is given to the board. Equally, if when carrying out its functions the content board felt that factors relating to different interest groups as regards the different parts of the United Kingdom were relevant, I am sure it would take those into account when advising Ofcom. Furthermore, in making appointments to the content board, as in all its other work Ofcom must have regard to the various matters listed in Clause 3, which includes the interest of the principal groups which have an identifiable interest in the work of Ofcom where those are not specifically defined elsewhere in the Bill.
The drafting change suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, from "need" to "ought reasonably" in Amendment No. 55 has a negligible impact on the effect of subsection (4). Perhaps the noble Lord is concerned that the word "need" implies too strict a test. If so, I can assure him that it is not intended to make the board prove that some consideration is strictly necessary and the provision should not be read in that way.
In the light of what I have said, I believe that subsection (4) as drafted strikes the right balance. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a full reply. She spoke of the danger of dissipating the focus of Ofcom and the board if the amendments are agreed to, but I believe the reverse to be the case. She also said that it is open to the content board to give such advice to Ofcom as it thinks fit in relation to different interests of a non-geographical nature. I fear that that is not the case, because the only area where the content board has the right to advise Ofcom is when Ofcom asks for its advice. I was trying to put different interest groups of a non-geographical nature on the same basis as those of a geographical nature.
At this stage, I propose to do nothing more than beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would reconsider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Committer research]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Consumer consultation]:
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 16, line 40. at end insert ", with due regard to the need to prioritise the Panel's activities and make best use of its resources"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 63, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 67 to 70 and 80. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 67. The Committee will surely agree that it is unarguable that consumers need a strong voice in the electronic communications sector to ensure that their interests are effectively represented and taken into account by decision-makers and providers. An effective and expert consumer representative body is also vital to act as a counter-balance to other more powerful interests. The National Consumer Council has already welcomed inclusion of a provision in the Bill to set up a communications consumer panel, including the intention that it should be independent and operationally separate from Ofcom. However, the current wording in the Bill will preclude the panel from being able to comment on the breadth of consumers' interests in this sector as it prevents the panel from being able to give advice on matters concerning content.
The panel will require the ability to do so for three main reasons. The first is the integrity of the project. If the intent is to create an integrated regulatory body because of converging technologies and markets, it is surely illogical for the panel's remit to be restricted to service delivery matters. The second is the breadth of the consumer interest and communications which encompass broad content issues such as choice, diversity and quality as well as service delivery. Universal access to public service broadcasting is a key consumer concern. The third is the unique independent role of the panel. It will be external to Ofcom, whereas the content board will be part of Ofcom and will have delegated regulatory functions.
There are also concerns that the panel could overlap or duplicate content issues with the work of the content board, or concentrate unduly on content matters to the detriment of other consumer issues. That can be addressed in the following ways. The panel should be required to be transparent and accountable, particularly in terms of how it prioritises its work and makes best use of resources. It should have a duty to report annually on how it has fulfilled its duties. Ofcom and the communications consumer panel should be required to draw up a memorandum of understanding to formalise co-operative working relationships. The memorandum should guard against duplication but also recognise their distinctive roles.
354
I turn to Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70. The Bill places a duty on Ofcom to provide the consumer panel with information. However, it also gives Ofcom unduly wide powers to withhold information, which could potentially severely hamper the consumer panel's ability to do its job. Right of access to information is an essential component of accountability that enables consumers to assess how well regulators are carrying out their activities, including how well they are fulfilling their duties towards consumers.
When something goes wrong, information helps consumers to find out what has happened and why it has happened. Although Ofcom will be covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this will not apply until the year 2005 when the Act will take effect. We are particularly concerned about the intervening period when Ofcom will be covered by the duties to provide information as set out in the Communications Bill—duties narrower than those that will apply under the Freedom of Information Act. Although we have concerns about the adequacy of the Act itself, it is bizarre that the consumer panel's right of access to information will he more curtailed by the Communications Bill than by the Freedom of Information Act.
Under Clause 15 of the Bill Ofcom will be able to withhold information from the consumer panel on grounds of the need to preserve commercial confidentiality. However, the wording of Clause 15 is inconsistent with that of Clause 14, which would allow Ofcom to withhold publication of research if it,
"would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests"
of an individual or of a particular body. It is in the interests of consumers that the kind of information that can be protected within a cloak of commercial confidentiality is kept to the minimum, consistent with good governance and good business. We believe that a careful balance should be struck between legitimate commercial interest and consumer interest. In our view, Clause 15 should be amended so as to make it consistent with other parts of the Bill, namely, Clause 14.
In addition, it is vital that consumer interest and the wider public interest are given due consideration and are not unfairly outweighed by narrower commercial pressures. Therefore, Clause 15 should be amended to include a public interest test as part of Ofcom's considerations about disclosure of information. That would also help to inspire greater public confidence in the processes of Ofcom.
Where information is withheld, there are no time limits in the Bill for Ofcom to review such decisions; nor is there an explicit requirement that information be provided once the reasons for withholding it no longer apply. Clause 15 should be amended so as to place a duty on Ofcom to specify a time limit for reviewing the reasons for withholding information, as well as a duty to provide the information once those reasons no longer apply.
Amendment No. 80 proposes that the panel should represent the interests of,

355
"domestic consumers and small businesses in general".
In terms of representing the interests of specific groups of consumers, Clause 16 of the Bill states that Ofcom must ensure that there is a different member capable of representing the interests and opinions of people living in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It also states that Ofcom must make "secure" that the panel is able to give "informed advice" about matters relating to the interests of people in rural and urban areas, those of small businesses, as well as,
"the interests of disadvantaged persons, persons with low incomes and persons with disabilities; and … the interests of the elderly".
The panel will also be required to have regard to the interests of people from different parts of the United Kingdom, together with the interests to which I have already referred.
However, as I am sure Members of the Committee will agree, it is unrealistic to expect one individual to be able to represent the interests and needs of each group. Moreover, the interests of people within the groups that I mentioned are not homogenous; for example, one disabled person cannot represent the spans of interest or the needs of people with different disabilities. There is a diverse range of consumer interests that needs to be represented in the electronic communications sector, which includes not only those of the groups that I mentioned but also a variety of other interests, such as those of people from minority ethnic communities, together with those of the very young and children.
It appears that representation of consumers' interests is being confused with a general notion of representativeness. The Bill should ensure that the panel is able to achieve an expert representation of the diversity of consumers' interests as well as those of the generality of consumers. It is crucial that the panel should work cohesively as a whole to fulfil its duty to represent the diversity of consumer interests. All panel members should share collective responsibility in all these respects. To ensure that this happens in practice and to make sure that the panel operates both transparently and accountably, it should be required to report annually on how it has represented the diversity of consumers' interests, as well as on how it has sought to fulfil its general duties for domestic consumers and small businesses. I beg to move.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak to government Amendment No. 65, which would appear to allow Ofcom to seek advice from the consumer panel on content matters. We believe this to be a surprising move, and one which gives some cause for concern. Until now, the Government have appeared satisfied with the delineation of responsibilities between the consumer panel and the content board. We have supported their approach. Clause 15(3), (4) and (5) have been drafted with precision in order to give clear
356
guidance as to the matters on which the consumer panel should, and should not, give advice—an approach that we welcome.
However, Amendment No. 65 appears to erode those clearly defined boundaries providing the consumer panel with an advisory function in relation to content. While, in the first instance, this may relate only to content matters referred to the consumer panel by Ofcom, it is easy to see how that could expand through the demands of the panel—even where the content board contains appropriate representation and expertise—and also to envisage the political difficulty that Ofcom would have in limiting the scope and duration of consumer panel advice on content matters once the door is opened through the Government's amendment. The esteemed board members of Ofcom are unlikely to wish to suffer accusations, perhaps in headlines on an ongoing basis, no matter how misfounded, that they are "anti-consumer" because they are refusing to allow the panel to advise in all the areas that it wishes to input, again, irrespective of the expertise and representation that exists on the dedicated content board.
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why he has seen fit to introduce this new provision. In what circumstances is it envisaged that Ofcom would need to seek advice from the consumer panel on content matters? How will the problems that I have outlined be avoided?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for the way he introduced this group of amendments. I am certainly glad to have this opportunity to respond, especially on Amendments Nos. 65 and 66. Although the latter is separate, it would in effect negate Amendment No. 65.
The amendments deal with the fundamentals of the consumer panel: what it will do; its relationship with Ofcom; and how it will deliver for different groups of consumers. As part of its remit, it is our intention that the consumer panel should represent an independent voice for consumer interests to counterbalance the very persuasive industry voices that will be lobbying Ofcom.
We want the consumer panel to be as well organised, well informed and authoritative on behalf of consumers as industry will undoubtedly be on the other side of the equation. We have ring-fenced the work of the panel so that it is concentrated on areas that are of real concern to citizens as consumers—service delivery, price, quality, safety, and complaint handling.
Clause 15(3), which is the kernel of this part of the Bill, lists all the matters about which the panel will have to be able to give Ofcom advice.
We have given the panel flexibility to look into any other matter—except a matter relating to content to which I shall return—which it considers would provide protection for consumers in the relevant markets. I

357
believe that the joint committee got it right when it said that the panel should be the conscience not the creature of Ofcom. It will be a legally separate, unincorporated body operationally independent of Ofcom. It will have independence of thought. It will have the power to commission and publish its own research and will be able to give advice to other bodies as well as Ofcom. It might advise the Office of Fair Trading. It might deal with European institutions when new directives are being considered. It might advise government bodies or industry bodies such as ICSTIS.
Ofcom has to consider the consumer panel's advice. It must have regard to that advice where appropriate and the results of any research about which the panel has notified Ofcom. If it chooses not to follow the panel's advice wholly or in part it will have to give the panel its reasons for disagreeing. It will have to ensure that people who are aware of the panel's advice are also informed of Ofcom's reasons. That is a good deal of power for the consumer panel.
We have discussed appointments to the consumer panel. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was not in his place when the amendments were moved. I should not deny him the opportunity to make his points, probably after lunch rather than trying to deal with them now.
I return to the amendments moved by the noble Viscount. Lord Falkland. In speaking to Amendment No. 67, I believe the noble Viscount referred to a memorandum of understanding.
Viscount Falkland: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, probably not on this occasion, although I think the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, did in response to an earlier amendment.
Amendment No. 63 would require the panel to prioritise its work and make best use of its resources. This really comes under the stricture of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. These are sensible, grown-up people. Surely, they will prioritise their work just as they are going to get to work in the morning. We do not need to tell them on the face of the Bill to prioritise their work.
Amendment No. 64 would make it more difficult for the consumer panel to prioritise its work if its remit is widened, as is suggested in Amendment No. 64. We focused the remit of the panel on issues that are of key concern to consumers. We do not want to swamp the work of the panel by giving it a free rein to consider matters of content. That is the job of the content board. However—this is the point of Amendment No. 65—we are prepared to give the consumer panel the power to consider matters of content which are referred to it by Ofcom. That is quite restrictive. I do not see any suggestion there that this is a power which could expand, although the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seemed to think that it might.
Here, we are talking of content matters which have a high consumer dimension—for example, misleading
358
advertising. It is a matter of content, but something with which consumers are very much concerned. I believe that the consumer panel could be properly given the responsibility of considering such matters without infringing on the role of the content board. For that reason, in moving Amendment No. 65 I want to resist in advance Amendment No. 66, which, as I have said, would negate it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the information-sharing issue, which is raised by Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70. Ofcom will have to provide the panel with all the information it needs to carry out its role, but it has to pay regard to commercial confidentiality. I do not think that there is any issue here with the Freedom of Information Act. Both Ofcom and the panel will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. When it comes into effect on 1st January 2005, we would expect Ofcom to abide by the principles of the Act. But in any case the provisions for Ofcom giving information to the panel are wider than those in the Act, so it need not. I think, be a problem.
We should not be complacent, but we should view the sharing of information provisions in Clause 15 from the starting point of the mutually beneficial relationship that Ofcom and the panel will have. We have taken specific measures to ensure that we are not creating an adversarial relationship. Ofcom will share information with the consumer panel and in return it will benefit significantly from the advice that the panel provides to it. The amendments go beyond the boundaries of what we have in the Bill on commercial confidentiality.
Commercial confidentiality is a well-understood concept. It is understood by the courts in cases of dispute. I am afraid that these amendments would give Ofcom more grounds rather than fewer grounds on which it could withhold information. I think it would go in the opposite direction from that which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, clearly intends.
Clause 15(9)(b) allows Ofcom to withhold additional information requested by the panel but only where there are good reasons for it to do so. It must have reasonable grounds for not providing information and its general duties will apply in doing so. Amendment No 70 would require Ofcom to estimate when information withheld from the panel would cease to meet the criteria for withholding, at which time it would have to review the withholding of the information. That is a tall order. Ofcom would have to look into the future and consider when the information would cease to be commercially sensitive, and then, regardless of whether the information would still be of use to the panel, it would have to review the withholding of it. Surely, a better way would be for the panel to repeat its request for information if it still required it after a reasonable period of time.

359
On Amendment No. 80 I can be brief. Yes, I heard the powerful case made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for an annual report. Bearing in mind the points that he makes about different types of consumer and diversity of consumers, we are prepared to consider the amendment between now and Report.
1.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I am aware of the clock, but given that the Minister's response was relevant to Amendment No. 66, perhaps I may speak extremely briefly to it in response to what the Minister said on Amendment No. 65. I accept his remarks on Amendment No. 65. The matters that would be referred to the consumer panel would have a high consumer dimension. The purpose of Amendment No. 66 was to give clarity and to define more clearly what we believe the role should be to ensure no erosion of boundaries between the content board and the consumer panel on certain issues. However, I hear what the Minister said. It is helpful that we shall now have in Hansard reassurance from the Minister that there is, certainly in the Minister's mind, clarity in terms of the kinds of issues that might be referred. He used an example of misleading advertising as something which would have a high consumer dimension. On that basis, having spoken to Amendment No. 66, I shall not move it.
Lord Avebury: Are we debating Amendment No. 66? If the idea is that we should discuss it with this grouping, there are one or two points I should like to raise. It seems to me that the amendment precludes Ofcom from asking the consumer panel's advice on anything broadcast or otherwise transmitted by means of electronic communications networks. Obviously, it follows that if the consumer panel is not able to give advice on those matters by virtue of Clause 15(5), Ofcom should not ask it for any such advice under 15(6)(c). In the unlikely event that it did, in the absence of the express prohibition contained in the amendment. the consumer panel would have no choice but to say that it was unable to help Ofcom.
So I am not sure that we must spell out the obvious limit to the advice the consumer panel can offer that it must be under one or more of the headings in subsections (3) and (4) and that it must not be under the heading mentioned in subsection (5). If it is, why single out one rather than the others? The Committee may think that it would be better to make it clear what the limits are on the requests Oftel can make and, instead of this amendment, to insert at the beginning of Clause 15(6)(c), "subject to subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a possibility. I hope that I have made it clear that we consider this to be a fairly exceptional case. We are concerned that the consumer panel should not overlap with the responsibilities of the content board.
360
I also want to make clear that what I now say is not new. After all, the very words that I used about a high consumer dimension were used in the policy document which was published alongside the draft Bill. Paragraph 4.2.3 on page 22 states that,
"although the Panel's primary focus will be on service delivery, it can also be called upon to address content issues … that have a high consumer dimension, such as rules on misleading advertising".
Our Amendment No. 65 gives effect to the phrase "called upon".
Furthermore, since the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is in his place, I make it absolutely clear that the fact that we started on this group of amendments because it was "not yet half past one" does not in any way inhibit him from having a full debate on his Amendments Nos. 72, 76 and 77, which we will reach in their place when we return after Starred Questions.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the Minister for his full reply within the time constraints which he has at his disposal, and specifically as to my Amendment No. 80 on which he was particularly helpful. We shall read carefully his remarks and come back as and when necessary, although many of the amendments to which I have spoken have been probing ones.
I do not know whether the Committee agrees but I think we have run on to a degree which is becoming outrageous. We are supposed to stop at half past one, or close to it. We have had to rush through the amendment. I admire the way the Minister has done that. There is a crude Army expression that one might use for the way in which the Government have decided when to break this afternoon.
I put on record that the usual channels must get together their act on this breaking near half past one. It imposes an intolerable strain, particularly as regards the kind of amendments we have discussed recently. People have calls of nature, want to go to lunch and do various other things. The Government must take this matter more seriously before we end these ludicrous arrangements which have been imposed upon us for this year and which I hope will quickly be put back in their normal place next year. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Puttnam: Before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may support what he said. I have worked extremely hard, as have other noble Lords, to create an atmosphere of goodwill towards the Bill. That atmosphere of goodwill has been severely strained in the past 20 minutes. It was a great mistake by the Government to attempt to start this group of amendments before lunch.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 17, line 5, leave out "matters that concern" and insert "any matter (other than one referred to them for advice by OFCOM) that concerns"

361
The noble Lord said: The amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.55 to 3 p.m.]

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act.

Fur Farmers: Compensation
3.1 p.m.
Lord Kimballasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made over the compensation payment to fur farmers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government introduced a compensation scheme through the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme)(England) Order 2002. Following a challenge by fur farmers, the order was quashed by the High Court on 13th March 2003. The Government have been granted permission to appeal. The appeal is listed for hearing between 31st October and 27th November. In view of the current litigation, the House will understand that I may be somewhat constrained in the answers that I can give hereafter.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I can hardly thank the Minister for such a reply. Has he no sense of shame? It
362
is grossly unfair that for the past four years fair compensation has been denied to the fur farmers. The High Court found defects in the compensation scheme. The Government come out of this as really bad losers. Surely the proper thing to do is to rectify the defects and draw a line under that unhappy conclusion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the courts found some defects in the balance of the scheme, but it did not of course deal with its quantum, which is what really lies behind the fur farmers' concern. Until we receive the result of the appeal and any implications for a future scheme, I cannot really go further in stating the Government's intentions.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although one cannot comment on the legal situation, does my noble friend accept that the argument in favour of compensation was to ensure that mink were not released or allowed to escape as the businesses were properly wound up? Were there any such escapes or releases? We must ensure that no further mink enter the wild and do enormous damage to British wildlife.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is well aware that there were releases into the wild while we were discussing the closure of the mink fur industry. However, I am unaware of any such escape or release that related to closure as a result of legislation, which was conducted responsibly.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, when the Bill went through the House, we supported it because we believed in ending fur farming. However, I made the point that it was imperative that compensation should be fair, transparent and quick. When she replied, the Minister said that it would be transparent and fair, but that some time would need to be taken to negotiate what was fair. When supporting the Bill, we did not believe that it would take so long or that the Government would take an attitude that does not now seem to be very fair.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without straying into the subject matter of the litigation, the Government believed that our proposition was fair and would be quick. The reason that it has not been quick is that it has been challenged. We must therefore await the outcome of the full legal proceedings before fur farmers will receive their compensation.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, is the Minister aware how pleased I am personally—others may share my delight—at the respectful way with which he has spoken of a judgment in which his department was found to he wrong?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble and learned Lord's comments to my colleagues.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the passing of the Act to end fur farming in

363
this country was carried out on moral grounds? Is he further aware that people who care about animal rights and animal welfare greatly welcome its passing, and that the only reason that fur farming was carried out in this country was to appeal to the vanity of many women in the fashion industry?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there was clearly a great deal of feeling in the country about mink farming, which is why the Bill was introduced in the first place. The Government shared the view of those behind the ban that the cultivation of animals solely for their fur, when the animals had to be killed to obtain that fur, was not an appropriate activity in this country in our society today. That is why the ban was introduced, and why it received widespread support in the House and outside.
Baroness Byford: But, my Lords, does not the Minister accept that we find ourselves in a disgraceful situation today? It is four years since the Act was passed. Compensation was due to be paid; it has not been paid. Obviously, until after the next court hearing—until November—no money will be paid. I do not think that the Minister is at present constrained by litigation; no court case is under way at present. Will the Government consider making some modest adjustment to help those who have lost their livelihoods by dint of the Government's deeds?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some compensation was paid. The court's judgment was that the basis of that and pending compensation was unreasonable. We are now appealing against that. Strictly speaking, one could argue that the Government should have sought to recover the compensation paid under our formula. The Government have not sought to do that, but it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to pay out further compensation until the appeal court has made its judgment.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there can be no morality if people are deprived of their jobs without proper agreement that they should receive compensation? Does he not recall that there were many efforts to reach agreement before the Act became operative? What does he have to say about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government always accepted that there would need to be compensation; its range covered not only loss of profit but many changes to their business premises that fur farmers would have to implement. We felt—and still feel—that the structure of compensation that we put in place was fair. As I said, that has been and will continue to be a matter for the courts' judgment, but I certainly accept that compensation was appropriate at that time. We
364
tried to reach agreement with fur farmers on the basis of that compensation, but we continue to argue that what we did was appropriate.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what is the state of play with regard to the appeal? When does he anticipate it happening? Has any attempt been made to expedite it and, if not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not really for the executive to determine the dates on which the judiciary take cases. As I said in my initial Answer, the date has been provisionally fixed between the end of October and the first week in November.

