Sitting of 20 January 2004

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

    Non-NHS Health Professionals
    Dr. Richard Taylor: If he will make a statement on the ranges of expenditure in 200–02 by (a) acute trusts and (b) primary care trusts on salaries to non-NHS nurses, midwives and health visitors. [148784]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): Expenditure on non-NHS nurses, midwives and health visitors by NHS trusts in 2001–02 ranged from nil to £17.7 million, with an average of £2.1 million. The range for PCTs was nil to £2.1 million, with an average of £150,000.
    Dr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that a high spend on agency nurses carries with it a possible adverse effect on the continuity of care, and therefore on the standard of care? Is it not therefore unwise to have included in the list of trusts for foundation status the two with the highest spend on non-NHS or agency nurses?
    Miss Johnson: We recognise that there is a continuing need for agency staffing as a result of the fast expansion in NHS services, but it is also important for the NHS to Supply—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) must be seated.
    Miss Johnson: It is also a matter for the NHS to supply more staff itself. We are therefore working to reduce the costs involved, and to increase the role of NHS professionals in this regard. Currently about 40 per cent. of trusts are involved, and many more may see the advantage both to standards of care, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) says, and to the cost benefits of using NHS professionals in future.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On the question of agency midwives, there is a shortage of NHS midwives across the country. Will my hon. Friend consider the suggestion from the Royal College of Midwives to
    1196
    provide midwives with a £10,000 bursary? Will she also consider giving graduate midwives maternity pay, because when they are on a bursary, they do not get it? The midwives who deliver other people's babies are therefore not getting any money for themselves when they go on maternity leave.
    Miss Johnson: I agree that it is important that there should be more midwives, and I recognise that there are still needs in that area of the NHS. Lively discussions are taking place on the arrangements in further and higher education, and perhaps it would be best to get through those discussions before we move on to the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made. We will, however, bear them in mind when considering future developments.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Minister agree that it is not only expenditure on health visitors and midwives that we should be looking at? We should also consider expenditure on a whole range of integrated health care services, given that 75 per cent. of the population want a wider range of services, including herbal medicine, acupuncture, osteopathy and chiropractic, which is effectively in the mainstream now. What is the Minister doing to ensure that, in this new world of greater consultation, she is listening to what the patients want?
    Miss Johnson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is also important to see big increases in expenditure and doctors in the NHS as well as recognising a wider role for other services. I am sure that he will want to congratulate staff in his own constituency, where there have been big increases in numbers and in the projects that have been built in the acute sector, along with the completion of new hospital facilities. We all owe NHS staff many thanks for the work that they do.
    On the hon. Gentleman's wider question, of course it is important that other facilities should be offered to patients, but I am sure that he would agree that the 23 NHS-run treatment centres, the two independent sector centres and the 42 walk-in centres—which are a novelty—are also an important part of the development. We see a lot of development taking place in primary care as well as in the acute sector, and I hope that he recognises the advantage of that.
    Mr. John Baron: The Minister will be aware that last year, for the first time, more than half the new entrants to the nursing work force were from overseas. The Government will also be aware that their own code of practice on ethical recruitment, although adhered to by NHS trusts, has not been signed up to by all the agencies that the NHS uses to recruit nurses from overseas, and that, partly as a consequence of that, Britain has taken about 7,000 nurses from South Africa since Nelson Mandela first pleaded with us in 1997 not to do so. If the Minister accepts that poor countries need their nurses even more than we do, and given the current reliance on agency nurses in the NHS, when will the Government stop poaching nurses from developing countries and ban the NHS from dealing with agencies that do not sign up to their own rules?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is barking up completely the wrong tree. We only use agencies that

    1197
    have signed up to the protocol and code that we support, which involves recruiting staff only from countries that are happy to supply surplus staff in conditions under which the code operates. What the hon. Gentleman alleges is therefore completely untrue. The only staff working in the NHS are working under those arrangements.

    Speech Therapy Services
    Angela Watkinson: What measures he is taking to improve access to speech therapy services. [148785]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): The number of speech and language therapists employed in the national health service has increased by 22 per cent. since 1997, and the number of people in training has increased by 31 per cent. since 1999–2000. These are significant improvements on the very difficult position that the Government inherited, and we are driving further improvements by encouraging service re-design, by developing joint working between health and education, and by developing the roles of support staff to make the best use of professional skills.
    Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but he may be interested to know that the Barking and Dagenham primary care trust has found it impossible to recruit speech therapists for a number of years, so it is quite unable to meet the demand. What hope can he extend to my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Handley for their son Ross, and Mr. and Mrs. Mee for their daughter Courtenay? Their children are simply not receiving the speech therapy that they so desperately need.
    Dr. Ladyman: I should point out that although Barking and Dagenham may currently be having problems—I would be the first to admit that things are not yet as good as I would like them to be—the situation is a lot better than it was in 1997, thanks to the fact that there are now 1,090 more speech therapists working in this country, and thanks to the 32 per cent. increase in training places. As a result, there is hope that the hon. Lady's constituents will, in future, be able to find the speech and language therapy that they need.
    John Cryer: I represent a constituency in the London borough of Havering—the same borough as the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). It is true that there is a shortage of speech therapists going back some years, particularly in outer London. That shortage is certainly connected to the high cost of living in the south-east. I recognise what my hon. Friend says about the increase in training provision and in the number of speech therapists, but can something be done to address this specific problem in the south-east, where the cost of living affects the recruitment of speech therapists?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend has made a very constructive suggestion that the local primary care trust certainly needs to explore. We are looking at service design and at different ways of working to improve the efficiency with which we use speech and language
    1198
    therapists. We are also looking at the use of support workers to achieve better value for money from speech and language therapists, but my hon. Friend's suggestion about the efforts in which the PCT ought to be engaging is a very constructive one.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Speech therapy is among the many services provided by the head injuries unit at the Townlands hospital, in Henley. How is it possible, at a time when this Government are allegedly pumping umpteen billions into the NHS, that it should be seriously contemplated that that hospital close? Will the Minister do everything in his power to live up to his Government's promises and stop the closure of this valued and much-loved local hospital?
    Dr. Ladyman: The reconfiguration of hospital services, as the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows, is a matter for local decision. We have devolved these matters to local areas so that local people can be involved in local decisions. If I were in a position to ask the hon. Gentleman the sort of question that he has just asked me, I would ask him how many speech and language therapists there would be if we carried out his plans to cut spending by 20 per cent.

    NHS Trust Deficits
    Tom Brake: What estimate he has made of the total projected deficits in NHS trusts in England for the end of this financial year. [148786]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Audited information on the financial position of national health service trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts. These data will be available centrally in the autumn. We have no plans to publish unaudited information.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Does he agree that many strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and acute trusts are suffering from years of underinvestment? Will he tell the House what assessment he has made of waiting times and of the number of beds and operations, in terms of requiring acute trusts such as my own, which I understand has a deficit of £8 million, to achieve financial balance in the year 2003—04?
    Dr. Reid: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that for many years—indeed, for decades—the NHS had been suffering from underinvestment. That is why the largest and longest ever sustained increases in investment under this Government are only now beginning to show distinct improvements: to some extent, trusts have been back-filling for the underinvestment that occurred in the years of the previous Government. I know that trusts in the hon. Gentleman's own area—Epsom and St. Helier, for instance—have been forecasting a deficit position for several months. However, with additional support provided by the local strategic health authority and local primary care trusts, it is expected to break even by the year end.

    1199
    It goes without saying that, despite those difficulties, the increased investment in the same area has resulted in 15 additional consultants in the past three years; 13 more modern matrons appointed; and a 15-bedded stroke unit, which opened at St. Helier in June 2002. The forecast income for the primary care trust—the most important matter there—has increased by £12.5 million, which is just over 6 per cent. Yes, there are difficulties because of the decades of underinvestment, but we should congratulate NHS staff on taking the investment and doing such a good job in carrying out significant improvements in every area.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the budget problems can arise, as in Chorley, where there has been a huge increase in population that has not been reflected in the NHS budget? We are talking about 10 per cent. growth year on year, so what can we do to ensure that the budget reflects that population growth?
    Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend knows, in the last internal redistribution of moneys to NHS trusts throughout the country, we tried to take a number of factors into account. For instance, need has now become a more important benchmark than in the past, which has affected the redistribution. In the next round, in addition to need, I shall have regard to demographic trends. If my hon. Friend can point me in the direction of any inequities of distribution resulting from under-assessed demographic trends, I shall certainly bear them in mind.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Everyone knows that more money is being spent on the national health service, and, alas, everyone knows that far too much of that money is not reaching the front line. That is why a 37 per cent. increase in spending has produced only a 5 per cent. increase in activity. Will the Secretary of State now admit that many individual trusts do indeed face deficits as they approach the year end—including the trust where the chairman of the British Medical Association himself works? James Johnson warned in the autumn of a possible £7 million deficit in his trust's budget. Is it not the case that tackling that problem at the individual level can only be done at the expense of services to patients in areas that are not covered by one of the Government's numerous targets through which the Secretary of State determines the priorities that local managers have to follow?
    Dr. Reid: I know the hon. Gentleman has double the jobs of anyone else, but he must try to get to grips with at least half of his portfolio—the health service. It is absolute rubbish to say that there has been a 37 per cent. input and a 5 per cent. output in productivity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your figures."] They are not our figures. They are figures that relate only to hospital consultants. They ignore, for instance, the 42 NHS walk-in centres and the 6.3 million calls made to NHS Direct—completely new services, only in existence for the past few years. They even regard the 25 per cent. reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease—because they result
    1200
    not from hospital consultants but from new drugs—as a fall in productivity in the health service. How perverse is that? The hon. Gentleman should at least give credit to NHS staff by accepting that in millions of ways—through NHS Direct, walk-in centres, more operations being performed in primary care trusts, better purchases of drugs, a 25 per cent. fall in mortality from cardiac-related disease, a 10 per cent. reduction in deaths from cancer—[Interruption.] Conservative Members sneer, but they should give some credit to NHS staff.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When the forecast for debts for NHS trusts is considered, what part will the strategic health authorities play in ensuring that such debts are not incurred? Will the debts of any local trust influence the future building of new hospitals in that area?
    Dr. Reid: As I said earlier, we are confident that each trust, and indeed the NHS as a whole, will be in a position of balance at the end of the year. As in every business, certain trusts will be under pressure and will face temporary deficits. The rule is that they must be in balance over a cycle of up to five years. In the interim, they will be assisted either by savings found inside the trust in forthcoming years, or from the local strategic health authority, or from the primary care trust or from the NHS bank. That is perfectly normal business practice in the outside world. The NHS as a whole, and the individual trusts to which my hon. Friend refers, will be in balance by the end of the year.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I accept that the Government are desperately trying to reduce waiting lists and provide operations and treatment for those whose lives are in danger. However, if, after audit, it is clear that a hospital trust has created a deficit for itself because it has been doing precisely that—treating the people who need to be treated and providing life-saving operations and treatment—will the Secretary of State ensure that that trust has the resources so that it does not have to turn away those who need urgent treatment to save their lives?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, of course. The point of the vast increase in resources that we are putting in is to enable more people to be treated more quickly across a whole further range of services. That is precisely what we are doing. When the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) attacks targets from the Opposition Front Bench, he forgets that, although the targets are general, they apply to what people want. They include reducing deaths from heart disease and ensuring faster access to heart surgery and clot-busting drugs. Which of those targets does the hon. Gentleman disagree with?
    We are trying to ensure that the increased investment is matched by reform inside trusts from top to bottom so that they are more productive at any given level of capacity. I think Conservative Members should occasionally welcome that. For goodness' sake, it would be nice if Conservative Front Benchers just once thanked the people who work in the NHS for the significant improvements that they have achieved.

    NHS (Patient/Public Involvement)
    Mr. David Kidney: If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the new arrangements for patient and public involvement in the NHS. [148787]
    Linda Perham: If he will make a statement on the new arrangements for patient and public involvement in the health service. [148791]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): Ninety-nine per cent. of places on patients forums have been filled. Every local authority has a health scrutiny committee, every trust has a patient advice and liaison service, there is independent support for complainants and thousands of people have applied to become members of the first wave of foundation trusts. Those changes give real control and influence to NHS patients.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she accept my tribute to the Mid Staffordshire community health council, which has of course been compulsorily retired? It was always active and effective. May I tell her about my work to learn the new arrangements for patient and public involvement in Stafford, which has included meeting the senior managers of all the trusts? I have met Vanessa Day, the primary care trust patient advice and liaison service officer. I officially opened the PALS office at the hospital at Stafford, where I met Mandy Gibbs and Samantha Edmonton. I have also spoken to the forums co-ordinator Peter Goodman—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Minister a question, not tell us what he has been doing. I know that he is a hard-working Member of Parliament, but it is not the purpose of a supplementary question to tell the House that.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree with my conclusion that the new system is decidedly more comprehensive, modern and responsive than what went before?
    Ms Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for playing such an active role in encouraging patient and public involvement in the NHS. He may recall that I wrote to all hon. Members on 1 December, informing them of the new arrangements and encouraging them to play exactly the part that he has played. I, too, pay tribute to the work of members of the CHCs and am glad that about 25 per cent. of former CHC members are now on patients forums. We have to build on the best practice that they showed us previously.
    Linda Perham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the all-party group on community health councils hopes to re-form tomorrow as the all-party group on patient and public involvement in health, to work with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to support the new arrangements to which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred and to ensure that the voices of NHS users are heard in the provision of services, to which the
    1202
    Government have committed record levels of investment? Would my hon. Friend like to come to a future meeting of the group?
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that invitation and I should be delighted to meet the group. I know that my hon. Friend has always played an active part in these matters; I believe that she herself was a member of a CHC before 1997. As I said, it is important that we in Parliament not only do everything that we can to encourage people to get involved in determining the provision of local health services but also that we thank them for the time that they give voluntarily. I should be delighted to accept my hon. Friend's invitation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the voluntary help that is being given, but does the Minister agree that in appointing non-executive directors we must ensure that they are equipped to deal with the issues that trusts require, and that they have business and other skills? The Minister mentioned complaints procedures. Is there not a danger that many people are complaining not because they want to but because when public representatives raise issues with trust boards and hospital authorities, they are told that the questions cannot be answered unless people make an actual complaint? Surely, that does not help the health of the nation.
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an independent body undertakes appointments.
    On complaints in general, through the independent complaints advocacy services and the patient advice and liaison services, we have set up a system to provide independent support for complainants. In addition, we are looking at the whole system for redress in the NHS, in the recently published document "Making Amends".
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Without disclosing to the hon. Lady the contents of my diary, may I ask her to tell the House what the new arrangements are for mentally ill patients and the huge increase in the resources of the medical profession that they are taking up? Will the new arrangements also take into account the implications of the working time directive for doctors and nurses with mental health qualifications, who are spending huge amounts of time and resources? Will we need more doctors as a result of the directive?
    Ms Winterton: Obviously, challenges lie ahead in that direction, and the Department as a whole is considering the issue. It will be for individual patients forums to look into the arrangements made locally, in conjunction with both acute and primary care trusts.
    Kali Mountford: Anyone involved in public consultation on health knows that when an issue is big enough we can easily fill a room, but that it can be dispiriting to turn up to a meeting in a cold room on a Thursday night to find that only three people have attended. I am sure that it is not my hon. Friend's intention that the new public involvement in health excludes public consultation, especially on major issues such as the reconfiguration of hospital services. I, too, want to see greater ongoing public involvement in the

    1203
    health service, but can she reassure me that the new arrangements will not reduce public consultation when a matter concerns the whole community?
    Ms Winterton: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are two ways of achieving that under the new system. First, the patients forums can set up separate sub-committees to consider particular issues of local involvement—[Interruption.] The Opposition sneer, but it is important that people get involved. We know that there is interest and that, for example, more than 1,000 extra people applied for places on patients forums. It is important that Members of the House do all that we can to encourage that. Secondly, overview and scrutiny committees will also have a consultative role, which they did not have before, particularly to consider the reconfiguration of services. Put together, that will increase consultation and encourage the type of involvement that we want.
    Hywel Williams: The Minister will know that community health councils in Wales have been retained and, indeed, strengthened. What arrangements are in place to ensure that the NHS in England can learn about the rather more progressive practice in my country?
    Ms Winterton: I am sure that the commission will take every opportunity to learn any relevant lesson from the Welsh situation. As I have said, we want to build on the best that community health councils provided. However, it is true that the service was patchy in some areas. We have tried to have a system that has national standards, so that we know that the same service will be available everywhere not only to consult patients, but to have a robust complaints procedure.

    Aston Hall Hospital
    Mr. Mark Todd: If he will make a statement on the reprovisioning of Aston Hall hospital. [148788]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Derbyshire mental health services NHS trust—together with the local social services authorities, Greater Derby primary care trust and the Trent strategic health authority—remains committed to the re-provision of services at Aston Hall hospital and to minimising any further delay.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Obviously, there has been a slow deliberate process, and rightly so. Very sensitive people live in the hospital at the moment, and they need to be re-provided for appropriately, which takes time. One major outstanding concern is the future of the leisure centre and the hydrotherapy pool, which are used both by residents and by external visitors to the site who need that kind of care. Will he ask his officials to consider very carefully how that existing service can be maintained or re-provided appropriately?
    Dr. Ladyman: My primary concern, of course, has to be with the closure of the long-stay hospitals and ensuring that the people who are left in them at the
    1204
    moment, who have very complex needs, are properly managed and that their transfer takes place in the most efficient and beneficial way for them. That is also the concern of the local authorities in respect of Aston Hall. How some of those community facilities that are currently provided in the Aston Hall building are subsequently provided is a matter for local decision, rather than for me, but I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are passed on to the local authorities that have to make those decisions.

    General Practitioners (London)
    Simon Hughes: How many general practitioner vacancies there are in London; and when he expects Greater London to have sufficient GPs to meet residents' needs. [148789]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Between April 2002 and March 2003, a total of 459 general practitioner posts were advertised in London. Overall, NHS primary care capacity is expanding in London. There has been an increase of 175 GPs in London since 1999, London primary care trusts are planning to recruit more than 200 additional GPs by March 2006.
    Simon Hughes: Given that the Minister will accept that people, especially the homeless and people with particular needs, still face considerable problems in some areas in initially finding a GP and finding another GP if they are removed from a list, will he think of an initiative—for example, talking to the teaching hospitals in London—to encourage those who graduate to come and do a period as a general practitioner in London, even if their long-term career plan is to work in hospitals elsewhere?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I will certainly do so, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know of the proposals that the chief medical officer published last year for reforming postgraduate medical education and training in England, which will provide a welcome new focus on training more doctors in a primary care setting. I hope very strongly that that will ensure that more doctors coming out of our medical schools will want to pursue such training. I will certainly pursue the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Andrew Love: My area has a high vacancy factor, but that is not the only problem that we face. We also face the difficulties of many single-handed practices and the lack of the broad range of services that can be provided locally. What action will my hon. Friend take through the new GP contract to deal with some of those shortcomings in services provided by single-handed GP practices?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would be the first to acknowledge that there are still problems in many parts of London in recruiting the primary care staff whom we need. However, we are making progress, including progress in his constituency. The new general

    1205
    medical services contract will certainly help matters. It is a more flexible contract that does not tie resources precisely to the number of GPs currently in post, but instead tries to ally the needs of communities with their resources. It will give primary care trusts greater flexibility and will be allied with a 33 per cent. increase in resources for primary care. That, too, will address my hon. Friend's concerns.

    Sexual Health
    Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on sexual health among young people and teenagers. [148790]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government are determined to improve the sexual health of young people and teenagers through strategies to reduce unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, and to modernise services.
    Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware that research from Harvard university, no less, shows that the safe-sex message about using condoms has had the opposite effect to that intended? It has resulted in more sexual activity with multiple partners and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, and it has driven the AIDS pandemic. Bearing in mind the fact that one in 10 young women in this country are infected with chlamydia, which can lead to infertility if undetected, that syphilis rates have risen by 500 per cent. in the past six years and that gonorrhoea rates have doubled in that time, will the Government follow the example of the Ugandan Government, who have promoted the ABC campaign to highlight abstinence and faithfulness? The campaign has resulted in a 75 per cent. fall in HIV infection among 15 to 19-year-olds; that is great, is it not?
    Miss Johnson: I am delighted to hear of the Ugandan Government's success. We too are pursuing successful strategies, such as the teenage pregnancy strategy. The latest data for 2001 show an encouraging 10 per cent. reduction in the under-18 conception rate against the baseline year of 1998, and the under-16 rate has declined by 11 per cent. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady's suggestion that promoting the use of condoms and the safer-sex message are not working. I am sure that she will welcome the fact that our country is the only country throughout Europe, apart from Sweden, that is introducing a nationwide programme of chlamydia screening. The programme currently covers a quarter of all English primary care trusts, including that in her constituency of Congleton. We are, of course, also involved in giving high-level messages through the sex lottery campaign that has been run on television and in magazines to increase awareness of the need to use condoms to try to prevent both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
    Jim Dobbin: I know that the Minister accepts that this is a serious matter, but does she agree that just pouring more money into sexual health services will have little impact unless it is accompanied by the notion of behavioural change?
    Mr. James Gray: Just say no.
    Jim Dobbin: Exactly. In other words, young people should be encouraged to delay their first sexual intercourse and to have faithfulness in their relationships.
    Miss Johnson: Of course we believe in promoting responsible relationships, and we are giving young people advice to encourage that. A key part of our work has been to support the professional development and training of teachers and other professionals in the context of developing a good personal, social and health education programme in schools. We continue to roll out the programme, and there are plans to recruit 3,000 more teachers to qualify for the certificate from 2004–05. Ofsted is considering undertaking a survey in 80 secondary schools to determine the learning that should be disseminated. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the message is important. It must be coupled with advice on using condoms, and campaigns such as those that we have been running.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: I wonder whether the Minister can tell us which is the greater cost: the cost of the infertility that will result from more than 1 million young women acquiring an infection with undiagnosed chlamydia by 2008, or the cost of bringing the chlamydia screening programme forward from 2008 so that it is implemented across the country as a matter of urgency.
    Miss Johnson: As we are putting the biggest investment into the health service—the hon. Gentleman's party does not propose investing on anything like the same scale—we are doing the best we can to roll out the programme as quickly as possible. As I said, a quarter of all PCTs are covered. I agree that the issue is big and that the impact of chlamydia on people's health is important, particularly because it is an asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection, and because of its impact on fertility. It is for that reason that a third phase of the roll-out of the programme will take place later this year.
    Mr. David Watts: Is it not clear that the use of condoms is the most effective way of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies? Is it not dangerous for anyone to advocate that that is not the case?
    Miss Johnson: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the best way to avoid sexually transmitted infections is to abstain from sexual activity—that would have a 100 per cent. success rate. I agree, however, that we must accept the reality that that approach is not a lifestyle option that all individuals will be prepared to choose. That is why the promotion of correct and consistent

    1207
    condom use remains high on the public health agenda, and is consistent with the strategies that we are promoting.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister agree that there has been a growing epidemic in STIs over the past six years, with syphilis increasing by 933 per cent., gonorrhoea by 105 per cent. and chlamydia by 141 per cent.? If the Government are serious about tackling this epidemic, surely it would be better for them to introduce a national service framework as opposed to their current strategy, which, as they have admitted, is merely a wish list.
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should have more targets—but he and his hon. Friends were arguing just the opposite a few moments ago. I cannot understand that. We have a proper framework in the sexual health strategy, which has standards and a commitment to funding. The funding is an extra £47 million, plus a further £20 million committed for the next two years, to tackle a wide range of issues, including chlamydia testing, to pump-prime genito-urinary medicine services, to address the problem of queues and to increase contraception and prevention work.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: When will the Government have sexual health campaigns on prime-time television, so that a nation that is obsessed with sexual activity will also become obsessed with the prevention of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies?
    Miss Johnson: We are doing all we can to raise the profile. I have told the hon. Lady before that the promotion of the sex lottery campaign has been very successful, and the evidence shows that it is working effectively. It is obviously not designed to reach 50-year-old Members of Parliament, or other age groups of that ilk, so hon. Members may not have seen it because it is often on television, and in magazines, that are targeted at late teenagers and those in their early 20s—who, sadly, are underrepresented in the House.

    Cardiac Services
    Mr. Hugo Swire: How many performance indicators relating to cardiac treatment (a) are in place for NHS trusts for 2003–04 and (b) were in place in 2001–02. [148792]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): There are five targets for cardiac treatment arising from the NHS plan. The total number of performance indicators across the whole of cardiac services, covering primary care, ambulance services, diagnosis, surgery and rehabilitation, is 37. None has been added since March 2000.
    Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response, but as the Royal Statistical Society said, many of the clinical indicators for cardiac treatment are unreliable. Even with constant quality of clinical care, there are widely different outcomes. Despite his claims to the contrary, is it not the case that too many
    1208
    performance indicators are still being imposed on trusts? Given that between a third and two thirds of heart attacks occur outside hospital, often within the first few minutes of the onset of symptoms, should not the Government concentrate their efforts instead on training and encouraging paramedics in the administration of thrombolytics before patients get to hospital?
    Dr. Reid: As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, the performance indicators cover ambulance services, paramedical primary care, diagnosis, surgery and rehabilitation. I am glad that he agrees with us on that point. On the question of whether we need to take more action to try to give relief to people who feel a heart attack coming on, I agree with him, and am glad that he supports the Government's introduction of rapid access chest pain clinics. I believe that he would also support all our five targets, some of which I outlined earlier: reducing deaths from heart disease, faster access to heart surgery, faster access to clot-busting drugs, improved services for patients with heart failure, and better primary care. We appear to be almost entirely in accord, which is heartening—along with the 25 per cent. reduction in deaths from heart disease. What a pity that the hon. Gentleman wants to cut by 20 per cent. all the investment that has contributed to that.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Just over two years ago, a committee was set up in Bolton with the aim of raising £1.3 million to bolt on a new coronary care unit to the existing facilities. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the committee on its success, as the building was opened a few weeks before Christmas? Will he also thank all the members of the public who have freely given their time and money to make that achievement possible?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I have no hesitation in joining my hon. Friend in thanking those people, and I hope that he will join me in thanking the 1.3 million staff of the national health service who are doing such a marginal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] —such a marvellous job. I have no hesitation in saying that they are doing a marvellous job. Unlike Opposition Members, I am the last to belittle their efforts, which have brought such improvements. They are doing a marvellous job in Bolton and throughout the country.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the principal recommendations in the Kennedy report on the tragic child deaths at Bristol royal infirmary was that we should ensure that there was adequate throughput for surgical teams engaged in paediatric cardiac surgery. In November 2002, the review group said that it would seek a minimum of 300 such operations for a surgical team of at least three consultant surgeons. Given that the Secretary of State had the opinion of an expert review group, why has he preferred his own view and rejected that recommendation?
    Dr. Reid: Because it would require us to close some of the most successful cardiac centres in the country, and I am not going to do that.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does the Secretary of State not agree that performance indicators have a role to play in pushing up the quality of cardiac care? In that context, the clinical decision unit at my hospital in Milton Keynes is now affording a route for GP referrals on cardiac disease, so that people can be referred there and thence to the wards, rather than going through accident and emergency? Would he like to confer with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who visited that unit yesterday and is reported in the local press as commending it and its staff, as well as the efficient use of resources provided by the Government to improve health care for my constituents?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I am glad to do so. A peculiarity of Opposition Front Benchers is that they join in praise for the achievements of the Government and the staff whenever they make local visits, but condemn those achievements whenever they speak at the Dispatch Box. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved in that unit. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There has been a reduction of approximately 24 per cent. in mortality for the under-75s from heart-related disease in five years. Surely, as there has been a reduction of almost 25 per cent. in the scandalously high figure that pertained before, even Opposition Front Benchers can find it in themselves to congratulate, if not the Government, at least the staff who have contributed to that reduction.

    NHS Trust Reports
    Mrs. Marion Roe: How many information reports by NHS trusts were made to his Department in 2003. [148794]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): In 2002—03 the NHS was asked to make 123 regular information reports to the Department of Health, typically on a quarterly or a monthly basis. This compares with 134 such reports in 1996–97.
    Mrs. Roe: Is the Minister aware of the major concerns of the NHS Confederation outlined in its publication of December 2003, "Smarter Reporting", which states that the current system of reporting is time-consuming and poorly co-ordinated and is often viewed by those compiling the data as unnecessary? What action has the Minister taken to cut out all unnecessary requests and to carry out an audit of what Information is needed and why?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. She is probably aware of the NHS Confederation's view recently expressed that the NHS is making progress in reducing the weight of unnecessary bureaucracy and administration. As my answer made clear, we have reduced the number of regular information reports that we expect the NHS to deliver to the Department and we will continue to bear down on that, but we need to strike a balance, as I am sure the hon. Lady would accept, and make sure that we have the right information which allows patients and the public to know what is going on
    1210
    in the NHS, allows the NHS to do a better job in improving services and, fundamentally, allows hon. Members to hold Ministers properly to account. We need to strike the right balance, and we are determined to continue to make further progress. I finish with this: in the last year of the previous Administration, 228 circulars were issued by the Department to the NHS, one famously dealing with how we should cook turkeys in NHS kitchens. Last year there were 12 such circulars, none of them dealing with how we cook turkeys.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Minister's reply severely underestimates the number of ad hoc reports that trusts are required to furnish on an almost daily basis, as I found out when I visited my local acute hospital on Friday. The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the phrase that he gives hon. Members all the time in response to parliamentary questions—that the information requested is not available centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. That is fair enough, but does he agree that a similar system should apply in respect of his Department? The NHS Confederation's excellent report "Smarter Reporting" proposed the idea of a yellow card. The Minister should consider that carefully, so that unnecessary data are not constantly requested from NHS trusts by the centre.
    Mr. Hutton: We look seriously at everything the NHS Confederation does, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Front-Bench team will do so as well. Perhaps he would like to be reminded of what Gill Morgan, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said in response to the attack on the NHS by the Leader of the Opposition last week, when he misquoted the NHS Confederation's view. On the subject of targets, interference and bureaucracy, Gill Morgan said last week:
    "We believe the tide has turned. The last two years have seen significant improvements, including a genuine reduction in the number of targets and a cull of the guidance and central directives sent from the Department to the service."
    That strikes the right note.
    Mr. Archie Norman: May I remind the Minister that we are not opposed to clarity of reporting? What people in the health service find demoralising are the continuous changes in reporting requirements and targets. For instance, of the 148 performance indicators last year, 51 were the same, 54 were changed and 43 were altogether new. When does the right hon. Gentleman think there will be stability in the reporting requirements for the health service?
    Mr. Hutton: I believe we are making progress in the right direction. I know that, to be fair to him, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on all these issues, but I am surprised that he does not have the good grace to acknowledge that. The policies and priorities framework that we issued last year for a three-year period sets out clearly the direction of travel for the NHS. The more stability we can create in the system, the better. That is what we are doing, and it has never been done before.

    Community Hospitals
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his policy towards community hospitals and their relationship with acute hospital trusts. [148795]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): We want to see a new lease of life for community hospitals. Our guidance on service change, "Keeping the NHS Local", was published in February last year. It emphasised the important role community hospitals can play in a network of care across the whole health and social care system.
    Mr. Luff: Will the Minister join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on his successful campaign to create a new community hospital at Pershore, financed by Wychavon district council and built in partnership with the South Worcestershire primary care trust? Will the hon. Gentleman also reassure me that when the time comes, as it must, to redevelop and renew Evesham community hospital, its crucial role in support of the county's acute hospital will be fully recognised, and there will be no reduction in services when that redevelopment takes place?
    Dr. Ladyman: The development of community hospitals has to be a matter for local discussion, and I am not prepared to intervene in what is still clearly a local issue. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the community hospitals in his area have an important role to play. It is important that the trust develops that role, but does so in conjunction with, and in discussion with, local people.
    Mr. Michael Foster: The community hospitals in south Worcestershire predominantly serve the rural areas to the east, south and west of the city of Worcester. As a result, my constituents in the city, as well as people north of the area in Droitwich in the constituency of Mid-Worcestershire, do not get the benefits that can be provided by community hospitals. Will my hon. Friend look favourably on any plans that may come his way to provide community hospitals in areas that cover patients in my constituency and in the north of south Worcestershire?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend identifies exactly why those have to be local decisions and plans must be developed locally. We have to balance the needs of different parts of any particular area to ensure that everyone is getting the services that they require. Of course I will look favourably on any plans that are put to me, but only once they have been developed by the local population to meet local needs.

    Psychiatrists
    Dr. John Pugh: What plans he has to increase the number of psychiatrists employed by the NHS. [148797]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): Since this Government came to power in 1997, the number of consultant psychiatrists employed by the NHS has increased by 31 per cent. Nevertheless, we recognise that we still have a long way to go to make up for the deficit that we inherited. That is why we are planning a further increase of 8 per cent. between March 2004 and March 2006.
    Dr. Pugh: Sadly, I am not much comforted by that response. Does the Minister recognise that in areas such as Merseyside the shortage of psychiatrists is now so acute that it seriously threatens the community health programme?
    Ms Winterton: I certainly recognise that there are challenges ahead. We are doing a lot of work with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others to increase training places and to ensure that different working practices ease some of the burden on psychiatrists. I should also say, however, that the number of consultant psychiatrists in Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority has risen by 45 per cent. while the national average has been 31 per cent., and that the number of vacancies is lower there than in other parts of the country.

    Franchising
    Mr. James Gray: What is his definition of franchising in relation to hospitals and health trusts. [148798]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): NHS franchising is a way of introducing new senior management teams to poorly performing NHS organisations as a means of improving their performance.
    Mr. Gray: We are all in favour of improving performance. However, when the Royal United hospital in Bath was failing and it was announced that senior management was to be franchised, that was widely perceived as being a kind of stealth privatisation, the senior management all resigned, and the franchise proposals were pulled, yet when the chief executive of the Kennet and North Wiltshire primary care trust resigned through overwork and stress, it was announced that her job was to be franchised, which apparently means a job-sharing agreement with the next-door PCT. Is franchising privatisation or job-sharing—or is it just new Labour drivel?
    Mr. Hutton: None of the above. What a load of complete poppycock from the hon. Gentleman, who has nothing positive to say about the national health service. What happened in Bath and Bristol took place on the advice of the chief executive of the strategic health authority. The hon. Gentleman and his motley crew of Front Benchers are always complaining about micro-management by Ministers, but this was a case of the local NHS deciding how it wanted to proceed, and that is precisely how it should be done. As for the hon. Gentleman's local primary care trust, I agree—this is one issue on which I can agree with him—that we have to tackle poor performance, which we are doing by looking to strengthen management teams.

    1213
    The suggestion that franchising is privatisation is a complete red herring. The ownership of trusts stays with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the trust boards remain in place, and NHS patients will continue to receive a service that is free at the point of need. Even in the hon. Gentleman's world, that cannot be described as privatisation.

    GP Training
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: How many general practitioners are in training; and what the equivalent figure was in 1997. [148799]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): There were 2,157 general practitioners in training in June 2003 compared with 1,343 in October 1997. That is an increase of 60 per cent.
    Mr. Gardiner: I am sure that, like me, my right hon. Friend wishes to pay tribute to the general practitioners who came here in the 1970s from east Africa—Indian doctors who provided the backbone of the national health service. They are now approaching retirement. In the next five years, especially in towns where there was a large immigration of those doctors in the early 1970s, there will be a genuine problem. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can, not only to pay tribute to those
    1214
    people who gave their lives to the NHS but to ensure that more doctors from the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere can come into the NHS and use their skills here for its benefit?
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of doctors in the NHS. They have done a brilliant job over many decades—indeed, many continue to do that—and we all owe them a significant vote of thanks. My hon. Friend is right that in many parts of Britain they are the backbone of primary care in the NHS. He knows the steps that Brent primary care trust has taken to expand primary care in his constituency, and I hope that he can support them. The NHS in London faces specific challenges in expanding primary care—he will be aware of that. The major capital investment programme—£350 million for London primary care services in the next two years—will help to resolve some of the difficulties that he described.
    We are examining carefully the regulations about who can practise here, to facilitate wider entry into the NHS in England, but above all, we must keep the investment flowing into it. That is the sure way to ensure that we can provide the service that our constituents and patients want. We should not follow the advice of others, who would like investment in the NHS to be cut by 20 per cent.

R v. Angela Cannings
12.32 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve(urgent question): To ask the Solicitor-General to make a statement on the review of criminal cases resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Angela Cannings.
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): Yesterday's judgment in the Court of Appeal in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has serious and far-reaching implications. The Court of Appeal said that, in relation to unexplained infant deaths when the outcome of the trial depended exclusively or almost exclusively on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it would often be unsafe to proceed. We are acting on that judgment.
In December, when the Court of Appeal freed Angela Cannings, we asked for all cases that potentially involved sudden infant death syndrome to be identified as quickly as possible. To date, some 258 convictions, reaching back over the past 10 years, for murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant aged under two years by its parent, have been identified. Those cases will be considered further as a matter of urgency to establish how many were convictions that the Court of Appeal judgment yesterday indicated may be unsafe. We expect the process to be completed swiftly in the coming weeks.
We propose that in all cases that appear to fulfil the criteria that the Court of Appeal laid down, the convicted person will be informed of developments immediately. There are then two possible routes. Either the case will be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the convicted person, with legal advice, can appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the CCRC has the power to consider whether the convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
The Attorney-General has made it clear that we are especially concerned about cases in which the convicted person is still in prison. So far, we have identified 54 prisoners whose cases may involve sudden infant death syndrome. They will receive the highest priority. The Attorney-General has already spoken to the chair of the CCRC and will meet him on Friday to discuss further the way in which the review of the cases can be expedited. We have also asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 current cases that involve prosecutions for unexplained infant death.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's statement and join the Attorney-General in acknowledging that yesterday's decision has serious and far-reaching implications. No one could describe that as an overstatement. We on this side of the House will do everything open to us to co-operate with the Government in facilitating any review that leads to the removal of miscarriages of justice. This is not a party political issue in any way whatsoever.
Law Officers will clearly have intermittent involvement in the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Has the CCRC given any indication of how long it will take, as the first priority, to examine the
1216
54 cases in which people are still in prison? I am sure that the Solicitor-General agrees that the 204 other cases have degrees of urgency attaching to them. Although the individuals involved may not be in custody, the stigma of conviction is over their heads—with potentially far-reaching implications for their abilities as families to be allowed to bring up children in future. In some cases, there are likely to be proceedings pending to remove or potentially to remove children born to them soon after birth. That means prioritisation and speed are essential.
In an interview at the weekend, the Minister for Children used the expression "tens of thousands" of cases, although elsewhere I have seen the figure of 5,000. Some clarification would be helpful. Is it suggested that Law Officers have recommended that a judge should be appointed to trawl those cases—as was apparently floated in the Minister for Children's interview in The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend?
What will be the role of the decisions of the General Medical Council in relation to Professor Meadow—which, it has been suggested, will not be made until the autumn? Will that introduce a mechanism of delay in reviewing any of the cases, whether civil or criminal? Can the Solicitor-General help the House in relation to that matter? I am sure she agrees that delay could be critical. It may still be possible in some instances for children recently removed from their families to be returned. In other cases, as the Minister for Children explained in her interview at the weekend, that may not be possible. Each case will be different and involves a degree of urgency. The public and Parliament hope that some reassurance can be given that a system exists to bring order out of what I appreciate is an extremely chaotic state of affairs.
I am sure that the Minister for Children gave her interview with the best of intentions in providing some reassurance before yesterday's decision, but there are on the Order Paper outstanding questions from hon. Members dating from before Christmas, including from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—questions that have not received answers, notwithstanding public pronouncements by Ministers. It would be extremely helpful in providing reassurance for the future if those questions received speedy replies, rather than right hon. and hon. Members finding some of the points that they have raised touched upon in newspaper articles. I believe that letters from Lord Howe in the other place to the Lord Chancellor's Department last December have still not yet been answered.
The Solicitor-General may have no difficulty agreeing with the comments of Lord Justice Judge that in any civilised community, the conviction of the innocent is abhorrent. Is not this whole episode, therefore, a chilling reminder of the difficulty caused by the fallibility of human justice systems and the extreme difficulty that can occur when a desire to ensure that the legal system serves the victim starts to lead to assumptions against those who are tried? In this case, that has happened by means of expert evidence. Will the Solicitor-General gently remind her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has in the past made pronouncements in the House on the need to move the criminal justice system so that it is more in favour of the victim, that if that leads to

1217
miscarriages of justice, the consequences do not serve the interests of justice but are in danger of bringing the whole system into disrepute?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important questions, and I shall try to deal with all of them. He asked for an indication of how long the CCRC would take before it made a decision to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. He will know that the CCRC will need to look at the transcripts of a case to satisfy itself on whether the conviction was based on expert evidence or whether other evidence led to the conviction. I can reassure him and the House that there will be a fast-track process, because we recognise, as do the CCRC and the Court of Appeal, that the situation is urgent.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that those cases in which the convicted person is not in prison are still urgent and serious, for the reasons that he gave. Those cases may have involved not only criminal proceedings but care proceedings, and we will therefore look at them with urgency. However, I assure him that although the situation is serious, it is not chaotic. A number of actions are under way—what I would call the sensible ones—and are being taken immediately. We are working with the president of the family division, the Court of Appeal, the CCRC, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and a range of other bodies on that. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's offer to contribute, with his expertise and background knowledge, and I extend that welcome to all hon. Members.
On keeping the House informed and answering parliamentary questions, we started our work in December because we heard the oral comments given by the Court of Appeal when it freed Angela Cannings, but the written judgment that maps out what we need to do next came only yesterday. I will ensure that all parliamentary questions, whether to the DCA, my Department or the Minister for Children, are answered properly and promptly. More than that, we will keep the House informed by written statements as we refine the numbers and reach a better understanding of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we should generalise from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case to the criminal justice system as a whole. We are always concerned to ensure that no one is convicted of an offence that they did not commit. We always bear that in mind, but in this case and in these proceedings, we have work to do. We shall look at the convictions and ensure that if there has been an injustice, justice will ultimately be done, even though for many it will be many years too late.
Mr. John Burnett: No one can fail to be moved by the predicament of any victim of a miscarriage of justice, but it is difficult to imagine any more dreadful case than this in which to have to endure an unwarranted prosecution, let alone a conviction. The Attorney-General has acted swiftly, as he should, to enable challenges to be made to unsafe verdicts. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that all reasonable costs of any appellant, in civil as well as
1218
criminal cases, will be met by the Crown on a full indemnity basis? Nothing can compensate anyone for a wrongful prosecution, let alone for a wrongful conviction, but can the Solicitor-General confirm that reasonable compensation will be paid in the appropriate cases, and that it will not be subject to taxation?
There are also lessons to be learned in respect of other cases in other legal disciplines. Will the Solicitor-General tell the House what action she and the Attorney-General are taking in relation to those other convictions in which expert evidence has not only weighed heavily in the verdict, but has been decisive?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of costs, compensation and taxation. We are considering those issues and we will address them. I cannot provide detailed answers now, but I will ensure that the House is informed as soon as possible. At the moment, we are focusing on dealing with cases in which people are in prison, or proceedings are under way.
I omitted to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked about family proceedings. I am afraid that we are not in a position to say in how many care proceedings cases the evidence of experts has proved decisive. But in Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss we have the benefit of an exceptional president of the family division, and we have the support of the Law Society and of many other organisations. We will ensure not only that injustices in the criminal justice system, but that any potential injustices in care proceedings are identified and acted on.
We should recognise that for women who have lost a child and then had another child taken away, prison is no penalty compared with the terrible suffering that they have endured. As we deal straight away with those in prison and those involved in criminal processes, we must bear in mind the absolute and utmost gravity of the situation facing those whose injustice is at the hands not of the criminal justice system, but of the family justice system.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: About a third of a century ago, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Health. I have the clear recollection that the then distinguished chief medical officer, Sir George Godber, and his deputy, Dr. Henry Yellowlees, submitted a long statement on all the difficulties and uncertainties associated with infanticide and cot death. At what point were the certainties developed that could lead Sir Roy Meadow to say that there is a one in 73 million chance in these situations? Why not say that there is a one in 50 million chance, or a one in 100 million chance? How does a statistician reach such certainties in these circumstances? At what stage were those certainties introduced, by whom and on what basis?
The Solicitor-General: I do not have as long and distinguished a record as my hon. Friend on this matter, but I am old enough to remember the time when a cot death was implicitly regarded as being the fault of, and at the hands of, the mother. That was the conventional