Teaching Assistants
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to change the regulations so as to permit unqualified classroom assistants to teach in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we are introducing the first ever regulations governing the role taken by teaching assistants in schools under Section 133 of the Education Act 2002. The regulations allow teaching assistants and other adults without qualified teacher status to undertake teaching activities under certain circumstances, including supervision by a qualified teacher. We are currently consulting for a second time on draft regulations under that section with the intention of bringing them into force by July 2003.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it would be interesting to know what are the "certain circumstances" mentioned by my noble friend. Is she aware that, in what I understand is an increasing number of schools, classroom assistants are teaching either full-time or part-time? Does she not agree that it is a serious matter when unqualified people are teaching? Can she tell us how the Government collect the figures to show where classroom assistants are undertaking teaching duties? The shortage of teachers and the financial difficulties being faced by local authorities are giving rise to abuse, which must be resisted.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I would agree entirely with my noble friend on the idea of abuse within our schooling system. However, as I stressed during the passage of the Education Bill, I wish to emphasise the need to be clear about the role of our professional qualified teachers and the roles of those who support them. Within that, those undertaking certain classroom work in a school must be doing so, first, to support the work of a qualified teacher, secondly, under the supervision of a qualified teacher, and, thirdly, with the knowledge of

365
the head teacher that the assistant has suitable experience and qualifications and, as we move towards it, accreditation. Only under those circumstances would it be allowed.
I want to comment briefly on a further point made by my noble friend. Under some circumstances in our schools, we have people with, for example, linguistic skills or specialist knowledge of sport or other areas working with our children in a whole class. We believe that, under certain circumstances and in the appropriate conditions, teachers can leave the classroom but the person teaching the class on behalf of the teacher will be doing so under supervision and in support of a qualified teacher.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the Government agree that this is not a matter of retrenchment based on fear? The anomalies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, should not be allowed to undermine the proper development of the teaching profession, supported by appropriate voluntary work, in changing times and circumstances.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate and it is a pleasure to do so. This is part of the work being done under the national agreement, working with all the trade unions except for the National Union of Teachers, which was not prepared to come with us completely on this journey. It is also part of our efforts to ensure that we give our qualified teachers a better deal.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that those noble Lords who laboured with her on the Education Bill are still none the wiser? We do not know what is the definition of these teachers, and we do not know yet under what specific circumstances and situations they will work. Genuine fears have been expressed that they will be used as teachers on the cheap. Will the noble Baroness now make it absolutely clear whether teaching assistants, whoever and whatever they are—we do not yet even know what their qualifications are to be—will be taking classes when the teacher, for whom they are working and whom they are supporting, is not present or may even be away and not on the premises?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, to enlighten the noble Baroness and others, I shall describe the specified work. We have set out particular activities: first, the planning and preparation of lessons to enable our teaching assistants to participate in those tasks; secondly, under certain circumstances, delivering lessons to pupils, perhaps via use of computer links as well as by direct teaching; and, thirdly, assessing and recording the development, progress and attainment of pupils, as well as reporting on that development and attainment. In my previous response I described how it would be appropriate for someone with linguistic skills to become involved in the teaching of foreign languages.
366
The people able to carry out this work will fall, in a sense, into one of three categories: those who are qualified teachers; teachers without qualified teacher status, such as student teachers, instructors and overseas-trained teachers; and support staff who can carry out, under the conditions I have described, work to support the qualified teacher, under the supervision of the qualified teacher and where the head teacher is satisfied. Noble Lords will recognise those categories. Under those circumstances, a teacher may not be in the classroom. I can envisage very few circumstances where the teacher would be entirely absent from the school. However, certain individual circumstances could arise where that would apply, but it is not the same as our proposals for cover when teachers are absent and where cover supervisors will be responsible for ensuring that classes are covered.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the Minister has made clear, the guidelines are currently being discussed with a view to implementation later in the year. Given that the National Association of Head Teachers, one of the unions that has agreed the workload agreement, puts the minimum cost of implementation for a primary school at £21,000 and that for a large secondary school as high as £900,000, can the Minister tell us from where the money to finance the workload agreement is to come and whether it is likely to be implemented later during this year, bearing in mind the financial difficulties currently being faced by schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, although I shall correct this if I am wrong, I understand that 19 changes are due to come into force in September. Most of those changes are administrative in nature and we are in no doubt that we shall be able to cope with them within current budgets. I am sure that noble Lords will be gratified to hear that.
As regards the other changes, as a part of all the negotiations that took place on this agreement the issue of how it was to be funded was dealt with. We are confident that, by 2005–06, when the agreement will be fully enacted, the money will be there.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many would congratulate the Government if they were to encourage people to teach whose children are now grown up and who themselves had achieved good A-levels or a good degree, rather than teachers who have achieved perhaps two Es at A-level and the somewhat doubtful benefit of a teacher training degree, and who are yet to have the experience of bringing up children?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, our teaching workforce is made up of a whole variety of people who bring excellence, experience and expertise of different kinds. We are very fortunate in the quality of our teaching staff. If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has any doubts about that, he has only to look at the

367
annual report from the chief inspector of Ofsted, which states that we now have the best generation of teachers ever.

Disabled People: Law Reform Proposals
3.16 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to implement the proposals for law reform suggested by the Disability Rights Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, our priority is to implement our manifesto commitment on extending rights and opportunities to disabled people. We have announced that we will publish a draft disability Bill later this year. On 8th May we laid draft regulations before Parliament to implement the disability provisions of the Article 13 employment directive. We shall consider the recommendations made by the Disability Rights Commission as we further develop our plans.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is she aware that, despite the fine work done by this Government on disability, our legal framework fails to provide comprehensive civil rights for all disabled people? That is because the framework is full of holes which could have been repaired long ago. Is she further aware that the proposals put forward by the Disability Rights Commission go a long way towards solving these problems? Will the Government take on board the proposals as soon as possible? How soon will that be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that he is repeating his original Question. I hope and expect that we will be producing a draft disability Bill later this year. Already by October 2004, around 70 per cent of the original task force recommendations will have come into law, and the proposed disability Bill will extend those recommendations further. The additional recommendations identified by the DRC referred to by my noble friend will assist our future legislative plans and obviously we shall consider them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government give special consideration to the commission's proposal that disability discrimination cases should be started in the relevant tribunals rather than go straight to the courts? This would be helpful to the disabled people concerned.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again, we shall look as soon as possible at those and related proposals in the DRC report, which we have only just received.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when considering the various proposals regarding disability, will my noble
368
friend give any thought to bringing forward improvements to the Access to Work Scheme? Furthermore, if the disability Bill is published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, does my noble friend agree that such scrutiny would be an ideal subject for a Joint Select Committee of both Houses?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may respond first to my noble friend's second question. Given that the Bill will be subject to prior scrutiny, which I am sure would be very desirable, I understand that we shall have three options available. First, we could set up an ad hoc committee of either House. Secondly, as my noble friend suggested—and I see the advantages of the proposal—we could have a Joint Committee of both Houses. Thirdly, such a draft Bill could equally be referred to the House of Commons Select Committee responsible for matters affecting the Department for Work and Pensions. Those options are being considered. As soon as a decision has been arrived at, it will of course be made public.
On my noble friend's first point regarding the Access to Work Scheme, he is right to point out that we have a good record on this. The scheme was started by the previous administration. Since its introduction, over 100,000 people with disabilities have either gone into work or stayed in work as a result of the programme, which gives them support equipment. Since 1997, I am pleased and proud to tell the House that the Government's expenditure on the scheme has trebled.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the encouraging remarks she made in her previous answers. But does she not agree that it is very important that we plug all the holes and take an all-encompassing approach? If we do not do that, the current situation will continue; that is to say, people with a degenerative disease or who are predetermined to develop a degenerative condition have no defence in law if they are sacked because of it. The Government should attempt to block such a hole.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right. It is one of the issues that have been raised with the Government. In our previous debate in the House, a fortnight ago, I made clear that one of the areas that we expected such a draft disability Bill to address was the precise one that he raised: extending the protection of the DDA to people with HIV and cancer whose symptoms are not yet evident. At present, they can be discriminated against. That is one of the proposals that we expect to bring forward.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given the Communications Bill, which received pre-legislative scrutiny and is being discussed today, yet again, in the House, perhaps the noble Baroness will reconsider whether pre-legislative scrutiny is a good idea, whether in this or any other area. Does she agree that it is no longer good enough that the 40,000 or so statutory and

369
political office-holders, magistrates and school governors are still excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in response to the first point, no. On the second point, which relates to magistrates and councillors, I share the noble Lord's view. We are looking at the matter. Different circumstances affect councillors, magistrates, members of voluntary bodies, public appointments and quangos.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that all aspects of the consultation process on the draft disability Bill will be accessible to as wide a number of disabled people as possible, and that the Bill will be available in alternative formats at the same time as it is published in print form?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall seek to ensure that.

Drug Side Effects: Reporting System
3.22 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the concerns about the antidepressant drug Seroxat, whether they plan to review the yellow card scheme for reporting drug side effects.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the yellow card scheme is recognised to be one of the best in the world in terms of the level of reporting. It has a proven track record of identifying new drug safety hazards and enables the monitoring of all medicines, including Seroxat, in clinical use. The effectiveness of the scheme is under continuous review by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. From April 2003, the first phase of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions via NHS Direct was introduced. That will enable the first-hand experiences of patients to be utilised in the identification and assessment of drug safety issues.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I thought that she was somewhat congratulatory of the yellow card scheme, despite the substantial under-reporting noted in the "Panorama" programme and the associated papers by Social Audit. I welcome the NHS Direct innovation, but we must go further. Will the Minister confirm that the MHRA and the Committee on Safety of Medicines will be encouraged to seek direct patient experience, not simply via health professionals, and that that experience will be taken on board in the committee's review of SSR I drugs such as Seroxat?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in response to the first point, the yellow card system has been tried and tested
370
over many years. It serves as the model for other countries and is recognised to be the best of its kind. One should not confuse under-reporting with ineffective reporting. One does not want to report every adverse reaction. But, through the yellow card system, we pick up the reactions that we need to know about so that we can do enough about them. In recent years, the number of people who can make adverse reports has expanded; for example, nurses can now do so. We welcome that.
On the second point, the Committee on Safety of Medicines has set up an expert working group, which will look at the safety of Seroxat. It has received the patient reports generated by the "Panorama" programme. It will look at protocols on how best to evaluate the evidence, which it will take extremely seriously. It will look at what needs to be done potentially to improve the leafleting. It will test those improvements with a user panel. Sir Gordon Duff, who chairs the CSM, is extremely anxious to do that.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of research and development at Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust. Does the Minister not agree that Seroxat and the class of drugs that deal with serotonin in the brain are the most effective anti-depressants that we currently know? Seroxat has been in use for more than 12 years and is available in more than 100 countries where none of the side effects mentioned has been highlighted. The "Panorama" programme has not always been noted for its accuracy in other areas. It would be premature to condemn what is an extremely good drug. The side effects reported are those commonly reported in recovering depressive patients who are not taking the drug.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can hardly improve on that description. Seroxat is an effective treatment for depression and anxiety disorders. Four million prescriptions are made every year in this country alone. We have a wealth of evidence from Europe and the United States that it is a safe and very effective drug. Nevertheless, we want to respond to the concerns raised in the "Panorama" programme. We do not want people suddenly to stop taking their medication. That is why the Committee on Safety of Medicines has set up an expert working group to see how it can address some of the issues as appropriately as possible.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, when the assessment has been made by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, will the Minister report it publicly? Many noble Lords believe that the yellow card system has worked extremely well over many years. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the "Panorama" programme does not quite have consistency of reporting.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, we will certainly make the conclusions public. The most recent development of the yellow card system is its going online. That is being piloted in one area, and we will

371
have the results in a few months. We hope that it will be a national initiative in the autumn. That will make it even easier for doctors, pharmacists and nurses to report. They may prefer to use the yellow card, which is very popular and very easy to use.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, what evidence does my noble friend have for claiming that the yellow card system is one of the best in the world? My impression has been that under-reporting under the yellow card system was very serious.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there are two sorts of evidence. First, the system was picked up by other countries. They have not introduced it in its full capacity, but it has served as a model. Secondly, it has a proven track record of identifying safety issues. Let me give just one example: reports of sudden death in patients receiving the schizophrenia treatment Sertindole led to suspension of the product pending a full review. Sertindole has now been reintroduced under very controlled conditions. I could give the noble Lord several examples. I am very happy to write to him on both issues.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that inquests do not generally take account of contributory factors such as drug treatment, and that there is no mechanism for collating information arising from inquests that might be in the public interest? Will the Government consider that?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know that only one coroner's inquest has alluded to the drug as having been a potential factor in a suicide. I shall consider the serious issues raised by the noble Earl.

Olympics 2012: London Bid
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell. The Statement is as follows:
"I am delighted to be able to inform the House that, following discussion at Cabinet today, the Government have decided to give their wholehearted backing to a bid to host the Olympic Games and the Paralympics in London in 2012.
"This morning, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has telephoned Jacques Rogge, President of the IOC, to inform him of our decision. He has told Mr Rogge that the Government will back to the hilt the efforts of the BOA, to whom I would like to pay tribute, alongside the GLA, the LDA and, of course, the mayor and others.
"The bid will be a huge stimulus for élite sport. Lottery investment in our athletes helped us to our best medal haul for decades at Sydney; a London bid allows us to build on that and raise standards and aspirations even higher.
372
"But our Olympic bid will also rest on a growing commitment to grassroots sport. It will be central to our efforts to increase physical activity and identify, nurture and develop talent in our young athletes.
"We want to harness the power of sport to inspire people and address some of the key issues our nation faces—health, social inclusion, educational motivation and fighting crime. We want to spread the benefits all around the country: promoting tourism and business for the whole of the UK; staging a four-year cultural festival; investing in community sports facilities to offer to visiting teams to prepare and train here; and holding the football competition, as part of the Games, and other events outside London.
"I warmly welcome the pledge from all parties to support the bid. That cross-party support is important because it gives us the very best chance of winning and of making the games a resounding success.
"I have previously set out for the House four tests which an Olympic bid would have to meet before the Government could agree to give their backing. Those tests were: can we afford it, can we win, can we deliver a strong bid and a high quality games, and what legacy would a games leave behind?
"We have spent the last few months applying those tests rigorously. I believe on the basis of thorough scrutiny, that a London bid passes those tests on every count. I would like very briefly to take the House through each one.
"First, the cost. We estimate the cost of bidding will be in the region of £17 million. Business, the LDA and government will bear that cost. If we win a bid, the cost of the Olympics should be borne at least in part by those who would benefit most. So I have agreed with the Mayor of London a funding package of £2.375 billion, which includes a 50 per cent contingency. Of that, £875 million will be borne by London through a £20 increase in council tax for band D properties and a contribution of £250 million from the LDA.
"But the biggest contribution comes from the lottery. Contributions from the existing sports lottery, and a new Olympics Lottery game would raise an estimated £1.5 billion. We will review the package in 2005 in the light of what by then will be firmer and more detailed estimates of the costs of staging the games.
"The next test is whether we can win. Other confirmed bidders for 2012 include New York, Leipzig, Madrid and Havana. No doubt, others will emerge in the coming weeks. That is a strong field, but London has many advantages over these other cities, and our bid will be the equal of any.
"The third test was whether a bid could really he delivered. As the jointly commissioned ARUP report shows, we can deliver a high quality and competitive bid based around an Olympic zone located in the Lee Valley.

373
"Lastly, legacy. The games will bring great benefits to London. The economy will benefit; tourism will benefit; and the lower Lee Valley will benefit from new facilities and regeneration.
"So the work starts now. I am perfectly realistic about the work involved and the risks that lie ahead. I know that public opinion will ebb and flow in favour of the project.
"We will set up a dedicated organisation to develop and market the bid, with the very best people from both the public and private sector and with strong leadership. The bid team will act at arm's length from government. But all of us will pull out all the stops to bring the Olympic Games to London. 2012 is a prize well worth the fight and is also the diamond jubilee year of Her Majesty the Queen.
"We are bidding because we believe it will be good for sport, good for London and good for the whole of the UK. It is a declaration that we are proud of our country and confident of our ability.
"London is bidding for the Olympic Games. We believe it should host the greatest games on earth. Now we have two years to prove to the world that we deserve to be given that chance".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before responding to the noble Baroness, I must declare an interest. I am still a member of the Millennium Commission, which is chaired by the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell.
First, for those of your Lordships who remember the debate in December, it goes without saying that I am delighted to stand here thanking the Minister for the Statement and congratulating the Government. They already know that they have this party's support in making the decision. I welcome the decision, per se, but I welcome one part in particular. The Minister said:
"We will set up a dedicated organisation to develop and market the bid, with the very best people from both the public and private sector and with strong leadership. The bid team will act at arm's length from government".
I believe that I said in December that that would be vital. I still believe that it is vital. The only way that the Government and the nation will win is with a brilliant, charismatic, highly intelligent and highly experienced leader.
There are several questions that I wish to ask, but I must make one more point. It is important to the nation that the Government as a whole are seen to support the bid. The Minister's Statement must be followed quickly and backed up by both the Prime Minister and the Treasury and the Chancellor. Given the way that life is in the press these days, we need to see that the whole of government—policy and money—is behind the bid. The Commonwealth Games was a great success that followed one or two failures. Let us hope that failure in sporting events are in the past.
374
The first phase of the project is to sell London to the Olympic movement world-wide—the small nations, as well as the large ones. Huge attention to detail will be required to win the bid. Will the noble Baroness say when she hopes to announce the bid leader, the person who will lead the team, and how he or she will be selected?
To be successful, the bid must be supported nationally. For that to happen, the public must have a sound and transparent understanding of the costings and, more important. the expected return and the legacy. Those of us who have been involved in Olympic Games know that that is where the money goes. Olympic villages serve their city well for many years after those games are forgotten.
Although I support the use of lottery money, I would like the noble Baroness to explain the likely effect on current lottery beneficiaries. A successful Olympic bid will benefit the whole country. I also said that in December.
Can the Minister explain how the £20 increase in council tax was arrived at? Is it a one-off flat rate? It is important for everybody to understand that the method of paying for the Games is fair. Can the Minister furthermore explain where the democratic accountability comes from for this £20 and how? Do the Government consider that London Transport is adequate for the job, or will be? Do they believe that a London Olympics is feasible without the completion of Crossrail?
I realise that these are serious questions. So often on these occasions the devil is in the detail. I sincerely hope that we, as a nation, have the capability to sort out the detail to get a superb bid and win.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on taking this step. This bid is what the country deserves and, indeed, what the capital deserves. We have already had the arguments and it must be the capital, but Manchester has shown the way forward in staging the Commonwealth Games. I was lucky enough to attend part of the games. If the huge benefit to that city and the feeling of goodwill generated could be replicated and expanded on for London, that would bring immense benefits to the whole country.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I seem to he singing from the same hymn sheet. Therefore, I shall not take long with the rest of my remarks. However, I shall begin at the point where the noble Lord finished. Crossrail and, indeed, the entire transport infrastructure are vital to the success of the bid and this is an area where the Government must take the lead. The noble Lord rightly spoke about the Olympic bid being run independently of government, but that cannot be said of the transport infrastructure. The Government must lead, be seen to lead and must make a public commitment that everything will be in place.
One of the problems and fears raised by people not so keen on the idea of bidding for the Olympics is lottery money being transferred away from existing

375
projects. Can the Government give an assurance that although they will undoubtedly be planning to co-ordinate projects around the Olympic bid, they will make a conscious effort not to sacrifice the smaller community-based sports initiatives which are so vital to public health and for public participation in supporting a successful Olympic Games? The inspiration of élite athletes will come to nothing if we do not have the infrastructure for youngsters to train to become competent athletes. The Government should state clearly and boldly that this is the case. There is a danger that we could have a wonderful games, and then nothing more. That would be a major flaw in the scheme.
Finally, provided that the Government have the will to push forward the bid, we shall give our wholehearted support. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, we must ensure that the details are correct and that government leadership is unified, loud and does not leave any room for doubt. It is in the detail, and lots of it, for the devil has a lot of room to get in.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the support from both Front Benches for the Government's decision to bid for the Olympic Games in 2012. I hope that I can give both Front Bench spokesmen, and that they can accept, the reassurance that the Government are completely behind this bid. There should be no doubt about that. The Government have taken a little while to decide because they have carefully gone through all the pros and cons. They have thought about this deeply. They have done as much preliminary investigation as could possibly have been expected prior to making a decision. Having done that, we shall give the bid our wholehearted and complete support and will be enormously grateful for support from right across your Lordships' House.
I should like to add that the Prime Minister has already spoken to the President of the International Olympic Committee and has stated just how passionately he will be supporting this hid. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, for the structure that we are putting in place to support the bid with an independent group of people working at arm's length from the Government. I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the bid will be led by someone of enormous quality, with a team behind him or her also of the highest quality. We hope that we shall be able to announce the name of the bid leader within a few weeks and certainly by late June or early July.
Questions were asked by both Front Bench spokesmen about transport. Of course, they are right to raise these questions. It is vitally important that we have a transport infrastructure in place that can deliver what is needed to host such an enormous event. I should like to make it absolutely clear that we shall be able to do this without the completion of Crossrail. We could not give a guarantee that that would be
376
completed by 2012, but a number of other improvements will be made to London Transport. These include improvements to Stratford and Bromley-le-Bow stations, a dedicated road from central London to the stadium and significant enhancement of links to motorways. I believe that with the investment already planned, we shall see sufficient improvement in the transport system of London to ensure that adequate transport is in place to transfer people to and from the stadium and elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about lottery money. We are absolutely clear that there will be a new lottery game. Given the very high support for an Olympics bid—polls have indicated that more than 80 per cent of the population are strongly in favour of a bid—I imagine a new lottery game will produce substantial amounts of money. It is, of course, the case that there will be some switching from support of existing lottery schemes. The current estimates suggest that up to 2009, that switch could lead to an approximately 4 per cent reduction in money for other good causes. After 2009, it might lead to a somewhat higher 11 per cent reduction in support for other good causes. Of course, at present, these can be only estimates.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about council tax. That is a matter for the Mayor of London, who is, indeed, elected. I know that he will want to explain to the people of London the very many benefits that the Olympics would bring the capital in terms of improvements to its infrastructure and the creation of up to 5,000 new jobs. I suspect that on learning of the large number of benefits that will derive from the Olympics, the people of London will be willing to pay a small amount more, which amounts to about a 2.2 per cent increase for band D council tax payers.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly pointed out that Manchester had shown the way forward. As he said, there was a huge amount of goodwill in Manchester for the Commonwealth Games. I believe that we shall see that goodwill in London, too, should the bid be successful. However, I believe that there will also be goodwill from the whole country. The noble Lord asked for an assurance that small community-based sport would not suffer as a result of the bid. I should like to reassure him that the impact on grass roots sport will not be negative; it will he positive. There is no question of any wish to reduce available support. Indeed, the Government hope that a decision to bid for the Olympics will encourage more people to participate in grass roots sport with all the benefits that that gives rise to. I think that I have answered all the questions raised by the Front Bench spokesmen.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I regret to say that I speak as one who will not shed a tear if the bid fails. Can the Minister explain why it is wise to spend a lot of money on a bid when, given the politics of the matter, it is most unlikely that two out of the next three Olympic Games will be held in Europe?

377
Does the Minister recall an answer that she gave to me on 27th February in which she pointed out that the 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1996 Olympic Games were bedevilled by bloodshed and boycott? Can she say how much has been put into the contingency sum to deal with such matters, which, as she made clear in her answer, the Government fully recognise?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I disagree with the initial statement of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that he hopes that the UK will not win the bid. I hope that he is in a small minority in the House in taking that view.
As to whether our chances of winning the bid will be diminished because the next games are to be held in Athens, I do not believe that to be the case. The following games, in 2008, will be held in Beijing. I do not believe that the principle of different parts of the world taking turns to stage the games any longer applies. Europe will have a reasonably good chance.
As to security, it is of course vital in preparing for an event of this kind that everything possible is done to minimise the security risks. Certainly substantial commitments will be made, and extra funding applied, to achieve that objective. At this stage I cannot say how much that will be, but, once we have won the bid, we will have a more detailed prospectus of how the games will be costed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I agree with the Government in supporting the bid and I am gratified that they have decided to do so. On the other hand, I regret the Minister's attitude towards Crossrail. Will she think again on this matter because without a solid public transport route into London from the north-west and the west we shall not be able to get the right number of people into the stadium.
A spectacular link is being formed already by the Channel Tunnel rail link, which is on course to be finished by the time the Olympics take place. I urge the Minister to talk to her government colleagues and to think again about Crossrail. In particular, I urge the Government to consider doing for Crossrail what they did for the Channel Tunnel rail link—namely, to guarantee loans. It was that security which enabled that huge project—which is much bigger than Crossrail—to go ahead.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for the bid. I cannot give her the guarantee she is asking for in regard to Crossrail. An enormous amount of thought has been given to whether Crossrail could be completed by 2012; the answer is that it cannot be. The amount of preliminary work that still has to be done to make it happen is simply too great. It would be foolish to make a promise and a commitment to achieving it and then to find in 2010 that it will not be ready for the Olympic Games.
It is better to focus on improvements to other parts of the transport infrastructure in London to ensure that, as the noble Baroness rightly said, people can get not only to the stadium in Stratford—if that is where
378
it is going to be—but to events elsewhere in London. Modernisation and increased capacity on the Jubilee Line will be completed by then; the Channel Tunnel rail link, including the international facilities at Stratford, will be completed; and the Docklands Light Railway extension to City airport will also be completed. They are but three important examples of the way in which we are committed to ensuring that transport in London is significantly improved in order to support the bid.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, this is the most wonderful news. I welcome it. If I could still manage cartwheels I would turn a couple in the Lobby. It is tremendously good news. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, we had a fantastically positive debate on the issue. It is good to see that a number of noble Lords who took part in that debate are in their places today.
The Minister said that the Lee Valley would be the principal venue for the games. However. I understand that other aspects of the games will be hived off to other parts of London and to outside venues. That is very important because we want to share the good news. I know that it is early days, but can the Minister give the House further information on that aspect?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome. Perhaps we shall see her playing in a veterans' tennis game at Wimbledon. We should perhaps introduce a special veterans' section into the Olympics. This would enable a number of Members of your Lordships' House to take part. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, could participate in the bobsleigh; the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, could run; and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, can certainly play rugby—although, unfortunately, it is not an Olympics event.
It is intended that the athletics stadium, the athletics village, the aquatic centre and the media centre will be located in the southern end of the Lee Valley in the Stratford/east Hackney area. Although I cannot give any precise decisions—they have not as yet been made—events will take place in other parts of London and elsewhere in the country. Football will take place right across the UK as well as at Wembley and shooting will take place at Bisley. The assessment carried out by ARUP looked at the possibility of hockey being staged at the Charlton football club; the modern pentathlon at Crystal Palace; rowing at Enfield; tennis at Wimbledon; and so on. So there will be activities all over London and elsewhere in the country, not only in the East End.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as it is well over half a century since I took part in the last London Olympics I certainly agree that it is time London put in another bid. Does the Minister agree that while it is true that what is important in the Olympic Games is not the winning but the taking part, that is a view best taken after the event rather than before and we should go into the bid with great determination to win?

379
More specifically, does she agree that, following the Pickett's Lock affair and the decision not to have a permanent athletics track in Manchester, it is a scandal that we still have no full-sized British athletics stadium? As an indication of our determination on this bid, should we not proceed with such a structure at the earliest possible moment?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yet again, I greatly appreciate the welcome given by the noble Lord. It is particularly appropriate to thank him as someone who took part in the 1948 Olympic Games. As to the issue of a new athletics stadium, it is unlikely that the Government will commit to one at this stage. Our efforts should be focused on the Olympic stadium, which will of course be primarily for athletics.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, my noble friend will recall that when we debated the Olympics on 18th December on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there were 14 speakers, one of whom was herself. The other 13 noble Lords who took part in the debate were unanimously in favour of the British Government making a bid for the London Olympics of 2012. So there will be very widespread support for the decision that she has announced today.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who says we have not got a hope, I think many people will reject that view. They should ponder the words of Mr. Rogge when he was interviewed by the Evening Standard in December. He said:
"I would he very happy to have a well prepared, well-organised London bid. Definitely London would be a front runner, given a good technical file. There is no doubt about that. But Government backing is a vital determining factor".
The fact that we now have government backing, which is clear and wholehearted, makes the case very strong indeed.
I wish to ask my noble friend about the legacy, a subject I raised in the debate on 18th December. Can she confirm that it remains the Government's intention that the Olympic village will become affordable housing in a part of London where there is clearly a great need for housing of that sort for young professional people who find property prices in the South East prohibitive? Can she say anything about the thinking for the future of the stadium which will be built there? One of the successes of the Commonwealth Games bid in Manchester is the fact that the stadium is to become the new home of Manchester City next season. Can some similar arrangement be put in place for an Olympic stadium in the east so that it has a long life and does not become a white elephant?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I well remember the debate that took place last year when every speaker spoke strongly in favour of an Olympic bid. We listened to the debate. I can confirm that the Olympic village will provide 4,000 extra affordable houses for people in the East End of London.
380
On the future of the stadium, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport have spent quite a lot of time over the last six months travelling to the venues of previous Olympic Games in recent years and those where they are going to take place to see what lessons we can learn with respect to the legacy so far as stadia are concerned. One of the advantages this bid will have is that the stadium will he right in the centre of a huge city, unlike Sydney, where the stadium is some way away. It has therefore proved much more difficult to use it, and use it on a regular basis. So we take the legacy issue very seriously.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the ExCeL exhibition centre at the Royal Victoria Docks and add our name to the people pledging full support for this Olympic bid. Mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, and the experience, following the World Cup, of Japan, which appeared to be left with a large number of white elephants, as the great stadia it had built were of no further use afterwards, it is obviously extremely important from the point of view of value for money that we see a positive benefit in low-cost, affordable housing and particularly in transport.
In that connection, the Minister's answer regarding Crossrail is extremely disappointing. She will not stand up and pledge herself to that: it is a lot of money and many Ministers will be listening to what she says. But it is critical for London, irrespective of the Olympics, to have better communications, and this must be the opportunity. If we do not do that, I think it will seriously prejudice our chances on the bid.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I should have mentioned that ExCeL, on whose board the noble Lord, Lord King, sits, may well be one of the venues used for a London Olympics for badminton and 10 or 12 other Olympic sports. I hope that the noble Lord welcomes that.
I do not have anything to add to what I have said about Crossrail, but I accept the importance of trying to create an improved infrastructure and regeneration through this bid. I believe that a very large area of east London, which has been a pretty miserable brownfield site for a very long time, will be greatly improved as a result of the investment that the bid will lead to.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister feel that London will have the graciousness and humility to seek at least a little advice from Manchester on how to do these things successfully? In particular, can she give an assurance that those who were involved in the organisation of those games are already associated with what is happening over the London bid?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am all in favour of both graciousness and humility. Speaking as a Londoner, we should never be anything other than gracious and we should certainly take into account the successes of other cities around the country. As I said

381
in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, Manchester and the Commonwealth Games was an object lesson on how to go about a project of this sort. We are certainly involving people who were key to that enormous success and will get advice from them in pursuing the London bid.
Lord Monson: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness further on the prospective council tax increase if the bid is successful? Is the 2.2 per cent increase for hand D payers that she mentioned a one-off, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked, or will it be levied year after year over a number of years?
On a totally different note, will small-bore pistol shooting once again be permitted, or will that event have to take place on the Isle of Man or even on the continent?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the extra council tax will be levied each year—it is not just a one-off, one-year requirement. But, as I said earlier, there will be huge benefits to London from hosting the Olympics. I did not mention tourism, for example. It will help people in a range of industries and will benefit their employees as well as people who run tourist attractions of one kind or another. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question on small-bore pistols. I am extremely sorry about that; I shall write to him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to speak for Hackney on this occasion, because I am Lord Clinton-Davis of Hackney. Will my noble friend tell the House what discussions are envisaged between the Government and the London borough of Hackney regarding this matter? Is she aware that transport links as far as Hackney is concerned are absolutely appalling?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend is Lord Clinton-Davis of Hackney; I am Baroness Blackstone of Stoke Newington, which is part of the London borough of Hackney, so I share his interest. I accept that a great deal needs to be done to improve transport links from some parts of Hackney to the rest of London, but a successful Olympic bid would achieve just that. I am sure that those who are involved in taking this bid further will be having extensive talks with not just the GLA but all the London boroughs involved.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I join in the general rejoicing, but as chair of the largest of the good cause lottery distributors, your Lordships will perhaps understand that I am a little less enthusiastic about the proposal, particularly in view of what my noble friend said about the lessening of the lottery receipts. Can she give a further assurance that in the understandable commitment to winning which goes with the Olympic Games or even a bid for the Olympic Games, the Government will not lose sight of the extremely important part which school and community sport
382
play in society and the huge contribution being made by the New Opportunities Fund, together with my colleagues in Sport England?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords. we remain committed to the development of grass-roots sport. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, our decision to bid to host the games will not divert any of our attention or our funding away from this terribly important area. I hope that my noble friend will reassure others with whom I know she is in touch who benefit from lottery funding for community sports facilities that the Government are absolutely committed to making sure that all young people and, indeed, all adults who want to participate in sport are able to do so and that the facilities for them are improved.

Communications Bill
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 [Membership etc. of the Consumer Panel]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 18, line 19, leave out from "by" to end of line 22 and insert "the Secretary of State, acting with the advice of OFCOM, and shall comprise a chairman and such other members as the Secretary of State may determine"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 71, 73, and 75 are intended to secure the independence of the consumer panel. They do this by making the Secretary of State responsible for making appointments to the panel, while Ofcom plays only an advisory role. That is in contrast to the Bill as it currently stands, whereby Ofcom appoints the members of the consumer panel and the Secretary of State is able to perform only a blocking role.
The amendment has the support of the National Consumer Council, which points out that in order to do its job properly and be able to fight the corner for consumers, the consumer panel must be truly independent of Ofcom. There can be no doubt that circumstances will arise when the opinions of the consumer panel and Ofcom are at odds with each other. In that event, it is vital that proper procedure is followed, without any underlying pressures, whether intended or not, as a result of the role Ofcom plays in appointing the consumer panel.
This debate is highly revealing about how Her Majesty's Government see the relationship between Ofcom and the consumer panel. Will the Minister explain whether the Government want the consumer panel to be independent of Ofcom? If not. how can the consumer panel be expected to do its job properly? If so, do the Government agree that an important way to secure this independence would be to remove Ofcom's power to play such a central role in the appointment of the consumer panel?

383
We received no explanation from Dr Kim Howells on the issue during Committee stage in another place, so I am extremely keen to hear the Minister's response now. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: Clearly, there is no point in having a consumer panel at all unless it is independent of both government and Ofcom. Nor is there any point in having a consumer panel unless it is widely representative, although I do not favour members being representative of any particular consumer group or organisation, let alone the risk of being mandated by them.
The consumer panel is intended to be an advisory body. I feel sure that Ofcom would see no point in having a body that was in any way a replica of itself or not independent of itself. Its value as an advisory body surely depends on its members being free spirits, forthright and outspoken. It also needs to be well resourced, so as to act as an adequate counterweight to the advice that will undoubtedly come on so many matters from well-heeled and well-resourced parts of the corporate sector.
The amendment has extremely good intentions. It emphasises that the consumer panel should be independent of Ofcom, but I do not believe it to be necessary. It is unnecessary that the Secretary of State rather than Ofcom should make the appointments. Indeed, if the Secretary of State did make the appointments, it might elevate the role of the consumer panel in the minds of the public as if it were a rival to Ofcom, rather than an advisory body. It is Ofcom that in so many circumstances will have to judge the public interest. It is right that appointments to the consumer panel should be made by Ofcom, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
Viscount Falkland: I rise to support many of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and, particularly, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the appointment by Ofcom. We on these Benches support that view absolutely.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is entirely right in what she said at the very beginning. The crucial point is the independence of the panel. I shall set out a number of ways in which that is achieved, of which the appointments process is only one part—but even that is not the whole story.
First, the panel is a legally separate unincorporated body, which will be operationally independent of Ofcom. Secondly, Ofcom is required to ensure that the consumer panel is able to fulfil its remit effectively—in other words, that the resources will be there for it. Thirdly, the consumer panel will be able to formulate its annual work plan and will be responsible for allocating its own resources. Fourthly, we expect that the consumer panel will have a memorandum of understanding with Ofcom, which will set out the relationship with sufficient clarity.
384
Fifthly, we believe it important that the panel should report independently on its work, and I have already indicated my support for a report along the lines of that which is proposed in Amendment No. 80. We are considering an amendment to the Bill to give that effect. Sixthly, we have included provisions in the Bill for the consumer panel to establish its own advisory committee and to determine its procedures. The seventh item in the package is that we have provided that no member or employee of Ofcom can be a member of the consumer panel. Finally, Ofcom must explain the reasons why it might not accept the advice given to it by the consumer panel.
Added to all of that is the very considerable safeguard of appointments to, and removals from, the panel requiring the approval of the Secretary of State. The amendments would make the Secretary of State directly responsible for appointments to the panel, which would alter the whole dynamic of the relationship that we want between Ofcom and the consumer panel. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was too polite to say so, but some people believe that the Secretary of State will merely rubber stamp the appointments. That is not my experience of the way in which Secretaries of State work.
There are two possible models from previous experience. The first is that of Postwatch or Energywatch. We are not saying that those bodies are not right for their own sector, but they have a different role from the Ofcom consumer panel. After all, they have a particular responsibility for dealing with complaints from consumers, which is not the role of the consumer panel.
We believe it to be much more appropriate to consider the other model, the Financial Services Authority consumer panel, which is appointed by the Financial Services Authority with the approval of the Secretary of State. That model is working well, and is more analogous to the model that we want for the consumer panel to Ofcom. We hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that that is the correct relationship, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated from his own experience.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister, who always takes time and care in his replies, especially when talking to me about consumer issues, because he knows that I was chairman of the National Consumer Council and am president of the National Federation of Consumer Groups and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. I thank him for his kindness in taking care to explain matters to me.
I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, with whom I had a very good relationship when he was Director-General of Fair Trading for some 11 years.
I am a little confused by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who very kindly agreed with me and then very kindly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord

385
Borrie. Given that the noble Lord was disagreeing with me, I am not sure whether I should thank the noble Viscount for agreeing with me.
Viscount Falkland: I was agreeing with the noble Baroness's general comments and I was agreeing with the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the appointment should be made by Ofcom rather than the Secretary of State. I did not explain that in detail in order to speed up the Bill. Now that I have had to have an extra word, I have failed in that aim.
Baroness Wilcox: I am grateful to the noble Viscount although I am still confused.
My experience on one of the bodies which the Minister did not mention—the Gas Consumers Council, a very independently appointed body—is that there is great variety in the way that advisory panels work. My concern, and perhaps that of the National Consumer Council—I shall go back to it, and I shall also think again—is that the Bill covers such an enormous body of work. We are discussing a regulator to beat all regulators. The Bill covers such an enormous area. I am still nervous that it will be difficult to criticise those who appoint a body if one's own next appointment depends on them. I am still uncomfortable about that. I shall re-consult, but I reserve the right to return to the point at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 18, line 19, leave out from "by" to end of line 22 and insert "the Secretary of State, acting with the advice of OFCOM.
( ) The chairman of the Consumer Panel shall be chosen by the Panel from among their members."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 72 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. I should like to say first, however, that I completely share the confusion of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. As I understand it, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was disagreeing with an amendment that stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I am sure that they will sort that out over tea.
I also share the noble Baroness's concern that there is a problem here that is not being properly bottomed-out. I can deal with it quite briefly. I think that the Government have to understand that there is genuine and, to an extent, legitimate anxiety among consumer groups that they are being asked to rely tremendously on the good will of the consumer panel. They are being asked to rely on the fact that the chairman appointed over them, their leader, will be appointed from elsewhere. They are being denied the opportunity to publish or influence the activities of Ofcom. As I said earlier, I should think that it is in the Government's interest to bend over backwards to allay those anxieties. One means of doing so is to allow the consumer panel, as we are suggesting, to appoint its
386
own chair. The other way of doing it would he to give the panel as much flexibility as possible in the way in which it works.
I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He may already have agreed to a suggestion which we made and to which the Government seemed sympathetic in their response. Page 6 of the response states:
"We agree, however, that the Panel should be able to determine any committees of the Panel and we are considering whether any amendment is necessary to the current draft of the Bill to permit this"
As I understand it, the noble Lord is saying that the Government have conceded that small but possibly—who knows?—important extra favour. I reiterate, however, that it is in the Government's interest to allay the fears of the consumer panel, and to ensure that the panel has the best possible relationship with the content board and that there is as much transparency as possible between the two. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has just said: there is no restriction on the consumer panel appointing any committees that it wishes. However, I do not think that that needs to be on the face of the Bill. There is no way in which it could he ruled out. As he says, it is a minor but perhaps not unimportant matter.
I should like to reinforce what I have just said to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about the independence of the panel. I have one or two more examples of the panel's independence which I failed to give in response to her in addition to the most important fundamental fact—that the panel is a legally separate unincorporated body and operationally independent of Ofcom. The point that. I could have made to the noble Baroness and now make in response to Amendment No. 72 is that the panel does have independence of thought. It has the power to commission and publish its own research. It is able to give advice not only to Ofcom but to other bodies as well. For example, it might wish to advise the Office of Fair Trading. It might wish to take part in the formulation of European legislation by giving advice to European institutions. It might want to give advice to government departments or to the self-regulators who are provided for in this legislation such as ICSTIS.
It is not just that Ofcom has to receive the advice from the panel; it has to consider it. Where appropriate, it must have regard to the advice and the results of the research that the panel has notified Ofcom about. If Ofcom chooses not to follow the advice, it has to give the panel reasons for disagreeing, and it has to ensure that those who are aware of the panel's advice will also be informed of the reasons. Those are important measures for ensuring the independence of the consumer panel from Ofcom.
I turn to the amendments themselves. The combined effect of this group of amendments is not quite the same but similar to that of the previous group. It would make the Secretary of State responsible for

387
appointing the members of the consumer panel. Amendment No. 72 would have the additional effect of making the members of the consumer panel responsible for choosing their own chairman from among their membership. As we agree with the need to ensure the independence of the panel, we think that the measures we have included in the Bill provide for it.
As I said in response to the previous group of amendments, we think that although there is an analogy with Energywatch and Postwatch, for example, those bodies—which are separate non-departmental public bodies with their own legal identity and their own secretariats and staff—are different in that they have significant complaint-handling responsibilities with which the Ofcom consumer panel will not have to deal. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, says about the Gas Consumers Council. I am afraid that I am a little out of date as it is more than 20 years since my wife was chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council. That certainly was a separate body, with its own staff and secretariat and indeed regional structure. In terms of the volume of its work, it was, of course, primarily a complaints-handling body. However, that is not the model that we are looking for here. As I said, we are looking for a model closer to the FSA Consumer Panel. The members of the panel are appointed by the FSA although the chairman's appointment is subject to the approval of the Treasury.
We are going further than that in the Bill. We are providing that the Secretary of State has oversight over the appointment and the removal of all of the members of the consumer panel. Those appointments and removals are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. So Ofcom cannot appoint anyone it pleases and cannot remove anyone of whom it disapproves. I think that that is the really important consideration. The difference between that and appointment by the Secretary of State is one really of comity between the consumer panel and Ofcom. The consumer panel is independent, but it will always be working closely with Ofcom. We think that the balance we have struck here is appropriate.
As to the appointment of a chairman, members of the consumer panel will be chosen for the experience and expertise they can provide in specific areas; in other words, different members for different specific areas—a point which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made this morning—such as consumer interests, disability interests, the opinions of particular localities and so on. The chairman of the consumer panel is required to carry out that role objectively and with neutrality. These are perhaps different qualities from those which are required of the regular members of the panel who represent different interests. There could be conflicts of interest if the members of the panel with specific interests were required—as Amendment No. 72 would require them—to appoint an impartial chairman.
Under those circumstances we think that it is right that Ofcom should appoint a person who can bring to the post the necessary skills, can carry out the role of
388
chairman free from any potential conflicting interests and, indeed, play a role in the appointment of the other members of the panel.
I do not believe that the differences between us are earth shattering. We have thought the matter through carefully and I believe that we have achieved the right balance.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: I am perfectly comfortable with the Minister's response. As he says, the differences between us are not earth shattering. However, I suggest that the Government should be aware of the concerns and do all they can to address them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 77 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Committees and other procedure of the Consumer Panel]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Publication of information and advice for consumers etc.]:
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Training and equality of opportunity]:
Lord Gordon of Strathblanemoved Amendment No. 82:
Page 23, line 6, after "providing- insert "telecommunications,"
The noble Lord said: The whole purpose of the Bill is to bring together the regulation of broadcasting, telecommunications and some ancillary activities. It therefore seems strange to make provision in Clause 24(1) for training for broadcasting but say nothing about telecommunications. My amendment seeks to remedy that omission by the simple insertion of the word "telecommunications". Other amendments in the group are more specific with regard to other matters. I am not worried about that. I invite the Government either to accept the amendment or, if they feel that it is not sufficiently all- encompassing, to introduce their own amendment which is. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, which stand in my name. I wish to speak also in support of Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. My amendments are very similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, except that they seek to insert the words "telecommunications, internet". We consider that that term is all the more encompassing in terms of what the Bill should cover.
We all recognise the importance of the development of opportunities for training and retraining, particularly for employment in an industry as fast moving as broadcasting. I feel, however, that training and retraining in telecommunications skills and the

389
Internet are as important as training in television and radio services. We should like to know, therefore, whether the Government consider that training in those broader areas is relevant.
There is another purpose behind the amendments, however. How will Ofcom decide what form of training is appropriate in such a diverse industry? Will the Minister explain how Ofcom will be in a position to decide what constitutes an appropriate level of training at any one time? Training strategies can be very specific to individual companies depending on the level and type of activity being undertaken and will depend to a large extent on a range of detailed factors which may be known only to the company concerned.
There are now literally hundreds of channels in the broadcasting sector, including many specialised services dedicated to music, sport, ethnic minorities and so on, and new forms of broadcasting, including pay-per-view and interactive offerings. Is it the expectation that Ofcom will know best how to allocate the resources of the relevant companies for their training needs and for the training needs of other very different players in the industry? Would Ofcom be empowered to dictate the training budget of, say, the shopping channel, QVC, or the documentary broadcaster, Discovery, or to transfer resources from one to another, for example, to fund training for other broadcasters' news or drama productions? We would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that.
I turn to Amendment No. 85, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Hussey. We understand that the clause requires Ofcom, inter alia, to take all such steps as it considers appropriate for promoting equality of opportunity in relation to employment by those providing television and radio services and the training and retraining of persons for such employment. This reference to equality of opportunity refers to equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups. Subsections (6) and (7) would give the Secretary of State power to add any other form of equality of opportunity which he considers appropriate by affirmative resolution.
I have read the memorandum of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, to be found in annex 6 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft communications Bill which records that the department says that the power to extend the clause to other forms of equality is intended to allow the clause to be brought into line with general equality law if it should be extended in the future; for example, to age or religious discrimination. The House of Lords Select Committee found that explanation unconvincing, as do we on this side of the Committee.
At present, primary legislation would be required to extend equality law in the future. That legislation would and should have a clause making consequential amendments to previous Acts and one of those amendments would be an amendment to this clause
390
extending its width so as to be consistent with that new legislation. If the primary legislation is passed extending equality law, it is almost inevitable that there will be a provision amending this clause which will stand or fall with that primary legislation.
I cannot envisage any problem with that course. The explanation given by the department is, we believe, wholly unconvincing. I ask myself why. I have always been impressed by the ability of the civil servants in the department. I have no doubt that they will agree with me that the explanation is unconvincing. I am drawn to the inescapable conclusion that there is another agenda here. We should like to know whether the Secretary of State has plans to extend general equality law by resolutions of both Houses rather than by primary legislation. Those are specific points which we should like the Minister to answer. In particular, what are the Government's intentions with regard to extending general equality law?
I turn to Amendment No. 86. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in relation to backstop powers in respect of training. I refer specifically to support for the proposed new clause by Channel 4 which says that it welcomes,
"the amendment in the name of Lord Puttnam and others to give OFCOM backstop powers to impose a training levy on broadcasters".
I mention Channel 4 but a number of other stations have been in touch with us which very much support the amendment. Indeed, last night at the UK Film Council I was lucky enough to see a prescreening of the new film, "Nicholas Nickleby". That brought home to me the tremendous importance of skills and training in that field so that we can encourage more investment in this country's film industry. I refer to the calibre of the artists that we encourage. But we need to maintain that commitment to skills and training. We need resources and we need commitment from Ofcom.
There is strong support for the proposed new clause. Channel 4 says that in its view it enhances rather than constrains commercial as well as creative effectiveness. In an industry so completely dependent on talent for its long-term success the surest way to make Britain's communications industry the most dynamic and competitive in the world—the ambition expressed by the two sponsoring Secretaries of State in their joint introduction to the policy paper accompanying the draft Bill—is to give real teeth to training obligations. At present a minority of broadcasters, one of them being Channel 4, bear a hugely disproportionate share of the training costs for the whole industry.
We very much look forward to the Minister's response on the amendments.
Lord Carter: I tabled an amendment in the group. Amendment No. 270B deals with equal opportunities and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Clause 330(l) deals with equality of opportunity between "men and women" and,
"persons of different racial groups".

391
That also picks up the wording of Clause 24. Clause 330(2) asks for the promotion of,
"the fair treatment of disabled persons".
Why the distinction between equal opportunity for men and women and persons of different racial groups, and only fair treatment for disabled persons? It would be helpful if we removed "fair treatment" and inserted "equality of opportunity", so that disabled people were on the same footing.
That seemed to deal with the problem, but I then looked at the earlier draft Bill. Here the mystery rather deepens. Clause 224(1) of the draft Bill has the same preamble as the present Bill, but it has four paragraphs. Paragraphs (a) and (b) deal with men and women and persons of different racial groups, as in the present Bill, but paragraphs (c) and (d) have disappeared from the present draft. Paragraph (c) reads,
"between disabled persons and persons who are not disabled".
Paragraph (d)—it is the first time that I have seen the construction—reads,
"between persons who have had disabilities and persons who arc not disabled and have not had any disabilities".
Therefore, in the draft Bill, equality of opportunity for disabled people was on all fours with gender and ethnicity. The draft Bill also included a subsection (2) that called for the fair treatment of disabled persons. In the present draft, equality of opportunity has disappeared from the first subsection and we are left with only fair treatment.
There is an argument that "fair treatment" allows for positive discrimination. That may be so; one would wish to take advice on it. "Fair treatment" seems fairly subjective, whereas we all know what "equality of opportunity" means. It occurred to me to look at the draft Bill only yesterday, so I tabled an amendment this morning that is not on the Marshalled List. It will probably be reached next Thursday, not this afternoon, but it would restore to Clause 330(1) the words in the draft Bill.
The Minister has an easy solution that would save the time of the Committee. We could restore "equality of opportunity" for disabled people in subsection (1) and leave subsection (2) with "fair treatment". That was exactly the wording in the draft Bill, and would mean that disabled people would have both equality of opportunity and, if necessary, the positive discrimination used in the arguments about fair treatment.
Baroness Darcy tie Knayth: I would like to support the noble Lord. It is very important that we get the drafting right now. He will remember that, about 10 years ago, there was a Bill that removed people from committees if they had a physical or mental disability. The provision crept into every Bill. We spent years and years on it before we removed it in the end. I strongly support our getting the drafting clear now.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: I tabled Amendment No. 270A, which refers to,
"persons of different age groups".
When we are dealing with something such as the communications industry we should probably address age discrimination. The amendment was inspired by a letter sent to me via a colleague in another place, which suggested that someone retraining in the industry—it is an expanding industry, and if one is retraining one is by definition a littler older—felt that he was experiencing tremendous age discrimination. That was made all the more pertinent when I realised that he was only five years older than me.
We really have to encourage the removal of age discrimination and ensure that it is taken seriously. I tabled the amendment, which is a probing amendment, to ask whether age discrimination is appropriate and whether action can be taken. The more substantive amendment to which I added my name is that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Like the noble Lord, I feel that "equality of opportunity" is understood. It is not subjective. "Fair treatment" will depend on where one is standing. In the past, it has led to some beneficial tokenism, but ultimately that will not serve as a legal test for someone with a disability who is having problems. "Equality of opportunity" is solid. It means the concept of reasonableness in the Disability Discrimination Act. It is something for which we are striving. I suggest that it must be included in the Bill, unless the Minister can give us a better legal definition of what being fairly treated means. If it is as subjective as it sounds, I suggest that it is far more trouble than it is worth and will ultimately have a negative impact.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I shall speak very briefly on Amendment No. 271A, as I have been asked to do by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is a probing amendment, but before we get into that, I want to support wholeheartedly every single point that Members of the Committee have made previously, without repeating them. "Fair treatment" is not the same as "equal opportunity". We know what "equal opportunity" means; we recognise it, very much as we recognise "public service broadcasting". I shall put that on one side.
Amendment No. 271A is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to ask the Minister to clarify a possible loophole in Clause 330, which aims to implement the Government's plan to make training and equal opportunities part of tier 1 regulation. Under subsections (5) to (7), the requirements apply to only television and radio licensees which employ more than 20 people. It is thought possible, therefore, that television and radio services in group ownership will not be caught by the requirement, as it is perfectly possible for most staff to be employed at group level rather than by the individual licensees.

393
I should be most grateful if the Minister would address those concerns and clarify the situation as regards those licensees employing fewer than 20 people.
Lord Puttnam: I tabled Amendments Nos. 85 and 86, and I want to speak specifically to Amendment No. 86. I should start by declaring an interest as patron of Skillset, the industry's training organisation. Amendment No. 86 is interesting, and I am more delighted than I can easily say to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, was recently in his place, and it is worth mentioning that in 1985, when the industry was really on its uppers and he as a DTI Minister had extremely limited resources to help, he did a marvellous job in getting it to address its skills deficit. He did so by supporting the National Film and Television School and by a number of other very imaginative means. It is fair to say that the industry has been seriously skills-based ever since.
The industry has managed, quite tortuously, to create what one might term an all-industry agreement on training, based on a voluntary levy. However, we live in the real world, and there are a number of backsliders, professional evaders and non-payers, which has bedevilled the industry. The industry training organisation puts an extraordinary amount of time, effort and energy into tracking down and attempting to get the most reluctant of those people to pay. The provision merely seeks to give some statutory power to Ofcom to deal with those who will not pay those sums of money which the industry as a whole has identified as being necessary to keep its skills base adequate. This is a timely amendment.
Moreover, the amendment gives the Government a marvellous opportunity to put some flesh on the aspiration that is enunciated constantly by the Chancellor to do something about the skills deficit and the fact that employers must play their part. Here is a marvellous opportunity for the Government to say, "We support the industry. It has got its act together by creating its own voluntary levy. We will make as sure as we can that those within the industry who try to take advantage of the skills base but who do not pay for it are penalised".
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I wish to speak in particular to speak to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has just done.
Clause 24 deals with two aspects of employment policy—the conventional issue of training and the question of positive action to prevent discrimination. Amendment No. 85 proposes to remove those parts of the clause that would take steps to promote equality of treatment at work, confine them to existing law and follow the advice given by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which said that it
394
could see no good reason for looking towards an uncertain future in this regard and that the issue should be dealt with when the time comes.
I strongly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on training within the broadcasting industry. He spoke with particular authority about the film industry. The history of training in the broadcasting industry is long and rather unhappy. The BBC has a long and honourable record in that field. I declared an interest at the start of the Committee stage; I have a daughter who is now a senior manager with the BBC. After leaving university, she did a postgraduate training course with the BBC, which was totally admirable. That is part of the great training tradition in the BBC.
I am sad to say that in commercial television there was no comparable record, despite the fact that. ITV companies had training provisions in their contracts. The degree to which we were able to keep them up to it was inadequate. In a world in which technology is changing so fast, it is very important that there should be adequate training. The proposed new clause is a back-up clause and would provide the means for ensuring that that occurs. It is an important matter. It is inappropriate that in the training field some organisations play a full part and others simply poach. The BBC and Channel 4 have good records but one wants adequate arrangements to ensure that everyone accepts their responsibilities.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I support my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who spoke to Amendment No. 86. We had a meeting with seven trade unions operating in the industry in the broad sense. This is one of the prominent issues about which they are very concerned. I include the question of telecommunications within the industry not only because it is part of the industry but also because the challenges in terms of "up-skilling" in telecommunications are integral to the progress of the whole industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to the role of the BBC in particular. It has always struck me that years ago the tradition in the industry was that the BBC did the training and everyone else fed on it. In the same way, I remember going to Devonport dockyard. It was said that all those in Devon and Cornwall who had a small engineering business had been trained in Devonport dockyard. My noble friend Lord Puttnam described a more sophisticated body, which has a voluntary levy. There is much worry about the dilution of those commitments. The principle of public service obligations is rather different from the principle of competition. I refer to the practice of "Last person out switch off the lights" and so on. That is the central concern. Public responsibility must be written into the Bill more explicitly; the Bill is currently much too vague. That is why something along the lines of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Puttnam is essential for the whole of the sector.
BECTU, a big broadcasting union which plays a central role, points out that even those in the United States, and United States producers in Britain, support a compulsory training levy because it facilitates—let us