1219
wisdom of the time, as I remember personally. I should like to pay tribute to the Foundation for the Study of Sudden Infant Deaths, which campaigned along with many others to open up the possibility that such deaths were not at the hands of the mother, but might have come about through natural causes.
We will reflect on how we reached the current situation and the Court of Appeal judgment. But what is important now is to go forward and to identify any miscarriages of justice; indeed, that is at the forefront of our agenda.
Mr. Robert Key: My constituent, Angela Cannings, and her family and my former constituent, Sally Clark and her family, have been to hell and—thank God—back in this appalling miscarriage of justice. I know that the Solicitor-General is as angry as I am about that, and that she means to do her best. Will she take it from me that, in due course, my constituents will want to know what took the Government and the judicial system so long to recognise what was glaringly obvious, even to an amateur—that there was a reversal of the burden of proof, which put the defence in the position of having to defend clients against the opinions of a so-called expert, which were taken as gospel? Does she agree that in this day and age, even if guilty, a woman should not go to prison for such a crime under any circumstances? Other matters must be considered, so will she reflect on reforming the law in that respect?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. One was about sentencing, which is constantly under consideration by, among others, the Sentencing Advisory Panel—now the Sentencing Guidelines Council—and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that both will have heard the hon. Gentleman's points about sentencing.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the length of time it took for this important judgment to be delivered. He will know that for many reasons it took too long—we all agree on that—but we must now ensure that we act with the utmost expedition. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the careful judgment yesterday of Lord Justice Judge, Mrs. Justice Rafferty and Mr. Justice Pitchers, which provides a basis for us to move forward.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that, many years ago, I suffered the loss of much loved and wanted babies, and during this whole case I have often thought that, if Professor Meadow and his misogynist theories had been in vogue, perhaps I would have ended up being investigated. In my view, it has the hallmark of a medieval witch-hunt. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Minister for Women and Equality will face some extremely difficult decisions in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that the whole House recognises that and helps them as they try to heal and mend families that have been broken and badly damaged.
The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She is one example of too many women who have suffered the loss of a child and I know that she still feels it keenly to this day. She has, however, proved to be an excellent mother and grandmother, and we
1220
know her family well. She is right to say that we will face difficult decisions, but I can assure her that we will work in the most open way possible with hon. Members on both sides of the House and across all Departments and agencies. The most important thing is to be clear, open and act as quickly as possible.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are clearly several cases that have involved a serious miscarriage of justice, but I am sure that the Solicitor-General would also recognise the unhappy fact that some women do kill their children. Within the last three years, I represented a lady who did just that and pleaded guilty to infanticide. I suggest that the proper way forward is not to put a total block on prosecutions, but to say that cases should be brought to court only where, in addition to the expert evidence of the pathologist, there is other credible evidence—for example, admissions or other evidence that a woman tried to do a serious injury to her child.
The Solicitor-General: What will happen, of course, is that each case will be dealt with on its merits, but the Court of Appeal judgment has provided guidance to prosecutors that they can take into account in considering each individual case. Prosecutors will ask themselves whether a case is similar to what the Court of Appeal identified in the judgment—where there is no persuasive or credible evidence other than the conflicting evidence of experts. If so, such a case might well not lead to a prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering the judgment and will issue new guidance on the implications of the Court of Appeal decision for prosecution decision-making. He is currently reviewing the 15 cases that are currently under way.
The Court of Appeal said:
"we recognise that justice may not be done in a small number of cases where in truth a mother has deliberately killed her baby without leaving any identifiable evidence of the crime. That is an undesirable result, which, however, avoids a worse one. If murder cannot not be proved, the conviction cannot be safe."
Mr. Hilton Dawson: In trying to chart the incredibly difficult course around the circumstances of children who are so profoundly affected by decisions taken on the balance of probabilities, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that the balance of argument in reaching decisions will be weighted heavily towards the paramount principle of the Children Act 1989—that the best interest of the child is the key factor? In trying to chart a way forward from this unprecedented position, will she also assure me that due cognisance will be given to the rights of every individual child under the UN convention on the rights of the child?
The Solicitor-General: In relation to actions arising from miscarriages of justice in family or care proceedings, the rule of the Children Act 1989—that any action taken should be in the best interests of the child—will, of course, prevail. There are two issues. First, in respect of mothers who want to set aside an order of adoption in order to have the child back, the best interests of the child are paramount. Secondly, however, some mothers might simply want a declaration

1221
that they were not in the wrong. Although it may not be in the best interest of a child who has grown up in another household to be given back, it should be made clear, where applicable, that the mothers have done nothing wrong. We must be utterly and acutely sensitive to all those points. In dealing with those issues, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality is taking the UN convention on the rights of the child and the rights of children to family life into account.
Mr. George Osborne: Professor Meadow's flawed evidence was instrumental in the conviction of Sally Clark, who was my constituent during her imprisonment. What the Solicitor-General said about reviewing criminal cases is clearly sensible, but may I press her on the family court cases? She said that they should be clearly identified, but did not say whether there would be a review of family court cases as there would be for criminal cases. Will she confirm that such a review is either happening or is about to happen? Does she agree that in the acutely sensitive cases that she mentioned, it is important that people do not read about what is going to happen to them and their families in a national newspaper before the Court of Appeal delivers a judgment? They should hear it from a senior family court judge after a proper review and inquiry.
The Solicitor-General: After the Court of Appeal freed Angela Cannings—in a criminal case—we had the opportunity to set about identifying any further relevant cases, and our first port of call was the Prison Service. It has been more straightforward for us to try to identify and review such serious and consequential cases. Identifying those cases is more complex, as is determining the procedure for their review. In criminal cases, appeals can be made to the Court of Appeal criminal division, and we also have the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The process of how to go about a review in family cases is now being considered. The judgment that I have quoted makes clear what is at issue, but the process of identifying cases—and the machinery that should be used to remedy miscarriages of justice—is not straightforward.
Neither the Government nor the family division of the Court of Appeal, nor anyone else, are holding back in their attempts to ensure that any injustice is remedied. That is our absolute focus, but we have to determine what the best procedures are, and what the best machinery is. That is by no means straightforward, but I do not rule out any of the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman made.
Vera Baird: I, too wish to add my best wishes, as it were, to the concerns that have been expressed about the difficulty of the decisions that will have to be made in any inquiry into these family cases. The difficulty lies in the complexity of the problem, and also in its scale. It is nearly 20 years since I cross-examined Sir Roy Meadow in a family case, which shows that he has been in practice for a very long time. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made a valid point when he spoke about the care that has to be taken, as in the case to which I have referred, there was powerful evidence to support Professor Meadow's contention.
1222
I was unclear about the Government's response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the significance of the GMC inquiry into Professor Meadow. That inquiry should not delay an inquiry into the family cases, whose basis will be that the Court of Appeal has found that Professor Meadow's evidence has been undermined or discredited. The inquiry into family cases can have no impact on Professor Meadow's tribunal, and the outcome of his tribunal cannot be remotely relevant to the inquiry. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the inquiry is begun immediately?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend asked about the significance of the GMC inquiry, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for failing to respond to him initially about that. In the Sally Clark case, the Court of Appeal judgment was based on the weight that it felt should have been given to Dr. Williams' evidence, and that is the judgment that the prosecutors need. In respect of Professor Meadow and other experts, we also have the Court of Appeal judgment in the Angela Cannings case, so we do not need to wait for the GMC. Whether or not the GMC finds that Dr. Williams committed offences against his professional code of conduct is an entirely separate matter, as we are proceeding on the basis of the Court of Appeal judgments in the Cannings and Clark cases. Obviously, we will consider any further issues that the GMC is able to raise, but the two judgments to which I have referred provide the basis for the action that we are taking now. We are not in any way waiting for the outcome of the GMC inquiry.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Solicitor-General assure the House that she agrees that medical opinion is just that—an opinion—however eminent the person giving it, and that it should never be used as sole evidence in a case? I fully appreciate how difficult it is to strike a balance between the safety of a child and the rights of a parent, but is the right hon. and learned Lady able to consider releasing from prison, under supervision, the women affected by the inquiry, while it is under way?
The Solicitor-General: Any case that meets the criteria laid out by the Court of Appeal in the Cannings case would allow an immediate application for bail to be made. My expectation would be that that application would not be resisted. I think that the question of the liberty of people involved in the inquiry before the Court of Appeal judgment is known would be dealt with in that way.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is a medical person herself, and her question about medical evidence covers the topic of expert evidence. I can tell the House that my noble Friend Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws is presiding over an intercollegiate working party, involving the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The working party also has representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home

1223
Office pathology department. The group has been working for some time and will produce its guidance shortly. The matter needs to be looked at by the professions involved, jointly with the criminal and civil justice system. That is what is happening, and I think that, as a result, guidance on how we should deal with family cases will be clearer.

Point of Order
1.6 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, during the debate on the Civil Contingencies Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised a point of order. In response, Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that the Minister for the Cabinet Office should place in the Library of the House the written advice that he had received from counsel, so that hon. Members could see it, unless he could produce an overarching reason why an exception should be made to the rule that such documents should be so produced. I have been in touch with the Library and understand that no such document has been placed there.
Do you, Mr. Speaker, agree that the Minister has two options? Either he places the document in the Library as requested, or he makes a written statement explaining the exception to the rule that he is relying on. Would you be prepared to make inquiries into this case, given the ruling that was given last night? An important fact is that the points of order were raised by Back Benchers, and you are the guardian of them and their rights.
Mr. Speaker: This matter came to my attention just before the hon. Gentleman raised his point of order. I shall look into it and get back to him.

Crown Employment (Nationality)
1.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purposes.
This is my second attempt with this Bill under the ten-minute rule. Last year it failed through lack of time, but the very real problems that the Bill seeks to address remain.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove the existing restrictions placed on the employment of non-UK nationals in civil capacities under the Crown. In place of the current system, the Bill would open up all civil employment under the Crown to applicants of any nationality, apart from such positions as would be restricted to UK nationals under rules made by the Minister for the civil service, or by another Minister or other Crown official to whom he has delegated the power to make such rules.
Before looking at the detail, let me make it clear that the Bill does not deal with asylum, immigration or work permits, and that it does not affect the requirements for non-UK nationals to get leave to remain and to work in the UK.
The rules restricting the employment of foreign nationals by the Crown have their roots in events of more than 200 years ago. The Act of Settlement 1700 provides that no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the dominions thereto belonging, should be capable of enjoying any office or place of trust, either civil or military. That prohibition has been amended over the years and does not apply to Commonwealth citizens, citizens of the Irish Republic, or to British protected persons employed in a civil capacity. Section 6 of the Aliens Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1919 provides that no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the civil service of the state. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, an alien is defined as a person who is neither a Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person nor a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
During the second world war, defence regulations permitted the temporary employment of aliens if no suitable British subjects were available. That provision was replaced by the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 and the prohibitions were relaxed so that aliens could be employed if they had been appointed in a country outside the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man in a capacity appearing to the Minister to be appropriate for aliens, or employed in accordance with a certificate issued by a Minister with the consent of the Minister for the civil service. In that connection, either there must be no suitably qualified UK nationals available or the alien must possess acceptable qualifications. In the last year for which figures are available—2002–03—only 47 people were employed under such certificates.
The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 amended the 1955 Act to allow nationals of member states of the European Communities and their spouses and certain children, to take up civil employment under the Crown, apart from "public service" posts within the meaning of the EC
1226
treaty. The rights of nationals of member states of the European Communities were extended to nationals of member states of the European economic area by section 2(1) of the European Economic Area Act 1993.
Against the background of a possible legal challenge in the European Court, further changes were made in 1996 to put Irish and Commonwealth citizens on the same footing as all other non-UK EC nationals. An amendment to the civil service management code was made to restrict Commonwealth and Irish nationals from being employed in posts that were reserved for UK nationals.
The effect of the existing rules is that foreign nationals may be employed abroad in any civil post under the Crown, including the diplomatic service, if the Minister considers it appropriate. However, as regards civil employment under the Crown within the UK, Commonwealth citizens, British protected persons and nationals of member states of the European economic area may be employed only in posts that are not "public service" reserved ones; and nationals of all other countries may be employed in UK non-reserved posts only if one of the rarely issued exemption certificates is in force. Although 75 per cent. of civil service posts in the UK are available to Commonwealth, Irish or EEA nationals, the remaining 2 per cent., which require the special allegiance of "public service" posts, are entirely reserved for UK nationals. More posts are reserved than is operationally necessary, but that is unavoidable due to the present definition based on the EC treaty.
Attempts to define "public service" posts must follow EC case law and are subject to judgments of the European Court. The net effect is that it is a criminal offence, even if committed by mistake, to employ a non-Irish EEA national in a "public service" reserved post or to employ an alien in any civil service post at all, apart from the small number of certificated exceptions. Although it is legal to employ in a non-reserved post the alien spouse of an EEA national living in the UK—under the freedom of movement provisions—it remains an offence to employ the alien spouse of a UK national. Such anomalies are not likely to be less after the forthcoming EU enlargement.
Those points all sound legalistic and technical, so the anomalies can best be illustrated by example. As I said, my Bill does not change any of the rules on asylum and immigration, but my constituency, like many others, has long-standing communities from, for example, Iran and Iraq. Those communities mostly comprise highly skilled professionals, often people who were senior public servants in their home countries and fled persecution many years ago. They and their children, who may know no other country, are entirely barred.
In Hendon, we have large Israeli, Chinese and Japanese communities, and also UK citizens married to people of those nationalities. Assuming that they retained their original citizenship, those Israeli, Chinese and Japanese people would be barred from, for example, jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry, but if their spouses were French and not British, they would not be so barred. A Turkish Cypriot is eligible for a non-restricted post, but a Turk is not.
The notorious Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist cleric who most people think should be kicked out of this country, if not put in jail, has UK nationality—at least,

1227
until the Home Secretary's efforts to remove his nationality come to fruition—and he could be employed in any post, although I doubt that he would want to apply, or that he would stand much chance at interview. However, an American national widow of a British national victim of 11 September would be excluded from Government employment.
In our country, about 850,000 residents of working age are not UK, Commonwealth or EEA citizens and are thus excluded entirely. In London, a diverse world city, 350,000 people—9 per cent. of the working-age population—are excluded, not just from the higher echelons, but even from applying for the most junior social security clerk's job. It is no wonder that we have difficulty filling civil service jobs in the capital when so many of my fellow Londoners are entirely left out of the equation.
My Bill tackles those bizarre and discriminatory anomalies by sweeping away the existing complex, interlocking legislation and replacing it with a simple amendment to the Act of Settlement, so as not to prohibit the employment of any person in any civil capacity under the Crown, while empowering the Minister to make rules in respect of nationality requirements for certain categories of post where it is clearly necessary in the national interest for the job to be reserved for a UK national—about 10 per cent. of the total. It is expected that the Bill would open 90 per cent. of all posts to selection on merit, regardless of nationality, enabling us to build a civil service that reflects the diversity of the society that it serves.
Since last year, support for my proposals has grown. In their evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, the civil service trade unions said:
"For the record we should state that the present Civil Service Nationality Rules are blatantly discriminatory against people from the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth. This is not a situation which reflects well on the Government or the Civil Service and completely flies in the face of efforts to develop a diverse Civil Service which represents the whole community it serves and one which endeavours to provide equality of opportunity to all its staff.
The concern the unions have is that this is not a metaphysical issue, it is a very real issue. People from the Irish Republic and the Commonwealth are debarred from access to quite a large number of civil service posts, and that is completely contrary to fairness, equality and the image we are trying to create as a diverse Civil Service. There seems to be a broad agreement that this is wrong and we need to put it right. There also seems to be agreement that it needs to be done by primary legislation because every other possibility has been explored and it will not work."
Only a few days ago, in its first report of this Session, the Public Administration Committee stated:
"This would be a much-needed reform and one that has long been called for."
The measure was
"to be welcomed and such provisions should be included in primary legislation to be introduced when Parliamentary time allows".
Last week, the Conservative Opposition proposed a Civil Service Bill, based on the PAC draft, so they, too, appear to agree with my proposals, as provisions in the Bill that I presented last year were incorporated in the Select Committee's report and appear to have been added to the Opposition Bill. I believe that they will advocate their Bill in an Opposition day debate tomorrow.
1228
My Bill has overwhelming support from all quarters so, surely, the time has come for progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
1.17 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I am normally somewhat of an admirer of the parliamentary skills of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He and I mutually enjoy—I hope—facing one another in the Chamber from time to time, but on this occasion his timing seems to have deserted him. At this moment of our history, given global events, this is a bizarre measure to bring before the House. I shall say a few words about why that is the case.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman demonstrated with any great conviction what the problem is that he seeks to solve, other than to say that a lot of foreign nationals who live in this country could not get jobs in the civil sector. How far that is a problem is for Members to judge, and I shall come back to that in a moment. Underlying that point, however, is a serious strand of debate on the whole subject of multiculturalism and diversity.
I do not believe in multiculturalism at all. I believe in the melting pot theory that has made the United States and this country great over the centuries in this sense: people who come to the country voluntarily and who want to become part of our society should make every effort to blend into that society and to accept its customs and mores. To that extent, multiculturalism, as I think it is commonly viewed—not least by the hon. Member for Hendon—is a divisive factor in society, which I regret. In the sense that the Bill seeks to institutionalise multiculturalism, as I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to explain it, I am very unhappy about it and we should be careful about proceeding too far down that route.
What puzzles me somewhat is that the hon. Gentleman argued that hapless foreign nationals who come to this country and are desperate to seek employment in the civil sector are debarred from doing so. Why is it not open to them, first, to obtain a legitimate reason to be in this country through work permits or other routes; secondly, to seek indefinite leave to remain, which follows naturally on the work permit; and, thirdly and most crucially, to seek British nationality, which very many people—I hope most of those who come to the country of their own volition—wish to do. I am talking not about asylum or immigration, as the hon. Gentleman asked us not to do so, but about all those other categories of people who come here, and they are very welcome indeed in this country, as people with skills and a contribution to make.
Why are those people apparently unwilling to take those important steps—seeking work permits, indefinite leave to remain and British nationality—that would open the employment to them that the hon. Gentleman says is so important? But that would do another thing, which is even more crucial: it would tell us that they wanted to make that commitment to this country and our society that it is not unreasonable for us to expect. What is unreasonable, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be asking us in the Bill, is for someone to come to the country, insist on retaining their other nationality and

1229
seek—or, indeed, demand and complain if they do not get—the opportunity to be employed in the civil sector. That is what puzzles me about the measure.
Time and again, we are asked to take measures at the very time when there is a natural suspicion of many foreign nationals. Let us be blunt about it: that is what the whole homeland security apparatus—and many of the things that the Home Secretary brings before the House—is about. At this very moment, the hon. Gentleman asks the House to accept that people who will not even seek British nationality when they come to live here should have the doors to civil sector employment opened to them. That strikes me as odd.
Why do we have to make all the concessions? Why do we not ask them to make the concessions? Why do we not ask those individuals to take that very reasonable step, having come to this country and being welcomed here? Why should they not demonstrate their loyalty to this country by taking that ultimate step of seeking British nationality? Surely that would solve the problem in a far more acceptable way. Incidentally, it would provide a useful filter against the background of all the unease that we now have about terrorism and so on. In expecting those individuals to go through the procedure of work permit, ILR and nationality, we would give ourselves a reasonable chance of identifying those who not only do not want properly to associate themselves with this country, but might wish the country harm in some very rare cases.
In all those ways, I have the same doubts and suspicions about the measure as I had all through last year, when the hon. Gentleman and I sat opposite each other happily on Fridays and he tried to slip a similar Bill through and I prevented him from doing so. I give him notice that I will do exactly the same again this year, because the Opposition have a general rule that, if a measure is not fully and properly debated, it should proceed no further, so introducing it through the ten-minute rule procedure or what is known as the back-of-the-Chair mechanism is not good enough. That gets the measure on the first rung of the ladder, but unless there is debating time for it, in my view it should proceed no further up the legislative ladder.
If this is an attempt to smuggle through a Bill that the Government would really like to secure, the Government should introduce it. I am happy to say that many private Members' Bills that are introduced by well-meaning Members but which are really Government Bills end up having to be introduced by the Government any way because those of us who are alert to these matters prevent them from being smuggled through the private Member's procedure. So whichever this is an example of, we will be looking out for it.
If the hon. Gentleman manages—it is perfectly possible that he may—to get proper debating time on the Floor of the House, we could better assess the extent to which all those good people whom he claims support the measure actually do so. We could then assess all this consensus, all this happiness, all this motherhood and apple pie that he claims in support of the measure. That could be demonstrated by an appropriate number of Members being present. Perhaps the quorum of the House—40 Members only out of 659—could be present on a Friday, which is not an unreasonable request when
1230
making new laws. If he can get those 40 good souls and true here on a Friday, I suppose that there is half a chance that the Bill might proceed to Committee and, when it returned on Report, we would see whether the same 40 forgathered again and—who knows—on that basis, it might just make some progress.
This is a serious matter. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a serious change to the law and, at the same time, a very serious statement about the relationship between foreign nationals and British nationals and about the nature of our society and our civil employment. This is not a trivial matter; it carries a lot of weight and symbolism with it. I recognise it as such, which is why I am happy to have this opportunity to express my grave reservations about the measure and all the baggage that it carries with it.
We will see whether the House chooses in its infinite wisdom to give the Bill time to be properly debated and considered on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. If it does, I hope to be present, to be vigilant and to be able to question the Bill. If it is the will of the House, it may proceed. However, unless all those questions can be satisfactorily answered and unless the hon. Gentleman can give a much fuller explanation of the real nature of the problem, as he put it—other than that people who refuse to attempt to get British nationality cannot get jobs in the civil sector—we should think carefully about passing the Bill. If that is the nature of the problem, I am not impressed, but if it is more than that, we will hear about it and we will be able to judge. Short of that, I do not believe that we should let the Bill through on this occasion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —
The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 21.

Division No. 33]

[1.26 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Cruddas, Jon

Allen, Graham

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Begg, Miss Anne

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Dalyell, Tam

Beith, rh A. J.

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Davidson, Ian

Breed, Colin

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Brennan, Kevin

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Drew, David (Stroud)

Burden, Richard

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burstow, Paul

Ewing, Annabelle

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Farrelly, Paul

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Foster, rh Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Carmichael, Alistair

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Caton, Martin

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Chaytor, David

Gerrard, Neil

Clapham, Michael

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Gidley, Sandra

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Harvey, Nick

Cohen, Harry

Heath, David

Cousins, Jim

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Cranston, Ross

Hopkins, Kelvin

1231

Hoyle, Lindsay

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Rendel, David

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Jenkins, Brian

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Ruane, Chris

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Salmond, Alex

King, Andy (Rugby)

Sanders, Adrian

Lamb, Norman

Sawford, Phil

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Sedgemore, Brian

Llwyd, Elfyn

Sheridan, Jim

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Skinner, Dennis

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Squire, Rachel

McKechin, Ann

Steinberg, Gerry

McWalter, Tony

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Martlew, Eric

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Morgan, Julie

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Mudie, George

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

O'Hara, Edward

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Öpik, Lembit

White, Brian

Owen, Albert

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Picking, Anne

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Pickthall, Colin

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Winnick, David

Plaskitt, James

Wishart, Pete

Pound, Stephen

Pugh, Dr. John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Purchase, Ken

Mr. Andrew Dismore and

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Ms Karen Buck

NOES

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Selous, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Spicer, Sir Michael

Djanogly, Jonathan

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Flook, Adrian

Swayne, Desmond

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Trimble, rh David

Horam, John (Orpington)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Mates, Michael

(Macclesfield)

Redwood, rh John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tellers for the Noes:

Rosindell, Andrew

Mr. Eric Forth and

Ruffley, David

Mr. Andrew Turner

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Iain Coleman, Mr. Andrew Love, Tony Wright, Sir Sydney Chapman, James Purnell, Linda Perham, John Austin, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Keith Vaz, and Mr. Stephen Pound.

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY)
Mr. Andrew Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 39].

Schools (Attendance and Behaviour)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
1.38 pm
]The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): May I begin by saying that as well as opening the debate, I shall ask the leave of the House to respond to it at its conclusion? The Government are keen to have the debate because we believe that it focuses on an issue of profound importance for the country.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the Government be keen to have the debate if they can field only one Minister to open and close it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a matter for the Chair at this stage.
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact is that my ministerial colleagues are throughout the country championing the Government's educational achievements.
The issue is important for our country. The Government have volunteered to have the debate—we always have arguments about parliamentary scrutiny—because we are keen to have a serious and sensible debate about the matter. Improving attendance and behaviour is important for several reasons: it is central to raising school standards; it is crucial to the fight against the modern scourges of antisocial behaviour and youth crime; and it is the key to the Government's determination to break the intergenerational deprivation and underperformance that permeates too many families in our communities. The stakes are high because we must never forget that the pupils of today quickly become the parents of tomorrow.
It is important that we begin with some facts. Approximately 50,000 pupils are missing school without permission every day, nearly half of young people in custody have been permanently excluded from school, and bad behaviour disrupts education at one secondary school in 12. Equally, the 2002 edition of "Education at a Glance", which covers school discipline, shows that UK schools are better than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average on five of the six indicators of pupil behaviour.
Whatever the statistics, our responsibilities are clear. The truth is that for too many of our young people, education has not been a bridge to hope and opportunity, but simply another step on an inevitable journey to self-destruction and community exclusion. In an act of collective timidity, the state has all too often failed to act either decisively or effectively.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to dealing with bad behaviour is swift remedial action, rather than long, time-consuming bureaucratic procedures? In that respect, when I was a schoolmaster we at least had recourse to corporal punishment. It was not always the

1233
answer, but it was useful in nipping bullying in the bud. That might not be available now, but we must have in its place a swift remedy to stop the spread of this disease.
Mr. Lewis: Some things never change. As for swift and effective action, it took 18 years of the hon. Gentleman's party being in government for many of the values and standards of behaviour that we want restored to our society to deteriorate. For years, the lack of preventive work and investment in our most disadvantaged communities was shameful—I repeat: shameful.
We are paying a heavy price for our failure to acknowledge the enduring truth that a society that values individual freedom and community solidarity must assert responsibilities as well as rights. Too often throughout history, we have appeared value neutral. We have allowed a society to develop in which parents, unwilling to fulfil their responsibilities, have usually been treated as though they were unable to do so. Discipline has become a dirty word as too many teachers are expected to tolerate abuse as a regular part of their daily professional life. Many others have their morale sapped by pupils whose behaviour is consistently disruptive.
We have remained silent for too long as far too many teachers have left the profession citing pupil behaviour as a primary cause. The vast majority of pupils who behave well and work hard are sometimes expected to tolerate the disruption and bullying of a few of their peers. We have frequently appeared impotent as a small minority of families made life a misery for the decent majority in our communities.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would move on to special educational needs. As the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) implied in Question Time on Thursday, a significant cause of disruption cannot be put down to a self-destructive motivation among those involved. Why are the Government capping expenditure on special educational needs?
Mr. Lewis: I shall come to that. It is a little rich for the hon. Gentleman to lecture us on the use of public money when the Conservative party has said it would reduce public expenditure by 20 per cent. if it came back into power.
None of the deterioration that I described has been good for our young people or the fabric of our society. The time has come for action based on a new covenant between state and citizen—a covenant that holds true to the Government's passion for tackling disadvantage and unleashing human potential while exercising zero tolerance of those who fail to fulfil their responsibilities.
Mr. Peter Pike: Will my hon. Friend give credit where it is due? Schools that have a sense of achievement seem better at tackling the problems he describes. Towneley high school in my constituency has had great success with its school band, which has given
1234
the whole school an impetus to improve. For the past couple of years, there has been an over-demand for the school, which was not the case three years ago.
Mr. Lewis: I agree that we must build on the successes of young people. We have to motivate them and find ways to inspire them, especially in communities where low aspirations have been endemic for too long. That is the way out of poverty and underperformance and is the way to achieve the fair and successful society that the Government are all about.
In pursuit of that objective, we are implementing radical reform at every stage of a child's educational life. Sure Start local programmes focus on supporting parents from before the time when they bring their baby into the world. Some 524 local programmes are available in 20 per cent. of the country's poorest wards and the Government are developing children's centres. The Chancellor made it clear in his pre-Budget report that the Government are aiming for a children's centre in every community.
Reduced infant class sizes allow teachers and support staff to manage, among other things, classroom behaviour better. The focus on literacy and numeracy in primary schools has ensured that far more children reach an appropriate level at the age of 11. There is a focus on the first three years at secondary school where historically children's motivation, behaviour and attendance have deteriorated. Many of the gains secured at primary school are lost in the early years of secondary education.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind that the Minister is outlining all the things that have happened and the great changes that have occurred, can he tell us why truancy is increasing?
Mr. Lewis: Attendance is at a record high. The unauthorised absence rate has reduced over the past 12 months, albeit very slowly. That does not mean that I underestimate the difficulties that we face in terms of truancy, with which I shall deal shortly.
The hon. Gentleman refers to me "outlining all the things". We are implementing the most radical reform of education for a generation. It is interesting that the Conservatives simply dismiss the changes when those in the education sector and those who benefit from the reforms know that we are beginning to achieve a step change, especially in those communities that have been denied educational opportunities for far too long.
The Connexions service is up and running in all parts of the country, ensuring that teenagers are supported to overcome whatever barriers get in the way of their educational progress. We should acknowledge that there are many reasons—some to do with school, some to do with home, some to do with environment—why young people do not fulfil their potential. It is important that we focus on individual young people to ensure that we have the capacity to remove those barriers, whatever they may be, and provide a holistic response.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: So that the House has a true picture of what is really going on in our schools, will the Minister confirm the figure in the Library brief that 560,000 children in our secondary

1235
sector are absent without leave on at least one day in the year? Furthermore, it goes on to say that in the last year for which figures are available, the number of those absent without leave from our primary schools has gone up, not down, by 6 per cent. That contradicts what he just said.
Mr. Lewis: I will deal with attendance and truancy later. I have already dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
The country's secondary schools all have the opportunity to become specialist, and there will be at least 2,000 specialist schools by 2006. It is also important to focus on school leadership through the leadership incentive grant and the national college for school leadership. All hon. Members will acknowledge that effective leadership and a strong ethos are central to improving attendance and behaviour in all circumstances.
We are also embarking on a radical reform of the 14 to 19 phase of education, designed to create a fit for the purpose curriculum and learning pathways that motivate and engage young people. Changes that we have begun for 14 to 16-year-olds include the introduction in 2002 of eight new GCSEs in vocational subjects. A reduced core curriculum from September allows schools increasingly to build a curriculum around the needs, strengths and aspirations of each young person. There is also the 14 to 16 flexibility programme, benefiting 80,000 pupils in 1,800 schools, with young people spending a couple of days a week at school, a couple of days at college, and some spending a day with a local employer—again, building a learning experience that turns young people on, motivates them and shows them the importance of education.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to say a word about the education maintenance allowance, which has been introduced and piloted in a number of areas, including my own, and which is encouraging young people to stay on at school for academic subjects? Is it possible, now that we also have the possibility of a £3,000 a year grant for children from lower-income families going to university, to extend the EMA into a FEMA£a further education maintenance allowance£and then on to university, the HEMA, so that there is a seamless transition, with young people being able to see from the moment they start secondary school that they will be paid to learn at whatever level they need to qualify?
Mr. Lewis: The education maintenance allowance is one of the Government's proudest achievements. It is extremely positive that it will be available in September for all 16-year-olds to support them in making the choice to stay on in education. This is particularly for those from low-income families: young people who have been the most disadvantaged and have found access to further and higher education most challenging.
I also agree that if there is to be a variety of ways in which young people can stay on and progress and make achievements within the education system, down both an academic and a vocational track—a mixed pathway—we must ensure that the financial arrangements incentivise them to follow the path that is
1236
most appropriate to meet their needs. The Treasury is leading a review of all the financial support arrangements impacting on 16 to 19-year-olds, so that in due course we can create a level playing field providing equal support to all young people to encourage that progression and attainment.
Training allowances are being paid to young people participating in the entry to employment programme. It is often forgotten that modern apprentices are, on the whole, paid a wage. We need to ensure that we have a level playing field and that there is financial support to help young people progress in an appropriate way.
At Question Time recently I made the point that it will be exceptionally difficult to tell young people, "We want you to stay on in education to 16, to have high aspirations, and to aim to achieve your potential", if post-16 we have the situation that the Conservative party advocates of capping the number of young people who can go on to higher education. We all know full well that the consequence of that policy would be that young people from the poorest families—those most likely to be eligible for education maintenance allowances—would be denied the opportunity to participate in higher education.
I return to the reforms to the provision for those aged 14 to 16. Work-related learning is to be made statutory from next year. We are also determined to introduce enterprise education as part of the curriculum.
I come now to our changes to post-16 education. More than 25,000 young people are now participating in the entry to employment programme, which is for young people who reach the age of 16 and want to pursue a vocational route. They may have special education needs and so not be able to enter a foundation modern apprenticeship. We want to make sure that for even those young people who are the most challenged and who face the most barriers, we have a programme that supports their personal, social and educational development and, if possible, enables them to go on to foundation modern apprenticeships.
Mr. Allen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is being very generous, as we have come to expect of him.
There is a further area that I am sure my hon. Friend would want to look at: the myriad of possible qualifications that face a young person from the age of 16 onwards. There are initials galore, and it is extremely difficult for a young person to navigate through the various options. Do the Department and the Government have it in mind to review the plethora of qualifications, so that we may simplify the system and, as well as having a simple route for funding for these youngsters, have a simple progression through a series of understandable qualifications?
Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend; that is why we are embarking on the review of 14 to 19 education by Mike Tomlinson, who will report during this year, to ensure that we have credible, easy to understand pathways for young people. It is also why the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is undertaking the most radical shake-up of adult vocational qualifications that we have ever seen, in terms of unitisation and credit transfer.

1237
One of the barriers in education—in lifelong learning, and not just for young people—is the complex nature of the qualifications framework and the confusion that it brings to the system. Simplifying the system, making it easier to access and to understand, is vital so that people may make the link between lifelong learning and education and life opportunities. Therefore, the reform of qualifications is exceptionally important. We have to get it right. It is important that the Government were prepared to tell an external group, "Have a look at 14 to 19 education. We have tried to make this work through the generations, but have never succeeded. Therefore, we want a genuinely objective expert job done so that we can look at putting in place for the first time a 14 to 19 phase that really works."
It is also important in debates such as this to refer to modern apprenticeships. When I go to meetings with business people or speak to educationists, or even occasionally read the editorial columns of our newspapers or listen to Opposition politicians seeking to make dubious points about higher education, I could be led to believe that there is no apprenticeship system in this country, that we do not have apprenticeships and that apprenticeship is on the wane. In fact, 230,000 young people are undertaking modern apprenticeships this year, something that we should celebrate and promote. The Government are determined to build upon this.
We recognise that there are real obstacles, barriers and challenges in relation to modern apprenticeships. The non-completion rate is one. Moreover, we need modern apprenticeships that are more fit for the purpose, in terms of the needs of employers and sectors. We are embarking on that programme of reform, but the fact that 230,000 young people are making the positive choice to undertake modern apprenticeships is a positive and important step forward.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am a great supporter of modern apprenticeships, but in my area—I do not know how typical it is of the country—it is extremely difficult to get employers, particularly in the private sector, to take them up. A vast number of young people willing and able to go on the apprenticeships cannot be found a place.
Mr. Lewis: That is the very reason why we established the modern apprenticeship taskforce, chaired by Sir Roy Gardner, one of our country's leading business people. It is sad that he is also the chairman of Manchester United plc. If I had known that, perhaps I would not have agreed to his appointment as I am a Manchester City supporter.
One of the great challenges facing the taskforce is to reach out to employers of all sizes to get them to offer far more opportunities to young people. We have to have a correlation between supply and demand. I am optimistic both about the work that the modern apprenticeship taskforce has already undertaken—in engaging businesses that have previously been reluctant to participate, or had not been participating, in the taskforce—and about its plans to go further over the next 12 months and reach out particularly to small and
1238
medium-size enterprises. That should ensure that we have not only the volume of apprenticeships that are needed, but the variety of modern apprenticeships that young people genuinely want to undertake.
I have mentioned the Tomlinson review of the 14 to 19 group. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned education maintenance allowances. In that context, it is also important to focus on the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", focusing first on the need to protect children, at a minimum, but also on the need to nurture children so that they can achieve their full potential.
What is important about the Green Paper is that it seeks to bring together every body, both statutory and voluntary, as well as people from different professional backgrounds, and harness their talents, expertise and resources so that in every community we can focus on the needs of individual children and particularly of those young people with special needs—those who find that the existing system does not work for them and those who over many years have presented the greatest challenges to our system.
"Every Child Matters" maps out a framework, and is an important step in bringing resources and expertise together. There can be no doubt that all those reforms at every stage in a child's life will, over time, lead directly to an improvement in attendance and behaviour. We are providing support in the earliest years for the most vulnerable children. There are more adults in the classroom than ever before—since 1997, we have appointed more than 24,000 more teachers and 61,000 more classroom assistants. A personalised curriculum excites and motivates young people, plays to their strengths, and supports every individual so that they can fulfil their potential. Aspirations and ambitions have been raised in families, neighbourhoods and schools that have for too long been cut off from opportunities that hon. Members take for granted. Children are far more likely to behave well if they and their parents understand and experience the full value of education.
It is important to make a link between what we are doing to improve adult skills and the school standards agenda. If we get parents and grandparents back into learning so that they can experience the dignity of self-improvement, it is far more likely that they will understand the direct benefits to their children and grandchildren of education. It is not just about the work that we are doing directly for young people, but the tremendous progress that we are making in adult basic skills. The new level 2 entitlement for adults, for example, enables any adult who does not have the equivalent of five decent GCSEs to receive free training and support, which is brokered by the Government. All that incredibly important work enables us to challenge directly some of the culturally low aspirations that form a barrier to education in many of our communities.
Last year, the Secretary of State announced the country's first coherent national behaviour and attendance strategy. For years, politicians from all parties have bemoaned deteriorating behaviour and attendance, and there has been a lot of hand-wringing and rhetoric. We are the first Government to tackle directly the problems of truancy and deteriorating behaviour. Our programme consists of both a universal and a targeted element to address problems at different levels. The universal element deals with issues that affect

1239
every school and local education authority to a greater or lesser extent. The targeted element deals with problems that are particularly acute in certain areas.
Before we can achieve improvements, we need to identify strengths and weaknesses, so we are making behaviour and attendance audit materials available to every secondary and middle school in the country. Audits will identify training needs.
Mr. Tim Collins: The Minister has just said that before we can secure improvements we must put various measures in place. Only two years ago, the Government made a clear commitment, and said that they had a target to reduce unauthorised absences by a further 10 per cent. by 2004. Is that still a commitment and is it still on target?
Mr. Lewis: It is still a commitment, and we aspire to reach that target. I shall deal later with the progress that we are making, but I can confirm that it remains a target.
We are making behaviour and attendance audit materials available to every secondary and middle school. The audits will reveal training needs, so we are making high-quality training materials available to all staff, not just teachers. We have ensured that local education authorities have the expertise to support schools, particularly schools that have a serious problem with challenging behaviour. We started with secondary schools, because behavioural problems are most acute and urgent at that level. I have previously talked about preventive work and the early interventions that we are making. We are also piloting curriculum, audit and training materials in primary schools in 25 local education authorities, and are considering how to extend that provision to the rest of the country.
It is important to tackle the problem of bullying, as it is causing so much misery to so many children. Every year, 20,000 children ring Child Line to say that they are being bullied. Recent surveys of young people show that large numbers have either experienced bullying themselves or have witnessed it. Editors of magazines for teenagers are probably in more regular contact with young people than MPs, and they say that one of the priority concerns articulated by young people is the effect of bullying. We therefore take bullying extremely seriously, and tackling it is central to the improvement of attendance and behaviour. Every school is required to have an anti-bullying policy, and Ofsted is empowered to inspect schools' approach to tackling bullying.
Dr. John Pugh: Does the Minister have access to material that tries to identify whether or not bullying over the past decade or past couple of decades has increased or decreased in schools? It is clearly a problem, but is it a permanent one or one that has increased recently?
Mr. Lewis: We do not have the hard data to make such a comparison. However, we have a responsibility to deal with the concerns voiced by young people, for whom bullying is a serious and acute problem. In recent years, schools have become better at tackling bullying and taking innovative and imaginative approaches to
1240
the problem. However, there is no hard data to establish whether the problem is any worse or any better than it was 10 years ago. Our priority is to challenge that problem, as it is causing a great deal of concern among young people. We should not forget that it affects their educational performance and, in some cases, their attendance.
Mr. Pike: While it has always been recognised that bullying exists within boys, bullying within girls is an equally serious problem.
Mr. Lewis: I assume that my hon. Friend meant bullying among girls rather than within them. There is no evidence of a gender imbalance. In many cases, young women and young men are equally concerned about the effect of bullying on their lives and educational experience.
Liz Blackman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the first step is establishing an anti-bullying policy, but it is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is implemented? A key factor in implementation is quality leadership, as it is for performance indicators across the piece, which is why we are right to stress the need for quality leadership in all our schools.
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely, which is why we established the leadership incentive grant and the National College for School Leadership. Only this week, I wrote to every school urging them to adopt our anti-bullying charter, which seeks to persuade schools to make progress on a policy that may be gathering dust on a shelf and take practical action that makes a difference. I am hosting conferences in every region of the country over the next six months under the banner, "Make the Difference." We have invited head teachers to attend, showcase good practice, share ideas and focus their energy on serious and sustainable ways of tackling the problem of bullying. Two conferences have already taken place—one in Wembley, the other in Brighton—and each was attended by 400 to 500 senior educationists. We could have filled each venue twice over. Education leaders are therefore genuinely committed to tackling the problem. Any head teacher who says that they do not have bullying in their school is not in touch with what is taking place daily. It is important that we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem but do not exaggerate it. If one child is being bullied, that is one child too many in a civilised society, and we have a responsibility to do something about it.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Of course, if one child is bullied, that is one too many. However, does the Minister appreciate that in schools that have tackled bullying well the incidence of the problem may be lower than it is elsewhere? It appears from the way in which he described it that his policy is a blanket policy for every single school, and is not sufficiently fine-tuned. Is that the case?
Mr. Lewis: No. The charter for action identifies broad principles in respect of practical action that individual schools could take or ought to take, but it does not prescribe the particular methods, initiatives or good practice that a school may choose to adopt. We