395
spell it out—a level playing field. That is another way of talking about poaching, as mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Thomson.
We should remind ourselves of the big range of skills and occupational training that goes into what we call broadcasting. I remind noble Lords that broadcasters are journalists. In general. the first person one hears when one switches on the radio is a journalist. I draw attention to the Writers' Guild of Great Britain. Its members write soap operas, among other things. That is a complex and skilled area of the industry. I refer also to the Musicians' Union; we shall return to the role of music later in the Bill. I have mentioned the communication workers. We also have Equity. Drama is a mainstay of broadcasting but it is expensive to produce. I could go on through that list.
I conclude by mentioning the interpenetration of this issue with that of regional employment and regional content. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this proposal and the central principle of the compulsory levy, which is. I believe, part of Amendment No. 86.
Lord Bragg: I support my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Gordon and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
I am one of the many hundreds of' beneficiaries of training schemes in the BBC. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, pointed out, it has a very good scheme indeed and it has continued in many ways. It is an example for all of us. I do not share the dismay of the noble Lord. Lord Thomson, about the ITV system. The company for which I work, Granada Television—I declared my interest at the start of this debate—puts £9 million a year into training. Considering our income at the moment, that is not bad. That extends all over the regions as well as London. In my department of arts and features, we take on people and give them two or three years' proper, fully paid training; we do not make them run round for work experience, which is valuable for some weeks, or two or three months, but which cannot be extended. That effort is going on. We also support Skillset.
Ofcom will find it difficult to impose the policy on small channels and on independents, which form an increasingly powerful part of our industry. I hope that they will continue to do so in our country. That will be most difficult to impose and there will therefore be a return to the position in which the BBC is supposed to supply all the training, backed up by ITV and Channel 4. That, as the independent sector grows—as it will and should do—will prove to be a very unfair burden.
In the spirit of being helpful, particularly to my noble friend Lord Puttnam, perhaps I may make a suggestion. It might seem to be pulled out of the air, but I truly believe it could be a radical solution to the problem, if I may in modesty say as much. ITV pays to the Government a completely unnecessary levy of £250 million a year, in addition to the tax it pays. I have talked on several occasions in this House about how that might have been useful about 20 years ago
396
but unnecessary now. Why cannot the Government divert 50 per cent of that—£125 million—to training schemes across the industry? That amount of money, well spent on schemes such as skills sets and invested fully and proportionately in BBC. ITV and particularly the smaller independent companies, could have the most radical effect. That is what we need in this country.
If communications bound forward after the passing of this Bill—often pointed out so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as an important Bill indeed—there will be a need for skilled young people. Skills continually change and increase. It is increasingly difficult for those who begin in the independent sector—and more of them do to find the time to obtain the training they need; that is, just getting on with it for months or even two or three years.
That amount of money directed to that end, and coming out of the levy given unnecessarily, used for the industry instead of the general mores of the Government might be a consideration which could have a radical effect—I am not afraid to repeat that—on the young people of this country coming into the communications industry. They often come in blind with nothing like the support they deserve and need if we are to run as an efficient industry as we would like.
5 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: As we have more and more channels, we will have more and more broadcasters trying to buy more and more cheap programmes from more and more independent companies. Small independents, inevitably given the pressures on them, will be tempted to renege on or minimise their training obligations. If we are to maintain the training levels, we must have something along the lines of the back-up powers in Amendment No. 86 proposed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. It is as simple as that.
Lord Avebury: I want to ask the Minister a simple question relating to Amendment No. 270B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Addington concerning disabled people. I notice that coming down the track are the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which amend and extend the DDA in so far as it prohibits discrimination against disabled people in relation to employment and vocational training. The Explanatory Notes on that mention other instruments accompanying that which deal with discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age. Those arise from a European directive on discrimination in employment, to which we are a party. I want to be satisfied that that directive and the instruments which flow from it are fully reflected in the wording of this Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I, too, support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Carter to reinstate the words in the draft Bill in order to accommodate some of these points. However, I want to return to some of the points raised by my noble friends

397
Lord Bragg, Lord Lipsey and Lord Puttnam. I, too, am a graduate of one of the BBC training schemes, although less distinguished in the broadcasting world than my noble friend Lord Bragg. I am so old that in the days when I was trained by the BBC, it visited universities in order to try to persuade people to join its training scheme. That shows your Lordships how long ago it was!
I, too, want to make the point that the provisions include not only training in broadcasting or in journalism, but, taking the other points made most notably by my noble friend Lord Lea, a broad spectrum of skills. They include those people working in telecommunications, which is an area different from, for example, journalism and some of the other professions or trades mentioned. One must not ignore the fact that one of the virtues of Ofcom's broad responsibility is that it has a wide scope to cover all the industries mentioned within its remit, which includes skills more technical than those in which my noble friend Lord Bragg and I were trained.
Baroness Blackstone: This is a large group of amendments and it will take me a little time to reply. Furthermore, many speakers have approached the issues from many different angles.
I of course sympathise with the aim behind Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84, but the fact is that Ofcom cannot be given any power, under the regulatory regime permitted by the EC communications directives, to impose any obligations in this area on communications providers. The Television Without Frontiers Directive, on the other hand, does permit stricter obligations to be imposed on broadcasters.
The EC communications directives limit the types of obligations which can be imposed on providers of electronic communications networks and services. The subject matter of the general conditions, which can be applied to any communications provider, is set out in Clause 48. In very broad terms, such conditions can cover issues such as consumer protection, service interoperability and network access, availability of services in the event of a disaster, protection of health and compliance with international standards.
The limitation on the subject matter of general conditions is necessary in order to implement Part A of the annex to the authorisation directive. This annex sets out the maximum list of conditions which may be attached to general authorisations and does not permit the imposition of any kind of condition in relation to training and equality of opportunity. Therefore, member states have no discretion to add other kinds of conditions to the regulatory regime permitted by the directives.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she direct me to the precise directive and explain why on earth we signed up to it if it is so restrictive?
Baroness Blackstone: I think I had better write to my noble friend about what happened in the past. I was
398
not a Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and did not attend culture Ministers' meetings when the decision was made to agree to what the Commission was recommending. I shall also let him know the precise directive referred to when I respond about the history.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 85, 271 and 270A. Recommendation 19 of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill raised the same issue as that raised in Amendments Nos. 85 and 271: that is, the need for the Secretary of State's power to add by order other forms of equality to Clauses 24 and 330. As the government response to the committee indicated, this order-making power is important to these clauses as it will ensure that the obligations on Ofcom and the licence holders to which Clause 330 applies remain up-to-date alongside broader anti-discrimination legislation. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness. Lady Buscombe, that there is no intention to extend discrimination law by the back door.
In Clause 24, Ofcom is given a duty to promote equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups in relation to employment with broadcasters. Similarly, in Clause 330 Ofcom has an obligation to include in the licence for every service to which this clause applies conditions requiring the licence holder to promote, in relation to employment with it, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups.
The list contained in Clause 24(4) and in Clause 330(1) mirrors two of the most important areas of anti-discrimination legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, will perhaps be pleased to hear that we believe that it is right that, should new forms of general legislation be introduced—such as, in relation to age discrimination—the Secretary of State should have the ability to reflect the general equal opportunity legislation within Ofcom's obligations under Clause 24 and broadcasters' licence conditions. We do not think it would be right to anticipate such legislation in the Bill, as the purposes of Clauses 24 and 330 are to supplement existing anti-discrimination legislation. But we do believe that it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should have a power to amend the scope of these clauses to mirror developments in anti-discrimination legislation when they occur.
The Joint Committee's recommendation on these order-making powers was that, if retained, they should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. We strongly believe that these powers should be retained. However, in view of the concern expressed by the Committee and by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, we agreed that they should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, there will always be an opportunity to debate them in the Chamber.
The purpose of Amendment No. 270B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Carter, is, presumably, to strengthen protection for disabled people. However, I believe that the effect could prove to be the opposite. The Disability Discrimination Act makes certain

399
provision prohibiting discrimination against disabled people and creating certain positive duties to make reasonable adjustments, but does not prohibit discrimination against able-bodied people. Thus, unlike the sex and race legislation, the equality duty does not work both ways.
We have sought to mirror that approach in the Bill in the requirement to promote the fair treatment of disabled people. But amending the Bill to create obligations relating to equality of opportunity for disabled people would imply reciprocal equality of opportunity for able-bodied people, even if able-bodied people are not mentioned, because the amendment otherwise begs the question: equality of opportunity with whom? The amendment could therefore conflict with other efforts to assist disabled people; for example, an obligation relating to equality between able-bodied and disabled people could conflict with efforts to help disabled people through the provision of, say, "sheltered jobs".
It was for this very reason that the Government changed references in the draft Bill, published last summer, to,
"equality of opportunity between disabled persons and persons who are not disabled"
and,
"between persons who have had disabilities and persons who are not disabled and have not had disabilities",
to the current formulation. The wording is designed to have a positive impact with relation to the rights of disabled people.
I turn to Amendment No. 86—
Lord Addington: The word "fairness" is worrying me. Is there a legal definition of the word in the Minister's response? If the noble Baroness gave one, I did not catch it. I not sure about the exact meaning of "fairness".
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I understand that the concept is well understood. That is why it has been placed in the Bill in exchange for the earlier drafting to which I referred.
I turn to Amendment No. 86—
Lord Carter: My noble friend said "in exchange", but the draft Bill made reference to equality of opportunity and fairness of treatment; in other words, it had both of them. There has not been an exchange. We have removed "equality of opportunity" and left "fairness" in the legislation. I still believe that the latter would be stronger if both references were retained.
Baroness Blackstone: When I used the word "exchange", that was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say that we now rely on "fairness". I hope that what I have said is clear. I recognise that this is quite a complex area. However, I can assure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of the Government's good faith in this respect. The provision
400
is designed to reflect the Disability Discrimination Act, and not to leave in the Bill something that could be deemed at some later point to be in conflict with what is laid down in the DDA. It is certainly designed to support the rights of disabled people—
Lord Avebury: Before the Minister moves on from Amendment No. 270B, can she answer my question about whether the wording reflects the regulations that are about to be laid before this Chamber?
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry. I forgot to respond to the noble Lord. However, I shall write to him setting out clearly the answer to his question.
I cannot argue with the underlying aim of Amendment No. 86, which proposes to ensure a better-trained, more competitive broadcasting industry. I absolutely accept what all my noble friends said about the importance of training. I believe that most noble Lords who spoke to this amendment were from this side of the Committee. However, I do not share my noble friend's slightly pessimistic view that the existing provisions on training in the Bill will not be sufficient to achieve this aim. I shall return to that aspect in a moment.
My noble friend Lord Bragg has put forward an extremely interesting idea. It is certainly a proposal that I shall take away for consideration. However, I imagine that my right honourable friends, and my honourable friends in the Treasury, will argue that this money could be more usefully applied to many other areas of public expenditure. Nevertheless, I shall take away my noble friend's idea and see where that suggestion may lead.
I must also confess to being a little unclear about how the new clause would work in practice. It is not clear on whom the proposed levy would be imposed. Would it be an industry-wide levy? Would it be imposed only on those licensed radio and television services that fail to provide adequate opportunities for training and retraining? Alternatively, perhaps it would be imposed only on public service broadcasters.
It is a fact that the economics of the broadcasting industry, and the nature of a great deal of the employment within it, bring difficulties in sustaining the necessary level of skills development. Some broadcasters have recognised this, as evidenced in the support for voluntary initiatives such as the Skillset/ DCMS Audio Visual Training Group that reported last year—an initiative with which my noble friend Lord Puttnam is familiar.
However, as the Government have said previously, we believe that training is so important in this sector that it is not enough to rely on voluntary initiatives alone. That is why we have introduced new, strengthened provisions on training in this Bill. For the first time, training obligations will apply to all television and radio broadcasters who meet the threshold conditions set out in the Bill. Ofcom will have a new duty to promote training more widely in the sector. These provisions put the broadcasting

401
sector well ahead of many others. We are fairly confident that they will deliver the results that we all wish to see.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, much will of course depend on the action that Ofcom takes under Clause 24, and on the licence conditions that it imposes under Clause 330. Following a recommendation of the ITC's Programme Supply Review, the Secretary of State has asked Skillset, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, to establish a formal task force and report back to Ofcom on these very issues. Skillset has already begun working with all the key stakeholders to consider how Ofcom might maximise and further promote training within the industry. We look forward to considering the results of this most important work.
We should also remember that Ofcom will have very broad powers to vary broadcasters' licences if it is satisfied that licence holders are not properly performing their obligations. Ofcom might use those powers to impose more specific conditions to promote training if that is believed to be necessary.
In summary, I believe that effective measures are in place to make sure that licence holders do deliver on training. Therefore, it is with regret that I have to tell my noble friend that I do not think that his amendment is really necessary.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 271A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She said it was a probing amendment, but I believe that the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Baroness, are on to something here. I have considerable sympathy with the aim of the amendment to ensure that the equal opportunities and training requirements are not evaded where individual television channels or local radio stations are part of a larger group of companies that, taken together, would meet the thresholds. It seems right that such services should play their parts both in promoting equal opportunities and training, but at present they would be exempted from the requirements of Clause 330, which relate only to the individual licence holder.
We shall take this away and consider it. However, in the light of what I said earlier, I very much hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I am slightly astonished that any European directive should prevent a government agency such as Ofcom from simply promoting the development of opportunities for young people in the field of telecommunications. I could understand that if perhaps it was going to pay for it because that might be construed as interference with international competition. However, the Minister has been very gracious in offering to write to me on the subject. I shall study her letter with the greatest interest and return to this matter on Report.
Baroness Buscombe: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask the Minister if I could be copied on that letter. I am disappointed that
402
telecommunications and the Internet should be excluded and I do not understand why. I thought that this was what convergence was all about; perhaps I am missing the plot. I would be grateful for a copy of the letter.
Lord Lea of Crondall: As regards Amendment No. 86, the question was raised by the Minister of a levy and what would happen about training. The normal principle of a levy is that there is a rebate for people who carry out the training. Clearly, this has to be considered more and will arise again on Report. Given the support around the Chamber, we are asking that the Government consider how this could be made better. It would be helpful if the Minister could give consideration to how the principle set out by my noble friend Lord Puttnam in Amendment No. 86 can be improved before we reach Report.
Lord Puttnam: I shall not move Amendment No. 86, but I should like to make three points. First, I hope the noble Baroness will acknowledge the increasing and total discontinuity between the rhetoric and action in the Government's entire attitude to training. We cannot keep referring to a skills gap; keep urging the Creative Industries Board or keep referring to parity of opportunity and not be prepared to hack to the hilt those industries and, indeed, those companies within those industries, that are prepared to pay for training. It is interesting—we have touched on Europe—that the German industrial economy is being crippled by what is termed "the free rider principle". German businesses, in droves, are getting out of paying for training for which they have paid not just for decades but centuries. Are we seriously to go down the same route?
Here, we have an industry and major players within it who want to pay but who are extremely irritated by the fact that many people are able to evade and avoid. All we suggest is a back-up power for Ofcom to address that issue. Perhaps this is not the right amendment. I am certain that other and more specific amendments will be tabled on Report.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"CHARGING PRINCIPLES

(1) Other than in the circumstances specified in subsection (3), OFCOM shall not fix any administrative charge for any functions undertaken by OFCOM for any charging year unless—

(a) at the time the charge is fixed there is in force a statement by OFCOM of the principles that OFCOM are proposing to apply in fixing charges for the relevant functions for that year; and

403

(b) the charge is fixed in accordance with those charging principles.

(2) Those principles must be such as appear to OFCOM to be likely to secure, on the basis of such estimates of the likely costs as it is practicable for them to make—

(a) that, on a year by year basis, the aggregate amount of the charges payable to OFCOM in accordance with the relevant statement is sufficient to meet, but does not exceed, the annual cost to OFCOM of carrying out the functions to which the relevant statement applies;

(b) that the cost of carrying out those functions is met by the imposition of charges that are objectively justifiable and proportionate to the matters in respect of which they are imposed; and

(c) that the relationship between the meeting of the cost of carrying out those functions and the amounts of the charges is transparent.

(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to—

(a) administrative charges under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act;

(b) charges, fees or payments under the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum;

(c) any other payment made to OFCOM which is to be paid into the appropriate Consolidated Fund by virtue of section 393;

(d) charges under section (Charges in respect of OFCOM's central functions); and

(e) charges relating to costs incurred by OFCOM prior to the radio and television transfer dates.

(4) A relevant statement of charging principles for the purposes of this section shall specify—

(a) the relevant functions carried out by OFCOM, and

(b) the statutory basis for those functions.

(5) No tariff shall be fixed by OFCOM under sections 4 and 87 of the 1990 Act and sections 4 and 43 of the 1996 Act (general licence conditions) except in accordance with the relevant statement of charging principles.

(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each charging year, OFCOM shall publish a statement setting out, in respect of each service for which a relevant statement of charging principles has been made and of that year—

(a) the aggregate amounts of the administrative charges for that year that have been received by OFCOM;

(b) the aggregate amount of the administrative charges for that year that remain outstanding and are likely to be paid or recovered; and

(c) the cost to OFCOM of carrying out the functions specified in the relevant statement of charging principles.

(7) Any deficit or surplus shown (after applying this subsection for all previous years) by a statement under subsection (6) shall be carried forward and taken into account in determining what is required to satisfy the requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2)(a) in relation to the following year.

(8) The provisions of section 36(1), (5) and (6) shall apply to a statement of charging principles made under this section.

(9) In this section "charging year" has the same meaning as in section 35."