1241
recognise that each school and each head teacher must be allowed the autonomy and discretion to ensure that the overall management of the school leads to the minimum amount of bullying. That is why the showcasing of good practice, innovation and good ideas is so important. Schools have a great deal to learn from each other in this regard.
No one-size-fits-all model is being imposed on all schools in every part of the country. We have even said, with respect to the charter which, as I say, has pretty broad-brush principles, that if schools wish to modify it and adopt their own version of it, that is fine. I would be concerned about any school that said, "We have a policy but we don't need to move from having that policy to taking practical and decisive action." In any situation we are all suspicious when people hide behind policies. What matters is that there is a change of practice and of culture. That is more difficult to achieve, and it does not occur overnight.
It is important that we focus on attendance. I shall deal with some of the comments made by hon. Members. We believe that we must intervene in schools in the way I described to reform the system and to improve the quality of teaching and learning and the quality of leadership. That is central to improving behaviour and attendance. We also believe it is right to make the point that parents are legally responsible for ensuring that their children attend school regularly. Most parents carry out that responsibility conscientiously, but too many do not. We are determined to make them do so. That is why we are promoting "Fast Track to Prosecution", which is shorthand for a case management system for education welfare services designed to ensure that parents of persistent truants improve their child's attendance within a fixed time scale or are prosecuted.
"Fast Track" is being implemented by 105 local education authorities and we expect the remainder to do so by the end of this term. The indications already are that "Fast Track" can make a real difference. Initial feedback from pilot LEAs shows that half the parents finally engaged with education welfare services to get their children back to school. Only half the cases needed to reach court.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that after the first parent was given a custodial sentence for not taking her child to school, the very next week six pupils turned up at one school in my constituency who had not been seen for the whole of that term.
Mr. Lewis: That is extremely reassuring. One of the historic problems in this area, with reference to the comment about tough and effective action, is that these problems have been allowed to drift. Young people have remained out of school for weeks or months, and in some cases that has gone on for years. What is important is not the punitive aspect of the fast track to prosecution initiative, although there ought to be consequences for parents who do not fulfil such basic responsibilities, but the fact that for the first time it enables the system to get parents' co-operation to focus on getting the young person back into school as soon as possible.
1242
Going through a court process is not always the most appropriate way to deal with the situation. When it comes into force in March, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will provide other options. It will enable LEAs, senior school staff and police officers to issue penalty notices to truants' parents, and schools and LEAs to make parenting contracts with such parents where help with parenting skills is part of the answer.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the Minister have any concerns about head teachers and senior staff handing out penalty notices? Does he think that might conflict with their role in working closely with pupils and parents to re-integrate children?
Mr. Lewis: Liberal Democrats frequently lecture us about delegating to those at the sharp end—on the front line. We are giving education welfare officers, police officers and senior school staff the option of using fixed penalty notices if they feel that in some circumstances that is an appropriate way of getting the parents' co-operation in dealing with truancy. To deny head teachers that opportunity would be inappropriate. It is for head teachers to make a professional judgment as to whether to use that power.
Mr. Swayne: May I commend to the hon. Gentleman the idea of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the benefits system could be used as a powerful coercive against antisocial behaviour in this context?
Mr. Lewis: I have great respect for the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in this regard. We have considered using benefits conditionality in some areas, and the debate will no doubt go on. As a society, we will have to consider the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities. In a context in which there has never been such a high level of investment in support for families, in preventive work and in education, it is not too much to ask that a parent fulfil the basic requirement of getting their child to school.
Where parents fail or are unwilling to co-operate, rather than where they are unable to co-operate, surely it is right that the Government make a statement and use the levers in their power to ensure that that situation is not allowed to continue. No one has the right to blight children's life chances and life choices. Although there must always be a balance between rights and responsibilities, and between family responsibility and state intervention, if parents are not willing to co-operate in the basic responsibility of getting their children to school, the Government have some responsibility.
Liz Blackman: On the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) that fixed penalty notices dished out by the school might break the trust between the parent and the school, does my hon. Friend agree that the school will have moved mountains to try to get the parents to co-operate and get their children to school, and the trust will already have been broken? The issuing of a fixed

1243
penalty notice may well be the start of a better relationship, rather than degrading the relationship further.
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that some head teachers in some circumstances will make that judgment, and the Government believe that they have the right to do so. That belief is not confined to this policy area. Some political parties only ever talk about rights because that is popular in electoral terms, but they never talk about the responsibilities of citizenship. That is not the way to rebuild the kind of society that we seek to rebuild, from the kind of society we were left after 18 years of Tory rule.
It is important to acknowledge that some schools have worse attendance problems than others. That also applies to some LEAs. We are working intensively with 60 LEAs where attendance is significantly lower than one would expect. We are focusing on LEAs where there is no apparent explanation for the fact that attendance is so inferior to the average, and we are offering a tremendous amount of support.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: What will happen in the Bradford district, where many parents regard it as their right to take children back to the sub-continent for months on end? Will that be regarded as a cultural difference that we must tolerate, or will it be regarded as unfair to the children, so action should be taken?
Mr. Lewis: It is difficult for me to comment on all circumstances. I offer to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, which clearly has a direct impact on her constituency. If that blights the educational opportunities of many of her constituents in an unnecessary and unacceptable way, it is an issue that must be tackled. It cannot be shirked. I am willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how, together, we can tackle it.
The core of our attendance and behaviour programme is the behaviour improvement initiative, which provides intensive support for schools facing the greatest challenges. At present, the programme focuses on about 1,500 schools in 61 local education authority areas. Typically, a partnership would comprise four secondary schools and 20 primary schools. We offer them a menu of options to choose from in terms of intervening appropriately to improve attendance and behaviour in their particular environment and circumstances. Behaviour and education support teams, for example, bring together professionals from different backgrounds to work closely with schools on a day-to-day basis, instead of the situation whereby the social worker or other professional is at the other end of the phone and does not have a relationship with the school or direct responsibility for working with it.
We are extending learning support units, which provide in-school education for disruptive pupils outside mainstream classes and give head teachers the opportunity to withdraw young people from classes for a short period to work with them intensively, then to reintegrate them into class, rather than permanently to exclude them, with all the consequences that that brings.
Dr. Pugh: The Minister identified certain local education authorities that perform slightly worse than
1244
others. What features do those—in a sense—rogue authorities have in common? Is it something to do with their curriculum, application, council leadership or school leadership?
Mr. Lewis: I would not go so far as to describe them as rogue authorities; and given that one or two of them may be Liberal Democrat-run, it is a pretty dangerous label for the hon. Gentleman to attach to them. If one looks at socio-economic factors, for example, there is no objective reason why those authorities are having more difficulty than others in managing and improving attendance. We are focusing particularly on their record on attendance and giving them intensive support.
As well as the learning support units and the behaviour and education support teams, we are offering such schools additional learning mentors who can give pupils individual attention. One of the great success stories of this Government is that there are now far more adults working in a school environment, playing different roles and offering young people a far more individualised service. That will be the future of our education system as we go forward. We have to offer young people a far more personalised educational service.
We are basing police officers in schools where appropriate, not only to work with young people and teachers, but to improve relationships between schools and the wider community, including voluntary organisations and parents. That has been relatively successful.
Mr. Allen: In the context of police working in schools, will my hon. Friend commend the work that is being done by the drug abuse resistance education or DARE, programme in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere, whereby police officers, who are normally retired, go into a school on 12 consecutive Fridays to teach the kids—by various means, including resisting peer pressure such as bullying—how to say no not only to drugs, but to smoking and drinking. That process also helps many of those children to make better educational advances as a result of the confidence that it gives them.
Mr. Lewis: I certainly pay tribute to the work of DARE. It is important to find opportunities to get role models into schools to work with young people and to establish a different relationship between the police and young people. That relationship is often based on misconceptions, ignorance and lack of contact. Bringing young people and police officers together in a more positive way has to be generally good for the fabric and cohesion of our communities.
We have made resources available for electronic registration systems and for enhanced pupil referral units, which enable us to support young people who are permanently excluded from school.
I am proud of the fact that we are the first Government seriously to attack poor attendance and ill discipline in our schools. To our critics, some of whom sit on the Opposition Benches, I say that are there are no magic wands, quick fix solutions or easy answers. We are seeking to achieve generational and cultural change: to restore values of good manners, civility, self-respect and respect for others; to raise aspirations in

1245
communities where education is not seen as the passport to personal fulfilment and success; to combine unprecedented rights to support and opportunities with non-negotiable responsibilities; and to undo the damage caused by the "no such thing as society" ideology that was applied by the Conservative party when it was in government.
I make no apologies for pursuing long-term sustainable improvements, but I can also point to some tangible evidence that our reforms and investment are delivering real progress. Attendance levels are at a record high. The percentage of time missed due to truancy is decreasing, and children are truanting for shorter periods. The fact that greater numbers of pupils are being identified as truanting is not necessarily bad news, because it means that instead of allowing young people to drift through the streets, unidentified by the system, we are ensuring that they are being identified: for the first time, we are seriously tackling that unauthorised absence. The more that one focuses on legitimacy in terms of absence and attendance, the more heads do not authorise certain absences in our school system that they used to authorise. We welcome that. However, this year the rate of unauthorised absence has gone down, if only marginally—I make no great claims for it, but it is important that it has gone down. Moreover, attendance is at a record high. If one talks to educationists and teachers, it is clear that the emphasis that the Government have placed on attendance has been very significant in beginning to shift the culture.
I do not claim that we have gone far enough—we still have a long way to go. However, this is not a simple issue. It is disingenuous for Opposition Members to attempt to roll up all the money that has been spent on behaviour, attendance, exclusions and preventive work and to say, "The Government have spent all this money, but there has not been a massive improvement in truancy." That completely distorts the purpose of that money, what it was used for, and the improvements that have been made.
I shall give some more examples of tangible improvements. Permanent exclusions are 25 per cent. lower then when we entered Government. In terms of behaviour improvement in secondary schools, fixed term exclusions were 11 per cent. lower in 2002–03 than in the previous year. For the first time ever, all but a handful of permanently excluded pupils are receiving a full-time education. Under the previous Government, permanently excluded pupils roamed the streets and were left to rot as the criminals of the future, with absolutely nothing being done about it. Those children's life chances were destroyed; and, worse than that, they became parents and passed it all on to the next generation.
We are proud of the fact that we are, for the first time, ensuring that all permanently excluded pupils have access to a full-time education, but the quality of that education is not what it should be. That is why the Government are now focusing not only on improving provision for young people who are permanently excluded, but on improving the quality of that provision. As there will always be some young people for whom education in the mainstream system does not work, permanent exclusion has to be a tool that is
1246
available to head teachers. Having made that difficult decision, however, we have a responsibility never to give up on those young people: if we do so, we will pay the price.
We now have more than 10,000 learning mentors working in schools giving individualised, personalised attention to pupils. There are 90 multi-agency teams in place and 40 more in the pipeline, bringing professionals together to work closely with schools. Key worker support has been given to 17,000 children at risk of exclusion, truancy or crime. Many of those young people have never had in their lives one adult who they can look up to and respect, and who is there for them. It is vital to take that key worker approach to some of the most difficult young people in our society. So there is an adult to whom those young people can relate. That person is also the professional who is responsible for making the system work for them. That is preferable to half a dozen or more agencies fishing in those young people's lives without making a great deal of difference.
As I said earlier, 100 police officers are based in schools and we intend to increase that figure to 200. Young people who are judged to be at the greatest risk of involvement in crime and antisocial behaviour are participating for the first time in positive activities in school holidays. If they are allowed to wander the streets during school holidays, we should not wonder at the increase in street crime and antisocial behaviour. Focusing on them and ensuring that they participate in positive activities in the holidays is therefore important.
We must put the debate on attendance and behaviour in a sensible context. In our most recent survey of stakeholders, 75 per cent. of teachers who responded said that pupil behaviour was generally good. More than 80 per cent. said that standards of behaviour are either being maintained or getting better. We therefore need to listen to the profession. For years, teachers said that they could not do their basic job of teaching because poor behaviour and ill discipline undermined their capacity to teach. It is important that teachers are acknowledging that things are getting better. They are not as good as they need to be but it is important that we base our assessment on the experiences and views of people who work in our classrooms daily.
The Government regard education throughout life as the route to a fair and successful society. Improving school attendance and behaviour is our mission because we know that that is crucial to standards in every school in every community. We know that our success will free resources that are currently spent on social and economic failure.
Generational change is never easy for politicians because there are few quick wins and no artificial four or five-year cycles. However, we will not be distracted from our mission. We believe that it is right for our country and central to our belief that there is such a thing as society.
2.32 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: Conservative Members welcome the debate. In common with most debates, both the subject and timing are at the discretion of Her Majesty's Government. It is therefore surprising and disappointing that a debate about

1247
whether people should turn up has not featured a contribution from a Minister with direct responsibility for schools. Neither the Minister for School Standards nor the Under-Secretary of State for Schools could be present. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Skills and Vocational Education made an entertaining, albeit lengthy, speech, it is especially curious that the Minister for School Standards pulled out of a long-standing engagement with me and several others to talk about schools to House Magazine this morning on the ground that he was preparing to contribute to the debate. We regret that he is unable to do so.
Many of the Under-Secretary's comments were unexceptional. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties and many outside the House would happily agree with them. They include his general description of the importance of high attendance at school and ensuring that teachers can teach. Education Ministers' genuine commitment to steadily improving school standards and steadily increasing investment in schools shone through his speech. I do not doubt his sincerity about his intentions. However, a Government who have been in office for nearly seven years cannot be judged merely on their intentions or even on their spending; they must also be judged on their attainments and especially on the targets that they set for themselves.
The Government have missed two targets on truancy. They had a target of reducing truancy by a third between 1998 and 2002, but they made no progress in that period. In 2002, a foreword to a document entitled "Tackling it Together", signed by the Home Secretary and the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, stated:
"We have a target to reduce unauthorised absences by a further 10 per cent. by 2004."
The Under-Secretary graciously confirmed that the target remains. It is now 2004 and there is no evidence of a 10 per cent. reduction, or anything close to it, in truancy since 2002. The hon. Gentleman has set out in detail some impressive and worthwhile projects, which are doubtless successful in some schools, to tackle the problem. However, the Government said that their policies were designed to achieve specific, measured objectives, and they have failed to do that.
Mr. Lewis: We will not know whether we have hit the 2004 target until later this year. It is therefore premature to judge that we have failed.
Mr. Collins: I shall be delighted if the Under-Secretary can report spectacular progress later this year. However, we have the figures for the first half of the period. He described the improvement in the first year as "marginal". We would therefore need a spectacular improvement in the second year if the Government are to hit their 10 per cent. target. Of course, I accept that we have not yet reached the end of the academic year that concludes in 2004, but so far, there is no evidence that the Government are on track for hitting their target.
The Under-Secretary did not differ with me that the Government did not achieve their goal of reducing truancy by a third between 1998 and 2002. I remind him that in "Tackling it Together" the 10 per cent. reduction by 2004 was described as "a further 10 per cent". People are therefore entitled to assume that before the
1248
Government could claim credit, the 10 per cent. would have to be compounded on a third reduction on the 1998 figure. The chances of that are so minuscule that they are almost not worth discussing.
On any school day, 50,000 children who ought to be in school are not. In a year, that means 1 million or more absences. A total of approximately 8 million school days are being lost. It would be fair for the Under-Secretary to say that the problem did not begin in 1997; indeed, it did not begin in 1979. In the early 1900s, only 72 per cent. of pupils regularly attended school. The Under-Secretary may enjoy my observing that a Liberal Government were in power then. No party therefore has a 100 per cent, track record.
The work, to which the Under-Secretary referred, that Mike Tomlinson is conducting on reforming the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds and the burdens on teachers and students will be relevant to improving attendance and behaviour. If we are to improve teenagers' performance and attendance, it is critical for them to perceive their curriculum as relevant and interesting. I hope that Mike Tomlinson can make recommendations to help that objective.
Those who play truant are more likely to end up out of work and homeless. They are three times more likely to offend. According to Home Office statistics, 75 per cent. of boys and 50 per cent. of girls who truant only once a week have already committed offences. The Government are therefore right to establish a link between crime, especially street crime, and truancy. I do not doubt for a moment that the Government are right to devote resources to tackling that issue. We have all been guilty this afternoon of using the word "truancy". An interesting report about a year ago by the BBC's education correspondent, Mike Baker, pointed out that the word "truancy" is not recognised by most pupils or many adults, whereas they instantly recognise the phrase "bunking off". The language used in Parliament may not enable us most effectively to communicate with the electorate and the rest of society. Perhaps we should use words that are more widely recognised and understood.
Responding to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), the Minister said that he would seek to address my hon. Friend's point about the behaviour of children with special educational needs. While the Minister was undoubtedly correct to say that some behavioural issues relate to wider society issues and acts of collective timidity, many of them have much to do with pupils who are unable properly to exercise self-control and self-discipline, or who require a great deal of additional help and support to do so. When the Minister winds up, it will be helpful if he could say more about Government strategy for special educational needs—particularly in respect of the success or otherwise of Government initiatives after 1997 involving a move towards mainstreaming.
The Minister cited more mainstreaming as evidence of the Government's success and spoke of a sharp reduction in the number of permanent exclusions. That might be an indication of success in relation to pupils with problems that affect not only themselves but their teachers and themselves—and that have regrettable but unavoidable implications for the learning experience of other pupils. However, we must be confident that, by going down the broad mainstreaming route, we will not

1249
throw the baby out with the bath water and lose some of the excellent contributions by special schools in many parts of the country in providing a much better form of integration that can be possible in the mainstream environment.
Last Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting Witherslack Hall special school in my constituency, which has one of the largest concentrations of special schools in the country, numbering around half a dozen. Witherslack Hall is the lead school in a group that extends into the Knowsley area of Liverpool and south Cumbria. It has done impressive work with pupils with severe behavioural difficulties in the early stages of their education—almost all of whom arrive at the school with a letter not just from their parents but from a solicitor, dealing with often prolonged legal action. Almost all those pupils had been excluded for one reason or another, and come from local education authorities throughout the country. The point made powerfully by the head teacher of Witherslack Hall is that the day-to-day experience of its pupils is more about integration than it would be in a mainstream school. Without exception, all pupils take part in every lesson and have access to every part of the curriculum—Witherslack Hall delivers the national curriculum in full. Every pupil without exception receives detailed attention. Sadly, many mainstream schools have no choice but to place a difficult pupil in a quiet class or in a small room that is part of a library or storage facility. Every pupil at Witherslack Hall also has access to school trips, visits and other outside activities.
It would be as much of a mistake to assume that special schools are always the answer as to assume that they are never the answer. In examining the behavioural dimension, I hope that the simplistic assumption will not be made that mainstreaming is always appropriate or that the skills and attainments that many special schools have ratcheted up over the years should lightly be cast away, because they offer opportunities that should not be lost.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend touches on an issue close to my heart because the Alderman Knight special school in my constituency is under threat of closure—for no reason that I can see other than the Government's inclusion programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that if children are forced to attend mainstream schools, that may achieve inclusion but the exclusion of such pupils from many activities because of their lack of ability means that they will lose out?
Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend highlights a genuine difficulty. I do not challenge the sincerity of Ministers in seeking to provide a more inclusive approach, to enable individuals, through their educational years and in later life, to be more part of society. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that mainstream schools do a lot of excellent work and that it is not the case that all special schools are as successful as others.
My hon. Friend and I have pointed to schools in our respective constituencies that provide a genuine way forward and have a genuinely inclusive agenda. I hope
1250
that none of us will generalise. Special schools will not always be the answer, but they are not always wrong either.
Mr. Allen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the sensible, non-partisan way in which he is raising an extremely serious subject. In educationally difficult areas, including pupils in classes that they should not attend makes even more difficult the work of teachers already labouring under immense pressures to raise standards from a low base. Perhaps that topic and the difficult judgments required are worthy of a separate debate.
Mr. Collins: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point. Teachers in mainstream schools wish to do the very best for every child in their care, but some of them genuinely question whether it is practicable always to provide the best quality education to all the children in a class where there is a strong contrast between their behavioural abilities. That has nothing to do with stigmatising, apartheid or relegating pupils to second-class status; it is about providing appropriate education for every individual.
Mr. John Taylor: I join the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in congratulating my hon. Friend on his balanced and thoughtful approach. Where a pupil is a marginal case for a special school or mainstream education, does my hon. Friend have any disposition as to which way that judgment might go?
Mr. Collins: That point, I imagine, is unlikely to divide the House. It is not really right for politicians of any political colour to get into the business of making judgments on individuals. That has to be done by those with the appropriate specialisms and training—and, above all, knowledge and care of the individuals in question. In a marginal case, however, such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred, I would hope that the judgment reached would be in the widest interests of that child, rather than dictated by a national presumption in either direction, or even simply by resource issues.
I have talked to various head teachers in mainstream secondary education, and they welcome the fact that the Government have provided them with additional resources to cope with the pupils for whom they now have to cater, who perhaps in previous times would have gone into special schools. However, they often say that even with those additional resources, those pupils still pose a significant challenge, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, for the classroom teacher. That is not through any lack of political will on the Government's part, but because of practical issues.
Mr. Hopkins: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have experienced cases in my constituency in which parents have wanted their child to go into a mainstream school but then, after an experimental period, have changed their minds and decided that their child would be happier at a special school. Should not the parents' views be taken into consideration, and should not they also be able to move from one option to the other if circumstances change?
Mr. Collins: I have much sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point. For that form of parental choice to

1251
have any effect, it is necessary for there to be some special schools in most, if not all, local educational authorities. By definition, if there are not special schools there cannot be that element of choice when there is a recognition—it can occur to teachers as well as parents—that as needs change and people develop physically and mentally, what may have seemed entirely sensible at one age may no longer be appropriate when the child is older. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.
I get the sense that, perhaps unusually, and in a debate in which we did not expect consensus to break out, there is a surprising degree of cross-party agreement on this matter, although some might not necessarily agree with our position.
Mr. Pickthall rose—
Mr. Collins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to join that consensus or to disagree.
Mr. Pickthall: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to break the consensus. There is a Witherslack school at Ormskirk in my constituency, and I do not disagree with anything in his description of those schools.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that out there in the great world—although this perhaps does not apply to us or to people who work in the schools and support systems—the very use of the term "special educational needs" does not help? It gives the impression that there is an homogeneity to children with special educational needs, when in fact they can range from children with mild dyslexia that does not prevent them from getting through the mainstream, to potential homicidal maniacs at the other end of the scale. If we referred to those needs as a range, or octave, of difficulties that young people have, we would be more likely to make the right decisions at the right times on who enters special education, or on whether it is necessary to have as much special educational provision as currently exists.
Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely powerful point. He is quite right. We all sometimes slip into the assumption that there are "normal" children and another kind, whereas in fact, all individuals are different. There is also an assumption, which we should challenge, that if someone has a difficulty or faces a challenge in one aspect of their education, that somehow lowers their performance in all other fields. As we all know, many children with statements of special education needs are well above average—in some cases, absolutely outstanding—in a range of other educational qualifications, attainments or skills. We should reflect on that.
The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) is right, but we should recognise that there has been progress under this Government, and perhaps earlier, in recognising the need to focus attention on the individual. The idea of having a statement of special educational needs was not an ignoble one, or misconceived from the first. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in that as we move through the 21st century, we need to find a definition that is not quite so broad and sweeping, and which enables judgments to be
1252
made that are relevant to the individual. That is the key point, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has confirmed something that he has said before: that a move to more individually focused teaching is a high Government priority. Perhaps we have identified a point today on which we can make progress on a cross-party basis.
Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hosting a mini-debate within the major debate, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to extend this extremely important line of thought.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there can be a problem where people are struggling to raise standards? I am thinking of a school in my constituency that has worked incredibly hard to raise its own performance so that it has 13 per cent. of pupils gaining five or more grade A to C GCSE passes. That might not seem a very high performance level, but from where that school started, achieving a 1 per cent. incremental change each year is very commendable. However, if it has to take on perhaps 10 or 15 youngsters who have been excluded from other schools and who have no chance whatever, on any objective basis, of achieving similar performance levels, those pupils will take the school in the opposite direction from where its efforts were taking it. There must be a rational process by which pupils are allocated, and by which money follows them, so that schools can continue on the upward trend on which they have begun through their own hard work.
Mr. Collins: I agree. In addition to the general difficulties for schools in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, and the problems that that might cause their reputation, including among parents, there are implications for teacher recruitment and retention. That is because most teachers, perhaps not surprisingly, want to work in schools where they will be able to teach pupils who want to learn, and so on. I cannot speak for the Witherslack school in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Lancashire, but I have been struck at Witherslack Hall special school in my constituency, which is a single-sex school, by the behaviour of the boys. Every single one of them has at some stage experienced behavioural difficulties, usually major ones, but they are all well turned-out, quiet, polite, beautifully well behaved and follow the whole national curriculum, in a way that does not disrupt themselves or anyone else.
No one is suggesting that we should somehow ghettoise or marginalise people, and remove them from mainstream schools so that those schools can perform better, and I know that that is not what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North meant, although we should collectively put that point on the record. However, it is notable in many instances, although not in every instance, that going down the special school route secures a double win. There is a win for the pupils with special educational needs—we must, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire said, come up with a better phrase, but he will forgive me if I use that one for the moment—who in many cases have better chances and life opportunities. There is also a win for mainstream schools. That is why I genuinely believe that we have had a constructive discussion this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and perhaps respond to it when he winds up.

1253
I am anxious to conclude well in time for others to contribute, but I have one or two matters to draw to the Minister's attention, although I do not want to belittle, ignore or sweep aside the very positive indications, to which he referred, that in many respects our schools are improving. There is no doubt about that. The traditional role of the Opposition is to say that everything is doom and gloom and must, by definition, be going to hell in a handcart. However, that is not true of our school system. Many aspects of it are improving and it is evident that the Government are putting much more money into it. I do not challenge that, but the Minister, who perhaps inevitably focused principally on those aspects that are going well, will not be surprised if I draw his attention to one or two matters that are not going quite so well. I should be grateful for his response. I do not allege that these matters are the direct or deliberate result of Government policy, but they are phenomena with which we should all be concerned.
The statistics that I have in front of me show that between 1998 and 2001, the number of serious assaults on teachers quadrupled. Clearly, assaults do not happen every day or in every school, but it is none the less concerning that the trend should be so strongly upwards. Four out of five teachers now report that pupils have threatened them with physical violence; two out of three say that pupils swear at them regularly; and just under half of all teachers now report
"persistent malice including open defiance".
I do not take the view, and, on reflection, perhaps the Minister would not either, that standards of behaviour in our schools are inevitably the consequence of whichever party happens to be holding the keys to No. 10 Downing street at the time. The House would not expect me to agree with his assumption that bad behaviour was the product of 18 years of Conservative government, and I do not match that assertion by saying that if there is more violence in our schools since 1997, it is because the Prime Minister's name is Blair. Both would be somewhat simplistic assertions. We are considering societal change that has taken place under Governments of both colours, has been going on for many decades, and is connected to a change in the way in which we relate to ourselves and to others. The objectives set by the Minister of trying to create or re-create a society of respect for others, civility and good manners, are not ones on which we would differ. The sad fact, however, is that whatever the origins, many of which have nothing to do with decisions taken recently or a long time ago by people in this place, the problems are growing.
In the Minister's closing remarks, I should be grateful if he would focus on one thing: the position of the teacher. He referred to some survey evidence indicating that teachers are becoming more satisfied with their lot, which, if true, is welcome. He will know, however, that the teacher unions speak with some eloquence on the difficulty for classroom teachers of asserting their authority in circumstances in which the most persistent troublemaker or offender is often all too aware of the present balance of the law. They know that if they allege that a teacher touched them, a procedure can stretch out often for as much as 18 months, in which there is almost a presumption of guilt relating to the teacher and one of
1254
innocence relating to the child. Even if that ultimately results, as it normally does, with the teacher being cleared entirely, it can so shatter the morale and self-respect of that teacher that they may not return to the teaching profession.
I know that the Minister will have heard teacher union representatives say that to him and his colleagues, as I have heard them say it to me. In the spirit of what has so far been a relatively non-partisan debate, I want to extend an offer to the Minister. In terms of the precise topic of this debate, which is both attendance and behaviour in schools, if he and his colleagues wish to bring forward proposals for legislation that would address directly teachers' perception that they are under growing pressure and no longer have all the tools at their disposal to exercise discipline as they would like—particularly with regard to the burden of proof and anonymity for teachers accused of certain offences—the Opposition will not only greet them positively and warmly, but will be happy to speed their progress through both Houses.
We must recognise that the starting point—not the end point—of high—quality education in all kinds of schools and areas, and for all kinds of pupils, is teachers' ability to believe that they are in charge, to exercise authority and to impose discipline. Even with the best tools at their disposal, incidents and difficulties will occur. Teachers should be under no doubt whatever, however, that the political, judicial and legal system in this country is on their side, and is not in some sense against them. Sadly, that is not what many of them feel at the moment.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that school governors throughout the United Kingdom are concerned that fewer and fewer teachers are applying for posts of senior responsibility in schools, and that the Minister will need to examine why that is happening and how more teachers can be encouraged to come forward and to take on higher responsibility?
Mr. Collins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with great knowledge of these matters, is right that that is an issue to which we would all welcome a response from the Minister. In fairness, the Government have introduced several initiatives to try to encourage teachers to take up greater responsibilities, and several initiatives to reward more fulsomely those who do so. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that difficulties exist, particularly in some schools and some areas. Several of these phenomena have multiple explanations, and it is not simply the case that problems arise because of the agenda that we are discussing this afternoon relating to attendance and behaviour.
It is notable, however, that although many admirable individuals are choosing to enter teacher training colleges—I hope that this will not be regarded as in any way sexist—I view with some concern the extent to which an overwhelming majority are young women rather than young men. Close to 80 per cent. of applicants are now women as opposed to men. Clearly, there are many different explanations for that, and many high-quality teachers in our land who are women. Given that, in terms of the wider societal context to which the Minister referred, many—although, of

1255
course, not all—of those children who are a cause of particular concern do not have male role models in their domestic environments, is it desirable for them not to have many, if any, male role models in their educational environment either? To what extent—I ask this as a question, as I do not pretend to know the answer—is the perception of declining teacher authority in the classroom, and the sense that it is more difficult than it was in the past to exercise appropriate discipline, differentially deterring male as opposed to female applicants from going into teacher training? We should not have a rigid view that the ratio of the sexes must be 50:50. We should at least note, however, if it has become 75:25 or 80:20, that some interesting issues arise from that. Again, the Minister may feel able to comment on that when he winds up.
To conclude, I welcome this debate. We have had a particularly interesting discussion about the special educational needs field and the future of special schools. I hope that we will put these matters in their proper context: the vast majority of our schools and our pupils are places and individuals of good behaviour and high standards. The vast majority of our teachers do not face day-to-day enormous difficulties in getting their work done, but there are too many who do. While welcoming the Government's genuine commitment to try to tackle these problems, I hope that we will recognise that they need to be assessed not only by their aspirations but by their achievements. As they make progress on that agenda, they will have the genuine support of everyone in the House, of whatever political party, who recognises that these issues are of real importance for our nation's future.
3.8 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and sorry that more hon. Members are not here to take part on such an important subject. At least I have a little more time to say what I want to say, which is helpful.
I pay tribute to both Front-Bench spokespersons for both making thoughtful and helpful contributions. It is pleasing to be able to agree with almost everything that they said, which would not have been the case some years ago. It is as well to recall that only recently there have been some sea changes in thinking about education and behaviour in schools. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister in particular on his focus on bullying in schools. I have seen him perform on television and speak at length and sincerely on bullying, about which I have felt strongly for a long time. He is doing a good job for the whole country, and particularly for those people who suffer from bullying, by targeting proactively that serious problem.
I want to mention schools and teachers in my constituency, where there have been some tremendous improvements in recent years. I shall not dwell on individual schools because there are too many good news stories to recount, but we should recall that, only a few years ago, several schools in my constituency were in special measures and had very serious problems indeed. We had to introduce a whole flight of new head teachers, and since then there has been a dramatic transformation and improvement; indeed, I have taken great pleasure in visiting those schools time and again. Many have received national awards for their
1256
performance. In fact, last year one head teacher received the award for the best head teacher of a British primary school, which was a major achievement.
The problem of poor attendance and behaviour in schools involves a very small minority of pupils. The great majority behave well, attend school regularly and have supportive parents. However, a minority do not, and they cause serious problems not just for themselves but for everybody else as well. The policy changes of the past two or three years, however, have made a difference. Until five years ago, the emphasis was on simple inclusion in a rather zealous way, without giving attention or thought to the full implications of blanket inclusion. Within a year or two of my coming to this place, parents of children with difficulties were telling me, "We don't want the authority to force our children into mainstream schools. We don't think that that would be right for them. We want to retain, where necessary, special schools and special units in which our children can be given the attention that they need. Nor do we want them to disrupt the good teaching and good classroom behaviour that goes on in other schools."
It is clear that physical disabilities and learning disabilities entail special needs. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and others have pointed out, not all disabilities are the same. We need a range of special schools to cater for different disabilities. A good friend of mine has a son—a very bright young man—with cerebral palsy. He has gone to a boarding school for children with that disability. He is academically very able, and his situation is quite different from that of someone who is physically able but who has learning difficulties and is perhaps not very quick.
Today, we are talking about behaviour, in which family factors undoubtedly play a role. Teachers in my constituency have told me of children with chronically alcoholic single parents who have a simply dreadful time at home. Other pupils do not attend school very often, and upon investigation it is discovered that they are looking after younger siblings while the single parent goes out to work. In other words, child care responsibility is being put on 12 or 13-year-olds, who are not attending school because the parent—usually the mother—goes out to work. All such problems have to be dealt with individually.
Some behaviour problems are of a physical nature. I spoke to a group of children in my constituency who suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Their parents expressed great concern about the lack of special needs attention given to them. They also told me that they, too, suffered from that condition when at school, because a degree of inheritance is involved. They said, "I was an ADHD pupil at school, and my child is now in the same situation." We need much more support than is currently being given. I know that the Government are providing more specialist support, but such conditions have to be looked at in specific terms. Many other difficulties are of an almost medical or psychological nature. There are many adults with mental difficulties, and such problems are also reflected in children because they start very young.
Let us look at what was happening three to five years ago in some schools. I shall not recount too many anecdotes, but I offer a serious example that I discussed with the Secretary of State. A high school for 11 to 16-

1257
year-olds in my constituency was in special measures, and a new head teacher was brought in to try to pick it up. Shortly after he arrived, a violent incident occurred in which one pupil attacked another with a pair of scissors. The teacher who intervened was also attacked, and the pupil in question was permanently excluded from the school. He was clearly very violent and dangerous; indeed, he had also uttered threats against the other pupil. The incident was very unpleasant, and it is understandable that he was excluded permanently. Indeed, he had a record of bad behaviour, of which this incident was the culmination. The teacher and the other pupil had to go to hospital for stitches. Fortunately, no serious injury was inflicted, but it was a very serious incident.
The parents of the pupil in question appealed, and the appeal panel put the child back into the school. That completely undermined the head teacher, making it very difficult for his attempt to take the school out of special measures to have any credibility. I took the matter up with the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris). She changed the policy, saying that she would no longer accept such panel decisions willy-nilly. She took the view that we cannot simply allow panels to put back into schools, on appeal, pupils who behave in this way, and that we have to look at these cases more seriously. That approach was a success.
At about the same time, I was having a difficult and tense debate with representatives of my local authority. It was a Labour-run authority consisting of very fine people, but both the officers and one or two members were zealous in their support for blanket inclusion. On the one side were the parents, with whom I agreed, who were saying that they wanted special education for their children who had behavioural problems. On the other side was the authority, and one or two leading officers and members, who said that they wanted the children in mainstream schools. That was a difficult time. That tension has now been resolved, and the most zealous of those officers has moved on elsewhere.
The Government have also introduced learning support units in schools, for which one of my high schools was a pilot. The project proved very successful; indeed, The Sunday Telegraph published a large feature on our unit. We had to fight somewhat for continuing funding, but it has arrived and the unit is doing an extremely good job. Every time a particular pupil has, shall we say, a difficult day in school, the teacher can suggest that they go along to the learning support unit, at which they will receive one-to-one teaching for a day or two, until they have calmed down. The unit finds out what the problem is at home and the reason for the behaviour, and the pupil returns to their class having lost nothing, and having perhaps received some good one-to-one education while in the unit. Such work goes on within the physical building of the school, and has made an enormous difference. Pressure has been taken off the teachers, the other pupils do not suffer disruption in the classroom, and the pupil in question receives special attention, which is often what they want. The policy has been a great success, and I urge the Government to continue it, spread it more widely and ensure that it is properly resourced.
1258
At the end of the day the issue is about resourcing. I have some second-hand experience in that regard. My wife worked in primary education in our town for many years as a reception class teacher and special needs co-ordinator. She had pupils with serious behavioural difficulties in her infant class. I remember that the school had difficulty persuading the authority to statement any of the children. Statementing was expensive—it cost money—so the children would be kept there for a year and another year beyond that, when it was obvious that they needed special education of some sort.
On one occasion my wife told a county co-ordinator from the authority that she had a problem with a young boy who needed special treatment because he could not behave himself or learn anything. He told her, "Mrs. Hopkins, you need to give him one-to-one teaching," and she replied that she had a class of 23 pupils and could not provide one-to-one teaching all the time. He then offered to take the child away and spend a little time with him. When he came back after half an hour, he said, "Mrs.,Hopkins, I can do nothing with him", making the point that the pupil needed some sort of special education and should be statemented. It was a resource-based constraint because the authority was encouraging a no response to all statementing because it cost money. Resources have to be provided not just for the pupils concerned, but for classes and teachers to relieve the pressures. If we want people to go into teaching, we have to ensure that they are not going to suffer from disruptive and poorly behaved pupils in the classroom.
As has been recognised many times, one of the biggest difficulties faced by secondary school teachers is pupil behaviour in the classroom. That is what causes them most stress. If one is threatened, or even abused verbally, by a pupil, it can be upsetting and distressing. It takes one's attention off the job and often means teaching less well. It certainly makes teachers less happy in their job and more likely to leave teaching than would be the case if bad behaviour were not a problem.
Mr. Beggs: I take it that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the earlier a child is statemented, the better for the child and for the rest of the pupils in the area. Does he further agree that once a child has been statemented, that statement should be applicable and acceptable across educational borders?
Mr. Hopkins: I accept both the hon. Gentleman's points. I was about to come to the point about early interventions, which are crucial in so many respects. Some of my friends have children who suffer from dyslexia. If the problem is caught early enough and they are properly supported, such youngsters can often go straight to university like many other bright young people. However, dyslexia has caused serious difficulties for many. A high proportion of our prison population has serious problems with literacy in English, largely derived from dyslexia, so it is important to tackle it earlier. Similarly, if we can find out early enough what is causing behavioural problems, we can start to solve them.
Finally, we have a cultural problem with behaviour. In some cultures, it is seen as right to be quiet and deferential to adults; in other cultures, more relaxed and

1259
liberal attitudes to adults are common. If pupils are to learn anything in schools, there cannot be a hubbub or noisy atmosphere. There must be quiet. I know from my own constituency that the most successful schools and classes tend to be quiet. We should teach children from their earliest school days that it is better for them—and everyone else—to learn to be quiet and self-controlled. That can be difficult when pupils come from a background that is not quiet. It may sound almost prissy to say it, but I know from experience that I cannot work in a hubbub: I must have some quiet. I am sure that that is true for five-year-olds and, indeed, five-year-olds of lower ability. In the past, the most disciplined and orderly classes tended to be for the most able. What we really want is more rigour, more quietness and more calm for the less able, so that they can catch up and make the best of their abilities.
The gulf between the best educated and the poorest educated in Britain is among the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area. If we examine the OECD figures, we find that the top 10 per cent. of our population are among the best educated in the world. We can outshine the world on that basis, but in respect of our poorest 10 per cent. —or even poorest third—we are right at the bottom of the table. That is the problem that we must address. Dealing with behaviour and absences is a major part of solving that problem: we should give the people at the bottom a start in life equal to that of their peers.
3.24 pm
Dr. John Pugh: The object of the debate is to draw attention to issues of attendance and behaviour in schools, but it is not at all obvious to all participants in the debate that the Government can directly influence all the variables or be held accountable for every aspect of the problem. It is a fundamental error to think that the Government are omnipotent. Although the Secretary of State is undoubtedly powerful, no Secretary of State has yet found the secret of making every pupil in the UK attend and behave. Any Secretary of State who actually achieved that would be in the same league as a Home Secretary who eliminated crime or a Chancellor who eliminated unemployment.
The best result that Whitehall and Westminster can obtain is enabling pupils by removing the obstacles that prevent the utopia where every pupil attends and no pupil misbehaves. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, since the Government made school attendance compulsory there has been unauthorised absenteeism—otherwise known as bunking off or truancy. Since the days of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, truancy has been a fact of life.
Real truancy does not involve the roguish cheerfulness of Mark Twain or Jimmy Tarbuck, who on a recent edition of "Desert Island Discs" told the story of his school career, which was punctuated by more than occasional bouts of truancy. Truancy and absenteeism are linked with underachievement, the exploitation of children—as other hon. Members have noted, sometimes by their parents—petty deviance and crime. The children experience boredom and joyless drifting, which goes on day after day.
To their credit, the Government have identified the phenomenon and aspire to address it. They have introduced a catalogue of coercive and remedial
1260
measures—there are many such measures and their effects are various. Truancy sweeps have received a lot of publicity and have had some effect, although it remains to be seen whether it is permanent. There are more educational welfare officers and a faster courts system for non-compliant parents, which is laudable. Another idea is penalty fines, which are perhaps not such a good idea in all circumstances, but the Government have none the less broached them. There is better tracking and recording of pupils by schools and other agencies and parenting orders for misbehaviour and truancy.
A range of remedies and coercive measures is available. Even the Audit Commission has joined in—it seems to join in on just about every problem and thinks it can solve almost all of them. It has chipped in with a paper called "Missing Out", in which it suggests that we need strategies, the sharing of information and clear lines of responsibility. I must say that those are the Audit Commission's solutions to nearly every problem and that the paper looks like a universal, off-the-shelf solution, but the Audit Commission is none the less concerned.
The Minister has almost admitted the fact that the effect of the remedies has been marginal. The figures for school attendance and unauthorised absence have remained broadly constant over time. There are variations and better and worse local education authorities, but the figures are consistent. There is no LEA with a 20 per cent. record on truancy and there is no LEA with a 0 per cent. record—all LEAs fall in a spectrum between 2.5 and 0.4 per cent.
A cynic could as easily attribute the overall improvement to statistical vagaries or changes in methods of recording as to the outright success or failure of Government policies. In saying that, I recognise individual and creditable success stories. In particular, I would like to mention the result that Liverpool LEA has managed to produce in its schools. I must say that it is a Liberal Democrat council, although that could be coincidence, but none the less the success is real. Odd statistics in Bradford have also been alluded to, and they need special attention. Pressure must be maintained, but we are still in a situation in which 50 per cent. of children caught truanting are doing so with their parents, so the broad scale of the problem remains.
The basic cause of systematic truancy—hanging around shopping malls and estates—is disengagement from the educational process, which has been widely acknowledged in the House today. Such disengagement can be on an individual, family or community basis, but in each case those involved take the fundamental decision that the school curriculum does not relate to their aspirations and goals. They are wrong in that judgment, but it is none the less one that some pupils and some families make. That is often why, when children return to school, the school does not welcome them like a prodigal son; fatted calf is not on the menu, because those disengaged pupils are disengaged permanently and are potentially disruptive.
A couple of weeks ago, an article in The Times Educational Supplement described research undertaken by a headmaster into stress among his staff. He examined how stress varied over time and how it related to a series of variables. Oddly enough, they did not

1261
include directives from the head teacher or even new demands imposed by the Government. The largest variable was the presence or absence of certain pupils. The head teacher found that if he adopted a more pliant attitude to exclusion, by applying it more forcefully, stress levels went down.
Trends in behaviour at school are a concern. Authority is more commonly challenged than ever before, both in school and elsewhere. Violence is all too obvious and is quite near the surface in some schools. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to statistics for physical attacks on teachers. Respect for teachers in general is down and stress is up. A fair amount of bullying—possibly more than ever—goes unchecked.
It would be handy to make the Government the only fall guy and to blame the Secretary of State, but we all realise that many factors are in play. Adolescents are larger than in previous generations but no less hormonally challenged, and they are thus a more difficult proposition to teach. Mass culture has changed. We cannot expect children not to swear in the schoolyard if, in the evenings, they have to put up with swearing on television as commonplace—as indeed they do.
Children are highly imitative and even on daytime television they are not safe from bad examples. Anyone who tunes into the parliamentary channel at 12 noon tomorrow, well before the watershed, will see misbehaviour on a grand scale from those who aspire to lead the nation. Prime Minister's Question Time has it all: mayhem, shouting out, gesticulating, name calling, bullying, picking on people's mannerisms and weaknesses and, occasionally—albeit sotto voce—swearing. It is institutionalised yobbery in suits.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Does he agree that it is sad that there is always a long queue of people waiting to go into the Strangers Gallery because they cannot resist watching that event?
Dr. Pugh: That is not surprising. When there is a fight in the schoolyard many people run to see it, and the media mob to Prime Minister's questions like a crowd at a schoolyard fight; they genuinely enjoy that kind of thing. It is an instinctive human reaction, although not a laudable one, and we have to acknowledge that it occurs.
What are children to conclude confronted with that event? We may be debating misbehaviour today, but tomorrow at 12 noon they could form their own conclusions about us. They must wonder why Mr. Speaker does not keep us in after the sitting and force us to copy out pages of Hansard—I pause there.
In pointing to those general cultural trends, I do not want to exonerate the Department for Education and Skills entirely. Culture is a determinant of pupils' behaviour. The increasingly disturbed family structures of England generate more difficult pupils, in two senses. Poor patterns of behaviour can be replicated by quite ordinary pupils, who have no major psychological problems; but there is also an increasing number of extremely disruptive pupils who require special
1262
attention. In passing, I commend the Government on introducing pupil referral units. I was sceptical about them, but I have come to realise that they perform a useful function in the school system. I used to think that they would be destinations from which pupils would never return and that they would have no good effect, but in most local authorities they work well and contribute to a reduction in misbehaviour.
As I said earlier, disengagement is the root cause of poor behaviour. Children naturally want to learn and develop, but they want attention. The disengagement that results from bad behaviour can be overcome only by a relevant, realistic and interesting curriculum, delivered by committed, good and dedicated teachers in a settled and suitable educational environment. The Government cannot by themselves guarantee those things, but they can facilitate them.
Buildings are important. The environment in which lessons take place is important, and the Government's buildings programme, coincidentally and not necessarily intentionally, will have done something to improve standards of behaviour. Teacher ratios are important. Keeping good classroom teachers in schools is important. Decent pastoral provision in schools is very important. However, probably the pivotal factor is a meaningful curriculum, and the Minister has said a great deal about how he hopes to make the curriculum more meaningful for the pupil, including the recalcitrant and difficult pupil.
Mr. Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it sounds a little like the kind of worthy education speech that we heard 10, 15 or 20 years ago. We have come to learn that the interface between the teacher and the pupil—the teacher's expectation of the pupil's behaviour—is now of fundamental importance. Precisely how people behave in the classroom is as important as all the other factors.
Dr. Pugh: Yes, I thoroughly agree. Nothing that I have said so far is remotely inconsistent with that observation, so I have no problem in concurring with what the hon. Gentleman says. However, individual teachers in the classroom must be put in the right sort of psychological condition to do the job as well as they possibly can. They cannot be demoralised or overloaded, as some teachers accuse the Government of doing to them. They cannot work with a curriculum that is seen to be inflexible and inappropriate. They cannot be forced to concentrate on the cosmetics of teaching—the school's public relations and where it features in the league tables—rather than on the reality of pupils' lives. They cannot spend their time jockeying, by whatever means, to secure a higher position in the league tables. If that happens, there is an overall tendency for schools to disown problematic pupils and pass them on to another school that does not yet know them.
Another factor of Government overload to which we also have to draw attention is that some of the community building aspects of the school—the sport, the extra-curricular activities and the things that go to make the school a good community—diminish. Some of that has to be laid at the door of the Government and their policies, and some of it has to be laid at the door of Ofsted, which is very strong on spotting problems but very weak on offering solutions.

1263
Finally and briefly, I come to a problem that has occupied and concerned me quite a lot. It has already been touched on by other hon. Members. Bullying is going on in many schools in the land every day, week after week. We are talking about persistent misery visited on individuals day after day, often hour by hour. The statistics on that are not entirely clear and the research is inconclusive, but a number of high profile, tragic cases draw our attention to that issue. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that bullying is on the increase.
In particular, I want to draw attention to the problem of bullying among females, which, as far as I can recall, was not mentioned and not much evident many years ago, but is now very prevalent and troubling. The Government have responded to that. They have a strategy and a website. They have some strange links on the website to Disney and things like that, but none the less they have website to which people can gain access. There is a helpline and a charter. There are anti-bullying strategies and anti-bullying policies in every school. There are conferences on bullying—LEAs and schools talk the talk—but the lads and girls victimised in the corridor today are not necessarily greatly comforted by knowing that there is a strategy. They do not say, "Oh good. I am safe—the Minister has got a strategy."
There is very good practice, and I am sure that the Minister wants to spread good practice. I draw attention in particular to a phenomenon in Scotland, which has an anti-bullying network. Not only is good advice given, but there is an opportunity for pupils who have problems to talk to other pupils with similar difficulties. If hon. Members have not inspected the website, I suggest that they look at it because I am sure that it provides some help—not the only help—towards exterminating bullying in Scotland. A further measure in Scotland that I would recommend is the buddy system, through which many younger pupils in Scottish schools are befriended by older pupils. That breaks up the gang mentality that can exist in individual age cohorts, which does a lot to provide protection for vulnerable pupils who are finding their feet in what might be a large secondary school.
Bullying is a difficult problem that is not unique to schools. The really effective solution is to free up professional teachers so that they may perform traditional pastoral roles. Schools should be treated as communities, rather than simply as target-setting, league-hopping, exam-driven, inspection-dominated, paper-chasing, Gradgrind institutions. If schools were communities that approached the model of a family more than that of a business, bullying would be less manifest and good behaviour more manifest. If the Government could understand that their role is to enable education rather than to direct it, they would get more respect and, interestingly, probably less blame.
3.41 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a long time since I participated in an education debate—[Interruption.] It must be at least three hours since my education debate in Westminster Hall. It is a long time since I participated in an education debate on the Floor of the House.
First, I shall pay tribute to several people: Bernie Groves, Peter Brown, Peter Plummer, Tom Meghahy, Pat Dubass, Den Coral, Joan Young, Bernard Bonner
1264
and Phil Lidstone—the head teachers in Nottingham, North. Hon. Members may be familiar with the fact that Nottingham, North is arguably the toughest educational environment in the UK. It is the constituency with the fewest number of youngsters who go on to university. It contains four of the bottom 200 secondary schools in the UK and the lowest educationally attaining ward in the UK. None of those things are badges of honour, but I hope that they put in perspective my thanks to those head teachers. They do not need to be in Nottingham, North, but they choose to be there. They are definitely part of the answer rather than part of the problem. Many have come to the city in the past few years, so I thought it appropriate to open my remarks by thanking them and their teaching staff for the incredible job that they do in my constituency day in, day out.
We started to realise the seriousness of the education problem in the city of Nottingham over the past three or four years because it became a unitary authority during that period. We always knew that there were difficulties in the city, but the separation of the city and the county made the difficulties and their serious nature evident. None the less, we have been fortunate throughout that period to have a great range of people who have been uniformly positive about tackling the problems. Bit by bit—1 per cent. here; 0.5 per cent. there—the schools in my constituency have dragged themselves up by their bootlaces, and we get better every year.
It is important to put on record the assistance that we have received from the Government. At one point, I felt that every school in my constituency was a building site and that I needed wellingtons to visit most of them. New roofs were built, as were inside toilets and new blocks for science, and gyms were rebuilt. All that was paid for by the moneys that the Government pushed through, and I, for one, am grateful for that assistance.
Personalities locally have been able to capitalise on the Government's ability to assist us, including a succession of senior officers in our local council—the current director of education, Heather Tomlinson, is continuing that superb work. A succession of education chairmen for the local authority—Councillor Don Scott, Councillor Jon Collins and now Councillor Graham Chapman—have been superb. They have intelligently pushed the new opportunities forward and dragged educational standards up. The Minister knows me well enough to know that I would be the first to tell him about any weaknesses. Instead, I can tell him that those people are putting effort in day and night to raise the standard for our children in Nottingham.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put on the record those remarks about those excellent people. I am sure that that gratitude is replicated in constituencies throughout the country as hon. Members respect the work that teachers, head teachers, council officers and councillors do on a daily basis to help the children in our areas.
On the specific issue of attendance and behaviour, one of the biggest problems in Nottingham—I think the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) touched on this—is condoned absences. Police searches and checks have revealed that many of the youngsters who were stopped were with their parents in the shopping malls

1265
and the city centre. It is incumbent on those parents not to say, "Well, I had to take little Johnny to get his feet measured to buy a pair of shoes", but to take the steps necessary to ensure that those young people are in school. That is not bunking off; it is almost a conspiracy to avoid school. Without too much exaggeration, if a parent denies their child schooling, it is, in my opinion, not just a form of neglect, but a form of abuse. That parent is removing from their own child life chances and an ability to progress. In an area like mine, those chances are hard enough to come by without the parents abetting that abuse. I hope that parents will do everything humanly possible to ensure that their children get the education they deserve.
One thing that we are doing in Nottingham is developing a multi-agency truancy team, consisting of police officers and education welfare officers. They go out and about in the city, on a day-to-day basis, picking up truants and taking them back to where they should be. The city is also in the process of establishing a "without school place" team for children who have been removed from rolls. Again, that involves police officers, education welfare officers and the truancy team, who have to work with Connexions, the young offenders' teams and social services. All that work and effort, and making school fun and exciting, has paid off. Attendance in Nottingham in the last year for which we have figures is the best since 1996. The city's secondary schools, whose heads I mentioned, have the most improved truancy rate in the country over the past year and the second most improved attendance rate. My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to hear that. It is a positive aspect to the work in Nottingham, North.
On the stick side of the equation rather than the carrot side, we have introduced a fast track to court for non-school attendance so that we can move those cases forward with all due speed. In addition, attendance panels operate in all secondary schools. They are made up of a senior education welfare officer, a senior staff member and, where possible, a school governor. Parents are brought before the panel and an action plan, which is kept under review, is agreed. If the situation is not satisfactory after four weeks, a court date can be arranged. That has been negotiated with the senior magistrates clerk, whose work on the issue I commend.
Although there is a negative side to the debate, there is also a positive side, which includes attendance certificates and a city-wide attendance campaign, as well as the national press coverage, which we appreciate, on truancy teams. We had one of the first full-time truancy teams in the country.
Why is this important? It is not merely for educational reasons, but because more than 40 per cent. of the children who truant become involved in street crime and can also be the victims of child abuse. Therefore, in the specific terms of the debate, I hope that Nottingham city is seen to be tackling these problems. There is still a long way to go, but we need to keep at it.
The broader points that I wish to make revolve more around the context in which this debate on attendance and truancy takes place. I take a slightly different angle, in referring to social behaviour. It is a topic that I have raised before, and I make no apology for returning to it.
1266
By this time tomorrow in every constituency in the United Kingdom an average of a thousand reports of antisocial behaviour will have been recorded. So tomorrow there will be over 66,000 new victims, whose homes, cars or physical or mental health have been damaged because of antisocial behaviour. By this time tomorrow this antisocial behaviour will have cost the taxpayer more than £164 million.
I do not need to continue with these facts, because colleagues in all parts of the House realise from their own postbag how important the matter is. Thirteen years ago, when I started as a Member, it was one of a large number of items in the postbag; 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of casework related to antisocial behaviour. Now it must be about 70 per cent. I do not know whether it is possible to quantify an increase in bullying, as the hon. Member for Southport suggested in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, but antisocial behaviour is certainly anecdotally very definitely capable of being quantified in the postbag as an avalanche during my period in the House.
I am not hankering after some sort of parental golden age. That has never existed. Nor do I wish us to return to the brutalisation of children masquerading sometimes under the word "discipline". Nor am I blaming the parents, many of whom do heroic things to ensure the best for their children. However, parents must take responsibility for their children.
The present Government are now both tough on antisocial behaviour and supportive of parents. Now is the right time for us to start looking at the other side of the campaign against antisocial behaviour by promoting social behaviour in our children. It is necessary to enable good social behaviour, not merely to disable the impact of antisocial behaviour. We must do both.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his team, and indeed those in No. 10 Downing street, will accept that social behaviour could be one of the big ideas of the third term as well as a thread throughout a child's life. Just as the Government have successfully attacked antisocial behaviour at all ages through parenting contracts, antisocial behaviour orders and truancy sweeps, we must make social behaviour a continuum throughout a child's life.]
For a child who is likely to develop antisocial behaviour there can be no question—a number of colleagues from all parts of the House have referred to this—but that the earlier the intervention, the better. The first contact with public services must take place at the earliest possible moment. We could regress the problem even further back and say that the earlier the contact with the parents, or even parents-to-be, the better. This will allow the earliest, most cost-effective and most telling intervention.
For example, I would like parenting classes to extend to secondary school children, so that even before they become parents, teenagers will be fully aware of the awesome responsibilities, as well as the joys, they will face if they have children of their own.

1267
For the youngest people in our communities, prenatal as well as postnatal parenting classes, run by midwives and health care professionals, would help to identify and enable intervention as early as possible, in order to help some of the parents who may encounter difficulties.
Dr. Pugh: I too am a keen supporter of parenting classes in the secondary school. It is crucial to create a generation of good, knowing parents. It may be regrettable, but it is necessary. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that will require space to be made in the curriculum to make sure that schools do the job properly?
Mr. Allen: I accept that it will require space. That is a difficult judgment, both nationally and for teachers in the classroom, but we need that flexibility. However, if we get it right early on, it will save much grief, effort, time and money. We want to develop people's capabilities so that they become decent human beings rather than let them go their own way, often without any assistance or guidance. We all have a responsibility, particularly in this place, but also at every level in society, to make sure that that approach works.
I welcome the Government's proposals on a flagging-up system to track and help individuals. That is not a Big Brother concept; helping individuals and getting assistance to children and toddlers so that they have the mindset and skills to benefit from their education is not an imposition but a liberation. We are giving people the ability and skills to make the most of their lives. I organised a consultation on promoting social behaviour as a way of undermining antisocial behaviour in my constituency. I spoke to midwives, health visitors and education welfare officers, who told me about parents who refused to allow public officials into their home to give youngsters hearing and sight tests. I make no apology for saying that we must consider whether compulsion should be used in such cases. Allowing a child to go deaf or developing a sight impairment is not a matter of parental choice, and should not happen because parents cannot be bothered or refuse to let in a qualified professional to assist their youngsters at a very early stage.
I was taken by the idea of key workers proposed by Members on both sides of the House and by my hon. Friend the Minister. We have enough public officials at all levels in our constituencies to examine the possibility of ensuring that somebody, somewhere takes responsibility for families identified as requiring assistance early in the process. We need to look at that far more carefully. If we tot up all the health visitors, midwives, police officers, housing officers and everybody else, it may be possible to give responsibility to somebody for one or two families to make sure that we can keep them up to speed and give them the assistance that they need. The early integration of parents in the education system is also important. One of my schools in Nottingham, North holds pre-school planning meetings that bring together parents and child care services before the youngsters start to attend school. Meetings continue to take place once the children are at school. Involving the parents in school is good for the youngsters and allows the parents to start to resurrect their own educational career. We had a debate earlier today in Westminster Hall about further
1268
education, and it would be perfectly possible for parents to start exploring through school involvement pathways back into education, thus realising the dream that my hon. Friend the Minister described of lifelong learning.
I should like to float a serious proposal about maintaining and developing a young person's values, ethics and social behaviour as a way of countering antisocial behaviour. We need to look at the teaching of social behaviour. I pay tribute to the work that is already being done in primary schools, but if children are not getting those values at home, we may need to consider introducing a mandatory component in the national curriculum, perhaps on an experimental basis in certain areas, so that young people can develop emotional intelligence and the ability to relate to others and use non-violent means of communications. They would thus be in a position to start learning on day one at primary school. If we had that in our national curriculum, my hope and ambition for the Government in a third term might be that we could do for social behaviour what we have done for literacy and numeracy, and kit out young people with the emotional skill set that will enable them to take advantage of their education and the educational opportunities on offer.
I could say a great deal more about the topic, but I am conscious that others wish to come in. In conclusion, if we fail to get youngsters participating in our society, and if as a society we fail to equip them with the skills to make the best of themselves, we will be landing ourselves with an incredibly large social and economic bill. Where we have not intervened properly, the tailback from one youngster who goes wrong—one youngster who goes through the exclusion process, the appeals process, the criminal courts, the police, possibly drug rehabilitation and possibly prison—results in huge expenditure that society has to fork out, which might have been avoided had we spent a minor pot at the earliest opportunity. The earlier we intervene, the less money we need to spend to make decent people in our society.
Against the background of this debate on attendance and behaviour at school, I hope that the Minister—I do not expect a reply even in his winding-up speech—will go away and think about the possibilities of countering the antisocial behaviour that we see every day in our schools with a serious programme of social behaviour, with the Government fully behind it.
4.2 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). As is customary, he raised many good points, and the one on which he finished was extremely important. That is where I shall start.
Education, in terms not just of qualifications achieved, but of school life, shapes the lives of many people, if not everybody. Many years ago, I was chairman of governors of a school in Lancashire, which is where I am from, as my accent suggests. The school had many children with social difficulties and many with learning difficulties. It had a 54 per cent. Muslim population—a point to which I shall return—and a 10 per cent. population of travellers, as they are called these days; originally, the term was Gypsies, then itinerants. That mix taught me a great deal and sharpened the keen interest that I already had in education, possibly because my education was not as extensive as I might have liked.

1269
These days, it seems, we have more education than ever—children often go to school way beyond the age of 16, and many go to university—yet in some ways the problems have worsened. We have concentrated, rightly, on the number of pupils who become disengaged from the lessons at school. Many of those who go to university become rather disengaged there as well and tend to drop out of their courses, because the course is inappropriate or they do not like university life, or for some other reason. We are not here to discuss university, but there is a lesson to be learned from the drop-out rate from higher education courses.
As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said, if we consider the number of people being educated in this country and specifically the top 10 per cent., it is quite impressive, and probably comparable with education standards throughout the world. However, those in the bottom 10 per cent. represent a big problem.
Many changes came about during the 20th century. Although there was better health, better education—or certainly more education—and greater prosperity, there was also a massive increase in crime, which has continued to go up. Much, although not all, of that crime is committed by those in the bottom 10 per cent. to whom the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and I referred, and who might be called "the underclass"—that is an unfortunate term, but I cannot think of a better way to put it. They have been excluded from so much in society, and that starts when they leave school without a proper education. As many as one in three may leave primary school with a low standard of literacy and numeracy, and that continues into secondary school. According to my research, about 33,000 children leave secondary school with no GCSEs at all. I started by saying that qualifications are not everything, but we need to ensure that people leave school with an acceptable degree of literacy and numeracy. If they do not, we will find, if we fast forward a few years, that between 50 and 60 per cent. of the prison population are still illiterate or innumerate, or have very low literacy or numeracy standards.
For the record, I am not saying that having no education is an excuse for crime—of course, many people with poor education do not commit any crime— nor that punishments for people with no education who commit should be less severe than those for anybody else. A lack of education is not an excuse for committing crime, but it might be a reason for it, and we must address that.
As the hon. Member for Southport said, it is not only a lack of education that leads to crime or to poor behaviour in schools; much of it is brought about by changes in society. An increasing lack of respect for authority naturally leads to a lack of respect for teachers and an unruly classroom. At one time—I accept that it was quite a few years ago—large classes sizes were never a problem, and classes of 45 to 50 were not at all unusual. They were manageable because there was greater discipline in schools and, I suspect, in the home. Nowadays, such class sizes would be unacceptable and
1270
unimaginable—not only because of the educational problems and challenges that would be created, but because of behavioural problems. Assaults on teachers were once relatively unheard of, but are now so commonplace that they go almost unreported in the media. According to a recent parliamentary answer, in the last year for which figures are available 110 assaults that the Health and Safety Executive describes as serious—that is, resulting in the teacher taking more than three days off work to recover—were committed. That is a frightening statistic.
That change in society's attitudes has led to a great deal of truancy—or "bunking-off", as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) described it. That means that children miss lessons, reducing their ability to learn and taking them on the downward spiral that might be an excuse or a reason for them to commit crime. Whether they truant because they are being bullied, or are disengaged with what is going on at school, or are bored—they are not necessarily stupid, but may be quite bright—the common factor is that they can see no point in school. Far too many parents these days feel the same, and some cause a great deal of disruption by taking their children away on unnecessary holidays during term-time. That is not helpful, but perhaps it suggests the lack of respect for authority that is prevalent in society today.
I appreciate that I am about to tread on dangerous ground, but a reason for lack of respect was brought home to me at the school where I was chairman of governors. I hope that my remarks will be taken in the spirit in which they are meant. Fifty-four per cent. of the school's population were Muslim and the attitude was different. All the children in that population had a stable family background, yet in one class, every child from the indigenous population came from a broken home. I do not want to make moral judgments other than to say that that cannot help behaviour and discipline.
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the Library document that shows that absences and school exclusion rates for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations are lower than for the white population. That reflects his points.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I suspect that the two points are closely linked. The net result of lack of respect for authority and lack of discipline is bullying, truancy and expulsions. They are big problems in schools, but in many cases they are symptoms of bigger ones. I stress that every school must have the right to exclude, but we must be careful about our treatment of those who are excluded. Where do they go and what do they do? If we are not careful, we shall make matters worse.
I want to consider further the reason for exclusion, which is often unmet special educational needs. I have often spoken about that subject in the House; I make no apology for that and I hope that I shall have the opportunity to speak about it many more times. My research demonstrates that unmet special educational needs are a major source of exclusion. The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice reports that 3,000 new cases a year are referred to it and 20 per cent. relate to pupils who are excluded or threatened with exclusion largely because their needs are not fulfilled.

1271
The needs are often not fulfilled because they are not recognised. Dyslexia and dyspraxia are hard to detect partly because they are often found in bright pupils. Yet because the problems are not detected sufficiently early, the pupils are perceived to be rather dim. That is unfair because the reverse is the case. The National Autistic Society says that children with autism or Asperger's syndrome are 20 times more likely to be excluded than pupils without special educational needs.
I served on the Committee that considered the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, which was designed to promote inclusion. I readily accept that many pupils with special educational needs are rightly included in mainstream schools because we cannot categorise people as normal or not normal. However, that is not right for all children and it is dangerous to make inclusion a party-political issue. In Gloucestershire, that appears to have happened.
The Liberal Democrat/Labour-controlled county council appears determined to close the special schools in Gloucestershire. It has started by closing Bownham Park school in Stroud and it is targeting Alderman Knight school in my constituency. I fear that the county council is using the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 as an excuse to save money. That must be unacceptable. Alderman Knight school is under threat.
Exclusion from the activities of an inappropriate mainstream school can lead to exclusion in later life, although attendance at a mainstream school does not itself ensure inclusion. Mainstream schools cannot always provide the care and education required by children with special needs, whereas special schools often can do so. The children in question do not always suffer from educational, behavioural or learning difficulties—which are bad enough. Many have physical difficulties, as with some pupils at Alderman Knight. If they attend mainstream schools, they may become bullies themselves or, more likely, be bullied because their problems make them stand out. They might drop out of school, play truant, disengage or be disruptive—causing problems for other pupils and teachers.
Many teachers, governors, parents and pupils are against the proposed closure of Alderman Knight school and the forced inappropriate inclusion of some pupils in mainstream schools. I believe that the county council's consultation in respect of Alderman Knight school is something of a sham and that a decision has already been made. When I made that claim at a county council meeting last Friday, nothing that was said convinced me that it was not the case. It is a shameful decision. Anyone who decides to close a special school that is doing so well is blighting the lives of many pupils and denying them the help that they need. Pupils themselves say that they are having their hopes removed. It does not matter what we think; the pupils themselves know that they could not cope in a mainstream school.
I have invited the Minister many times to visit Alderman Knight school, where he will be most welcome. I hope that he will at last take me up on that genuine offer. The Minister is generous enough to acknowledge that the threat to Alderman Knight is close to my heart. I do not want more and more pupils put into inappropriate education, to become the problems of the future.
4.18 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is a pleasure to follow a fellow Lancastrian, albeit one exiled in Tewkesbury, and to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on refusing to lose his Lancashire accent. There are too few of us about.
I declare an interest in that my wife is the head teacher of a large comprehensive school, Glenburn high school, in Skelmersdale. My contribution will be a distillation of many weekends of detailed conversations about what goes on at that school and others in the town and throughout the county.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) nostalgically reminded me of my many happy years as a teacher trainer on a beat that included his constituency, which is next door to mine, and Bootle. Shirley Williams was then Secretary of State for Education, so the House can imagine how long ago that was. At one school in Bootle—I shall not name it because it is reformed and a fine school now—I regularly witnessed fist fights between teachers and pupils. On one famous occasion, I witnessed a fight between two teachers. One of the best students I taught, who has been a head teacher for some time, had to be taken out of that school because he was being physically attacked. I have never seen anything quite like it since. The idea that is sometimes promulgated that behaviour, attendance or punctuality in schools is in general worse now than it was back in the 1970s is, in my experience, nonsense.
My wife's school is in a difficult area, and a substantial minority of pupils make the intake very challenging, including some from a substantial number of dysfunctional families. Nevertheless, the school is achieving—massively so—and improves its achievement year by year. Not least among the reasons for that is the fact that the Minister for the Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), when she was a junior Minister in the Department for Education and Skills, came up with the idea of excellence clusters, and created one in Skelmersdale. There are a few others scattered around the country, but the one in Skelmersdale involves three comprehensive schools in the town and about half its primary schools. That has brought in extra resources, which have largely been used on learning mentors and similar support systems, which have been magnificently successful. If the Government found more money for excellence clusters and the similar partnerships that the Minister mentioned at the beginning of the debate to provide more learning mentors especially to deal with disaffected young people, that would be as good a use of money as any that could be found in the education world.
Unauthorised absence, on which I shall focus, and unpunctuality are the products of a cultural problem whose roots are in dysfunctional and care-less families, and it does not take many such families to create a problem for a school. A school, more than any other organisation, is expected to deal with those problems. We expect a vast amount from our schools, and for the most part they respond to that expectation. I shall return to that point later.
Schools are expected to tackle and correct absenteeism and they are "punished" if they do not by the publication of raw statistics that often take no

1273
account of many problems in the societies that the schools are part of. For example, if two families each have three or four kids in one school—this happens regularly in one of my schools—all of whom are bad attenders with constant problems of 20, 25 or 30 per cent. attendance, that can completely destroy what might otherwise be a good school record on attendance. It also leads to a vast amount of teacher and support staff time being concentrated on attending to those families and those difficulties.
It is not unusual for a pupil excluded from one school for, inter alia, poor attendance to be forced into another school, which often has to accept that student, knowing that its overall record on attendance and behaviour problems will be badly affected. The beginning of that process therefore causes problems between the student and their family, and the school. The school might not want that kid to start with, which is a bad way for anyone to begin a school career.
By excluding regularly, the big excluders among our schools can advantage themselves over those schools that are reluctant to exclude. I must put on the record the case of one primary school in my patch that has had the same head for 22 years. He was in great distress just before Christmas because he had had finally to exclude his first pupil ever. He does not believe in excluding, believing instead that the school can include and deal with the problem, with help. This time, things had gone beyond the pale. It is a beacon school with an excellent headmaster, an old student of mine, who is doing a magnificent job.
We also have a problem in some areas—not in Skelmersdale, as relationships are good inside the excellence cluster there—when the Roman Catholic school excludes children who must be found a place often in the county school next door. The reverse does not apply, however. Roman Catholic schools can refuse to take their share of excluded students from other schools, and in parts of the country they do so regularly. The Department should examine carefully such difficulties with exclusion, which cause head teachers much misery.
I had not intended to comment on bullying, but the issue was raised by several hon. Members. Partly because of the publicity in newspapers, we are in danger of creating a special crime called school bullying. Bullies are not special to schools: society is full of bullies. School bullies may have bullying neighbours, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred. Antisocial behaviour is a form of bullying, and it happens all the time in all our communities. Many school bullies have parents who bully. Racial discrimination is a species of bullying. They may have parents who are bullied in the workplace. There are head teachers and teachers who are bullies—head teachers who bully other teachers, and teachers who bully one another in their departments. Bullying is endemic throughout our society. Bullying in schools is presented in the media and by politicians as something peculiar to schools, but it is not. We must solve the problem of bullying and tackle it right across our society as well as in schools. Schools are among the few places in our society that, by law, have anti-bullying policies, and must maintain them.
1274
Schools have a large number of problems in those areas. They are tackling them, as I will describe in a moment. First, I want to tell the Minister that it is good that the Government are pumping money into schools to tackle some of those problems, but we also need social services to be well funded. Social services must back up schools' work with dysfunctional families. We cannot just deal with a child in school and bring in people to help. We must go out and see the family. There are all sorts of problems in families—I do not need to list them because other hon. Members have described them—that must be coped with. Schools cannot possibly do that. Social services are struggling. Good people, certainly in my part of the world, are working extremely hard but they cannot provide the back-up service that schools need.
In recent weeks, we have discussed fixed penalties for bad attendance. There have been big newspaper splashes about parents being fined £100 for taking their children on holiday in term time, in addition to normal bad attendance cases. Giving head teachers—my hon. Friend the Minister referred in his opening speech to head teachers, education welfare officers, and someone else whom I have forgotten—the ability to fine parents £100 for taking a child on holiday seems to me a poisoned chalice. First, it will not deter parents who are prepared to lie and say, "My child was ill." They will do it anyway. It might upset perfectly responsible parents who are supportive of the school in every other way, and who, incidentally, would probably be surprised to learn how many Members of Parliament take holidays during term time, given the length of our recesses. For those parents with two or three kids, who would save up to £600 by taking a holiday in term time rather than during the rush month, having to cough up £100 would still enable them to save £500. How would that deter a parent?
That power will irritate and create a lot of bad feeling. My biggest worry is that such a system could endanger the often difficult and delicate relationship of head teachers, and perhaps educational welfare officers, with parents. Politicians must understand something that we perhaps do not fully understand: the intensity and time-consuming nature of day-to-day negotiations with pupils, who might turn up or might not and who have to be cajoled, bribed and bullied, and with parents who often do not care two hoots whether their kid is in school, so long as they are not at home, which is the main purpose, and who might just be cajoled into co-operating.
We should also recall—this issue has been mentioned in a sidelong way—that a large minority of pupils in our secondary schools come from broken families. Often, they require two holidays: one with mum, who usually has care, and one with dad. Who are we to say that the holiday with dad is less important than going to school for that particular week? Denying the opportunity for a 14-year-old to spend a week with his father would do damage that a week in school could not correct. It might be more effective if parents who want to take their children on holiday in term time were obliged to make them produce relevant work of some kind, which the school could set. For families on tight budgets, going on holiday in term time is often the only option. We need to be more understanding in that regard.

1275
I return to the daily battle against unauthorised absence and unpunctuality. It is some 30 years since I was a teacher—thank God. I taught in a very tough but very good comprehensive school in Kirby, outside Liverpool. On the whole, I enjoyed it, but I remember the immense relief that I felt when some of the most ghastly young men did not turn up. There was no way that I was going to complain that Joe Bloggs, who made my life a misery every time he was in the classroom, had not turned up; I simply hoped that he would not turn up tomorrow either. That was a long time ago, and we cannot adopt such attitudes now. However, that feeling must exist among teachers who perhaps have one child who creates trouble in the classroom day after day. Yet now they must constantly chase up that kid, to ensure that he attends and that attendance is maximised.
A minority of secondary school students have no concept whatsoever of the importance to them of school attendance, and, as several Members have said, no interest in what is going on in the school. That might not always be the fault of an inadequate curriculum.
Mr. John Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has particular experience that I never had of being a teacher in a perhaps difficult area, and of the character whom he called Joe Bloggs who made life difficult in the classroom. Can he give the House the benefit of his thoughts as to the sanction or punishment available that might work for a Joe Bloggs, or is the situation usually hopeless?
Mr. Pickthall: It was not always hopeless, although some children—as I said, this was a long time ago, for which I am grateful—were undoubtedly mentally unbalanced, and nothing could be done to solve that problem. At that time, caning was still used. I never had one of my students caned, because I disapproved of that method, but I did have the capacity to look as though I might kill them at any moment. On the whole, one jollied along, but it was tense and difficult. I vividly recall—this is turning into "All Our Yesterdays"—that in my first year of teaching at the age of about 23, I lost 2 stone in weight. That was much better than the Atkins diet. In fact, I could do with going back into school to lose a bit more weight now.
Some students come from families where no one gets up to go to work, and no one has done so for a considerable time, so it becomes a habit in the home. In some families, one or both parents was a bunker—and perhaps not so many years earlier either—and believe that there is nothing of value in education, because they received nothing valuable from it. In those cases, the relationship between parents and school is likely to be fraught, sometimes even violent. If I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) mentioned the prevalence of assaults against teachers. I remember assaults against members of staff who manned reception desks and I know of one case in my constituency where a nice, capable and highly intelligent woman working in reception was confronted by a man with a cudgel who had come in to beat up somebody—whoever he could find—because the school had upset his child. My wife, who is about 7 stone, had to defuse those difficult circumstances. Teachers sometimes have to face them down, which I mention to highlight the difficulty of coping with such problems.
1276
In disputes, such parents are the most likely, though not the only ones, always to believe their child's version of events rather than the school's version. They are often not discouraged by our friends in the legal profession, who constantly seek to lure them into legal action against a school. Schools are barraged by legal actions for all sorts of things and by other accusations, which are not unusually a cover-up for the reality of the child's poor behaviour or bad attendance.
In the particular school—I am convinced that it is fairly typical of many secondary schools today—the structures in place to deal with problems of poor attendance are enormous and complex. There is a full-time attendance officer, supported by two clerical officers. Electronic registration, which the Minister mentioned, takes place daily so that every lesson is registered. Every absence is instantly recorded and followed up with the family over the telephone on the same day. If it goes on more than a day, further layers of action can be resorted to.
Incidentally, two words are used to describe the problem. One is "bunking", which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned, and it means not going into school at all. "Sagging" is going in and then legging it once the pupil's name has been registered in the morning. That certainly applies in the Merseyside area.
Much of the school's success stemmed from a decision taken some years ago to structure tutor work vertically, so that the teacher follows the child right through from year 1 and from year 8. The tutor thus gets to know the children well. Because the age range is vertical and covers all five years, it provides a great counter to bullying. There is a lot of mutual support between the younger and older students. That system has been in operation for three years and has been highly successful.
When a student's attendance figures fall below 80 per cent., the EWO is instantly brought in, as are the learning mentors, the learning support unit and the youth workers. They hold conferences to examine why the child has not been attending more and determine what can be done. In many cases, the problem can be solved.
Various carrots and sticks can be used. The carrots are what one might expect: 100 per cent. attenders get free cinema tickets and pizzas, and so on. There are many such benefits, but they are likely to be most effective with those students who are not fundamentally disaffected when it comes to school. That approach creates a more positive atmosphere. It tackles casual truancy and the aim is to create mutual pressure. One thing that I learned, in the dim and distant past when I was a teacher, was that a class that felt ashamed, or worried that one of its members was letting the rest down, carried out much of the discipline for the teacher. Taking positive action, and rewarding those who attend well, helps to create that sort of atmosphere.
The sticks that can be used range from 10-minute detentions on the day of lateness—the maximum that can be imposed without proper notice—to truancy detention of one or two hours each week. Pupils who truant from lessons have meetings with the attendance

1277
officer, heads of houses, senior managers, and the EWO. There is also a police attendance project, in which the local police work with teenagers, setting targets and reviewing them weekly. Parents are also involved in that.
There is also a range of curriculum strategies. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the alternative curriculum for key stage 4, which is vital for those young people who have no interest at all in what the curriculum has to offer, and who resist it.
There is also the valued youth project, in which secondary school students are rewarded with vouchers that they can exchange for clothes, sports equipment and so on. Vouchers are given to students who help primary school pupils who have some learning difficulties. The scheme has been extremely successful and especially notable for the way in which it has helped motivate boys. The secondary schools in the town are hoping to extend it.
In addition, extended work experience is encouraged for all those who have succeeded in the valued youth scheme. However, it must be said that a significant minority of parents do not support either the valued youth project or the extended work experience scheme. They say that children should spend their time at school doing GCSEs, as they are all important, or that they do not support the time-keeping disciplines that are imposed on young people who go into proper work places.
Most effective of all has been the Skillforce project. I do not know whether that scheme operates across the country, but it is certainly offered in my patch. It is run by the Army, whose tutors help students to obtain practical qualifications. I do not know how far the Army could extend the scheme, but it has been extremely successful. The Army education service is very professional and effective.
The House will be familiar with the Connexions service. Another approach is to send youngsters on college courses, although I do not think that that has been successful, as not every college tutor is especially skilled at looking after disaffected young people.
Finally, there is an inclusion group for year 10 pupils who have not taken advantage of the other programmes. Small groups are taught separately by the most experienced and skilful staff. Of the 12 students who followed that course last year, eight are responding well and, after severe disaffection, developing a more positive attitude to the school. Three of the four students who failed in all those programmes—whose parents may be prosecuted—were pupils whom the school was trying to reintegrate after their attendance at a pupil referral unit.
There are no easy answers to the problems of truancy. It is a relentless daily grind for the many schools faced with a small proportion of unco-operative or incompetent parents. Perhaps the most effective of all the methods used in the school that I described was the employment of a full-time attendance officer whose remit was to inquire instantly
1278
into the absence of a child on the same day that it occurred. Large comprehensives can afford to employ such officers and the clerical help that they need, but that is not the case for primary schools where such things may be left to the school secretary, who may only work part-time. The partnerships to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred may be the way for all schools with a less than satisfactory attendance record to obtain the full-time assistance that they require to undertake such work.
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman started his speech by referring to his experience in Bootle in the 1970s when he heard of or witnessed fights between teachers and pupils.
Mr. Pickthall: I witnessed them.
Dr. Pugh: I was teaching in Bootle in the 1970s and I seem to have missed all that. Is the hon. Gentleman's verdict that things are much the same, getting better or getting worse?
Mr. Pickthall: It would not be fair to name the school where those events occurred, as it has changed substantially—it has even changed its name. However, I shall talk to the hon. Gentleman about it after the debate; he will probably recognise it. Things have got much better in schools since then. Of course, there are problems but not to the extent that I saw in those days.
We cannot expect our schools easily to control crises that the rest of society cannot control, or does not want to control: the bad language, racism, bullying and violence that youngsters see all around them in everyday life. The fact that most schools do so much better than the wider society in which they are embedded is an enormous credit to the bulk of the teaching and other staff, the governors and head teachers in those schools—including my wife. If I have done half as much for Skelmersdale as the town's head teachers have when I retire from my parliamentary career, I shall have done a pretty good job.
4.48 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: The debate has been interesting, although it has been brief. I congratulate Members on both sides of the House who made thoughtful and interesting speeches: my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh).
I was especially struck by a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, as it captured some of the flavour of an earlier debate on special educational needs. My hon. Friend said that children with Asperger's syndrome are 20 per cent. more likely to be excluded from school than other children. That highlights the problems that we need to tackle in determining how best to educate children with special educational needs and the extent to which they and other pupils benefit from their inclusion in mainstream schools rather than their being educated in special schools.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon; my Lancashire accent obviously caused him to mishear me. In fact, I said that people with autism or Asperger's were 20 times more likely to be excluded, so the situation is even worse than he described.
Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend corrects me. The comment is made more telling and powerful, given that a twentyfold increase in the risk of exclusion from school is involved.
The chief inspector of schools set out the problem very well in his last report, when he said:
"I know the relentless draining of staff morale and the sapping of energy and initiative that insubordination and cynicism from disaffected pupils can cause day in day out. I am convinced that improving behaviour and improving attainment go hand in hand…There is a chain of connection between attainment and progress and pupils' behaviour, attitudes to school and their personal development."
That sentiment has been expressed most recently by the hon. Members for West Lancashire and for Nottingham, North, and it goes beyond just what happens in school. There is a link between some of the behavioural problems in school and crime—both when young people are at school and, indeed, when they have finished school. So it is clear that improving attendance and behaviour is at the heart of some of the education problems that we need to tackle in some of our most challenging schools.
Let us be quite clear that more children are truanting from school now than in 1997. In 2002–03, more than 630,000 children missed at least one half-day session. In 1997–98, the figure was just under 453,000. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in the number of children truanting from school at a time when overall pupil numbers changed only marginally.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that the proportion of days lost has barely changed. It has fallen by 0.3 per cent. since 1997. Although the Government might cite their record as one of modest progress, it should be set in the context of the target that they set at the start of their term in office, back in 1998, when they sought to cut truancy by a third by 2002—a target that, like so many, was set, missed and scrapped. The target now is to reduce truancy by 10 per cent. between 2002 and 2004; but, bearing in mind that the proportion of days lost between 2002 and 2003 fell by 0.1 per cent., the Government have a huge hurdle to leap to achieve that target. Like my hon. Friends, I am sceptical about whether the Government will achieve that target by the end of this academic year.
Why does truancy matter? It is crucial that all young people are able to learn. If we are to be competitive in today's global economy and the country is to thrive, we need a highly skilled work force. Also, to echo remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, if people are to succeed in our competitive economy, they need to be numerate and literate. Truancy and bad behaviour deny everyone the opportunity to participate fully in the competitive economy and weaken our whole economy.
There is clearly a relationship between high and above average truancy rates and below average exam results. Of the 15 LEAs with the greatest proportion of children failing to get any GCSEs, 14 had above average truancy rates. Of the 77 LEAs where more than 50 per cent. of
1280
children received five or more A∗ to C passes, only 12 had above average truancy rates. Low truancy sits beside higher attainment. If we want all pupils to improve their attainment, we need to tackle truancy. The attitude of a school or local authority to attendance sends a message to parents and pupils. A robust approach to attendance, following best practice, shows that a school or LEA is being serious about education, while being soft on truancy does no one any favours.
We talked about pupil behaviour, and one measure of pupil behaviour is the number of exclusions from school. Since the Government came to office until 1999–2000, the number of exclusions fell, partly as a result of the target that the Government set to reduce the number of exclusions. But again, that target has been changed because the Government have recognised—as head teachers, teachers and parents also recognise—that the policy was leading to more and more problem children remaining in school, harming not just their educational chances but the chances of those children who were in school and who wanted to learn. Since the policy was scrapped, exclusions have started to increase again. More than 1,000 more secondary school pupils were excluded in 2001–02 than in 1999–2000. In the same period, an extra 220 primary school pupils were excluded.
Reference has been made to Ofsted's findings on behaviour in schools. The 2001–02 Ofsted report said that behaviour was satisfactory or better in 11 out of 12 schools, but also said that behaviour in 27 per cent. of schools had deteriorated since the last time that they had been inspected.
The Government have increased the amount spent on truancy and behaviour. The Minister seemed rather hurt by several remarks made in the press about the amount that they have spent and the way in which it was supposed to cover truancy and behaviour. In an answer to me on 15 December 2003, he said that the amount spent on truancy and behaviour had increased from £10 million in 1997–98 to £84.5 million in 2002–03. He said that even more would be spent—an extra £50 million—on the behaviour improvement programme. In 2003–04, the Government will spend a further £150 million. He was proud that the Government have spent £600 million on truancy and behaviour since they came to office. However, given the modest decrease in truancy and the fact that more and more children are absent from school for one or more sessions, I am not sure that taxpayers or the Government have received value for money from the increased expenditure.
The Minister touched on the flagship behaviour improvement programme, which is part of the national behaviour and attendance strategy. Under the programme, as he said, every child who is at risk of truancy, exclusion or criminal behaviour should have a named key worker—that sounds very positive. However, we should consider the number of children who miss at least one session of school in the local education authorities that are part of the programme. I believe that about 26,000 pupils in Bradford truanted from school in 2002–03, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) pointed out a cultural reason for that. About 36,000 children in Birmingham missed school for one or more sessions. How many key workers