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 87 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who cannot be in his place. I shall do my best, but inadequately, to make the case that he would have set out. I suggest that this is one of the big brutes of the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a very big issue indeed.
In moving these amendments which introduce a number of new clauses it is hoped that I shall provide the House with the opportunity to debate funding
404
issues and the charging principles to be followed by Ofcom. Perhaps even more important, I am giving Ministers the opportunity to explain their approach to these issues and, for the very first time, to give detailed explanations to Parliament about the way in which Ofcom is to be funded.
It is really extraordinary that the elected House did not find the time to examine the adequacy and fairness of these financial arrangements. We in this Chamber must at least try to repair that neglect and focus on what I referred to at Second Reading at col. 673 as one or two of the "fatal flaws" in this legislation. I said then that unless Ofcom is more than adequately resourced with a clear underpinning from the public purse, frankly it begs the question, "Why bother with the Bill in the first place?"
The response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey was, I am sad to say, uncharacteristically complacent. He stated:
"I assure my noble friend … that there is not really any problem of the funding of competition costs. It has been agreed by Ofcom. by the DTI and by Her Majesty's Treasury. That is set out both in this Bill and in the paving Bill".—[Official Report, 25/3/03; col. 784.]
I am not sure that that tells us very much. Incidentally, it is not set out in the Bill.
Ofcom, the DTI and Her Majesty's Treasury may well have agreed. But what about Parliament? Surely, we are entitled to know what has been agreed and to be supplied with adequate information about the analysis that led to that agreement so that we can form some sort of judgment regarding the adequacy of the funding to be provided.
As to the second part of the Minister's response, the more innocent among those who heard or read the remarks might think that all they had to do was to turn to the relevant sections of the Bill and everything would become absolutely clear. I suggest that noble Lords do just that and turn to Clause 35 entitled "Fixing of Charges ". There are two-and-a-half pages. Clause 36 on "Supplemental service provision for non-payment " is another full page. Clauses 37 and 38, which relate to non-payment, result in two-and-a-bit additional pages. Finally, Clause 39 on "Suspending service provision for non-payment" is another one-and-a-quarter pages. I am afraid that my eyes had begun to glaze over well before I got to the end of Clauses 35 and 36 without ever feeling remotely reassured by what I was reading.
The Explanatory Notes presented by the Government helped a little. Paragraphs 87 and 88 inform us that universal service providers designated in Clause 63 have to meet charges,
"set by OFCOM in accordance with pre-determined 'charging principles' designed to ensure that the aggregate charges collected in any one year will just cover OFCOM's costs—in that same year—of carrying out the administrative functions listed in subsection (5)".
Note "listed in subsection (5)", which is important. Paragraph 88 reads:
"Charges must also be objectively justifiable, proportionate and transparent".
All that implements the relevant EU authorisation directive.
So far so good but the functions listed in subsection (5) are by no means all the functions of Ofcom. In paragraph 75 of its report the Joint Committee commented:
"It is intended that the costs of OFCOM will be met almost entirely from those it regulates. This broadly replicates the way in which the current costs of the five existing regulators of £118 million are met, although at present the Exchequer meets half the running costs of the BSC, an arrangement that is to be discontinued under the new legislation, and some of the costs of Oftel. Both the Radiocommunications Agency and Oftel have forecast increases in the future in the costs of regulating the sectors for which they are responsible. Taken together with the transitional costs associated with the move to a single regulator, this may, according to the Government, led to 'some modest increases in the pecuniary cost of the new regime' with the savings associated with merger accruing over a longer timescale".
Some witnesses before the Joint Committee were concerned at the lack of savings foreseen as a consequence of the merger and several organisations expressed worries that they should not be asked to fund activities unrelated to their sector. The Secretaries of State expected that there would be economies of scale from combining the five regulators. The Joint Committee agreed but urged caution in seeking to apply too much pressure on Ofcom to secure cost reductions. It said:
"This may lead to false economy and strike at the heart of the purposes of the Bill. Effective regulation does not come cheap, and the long-term costs to industry and to the public will be greater if OFCOM lacks the resources to undertake effective regulation".
I attempted to make that point at Second Reading.
I have referred to the charges that meet the requirements of the authorisation directive set out in Clauses 35 and 36. However, the Joint Committee suggested that:
"These provisions leave it uncertain whether OFCOM could charge an organisation providing an electronic communications network or service for the performance of central functions or policy development or"—
most importantly—
"for the exercise of OFCOM's functions under the Competition Act or the forthcoming Enterprise Act".
What the Joint Committee said in paragraphs 79 and 80 is of crucial importance. I quote from it almost in full. It stated:
"Although the ITC has developed general principles of cost-based apportionments, an assessment of regulatory exposure and the ability of licensees to pay, there are no statutory provisions for broadcasting or for wireless telegraphy directly analogous to those in Clause 29. This at least makes it theoretically possible that the entire burden of OFCOM's general costs that cannot be attributed to functions under Chapter 1 of Part 2 will fall entirely on other sectors. This would in our view be unfair and unacceptable".
It went on to recommend that,
"the principles underpinning charges under Clause 29, namely that charges should be fixed in accordance with clear principles and related only to relevant functions, be extended to all administrative charges under the Communications Bill and the broadcasting legislation that it amends, except where incentive charging for wider purposes is intended".
The committee went on to state:
"This creates a potential gap with regard to OFCOM's central services and its competition law functions, which cannot easily be allocated in advance to particular parts of the communications sector. We will examine OFCOM's powers under competition law and its capacity to exercise them later, but it is evident that these powers will require OFCOM to employ high quality staff with specialist skills of a kind that it is unlikely to inherit from the existing regulators. Don Cruickshank, a former Director-General of Telecommunications, pointed out that the OFT and Competition Commission were funded from the Exchequer and that their capacity to attract resources was helped by the Treasury's commitment to competitive markets".
It therefore recommended:
"To ensure that OFCOM has adequate resources to undertake its competition law functions, we recommend that those functions be funded directly by the Exchequer. We would prefer to see OFCOM's central functions funded proportionately and transparently through a levy on all companies above a certain size in the regulated sectors. If this proves incompatible with the EC Directives, we recommend that such costs should also be met from the Exchequer".
I apologise for quoting at such length, but I hope that in a minute the Committee will agree that it was entirely necessary.
The Government's response to the Joint Committee was:
"The Government is considering the Funding Issue".
That was it. Since then all we have had from the Minister is that reference to an agreement by Ofcom, the DTI and the Treasury. In other words, the parliamentary telescope is today focused on a black hole at the very centre of the regulatory universe. By the time the Bill leaves this House we must know exactly who funds competition powers, and how; we must know about the principles of charging that apply to those not covered by the EU directive; and we must know how central costs are to be allocated.
There is another even denser black hole at the centre of the immense chasm that the Government have so far left in this particular part of the universe that they have created. It is: who stands behind the regulator in the event of a counter suit from a regulated concern? Ofcom will be dealing with vast, well-resourced international organisations. If they face what they consider to be unreasonable delay, loss of business or harassment, they may well sue Ofcom. Tragically, we live in an age where litigation of this kind is increasingly common. Who pays the costs incurred by Ofcom or any damages awarded in the courts? What is certain is that it cannot be the organisations that it regulates.
That is the background and the reason for bringing forward these new clauses. Amendment No. 87 introduces a new clause designed to provide an opportunity to debate Recommendation 30 of the Joint Committee, that all administrative charges under the Bill and broadcasting legislation that it amends should be fixed in accordance with clear principles and related only to relevant functions, except where incentive pricing is intended. The new clause is modelled on Clause 35 which relates only to electronic communications networks and services.
Amendment No. 88 arises from Recommendation 31A that Ofcom's competition law functions should be funded directly from the Exchequer. Amendments Nos. 88 and 80 cover Recommendation 31B that central costs should be funded by a "unified levy" or by the Exchequer. The two clauses relate to the alternatives. Finally, Amendment No. 91 deals with the extraordinarily important question of legal costs. Ofcom will be dealing with extremely tough characters. It is going to be a rough old world out there. The big beasts in the communications jungle may well be tempted to find out just how much courage Ofcom has. Its courage will necessarily relate to how deep its pockets are in the event of things going wrong. There may be an early and difficult test for Ofcom to meet. It would be tragic if it fell at the first hurdle. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: These Benches strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has just said. The noble Lord, my noble friend Lord McNally and others were part of the House's team dealing with the pre-legislative scrutiny.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord say that in preparing his remarks, even after all his experience of the pre-legislative process, he found some difficulty in running to earth exactly where in this vast Bill the financial buck stops if Ofcom is to do service to the public interest. As a newcomer to this great Bill. I certainly found it an extraordinary experience to go through it to try to find out exactly what are the financial arrangements for funding.
This series of new clauses is vitally important at the very heart of this new Bill if the Ofcom operation is to be successful. Therefore, for my part, I congratulate the members of the pre-legislative Joint Committee on this series of new clauses. As a very long retired regulator of broadcasting, I am glad that I lived in simpler times.
Both the Government and Ofcom face a massive challenge in converting five regulators into one and regulating the combined interests of the telecommunications and broadcasting industries in a global economy which is itself in a state of rapid change. The Government should feel relieved that the five regulatory bodies to be merged into one super-regulator in a multi-merger exercise have been able to do so in a remarkable spirit of co-operation. It is important for the Government to appreciate how fortunate they are in that.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I read with some dismay the Government's response to the Joint Committee report. Like the noble Lord, I was rather taken aback to see that, despite all the years that the Bill has been before us in one form or another, the Government are still currently considering funding issues. I find myself totally astonished that that should be the position today.
However, on page 10 of the Government's response, in reply to the recommendation made by the Joint
408
Committee on the merger of the regulators and the question of the likely costs of having a single regulator instead of five, they say:
"We expect OFCOM to be efficiently and effectively run and will not countenance waste or inefficiency. But we also expect OFCOM to be a world class regulator with highly skilled, professional personnel capable of delivering quality regulation".
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned the fact that the Government's weakness in their whole presentation of what are truly momentous issues in the Bill is that, while they are extremely strong on rhetoric. they are a good deal weaker on the will to follow it through. In carrying through a merger of five separate regulatory organisations, we know that individual interests will be expressed and that the merger should be completed as efficiently and with as little waste as possible. However, one must face the inevitable fact that, during the transitional period, rather than enjoying cost-savings, some additional costs will have to be met.
The absolutely critical issue here is that Ofcom itself should be adequately funded in order to perform its role as, to use the Government's own words,
"a world class regulator … delivering quality regulation".
I pay tribute to those who have produced the series of new clauses before us. In itself that must have been a formidable task. The clauses provide a road map—to employ the current rather over-used cliché—to achieve the Government's aim, if they have the will to do so. They make it clear that if the Government want Ofcom to defend the national interest effectively in a world of global telecommunications and broadcasting, then the Exchequer will have to be the final funder. That is the heart of the issue. It is on that point that we want a positive response from the Government. If we do not get it today, then we will demand it under different circumstances at a later stage in the Bill.
The Government appear ready to expose commercial television in Britain to the winds of global competition in a way that neither the United States Government nor the governments of our European neighbours have even begun to contemplate. That is the situation into which this Bill will put the British broadcasting and telecommunications industries. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, remarked, the giants of the global media world will not lack money and resources. They will use the most expensive lawyers and experts to fight their corner. In this country, we should not allow Ofcom to be outgunned. We have a world-class public broadcasting system and great economic interests vested in our telecommunications industry. We should ensure that Ofcom is adequately funded so that it can look after the national interest.
Baroness Buscombe: I should like to support Amendments Nos. 87. 88 and 90, and to raise one or two questions in relation to Amendments Nos. 89 and 91. As has already been said so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, one of the criticisms that can be made about the Bill is that it is not clear how Ofcom is to be funded. It is important for all concerned that

409
Ofcom is properly funded. The Ofcom pump will need to be primed. A watchdog needs its meat. So, too, does Ofcom if it is to discharge its functions efficiently.
Amendment No. 87 proposes a new clause setting out the various principles underlying the administrative charges to be fixed by Ofcom in respect of certain functions that it undertakes. The new clause limits the charges to the annual cost of carrying out the relevant function. That seems to make good sense: the user pays. We therefore support the amendment.
On Amendments Nos. 88 and 90, we agree that Ofcom's competition law functions and central functions should be funded by the Exchequer. As regards Ofcom's competition law functions, it is difficult to identify the user who should pay. Those who would benefit from Ofcom's competition law function would be everyone in the relevant market. It would be difficult to impose any specific charges on any one or more of those in the market. In those circumstances, it seems obvious that the Exchequer should pay for those functions, which are for the common good.
Ofcom's central functions are defined in the new clause as,
"functions relating to the administration, management and policy of OFCOM",
excluding functions on which provision is made elsewhere in the Bill. Here the difficulty is identifying how much of those charges should be paid by the user. If the central function were funded by the user, there would be almost impossible problems as to how to apportion the expense among the users of the relevant functions. Any error would result in some users paying more than they should— that should be avoided. We therefore support the clause proposed in Amendment No. 90, which provides for the Exchequer to provide those funds.
We are concerned about how Amendment No. 91 would work in practice. We can entirely see the purpose: to ensure that legal costs are paid. However, what will happen if an order for costs is made against Ofcom, and the Secretary of State does not make a grant under the new clause? I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, could clarify that point.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fully recognise the importance of the subject and the strength of feeling about it in the Joint Committee. The Government's general approach as between sectoral regulation and general regulation is that the costs of sectoral regulation should be borne by those who are regulated. Therefore, Ofcom will be funded in the main by a mixture of fees and charges levied on the industries that it will regulate. We intend that Ofcom's charges will, in general, be proportionate and related to the sectors to which they apply.
However, we must also recognise the constraints that apply to the separate sectors and the limitations placed on charges that can be imposed on providers of networks and services and users of spectrum, which do
410
not apply to the other sectors for which Ofcom is responsible. The Joint Committee expressed concern that the costs of carrying on Oxfam's—sorry, Ofcom's—central functions could be loaded, unfairly, on to the broadcasters. That point has been made very eloquently today.
Amendment No. 87 would require Ofcom to fix administrative charges for any functions undertaken in relation to broadcasting in accordance with a statement of principles. The basis on which fees are charged for broadcasting licences is set out in the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts. Those provisions will be retained within the regime that Ofcom will operate. They provide for a clear split between licence fees, which any licence-holder may be asked to pay, and the additional payments that holders of certain radio and television licences must pay. The licence fee element is intended to cover the cost of regulating licensed services. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts, in setting the fees for broadcasting licences, Ofcom must publish tariffs of its charges. As we told the Joint Committee, the Government have sympathy for the argument that there should he transparency in how Ofcom fixes its administrative charge under the broadcasting regime.
I can, therefore, undertake to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that we will consider the amendment further to ensure that the different sectors that Ofcom regulates will be treated fairly. He makes the perfectly valid point that, so far as concerns telecommunications, Clauses 35 to 39, which implement the authorisation directive, provide for telecommunications the exact provision that he seeks for broadcasting. He said, "So far, so good". It is that exact point that I am now undertaking to consider between now and Report stage. It seems to be a legitimate point.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, read out at length the Government's response to the Joint Committee's recommendations. I acknowledge that the response did not go as far as I have been able to go today, as the Government were not able to do so at the time. We have gone further in discussions between the Treasury and Ofcom to settle the overall funding regime of Ofcom. That is why we are now prepared to consider a statement of charging principles for broadcasting comparable to that for telecommunications.
We recognise that there is a problem. I do not know yet what the solution is with regard to what we might call "orphan costs"—in other words, the costs, to which everybody has referred, that are the responsibility of Ofcom but are difficult to assign to broadcasters or to anybody in the industry sector. Again, the question of how to cover those costs, whether it is done by grants from the Secretary of State or in some other way, must be considered, and I undertake to consider it before Report.
I can deal more briefly with the other amendments in the group. With regard to Amendment No. 88. we agree that it is important to ensure that Ofcom's functions under Part 5 are adequately resourced. It is possible for the costs of exercising powers under the

411
Broadcasting Acts to ensure fair and effective competition to be met from licence fee revenue, and applicants for consent to newspaper transfers pay a set fee according to the circulation figures of the titles concerned. We can see no reason why that should not continue with Ofcom, but we recognise that, mainly because of the restrictions imposed by the electronic communications directives, there will be competition functions under Part 5 for which Ofcom is unable to levy a charge. I shall return to that matter.
I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 together. They concern the central functions and the alternative means by which they might be funded. As I said, we accept that there are central functions that cannot be funded from a levy. The best example of that is the costs of, for example, work on media literacy. We have recognised throughout that there will be orphan costs. We accept that, where it is genuinely impossible for such costs to be met through charges, some provision will need to be made from the Exchequer. We do not intend that Ofcom should levy a charge to cover those costs, as Amendment No. 89 would require. Indeed, the Office of Communications Act 2002 contains specific provision to enable the Secretary of State to make payments of grant to Ofcom. If that happens, Ofcom should set out clearly the functions for which it seeks the grant and the reasons why they cannot be supported in other ways. We see no reason for specific statements applying to those costs, as Amendment No. 90 would require. Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are unnecessary.
The final amendment, Amendment No. 91, reflects the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam, said, it is a rough old world. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, well funded people could sue Ofcom, and the money must be found from somewhere. That is true of any aspect of government. We could have another BSE crisis, and we have just had substantial expenditure on an Iraqi war, which could not have been anticipated and for which the Treasury had to make special provision.
We recognise the risks that, if Ofcom loses a legal case, it may find that the costs of the other parties are awarded against it, and that could be a lot of money. Ofcom has looked into the possibility of obtaining commercial cover against that, but I do not think that that will be possible, especially when there might be a statutory duty to undertake the legal action in the first place. If that were the case, it would be necessary for Ofcom to make a case for costs to be met from grant payments. The Office of Communications Act 2002 already allows the Secretary of State to pay grant to Ofcom from money provided for such purposes.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but I recognise the importance attached to the issues. I hope that my response, particularly that on Amendment No. 87, was helpful.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Minister sits down, is he really telling the Committee that in this major Bill, which sets out the long-term future through the 21st century for our broadcasting and
412
telecommunications industry, the kind of financial risks that it will undoubtedly face are to be dealt with on a begging-bowl basis for the contingency fund of the Government after the accidents have happened? Is no provision to be made for proper state backing for safeguarding our national interests in these matters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has been in government and has long experience. He knows that where we have contingent liabilities we make provision for them. Where there is no event anticipated which would give rise to a contingent liability, it is impossible to make provision. I say this time after time at Starred Questions in response to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. We are very transparent about our contingent liabilities. We provide a statement every year of contingent liabilities, even when they are unquantifiable. But those are risks for which there is some trigger. The risks of losing a legal action can apply to any part of government and no government can, or should, provide in legislation for how those risks will be covered. They are the responsibility of government. They do not need to be reflected in individual legislation.
Lord Puttnam: I thank the noble Lord for his response. I am hugely encouraged. He will understand that it would have helped me enormously if we could have had that kind of response a month or two ago. I failed my maths O-level and it has really tested everything that I have learned since to get to grips with these clauses.
I should like to make two points. I am slightly puzzled. The Minister raised the analogy of the Iraq war. He would agree that it would have been a poor incentive to Saddam Hussein to back off if he believed for one second that the Exchequer was not prepared to fund the costs of the military. It is not a great analogy, but it serves.
In a much earlier speech in Committee, my noble friend Lord Alli made a very good point. He said. "I come from that tough business, I am a producer. I know how to look after myself". He said to the Government, "Don't tempt me to test you". I suppose that what I am hoping to hear at Report is that the level of determination of the Government not to be, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, out-gunned by a tough global company is something which I am not suggesting necessarily should be on the face of the Bill, but that the Government must make it absolutely evident that they will back Ofcom to the hilt. If they find themselves head-to-head with one of the big beasts in the jungle, that big beast can assume that our pockets are, if anything, deeper than its. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Transitional functions and abolition of pre-commencement regulators]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 26, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Where under contractual arrangements in place prior to the commencement of the Act liability is established for payment of charges levied by pre-commencement regulators such arrangements shall continue to have effect after the abolition of the pre-commencement regulators as if they applied to charges levied by OFCOM."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 92 deals with transitional functions in Clause 28 and Amendment No. 320 concerns transitional provisions in Schedule 18. These amendments deal with the transitional arrangements for charges made by pre-commencement regulators for terrestrial-shared network infrastructure facilities. The effectiveness of these commercially managed and owned national network services is reflected in the fact that the UK is currently the acknowledged world leader in matters of terrestrial broadcasting networks and the introduction of new technologies and services.
The providers played a key role in the development of the UK's terrestrial radio and television and they also licence antenna space to mobile and fixed wireless operators in the United Kingdom, thus reducing the number of mast and tower sites that are needed. Most of the sites are potentially suitable for sharing by mobile operators, subject to planning permission and to obtaining third party consent—for example, from the landlord—and they can provide the mobile telephone industry with a significant proportion of its network site requirements in the United Kingdom.
Under present arrangements, the owners of the masts and towers enter into contracts for the provision of sharing arrangements with mobile operators, and these may include charges to recover the costs imposed by the existing regulator. The Bill provides Ofcom with the power to define what kind of communication providers are to he subject to charges and to fix the charges to he paid by those providers. It does not, however, specify the basis on which the charges would be levied. In essence, as it appears to fix charges, it is not clear whether costs associated with providing the services can continue to be passed on under the new arrangements. It would he unfair if new financial burdens were to be imposed on those providers in respect of existing contractual arrangements.
I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention. To make that clear, the amendments seek to ensure that existing contractual arrangements continue to have effect as if any new charges levied by Ofcom were, for the purposes of those contracts, charges made by the previous regulator. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not wish to preempt further debate but there is a very simple answer to the amendments. Clause 27 of the Bill and Schedule 2 associated with it— which we have already passed—contain provisions for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the existing regulators to Ofcom. These provisions give the Secretary of State
414
power to direct the existing regulators to make schemes to transfer their property, rights and liabilities to Ofcom. This includes liabilities of the kind to which the amendments relate.
Schedule 2 specifies the property, rights and liabilities that are capable of being transferred and specifically, at paragraph 2, includes provision the effect of which would be to ensure that references in any agreement, document, process or instrument of any description to the pre-commencement regulator would be treated as references to Ofcom once the scheme has come into force. The Bill already contains adequate provision.
Lord Avebury: That sounds very convincing. I wonder how it was that in the discussions between the Government and the proprietors of the masts and towers that was not made clear so that they did not feel it necessary to raise the matter with us and cause us to table the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Fixing of charges]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 94:
Page 35, line 32, leave out from "charges" to end of line 36 and insert "for a particular case includes—

(a) power to provide that the charges in that case are to be equal to the amounts produced by a computation made in the manner, and by reference to the factors, specified by them;

(b) power to provide for different charges to be imposed in that case on different descriptions of persons; and

(c) power to provide for particular descriptions of persons falling within subsection (2)(d) to (f) to be excluded from the liability to pay charges in that case."