1281
must we find to ensure that each of those children has support? That does not include the number that we must find for children at risk of exclusion or criminal damage.
Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not disparage the concept of key workers entirely. Many people are involved in the public service at many levels locally, and it would clearly not be feasible to attach a key worker to everyone who has ever missed half a day of school. However, as I suggested earlier, attaching key workers at an early stage to known families in which problems might arise could be more practical.
Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I am worried that the resources will be spread too thinly rather than sufficiently targeted at those who most need help and support.
As well as offering carrots such as the behaviour improvement programme, we know that the Government have used sticks. Parenting orders for exclusion and parenting contracts for truancy and exclusion were introduced in 1998. Further measures were introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. What will the impact of those measures actually be? The 1998 legislation did not have the beneficial impact on truancy and behaviour for which the Government hoped. Only 266 parenting orders were issued due to children's truancy in the year ending June 2002, so will penalty notices be more effective? Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Southport commented on condoned truancy. Will LEAs and the police take action to issue notices to parents who condone their children's absence?
The hon. Member for West Lancashire expressed concern, at some length, about giving head teachers the power to issue penalty notices and the impact that that will have on the relationship between the head, the family and the pupils. I am not sure how many heads in my constituency would be willing to exercise those powers given the fragility of the relationship between school and home in so many cases.
We all agree that truancy needs to be tackled. It is important that schools and LEAs decide how best to spend their resources. They need to understand how measures will work best in their area. Some techniques will only work in some areas. A school in an LEA near to mine shared the experience described by the hon. Member for Luton, North of older children acting as carers for their younger siblings. In their efforts to get the younger siblings to school, the older children missed the start of their school day and those absences were treated as unauthorised. That secondary school moved back its starting time to enable the older children to fulfil their responsibilities to the other siblings and to get to school on time. Those innovative local solutions need to be considered to improve behaviour and attendance in schools.
There are also innovative programmes to tackle problem behaviour. Six schools in Portsmouth have used emotional intelligence to help to tackle behavioural and learning problems, a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. By encouraging self-
1282
esteem and using techniques to encourage all in the school—not just the children, but the head, the teachers, the classroom assistants and the support staff —to develop their self-esteem, to take ownership of their problems and to find their own ways through those problems, behaviour in those schools has improved. Sadly, that scheme, which was funded by the LEA over three years, had to come to an end because of budget constraints. As that LEA is not part of the behavioural improvement programme, there is no money to develop the programme further.
I visited the Greig city academy in Haringey last year. It uses a scheme similar to that outlined by the hon. Member for West Lancashire, in which positive behaviour is rewarded by credits. The credits can be converted into goods, which include tickets to film premieres. The pupils I spoke to said that that was effective and that behaviour had improved significantly. My experience of the lessons in that school was that the children were well behaved, quiet and ready to learn.
There are other examples of ways in which behaviour and attendance can be tackled. The council in Slough, together with local businesses and a further education college, using money from the behavioural improvement programme, has introduced work-related learning to motivate disaffected pupils by offering a curriculum that meets their needs and re-engages them in education by offering work-based learning and vocational qualifications. I strongly believe that such programmes can be effective. Indeed, schools in my constituency offer that without using money from the behavioural improvement programme because they see the improvements in attendance and behaviour that derive from a curriculum that meets the needs of children, not the education system.
Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that neither parents alone nor schools alone can tackle the problems of misbehaviour or of developing social behaviour? As I said, I carried out a consultation so that I could talk to all the primary heads in my constituency. One said to me, "You must understand, Mr. Allen, that there are two cultures. We can do a lot at school, but if little Johnny leaves school proudly carrying his painting and his mum says, 'Come here, you f…ing b…',screws up the painting, throws it in the gutter and says, 'Don't bring that rubbish home from school', then all the excellent work in schools can be blown apart immediately because that child has to live in that environment for the rest of the day." Is it not essential that we unite both the home culture and the school culture?
Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman yet again makes a very telling point. If the home is not engaged in improving children's behaviour, any improvement made at school will be short lived. However, given that some behavioural problems are deep-seated, cultural and part of the local community, a short programme does not necessarily work. Longer-term support is needed for the families concerned. We cannot expect money put in over one, two or three years to work that magic.
This has been a very important debate, as the quality of the contributions indicates. Many of the issues that we have to tackle with regard to attendance and

1283
behaviour are deep-seated in the local communities. They are problems that will have to be tackled over time, but they also need to be tackled with the support of local communities. We need solutions that meet the needs of those communities and not those laid down by central Government. We must allow greater local discretion in tackling these important problems. Unless we tackle them, children will continue to be excluded from school and the work force.
5.6 pm
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Having opened the debate, I seek the leave of the House to wind-up for the Government.
This has been an excellent, constructive debate. All hon. Members who have contributed have tried to address the issues in a fundamental and mature way. I thought in particular that the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) was on the whole constructive and helpful.
The specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised included that of children with special needs, which rightly was the focus of much discussion today, because we do not give enough attention to this group of young people. Because of their needs, appropriate provision should be made for each and every child, and that provision will be different in different circumstances. That is certainly true of the integration of children with special needs into mainstream education. Having more adults in the classroom than we have had before and learning support unit provision will help to make integration easier than it has been historically.
But there must also be a continued important role for special schools. I have an excellent special school in my constituency: Elms Bank Community High special school. I am familiar with the Delamere school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall). It is true that for many young people at this stage of educational development, and in terms of parental preference and choice, special schools still have an important role to play.
We should remember that there are some difficult issues to grapple with: parental priority, preference and choice are changing in this area. There is probably now a higher proportion of parents of young people with special needs than there were 20 years ago who, given a choice, want their children educated in a mainstream environment. We must take account of that, while recognising that the mainstream environment is not in all circumstances yet ready to give the holistic education that many of those young people need.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) mentioned specific concerns about a school in his constituency. While I am sympathetic to looking at the issue, it would be entirely inappropriate for a Minister in Westminster, and Whitehall, to second-guess the judgments made by the local decision makers. Indeed, the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member wants maximum devolution to the front line, maximum local decision making and minimal interference from Westminster and Whitehall. It would be inappropriate for me to interfere in decisions that have been made about the best use of resources and most appropriate provision in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should reinforce the message given by Ministers during the
1284
passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, that that should not be seen as a green light for the wholesale closure of special schools. I think I quote the then Minister exactly.
Secondly, the Minister makes a point about local decision making. When decisions end up with an adjudicator who lives 200 or 300 miles from the school, I do not think he could describe that as local decision making.
Mr. Lewis: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have repeated the assurance that was given when that measure was introduced. It is not a green light for wholesale changes or a one-size-fits-all approach to local provision and local need. It is for local decision makers to make their best judgment in consultation with those affected, including parents and, where appropriate, young people themselves. However, at this stage it is not for me to interfere with those decisions.
As was said in our debate, we use the term "special needs" generically. Ofsted is looking at the range of provisions for children with severe behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, and I believe that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly raised the issue of teachers' welfare and security. He will be interested to know that this term we have begun to work with the teaching unions on violence and fear of violence in the classroom. We are working in partnership with the unions with a view to proposing appropriate responses that make teachers feel safer. It is important to put on the record, however, the fact that there is no evidence of a significant increase in violent incidents. Serious injuries to staff as a result of violence have to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive, and figures from 1996–97 until the current year do not show a significant increase. It is important to give accurate information in our debates so as not to cause undue alarm.
We have increased significantly the resources available for school security, which individual schools have chosen to use in different ways. We have tightened up the exclusion appeal process, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), to make the interests of the entire school community as important as the interests of the individual pupil. We are trying to make sure that we avoid a situation in which appeal panels, in circumstances that are difficult to justify, overturn head teachers' decisions. There must always be a right of appeal, and the panel has to make the best possible judgment, but the criteria on which a judgment is made and the composition of the panel is important, as panel members must understand in the round the challenges faced by schools, particularly head teachers.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised the issue of male teaching recruits. That is important, as we want male role models in the classroom, particularly as many young people do not have male role models at home. We are experiencing difficulties, however, because although male recruitment is not generally a problem in secondary schools, it is in primary schools. The Teacher Training Agency is conducting a campaign to encourage more men to come into teaching, and there is some evidence of success, as male recruitment to primary education is 8.4 per cent.

1285
higher in 2003–04 than in 2002–03. Progress has therefore been made. Consensus is required on the issue—there is no need for party political point scoring.
On the whole, the contribution of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) was reasonably constructive. However, may I point out that we need a clear evaluation of whether or not the Government are succeeding in their aim to improve behaviour and attendance? The Opposition choose to use statistics to claim that we are failing. Every hon. Member who has participated in our debate has acknowledged that the problems stem from intergenerational deprivation and underperformances, so there are no quick-fix solutions. However, in measuring performance, success rates and value for money, to which the hon. Member for Fareham referred, we must look at all the relevant factors—not just truancy but attendance generally, behaviour and discipline.
It is important to put on the record the fact that school attendance is at a record high; the rate of unauthorised absence has gone down, albeit marginally; and children are truanting for shorter periods, with the relevant figures going down by 25 per cent. since 1996–97. I regard as a success the fact that permanent exclusions are 25 per cent. lower than they were when we entered government. For the first time, permanently excluded pupils have access to a full-time education; 10,000 learning mentors are working in schools; there are 90 multi-agency teams and 40 more in the pipeline; and 17,000 children at risk of exclusion, truancy or crime have key worker support. Police officers spend time working in schools, and we are also making sure that young people in every community deemed to be at risk of drifting into crime and antisocial behaviour are, for the first time, being given positive activities in the long school holiday.
As well as the teacher-stakeholder returns, we should, however, recognise that there is a long way to go in improving behaviour, discipline and attendance. In the round, significant progress has been made. Where behaviour improvement programmes are being implemented and where the attendance strategies that have been described are being put into effect, it is important to speak to the heads, teachers and learning mentors and ask them whether the extra resources have made a tangible difference to their capacity to do their job as they want to do it. They will tell hon. Members in all parts of the House that those extra resources have made a tremendous difference, particularly where heads have been given discretion about how to use them to maximum effect, as is the case in the behaviour improvement programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North gave some examples of progress and innovative work in his constituency. He spoke of the environment in a school being quiet, peaceful and conducive to learning. That is extremely important and depends to a large extent on the quality of the leadership and the ethos in the school. Those who argue that it is purely about social factors and family issues overlook the fact that there are such different levels of success in managing attendance and discipline in different schools with similar socio-
1286
economic profiles. A qualitative difference can be made as a consequence of effective leadership and a strong ethos in a school.
Mr. Hopkins: It is not just a question of quality of leadership. There are competing teaching philosophies. There are teachers, and no doubt head teachers, who still believe that a more social, lively atmosphere in a school is the way forward, and that social development is as important as academic development—a wonderful idea, but I believe that learning is less effective in those circumstances.
Mr. Lewis: I agree. We need to learn from best practice, use hard evidence and examine the conclusions that Ofsted reaches about schools that are at the cutting edge in that respect.
In his contribution, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) referred to the limits of the state. I agree that the state can do only so much, but it can create the framework that empowers the front line, and it can make resources available to institutions and professionals who were starved of resources for year after year, and who were asked to do an impossible job, tackling the consequences of social breakdown without the necessary resources. We must not run away from the fact that the massive investment that the Government have put into education has made a tangible difference to the ability of schools to provide the kind of education that we want for all our children, although there remains a long way to go.
I was glad that the hon. Gentleman praised pupil referral units, which have been a success. We need to look at the quality of provision for young people who are permanently excluded and are not in mainstream schools. At least full-time education is now being provided to those who are permanently excluded.
The hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that young people and teachers want practical support to deal with bullying. I was fortunate not only to address the "Make the Difference" regional conference on bullying yesterday in Brighton, but to visit the West Dene primary school, where I met some of the playground buddies—children of eight or nine who are available to support other young children in the playground who feel threatened or unhappy or who are being attacked verbally. When opportunities are provided to share and spread good practice and to learn from each other, that leads to practical change. That was evident at the conference in Brighton yesterday and on my visit.
Dr. Pugh: Good practice should always be rewarded and highlighted in this House. Is it not the case that an internet site has been set up in Brighton—by the same people, I assume—to enable pupils to diagnose situations involving bullying and learn how to cope with them?
Mr. Lewis: There is indeed such a scheme, and many schools around the country have introduced initiatives such as peer mentors and playground buddies. Bringing those schools together to learn from each other leads to practical change and support for those on the front line in tackling bullying.

1287
I have spent rather a long time with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) today—in fact, I have probably spent more time with him over the past fortnight than with my own family, but that is another story. He paid tribute to the excellent professionals who make a difference in our communities on every day of the week—that is something that we do not do often enough. He was right to name them, and I am sure that they will feel a sense of pride that he recognises the contribution that they have made to improving education in his community.
My hon. Friend rightly said that parentally condoned truancy is unacceptable. I would say to those politicians who run away from that problem and offer no solutions that the Government are right to hold to account parents who simply will not co-operate in getting their children to school. Their attitude is different from that of those who have genuine reasons for being unable to co-operate.
On my hon. Friend's commitment to the teaching of social behaviour, he will know that 25 local education authorities are receiving resources specifically for primary schools to buy in expertise on social and emotional development. I will be happy to talk to him about what is happening in those LEAs and the possible lessons that can be learned in terms of national policy.
I want to conclude by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). He was, of course, right to say that schools have to deal with the consequences of social deprivation and underperformance. For some young people, school is the only way in which we can intervene where parents are unable or unwilling to fulfil their responsibilities. We can never allow young people's life chances and choices to be blighted—the state has a duty to intervene through the school system. However, we have to do it in a way that also supports the family.
My hon. Friend talked about the statistics that are used to measure attendance. The Government accept the case that has been made to us by many professionals that in future, measuring attendance will be more helpful than separating unauthorised and authorised absence. That is not an attempt to get away from the 2004 target, which, as I said, we shall aspire to meet. However, it is right that we should look beyond that by working with professionals to consider how best to proceed, and we believe that measuring attendance is one way to go.
My hon. Friend was exercised about holiday absence during term time. If there are special circumstances or good reasons, every parent has the right, given the approval of the head teacher, to take up to 10 days' leave per year during term time. My hon. Friend cited the example of split families where children need to go away with mum and dad. However, hundreds of thousands of families—the majority, including many on low incomes—do not go away during term time as a matter of choice. What do we say to them? Do we say that it is legitimate and acceptable to go on holiday during term time? I applaud the local initiatives by travel agents and LEAs in trying to broker agreements on reducing peak season holiday prices. In some areas, such agreements have made a difference to prices. We will consider whether lessons from that can be applied across the country.
1288
My hon. Friend referred to the innovative work that is being done on truancy. I should like to mention Glenburn school, which is in his constituency, and which I have had the pleasure of visiting. The head teacher's name is Mrs. J. A. Pickthall—hon. Members may now understand where he got his excellent briefing from. It is an excellent school and she is an excellent head teacher. The partnership between the schools in Skelmersdale is especially exciting; it shows collaboration, not the competition that did so much damage to our education system in the past 20 years.
The debate has been of unusually high quality with limited party political point scoring. Attendance and behaviour are central to improving school standards. The stakes are high; as I said earlier, the children of today are the parents of tomorrow. It we are truly to end the intergenerational deprivation and underperformance that scars not only our education system but our society, we must make significant progress on attendance and behaviour.
The Government have a good story to tell but there are no quick fixes, no easy wins or slick slogans. We are considering long-term, sustainable change and rebuilding in our country the concept that there is such a thing as society. We are not simply a collection of individuals.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

  Bromborough Waste Water Treatment Works
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Ben Chapman: I wish to present a petition on behalf of more than 600 constituents to protest at the failure of United Utilities to accelerate measures to stem the foul odours emanating from its Bromborough waste water treatment plant, which blight local residents' lives.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The petition of residents affected by odours from Bromborough Waste Water Treatment Works operated by United Utilities declares
  That they demand that action be taken to end the intolerable smells from the plant that have pervaded nearby houses and shopping areas for too long.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon United Utilities to bring forward its programme of remedial work at the Bromborough site, and call upon the Government to hasten legislation requiring utility companies to operate water treatment plants in accordance with strict rules and to have due regard to the environment and all who live or work nearby.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Open Prisons
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I have a growth industry in my constituency in that I have three prisons of different character. A private young offenders' institution at Ashfield in Pucklechurch has experienced serious problems of disorder and management since it opened in 1997. I am pleased that it appears to be on a more even keel after a recent change of management, but it has had its fair share of negative publicity.
  Her Majesty's prison Eastwood Park is a women's prison that has also had its fair share of unfortunate news. Any prison suicide is one too many, but far too many have occurred at Eastwood Park and there have been questions about the quality of care, especially for prisoners with mental health problems. That prison has therefore hit the headlines for some of the wrong reasons.
  Until recently, however, the third prison in my constituency, Her Majesty's prison Leyhill, an open prison, hit the pages of the local newspapers only when the inmates won prizes at the Chelsea flower show. They do that with pleasing regularity. However, it is regrettable that Leyhill has been in the news more recently for some of the wrong reasons: two prisoners have absconded or failed to return. I want to use the debate to consider those specific cases and, more generally, to press the Minister on the wider issue of who gets sent to open prisons and what happens when they are there.
  I stress that the purpose of the debate is not to bash Leyhill or to attack what is, in my view, a good open prison. It is not meant to attack staff and management who are doing a good job. I strongly suspect that Leyhill is one of Britain's best open prisons, so my purpose is not to undermine its work.
  I want to avoid my only regular contact with the prison being when a journalist telephones me to ask, "Have you heard who's got out of Leyhill this week?" From the point of view of the press, the more sensational the escape the better. I try not to contribute to sensational headlines but to point out that the nature of an open prison means that there is always a risk that a prisoner will abscond, and that that must be weighed against the benefits of the open prison system. I am equally aware of the risk of complacency in saying that occasional escapes are the price that must be paid, which would be irresponsible. Instead, I want to put to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, my concerns and those of other hon. Members about changes to the open prison sector, changes at Leyhill, changes relating to the kind of prisoners who are sent to Leyhill and other aspects of the process.
  Two recent cases of prisoners failing to return to Leyhill highlight what can occur if risk assessment is unsuccessful. Michael Purcell absconded from Leyhill while serving a life sentence for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault. Convictions for sex offences are not uncommon among lifers at Leyhill, but in this case, Michael Purcell reoffended. He indecently assaulted one woman and was convicted of falsely imprisoning
  1290
  another. Last autumn, he was convicted again in Oxfordshire, when the judge said that Purcell was a danger to women and clearly posed a risk to the community.
  Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can all say now that clearly Purcell should never have been sent to Leyhill, but where risk assessment has gone wrong, we must be certain that the authorities take it seriously. A significant number of those who abscond from prisons such as Leyhill are recovered, but a minority are not. Of those, some go on to commit serious offences. Cases where absconding is not a temporary aberration that can be corrected but represents a determined attempt to escape must be fully investigated and lessons learned. Is the Minister confident that a full investigation was undertaken in the Purcell case, that lessons were learned, that it is known how that individual got through the system and that there is less chance of something similar happening again?
  More recently, there was the high-profile absconding from Leyhill of Roddy McLean, described by the press as a drugs baron. It is difficult to capture the essence of his offences, but suffice it to say that in March 1997 McLean was sentenced for drug offences to 28 years' imprisonment, which was reduced on appeal to 21 years. I am talking about not a minor drugs dealer but someone with international connections. He was imprisoned as a category A offender, having been identified as a potential escapee. There were strong feelings held in Scotland at the time, because a customs officer was killed while apprehending McLean. Although he was not convicted of murder or manslaughter, one reason for the long sentence was the serious nature of his offences.
  McLean was described at the time as
  "one of Scotland's most dangerous prisoners."
  Yet within seven years, he found himself in the lowest of all risk categories—not category A but category D. He is now on the run, having failed to return to Leyhill from a community visit.
  Some weeks ago, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House on plans to reform the Prison Service and the probation service. In a question on his statement, I asked him about that specific case. Clearly, the success of open prisons depends on the consent of the community: the community needs to be confident that people who are placed in open prisons have been properly vetted. I have looked at the documentation on the vetting process, and it is important to stress that the idea of risk to the public includes not only the risk that a person would be dangerous or violent if they escaped, but the risk that they might abscond. That is part of the risk assessment. Someone with a high risk of absconding is high risk, and should not be held in category D conditions.
  I challenged the Home Secretary on Roddy McLean, and he responded that
  "it is patently obvious from the fact that he has absconded that a mistake was made. An investigation of that individual case must inform the way in which we approach the broader issue…of revising our approach to open prison." —[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 181.]
  For reasons that I shall give in a second, I am not convinced that many general policy implications flow from what I sense is a very specific, even unique, case.

  1291
  However, the case was clearly serious. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the investigation is under way and approaching a conclusion—it is some months now since Roddy McLean absconded—and that he will place its conclusions in the Library of the House or otherwise make them public.
  I should perhaps bring to the Minister's attention a further aspect of that case, which was reported only this morning in the Daily Record. When Roddy McLean absconded, the police apparently did not understand the seriousness of the offences for which he had been convicted. The local police force understood that he had committed Customs and Excise offences, but did not seem to appreciate their gravity. Although the local chief inspector said:
  "We made inquiries immediately to trace this man",
  he went on to say that those inquiries
  "were made on the basis that he was a category D prisoner serving a sentence for customs and excise evasion. We did not know of the link with international drugs dealing. As soon as we became aware of this, through the media, we stepped up the level of inquiries."
  It concerns me greatly that a person can abscond from prison in my constituency, or anywhere for that matter, and that the local police do not know or do not grasp, for whatever reason, that they are a convicted drugs offender with a 21-year sentence, and in an international drugs ring. I hope that the investigation will establish exactly what went wrong in that regard, as well as in respect of the wider issue that I am seeking to raise.
  Having said that, I think that there is always a danger of hearing that someone has got out and simply jumping to conclusions. I have made inquiries of my own, and it seems that there were some particular features to Roddy McLean's case, including the move from the Scottish to the English system and the fact that some of the offences with which he was charged are unique to Scotland and do not have an obvious English counterpart. The fact that he found himself at Leyhill just seven years into a 21-year sentence is, I understand, quite atypical. His seems to be an unusual case, but I cannot help but reflect on how the law enforcement authorities must feel when they finally apprehend a drugs baron, who has been involved in serious drugs offences, only to find some years later that he has walked out of prison and not returned. One cannot help but wonder how the family of the customs officer who died in the attempt to apprehend that man must have felt when they learned that the man who was partly responsible for that death is now free, albeit on the run.
  I stress that although the case is serious and warrants careful investigation, it does not illustrate a general issue of the sort that I want to raise this evening. There are more general lessons that need to be learned and more general questions that must be asked. I shall therefore turn to wider trends at Leyhill and similar open prisons, before asking some questions on where we should go with open prison policy.
  The size of the inmate population at Leyhill has increased by about one third in recent years, which is a dramatic increase. From the taxpayer's point of view, I suspect that that is potentially better value for money because the prison's capacity is being fully utilised. There are now about 500 inmates, whereas some years ago there were barely 300.
  The nature and composition of those inmates has clearly changed. Barely a quarter of those now at Leyhill are serving life sentences. The traditional role of the
  1292
  open prison was as the final phase of such imprisonment—the deinstitutionalisation of someone who had been in prison for a very long time. Instead, the majority of those at Leyhill are serving sentences whose total duration was less than three years to begin with, and they can expect to be released within a year. Clearly, that is a very different challenge. Someone convicted of a serious robbery, burglary or driving offence, who has served two or three years and who goes to an open prison with a year to run, is completely different from someone with a life sentence, who has been in prison for 10 years or more and is a completely different category of offender or even a completely different type of person. Clearly, the statistical evidence is that younger people who have been in the prison system for shorter periods are more likely to have drugs problems—again, that is more true of shorter-term offenders—and are far more likely to abscond.
  Leyhill prison therefore has far more prisoners, and far more short-term prisoners and prisoners of a different category or different type. Even if the proportion of absconders had not changed, merely having a third more prisoners would mean more abscondence, and the change in the mix of prisoners would lead to more people absconding. I therefore caution against inferring from the bare statistics that more people are walking out of Leyhill that there has been any relaxation in the regime. I am not convinced that that has happened. Nor do I believe that those responsible for Leyhill are failing in their duty. However, when more than one person a week, to use the phrase, walks out of Leyhill and does not come back, we must ask ourselves whether the assessment of risk, in terms of the risk of absconding, is being done properly.
  Far from criticising my constituents who work at Leyhill, in many ways I am speaking up for them—they have not asked me to do so, but I am doing it in any case. For them to do their job properly, they need to know that the people being sent to them are appropriate for open conditions. Once we get to the stage at which more than one person a week is walking out, we must ask ourselves whether that job is being done properly.
  Having focused on my local open prison, I want to turn to the wider issues about policy on open prisons and pose some questions to the Minister. When the Home Secretary responded to questions on his statement a few weeks ago on 6 January, he said:
  "We are not entirely satisfied that we have got the system right".—[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 180.]
  That was apropos of open prisons. He said that a review had been commissioned and was under way. Can the Minister tell us more about that review, what its terms of reference are, who is undertaking it, when it will be finished and what chance we will have to scrutinise its results?
  As the Minister will be aware, the chief inspector of prisons has today published her annual report. The section on open prisons makes uncomfortable reading. The chief inspector has based her report on her wide experience. Clearly, however, it has been coloured particularly by the one open prison that she investigated for the first time last year, and the three that she re-investigated. Many of the quotes and examples that she uses are based on those four institutions, of which Leyhill was not one. I therefore stress that some of my

  1293
  remarks may not—and probably do not—apply to the open prison in my constituency, but, clearly, this debate draws more widely on the position of open prisons.
  The chief inspector begins by echoing the fact, and my observation, that the role and nature of open prisons is changing. She highlights the traditional role of open prisons as
  "acting as a bridge between custody and the community",
  particularly for prisoners serving longer sentences, lifers and others. She also says, however, that
  "they too are now receiving different kinds of prisoners for shorter periods".
  Were I to summarise my concern, which led me to seek this debate, it would be that the changes going on in open prisons have not been the result of a conscious, careful plan or a decision that it will be a good way forward for open prisons to change the mix and that penal policy and rehabilitation should be moving in that direction. There may be an element of that, but my worry is that the numbers, overcrowding and pressures elsewhere in the system are driving the problem at least as much as positive policy decisions. I do not say that this has happened completely by accident, but my feeling is that the pace of change might be faster than those who thought this a good idea anyway would necessarily have wanted.
  So my first question is: is this change in the composition of the open prison population being driven by overcrowding elsewhere in the system? In particular, is that pressure leading to the wrong sort of people—those who are not suited to open conditions—being sent to open prisons? The chief inspector says that
  "population pressure"—
  overcrowding—
  "has meant that open prisons are receiving prisoners who would not formerly have been sent to open conditions at that point in sentence."
  So the independent inspector is observing that this change is going on and believes that it is driven at least in part by population pressures elsewhere in the system.
  Returning to the local situation, in last year's annual report, the then board of visitors at Leyhill said:
  "We have comments from staff that the recategorisation of"
  prisoners from
  "'C' to 'D' is not always appropriate and that we are receiving prisoners whose security category is not suited to open conditions."
  So the board of visitors has fed back the concerns of prison staff that the wrong people were going to open prisons. In the summer of 2002, the board of visitors reported that
  "Leyhill filled up with 'overcrowding drafts'".
  I find that term slightly ominous, as is the concept whereby people are moved, perhaps en bloc, to an open prison in which there happens to be some space, because they will not fit anywhere else. The report says that
  "Leyhill filled up with 'overcrowding drafts' as Population Management"—
  we should note the use of capitals—
  "sought to relieve pressure on"
  1294
  local prisons. The board of visitors proceeds to refer to
  "Inappropriate transfers identified by staff".
  The staff say:
  "Some prisoners recategorised to 'D' on the drafts were more probably 'C' or even 'B'".
  Thus the feedback from prison staff is that, on getting to know the people coming in, their thinking is that they should not be there. Some were reported with mental health problems and needed specialist care, and others had only recently been taken off self-harm watch in a local prison.
  This situation gives me cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can offer some thoughts on the extent to which it is happening, but the chief inspector, the board of visitors and staff have provided clear evidence that the wrong people may be being sent to open prisons because there is not enough capacity elsewhere in the system. That concern has been heightened in recent months by the apparent setting of management targets for the governors of category C prisons, in order to get more people into category D institutions. If the result of such management targets is that the assessment of someone who is perhaps borderline is tipped over the balance, I would be worried. If an essentially category C prisoner is being reassessed as category D because the target has to be reached, that would clearly be unacceptable.
  Of course, that may not always be the case. It might be quite convenient for local prisons to hold on to a few category D offenders, because they can make the place work better. Perhaps prison governors in category C institutions should be prodded not to go for a quiet life but to re-categorise at the right time, or to move people already categorised as category D into open conditions. But I am not clear what the nature of the target is, and I hope that the Minister can offer some clarification. Do governors of category C prisons have a target for moving people from category C to category D, or for moving people already independently categorised as D into open conditions? I hope that the Minister can clarify that question, because if the answer is the former, there is a danger that what should be an independent judgment on the merits of a given case is being biased by the effect of targets. We do not want that to happen.
  The second question is: when people are sent to open conditions, are they properly prepared? The chief inspector says that in her experience, some who arrive in open conditions are ill-equipped. She says that
  "some…arrive without sentence plans, let alone work to address offending behaviour. Some also arrive barely detoxified".
  The experience for the receiving establishment is very different if those coming in are barely off drugs and have no plan of work or sentence plan. I am not sure that open prisons should have to deal with that wholly different experience, or that they provide the right environment in which to do so.
  The chief inspector's report highlights one prison at which some prisoners arrived with only a week of their sentence left to serve. That seems extraordinary. In view of the disruption that that entails, it is difficult to see the point of it. Another open prison had nearly half of its community work places unfilled, because the wrong people were there. Without the right people being there,

  1295
  it led to the extraordinary situation where employers were willing to take people on from the open prison, but not enough of them were suitable to fill the vacancies.
  I must stress again that that is not true of Leyhill, which could do with more employers in the local community willing to take people from the prison. I also believe that any available employment opportunities are taken up, and I stress the value that I attach to that. If an inmate can get a job with a national chain such as Tesco's or a similar company with outlets across the country, and can secure an employer's reference on release, it can provide a fantastic start for someone going home from prison. There is tremendous potential when such initiatives are run well, and Leyhill is certainly trying to make use of them. However, if the wrong people are sent to open prisons, that will not happen.
  I wish to raise a couple of other issues before concluding. The open sector must have the right approach to education and training. The chief inspector encourages prisons to take a more proactive approach and not regard inmates as
  "easy prisoners, who can manage themselves".
  The potential of open prisons is easy to see. The governor of a closed prison cannot send young people out to local colleges for courses, whereas the governor of an open prison has that possibility. Provided that the right people are sent to open prisons, the potential for broad training and education is evident. If they are not, the opportunity is missed, so we must ensure that open prisons can take the right approach to education and training by being sent people who are ready to take advantage of it, not people with more fundamental problems that should have been dealt with elsewhere.
  My final point about the allocation of offenders to open prisons is the thorny one of sex offenders. Inevitably, they are one of the most controversial and difficult groups in the prison system, and it is important that institutions such as Leyhill have the right expertise to deal with them. I believe that the prison has about 60 sex offenders serving life sentences. There is also the question of whether other institutions should be developing that sort of expertise—for example, whether there should be somewhere in the north of England where officers have such skills, or whether sex offenders should be clustered in smaller groups and other open prisons given the training and support that they need.
  There are obvious problems with clustering large numbers of lifers who have committed sex offences. If they have lost contact with their own local community, a specific area can become a focal point for them when they are released. Where sex offenders are deemed not to pose a risk to the public, it makes sense to spread them through the open prison regime, rather than focus too heavily on one or two institutions.
  I hope that I have made it clear that I believe open prisons to be a valuable part of the prison system and that viewing them as a "bridge" between custody and community, as the chief inspector puts it, has to be right. The alternative of letting someone out from closed conditions back into the community is a recipe for disaster. If we want prisons to prepare people for reintegration into the community so that they will not reoffend, the open prison process, the transition, the
  1296
  work experience, the community involvement, and the slightly less institutional environment must all be good things.
  I do not rule out the possibility that shorter-term offenders —people who perhaps pose a low risk and do not have long to serve—may also be dealt with appropriately in open conditions, thereby taking advantage of training, education and work opportunities more flexibly than in closed conditions. It may also be helpful that such people do not associate with prisoners in closed conditions who would not be such a good influence. I see the possibility there, but given that more than one person a week on average fails to return to one local prison, I wonder whether the change in the balance of open prisons has happened too quickly, whether it has been planned as much as it should have been, and whether the risk assessment is really working. For law enforcement agencies and the victims of crime, that must be hard to deal with.
  I salute the work that is done in the three prisons in my constituency and I believe that my constituents need help and support in that task. I also believe that Government policy must ensure that the right people go into open prisons for the right reasons. I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to offer me those reassurances.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the Adjournment debate. I wish to take advantage of our extra time, and I rang the Minister's office earlier this afternoon to warn him. He knows that I have tabled a number of questions over the past few months about an open prison, Her Majesty's prison Sudbury, in my constituency.
  I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Northavon said about the role that open prisons can play, and my speech tonight is not against open prisons. However, there is growing concern about the kind of people who are being sent to open prisons and some of his parliamentary answers have added to my concern.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the matter is no reflection on prison staff at a particular prison. They have no choice in who is sent to them. They have to deal with the categorisation, which is carried out elsewhere in the Prison Service. There are 15 open prisons in England and Wales. I am concerned to see that 1,173 prisoners absconded from them between November 2002 and October 2003. Absconded is the right word because prisoners do not have to escape from an open prison; they simply fail to return after they have gone out.
  The Minister will know that there have been some disturbing cases involving Sudbury prison. On 7 January, I asked him
  "how many of those who absconded from HM Prison Sudbury during (a) 2003 and (b) 2002 committed further offences for which they have been charged during the period of time they were away from the prison; and with what offences they were charged."
  His answer stated:
  "Information on offences committed by prisoners during their period at large is not held in the form requested. As prisoners recaptured after absconding from Sudbury would immediately be sent to a closed establishment, Sudbury would not be informed of

  1297
  the subsequent convictions of those who had previously absconded."—[Official Report, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 422W.]
  I am sure that that information must be available somewhere within the Prison Service. Although it may not be available directly from the prison, I would be surprised if it were not available to the Minister in the form in which I tabled the question.
  The written answer also revealed that 67 people absconded from Sudbury prison in the year from April 2002 to April 2003. Two of them had been convicted of murder and three of grievous bodily harm. At this point, the matter became really serious: from April 2003 to 1 December 2003—a seven-month period—56 people absconded from Sudbury, of whom five had been convicted of murder and six of GBH. Those are the most serious crimes for which one can be sentenced in this country. We can all expose individual cases, which are not always the best evidence on which to base decisions, but the case of Mark Leicester is horrendous. While absconding from prison, he committed another murder in Derby.
  I have another point for the Minister. He may not be able to address it today, but perhaps he will give some thought to the reaction of the police when prisoners escape or abscond. The hon. Member for Northavon said that the police were not fully aware of the true nature of one of the people who absconded from Leyhill prison. Derbyshire police refused to release the photograph of Anthony Craig of Preston, a convicted murderer aged 56 who absconded from Sudbury on 27 July and is still on the run. They said that they had no photograph and no publicity was given to the fact that he had absconded. The truth was that a photograph was available from the Prison Service, but the police decided not to release it.
  That decision was wrong. There should be clearer instructions—possibly from the Home Office—on the way that police forces should respond in cases involving people convicted of the most serious offences. I am not talking about a person who is close to the end of his sentence. A convicted murderer under a life sentence is only ever released on licence and I believe that the Home Secretary is keen to keep that provision. I support him in that. I have no problem with his view on that matter, but it is no good for people to play down the fact that someone poses a danger. Convicted murderers are a danger to society if they do not return to their establishment; they have broken the trust placed on them when they were transferred to an open prison with better, easier conditions.
  A number of escapes from Sudbury have caused concern recently. Police investigating robberies at the houses of four elderly people—including one who had suffered a broken leg—were searching for a violent murderer on the run from the prison. Isaac Price, who narrowly avoided arrest earlier this week by swimming across a swollen brook following a police chase, is being hunted in connection with raids on pensioners' homes in Shropshire and Worcestershire.
  Members with open prisons in their constituencies do not usually complain about them. I have not complained about Sudbury in the past, but I am
  1298
  concerned now. We need to build up trust in the local community, as people who live near the prison need reassurance.
  The hon. Member for Northavon made several points, but I am especially concerned about a growing trend. The Government are, rightly, proudly trumpeting their antisocial behaviour measures, including the antisocial behaviour orders. However, people who live near prisons also have the right to expect protection. Sudbury may be geographically isolated but it is sited in a local community. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House and my constituents that there has been no easing of the criteria for placing people in open prisons because, from the evidence that I have seen and the recent cases that have been brought to my attention, I fear that that may have been the case.
  Sudbury is at full capacity. The picture is not dissimilar to the one that the hon. Member for Northavon gave us of Leyhill open prison. Maximum capacity at Sudbury is 560—I think that the maximum has increased over the past few years. The number of prisoners was 546 and 10 more were received today, which takes the prison to capacity.
  In seeking assurances from the Minister, I echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Northavon. Those of us with open prisons in our constituencies expect reassurance that the people sent there are right for the conditions at such prisons. After the answers that I received from the Minister last week, I fear that a growing number of people sent to open prisons do not deserve that trust. If that is the case, the criteria for sending people to open prisons and the very future of those prisons must be called into question. That is bad news for the Government's overall prison policy, so I hope that the Minister can reassure us.
  6.4 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on initiating this important debate. As he said at the outset, there are three prisons in his constituency: HMP Eastwood Park, which is a women's closed prison; HMYOI Ashfield, which is a young offenders and juvenile establishment—I was pleased to hear his positive remarks about that institution, which has shown considerable progress in the recent past; and HMP Leyhill, which is an open prison.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to his concerns, and wider public concerns, about open establishments, and I compliment him on the way that he has responded to the whole issue—not only for acknowledging that Leyhill is a good open prison, but for not taking what must have been the considerable opportunities in the past few weeks to grab a few headlines. Instead, he has come to the House to debate the issue intelligently.
  The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) continues to ask me questions, which I shall continue to endeavour to answer to the best of my ability. Indeed, he has recently written to me, and I will respond in due course to that letter. He, too, shows an intelligent approach. He is right to say that trust is needed in local communities near open prisons. It is essential that they are reassured, and the way that both hon. Gentlemen have approached the issue is highly commendable.

  1299
  The hon. Member for Northavon mentioned two cases, the first of which involved Michael Purcell. I am not familiar with all the details of that case, so I cannot make any detailed comment, other than to confirm that he was transferred to Leyhill on the recommendation of the Parole Board, but I promise to consider the detail of that case, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to answer his specific questions.
  The other case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that involving Roderick McLean—is perhaps rather better known. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I cannot go to the conclusions of the investigation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary initiated on that case—it would be premature to do so—but I want to put some information on the record, because there has been a lot of wild speculation about the case in the recent past.
  I can confirm that Roderick McLean was remanded in custody on 29 July 1996, and sentenced on 13 March 1997. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, Mr. McLean received a custodial sentence initially of 28 years, which was reduced to 21 years on appeal. He was initially deemed a category A prisoner in Scotland and also a so-called strict escapee, so his behaviour and movements were kept under particular scrutiny. He was downgraded to category B on 10 June 1998, and removed from being classified as a strict escapee on 23 March 1999. He was recategorised as category C at HMP Shotts, before being transferred to the English prison system on 13 March 2001. It is important to make the point that he was already a category C prisoner while in the Scottish system.
  Within England, Mr. McLean was received at HMP Bristol—a local prison, quite close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency—on 23 March 2001. On 20 August 2001, Mr. McLean was allocated to HMP Erlestoke, which is a category C prison. He arrived at HMP Leyhill on 4 September 2002. As a prisoner in open conditions, Mr. McLean undertook more than 20 periods of successful temporary release from HMP Leyhill. Indeed, it was from a community visit that he failed to return on 8 September 2003—more than 14 months after moving to open conditions. I hope that it helps to put that information on the record.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the terms of reference for the review. I can confirm that the review will consider the circumstances leading to Mr. McLean's allocation at Leyhill prison, specifically the recategorisation procedures, as well as the circumstances surrounding his move from the Scottish Prison Service to HM Prison Service and his initial security category. It will also consider whether the speed of progression was appropriate given his length of sentence and whether sufficient detail was available about the offence to inform appropriate decision making.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about communications with the police, and I can confirm that that issue will be part of the investigation. The report will make recommendations on preventing the recurrence of such incidents—either specifically related to Leyhill or to the service as a whole—and on the better handling of them in the future. The hon. Gentleman referred to comments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 7 January during his statement on the future of correctional services, and I simply echo what he said.
  1300
  We will make the findings available and I shall communicate them directly to the hon. Gentleman as soon as they are available.
  I was especially pleased to learn that the hon. Gentleman visited Leyhill yesterday to discuss his concerns with its governor. I hope that he was reassured that the allocation and recategorisation rules have not changed—I hope that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire is also reassured—and that public protection is a key aspect of the decision-making process when assessing prisoners' suitability for open conditions.
  I think that it would be helpful for the House if I explained the way in which the categorisation and allocation system works. Prisoners receive their initial categorisation shortly after they have been convicted and sentenced. The decision on the category that a prisoner is given—category A, B, C or D for male prisoners, and open, closed or semi-open for women and young offenders—is based on a number of pieces of information that together inform an assessment of the risk of a prisoner escaping or absconding and his or her potential risk to the public. The risk assessment includes a consideration of current and previous custodial records, details of previous offences, details of the charges, pleas, findings and sentences relating to the current offences, and any other relevant information on the prisoner that the Prison Service or probation service may have, such as medical information, psychological reports and any security information. Once all that information is available, prisoners are categorised according to the likelihood of their escape and the threat that they would pose to the public if their escape succeeded. Prisoners are placed in the lowest security category that is consistent with the needs for their security and control before being allocated to an appropriate prison.
  After prisoners have been categorised and allocated to a suitable prison, they move through the prison system by a process of recategorisation. The process determines whether the risks that they posed at their previous categorisation assessment have changed, and the extent to which that has happened. Any decision on recategorisation must be based on a clear change to the risk posed by prisoners due to their likelihood to escape or abscond, the risk posed to the public in the event of them escaping or absconding, or other control issues that could pose a threat to the security of the prison. Risk levels may decrease or increase during the course of a sentence, so a prisoner's security category and allocation must reflect that. When prisoners are considered for allocation to the open estate, it is essential for their risk levels to be clearly reduced and for it to be shown that they can be reasonably trusted not to abscond or to take advantage of the reduced levels of security in the open estate.
  I understand and share concerns about the extent of absconding from our open prisons, but we need to put the figures into context. The vast majority of prisoners are held in closed secure prisons. Indeed, of the 75,258 prison places in the system, only 4,400—less than 6 per cent. —are in he open estate. The increase in the overall prison population puts pressure on the prison estate as a whole. The greatest pressures, of course, are on the local prisons that serve the courts and thus take prisoners on remand, as well as those who are awaiting sentence or

  1301
  who have just been sentenced. Within that context, and in order to make the best use of the available capacity, the Prison Service is right to ensure that prisoners who are suitable for open prisons are quickly identified and moved out of closed prisons, subject, of course, to a careful risk assessment. There is no key performance indicator for recategorisation. However, as the Prison Service is under population pressure, there is a need to move people quickly once the assessment has been carried out and the prisoner is deemed suitable for open conditions.
  The Government continue to increase the overall number of prison places.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Does the Minister have the figures for what it costs to keep someone in an open prison as opposed to what it costs to keep someone in more secure accommodation? If he does not have those to hand, perhaps he could let me know later.
  Paul Goggins: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with an answer. I cannot give the figures off the top of my head. Different establishments cost a different amount. An average across the estate is £36,000 per place each year. I shall get him a precise answer as soon as possible.
  The Government have provided 14,700 more prison places since 1997 and seven new prisons. Additional funding has been provided for about an extra 3,000 public sector prison places to be built at existing prisons. Two new private prisons, providing 1,290 places, are also due to be opened at Ashford and Peterborough in 2004 and 2005 respectively.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister has moved on to the general capacity of the system. Does he accept, however, that only today Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons said in her report about open prisons that, because of pressure on numbers, different sorts of people are going to open prisons? That seems to be a fact. I think the Minister is happy that they are all properly assessed, but is the policy to change the mix of who goes to open prisons deliberate, or is it a by-product of pressure in the system?
  Paul Goggins: I thought it was important to set the capacity issue in context. I shall say more about the people who occupy those 4,400 places in our open system later.
  If we take into account the additional places provided since 1997 and those that are being made available, we expect 78,700 prison places to be at our disposal by 2006. Simply providing more prison places is not the only answer, however. It is vital that we continue to work with people in our prisons so that they have the capacity for rehabilitation. I am pleased that this year we expect 50,000 basic skills qualifications to be gained in our prisons. Some 30 per cent. of people leaving prisons last year went into either a job or training. As the hon. Member for Northavon remarked, that is a good indicator of the chance of people staying out of trouble in future.
  It is also important—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke of this in his statement on correctional services on 7 January—to provide sentences with
  1302
  credible intensive community sentences for people who would otherwise go to prison for short periods, usually with little impact. It is not enough just to have extra prison places. We have to use them properly and get people on intensive community sentences, if appropriate. However, open prisons will continue to make an important contribution to resettlement, preparing prisoners for their release in a way that will reduce reoffending, thereby increasing public protection. That is an important point. Some 2,500 of the places in open prisons are generally used to help prepare longer-term prisoners, including life sentence prisoners who are coming to the end of their sentence. That includes people who have committed serious offences, such as murder and sex offences, which have been mentioned. So 2,500 places are reserved for those people.
  Roughly half of resettlement regime places are occupied by prisoners involved in unpaid community work placements. That enables them to make reparation to the community while learning useful skills that will increase their chances of finding employment on release. The other half are for prisoners who are involved in paid employment outside the prison during the final months of their sentence. That can be an important stage in the transition back to the community for longer-term prisoners. Subject to appropriate risk assessment and monitoring, they do real jobs for real wages alongside other members of the work force. That enables them to help to support their families and to save money for their release. It may also provide them with a job that they can continue once they are discharged, and the hon. Member for Northavon mentioned Tesco in that context, which is good example. We know that prisoners are much less likely to reoffend if they get and keep a job on release.
  A period in open conditions is essential for most life sentence prisoners. It allows the Prison Service to test areas of possible concern in conditions that are nearer to those in the community than can be found in closed prisons. Lifers have the opportunity to take home leave from open prisons and, more generally, open conditions require them to take more responsibility for their actions.
  The remaining 1,900 open prison places are occupied by short-term prisoners. I accept that such prisoners, although not presenting a risk to the public in terms of their offence, tend to be more impulsive and have less to lose than life sentence prisoners if they abscond. However, I emphasise again that those short-term prisoners have been allocated to the open prisons only after a thorough assessment of the trustworthiness of the prisoners not to abscond and of the risk posed to the public if they should do so.
  In addition to those two main groups, we are also developing new ways of using places in the open prison estate. From next week, we will be piloting intermittent custody, the first of the new sentences to be introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Kirkham, a male open prison in Lancashire, together with Morton Hall, a women's prison in Lincolnshire, will be the first prisons to accommodate offenders serving intermittent custody. This use of part-time custody is an attempt to reduce the negative outcomes, such as loss of employment and accommodation and family breakdown, which can often accompany even short periods of full-time custody.

  1303
  Intermittent custody will be for offenders who have committed an offence sufficiently serious to warrant a custodial sentence, but who represent a low risk to the public should they serve the sentence intermittently. Offenders in full-time employment or study, or with responsibilities as carers, will be likely to serve their custody days at the weekend and be in the community under licence supervised by the probation service during the week. Those who are unemployed will be likely to serve their custody days during the week, with a regime focused on helping them find a job, and be in the community under licence supervised by the probation service at the weekend, in order to help them to maintain family ties and community links. That is a further option that the open prison estate will be increasingly using.
  A very high proportion of the prisoners who go to open prisons make the most of the opportunities provided there to improve their prospects on release. As I have said, many work in the community doing paid or unpaid work. However, I accept that a very small proportion betray the trust placed in them and abscond.
  There was an increase in the number of absconds from 825 in 2002 to 1,224 in 2003. The increase at Leyhill was from 25 to 102, and at Sudbury for the whole year it was from 65 to 78. I share the concerns voiced by both hon. Members, but I reassure them and the House that while the figures concern me, we shall do everything we can to get them down.
  Those figures should also be seen in the context of the commitment to security, which is central to the work of the Prison Service. Last year there were just 13 escapes from prison—that is, escapes where people got out of secure conditions. There have been no category A
  1304
  escapes since 1996. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to place the concern about absconds from open conditions in the context of that wider, very successful commitment to security across the rest of the prison estate.
  Only a small proportion of those who abscond commit offences while they are at large. However, I reassure the House that whenever a prisoner absconds or fails to return from an outside work placement, the police are informed immediately. The details of the prisoner are circulated to police forces and visits may be made to known addresses. Once the prisoner is recaptured, he or she will be returned to a closed prison, where many will complete the rest of their sentence.
  This has been a very important debate. I will reflect carefully on the remarks of both hon. Members who contributed to see whether there are other points to which I should respond. I look forward to further discussions with them about this topic. I hope that they are reassured that open prisons, which provide some 4,400 of the 75,000 or so prison places currently available, are a key part of the process of rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners back into society.
  There has been no change in the system of categorisation and allocation. Indeed, public safety remains the key issue when recategorisation is being considered. However, I am not complacent. I share hon. Members' concerns about the recent increase in absconds, and I shall continue to ensure that the Prison Service takes all the necessary steps to keep them to a minimum.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Vocational Provision at School
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
9.30 am
Mr. Graham Allen: It is traditional for Ministers to congratulate the Member who initiates the debate, but I feel that I should commiserate with this Minister. Not only does he have to reply to this debate first thing in the morning; I understand that he is opening a debate later in the day—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I shall also be replying.
Mr. Allen: He will be replying to a debate on behaviour in schools, so I have even more reason to commiserate with him. He will have the pleasure of my company then.
Dr. John Pugh: Will the hon. Gentleman also commiserate with the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, who has a similar task ahead of him?
Mr. Allen: Ours is indeed a hard life. Nevertheless, I welcome the Minister to the debate. We share a deep personal commitment to try to ensure that more youngsters stay on at school, and I am sure that that also applies to those who speak for the Opposition parties on the subject. I know that he feels passionately about it, and I am genuinely pleased that he will be winding up the debate.
I initiated this debate so that I could ask the Minister to keep his eye on, and where appropriate, support, our local efforts in trying to solve a particularly chronic problem in Nottingham, North. He will be delighted to hear that I do not want any money. I want something far more valuable—his personal commitment to overseeing the development of the project that I shall outline. It is probably easier for those who live busy ministerial lives to give money than to give time, so that is not a let-out, but a tough request.
First, I shall explain the problem. In Nottingham, North, seven secondary schools are compelled to turn their youngsters out of school at the age of 16. There is one sixth-form college to which a few of those youngsters can go and one school with its own sixth form, but we insist that the other schools force their pupils to leave school at 16. The fact that the local education system is structured in that way sends to youngsters in my constituency the message that their education ends at 16, unless they are prepared to make the journey to the two superb local further education colleges.
376WH
The problems in Nottingham, North are well known to the Minister. As he knows, the number of youngsters from my constituency who go to university is the lowest among all constituencies in the United Kingdom. We have the lowest educationally attaining ward out of the 8,500 in the UK. Four Nottingham, North secondary schools are in the bottom 200 in the UK. That figure represents an improvement on past performance; we used to have six schools in the bottom 25. I pay tribute to the achievements of all involved in that improvement—the teachers, heads, parents and pupils who have climbed by their fingertips and crawled their way up the ladder. They may not be as high up as we want, but it is a monumental achievement and I am pleased to put it on record.
Far from resting our laurels, however, we should be redoubling our efforts to keep the statistics moving in the right direction. If Nottingham, North, with all its problems, can crack the culture of under-achievement and the waste of human potential, the Minister will know that it can be done anywhere in the United Kingdom. Everyone in our local and educational communities knows what we must do—enable our 16-year-olds to stay on at school—but we need him to help us bring that about. To be blunt, most youngsters will not stay on to seek academic qualifications, but a large majority of those who might otherwise be lost would seek vocational qualifications not by going elsewhere in town or to some multi-million-pound campus that has been scientifically located by some bureaucrat, but by staying on at their existing school.
There are several advantages to pupils staying on at their school. First, they would not have to make the physical and, more importantly, cultural leap from their localities to the city centre further education site, although that would, of course, be vastly more appealing once they had had a taste of FE at school, as the vista of going elsewhere and taking their qualification further would open up to them.
Secondly, although the two local FE colleges offer superb courses and pastoral care, youngsters who stayed on at their existing schools would remain part of a smaller group of students who were known personally to their teachers. They would benefit from their teachers' helping hand and personal knowledge, which could move them from the mindset of not giving a damn or being demotivated to one of saying, "Yes, I will attain." Just one little word from someone who knows them would inspire them to carry on and do vocational courses at school.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, pupils who stay on would act as role models. They would be among the first kids in my constituency to be seen to stay on at school, which would directly refute the prevailing assumption that kids in Nottingham, North do not or cannot do so. The impact on younger brothers and sisters would be tremendous. Currently, those who stay on at school in my constituency are seen as not only unusual but almost weird, because the prevailing culture is for kids to leave school at 16 and then perhaps to get a job. If pupils acted as role models, the proposals would have achieved a big breakthrough.
I did not dream up the proposed solution to one of the educational problems in Nottingham, North to get an Adjournment debate. It is the product of many months and years of careful thinking by all the local players.

377WH
They all support it, and I am simply acting as the mouthpiece for many of them this morning. I have received responses to the draft of my speech from across the board locally. I have received very supportive comments from local head teachers, the chairman and officers of the City of Nottingham education authority, the learning and skills councils, both the FE colleges and both the universities, the Nottingham, North education champion, Connexions and many others who care about our youngsters. There is a brilliant local partnership, which I would love the Minister to see in action. We are all keen to get on with the job—we simply need a smile from him, and we will deliver.
How might the proposals work? Each school could offer a small number of vocational courses—perhaps as few as two—on a small site on its existing campus. The LEA and the Learning and Skills Council tell me that courses could include information technology, nursery nursing, painting and decorating, plumbing and electrical skills, hair and beauty, catering and hospitality, engineering, automotive skills, business studies, travel and tourism, and some practical skills development. I am told that there is a ready local jobs market with vacancies in each of those categories, so we would be creating round pegs for round holes in the jobs market. The British Chambers of Commerce e-mailed me to say that one of the things that most attracted it to the proposals was that they would produce the right qualifications for the jobs market and get youngsters into productive work.
I leave aside the negative possibility of what will happen to youngsters if we do not keep them in further education. That is a debate for another day, concerning antisocial behaviour and the immense public expenditure needed to fund a youngster who goes wrong, whether it is spent on the police, the Prison Service, drug rehabilitation or other such things. I am concentrating entirely on the positive and on the tiny bit of effort and even smaller amount of money that would be a stitch in time and give such youngsters the future that they thoroughly deserve.
The proposals also fit neatly into the 14 to 19 perspective. I have used 16-to-18 as shorthand, because that is when youngsters in Nottingham, North are forced to leave school, but the proposals fit into the perspective of the wider age group, in which I know the Minister takes a close interest. The two FE colleges and the two universities have already made a commitment to help. The colleges already make great contributions in the constituency, and I would not want anyone to feel that that was not the case.
The People's college has worked in partnership with schools, pupils and parents to raise the profile of learning post 16. I am told that the total of 16 to 18-year-olds in further education has increased by 25 per cent. in 2003–04. There has been an expansion in foundation courses and entry into employment programmes for previously under-achieving youngsters. The college has worked closely with local schools such as Bigwood and Hadden Park high school in particular to raise young people's ambition to continue learning. Bigwood school already has a popular health and social care programme. Staff from the People's college joined the school team at Hadden high three years ago and now
378WH
deliver a whole GNVQ over two years. That contributed to a 20 per cent. rise in the GCSE A-to-C score in a school that was restarted just a couple of years ago. That 20 per cent. improvement in 2003 is directly traceable to a vocational element. I want every school in Nottingham, North to achieve such a result, and they want the same thing. However, the People's college tells me that opportunities to deliver vocational training for young people remain limited. The young people want to do it, they need it and the schools know that they need it, and it is up to us to provide a route forward.
Our other further education college, New college, Nottingham, is also offering shared delivery programmes to Nottingham, North. It is working with schools including Henry Mellish, River Leen, Hadden Park and Bigwood. It would do more with the schools if it could get capital and revenue support. The college spends more than £300,000 of its own resources on sustaining the schools development team for planning and liaison with the schools. It does not have to do that; it chooses to do so because it sees the size of the problem. It gets only limited payments from the schools to cover the basic part-time hourly teacher cost and some short-term project funding through the LSC from the Department for Education and Skills.
The college could and would deliver programmes in construction trades, child care, basic catering and hospitality, bakery and customer care if it could get support. The Minister needs to address the rigidity of the line between DFES funding through local education authorities for schools and funding through the Learning and Skills Council for colleges. We need a little more flexibility, overlap and co-operation. If he agrees to take this matter on, his oversight will help tremendously.
The two universities in Nottingham are also involved. That may surprise some people, but they are enthusiastic about helping out on the ground. Branding our schools as Top Valley school and Nottingham university vocational centre or as River Leen and New college, Nottingham, vocational centre, for example, would have a fantastic impact on the local prestige and status of education and on youngsters' self-perception.
I spoke yesterday to the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent university, Neil Gorman. He said:
"Nottingham Trent University, in partnership with FE colleges, is well placed to provide vocational courses for such schools. This provides not only a unique opportunity for vocational development but also exposes the student to the opportunities within higher education thus promoting widening participation in Foundation and Honours degree courses".
He has also said:
"I will gladly discuss how we might best badge one on-site facility at a Nottingham North school, for example, Bigwood School/Nottingham Trent University 16–18 Centre."
That was a tremendous, generous and unnecessary offer; he was not obliged to make it. However, he wants to help us, and the offer stands. Nottingham university, our second university, is equally on board. Sir Colin Campbell has told me:
"Nottingham University would consider in conjunction with FE and school partners if we could designate a 16–18 centre at one of their local sites for this sort of provision."
Just imagine a Nottingham, North kid written off as a failure puffing out his or her chest and saying, "I'm going to a Russell group university", and taking

379WH
vocational qualifications to improve his or her lot. That puts into perspective some of our recent esoteric debates on university fees. Nottingham's Connexions service has achieved the greatest reduction in unemployment among 16 to 18-year-olds in the UK. It can also see that it could go even further. If I could bottle the good will that local partners and players are putting into the project, we would not have a problem.
Relatively small amounts of capital are needed to build a small additional facility on each site. Regardless of whether we are successful in the bid that we have put to the Department for Education and Skills for the "Building schools for the future" programme, the LEA and LSC, with whatever help the Minister can offer, should be able to fund such small-scale developments. We are limited by the existence of separate capital arrangements for schools and further education, and we need to cross that divide in the interests of creating a new kind of learning to keep youngsters interested enough to stay on at school at 16. We can begin modestly; a lot could be achieved with a spend of about £250,000—a drop in the ocean of educational spending at local and national level.
We should prioritise schools in areas with the lowest achievement at 16 and the poorest progression to further education and training, and then work through the list, providing facilities as and when we can. Some schools already have spare classrooms and others are straining to get cracking if they can have temporary or prefabricated classes. For a more knobs-on but still modest facility, Brett Kerton of the LEA tells me that a flexible space of some 450 sq m with a good information technology facility and a small seminar space would support the delivery of a range of basic vocational courses, such as motor vehicle skills, construction and catering. That model is based on the people first centre, which the People's college now uses for its entry into employment programme. That is a Government scheme, funded through the LSC, to provide flexible vocationally orientated provision for disaffected 16 to 18-year-olds. It is a brilliant scheme that encourages innovative ways of motivating young people. People's college, like New college, Nottingham, would love to be able to do something similar for 14-year-olds in mainstream schools in Nottingham, North.
The city council believes that, ideally, over the next five years, most or all schools in the area should be equipped with a 16-to-18 or 14-to-19 centre of some description. The establishment of small purpose-built vocational centres on school sites would give schools, colleges and training providers the opportunity to offer basic vocational training programmes to many more young people and to provide those young people with the necessary skills to progress to the higher-level specialist provision offered by colleges. There is no reason why 14-year-olds could not use those facilities. Such centres would also give post-16 education and training providers the opportunity to offer more responsive and flexible provision to post-16 learners. They would be like a missing piece of the jigsaw—the link between kids who stay at school until 16 and another, often different, bunch of kids who enter FE and HE. That link is essential for independent learning.
Such centres would provide young people with the opportunity to experience new areas of learning, which would enable them to make more informed choices and
380WH
consequently improve their chances of completing their post-16 studies. The idea is that if youngsters are given the chance to achieve at any level, they will get a taste for it and see a benefit. Often, they see a financial benefit in working. Then comes the motivation to study further, perhaps not at school but at the local FE college or university, or with one of a range of other providers. Giving people the desire to learn and reasons to do so is the crux of what we are trying to achieve. If we could get such centres on the road, they would change lives and break us out of the non- achieving culture. We are making good progress in that area, but we need the breakthrough of vocational provision on school sites.
I have several points to put to the Minister that I hope he will address. First, is he prepared to visit Nottingham, North in the near future to look at our progress on 16 to 18-year-old vocational provision at schools and, above all—this may stop him smiling—to take the personal interest that I spoke about earlier? Last year, I became the education champion for Nottingham, North—the first ever constituency-based education champion. As such, it was immensely valuable to me to have the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, who, without even visiting our city, made a strong impact on the progress of the local project merely by taking a personal interest and asking to be kept informed about any blockages. That is all that I ask the Minister to do. If he would care to visit Nottingham, North at an appropriate time, he would be very welcome.
Secondly, will the Minister consider helping with the project plan and perhaps with a pilot to help speed up local work already under way? Will he assign a named DFES official to the project? I am very grateful for the great and open assistance that I have so far received not only from him, but from officials in his Department.
Thirdly, will the Minister consider the rigidity of the line between DFES funding through LEAs for schools and the problem of colleges being funded through the LSC? Again, this is not a matter of personality. There is tremendous drive and a sense of purpose, vision and direction among all the local players, but people on the ground become worried if they feel that they might be transgressing some sort of line that has been drawn in the sand at a higher level. They need to be encouraged to be innovative in this area. There is a need for joined-up thinking from his Department and the Treasury. We in Nottingham, North would happily be guinea pigs for such joined-up thinking.
Fourthly, will the Minister examine the internal ordering of educational spending on this lost group of people, who sometimes fall through the cracks? In the past few weeks, there has been great interest in universities and graduates. We hear, quite rightly, about the importance of pre-school activity, which I hope to raise on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I do not seek to make any partisan points, but I am proud of the Government's literacy and numeracy strategy for primary schools and the effort put into secondary schools thereafter. However, the 16-year-olds who leave school are the lost group in education and do not have the same public profile. I am sure that he is as annoyed about that as anyone else. We need to reintegrate those young people not only into our educational experience, but into society itself. He has our good wishes in any efforts to re-order internal spending priorities towards that group, as I am sure he is already undertaking to do.

381WH
Fifthly, I would most be grateful if the Minister could see whether the innovations provisions in section 2 of the Education Act 2002 could be imaginatively applied to the problem affecting both the 16-to-18 and 14-to-19 groups in Nottingham, North and elsewhere.
Every year that goes by in which we fail to address the problem, another 1,000 young people in my constituency leave school at 16. Many of them disappear from the educational experience. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal that we can do this year. Despite all the great efforts being undertaken locally, many young people will repeat that experience this summer. I do not wish it to be repeated any more summers after that, because those youngsters are just as capable and have just as much right to a decent future as anyone else. All those youngsters have a right to expect us, regardless of party, to deal with the problem.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. The Minister has listened carefully and I hope that he can give some positive encouragement in his reply.
9.57 am
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) not only on securing this debate, but, more importantly, on the hard work and research that he has done on behalf of his constituents. I also thank him for giving me precise information on the debate, which will make it more focused.
I have some knowledge of Nottingham, as my parents lived there. I also know something about the problems of areas where horizons are perforce limited by cultural factors. I started my teaching career in Bootle, where many young people's fundamental expectation was to be secured a job in the docks, regardless of whether they had any education. I am aware of the cultural pressures that exist in Nottingham, North. Anyone who has read D. H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers" must be aware of the difficulties that face young people who wish to advance themselves educationally in areas where education is not a constant theme.
There is a fundamental lack of educational confidence in areas of Nottingham, North and elsewhere. That is a feature of individuals, their families and, in the present case, the community. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North is entirely right to draw that problem to our attention and to ask for an imaginative solution. People's fears—fear of failure and fear that the course might not be right—must be confronted. Many people also fear peer pressure, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, pursuing education in his area can make a person the odd one out. That problem is well documented, but it is particularly severe in Nottingham, North and is perhaps complicated by the existence of the 11-to-16 school system. Such systems can work, but I suppose that in some cultures they can set a limit on people's educational experience. We are all familiar with monocultural environments, in dockland areas and mining areas, or wherever they may be. Perhaps the absence of 11-to-18 provision or significant diversity restrains pupils' expectations.
I am familiar with the working of low expectations, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is entirely right to draw the point to our attention. However, the
382WH
Nottingham with which I am familiar increasingly has further and higher education establishments that offer slightly different ways out. Obviously, further education resonates with people who believe that their gifts are practical and who want to pursue a vocational route, or with people who have modest aspirations or modest experiences of the educational process. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said, even the obvious route may be beset by what are popularly called gremlins in an area such as Nottingham, North. Students do not want to take the step, which is difficult in some areas, even if it might seem effortless in others.
It is increasingly accepted that, in that sort of environment, further education must go to schools and schools must go to further education. That good practice is now widespread. In my area, students from 11-to-16 schools routinely go to further education colleges, and further education lecturers routinely come to schools. Good practice is springing up all over the place. Without paying the Government an undue compliment in advance, I may say that that process will be assisted by revisions to the 14 to 16 curriculum. Quite obviously, some of that good practice, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North outlined, is already in place in his constituency. The FE colleges in his area are models of good practice—practice that the Department for Education and Skills would be happy to commend and to recommend. Higher education establishments in that area also have a very good track record of pitching in with schools. In particular, I commend Trent, which has done enormously important work in widening access to universities and in encouraging students to go to university who otherwise would not think of doing so. It is a trail-blazer in that respect, and is ahead of many other universities. It should be praised.
How innovative higher and further education establishments can be is conditioned not only by their ambition, which I am sure is considerable, but by their resources. All ventures, positive though they are, are a partnership between school and college. The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the streams of funding available to them, which are different and not always easy to co-ordinate. Schools are funded by the local council or from the Standards Fund. Further education funding comes from the learning and skills councils and may be gauged using a different set of priorities. Capital funding is equally, if not more, complex.
We have a problem with certain structural difficulties. Many of the most attractive and ambitious schemes, such as those for information technology, automotive engineering and catering, are capital-intensive. Pupils need a seamless curriculum, but they are serviced to some extent by a fractured educational structure. It might be easier to return to the time when FE colleges were under local education authority control, which was not a bad state of affairs. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North illustrated, however, problems between FE colleges and 11-to-16 schools can be replicated in part under the current system in an 11-to18 school, whereas vocational education in 11-to-16 schools can be funded by the local authority and vocational education post 16 can be funded by an LSC.
None the less, despite the structural difficulties that we have identified, the problems are not insuperable; they are simply harder to surmount than they perhaps

383WH
should be. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North recognises that, but I sense that he wants more. He seems to be arguing for 11-to-16 schools with some sort of mini-tech attached. I appreciate his reasons, and I am not against experimentation. A priori, however, I find it difficult to see precisely how that will work, because quality education is costly, especially in those branches of education that the hon. Gentleman outlined. A mini-tech attached to a school must be limited in scope, which is a problem because some pupils will not find a course that is relevant or interesting to them. Alternatively, it could offer a full range of courses, in which case it could offer only taster courses without being prohibitively expensive. Perhaps that is the hon. Gentleman's concept of what should be put in place, but there is a reason why FE colleges exist, and it relates partly to the sheer cost of putting on credible, quality courses.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for a halfway course between what the schools offer and what FE offers, because there is a problem in getting pupils from school to FE. I am not sure that that problem cannot be addressed in other ways. One advantage that FE has for pupils who have been in an 11-to-16 environment is that it is not school. They feel that they will be treated differently when they go to an FE college. Although, as he put it, pupils can feel that they are thrown out or rejected by their school, some pupils leave 11-to-16 schools with a sense of relief, if only because they can make a fresh start.
There are many examples of 11-to-18 schools that hang on to pupils to boost their numbers but essentially provide slightly substandard vocational education. In some cases, that education is available in a better form at the local FE college.
Mr. Allen: I am following the hon. Gentleman's discourse closely, and agree with virtually all of it. I might be able to assist him with the queries that he raised. First, we have given careful thought locally to the problem of the size of offer. Of course, it would be wonderful to be able to offer all the courses that I mentioned—there must have been a dozen—but we are rather modest, and we appreciate that if we are talking about a small number of schools, the offer will be very small. It may be two or three. The provision available would need to be discussed between the FE college and the school. We are conscious of that and of the problem of timetabling people in.
With your forbearance, Sir Nicholas, I will also respond to the second point.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: As we are not pressed for time this morning, I shall use my discretion in allowing a lengthy intervention.
Mr. Allen: You are very generous, as always, Sir Nicholas.
A large number of youngsters cannot wait to get away from school and get to an FE college, and that option will still exist for those youngsters. We seek to address the youngsters who will not go elsewhere if they leave the school environment. Sadly, in my constituency, as I have outlined, there is a large percentage of such youngsters. They are lost to us without school. At
384WH
school, they will get intimate pastoral care. The teachers will know them and their history and will know which motivational buttons to press. That is the group of youngsters that I am considering—those who need that relatively small offering at school to be inspired to go on further, hopefully to FE or HE.
Dr. Pugh: I am not at all dogmatic in my views. I carefully used the words "a priori", and, a priori, I do not warm to the idea. In all its ramifications, I can see some problems. The thing about a priori thinking is empirical evidence. If pilots in Nottingham—I see no reason why pilots should not be used in Nottingham—show that the idea works, my a priori views will have to be revised.
The fundamental solution for the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies in getting the offer right at FE level so that pupils are attracted to it. I am sure that the FE colleges are working hard on that. May I give him what I hope is a helpful analogy? A technical college in my constituency offers a catering course that provides a restaurant where people can dine. It is in every respect a commercial establishment for part of the time. It is expensive in the sense that it costs the tech college a lot to put on, but it is an extraordinary popular course. It is so popular, and the employment prospects are so good, that pupils travel from Liverpool, Bootle and constituencies such as Nottingham, North to go to that college to acquire the kind of training that they know will support their needs and give them a career. I wonder whether, in the case of Nottingham, North, we need to look in the round at further and higher education in the Nottingham area.
10.9 am
Mr. Mark Simmonds: It is a great delight for me to participate in this debate. I offer the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) my congratulations oh securing the debate, and like the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), I also congratulate him on all the hard work and detail that has gone into reaching the point that he has reached today.
Like the hon. Member for Southport, I know Nottingham extremely well. I spent my formative years in a town called Worksop just to the north and I was a student in Nottingham for three years. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that Nottingham Trent university was heavily involved in the proposals and was playing a positive role in what he is attempting to do.
I was also delighted that the hon. Gentleman spoke with such passion and knowledge about his concerns for the pupils or students who are having to leave the various schools to which he referred at the age of 16, with limited facilities, despite the good FE colleges in his area. I am interested in exploring the ideas that he has detailed today about creating specific vocational training on school sites and, ultimately, greater collaboration between schools and FE colleges.
I have some specific questions about the hon. Gentleman's proposals. First, is he suggesting that such training should be pre-16 or post-16 or both? I shall ask the Minister later about how that might affect funding arrangements. Secondly, how do his proposals differ

385WH
from the Government's drive for specialisms in secondary schools and the enterprise culture that they are trying to create in certain schools, and how would the two fit together?
The problem that has been described is not peculiar to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. In Boston and Skegness, we have many similar problems regarding the lack of aspiration among pupils from certain socio-economic backgrounds who do not aspire to good jobs and do not necessarily aspire to qualifications. Therefore, it is a national problem rather than a local one, although I understand why he has raised it this morning.
Mr. Allen: It may help the hon. Gentleman and the debate if I quickly pick up those points.
I do not have a rigid view about deciding between 14 and 16. I come to 16-to-18 provision as a result of my personal learning journey in respect of my constituents and what they need, but it may be sensible to start the vocational element at school at 14. One of the schools that I mentioned, Hadden high, in its previous incarnation as Glaisdale school, pioneered nationally the concept of younger pupils doing work much earlier than 16 and indeed doing vocational training at 16. Therefore, this is an issue of horses for courses. It is also one of horses for money; if the money is available only from 14 to 19, I would gladly say that we should take that route; if it is available only from 16 to 18, I shall move as rapidly as I can to that position.
I hope that being a specialist school would not get in the way of under-achieving schools and schools that do not have such good results. Rather than forcing schools into a matrix that looks good in Whitehall, we must ensure local flexibility to go with or without specialist schools to some degree, if that helps the kids to stay in education.
As to whether the problem relates to Nottingham, North or is national, as I said, if we can crack this problem in Nottingham, North, the most chronically under-attaining educational area in the UK, the Minister and his colleagues will be able to take from what has happened massive implications for elsewhere. That is why the concept of piloting in the most difficult area is useful.
Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention, which clarifies some of the issues that I was raising. I am also grateful for your tolerance, Sir Nicholas, in saying that we are not short of time this morning.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North made a point about 14-to-19 provision. The current funding arrangements and the disparity between LEA funding per capita and LSC funding per capita will create enormous problems if both pre-16 and post-16 education are to be addressed. He dealt with that issue and I hope that the Minister will respond because there must be greater flexibility than seems to exist at the moment.
The problem exists not just in Nottingham, North, but throughout the whole country. The recent debate on the funding of higher education—I hope that the issue will be resolved one way or another, at least initially,
386WH
next week—has overshadowed the important aspect of education under discussion, which has not been given the focus that it deserves. I hope that today is the start of a constructive, cross-party debate to help and facilitate better educational achievement by future generations and to increase the productivity and competitiveness of the UK in an ever-increasing global marketplace.
The Government have created some of their problems, primarily by setting an arbitrary 50 per cent. target to push youngsters into higher education. As many of those youngsters will come from the FE sector, that sector will thereby be denuded of many of its more capable participants. Tuition fees represent only a very small proportion of the cost of the 4 million adults in further education. To my mind, the vocational route has been undervalued and too often sidelined. Together, we must find a way of addressing that issue.
There is consensus on both sides of the House about the seriousness of the problem and we will no doubt hear from the Minister about the measures that the Government are taking to improve the provision of vocational education. However, the record of achievement to date is not good. The number of 16 to 18-year-olds in Government-supported training and employer-funded training schemes has decreased by 1.5 per cent. and 0.2 per cent. respectively since 1997. Britain ranks 12th out of 15 countries in the EU in relation to basic skills, and productivity in the United States is 40 per cent. higher than in the UK. There is a direct causal link between skills, learning and productivity.
I had great fun reading the Government's White Paper, "21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential", which correctly placed enormous importance on vocational skills and training. It argued that achieving better skills and higher productivity would require both the reform of secondary education—the point that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is making—and the establishment of a world-class work-related education and training system. The skills White Paper, allied with the Green Paper on 14-to-19 education, which outlines the Government's vision and was purported to rectify the traditional neglect of vocational education, is absolutely right. However, those involved in vocational and skills training under Governments of all colours have worked extremely hard to change the lives of thousands of people to date to give them qualifications and skills and to prepare them for the wider economy.
The impact and improvements made in the provision of vocational education have been piecemeal, and there is little current improvement. The measures that are being taken are simply not enough and it is widely acknowledged that the provision of skills and education in the UK is too low, too complex and still does not excite and engage those in the 16-to-18 age group, as is evidenced by the comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and in my constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The lack of aspiration and role models drives the issue.
We must ensure that our education system delivers employability at all levels; it currently does not do so. We must address the skills gap and ensure that the measures being undertaken in that regard are correct and fully comply with the demands and needs of employers both locally and nationally. Again, they

387WH
currently do not do so. Employers are deeply concerned that many employees lack basic skills of literacy, numeracy and communication and that many vocational routes do not meet their requirements. That is evidenced by FE colleges collecting only £44 million from employers towards costs of some £4 billion. Employers in the United Kingdom spend £23 billion per annum on training, but they are not spending that money in FE colleges or schools. There is a serious dislocation between employers and vocational training facilities.
I am sorry to say that the UK is still in a poor position compared with our competitors. I apologise to hon. Members, but I have a barrage of statistics that illustrate our problem; I hope that they will not bore people. Only 28 per cent. of Britons are qualified to apprentice, skilled, craft and technical levels, compared with 51 per cent. in France and 65 per cent. in Germany. Some 36 per cent. of adults of working age, or more than 13 million people, some of whom are in Nottingham, North or in Boston and Skegness, leave school with few basic qualifications. That compares with 28 per cent. in France and 17 per cent. in Germany. The number enrolled in apprenticeships, already lower than in most European countries, fell by 20 per cent. from 2000–01 to 2001–02.
A serious issue is that 63 per cent. of all construction employers in the east midlands area, in which the constituencies that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and I represent are situated, face difficulty in recruiting the relevant skilled staff. As construction activity in the east midlands is expected to grow by 15 per cent. in forthcoming years, there is a real problem.
Those statistics have enormous consequences. A recent Ofsted report showed than 80,000 pupils are being left behind by a curriculum that fails to engage them. Half of 16-year-olds do not achieve five GCSE grades. Indeed, the situation has recently deteriorated: 67,000 pupils left school at 16 without reaching that criterion in 2002 and 69,800 did so in 2003. The current curriculum is not working. The Government are leaving behind many people from the most challenging socio-economic backgrounds.
I agree with the Government that they should be looking into ways of altering the curriculum from the age of 14 at the very least. I await the results of the Tomlinson report with great interest. Skills and vocational training must not be put in an academic straitjacket, deterring applicants who cannot respond to the—if I may use the word—academicisation of skills and vocational training that the Government seem so set upon to meet their HE target numbers.
According to the latest quango established by the Government, the Learning and Skills Council, almost a quarter of companies reported a skills gap in 2002. That is a significant increase on the number in 2001. The CBI and the TUC have expressed their concerns. The vocational education route is flawed and the Government's solution to the provision of such education has been badly focused. The measures that are being taken are a start, but they are not enough. Fundamental problems still exist.
Those who choose to embark on a vocational route often find that the schemes and courses that are available lack coherence and relevance to employers. I
388WH
am interested to know whether the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has views on how we can address that particular problem in schools, FE colleges or other educational establishments. Schemes that lead to limited job prospects discourage participation and progression. There are myriad vocational occupational qualifications on offer. The chief executive of the adult learning inspectorate said that there were
"2,000, where 100 would do."
The latest guide to British vocational qualification—the fourth edition—details more than 3,500 vocational qualifications. We need to consider streamlining.
Mr. Allen: Let me answer the question directly. One way in which we can mesh local employers with the people who are not yet being trained properly for the jobs that local employers view as important is by using the partnership that operates in Nottingham, North, which gave rise to the proposal. It involves the Learning and Skills Council, the local education authorities, and all the other partners and players working together. They see that there is a need and a resource and that all we need to do is to put things together into the right format so that employers can use that resource—the young people in Nottingham, North. They will benefit immensely from training, getting a foot on the ladder at the lowest level—their level of attainment—and working their way up from school to further education or even university.
The partnership is there and I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider its introduction nationwide. I know of areas in his constituency that are almost as tough as some in my constituency. If we can get the partnership working, the proposal may be applicable in constituencies such as his.
Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention. All of us would agree with the sentiment that we must encourage all pupils to aspire and get on the education and skills ladder. I support the hon. Gentleman, but the detail of his proposal must be considered more closely. With regard to his other proposals for improving vocational and skills training, one major issue that must be addressed is the rigidity and division of current funding streams. They are under different areas of responsibility and per capita funding is significantly different between the pre-16 and post-16 age groups.
I would like the Minister to explain how the streams could be clarified if we were to take the route suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and if the Government were to introduce vocational training on school campuses from the age of 14. If a school allowed vocational training to take place from 14 to 18, would funding be significantly different and greater for those doing part 1 of the course compared with those staying on from 16 to 18 and 16 to 19? Under current arrangements, it would be different, which would cause absolute chaos. Part 2 of my hypothetical course would clearly be considered of less value and fewer funds and resources would be allocated to it.
Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. Since we have the time, I will again put on record that the educational maintenance allowance is an issue in which I am sure that he will be interested. We

389WH
must consider the funding of post-16 education. My constituency has piloted educational maintenance allowances and they have been very successful. The rate of youngsters staying on at school for academic qualifications has improved dramatically through the use of the EMA. Some of us would like to see a FEMA or further educational maintenance allowance. Now that we have, or hope to have, the grant restored, we could even go as far as a HEMA or higher educational maintenance allowance, ensuring a seamless transition of financial assistance paying people to learn at whatever level they want.
That reflects the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the plethora of qualifications. Youngsters often face a jungle of options. if you have considered that area, Sir Nicholas, you must have wondered, as I have, what on earth all the initials mean. How on earth can a youngster who may not be highly literate or numerate make headway or—to use the technical term—navigate the different possibilities? If we can sort out my proposal by looking at the seamless transition of funding to pay young people to learn and at clarifying the navigation of qualifications, we will be in the business of making matters much more simple and opening up education to many people who are lost to us.
Mr. Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting observations. The EMA scheme will be introduced nationally after having now been piloted. Some pilots were more successful than others. There are some issues with EMAs, as there has been a disparity of take-up and not everyone is aware of the possibilities. How is the different way in which local authorities have handled EMAs to be translated to a national basis?
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the plethora of qualifications, and I am pleased that he agrees with me about that issue. I do not know whether he has a view on this point—perhaps he will not intervene on me again because I wish to draw my remarks to a conclusion—but it seems slightly strange that just as society, students and employers have been getting to grips with NVQs, the Government have chosen to abolish them in 2007, with no significant replacement in place. That situation needs to be dealt with and considered very carefully. It would have been more sensible to await the full report from Tomlinson and to see what he suggests and debate it, rather than to abolish NVQs before knowing what will replace them.
I want to give the Minister time to respond to the excellent points made by the hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Southport. In conclusion, it is important to state that our young people need a decent, basic education and well-thought-out vocational courses that are designed in close collaboration with industry and business. Vocational qualifications will only work if industry is closely involved with the design of the curriculum of courses, as is significantly the case on the continent. There is currently a lack of incentives for students and companies to take up vocational and occupational training. We have yet to see a replacement for the disastrous individual learning accounts. I notice that in "21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential", the ILAs were swept aside, and they are supposed to be dealt with by other initiatives included in that document.
390WH
It is essential that provision of vocational education is at the core of any Government's education strategy. I hope that, once the HE funding debate is put to bed one way or another, we can turn our attention to this critical and important area. It is essential that we find ways to encourage 16 to 18-year-olds in Nottingham. North and across the country to aspire to remain in education and not to get out as fast as possible, as they currently do. That will benefit those young people and their families, communities, companies, employers, productivity and earning potential, and the economy and the UK's competitiveness in an increasingly global marketplace.
10.32 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this debate. More importantly, I congratulate him on focusing in his constituency on the most important issue facing any Member of Parliament—the aspirations of young people and the learning aspirations of the entire community. We know that that matter concerns not only the success of our country in the long term, but the life chances of individuals who have been denied for far too long opportunities that many in our society take for granted. The community leadership role that he is fulfilling in his area is an example of what the modern Member of Parliament often does. It is not spoken about outside this House, but in considering the major challenges facing our constituencies, we ought to be central to the process of bringing together organisations and challenging them to meet the needs of our constituents. There is no more important area in which that is the case than education and aspirations.
I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, which slightly worries me. I hope that that will continue in the months ahead; I almost said years ahead, but in this business, talking about years is sometimes a little optimistic. To respond to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), I would say that we agree on much of the agenda. We all agree on the importance and centrality of vocational education. We agree that we have failed to address that issue successfully in this country through the generations, and we believe that it deserves as much attention and focus in public comment and debate as schools and universities tend to get.
We define our education system as schools and universities. We do not talk about vocational or further education, and it is important that we seek to change that situation. It is a source of regret that, despite so much consensus, a great deal of misinformation has been promoted in the higher education debate that seeks to present the choice as between higher education or vocational education. I believe not only that that is a false choice, but that it is deliberately misleading in the context of the present public debate.
Vocational education is vital because it is central to our success in two ways. First, from a social justice point of view, it is a key vehicle for ensuring that every individual has an opportunity to fulfil their potential. Secondly, from an economic success perspective, we continue to lag behind our competitors in productivity. Skills are a key driver of productivity, but far too many

391WH
young people and adults in or close to the labour market still lack the skills that will be necessary if we are to achieve maximum productivity.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and other hon. Members have said, the great challenge facing the English education system is the non-participation rate at 17. We continue to do well with primary education and reasonably well with graduate-level education, but the real challenge facing us is the fact that, compared with other countries, our drop-out rate at 16 is far too high, with all the damaging social and economic consequences that that brings. That was the central thrust of his argument.
We must also address a cultural problem. There is snobbery in this country towards vocational education. It is looked down on and seen as second class or second rate. Those who continue to talk about vocational education on the one hand and higher education on the other perpetuate the view that vocational education is in some way of secondary importance.
We must debunk some of the myths. Let us consider the relationship between vocational education and skills. More than 50 per cent. of existing higher education degrees are vocational. Foundation degrees will be a major part of the expansion from the current 43 per cent. participation in higher education courses to the 50 per cent. participation that we aspire to achieve by 2010. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness on further education, I can say that approximately 15 to 20 per cent. of higher education is provided via further education colleges. We should remember that a major part of the modern apprenticeship offer, particularly for the advanced modern apprenticeship, is the opportunity for young people to progress from apprenticeship into foundation degrees. Therefore, the suggestion that the choice is between more university graduates or more people with vocational skills is a dangerous misrepresentation of the challenges that the country faces. It is also a false analysis of what is actually happening in the expansion of higher education.
The concerns about 14-to-19 provision to which all hon. Members have referred reflect exactly why we asked Mike Tomlinson to look at an appropriate long-term phase of education that would really work and make a difference. We do not want rushed revolution, but gradual evolutionary change, so that we can put in place a sensible approach to such provision and get it right. We will ensure that the Tomlinson recommendations, to which we will respond in due course, lead to the coherence that hon. Members have spoken about.
In the meantime, we have already started to put in place many of the building blocks that are integral to a sensible 14-to-19 phase. The Connexions service focuses on helping 13 to 19-year-olds to overcome barriers that prevent them from progressing in education, but places particular emphasis on reducing the number of young people who are not in any form of employment education or training at all.
We introduced eight GCSEs in vocational subjects in September 2002. The first cohort of young people will take those GCSEs this summer. Although we will not know the details until we see the examination entry statistics, all the evidence on take-up of GCSEs in vocational subjects has been very encouraging.
392WH
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, educational maintenance allowances will be extended to all 16-year-olds from September. They are an important vehicle for supporting young people in making the choice to stay on at 16 and progress, rather than drop out. I say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that, if we tell young people that we will have a big conversation with them about education being essential and about wanting them to stay on at 16, and also pay them an educational maintenance allowance, but simultaneously tell them that higher education will not be an option for them because we shall cap the number of places since there are not enough higher education resources for the young people whom we need to go through the system, we know what will happen. Young people are smart and sophisticated. They will reject the idea of staying on at 16 and 17 if they know that the realistic prospect for many of them will not be the opportunity of a higher education place.
We are reducing the core curriculum from September. The purpose of that reduction is to enable us to build a curriculum that can increasingly meet the needs of each young person. In the past, we have had a curriculum straitjacket. We would tell young people that there was a very narrow way on which they could stay and progress. They could be motivated and enthusiastic about it, but we know what happened if it was not right for them. It led to disengagement and to young people dropping out long before 16 and sometimes long before 14. The capacity to create a more flexible curriculum is exceptionally important. The opportunity to pick and mix academic and vocational courses is another way of building a more personalised learning experience.
One of the great challenges facing the education system in all its stages at the beginning of the 21st century was the concept of personalised learning or being able to build a learning journey around the needs of each citizen and make a reality of learning for life. We have not always been as good as we need to be at making the links between, for example, young people and adult skills, not only in the sense that to meet our skills needs we must improve the education of 14 to 19-year-olds, but because we must focus on adults such as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North who missed out on opportunities that they should have had during their compulsory education.
We also need to make the link between adult skills and the raising of school standards. If adults are brought back into learning—mums and dads, grandmas and granddads—it is far more likely that they will see the benefit and relevance of education and have the skills and desire to support their children and grandchildren in their learning. That is important in relation to raising aspirations. Low aspirations permeate far too many families and communities.
We have also begun a process of flexibility for the 14-to-16 age group. Some 80,000 pupils from 1,800 schools, some of them in my hon. Friend's constituency, are spending part of the week in school and part of it at the local college of further education. In some cases, they are spending a day a week with a local employer. That is a very important start, as it is beginning to build a learning experience that turns young people on to learning, instead of turning them off. That is one of the major challenges. We hope to build on the 14-to-16 flexibility programme.