The noble Lord said: The amendment gives clarification of the scope of the existing provisions. It adds nothing new to the Bill. A question was raised whether the existing wording was entirely consistent with the possibility that Ofcom might wish to levy administrative charges on a basis related to turnover. There was a suggestion that Ofcom might, on the contrary, be obliged to levy flat-rate charges—that is to say, that the charge should be the same for every person, or every person of a particular description, irrespective of the size of the business.
It is not the intention of the Bill to set out a particular charging system or systems to be used by Ofcom. There may be cases or categories for which flat-rate charges would be appropriate. Equally, there will certainly be categories for which other charging bases—perhaps relating to turnover—would be more

415
appropriate. The amendment removes any possible implication that Ofcom is limited to flat-rate charges. I am sure that it is a right change to make. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, both now and earlier in a letter that he kindly sent to me, a copy of which was placed in the Library. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendment and agree with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Power of OFCOM to set conditions]:
Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 42, line 31, at end insert—
"(9A) OFCOM shall not set conditions of a discretionary character under this section in any case in which they decide that a more appropriate way of proceeding in relation to the matter in question would be under the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41).
(9B) When OFCOM have come to a decision on the appropriate way of proceeding under subsection (9A) they shall publish a notice to that effect, giving their reasons for the decision, in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing their decision to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by it."
The noble Lord said: I hope that Ministers will find this group of amendments useful if not acceptable. We are trying to make sure that we have the balance right between Ofcom's sector-specific powers and the competition powers in the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002. I think our committee was much influenced by one of the Conservative members, Andrew Lansley, who had served on the Enterprise Bill in another place and had become quite an enthusiast for its powers, if properly used. We were also impressed by the evidence from Don Cruickshank, who said that the United Kingdom is acquiring a system of competition law "worthy of its name" and developing a culture of enforcement to match. Without going back to the previous debate, that culture of enforcement and resources of enforcement will be very important.
It was interesting that, on balance, the pre-legislative committee thought that, where it could, Ofcom should leave these matters to the competition and enterprise legislation to give greater certainty to the players in the sector that they have clear Acts to refer to and to make sure that Ofcom used its sector powers only where absolutely necessary. These amendments seek to get that balance right. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: We support these amendments. Clause 42 gives Ofcom the power to set conditions in the electronic communications industry. Amendment No. 95 would prevent Ofcom from setting conditions of a discretionary character if it decides that a more appropriate way of proceeding would be under the Competition Act 1998. That we entirely support.
416
Although I am not quite sure what,
"conditions of a discretionary character"
are, and whether the noble Lord, Lord McNally intends the amendment to apply only to those conditions referred to in Clause 42(10)(c), the purpose behind the amendment is, we think, entirely right. One of the principles of good regulation which we discussed in relation to Clause 3 is proportionality, and the proportionate approach of the regulator should be to apply ex ante regulation only where necessary. If competition law will do the trick, there should be no need to regulate. Furthermore, the amendment is entirely consistent with the framework directive which states in Recital 27:
"It is essential that ex ante regulatory obligations should only be imposed where there is not effective competition … and where national and community competition law remedies are not sufficient to address the problem".
In the light of the other obligations on Ofcom, it may be said that this amendment is not strictly necessary, but we believe it is right in principle and look forward to what the Minister will say in response.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 104 and 127 is to prevent Ofcom from making a market power determination where Ofcom has determined that the identified market is effectively competitive. That seems to us to be right. If the relevant market is effectively competitive, there is no need for Ofcom to interfere and it should not make a market power determination. As with Amendment No. 95, Amendment No. 104 makes explicit the obligation on regulators contained in the framework directive not to interfere when a market is effectively competitive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I, too, worked on the Enterprise Bill, and I am certainly enthusiastic about the idea of a general competition law applying, with sectoral law applying only when necessary. The problem is that we are now in Part 2. I shall bore the House by saying over and over again that Part 2 implements a number of European directives. Clause 42, to which Amendment No. 95 refers, implements article 6.1 and part A of the annexe of the authorisation directive and articles 4.1 and 4.3 of the access directive. Clauses 75 and 76 implement articles 14 and 15 of the framework directive. Clause 91 implements article 10 of the authorisation directive.
It would be lovely if general competition law could deal with all the matters under debate, but we have not yet reached that position in the European electronic communications network and services market. Progress across Europe varies, which is why we have supported the directives and why we are transposing them into United Kingdom law.
I recognise that Amendment No. 95 follows recommendation 74 of the Joint Committee report. As we said in the government response, we certainly understand the Joint Committee's concern that sectoral obligations should be confined to situations where normal competition legislation is not sufficiently effective for the special circumstances of this market. However, we believe that the Joint Committee's concerns are adequately dealt with in the

417
way in which conditions are set, especially in the requirements on the regulator before he sets any conditions.
The regulator can set conditions only where they are really needed and appropriate, and all activities of Ofcom are subject to provisions of Clause 3(3)(b). They must be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed. That is an adequate safeguard on the way in which Ofcom sets conditions, and makes Amendment No. 95 unnecessary.
Amendment No. 104 would add further requirements on Ofcom when considering the setting of significant market power conditions. We consider that to be unnecessary, too. As we promised in responding to the Joint Committee's recommendation 63, we considered again whether the Bill could be improved to provide that significant market power conditions were set only when there was no effective competition. The way in which we have drafted Clauses 75 and 76 give the effect that the Joint Committee required.
Significant market power conditions can be set only when someone has a position that amounts to dominance in the market concerned. That is set out in Clause 75(2), which refers to provisions of the framework directive to ensure that our interpretation of "dominance" is consistent with the interpretation across Europe. It is obvious that, if we have regulations consistent with European legislation, quite apart from the fact that we are obliged to introduce them, it is enormously to the benefit of the broadcasting and telecommunications industry that the same conditions should apply throughout Europe. If someone has "dominance", in our view and in the view of European Commission there is manifestly a lack of effective competition. In those circumstances, the regulator should be able to decide what ex ante conditions it is appropriate to set. Therefore, I do not believe Amendment No. 104 is necessary, and it follows that Amendment No. 127, which provides definitions, is unnecessary.
I see the argument in favour of Amendment No. 117. It is a good thing to have consistency with other parts of the Bill, although it has not worried us in the past. We are prepared to accept that amendment, if that is the wish of the House.
Lord McNally: I do not know whether to do a lap of honour. We understand that there are constraints. It is worth emphasising that the Joint Committee was not simply a nanny and a meddler. It did not simply add on responsibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seemed to suggest. We accepted the argument that the communication industries would benefit from the type of rigorous competition established by the Enterprise and Competition Acts. I quoted Don Cruickshank's feeling that this country now has some extremely good competition machinery. Consequently, and reverting to the previous debate, we want that machinery to have the necessary resources to make the provisions bite.
418
The Minister has given a most welcome response. Do we get the concession now? When we reach that part of the Bill, do we all say, "Agree"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord McNally: That is excellent. Thank you very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and await the win.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 60 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 62 [Obligations to be secured by universal service conditions]:
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasenmoved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 64, line 23, at end insert "; and
"(f) to secure the availability throughout the United Kingdom of affordable access to services of ever-greater bandwidth""
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 95A asks Ofcom to ensure that broadband services are included within the definition of what constitutes high-speed services. That will both hasten the design and delivery of broadband services and assist the Government to achieve their aim of the UK being the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. For the UK that means a high-tech infrastructure that will enable worthwhile jobs to be located anywhere in the country, and it means the ability to attract international investment and to compete effectively with other modern economies.
Overall, the problem is not predominantly one of supply. Most of the population of the UK now have access to a broadband service. Nevertheless, many rural users are prevented from accessing the technology because they live too far from their local exchange or their exchange has not been upgraded, or because the range of alternative access technologies are not available or are directed to the non-residential market.
There are a number of matters on which the Government need to take action. They need to show potential users the practical benefits of broadband through pilots and demonstration and showcase projects. The Government should publicise the benefits of broadband through major education and awareness programmes. They should take the lead in creating demand through the public sector by co-ordinating the response of public sector authorities at the local level, such as councils and schools, and by using the public sector, through the post office and library, as focal points for the delivery of broadband services.
Ofcom, of course, has the primary role in boosting take-up by providing a definition of universal service—the mechanism by which everyone has the right to receive certain communications service

419
regardless of where they live, at a price they can afford, which encompasses the high-speed delivery of those services.
Such is the success of broadband where it is available that no one accessing broadband will return to the narrow-band dial-up of yesterday. The services available through and generated by broadband delivery will become as essential to residential homes as the telephone and the power supply. Above all, a universal access requirement will ensure that we do not create a broadband barrier to go alongside the digital divide that already exists and that broadband instead becomes the means of overcoming that divide. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. As my noble friend Lord Lea indicated earlier, we had a meeting prior to this Bill with the unions involved in the industry. It is quite clear from those exchanges that the unions representing employees are very keen on broadband.
I have a letter from the Communication Workers Union that indicates that the union has,
"continually pressed for the obligation on government to guarantee the universal availability of affordable technology to be included within OFCOM's remit. Lack of leadership from government on the issue of providing broadband has led to the current slow and patchy availability across the country. This will result in a technological divide meaning that those on lower incomes or in rural locations will not be able to benefit from the new technology".
Clearly there is an important social message here. We want the new technologies to be universally available. It seems to us—hence our amendment—that this can best be achieved if it is made a responsibility of Ofcom and included in the Ofcom obligations. I support the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted to join the two noble Baronesses opposite in supporting the amendment. I am a regular user of broadband. I rely on it for my business. It is one of the reasons I have to live in London. If I were to move outside London. broadband would not be available to me. In the particular place where I might go to live in the country there would be difficulties in terms of getting broadband. No one is trying to make it happen.
The only opportunity to try to do something about the lack of availability of broadband in a small local exchange is to sign up on the relevant website. It is extremely difficult to get a campaign going among the users of that exchange. The cost of making an exchange broadband capable is a matter of a few thousand pounds. Some £10,000 or £15,000 would be sufficient for almost any rural exchange. If you can get together the people locally who would need the service and benefit from it and organise them to help BT subsidise the cost of that service, it can be done. But
420
BT is not facing in that direction and does not offer that as an option. It is difficult to get hold of anyone at BT to talk about it.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is the noble Lord aware that the sign-up campaign which he mentioned has worked extremely well in some areas, for example, in North Walsham where people got together privately and persuaded enough users to sign on at the website? They have now just achieved the breakthrough number which allows them to be connected to broadband. That will happen in July.
Lord Lucas: It can be done if there is sufficient impetus locally and someone is prepared to devote time to the matter. But the process ought to be assisted by the authorities. It is an absolutely vital part of the regeneration of the countryside that it should be possible for technologically aware businesses to be located there. To have such a process pushed and supported by BT and Ofcom would be much more satisfactory than having a situation where in certain parts of the countryside there happens to be someone with the time, initiative and knowledge to make it all happen. Ofcom and BT between them could make the whole process happen much faster.
The Government could be helpful too—in areas which are technologically difficult from the point of view of ADSL along fixed copper cables—in opening up the radio spectrum. They have not allowed BT to proceed with experiments with wave bands which would allow a reasonable coverage. You can get radio systems where the coverage is quite short. However, something which would stretch 20 kilometres or so and could be used as a wide area network happens to be occupied mostly by bits of the Government that they do not want to talk about. They do not seem inclined to let it go. But it is essential that the Government have an imperative to make broadband available in all parts of the country where it is commercially sensible to do so and that the Government are behind it and that the momentum of government is behind it. Without that, large parts of the countryside will become inoperable from the point of view of running a business there. That is not a sensible basis for government policy. Therefore, I entirely support the two noble Baronesses opposite.
Lord McNally: I want to support the amendment briefly. It has emerged in a number of areas, including disability, that we are within touching distance of real revolutions. In the case of broadband, there could be a gap between what hard-headed and hard-nosed businessmen will do, looking at shareholder value or some other priority, and the broader national interest.
Much of the evidence that we received showed that the opportunities that the rollout of broadband offers—it is often in the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and other Ministers—need a push from the Government. However, if there is a push from government, there will be an enormous beneficial

421
impact on the rural economy and for transport. A new and entirely beneficial avenue for development in such areas is opened up. It is very exciting.
Things seem constantly beyond our grasp, however. One has seen so often in other areas that there is the technology and the national demand, but there is insufficient government initiative to build the bridge between them. Therefore, I welcome the amendment, too.
Baroness Buscombe: We very much support the development of broadband, but we had this debate some days ago, quite fully.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We did indeed. I thought that I had made the Government's support for broadband clear when I responded to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. I hope that I made it clear that the Government are committed to making broadband available across the country. There are plenty of examples of the initiatives that we are undertaking. The East England Development Agency ran the "Connecting Communities" scheme, with 102 applicants at the close of the application period on 30th April. Act Now in Cornwall is using EU structural funds, and 13 exchanges have been ADSL-enabled as a result. I am sure that there are many more, but I do not have time to recollect them.
There is no doubt about our commitment to broadband. The trouble is that I have to address the amendment, and I have to do so in relation to Clause 61, which relates to must-carry obligations. The clause implements Article 6(1) and Condition 6 of Part. A to the annex of the authorisation directive, and Article 31 of the universal service directive.
For the time being, there are no Community obligations in relation to broadband. I wish there were. The Commission will review the requirements periodically, starting in 2005, but at the present stage of the development of communications services, there is no Community requirement, and we could not include a requirement relating to broadband in the Bill. That does not mean that we cannot do everything that we can ourselves, quite apart from the amendment, on the subject.
I beg the pardon of Members of the Committee; the amendment is tabled to Clause 62.
What would he added to the list of features for the universal service order is not of the same character as the others, which are the essential core characteristics of modern electronic communications systems. The Bill cannot specify the technological characteristics of future services in setting the requirements, and the legislation has to last for a number of years. Even if we were to include technological parameters, "ever-greater bandwidth" is not a single technological development that we might want to promote by specifying in statute.
In any case, I am not sure that bandwidth is the right word to use in legislation. I tremble in the presence of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Avebury, but surely a more precise definition than greater
422
bandwidth is higher data rates. I suspect that there is general agreement that bandwidth will continue to increase, but it is possible that compression technologies will develop so that other technical characteristics, such as latency, may become more important. Our commitment to broadband at this time is undoubted. We shall continue to be committed to it. However, for obvious reasons, I cannot support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord McNally, for supporting the amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the information that he gave us about the sign-up campaign. I was pleased to hear that that is happening successfully in parts of the country.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his helpful reply. In view of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 96:
Page 64, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: The amendments are concerned with the pricing of services that must be provided under the universal service conditions. As I understand it, that currently means fixed narrow band telephony and associated services, public call boxes and directory inquiries, which are provided by BT and Kingston Communications in Hull. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance in the universal service order about the pricing of those services. The Select Committee pointed out that that does not accurately reflect the division of responsibility between regulators and member stales in articles 9 and 10 of the universal service directive. A few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, emphasised that Part 2 does nothing more than implement the four directives and that was the basis of the Bill. It is therefore important that the Bill should accurately reflect what is in the directives. The committee said unambiguously that in this case it does not do that. I noticed that the government response to the Select Committee report carefully omitted references to articles 9 and 10 of the universal service directive.
Paragraph 156 of the select committee report recommended that,
"the Secretary of State should be required to give guidance about relative pricing for the same service among different customers".
That would be achieved by Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The Select Committee further recommended that Ofcom should be obliged to publish proposals relating to pricing in respect of universal service conditions and that the Secretary of State should in effect have the final say because of the wide political and social significance of pricing for those services and the need for direct political accountability. Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 do that. We simply cannot accept the five-line dismissal of those proposals in the

423
Government's response to the Select Committee without reference to the interpretation of the directive, which is the key to the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: Under Clause 62, the Secretary of State is under an obligation to make what is called the universal service order, which sets out a number of matters which must be provided throughout the UK by universal service providers. The price for services is of course an important matter because the cost of providing a service in Cornwall, for example, may be very different from the cost of providing a service in London. It may therefore be appropriate for the universal service order to contain guidance about pricing, and Clause 62 provides for that. However, Amendment No. 97 makes it mandatory for the universal service order to contain guidance relating to the pricing of services. That is really a matter for the regulator, who is independent of government, and there seems to me to he no reason for it to be mandatory for the Government to seek to influence the regulator.
However, the amendment requires the word "pricing" on its own to he left out, and that unduly restricts the Secretary of State's power. We should by all means give the Secretary of State power to include within the universal service order guidance about relative pricing. I am with the noble Lord on that point. He and I part company over whether or not the Secretary of State should have power to give guidance about pricing generally. We believe that that would be useful and the Secretary of State should have that power. However, it should not be mandatory for him to exercise it.
The thrust of Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 is to give the Secretary of State power to modify any proposals made by Ofcom which relate to the pricing of certain services and functions. Clause 62 provides for the Secretary of State to make a universal service order which must deal with certain specific functions and services to be provided or made available or supplied throughout the UK.
Clause 64(1) provides that Ofcom can set universal service conditions for securing compliance with the obligations set out in the universal service order. The effect of this amendment as regards pricing of the various services and functions is that Ofcom, instead of setting universal service conditions, must publish proposals which have then to be approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can then modify those proposals.
That, we believe, seems to be wrong in principle. Ofcom is intended to be an independent regulator and these matters should be left to it and not subject to interference by the Government. Nor do I think it is a sensible use of the time of the Secretary of State or Ofcom. It involves an order being made by the Secretary of State, Ofcom then publishing proposals consistent with that order, and then the Secretary of State reconsidering those proposals. The Secretary of State is therefore involved at two stages.
424
I would have thought it better for the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom at an early stage so the universal service order is quite clear as to what the Secretary of State requires. Clause 62(4) contains such a provision and we believe that that is a much better solution than the one proposed in the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First, I apologise for misplacing Amendment No. 95A, which led me to a number of errors. I said that it was in Clause 61. In fact, it is in Clause 62. I said that Clause 61 was about the must-carry obligations, which indeed it is, but Clause 62 is about the universal service obligation. I therefore misrepresented the European directives with which Clause 62, and therefore Amendment No. 95A, are concerned. Clauses 62 and 64 to 66 implement articles 3 to 7 and 9 to 11 and Part A of Annex 1 to the universal service directive. I apologise for that, but it cannot be put right in Hansard.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We said in response to the Joint Committee that we do not think Ministers should do more than offer general guidance on the pricing of the universal service. We envisage that by way of guidance on the pricing of universal service obligations—this, after all, implements the universal service order and we have published a draft of the guidance for consultation—charges for essential elements of universal service should be offered on the basis of geographically average prices. That addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, beyond that, we believe that decisions should be left to Ofcom.
We are deliberately setting the framework for dealing with the electronic communications sector over the coming years, setting up a high-powered regulator to deal with the detail in the manner prescribed in the Bill. We do not want to reserve all the details involved in the amendment to government. There is no need for government to take political decisions on the pricing of the universal service. It would not be desirable for the telecommunications industry and it would not be desirable for consumers.
Clause 65 requires Ofcom to keep universal service tariffs under review. It provides that universal service conditions can require the use of a common tariff for the provision of network services, apparatus, associated facilities, directories and directory inquiry facilities set out in the universal service order. In cases specified by Ofcom, special tariffs may be required. I believe that these measures are sufficient to secure fair pricing for universal services under Ofcom and there is no need to resort to further intervention by Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that the Bill does not accurately reflect the directive. We believe that it does, particularly in the difference in the obligation specified in articles 9.1 and 9.2 of the universal service directive. But I appreciate that he has raised a precise point and I would like to write to him to explain it in more detail.
Lord Avebury: It is a pity that the Government did not address the point properly in the reply that they