393WH
Work-related learning will become statutory in the curriculum from next year. That means that all young people will, it is hoped, have the opportunity of access to high quality work-related experiences as part of the 14-to-16 curriculum. As hon. Members know, we intend to introduce enterprise education into the key stage 4 strategy.
My hon. Friend referred to the entry into employment programme. Very few people outside this House would know about that programme, and it is not generally known about even here. It is for a group of young people for whom modern apprenticeship, even at foundation level, is too difficult or challenging at their stage in their education, and it is intended to ensure that an offer suitable to every young person is available. Entry into employment is an attempt to provide opportunities for young people and to give them a chance at 16 to move from being unable to enter foundation modern apprenticeships to being able either to do that or to enter directly into a skilled job.
I get extremely frustrated when I read in the newspapers or hear politicians who should know better repeat that it is a shame that we do not have apprenticeships in this country. I hear that suggestion when I speak to business audiences or to educationalists and when I listen to public debates. I can understand why such comments are made, because a lot of people genuinely do not know about our apprenticeship system, but it is galling when Members of this House who do know about the system choose deliberately to say that we need an apprenticeship system in this country when 230,000 young people are currently undertaking modern apprenticeships. That is a major step forward in the number of young people choosing this option over the past two or three years. It does not mean that we do not have major problems, however, as our non-completion rate is too high, and we need modern apprenticeships that are more fit for their purpose in terms of the needs of employers.
None the less, it should be a cause of celebration for us that so many young people are choosing to do modern apprenticeships. In addition, the non-completion rate relates not only to drop-out in the traditional sense. Many young people and employers are choosing to regularise their relationship without finishing the apprenticeship course. That is not something I welcome, and we need to challenge it. However, I think we have a good start regarding modern apprenticeships on which we can build.
We have also asked Tomlinson to come up with coherent proposals about a long-term 14-to-19 phase of education. In direct response to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, when we respond to Tomlinson's recommendations we must, in addition to deciding on the appropriate curriculum, assessments and pathway from 14 to 19, examine any of the policy barriers which may prevent that 14-to-19 education from working. One of those barriers is the financial arrangements, the funding streams and the relationship between LEAs and learning and skills councils.
Mr. Allen: I know that my hon. Friend is keen to respond to the points that I made in the debate and I am
394WH
keen to hear his reply. I underline to him that reviews—whether they be Tomlinson, a strategic review of the learning and skills councils or whatever else—can sometimes be seen by those lower down the food chain as a reason for delay, as when they are told that they must wait for Tomlinson's report and for the Government's response. People need action. Some 1,000 young people in my constituency are about to leave school this coming June. I hope that he will ensure that there is a sense of urgency in moving these proposals forward, particularly where they are local and specific and need only promotion from the Minister's level, and that the issue will not depend on reviews and other excuses for postponement of action.
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's concerns. However, if national policy is to be sensible and coherent in 14-to-19 education, which we have never been able to make work properly even though successive Governments have attempted to address it, it is right and progressive to have established an external group of credible people who can look at the issue objectively. It was both a brave thing to do, because the Government lose control of the process, and the right thing to do. We have also empowered the more positive LEAs and local learning arid skills councils to overcome the barriers at a local level, to be imaginative and innovative and to look at local needs.
I shall deal in a moment with the points that my hon. Friend raised in relation to his constituency. First, I wish to refer to some of the work we have done in relation to vocational education more generally. It is important that we also mention the centres of vocational excellence, of which we now have a network of about 400, based in further education colleges and among post-16 providers generally. We are rebuilding both the capital infrastructure and the skilled personnel to deliver vocational education. We must not forget that we have, over many years, dismantled the capacity to provide high-quality vocational education, both in terms of capital infrastructure and having the necessary expertise—the skilled teachers and tutors who can deliver such education. It is exceptionally important that we are in a position to rebuild that.
As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said, the agenda will also depend on a much better and closer relationship between employers in the labour market and the education system. We said in the skills strategy that we needed a far more demand-led system. That is why the creation of the sector skills council network is so important. I hope that we will have most of those sector skills councils up and running by the middle of this year, and their job will be to inform the education system about what the needs of the key sectors in our economy actually are.
On the qualification system, in terms not only of Tomlinson and 14-to-19 provision, but of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority shake-up of adult vocational qualifications, unitisation, credit transfer and all the things for which employers have been asking for generations, we are making rapid progress in creating a more demand-led system. I agree, however, that we have to do a lot better in terms of the relationship between the labour market and the education system.

395WH
Turning specifically to Nottingham, North, the first thing I want to do is to pay tribute to the secondary schools in my hon. Friend's constituency for the progress that they have made. He says that the system is not good enough, that it is slow and that we need to do better. He is absolutely right. Every educationalist working in Nottingham, North would accept that view, but when people begin to make in-roads after years of depression, misery and feelings of helplessness, we should pay tribute to the professionals and people on the ground who have made that happen. I echo his tributes.
In the context of the debate about barriers, the schools, FE colleges and universities in my hon. Friend's constituency have come together in a very imaginative and innovative way to look at how they can work together within the existing framework to tackle the problem of low aspiration and break down some of those barriers. I agree that there are national policy issues, whether they relate to funding streams and financial arrangements or to performance measurement of individual institutions. It is still very important that there is transparency about the performance of institutions. I think that such transparency is one of the reasons why standards in our education system have improved.
If we are asking organisations to move from a culture of competition, which is what existed in our education system for decades, to a culture of collaboration and partnership, we are asking them not only to overcome some of the policy barriers, but to make a cultural change in the way in which they work together. "Partnership" is a much used and abused word. What we need is authentic partnership in which people are sometimes willing to put to one side the immediate vested interest of their individual institution and to look at the collective needs of young people in their community and at how the institutions can together ensure that those young people can have access to a high-quality, high-status offer that, more importantly than anything else, supports their progress.
I say to my hon. Friend that we have made progress in the secondary sector. We have tremendous collaboration and we have a university that clearly takes very seriously its responsibility to widen participation while contributing towards tackling the culture of low aspirations in his constituency that is getting in the way of so much of the progress that could be made.
My hon. Friend asked me some very specific questions, which I hope to answer reasonably satisfactorily. First, I shall be delighted to visit Nottingham, North in the near future. Secondly, if local organisations and professionals and the Member of Parliament representing the area believe that it is worth testing a model to see whether it can make a difference in raising aspirations and supporting progress, we should support that. We should not pretend that we know whether it is the answer across the country or even the answer to Nottingham, North's problems.
The hon. Member for Southport was absolutely right to make his point about further education colleges, but we have also made it clear that we do not believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, and it is wrong for us to seek to impose such solutions on communities that, frankly, Westminster and Whitehall do not know. It is the people who represent those communities and work and live in
396WH
them who are in the best position to consider solutions that will, within a sensible policy framework, really address some of their problems.
I accept that there is an urgency about the situation in Nottingham, North, so as well as visiting the constituency, I shall certainly take a personal interest in developments in that community. If there is a significant consensus about testing out the provision of vocational education on a couple of school sites, why not give it a go and see whether it really does achieve a transformation in terms of young people's desire to stay on and progress? I agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southport, who said that some young people's desire to stay on is increased because they prefer the setting of a college of further education, even though they may attend a stand-alone sixth-form centre in that setting, to staying on at school. However, we should not assume that that is the case for all young people. Frankly, we know less about this group of young people, why they are turned off education and how we can be more imaginative and innovative at turning them back on than we know about almost any other group of young people. Testing out ideas such as the one promoted by my hon. Friend and many of the stakeholders in his constituency is therefore perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
While I believe that that testing could be introduced because of the will at a local level, which is supported by us nationally and in terms of removing any unnecessary barriers and obstacles, I recognise that my hon. Friend also referred to the possible use of the power to innovate by either the schools or the LEA. That could be a vehicle for removing any unnecessary legislative obstacles or barriers that would get in the way of the development of these pilot or test-bed projects. I would be more than happy to work with him to see whether the legislative empowering opportunity created by this Government is an appropriate way of removing any other barriers that are perceived to exist.
We will have the kind of country that people of all political colours want only if far more young people achieve their potential in future. That will mean different things for different young people.
Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend very much for the commitments he has just made. I wish to press him on the problem of Treasury and departmental funding and the interface between the LEA and the LSC. Will he also remove that particular problem, or consider doing so? I am being very greedy, but I appreciate his comments so far.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is a very demanding man, but the answer is yes. We have the power to innovate and strategic area reviews, and we have the "Building schools for the future" programme. When looking at the needs of a particular locality, there is no reason why we cannot make sense of opportunities and significant resources that have not been available in the past in order to deliver the objective that that local community wants. Providing that there is a clear consensus that the people of Nottingham, North want to test out the proposal to see whether it can support progression post 16, I will do everything in my power and the Government will do all they can to get rid of any of the artificial boundaries and barriers that are preventing that from happening.

397WH
Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on securing this debate, which is significant not only for the people of Nottingham, North, but for the future of this country and the kind of education system that we need to create if we are going to be able to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. I hope that we will battle collectively to ensure that vocational education is discussed far more seriously and in a far more high-profile way than hitherto. We all know that such education will be central to creating the educational opportunities to ensure that every individual young person has the chance to fulfil their potential.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Minister sat down in the nick of time. I thank him for his reply.
The next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), is about married quarters in Osnabrück. For those who do not know, I can tell them that Osnabrück is in Germany, as I served in the Army there.

Married Quarters (Osnabrück)
11 am
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for giving me the opportunity to bring before this Chamber the case of four of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Smith and their two children—and, more particularly, their treatment by the British armed forces. I am also grateful for the presence of the Minister, who will shortly reply to the debate; I look forward to his reply with real hope. I hope that he will take this opportunity to undertake to look again at the circumstances that I am about to describe, with a view to remedying what I perceive to be the injustice that my constituents have suffered.
The cause of that injustice lies in an accident that took place four years ago at the Army base at which you, Sir Nicholas, once served. At that time, Mr. Smith was a warrant officer. He was a member of the British Army, serving in the Queen's Royal Lancers. Warrant Officer Smith joined the Army as a 16-year-old in 1977. In 2000, when the accident happened, he had served for nearly 24 years. He had an entirely unblemished Army record, and was approaching the time when he would retire from the forces.
Warrant Officer Smith's last posting abroad was in Osnabrück in Germany, where he lived with his wife and children as the tenant of his employer, the Army; he lived in Army married quarters on an Army base. On 23 May 2000, he went to work as usual, as did his wife; and their two children went to school. But it was not a usual day. When they were away from home, an accident happened—and it was some accident. At a quarter past midday, an explosion ripped through their quarters.
It is sometimes easy when speaking in the House to cross the fine line between a passionate belief in defending one's constituents and hyperbole, but I have seen the photographs of my constituents' married quarters after that explosion. Indeed, I have them with me. Their accommodation was completely destroyed, and with it was destroyed all my constituents' worldly possessions—everything that they owned. When the insurance man came to assess the damage, his jaw dropped and he called his office on the mobile phone, "It's all gone," he said; "It's all gone."
As I said at the outset, the explosion was an accident. It was not terrorism that destroyed my constituent's Army home, nor was it enemy action. It was not even the munitions stored on the base that caused the explosion. It was far more banal than that. A faulty gas pipe had been laid when the Army base was constructed in 1964. Some 36 years later, some German workers were working on that gas pipe outside my constituents' married quarters, but they were unaware that it was faulty. They disturbed it, and it exploded. It was as simple as that and, as the gas pipe exploded, it took my constituents' Army home with it.
However hard we try to do so I dare say that none of us will ever appreciate—unless something similar happens to us—how traumatic that explosion was for my constituents. We may not know what it feels like to lose everything—what it feels like to wonder what would have happened if the children had not gone to school that day—but we can try. After all, we know

399WH
how violated we would feel if a burglar had entered our home and tinkered with our treasured and private possessions. How much more traumatised would we feel if that home was not simply entered and trifled with, but totally destroyed—and with it, everything that we had saved for, everything that we owned, everything that we cherished, whether of financial or sentimental value? How would we feel if we lost the entire physical record of our family life? My constituents lost absolutely everything—not just some furniture and some fittings, but all their furniture and all their fittings. The schedule of items that they lost covered seven pages.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith claimed under their household insurance, and one might reasonably feel that £18,000 of cover would be more than enough to deal with any foreseeable eventuality. After all, they were living in an Army home and did not have to cover structural damage, and £18,000 is surely many times more than even the most expensive household item. However, their household insurance did not cover the loss that they suffered, because they lost their entire household. That must have been wholly unforeseeable, especially in the secure confines of Army quarters on an Army base. Indeed, Mr. Smith told me that he never thought that he could lose everything in those circumstances. However, the day after the explosion, he had to spend £100 simply to replace underpants.
In the end, Mr. Smith recovered £18,000, but what he lost cost £40,000. After nearly 24 years' service in the Army, he was £22,000 down—he had lost nearly £1,000 for every year of service. That is not a great amount in the grand design of global army budgets, when one missile might cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, but it is a small fortune for a soldier's family on an ordinary income.
Understandably, Warrant Officer Smith looked to the Army and, ultimately, to the Ministry of Defence for a bit of help as the members of his family tried to rebuild their lives. One might intuitively feel that he had good reason to feel optimistic that the Army, which he had served for so long, would at least stand by him sympathetically. After all, it was his employer and his landlord, and he was not only serving with the Army but living on an Army base when a faulty gas pipe outside his Army married quarters caused the accident. Through no fault of the Smith family, their home was blown up, destroying everything that they owned and leaving them £22,000 out of pocket. No wonder Mr. Smith looked to the Army for help and support.
In January 2001, after Warrant Officer Smith had completed his service, the Ministry of Defence held a board of inquiry into the accident. However, the Ministry simply denied liability for the fault in the gas pipe that had caused the explosion, suggesting that Mr. Smith pursue the German workers who had disturbed the pipe or even the German utility company that had laid it. My constituents duly instructed lawyers, but they could not help either, because they soon discovered that, despite losing £22,000 through no fault of their own, the Smith family had no legal remedy against anyone for the shortfall. Like the Ministry of Defence, everyone else denied liability. The workers who disturbed the pipe said that they did not know that it was faulty when it was laid and that they had
400WH
not been negligent. The utility company, which was at fault when it laid the pipe, pointed to the German equivalent of a statute of limitations. The simple fact was that the pipe had been laid so long ago that any right to make a claim had expired. My constituents therefore had no redress against anyone. Through no fault of their own, they had lost everything that they owned and received only partial compensation. They needed £22,000 simply to get back to square one, but no one was legally liable to compensate them for that loss.
It was in those circumstances that I first wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence, on 19 July 2001, to ask him to intervene. I said that Warrant Officer Smith had served his country loyally for 24 years, but that he had been denied compensation for his furniture and possessions, which were destroyed when his Army home blew up through no fault of his own. I said that that simply could not be right and that, at the very least, the Ministry of Defence had a moral obligation to do better. The then Under-Secretary of State for Defence replied on 8 August 2001. He told me that no compensation could be offered, because the MOD had no legal liability. On that basis, he washed his hands of any responsibility to help the Smiths out of the mess that they were in through no fault of their own. He washed his hands even though Warrant Officer Smith was in the Army's employ, living in its quarters, on its base and under its instruction when his family home blew up. The then Under-Secretary suggested that, instead, my constituents seek Army legal aid to pursue the German companies even though, for the reasons that I have already given, no such action could successfully be brought.
Sir Nicholas, you will appreciate that that response was received with disappointment by both the Smiths and by me. I wrote back to the Minister on 4 September 2001, pointing out that the German companies denied liability and that my constituents had been advised that they had no remedy against them, and I took issue with his assertion that the MOD could not compensate my constituents, whatever its legal obligation. I suggested that the Ministry could not be wholly without discretion in such a case. Even if it was not technically responsible in law for the devastation nor obliged to offer compensation, it surely had the capacity to do so it if thought fit, just as any employer in the private sector has the discretion to help an employee as a matter of good practice or good will—not least because it is in the interests of the morale of the entire work force and therefore serves the employer's interests as well.
I urged the then Minister to take independent legal advice as to whether the Ministry had the discretion to make an ex gratia payment. His successor Minister replied on 2 September 2002, stating:
"In common with other employers, the MOD does not provide insurance cover for its employees' personal belongings. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure adequate insurance cover is arranged."
That answer is so thin and lame as to be an embarrassment. It does not even purport to answer the question that I asked. It was a simple question, amenable to a one-word answer—yes or no—and it still is, so I ask it again: has the Army the capacity in law to make an ex gratia payment to my constituent?

401WH
Could it, if it thought the circumstances so exceptional that fairness demanded that discretion be exercised in his favour, exercise such discretion? I ask the new Minister directly, and hope that this time I will receive a response. Moreover, I expect that response to be yes—the MOD has the discretion to compensate my constituent if it wishes to do so. However, it has in the past refused to exercise that discretion for reasons that are apparent, if one looks carefully, from its replies about the adequacy of insurance cover.
If that is the answer, I urge the Minister, at this of all times with the eyes of so many on his Department, to reconsider three simple reasons. First, it is surely wrong to treat Warrant Officer Smith and the Army that he served like all other employees and employers. Warrant Officer Smith was a soldier with an unblemished record of 24 years, willing to sacrifice his life in the service of the Army and the nation. That alone deserves a degree of consideration from his employer beyond the bare legal minimum. Secondly, I do not believe that even the civilian world would act so shabbily. Imagine a corporate analogy to this case—that of a foreign banker posted to Canary wharf and put up in a company flat, in a company tower, secured by the company's security guards. I bet that if that flat exploded through no fault of the employee and he lost everything, the company would make up any insurance shortfall, because it would know how hard it would be to recruit a replacement otherwise. In which case, how can it possibly be right for our armed forces to offer less support to our servicemen than a bank might to its staff?
Thirdly, I ask for discretion to be exercised. It is simply wrong to assert that Mr. and Mrs. Smith had been negligent or irresponsible in failing to insure themselves adequately. They took out £18,000 worth of insurance, which was more than enough to cover all the risks that anyone could reasonably have contemplated. The problem was just that they had never contemplated that, living in Army quarters, they would run the risk of losing absolutely everything. Surely the Army should share some responsibility for the fact that the unthinkable happened on its base.
The then Minister ended his last letter to me with the words:
"I am content that taking account of the compensation already received, Mr and Mrs Smith have not been unfairly treated."
I do not share that confidence. Even taking the compensation into account, my constituents are £22,000 poorer—about the level of a ministerial salary before tax—through no fault of their own, simply because they were living in an Army home when it exploded into smithereens. Does the Minister believe the case to be fair? Does he want to send the message to potential recruits that they should join the Army, serve loyally, live in quarters on Army bases that get blown up and lose the lot, because there is no duty—neither legal nor moral—to house people safely? If so, overstretch might last for quite a while.
I do not come to this Chamber to ask the Minister for the world or even for a decision to compensate my constituents for everything that they have lost. I ask
402WH
the Minister for just one thing: to promise at least to review the case, so that justice, even now, might yet be done.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on securing this debate, which gives me the opportunity to explain the Ministry of Defence position on such an unfortunate subject.
Osnabrück garrison is one of five British Army centres in Germany. About 5,000 of the 23,000 British soldiers based in Germany are located there, mainly as part of 4 Armoured Brigade. The garrison's domestic accommodation consists of about 1,500 serving families' quarters, which, like all accommodation in Germany, are not Ministry of Defence property. Some 746 are provided by the German Federal Government, under the terms of a supplementary agreement to the NATO status of forces agreement. Federal authorities lease the remainder on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. However, the Department is responsible for the maintenance of those properties, most of which were built more than 50 years ago. We are already investing in a range of improvements to those properties, which I hope will be completed in the next few years.
We provide quarters to all service families who need them, under the terms and conditions of their service. Entitlement to quarters is governed by scales that define the appropriate size and type of building, according to rank and family needs. The taxpayer, because of the unique role of our armed forces, rightly bears the risks associated with that commitment, which in Germany includes those associated with any damage to the property itself. However, the taxpayer cannot be responsible for the personal property of our personnel. We therefore make it clear to all service personnel that they should make arrangements to insure their possessions adequately. We also provide facilities in Germany, through NAAFI and other commercial outlets, to make arrangements relatively easy for those who wish to use them.
My hon. Friend presents his case eloquently and with some emotion. I recognise and understand that, and I am sure that the House would also recognise it in these especially difficult circumstances. I am, however, disappointed that he implied that the Ministry of Defence has been unsympathetic to Mr. Smith and his family. He did not mention the support that Mr. Smith's unit gave his family at the time of the accident, nor did he explain the efforts made by Army Legal Assistance and the claims staff in Germany in pursuing the case with the German authorities.
The family were re-housed within 24 hours of the accident, having stayed with friends overnight despite being offered hotel accommodation. The new house was fully furnished at public expense, and the family were given the support of the community and a small amount of money from regimental funds to meet their immediate needs. Army Legal Assistance also provided the family with free advice and support for three years, and explored every avenue to find a way of helping them.
On 24 May 2000—the day after the explosion—the German public prosecutor appointed an expert in gas installations to conduct an investigation to ascertain the

403WH
cause of the explosion. The expert's report was completed on 16 June 2000. It concluded that a gas pipe, incorrectly fitted probably as long ago as 1953, had caused the explosion, and that the work that Osnabrück municipal services was doing at the time was unlikely to be the cause. Following that report, a full board of inquiry was held. Its report was published on 8 March 2001, and gave three opinions. First, it confirmed that the explosion was caused by a gas leak from a pipe fitted incorrectly during construction in 1953, which may have been disturbed during routine maintenance by the local German authority on the day of the incident. Secondly, the tests, inspections and maintenance of the gas installations carried out under the authority of the British forces during the period before the explosion were of a standard over and above that required by legislation and, in any event. would not have detected the fault. Lastly, the explosion was probably inevitable.
The Ministry of Defence incurred costs of about £1,500 as a result of damage to public property caused by the explosion. In the light of conclusions drawn by the board of inquiry, our officials in Germany lodged a claim through the German Ministry of Finance, which acts as our agent under the treaty. At the same time, the German claims company, which also acts as our agent, sought compensation for Mr. Smith of slightly more than £22,000.
After some debate, the claim lodged by the Ministry of Defence was rejected on the ground that the German authorities were not responsible for damage to publicly owned property in these circumstances, and that it was not possible, after so much time, to identify the contractor who might be liable—a point rightly made by my hon. Friend in his opening remarks. However, the Finance Ministry was persuaded to reconsider Mr. Smith's case, as personal hardship had been caused by the faulty installation. The matter was therefore referred to the Federal Ministry of Finance in Berlin, which finally refused the claim on 7 May 2003. I know that the refusal of the claim was a disappointment to Mr. Smith, his family and my hon. Friend.
While handling these issues, advice was taken from German lawyers employed by Army Legal Assistance and our Treasury Solicitor's staff, and the German authorities consulted their own staff. I have reviewed these issues, and am sure not only that Mr. Smith's interests have been fully considered, but that the legal position has been examined extensively.
Mr. Stinchcombe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's considered reply. He says that the legal position has been fully considered. I asked a question of law on which
404WH
I invited the Ministry to take independent legal advice: does the Ministry have the discretion to help my constituents, even it is not legally obliged to do so?
Mr. Caplin: I am coming to that. I know that my hon. Friends a much better lawyer than I am; I am not one, for a start.
I want to answer the question that my hon. Friend has raised in his intervention and earlier as directly as I can. It is within the Ministry of Defence's capability to consider an ex gratia payment to compensate Mr. Smith. We have never claimed otherwise. Indeed, we have considered the possibility of doing so carefully on a number of occasions. We have also taken legal advice and have debated the issues over a three-year period.
The Ministry of Defence has pursued every legal option that it has been able to identify to help the Smith family. It has even consulted the family's insurers to make certain that we have not taken any action that could disadvantage the family. The company's advice was clear: it is obliged to ensure that no profit is made as a result of the accident. Mr. Smith had effectively declared the value of his possessions, which resulted in a payment by the company of £18,000 in full settlement. Therefore, if he were now to receive any form of compensation from the Ministry, the company would be obliged to recover part or all of the original settlement. The House might agree that that would be a pointless exercise and would merely cause the family more distress.
I also refute my hon. Friend's assertion about commercial companies underwriting their employees' risks. I accept that some people might be employed under such terms, but Mr. Smith was not. He knew that, but he sill decided to take the risk, contrary to his employer's advice. To make an ex gratia payment in this case would fly in the face of that obligation and undermine the basis on which all service pay and entitlements are based.
The Government repeatedly reassure the House of their commitment to the welfare of their employees and especially of those who serve in our armed forces and are asked to lay down their lives for our country. I give that assurance again today without reservation. It is at the centre all our policies throughout the Ministry of Defence, but it is also part of that commitment that we should treat each and every employee fairly and, I stress, equally.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: We thank the Minister for his reply.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended.

Spirits Bottles
2 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Having had an excellent lunch, I am delighted that we shall be discussing strip stamps on bottles of spirits this afternoon.
Mr. Alan Reid: I, too, am delighted, Sir Nicholas, that Mr. Speaker selected this important subject for debate.
The Scotch whisky industry produces an excellent product and supports 41,000 jobs in Scotland, many of which are in remote rural areas where alternative employment would be very difficult to find. The islands of Islay and Jura in my constituency are world famous for their excellent single malts. The seven distilleries in Islay and the one in Jura provide much needed employment on those islands, and any proposal that harms the competitiveness of the Scotch whisky industry would have a devastating impact. The Government should also bear it in mind that the whisky distilled on Islay and Jura is a huge source of revenue for them.
There are also distilleries in Campbeltown, Oban and Tobermory.
Mr. Michael Connarty rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: This is rather early for an intervention.
Mr. Connarty: It is never too early for a talk over a tot of whisky. Before the hon. Gentleman talks about lesser brands, I should say that he will welcome the fact that the new owner of Whyte and Mackay, which owns the Jura brand, is investing £20 million, much of it in a new bottling plant in Grangemouth in my constituency. Extra burdens such as the strip stamps make such investment less attractive.
Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the strip stamp scheme places extra burdens on the industry and makes investment in bottling plants, distilleries, or in any other part of the industry, less attractive. I want to talk a bout that threat later.
As I said, the industry provides employment in remote communities, and there are distilleries in Campbeltown, Oban and Tobermory, as well as in Islay and Jura. The whisky begins its life in the remote parts of Scotland, but it also provides much employment in Scotland's industrial areas in bottling plants and other parts of the process.
The Scotch whisky industry, like the rest of the legitimate spirits trade, is very keen to stamp out duty fraud, but it is also concerned, with some justification, about the cost implications of the Government's strip stamp proposals. The Government do not dispute the increase in cost. The pre-Budget report states:
"The Government recognises that the implementation of tax stamps in particular would involve increased costs to the legitimate trade."
In the report, the Chancellor declared his intention to make provision for legislation in this year's Finance Bill to put strip stamps on all bottles of spirits sold in the
406WH
United Kingdom. The legislation is intended to come into effect in 2006. The Chancellor also said that he would not introduce it if the spirits industry proposed what he considered to be a workable alternative. I will talk about the alternatives later, but first I want to talk about the strip stamp scheme.
The Government originally proposed a strip stamp scheme two years ago, but rejected it because Ministers accepted that the measure would have a severe impact on the legitimate spirits trade. It has been estimated that the scheme would cost the Scotch whisky industry £280 million. Costs would be involved in altering production lines and bottling plants so that stamps could be fixed to the bottles. Administrative costs would be involved in security and in procedures for handling the stamps, which would be valuable commodities, worth £5.48 each in excise duty. There would also need to be procedures to deal with damaged stamps.
Tax stamps would make free and open European trade impractical. Currently, the destination of bottles is unknown at the production stage, but a tax stamp scheme would force producers to decide at the bottling stage whether bottles were destined for the UK market or abroad. That would reduce flexibility and inevitably increase costs.
The main cost of the scheme, however, would be incurred in buying the stamps up front, long before the industry could recoup the money by selling the bottles. At present, duty is paid only when the bottles are sold. Having to buy the stamps at the bottling stage would mean that the industry had to find extra working capital, with consequential interest repayments. As I said, the total cost has been estimated at almost £280 million.
The Government have said that there may be a deferred payment scheme, but their current proposals lack detail. That must be remedied, and the system must be clarified. The Scotch Whisky Association told me that it had received no information about how the system would work. The pre-Budget report also lacks detail. It states that:
"once tax stamps were implemented, the Government would consider…how the current deferment arrangements for spirits duty could be extended as far as practical in recognition of the cash flow effects of purchasing tax stamps".
In other words, the Government will consider the possible deferment of duty only after the scheme has been implemented. They intend to invite the House to pass legislation, but they will explain how it works only after it has been implemented. That is simply not acceptable. The Government must tell us beforehand how the scheme will work and, in particular, whether there will be arrangements for deferring the payment of duty until after the bottles have been sold. Announcing a scheme without giving details of how it will work is bound to cause confusion. I should remind the House that whisky must mature for at least three years before it can be legally marketed as Scotch whisky. For premium brands, the period is many more years than that. The industry must therefore plan well into the future, but it cannot do so if the Government will not release details of a scheme that they plan to implement in two years' time and which could be very costly to the industry. Even the threat of such a scheme could damage the industry.
Ideally, I would like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to announce today that the Government have decided to abandon the scheme, but I suspect that he will

407WH
not do so. However, I expect him to give details of the scheme that he proposes and, in particular, to tell us whether there will be arrangements to defer the payment of duty and, if so, what they will be.
Experience abroad suggests that tax stamps have little impact on fraud. Several countries, including the United States, Greece and Ecuador, have abolished their tax stamp regimes. Others, such as Germany, Belgium and Norway, pulled back from introducing schemes in the first place. Hungary has tax stamps, but estimates suggest that illicit goods account for between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the market. That is similar to Government estimates of fraud in the UK, so tax stamps do not appear to have worked in Hungary. The situation is even worse in Poland, which has tax stamps, but where about 80 per cent. of Scotch whisky is believed to be contraband. Other experience from overseas suggests that high-quality forgeries would appear within months and become common in the UK. Indeed, with duty at £5.48 a bottle, there would clearly be a strong incentive to produce forgeries, so the only growth industry as a result of the proposals would be counterfeiting.
The Scotch whisky industry also has significant reservations about the level of fraud suggested by the Government. The Government estimate that £600 million of revenue was lost in 2001–02 because of spirits fraud. That would mean that roughly one bottle in six of the spirits consumed in Britain is sold without the duty being paid. The Scotch whisky industry believes that that is a serious overestimate. If the Government's estimate is correct, 200,000 bottles—about 12 container loads—disappear every day. Nobody in the trade experiences the market disruption that would result from fraud on anywhere near that scale. Where is the Government's evidence? If the Government's estimate were correct, there would have been a 37 per cent. increase in spirits consumption over the past 10 years. Where is the evidence for that? If the Government's estimate that fraud is increasing were correct, we would also expect a decrease in legitimate sales. However, legitimate sales increased significantly in each of the last three years, which is more likely to imply a decrease in fraudulent sales.
The Government appear to lack confidence in their estimates. The Customs and Excise document "Measuring and Tackling Indirect Tax Losses", which was published last December, states:
"The scale of spirits fraud in 1999–2000 has been revised downwards."
Clearly estimating duty fraud is an inexact science. The Government now admit that they overestimated it in 1999–2000. How can they be confident that they do not still overestimate it? The Government cannot introduce a tax scheme that would be hugely expensive to legitimate industry without more convincing evidence.
In order to tackle fraud effectively, it is important to know which drinks were being sold without duty being paid. I therefore tabled two questions for the Chancellor. The first asked how many bottles of whisky and other spirits Customs and Excise had seized in the previous 12 months because duty had not been paid. The second asked how many prosecutions there had been for evading duty on whisky and other spirits in the previous 12 months. In reply to my first question, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:
408WH
"The information is not available in the format requested. HM Customs and Excise central records collate the volume of spirit seized but do not distinguish the specific type of spirit."
The second question received a similar answer:
"The information is not available in the format requested. HM Customs and Excise central records collate the number of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions which involve spirits duty fraud but do not distinguish the specific type of spirit for which a prosecution is brought."—[Official Report, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 224W.]
In other words, the Ministers who propose the costly tax scheme do not even know how much of each spirit has been seized or over which spirits prosecutions have been brought. That is fundamental intelligence in the battle against fraud. I urge Ministers to do their homework first before urging costly measures against a legitimate trade.
Following my lack of success, I tabled another question for the Chancellor for answer on a named day, 12 January, to ask how many prosecutions there had been for evading duty on spirits in the most recent year for which figures were available. I thought that if Ministers could not break the data down into whisky and other spirits, I might be told the total. However, it was apparently too difficult for them even to find the answer to that question, and I am still waiting.
George Lyon, a Member of the Scottish Parliament and colleague, has had more success in eliciting an answer from the Scottish Executive, who revealed in a written answer that there had been only two prosecutions for duty fraud in 2001 and three in 2000. A total of five prosecutions in Scotland over two years hardly suggests fraud on a massive scale. The answer also revealed that the number of prosecutions had fallen year on year, from 27 in 1997. That backs up the Scotch Whisky Association's view that the fraud trend is downwards. The low number of prosecutions in Scotland indicates either that the level of fraud is low or that Customs and Excise is not devoting resources to the problem. The Government have not answered with the prosecution figures for England and Wales, but the Scottish figures show that there is not a major fraud problem and that the trend is downwards.
The Scotch Whisky Association, like all legitimate businesses, is keen to stamp out fraud and has put forward suggestions to the Government. They include additional monitoring, targeting and controls by Customs and Excise, where the patterns of trade are known to constitute the highest revenue risk. For example, investigations could be mounted where a new customer is buying in bulk or where unusual trading patterns emerge. The success of targeted measures has already been proven. There has been a recent steep decline in the amount of illicit spirits entering the country at ports, because that trade was targeted. I hope that the Minister will say today why the Government rejected the risk-based approach to tackling fraud proposed by the entire drinks industry last year.
Other Government proposals in the pre-Budget report for changes in the regulations have been proven uncontroversial. They include changes to the regulations governing warehouse keepers, producers and owners of duty-suspended alcohol, new requirements for the notification of cash transactions and advance payments and a scheme for recognising transporters with good compliance histories. Therefore, other methods could be introduced.