425
made to the Joint Committee. It is clear in paragraph 156 of the committee's report that it did not believe that there is a mirroring in the Bill of the division of responsibility between NRAs and member states in Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Service Directive. The Minister has said that he disagrees with that opinion. If he had given the reasoning for his conclusion to the Joint Committee, it might well have been accepted. I do not know.
I shall have to discuss the matter with members of the Joint Committee, as I was not a serving member. I should particularly like to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, before deciding whether this is a matter to which we should return on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Subject-matter of universal service conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Tariffs etc. for universal services]
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 102:
Page 66, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
"( ) Universal service conditions must secure that a designated undertaking, in providing facilities and services additional to those referred to in the universal service order, establishes terms and conditions in such a way that the customer is not obliged to pay for facilities or services which are not necessary or not required for the service requested by the customer."
The noble Lord said: As currently drafted, subsections (3) and (4) of this clause implement the Universal Service Directive in a way which, we say, "gold plates" the EU rules. The approach will adversely affect universal service providers in a way that we do not believe was intended by the directive.
The universal service order, made by the Secretary of State under Clause 62, sets out the extent to which the things specified in subsection (2) of the clause must be made available and supplied throughout the United Kingdom, while under Clause 63 Ofcom has the power to designate universal service providers, who are persons to whom the order applies.
Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 65, which this amendment proposes to remove from the Bill, are intended to implement Article 10(1) of the EU's Universal Service Directive, though the Explanatory Notes do not actually say so. Article 10(1) requires that if designated undertakings—USPs under this Bill—provide additional services beyond those mandated by the USO, they must,
"establish terms and conditions in such a way that the subscriber is not obliged to pay for facilities or services which are not necessary for the service requested".
In the case of Kingston Communications and BT, the products and services provided under the USO include telephony services and calls, public payphones, and
426
special services for low-income users. So the directive says, as we have it in Amendment No. 102, that if they provide services outside those specified in the USO they must not charge the customer for other facilities or services that are not necessary for the particular service requested.
The directive says nothing about the charges made for services provided under the USO, but the Bill as drafted wrongly interprets Article 10(1) as meaning that customers of the basic services shall not be required to "subsidise" other services, meaning services provided outside the USO. This would mean that any normal profits generated from products supplied under the universal service obligation, such as telephone calls, cannot be invested in the start-up and development of new products and services.
Telecommunications is a dynamic and rapidly developing industry with new service capabilities becoming available, such as broadband access— a subject that we have just discussed—which are of economic and social value to customers. It is perfectly normal for such new service introductions to be initially loss-making and, therefore, in effect subsidised by the profits generated by more mature services. If the ability to rely on some degree of internal cross-subsidy is removed, service innovation will he severely restricted and ultimately consumers will suffer.
The prices of the products and services provided under the universal service order are already constrained by competitive forces or by direct controls by Oftel, providing the market and regulatory pressure that the directive intended. Both Kingston Communications and BT would be harmed by the current wording, but Kingston would be hit much harder because of its size. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I may—
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to preempt debate, but I could be helpful to the amendment, which might save time.
We agree that the intention of Article 10(1) of the universal service directive appears to be that subscribers to any of the universal services mandated by the directive should not be required to pay for other facilities or services where those are not a necessary part of that service. Certainly, we think the drafting will achieve that but we recognise the concern that it might lead to more extensive regulatory interventions than are envisaged by the directive, which is "officialese" for what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, called "gold plating".
So, we are sympathetic to the intention of the directive. We should like to consider the point further. We shall undertake that the Government will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report on that point.
Lord Avebury: That is a most satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Specific types of access-related conditions]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 71, line 42, at end insert "; and
(c) that where the practices required by the code for electronic programme guides under section 304 in relation to the type of selection described in subsection (2A)(a)(ii) of that section require additional software or an additional facility to be provided in relation to the guide, that such facility or software be provided within a reasonable period of time, and that the terms as to price on which it is provided are set to entitle the recovery of the direct cost of making the facility or software available together with a reasonable return for the provider only."
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to a very important problem, which I referred to at Second Reading. Up until now the BBC's programmes have been transmitted in encrypted form for users of set-top boxes but from 30th May onwards they will be in the clear. That means that digital satellite viewers in the UK will be able to receive the eight BBC channels without the use of a Sky viewing card, through any make of digital satellite receiver, but current and future Sky subscribers will still be able to receive all the BBC's services.
The BBC states that it will save an estimated £85 million over the next five years because it will no longer need BSkyB's conditional access system. Nearly half of those savings, £40 million, will be used to improve access to the BBC's national services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland plus, for the first time, the 15 regional variations of BBC1 in England will be available on satellite and will be listed on the Sky electronic programme guide. That means that viewers will be able to choose the regional or national version of the BBC that they prefer, irrespective of where they may be living.
The BBC has been able to do that because its conditional access contract with Sky expires at the end of May and because the signals which it now proposes to transmit are being tightly focused via the Astra 2D satellite, which eliminates the rights problems that would have arisen with the larger footprint of the old transmissions.
In order to give the viewers the ability to select the version of BBC1 and BBC2 of their choice, the EPG software needs to be modified and the BBC obviously hopes that that can be done as soon as the new arrangements begin and at a reasonable cost. Sky, on the other hand, is understandably miffed at the prospect of losing a substantial income over the next five years and would like to make up some of the difference via its monopoly on the EPG.
The software is a proprietary system, but the BBC knows enough about the way it works to be able to say that the modification it needs is fairly simple. It would
428
be prepared to pay a fair price to Sky for the programming work, including a fair profit margin, and that is what the amendment proposes. In the absence of such a provision, Sky could hold the BBC to ransom. It has already said that it is unwilling to do what the BBC asks when there are other commercial opportunities that it could pursue with the limited programming capacity at its disposal.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the EPG. It is a combined Radio Times and channel selector. If an agreement is not reached between the BBC and Sky, it is the viewers who will suffer. This is par excellence a case where the regulator should have the power to set conditions so as to ensure that the customer of a monopoly is not held to ransom. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment. I hope it will provide the following benefits. First, that it will underline Parliament's support for the availability of high-quality public service programming on the digital satellite platform, including local and regional services such as news and current affairs; secondly, that it will enable television viewers to select easily the regional services of their choice; and, thirdly, that it will ensure that satellite operators are guaranteed a fair price for making any required software upgrades.
In the Broadcasting Act 1996, Parliament made its intention quite clear regarding the access to public service channels broadcast on digital platforms. By defining the principles of "fair access" and "due prominence", it ensured that public service channels could be easily located by viewers using electronic programme guides.
However, as we all know, further advances in technology—apart from providing for a proliferation in the total number of channels available—have now provided, as we have heard, the opportunity to further extend viewer choice in the area of regional services. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the amendment is important for ensuring that digital satellite viewers have the maximum choice over which public service regional services they want to watch on the top slots of the electronic programme guide.
As we have heard, following its recent decision to broadcast unencrypted on Sky's digital platform, the BBC has announced that it intends to place its regional services on Sky's EPG. It also wants viewers to select which regional service they want to watch on slots 101 and 102.
For the vast majority of viewers the choice of regional programming will no doubt be determined by where they live. However, there will now be a choice for them to take the decision for themselves. A Scot, for example, working in London may wish to keep in touch with his or her local news north of the Border. Similarly, a Londoner who resides—no doubt because of his job—in the West Country may relish the opportunity to keep up-to-date with local news in the capital.

429
To facilitate this consumer choice, the BBC has requested that Sky make the required simple software upgrade to its EPG system. I believe that both ITV and Channel 4 support the amendment because in the future they too may possibly want to offer a similar choice to viewers.
It is important that Parliament gives some guidance in the Bill as to how the cost of these potential software upgrades are to be regulated and the speed with which they are to be implemented. Naturally, platform operators are entitled to recover in full the costs they incur in carrying out such upgrades and—I may say—to receive a reasonable profit margin for so doing. There must be no question of public service broadcasters getting something for nothing.
Similarly, attempts to provide greater consumer choice must not be hindered by interminable disputes over the cost and timing of providing such upgrades. In debates that have taken place outside the House, we have had examples of some of those. So, by addressing the issues of cost and timing, the hope is that this amendment will not only protect the interests of the platform operators—which is perfectly legitimate—but that the public interest aspect will also be fully taken into account.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I put my name to the amendment because it came closest to what I was looking for in the Bill as regards either conditional access or electronic programme guides. I do not regard the amendment as being fully satisfactory. I hope that on Report the Government will return with an amendment couched in even more general terms, which simply gives power to Ofcom to intervene proactively to fix tariffs.
I do not sign up in full either to the position of the BBC or to the position of Sky. Both are misrepresenting each other like nobody's business. But what I am clear about is the fact that we have a monopoly supplier and we need proper regulation in the public interest as to how it operates.
I leave it to the Government to do that. Also, I fully recognise that the nature of the game is changing. Incidentally, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do not think that the BBC is going to switch on 30th May precisely because it is involved in negotiations with Sky. To be frank, much fine verbiage about this matter has been exchanged, but the two organisations are playing a poker game to decide how much to pay. We have two very good poker players in the BBC and Sky. I am simply concerned that the public interest could be lost unless Ofcom is given the power to intervene and say, "We are not leaving you two to go on like this for another year. This is what will happen." I hope the Government will come forward with something on Report to address that.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. When I was in the private sector, I recall a dispute between our world-wide auditors and our German subsidiary. It was perfectly clear that there had been a total breakdown in communication between them. I
430
intervened personally because it was obvious that, while intelligent people were corresponding on both sides, in fact they were paying no attention to the letters they were receiving from the other side. That appears very much on a par with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, about the misrepresentation of the parties concerned.
This is an important issue. While I do not seek remotely to put myself in the position of Ofcom in regulating the dispute in Germany many years ago. I know that it is important that the power should exist so that good sense can prevail.
Lord Lipsey: We should not think that Ministers are granted a monopoly on opposing amendments. I am afraid that I oppose this amendment, although I do not oppose some of those appearing later on the Marshalled List such as Amendment No. 250A whereby the BBC seeks to address the same problem.
We have discussed the issue before. My noble friend Lord Gordon and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, have described the problem well. We have here the BBC trying to get Sky to provide it with a lot for a little, and Sky trying to get a lot for providing a little; it is a standoff situation. We experienced much the same last year when the BBC was trying to persuade Sky to carry all its services for practically nothing. Of course the correct thing ultimately took place. After looking at all the facts, Oftel gave a considered ruling and determined what the appropriate price would be—and that was the end of it.
In this case, there are two substantial matters of fact on which the parties disagree. The first is whether the software upgrade is as simple as the BBC insists. Or is it not? I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have examined the software in detail and are able to answer that question for the Committee. Personally. I have nothing like the technical knowledge to do so. Secondly, what kind of pricing regime would be fair? Simply to say "cost/plus" is not sufficient. Is the BBC to borrow Sky's technicians and decide what is the appropriate cost for such a technician and then decide what is the appropriate plus? Is it to be decided by Parliament without examination by means of this kind of amendment? That is not the approach we need.
What has to take place and what is the sensible approach is for the two parties to enter into negotiations. If they cannot agree, then it will go to Ofcom to resolve. Indeed, some of the later amendments will make clear the kind of conditions under which Ofcom should resolve such a dispute. Furthermore, let us not doubt that Ofcom has the power to resolve it. It would be wrong for this Committee to reach a technical decision on the technology or a decision on the appropriate pricing regime by supporting this amendment. I hope that we shall find a way of helping to resolve the situation, but this amendment ain't it.
7 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Existing legislation already gives guarantees on both conditional access and EPGs that there should be fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. The regulators already have that power and Ofcom will have it as well. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. I believe that the regulator will have the tools required, as it were, if it is necessary to intervene in this dispute.
While I am in one sense sympathetic to the BBC case, I cannot agree with this amendment. However, later amendments concerning due prominence, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, may have greater validity. Have the Government looked at the arguments on either side? Most of us do not have the technical knowledge to give us any idea of whether the satellite footprint of the proposal will cover Ireland and, therefore, affect the RTE service, preventing the BBC, if it broadcasts in the clear, from having slots one or two. Have the Government asked the ITC for its advice?
In the same way, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, says, I do not think that any of us have any idea about software upgrades. All I know is that, usually, when someone upgrades my software, it never works as well afterwards—definitely not for the first month. It is wildly optimistic of the BBC to say that it knows about someone else's software and that it can be upgraded easily. The important point is that the regulator seems to have the necessary power. I question whether we should insert in the Bill such an amendment, which seems to go too far.
Lord McNally: I do not share the complacency of either the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, or the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about the present powers of the regulator and the powers that the Bill gives Ofcom. I see real problems. It is difficult to tell whether the amendment addresses it properly, as we are only at Committee stage. By the time the Bill is enacted, I hope that we have proper powers. In my experience over the years, when great corporations have the choice between trying to score short-term advantages off one another or acting in the public interest, all too often they go for short-term, petty victories. In Tony Ball and Greg Dyke we are not dealing with men who have gone through the Lucie Clayton charm school. I fear that we are in for some macho corporate mud-wrestling between the BBC and Sky. But it will be the consumer who ends up dirty and dishevelled.
Of course we do not know all the technology involved. The Government and Ofcom need to obtain proper advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said, I have been heavily lobbied by both Sky and the BBC. I have told both broadcasters that if they keep on playing for a 100 per cent victory they will irritate Parliament and end up with legislation that they do not like at all. They will deserve what they get. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, says that we should let the broadcasters get on with negotiating, and that we have provision in the Bill. That is a recipe for chaos and
432
dissatisfied consumers five years down the road. We may not have got it perfect this time, but we are only in Committee stage—
Viscount Astor: Does the noble Lord agree that the current regulators and Ofcom have the powers to regulate both conditional access and EPG services?
Lord McNally: Having looked at the industry over the past few years, one of my concerns is just how long. It is not a question of the broad powers written into the Bill, but how effective the regulation will be. I am attracted by the fact that the amendment deals with a specific problem that needs to be addressed. I do not want it to be caught up with some general powers that the lawyers will take away year after year. When it is claimed that that cannot happen, I say that they have already done it. Part of my concern is that previous practice in this area involving disputes has involved long "lawyerfests" rather than quick resolution in favour of the consumer; and that is what we should be trying to achieve in this Bill.
Lord Lipsey: The noble Lord says with great wisdom that we should not go 100 per cent BBC or 100 per cent Sky. Why, then, is he putting his weight behind an amendment that is, in drafting and content, 100 per cent BBC? Why does he not suggest an amendment that balances the two?
Lord McNally: I did not say whether I would go 100 per cent BBC. I have not come to a decision yet. What I am saying and what I have made clear to Sky is that, because of a chapter of historical accidents, it has ended up with a monopoly. That does not mean that Sky should be on the gravy train, able to milk public broadcasters for whatever it can get for as long as it can. If it tries to do that, Parliament will intervene. That is the friendly warning that I gave Sky and to Sky friends such as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I see that the noble Lord is unprovokable—
Lord Lipsey: The noble Lord knows me better than that. I am neither on Sky's side nor the BBC's side. I said earlier that I supported some of the later BBC amendments, as does the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It is the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is on one side. This is the BBC's amendment and gives the BBC 100 per cent of what it wants, which is why it would be so unwise to accept it.
Lord McNally: I shall finish by reminding the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of some advice I received from Ian Mikardo MP many years ago. He said, "Tom, if you stand in the middle of the road, you get hit by the traffic going both ways".
Baroness O'Cathain: I intervene briefly in the debate, although I have a terrible sense of déjà-vu, having been knocked about on the issue in debates on the 1996 Broadcasting Bill.
In all our discussions about the BBC and Sky and how the two are locking horns, we should not forget about the customer or consumer. I support the

433
amendment because I want to make sure that viewers have easy access to public service channels. We should not forget that we are talking about public service broadcasting, and consumers should have easy access to it. I am sure that we will have a long debate on this again on Report.
Baroness Buscombe: It would be remiss of me not to say something on behalf on Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on such an emotive subject.
Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have made clear how tough the situation is. We have all been strenuously lobbied by both sides. Some of us were fortunate enough to attend a debate on these matters chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. As a result of that debate, having heard all sides of the arguments made by the BBC, Sky and others from the platform, I became convinced that the issue should not be subject to primary legislation.
That said, I agree with Carolyn Fairbairn of the BBC that, if we continue to believe in the value of public service broadcasting, we must ensure that public service broadcasting channels can be easily found. That is not the subject of the amendment; it is a subject for a later debate. The pricing and technological issues are difficult, and most of us would agree that we do not necessarily understand them entirely, having been given different stories by the BBC and Sky. Surely, however, the reason why the Bill is before us is to set up the regulator, Ofcom, and to give it powers to deal with such issues. Those issues will arise, and they are important, but we should not try to confront them in primary legislation.
I must defend the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and my noble friend Lord Astor. Their contributions did not show complacency about what the Bill can provide for or the powers that will be given to Ofcom to deal with such issues. We are all waiting to hear the Government's response on the issue.
Baroness Blackstone: I begin by saying that I am not taking sides on this issue. I think that both Mr Greg Dyke and Mr Tony Ball are utterly charming. It may not be the Lucie Clayton school of charm but, in my view, they are both delightful gentlemen to spend time with.
Lord McNally: She has just got herself half way to the next "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here".
Baroness Blackstone: No thanks! I strongly identify with what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has just said. This is a BBC-inspired amendment. It concerns a particular dispute which is taking place and I am not sure that we should be amending primary legislation to deal with a dispute of this type in this way. I agree with quite a lot of what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said and, indeed, what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said. There are already provisions which allow the regulator and the broadcaster the platform to sort out such a dispute.
434
However, my main reasons for rejecting this amendment are technical. Amendment No. 102A seeks to amend Clause 71. As noble Lords will see. it relates directly to the new subsection (2A)(a )(ii) that Amendment No. 250A would introduce to Clause 304. This provision would have the effect of giving viewers the ability to manipulate their EPGs and, where the implementation of this necessitated the provision of a particular facility or piece of software, Amendment No. 102A would allow Ofcom to set conditions on EPG providers to ensure that they supplied the facility or software concerned within a reasonable period of time and at no more than a modest profit.
More fundamentally, I must underline the fact that Clause 71(2) has been drafted specifically to implement Article 5(1)(b) of the access directive. The precise reference—which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will ask for if I do not give it —is Directive 2002/19/EC dated 7th March on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities. It is related solely to the access-related conditions that national regulatory bodies may impose and provides that Ofcom is able to impose obligations on operators to provide access to EPGs and application programme interfaces on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
Clause 71(2) already transposes article 5(1)(b) in full and to alter it in the way suggested would take it beyond the bounds of what is permitted by that provision. We are therefore debarred from doing what has been proposed. For technical reasons we have to reject this amendment, but I think the other reasons for rejecting this amendment were well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Lord Avebury: I always think that governments must have very weak cases if they have to fall back on technical arguments for rejecting an amendment. It was a pity that the noble Baroness did not address the real problem. We are coming to the end of May, when the BBC is going free-to-air and when the question of how viewers will access programmes is of crucial importance. I think that there has been a certain amount of complacency in certain quarters—though not all—and I am grateful to those noble Lords and Baronesses who have supported the amendment, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, whose comments I greatly welcomed.
I do not think that the Government are sufficiently seized of the urgency of this problem. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, may say, it is the intention of the BBC to go free-to-air at the end of this month. The question of what happens to the EPG and how consumers are to obtain the BBC1 and BBC2 of their choice is urgent. It is no good saying that somewhere—
Viscount Astor: Is the noble Lord aware that the only reason that the issue arises is not because the BBC wishes to broadcast "in the clear" but it wishes to have regional services available? If it puts off the introduction of the access to regional services. the main BBC programmes can be seen broadcast "in

435
the clear" without any problem after the end of May and for as long as anyone wants. Adding the regional element is the only difference.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Being able to access the BBC1 and BBC2 of your choice is of critical importance. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, you are asking for consumers to be able to look at the programmes of their choice. Everyone agrees that that is a most important element of the new system being developed by the BBC, which is costing £40 million—or half of the savings it is making by not having to go through the encryption services of BSkyB.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: What do we mean when we refer to the "main BBC service"? The one out of London? That is actually a regional service for London. Given the devolved situation that we have in Scotland, if you broadcast something that does not cover Scottish affairs, you are positively misleading the population. You could refer to a Minister for Education, a Minister for Housing and a Minister for Health who have no authority in Scotland.
Not only that, contempt of court regulations are different. To my certain knowledge, when my successor was at Radio 4 he was fined £10,000 because his radio station broadcast a Scotland Yard press release which was okay south of the Border but not okay in Scotland. There is no such thing as a mainstream BBC service. The service is regionalised throughout the country, much to its credit.
Lord Avebury: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, is trying to say. I think he, as a Scot in London, was underlining the importance of being able to see the Scottish service. Equally, if an Englishman in Edinburgh wants to see a regional English service, he should be able to do so.
436
If we do not tackle the problem now, after 30th May we will have a situation where all the money being spent by the BBC—the £40 million—will be wasted from the consumer's point of view because he or she will not get the benefit of the regional services on offer.
The software referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—who do not believe the BBC's contention that this a fairly modest alteration in the programme—does not matter. We are not putting a price on it. We are saying that the BBC should have to pay whatever the software alteration costs may be, plus a suitable profit margin. Whether that is £100,000 or £1 million is neither here nor there if we do not give Ofcom the powers contained in the amendment.
There is no alternative. The Minister did not refer to another solution. She merely said that we would not do well to pass primary legislation to deal with a dispute between two major corporations; that we should allow the regulators to sort it out. If she is of that opinion, she is condemning the industry to months, or perhaps even longer, of uncertainty. She is saying that consumers will not be able to access the important new services that would be available to them if the dispute was sorted out.
We shall not solve the issue on the Floor of the House today. I shall return to it at a later stage in the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Market power determinations]:
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 90 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

  G8 Meeting, Evian, 1 to 3 June 2003
  G8 Meeting, Evian, 1 to 3 June 2003
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Offending Rates and Social Security Benefits/Sanctions
  Offending Rates and Social Security Benefits/Sanctions
  Suicide
  Suicide