409WH
Whisky companies have sophisticated tracing systems, such as numbers on the bottom of bottles. The legitimate trade can use its tracing system to find out where bottles have disappeared from the legitimate supply chain. If, as the Government allege, 200,000 bottles are being sold illegally each day, why has the industry not received a stream of inquiries from Customs and Excise to discover the source of those bottles?
One suggestion that the Chancellor could implement to eliminate most of the duty fraud immediately would be to reduce the duty on spirits to the same level per unit of alcohol as is imposed on wine. The big incentive to the criminal is the excessively high duty imposed in the UK on spirits, but not on other drinks.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, how will the proposed tax stamp scheme work? Secondly, why does he think it will work in the UK given the failure of similar schemes abroad? Thirdly, how does he justify the Government's estimate of the level of fraud, bearing in mind the low number of prosecutions in Scotland? Fourthly, why does he think the industry's alternative proposals to tackle fraud will not work?
The proposed stamp scheme would impose huge costs on the legitimate trade and would penalise the honest trader rather than the criminal. It threatens jobs in remote communities, such as Islay, Mull, Jura, Kintyre and Oban, where alternative employment is hard to find. The Government's estimate of the level of fraud is unconvincing. The proposed scheme failed in other countries. The Government should work with the industry to eliminate fraud and should throw these expensive proposals where they belong—in the waste bin.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his introduction to this important debate. It is my intention to try to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 3 o'clock, commencing with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. If the other hon. Members who wish to speak can adjust their speeches accordingly, everyone will get in.
2.18 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: This is a timeous debate, because it shows that all Scottish Members have realised the impact of the Chancellor's announcement and have reacted swiftly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on choosing this as his topic.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little rosy and one-sided in his arguments, but I can understand why, given that he is deeply embedded in the isles where whisky is produced. However, there must be balance in the debate. Obviously, people will ask whether there is fraud, and we must conclude that the answer is yes. The evidence may be considered anecdotal, but I have certainly seen some evidence of fraud. Bottles of the golden spirit were sold on industrial premises where I worked or that I was passing through for a lot less than the price I might have expected to pay in shops. I can only conclude that someone, somewhere was not paying the full price to the Revenue, given that most of the cost of a bottle goes to the Revenue in taxation.
410WH
The issue is whether the Chancellor's proposal is disproportionate to the situation in which we find ourselves. As I have said in questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, there was during the last Parliament—some hon. Members present were not then Members of this place—a general acceptance by the industry that fraud was a problem. The scale of fraud has always been under discussion, but the industry took seriously the Chancellor's admonition that it must do something about the problem or he would be forced to do so through a method such as the strip stamp, prepaid excise duty. There was agreement that the industry would do something significant to convince the Chancellor.
As we all know, it is difficult to convince the Chancellor about anything that would reduce his direct revenue take from enterprises or individuals in this country. I thought that the industry would take the matter much more seriously, but those on whose behalf I am openly arguing—people from the industry—do not think that the industry took it seriously enough. Whatever was said by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute about what it might do, it is clear that it has not done enough to convince the Chancellor that sales of whisky and other spirits to the public without excise duty passing to the Treasury have been stopped, slowed down or reduced significantly.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the dialogue must be two-way? It is incumbent on the Chancellor and the Treasury to satisfy the industry about the scale of the problem, as significant doubts exist. A great deal may have to be done to improve relations between the industry and the Treasury if the Treasury figures are put to an independent audit.
Mr. Connarty: My suggestion to the Secretary of State for Scotland was that he should become involved in the debate—a meeting is planned for February—and that he seek some way of homing in on exactly how much fraud is taking place.
The Scotch Whisky Association stated that
"the industry has produced some figures suggesting the trend in spirits fraud has been falling, not rising,",
which was the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute,
"and that the level of fraud may be as little as one quarter"
of the Customs and Excise estimates. If that is true, an obvious question would be how much impact the stamp proposal would have on the industry and how negative it would be compared with the benefits to the general taxpayer. Possibly other hon. Members, like me, enjoy a small measure of a good single malt whisky, but we do not have a right to deny the people of the United Kingdom their proper tax take from it.
I do not accept the argument that we should treat whisky like wine. Anyone from lesser nations who suggests that the golden liquid should be treated as disparagingly as wine is totally wrong. There is no

411WH
sensible argument that would be supported by the Scottish people, never mind the British people, for reducing the excise duty on whisky to that on wine.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Connarty: I will not, because it was a trivial point and the hon. Gentleman will probably make a trivial intervention.
The Scotch Whisky Association makes a good point about the Chancellor's estimate of £600 million: in order to lose that amount of money, 12 container loads, or 200,000 bottles of whisky would have to be lost every day. I could say a lot about lack of staffing, vigilance, or other things in Customs and Excise, but I do not think that it would lose 200,000 bottles of whisky a day en route. Therefore, there is an argument that the Treasury claim is a bit exaggerated. If we were losing that amount of revenue, it would imply that there has been a 37 per cent. increase in total worldwide spirit consumption since 1992–93. I do not think that there has been such a massive increase, so, again, there is an argument that the Treasury's estimates go too far.
Fraud estimates seem to have gone up and down in the past three years. The estimate for 1999–2000 has changed: at first it was £450 million, then it went up to £500 million, then, in December, it came back down to £350 million. Funnily enough, that drop is equivalent to the purported saving that could be achieved using the strip stamp method. How can we get a proper audit? It is clear that excise duty is not being paid on all spirits. There has been a lack of application to the problem from the Scotch Whisky Association and, possibly, the Wine and Spirit Association, because the Chancellor was not driving them hard enough. When dialogue stops because one side stops asking a question, it is difficult to know whether someone should try to answer the original question. I think that the association was asked what it would do to stop fraud if we did not use strip stamps, but it has not properly answered that.
The likely impact of strip stamps will be increased costs and reduced competitiveness in the industry in general, but I want to focus on the impact on small producers and bottlers, because they are what I know best. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, it is not just a matter for the islands and the remote parts of Scotland. The impact would be substantial in many areas in Scotland that are considered to be fairly industrial. Grangemouth, in my constituency, has a major bottling plant, which is about to get a massive investment, thank goodness, from the new owners of Whyte and Mackay, which is talking about putting £50 million into marketing its brands—I will not list them all, although I did mention Isle of Jura and Dalmore earlier, of which I am very fond. They are good in both reputation and taste.
Many other areas would be affected by the proposal, including Fort William, East Kilbride, Airdrie, Broxburn, Tomatin in Inverness-shire, and the Isle of Arran. In Glasgow, there are five cases in which business would be affected. They include major employers and investors in the bottling industry and in the administration of the whisky industry. They would be affected disproportionately, not in the same way as larger owners such as Diageo.
412WH
For smaller producers, such as Whyte and Mackay, the cost would be £33 million. Extra working capital would have to be raised to buy strip stamps, unless the scheme was moderated from the one proposed by the Chancellor three years ago. Putting excise duty strip stamps on bottles some time before money is retrieved from their sale, would cost companies an estimated £2 million in profit, which is a lot for a company that is about to invest £20 million in bottling and production and £50 million in marketing. It is a substantial argument against investment. Many investment houses would say, "The risk has gone up, the profit level has gone down, let's find something else to invest our money in." I hope that Whyte and Mackay's decision to build a brand-new bottling and processing plant at Grangemouth will not be affected by the Chancellor's decision, but I have no guarantee that it will not be; it could be seriously affected.
Angus Robertson: I commend the hon. Gentleman for starting to make a case in support of the Scotch whisky industry and remind him of the answer he received from the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), almost a year ago, in which she stated that her office was heavily involved in the campaign to stop strip stamps. As the only Scottish Labour Member present in this debate—my apologies, I now notice that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is sitting behind me—is the hon. Gentleman aware of the present Secretary of State for Scotland making any similar efforts in support of the campaign against strip stamps?
Mr. Connarty: I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, is present in this debate, as I would expect. The reply by the Secretary of State for Scotland to me indicated that he does, in fact, take this seriously. He did rehearse some of the arguments that I have made as to whether there is a case to be answered about fraud, and he seemed to accept the Treasury figures, but his reply suggested that he is open to engaging in the debate, and l hope that we will be able to convince him that the level of fraud does not require such a draconian measure.
We must introduce a fair system that neither denies the UK its proper revenue nor encourages criminality, because it is criminal for so much whisky and other spirits to be sold by back-door methods without the excise duty being paid so that the revenue is lost. We want a "win-win" situation: a fair system that is not punitive towards the industry—certainly not towards the small producers, such as Whyte and Mackay, which I represent—but which allows the revenue that should be paid to be paid.
2.31 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing this debate. I declare my interest, if it is such, as the chairman of the all-party wine group.
It might help to set the debate in context if I were to quote exactly from the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, which gave rise to this matter:
"I have two announcements on whisky and spirits. While tobacco fraud, VAT fraud and oils fraud are now in decline, recent trends suggest that despite the freeze in spirits duties for six

413WH
Budgets, an estimated one bottle in every six of spirits sold in this country is evading duty, so I will now make provision to implement in the next financial bill the Rogues report recommendation that we stamp spirits bottles. If, after discussion with the industry, there is still no workable alternative proposed, we will legislate. If we have to impose stamping, the Economic Secretary will discuss with the industry the most cost-effective scheme and I will then consider extending the freeze on the duty on whisky and all spirits, not just for one year but for every year of this Parliament".—Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1066.]
That came completely out of the blue to the industry; it had had no prior consultation on this matter whatsoever. The Government are using the threat that if the industry cannot come up with a solution to avoid what the Government see as £600 million of duty evasion—I will come on to whether that is a realistic figure in a moment—this measure will be imposed on the industry, it seems, no matter what damage it does. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute is, therefore, absolutely right. The damage that this proposal will do to the industry is clear.
The industry is very important for UK taxpayers. Excise duties on spirits, beer, wine and man-made cider and perry raised £7.3 billion in 2002–03, and of this, spirits raised £2.27 billion. The industry is a very large earner for the Treasury, and it would be very foolish to put it at risk—and particularly the scotch whisky industry, with its jobs in rural locations such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned on Jura.
As I pointed out, the Chancellor said in his report that Customs and Excise estimated that £600 million in revenue was lost in 2001–02 as a result of spirits fraud of around 16 per cent. of the total spirits market. That amounts to £1.6 million, or about 12 container loads, or some 200,000 bottles being lost every single day. There is no evidence that the fraud is anywhere near that level. Customs and Excise says that this would imply a 37 per cent. increase in total spirits consumption since 1992–93. Surely it is very easy to discover by audit procedures whether that is the case.
The Government have consistently indicated confidence in their figures. When they first published Customs and Excise estimates of spirits fraud in 1999–2000, the figure was £450 million. Last year, these estimates for 1999–2000 were increased to £500 million, but in the December 2003 pre-Budget report the same figure had fallen to £350 million, a fall equivalent to the purported saving achievable from the use of the stamps.
The industry believes that the figures are wrong. Its estimate of the methodology is relatively complex and involves a series of intermediate assumptions and calculations each with scope to introduce margins of error. According to the Scotch Whisky Association's gap analysis, based on the Office for National Statistics survey data—a more straightforward gap methodology than that of Customs and Excise—the level of fraud has been reducing since the mid-1990s, reflecting a wide range of Government and trade anti-fraud measures. Under this analysis, revenue loss from illicit trades has fallen from £250 million in 1999–2000 to between £100 million and £150 million in 2001–02. If the industry's figure is right, one has to consider what the compliance costs and all the difficulties of introducing these strip stamps would be.
414WH
I refer to an article by Mr. Jack Hibberd of Harpers News, in which he says:
"The government's estimate that implementing the stamps will cost the industry no more than £20 million were also dismissed."
The Government both exaggerates the duty that is lost and severely underestimates the compliance costs. The article goes on:
"The Wine and Spirit Association (WSA) said stamps would cost £250 million to introduce".
Here we have the industry saying that fraud is £150 million and the cost of introducing stamps would be £250 million. The measure would be nonsense. The WSA goes on to say that stamps would
"reduce bottling-line efficiency by 10 per cent. or, if applied manually, add £1 to the cost of every case. Producers would need to buy tax stamps (strips of hologram paper, with a number code proving duty has been paid, that are applied over the top of the bottle) in advance at a cost of £5.48 each."
You, Sir Nicholas, enjoyed a good lunch. I do not know how many bottles you had, but you can imagine the difficulties that a factory would face in having to put a sticky label over each of them. You can also imagine how much time and, therefore, effort would be involved in putting extra sticky stamps on each bottle.
The WSA also says that
"it was estimated the cost of adapting bottling machinery to apply the stamps"
would mean that the industry would
"have had to find an extra £250 million of working capital to pay for the stamps upfront. Aside from the cash-flow implications the interest on that capital would have amounted to approximately £15 million a year."
It says that there are
"additional security concerns with holding and transporting the stamps"
as well as
"market access problems for overseas importers. The cost implications for small specialist importers may mean they are priced out of the UK market as a result of this proposal".
There will also be a costly
"requirement to administer differing product streams for the UK and overseas markets where stamps are applied at source".
We have a number of examples where the stamps are used. Hungary, for example, has stamps, yet illicit goods account for some 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the market—a figure far higher than here. Evidence from central and eastern Europe is that genuine tax stamps can be used to disguise breaks in seals after refilling has occurred, and unscrupulous traders use stamps to add authenticity to counterfeit products.
Tax stamps cause an obstacle to free trade. UK tax stamps would force distillers to maintain country-specific stocks, forcing up costs and fragmenting the single market. Any industry moves to challenge stamps overseas will be inhibited and a damaging precedent set. Export markets might seek to follow the UK, causing damage to international competitiveness. Of course, at the end of the day, it is the poor old customer who has to pay.
We are told that Customs could do a number of things to reduce such fraud. I recently visited Dover with the all-party wine group to see what Customs was doing to reduce fraud, and I pay tribute to those officers who

415WH
stand day in day out in some pretty filthy weather examining vehicles coming through Dover. With the limited numbers they have, they do a jolly good job.
In discussions on the Finance Act 1997, when the Government proposed to cut the number of Customs officers, I pleaded with the Government to increase the number of officers and to introduce a machine that would X-ray an entire lorry. I am glad to say that both those things have now happened. The X-ray machinery very quickly detects not only the contents of the lorry, but any hidden cavities and even illegal human traffic coming through Dover. I urge the Government to introduce more of these undoubtedly incredibly expensive pieces of machinery to more ports of entry. That might cut the amount of fraud.
The fraud mainly operates because of the system of duty suspension that has been created to facilitate alcohol trade. This system allows registered traders or warehouses to take part in a process that involves not paying duty and keeping goods in an approved warehouse. The registered traders then pay the duty nearer to the time that they sell the goods. Duty becomes payable on the goods only when they are released for consumption or acquired by an unregistered individual.
There are two types of fraud: outward diversion and inward diversion. We were told clearly by Customs that paperwork is fraudulently altered so that a cargo going to or from a warehouse does not arrive at its intended destination, but simply disappears. It would be quite easy to produce the paperwork or the information technology that would stop such fraud. When one considers that a consignment of whisky is worth £250,000 or more, just one load going adrift involves a significant loss to the Revenue.
No one in the House would say that the Government and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise should not try to tackle whatever fraud exists, but there are better ways to do it. I commend five courses of action. The Government could establish a specialist team to check and discredit the paperwork covering the movement of duty-suspended goods; they could implement a tougher HGV seizure policy targeting those hauliers who fail to conduct simple checks to ensure that they are not caught up in fraud; they could commence the redeployment of 146 additional assurance officers to strengthen the Excise holding and movement system; they could start a review of all warehouse approvals; and they could increase the resources deployed to exercise intelligence and research. If all that work were done properly, it could cut the amount of fraud.
The Roques report to the Government in July 2001 made eight recommendations: a more rigorous approach to the approval of warehouses; tightening the registration procedure for warehouses and the owners of goods; improving information on the holding and movement of excise goods when duty has not been paid; improving the exchange of information with other member states; increasing the checks on warehouse compliance with holding and movement regulations; tightening controls on hauliers; the deployment of additional staff; and the very last was considering the use of tax stamps for alcohol. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury is aware that a cross-party group managed to persuade the Treasury in 2003 not to introduce these stamps. I hope in view of what I and other Members have said—it clearly demonstrates that
416WH
such a scheme would be extremely damaging to the UK spirits industry—that a better way can be found to reduce fraud than the scheme that the Chancellor has outlined.
2.44 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I add my congratulations to those already offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing this debate, as he has a substantial constituency interest in the subject. As ever, he has prosecuted his constituency interest assiduously and with vigour. He also continues to represent many members of my family, so I am pleased to see that their interests are in good hands.
The Government's proposals will of course not affect only the Scotch whisky industry; they will also affect the large number of gin and vodka and other spirits producers in this country. However, I believe that the Scotch whisky industry has a special case. As my hon. Friend indicated, distilleries are often to be found in smaller, rural, peripheral communities, if I can call them that. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said, there are still a number of smaller players in the industry, and I will speak of one later. The maturation process means that the money that was invested by the distilling companies in Scotch whisky is very much a long-term commitment. There are also industrial enterprises that are exceptionally sensitive to any downturn in the wider economic picture, and that has an impact on local communities.
One of my principal concerns about the Government's proposals and the way in which they have been brought forward is the damage that will be done to the relationship between the distilling industry and different Departments, particularly the Treasury. As well as having an interest in Scotch whisky, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and I share an interest in the offshore oil and gas industry. He will know that the Government went to considerable effort to build a good partnership arrangement with the industry through the pilot project. They then undid a lot of that good work in one stroke with the changes that they introduced overnight to the corporation tax regime.
I cannot help but notice that a parallel situation is developing. I counsel the Minister strongly that the work that has been done with the industry is in danger of being lost. The Government must properly address and state their case for the scale of the problem that they perceive. The figures have been explained by hon. Members already, and I will not go over them again, but it is incumbent on the Government to say, "This is our working. This is the result that we have reached and, as an indication of our confidence in it, we will make that working available for independent scrutiny and audit." We can then, perhaps, make a realistic estimation of the scale of the fraud and whether the long-term trend is upwards, or, as indicated by the figures given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, downwards.
On the subject of smaller players, my constituency has a rare beast. That is a new distillery, which is in the process of construction, and a company that is trying to break into the market for the first time. I have Orkney Highland Park distillery, which is no longer producing,

417WH
and the Scapa distillery, which are long-term, well established, highly respected brands. The Shetland distillery company will be in the very different position of trying to come into the market against the background of the need for long-term maturation and so on.
I spoke today to the director of Blackwoods Distillers, the company concerned, and she estimated that the cost per bottle would go from somewhere in the region of £2 to £6 with the addition of the duty stamp. That will require a massive increase in the working capital of that small, vulnerable, new business. I do not know how it is going to address that problem. I hope that the Minister has some comfort for Blackwoods Distillers and other small distilling companies, because to place that sort of burden on them to compensate for difficulties with Customs and Excise, to which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred, is simply not good enough.
That is a business that already produces Shetland gin and vodka, and which recently won a gold medal at the world spirits festival in Austria. So, we are talking about a quality product. It will be threatened by the Government's attitude and their insistence that the industry should bear the burden. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East said, there has to be two-way traffic. As the industry has to play its part, so should the Government accept their responsibilities. To date, we have seen little sign of that
2.49 pm
Angus Robertson: I praise the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on having secured the debate. It is important for many of us who represent whisky-producing areas. I declare an interest in that I am a vice-chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group, and more than 50 per cent. of Scotch malt whisky is sourced in my constituency. One would be hard pressed to find any major blended whisky without a significant Speyside malt component, so this damaging proposal is obviously of concern to me and to people on Speyside. It also impacts on parts of the country that do not necessarily produce whisky, but bottle, label or sell it or depend on the tourism bonus that whisky provides.
As has been mentioned, the Chancellor announced last December the latest detrimental Government proposal—whisky strip stamps. Within only 18 months of their being ruled out, we are set to see their possible return in an ineffective and inefficient attempt to tackle fraud. Sadly, they will damage this key industry, at home and abroad. This and previous UK Governments have maintained duty discrimination against Scotch whisky while claiming to be its friend. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said that that was a trivial point. The level of duty is not a trivial point; it is very serious. One does not have to come from Dufftown to realise that it is perverse to be able to buy a bottle of whisky in Portugal at a fraction of the price that one pays in the country where it is produced.
Not only have we the perversity of discrimination against a leading product made in Scotland, but now we see the latest chapter in the targeting of the industry by a Treasury that views it as a cash cow. That is
418WH
detrimental not merely to captains of industry but to the people who work in the industry and in the parts of the country that depend heavily on it. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute rightly highlighted the financial burdens on the industry, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) the detrimental effects on new entrants to the whisky market.
However, there are other negative consequences. Earlier today, I spoke to a number of whisky producers on Speyside to find out their views of the proposals—the views not of the Scotch Whisky Association, the Scottish National party or other MPs representing whisky-producing areas, but of those who work in the industry on the shop floor. They said that it is a labour and logistical nightmare. The prospect of having to apply strip stamps to everything from miniatures to special bottlings, as well as maintaining separate stock for different markets, is a frightening one. They asked,
"Why is any of this necessary when bottles are already clearly differentiated with a lot number?"
and I asked, "What is a lot number?",
I had never examined a label closely enough—I tend to concentrate more on the quality of the whisky—but every bottle has a lot number. I examined a small bottle of whisky that I have stored away for medicinal reasons. There it is: a series of digits that clearly identify the brand, the bottling line, the distillery and the cask. Apparently, one can make an audit trail even to the very second when the bottle was filled with whisky. So, the question was a good one: why are strip stamps to be imposed when there is already an audit trail to the whisky? If the information exists on every bottle of Scotch whisky, why is that not being used to help in the enforcement that everybody recognises to be crucial for tax revenues? We should support 100 per cent. Customs and Excise and all who work in the area. Everybody wants to minimise fraud, but surely we should use the method that we have to create an audit trail rather than reinventing something that, going by the evidence elsewhere, clearly does not work.
One does not have to look far to find examples. Norway, is Scotland's closest neighbour outside our islands. In 1997, the Norwegians adopted legislation to introduce strip stamps, but in the end, and despite the country's strict anti-alcohol legislation, they decided not to proceed. The move towards strip stamps was then opposed by the UK Government, on the advice of none other than the Department of Trade and Industry. The UK Government were advising the Norwegians not to do it. They told the Norwegians:
"The proposed regulations…would constitute a barrier to trade for the following reasons."
They went on to say that the regulations would
"discriminate against imported alcoholic beverages…are likely to be inefficient and ineffective as a means of combating fraud and illicit trade…are disproportionate and conflict with the principle of the free movement of goods…will cause many practical and technical problems in respect of, for example, labelling and storage of alcoholic beverages; and…will involve significant additional costs for the industry in fulfilling these requirements".
What has happened since then? What has changed so dramatically that that advice is now wrong? Hon. Members should be entitled to an explanation of why the situation has changed so radically that the advice is now fundamentally flawed.

419WH
The European Commission has given warnings about the costs and difficulties posed by strip stamps. The 1999 Fiscalis seminar in Oporto concluded:
"The existence of different duty marks in different formats and made of different materials requires frequent changes on production lines and makes it necessary to keep stocks of different duty marks and markers, resulting in increased costs for producers operating in the Single Market".
When the United States removed strip stamps in 1985, the US Department of Treasury said:
"The stamps have only negligible value in evidencing compliance with the law and payment of excise taxes".
Why, then, do the UK Government think the complete opposite; why are they now thinking of using them? Spain and Greece also say that strip stamps are the wrong way to help in the battle against fraud—a battle that we all support.
In the last few minutes left to me, I shall ask the Minister some direct questions. I hope that he can answer them. First, can he answer the question left unanswered by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland during questions last week? I asked whether the Secretary of State could name a single industry figure or trade union representative working in the Scotch whisky industry who was in favour of the introduction of strip stamps. Secondly, does the Minister agree that paper stamps are a 19th century solution to a 21st century fraud, and in view of the damage that strip stamps would inflict on the competitiveness of the industry, will he undertake to visit the industry to see at first hand the impact of the proposals? Thirdly, can he tell us whether a tax stamp design has been approved, and what design measures will be used to prevent stamps from being forged?
The Government would do themselves a huge favour if they withdrew their daft and damaging proposal. If they do not, they will reinforce the impression that Scotch whisky is viewed by the Treasury as a cash cow. The will be acting in a detrimental manner, which will add to overheads, increase regulation and cause barriers to investment and to new market entrants. The Government were right to turn down strip stamps 18 months ago. They should do so again.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the last speaker, I can tell the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Select Committee, that I am sure that he will be able to speak in an intervention, but I am obliged to call the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who has been present for the whole debate.
2.59 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara: I shall speak briefly, Sir Nicholas.
I speak with diffidence, being among so many indigenous experts on the Scotch whisky industry. However, as has been said, there are other producers. The products of Halewood International in my constituency are quite well known; they include Lambrini and Red Square vodka mixers and other unmixed spirits. I have no doubt that there is fraud: I see it all around me. Another aspect concerns me, however; I see young people in my constituency being debauched by those illicit products.
420WH
I do not doubt that the Chancellor must introduce a measure. The only two questions are whether it is effective or cost-effective. There is a great deal of technical evidence from other countries of measures either not being introduced or being discontinued because of doubts about effectiveness, and good technical advice has been given on the problems of cash flow that are caused to small companies such as Halewood International.
In my brief time, I simply wanted to make those few points. I could have made more, but I hope that the Economic Secretary will take account of my views.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I am indebted to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) for his responsibility and honour in keeping to the timetable that I requested.
3 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on the forceful and compelling way in which he made the case on behalf of his constituency and for Scotland. Having lived in Scotland for some years, I am well aware of the importance of whisky both to the economy and to Scottish consumers. I confess that I remain deep down a rather boring Sassenach with a strict aversion to the drink, but I none the less recognise its importance to the UK economy.
I examined the pre-Budget report, and one of the more striking figures was that the revenue that the Government get from spirits, which is £2.4 billion—most of which is from whisky—is actually larger than the revenue from the North sea in the form of petroleum revenue tax. It is a major source of Government revenue, and policy has to be carefully crafted to get it right. There is a strong element of consensus, for which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was reaching, in recognising that there is a fraud problem. It is inevitable that there will be fraud when there is a major gap between cost and sale price. That is the rent that attracts criminals.
We are not disputing points of principle. We are debating three issues of detailed implementation. The first concerns how much fraud there is. The second is whether the strip solution works, and the third, which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) added, is whether the solution is cost effective. I shall touch briefly on each of those points. In relation to the size of fraud, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) gave a helpful range of the variety of figures that people come up with, from between £100 million and £150 million a year according to the industry, to £600 million a year from the Government's point of view.
It is important to have a consensus figure. I noticed, again in the pre-Budget report, that the Government are counting on bringing in an extra £175 million a year by 2006–07. That is their own estimate of the amount of fraud they will reduce in the form of increased excise taxes. It would be interesting to hear the Economic Secretary explain how that figure is derived, and the margin of error that surrounds it.

421WH
There is no point in arguing that someone is right and someone is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) put his finger on the point: an independent audit is needed. It could be carried out by the National Audit Office or by an independent audit company, but someone should look at the competing figures and come up with a sensible, balanced, middle-of-the-road assessment of how much fraud takes place.
The second problem concerns practicality. The industry asserts that one problem with the strips is that they can simply be forged. They are old technology and not immune to forgery. Is that true? If it is, it knocks a gigantic hole in the technical feasibility of the proposal. Have the Government carried out any cross-country studies of the practicalities? Numerous hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and others, have set out specific examples of countries in which the proposal has either been rejected on grounds of technical unfeasibility or has been tried and found not to work.
The country that I noted in the literature was Poland, which has such a system, but where an estimated 80 per cent. of the market is still contraband. In other words, the system is very easy to evade. It is the Government who are changing the system; the onus is on them to demonstrate that it will work.
The third point is about cost-effectiveness. As a Treasury spokesman, I would be tempted to support the Government if the proposal brought in substantial additional revenue. However, it has to be balanced against the costs of enforcement and compliance, and what they will in turn mean for the price, sales and revenue of the product. We need a proper cost-benefit study, and I sense that no proper economic evaluation has taken place.
When other Departments introduce complex regulations, they are required to undertake a regulatory impact assessment that is evaluated by the Cabinet Office. I have no evidence of the Treasury or Customs and Excise embarking on any such assessment. It would be interesting to know whether such a study has been undertaken or contemplated, and when it will be published.
Several colleagues have drawn attention to the fact that, in the Government's assessment, the proposal was likely 18 months ago
"to have a severe impact on the productivity and compliance costs of the spirits industry"
One must ask what has changed since then. Several colleagues have explained, step by step, some of the compliance costs. One may need more staff to apply the strips, or the company might have to invest in equipment, which costs money, for a production-line approach. As a result of the imposition of strips, the production line will be slowed by an estimated 10 per cent.
I know very little about the industry but I understand that at the high end there are very small batches of different quality, all of which must have separate excises attached to them. The administrative costs are substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute stressed the cash flow problem because the excise is
422WH
paid up front but sale takes place later. That means the industry requires working capital with all the costs that that entails. The hon. Member for Cotswold came up with the figure for all compliance costs of £250 million, which has been carefully worked through with the industry. I have heard nobody contradict it.
Where are the benefits to offset those considerable costs? If the costs are correct, where are they passed on? They must be added to the price of the product. We know that price is important in the whisky industry because when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) substantially increased the duty on whisky in one Budget, there was a substantial fall in sales. Governments have since learned their lessons. The industry is very price responsive, which means the proposed increase in costs will cause a fall in sales and revenue. None of that logic seems to have been thought through by the Treasury or Customs and Excise.
It is incumbent on those of us who are critical of the proposal to suggest what should be done. Clearly, there is a problem and some action must be taken. The hon. Member for Cotswold had a helpful list of action to take on compliance and enforcement. It must be intelligence-led with Customs and Excise, and the police must take action.
I have one rather self-promoting suggestion. I recently introduced a private Member's Bill on counterfeiting, which is one of the main sources of fraud and evasion in this country. That legislation is now on the statute book and it provides increased powers and penalties that enable the authorities to act against counterfeit whisky and other products. As far as I am aware, no action is being taken to use the legislation because of a deficiency of trading standards officers and resources and because Government authorities are failing to use the powers that they have. Much stronger action can be taken using the legal machinery and departments that already exist before we resort to a technically and economically questionable measure.
3.8 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) not only on securing a timely and useful debate but on his excellent exposition of the issues.
As we gathered from you, Sir Nicholas, all Members have what we might politely describe as an interest in the subject. I hope that the Minister noted that there is cross-party concern. It is clear that the spirits industry is vitally important to the UK economy. The Scotch whisky industry exports about 90 per cent. of its sales, which represents about £2,000 million in exports for this country.
The Government have told us that they wish to impose tax stamps on spirits because they believe that that will prevent fraud in the UK spirits market. Only last Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House:
"It is estimated that about 16 per cent. of the spirits market has been subject to fraud, amounting to about £600 million."—[Official Report, 13 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 651.]
What is the basis for that assertion? After all, a 16 per cent. fraud rate is neither recognised nor accepted by any leading member of the spirits industry. When one talks to the people and organisations involved in the

423WH
industry, such as the Scotch Whisky Association, it is clear that they believe that those figures are wrong and misleading. The figures distract us from the central question of tackling the issue.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who perhaps gave us all a lesson by making his points in less than three minutes. He is quite right. The issue is cost effectiveness. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, if the figure that the Government are asserting is correct, the much discussed 200,000 bottles must go missing each and every day; that is an extraordinary figure when one stops to think about it. The Gin and Vodka Association of Great Britain shares the view that that figure is distorted. The question we must ask is this—on what is the figure based?
As several Members have shown, the problem seems to be that the figures on which the Government base their estimate are unclear and, for the most part, they run counter to much of the other evidence. Both the surveys used by the Office for National Statistics—the national food survey and the family expenditure survey—are based on a rather complex methodology, which does not, for example, reflect the true amount of customs clearances. They therefore make assumptions on incomplete and opaque data, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) highlighted.
The Rogues report, commissioned by the Paymaster General in 2000, estimated that spirit fraud peaked in 1995–96 and that that type of fraud would steadily decrease from 1999–2000. Given that evidence, and the Government's statement in December—just a month ago—that customs clearances have risen significantly, the claim of £600 million in fraud seems completely at odds with the other evidence.
Although Her Majesty's Opposition recognise that fraud is an ongoing problem that should be countered, we are not convinced or persuaded by the Government's figures, and nor is the industry. I therefore ask the Minister to accept that if anti-fraud measures are to work, they must be based on accepted and verifiable data. If that is so, and I trust that he will agree that it is, what is the evidence for the claim of £600 million in fraud? Just as importantly, will he confirm that he will still accept representations on the question of the scale of the problem? After all, the industry want to work in partnership with the Government, and only such partnership will provide a sustainable solution.
The question is not only about flawed data, but about a proposal that is both crude and ineffective in seeking to deal with the problem. Many people are worried that the measure will end up damaging industry without getting to the root of much of the illegal activity. In April 2002, the Chancellor himself dismissed tax stamps as a viable option. A Budget press release stated:
"The Government also decided against the introduction of tax stamps on bottles of spirits, which would have significantly increased industry costs, and instead announced plans to work with the spirits industry to tackle the problems of fraud."
That is a direct quote, taken today from the Inland Revenue's website.
Why have the Government changed their mind? We know we know that tax stamps can be easily forged. Several Members have referred to that. With UK duty
424WH
at £5.48 a bottle, the incentive for forgery is strong. Forged stamps add authenticity to illegal products, thus confusing customers and undermining their confidence in the industry.
We also know that tax stamps would damage UK exports by imposing significant costs on the spirits industry and undermining its international competitiveness. Colleagues have mentioned several different estimates of the cost to the industry, and the figure of £250 million mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), has yet to be disputed. Such disproportionate costs to the industry completely undermine the Treasury's argument, given that the Government hope to recover only £160 million in lost revenue.
Spirits manufacturers would also face cash flow problems. The hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) highlighted the fact that many businesses run on small profit margins. They would have to buy strips of stamps outright, but might not see a return on their outlay for some while. The problem would be especially acute at the smaller end of the industry, where price sensitivity and competitiveness are intense.
Is it any wonder that many of the countries that have considered a tax stamp scheme, which may even have started going down that road, have rejected the proposal as inefficient and ineffective? As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, Greece, Ecuador and the United States abolished tax stamps, Belgium, Germany and Norway backed off introducing them once they realised their true impact, and the hon. Member for Moray told us of the Government's fascinating intervention in Norway's case. Hon. Members have highlighted one reason for such uncertainties—the example of Poland, where, bizarrely, 80 per cent. of the Scotch whisky that is sold is believed to be contraband, despite the fact that tax stamps are in place.
This debate is timely because it gives us a chance to ask the Economic Secretary to think again. To that end, several excellent suggestions have been made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, but I want to deal with the alternative suggested by the industry in response to the consultation initiated by the Economic Secretary's office last July. The industry proposed that we take a risk-based approach instead of introducing a tax stamp scheme. It suggested that trade be categorised in three different ways: approved routes, notifiable routes and non-approved routes. Let me briefly explain what those mean. Under procedures for approved routes, Customs and Excise would regulate with a light touch, and companies' procedures would be subject to Customs and Excise audit. Under the provisions for notifiable routes, traders would be presumed to act with due diligence, but notification might be triggered where a new customer or unusual trading patterns emerged. Under the procedures for non-approved routes, additional Customs and Excise monitoring and controls would apply to movements with the highest revenue risk, such as those involving an unusual pattern or suspicious orders. By focusing on higher-risk movements, we would have a better chance of dealing with lost revenue while not placing an unfair burden on legitimate trade.

425WH
No detailed feedback on those ideas has so far been forthcoming from Customs and Excise. What is the Economic Secretary's view of taking a risk-based approach as an alternative to implementing tax stamps? What is the Treasury's response to the specific ideas that were presented to the Government last year? When the hon. Gentleman replies, I hope that he will be able to reassure us that his mind is open to new ideas and his door to new representations. After all, it is no more in the industry's interest for fraud to take place than it is in the Government's interest for revenue to be lost.
3.19 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) for securing the debate, which is timely and topical. I also welcome the tone of his argument and that of all hon. Members who have participated. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said, there is clearly cross-party concern about the issue.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) speaks for a very strong constituency in Speyside, but the accusation that the Treasury sees the Scotch whisky industry as a cash cow could not be further from the truth. The cost of the latest freeze in the series of duty freezes that we placed on the spirits industry is £40 million to the Treasury. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who expressed concern about what happens in other countries, that more than 40 countries to which Scotch whisky is exported retain and find a use for strip stamps as part of their duty regime. Some countries—Spain, Portugal and Italy—allow the stamps to be applied in Scotland before export.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly urged us to ensure that the debate was balanced and to implement a fair system for the industry that does not deny the criminality that bedevils the spirits sector more widely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) reminded us of the damage done to communities throughout the United Kingdom by the illicit alcohol sales that we need to stamp out.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked me whether the Government and I are still accepting representations on the scale of the problem, which I recognise is a subject of debate and close examination. We not only accept, but actively encourage such representations and discussions with the industry.
As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who chairs the all-party group on wine, rightly said, this is an important industry for the UK economy and taxpayer. I welcome his comments about the work of Customs and Excise. We do not intend, as he suggested or feared, to implement measures that will put the industry at risk.
I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that Scotch whisky has a special place in the spirits industry.
I say to all hon. Members who participated, and to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute in particular, that I recognise concerns about the proposed set of measures
426WH
and the harm that some fear they may cause to the Scotch whisky industry. I know that the industry shares those concerns. Following the pre-Budget report, there has been an unprecedented period of detailed discussion with the industry and with other concerned parties, including hon. Members. Officials have had 16 meetings since the report. I have met representatives of the leading producer associations such as the Scotch Whisky Association, the Gin and Vodka Association and the Wine and Spirit Association, and I plan further meetings with the key trade bodies.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who is treasurer of the all-party group on Scotch whisky, in his place. I offered to continue the debate by attending a meeting of the all-party group. He bit my hand off, and we have fixed on 3 February, so I can tell the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute and for Moray, who are vice-chairmen of the group, that we may continue our discussions beyond this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton also invited me to Scotland to visit a couple of distilleries, which I will visit later next month. I also aim to see the representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association during that visit.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his pre-Budget statement, and as we confirmed in the pre-Budget report—[Interruption.] I will give way, but I am anxious to cover the many points that hon. Members have raised.
Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for that announcement, and for his positive engagement over several years with the all-party group. However, the pertinent issue is the integrity of the figures for fraud. He mentioned that I chair the Treasury Committee, and he knows that there may be an opportunity for Customs and Excise to present its annual report to that Committee in the future. If that happens before the Budget, it will be thoroughly examined on the integrity of the figures, because competitiveness and productivity are crucial to the industry.
John Healey: We recognise that that is an issue. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in the pre-Budget statement, we would welcome workable alternatives to the proposals on tax stamps that would have a similar impact on spirits fraud. If we have to introduce strip stamps, we shall carefully consider the costs to the industry of compliance. We shall also consider the case for freezing the duty on spirits for the rest of this Parliament and how deferment arrangements could be extended to address the concerns about working capital that some hon. Members have expressed. I should like to extend the invitation for constructive discussion and examination of workable alternatives not only to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, but to all hon. Members who have participated in this debate and to those who will continue it through the all-party parliamentary group.
The Government recognise the importance of the Scotch whisky industry and the UK spirits industry generally. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been doing his bit: in six straight Budgets we have frozen the

427WH
duty on spirits, which is the longest continuous freeze since the 1950s. That means that the standard bottle of spirits now bears nearly £1 less in duty than it did in 1997. It is important to the industry and us that the UK retains its integrity and is not undermined by the activities of fraudsters. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, I pay tribute to the industry's declared determination to clamp down on such fraud.
The Government have been determined to tackle alcohol fraud, and we have largely done so as regards cross-channel smuggling. However, our central concern remains fraud in spirits, which is a complex activity that exploits the alcohol trade's very particular structure. The centuries-old system is designed to facilitate trade, but is also vulnerable to abuse by fraudsters. Diversion fraud, which hon. Members have so clearly explained, accounts for most illicit alcohol duty losses.
Let us be clear: the fraudsters are no Robin Hoods. They are not helping hard-done-by drinkers to get round our tax rules. The people behind the spirits diversion frauds are in organised criminal gangs that are often involved in other illicit activities. The vast majority of illicit spirits are sold through retail outlets, usually at normal market prices, without the drinker, or in many cases the retailer, being any the wiser.
The rise in spirits fraud has come despite customs action following the Rogues report, which many hon. Members mentioned. That work, which includes an extra 214 staff who are dedicated to alcohol assurance and anti-fraud work, is in addition to the valuable work done on the trade through the joint spirits fraud task force. Despite that, the fraud is not being significantly hit, nor could it be so, realistically speaking. A further consultation, led by my office, was held over the summer, as a consequence of which Customs will
428WH
introduce a package of regulatory measures that are designed to tighten up some of the vulnerable points in the alcohol distribution and duty suspension system. However, those proposals are modest and incremental, and will not, in isolation, have a significant impact on fraud.
The consultation contained options aimed at reducing movement and sales of undutied, unsecured alcohol. We proposed to place a limit of one or two movements on sales in duty-suspended goods destined for the UK market. However, it became clear in detailed discussions with the trade that those proposals would not be effective, since EU law prevents us from limiting duty suspension for goods sourced from outside the UK and requires us to allow goods bound for other EU states to leave under duty suspension. There is also evidence that some retailers would either source more spirits from abroad or move their warehouse operations abroad to avoid a more restricted regime for intra-UK movements.
In sum, against the background of a worsening problem, success in tackling fraud in other excise regimes and the apparent lack of alternatives, the implementation of a tax stamp system on spirit bottles is a necessary and proportionate step. We recognise, however, the questions that the industry has raised about the figures, and we are sharing data to try to settle its doubts. The chancellor has made it clear that he wants to see whether an effective and workable alternative can be found. We shall discuss with the industry the most cost-effective way of implementing tax stamps if we need to. We shall consider the possible costs for the industry of complying with a tax stamp system, and we shall consider extending the duty freeze for whisky and other spirits not just for one year but for every year of this Parliament.

Learning and Skills (Somerset)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to have secured this debate on a topic that is extremely important in the county of Somerset.
Last week, when I was told that I had been fortunate enough to secure this debate, my telephone started ringing. The callers were from Somerset county council. They sounded very twitchy. The county council's education department wanted to know what I was going to say. I could sense the panic in the callers' voices and I suspect that they are still panicking. Perhaps they thought that I was about to blame them for every single thing that has ever gone wrong in Somerset's schools and colleges.
Sir Nicholas, you may not be aware that my last intervention on the subject of education, which was in an exchange with the Prime Minister, led to Somerset county council passing a censure motion against me. All that I did was ask a question. I was trying to find out what had happened to the Government money paid to Somerset to spend on education. Many people in my constituency, teachers and parents included, believe that a lot of that money has been deliberately withheld. However, the county council does not like Members of Parliament interfering, so, I am told, it reported me to Mr. Speaker. I have news for Somerset: Mr Speaker seems to have ignored the council. He and I maintain the most cordial of relations, and I rather doubt that I would be standing here today, talking about education again, if that were not so. In fact much of what I want to highlight is extremely positive.
In Bridgwater, we are immensely proud of the achievements of Bridgwater college. It is an outstanding example of what can be done to provide first-class further education and skills training.
Mr. Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend mentions Bridgwater college. It is true that a number of my constituents in Taunton go to Bridgwater college, as I am sure a number of my hon. Friend's constituents go to Richard Huish college, an excellent academy for sixth-form learning, and to the Somerset college of arts and technology, which is based in Taunton. We are in agreement, and will he join me in congratulating those colleges too?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: As usual, my hon. Friend is extremely eloquent in his defence of Taunton. He does a marvellous job, and I completely agree with him. Many of my constituents go to SCAT and to Huish, and they get a marvellous education there. As one may not speak about matters outside one's constituency, I bang the drum manfully for Bridgwater college.
It is a tribute to the dedication and hard work of its staff that Bridgwater college has been recognised at national level. I am sure that the Minister will endorse these remarks with his own congratulations. Such success, however, can illustrate problems elsewhere. My constituency is extremely large and contains very different communities. Bridgwater is a bustling industrial town, with a first-rate college. Minehead, at the other end, is best known as a seaside holiday resort, surrounded by the beautiful west Somerset landscape on
430WH
the fringe of Exmoor. It is the home of the West Somerset community college, which has also achieved glowing testimonials but which is lower on the financial food chain than Bridgwater. It is a very good place to get a qualification, but it is only a community college. It could certainly do with some extra money spending on it. It must expand in order to compete. The Somerset learning and skills council would like to bolster West Somerset community college and introduce improvements, but money is the key; there is not enough.
I am not here to bleat for additional resources just for the sake of it, as the Liberal Democrats often do. My concern is more strategic and has a bearing on rural constituencies throughout the country, because a first-rate college such as Bridgwater is, by its reputation, bound to be a more attractive proposition for some students than a local college, however good that college may be. Inevitably, the best colleges act as magnets, and magnetism can be an extremely powerful and potentially disruptive scientific force. It is no secret that every day hundreds of students are bussed to Bridgwater college from all over Somerset and beyond. That is a daily round trip of 100 miles, and more in some cases. Bully for Bridgwater, but what about common sense and costs?
I can give the costs straight away. Somerset county council's school bus budget is in deficit to the tune of £800,000. For once, I do not think that that is entirely the county council's fault—I hope that it is listening. Budgeting for school buses has always been a lottery, but it becomes more absurd if councils are forced to second-guess the decisions of students to take up college places scores of miles from their homes.
Somerset has six colleges of further education. Further education is big business in my part of the world, employing 3,000 staff and catering to 40,000 students. In the past three years, the colleges have invested £40 million in new buildings and IT equipment. That is marvellous, but the bill for subsiding students' travel is huge. Together, the six colleges shell out £450,000 every year. A single annual bus pass may cost, say, £120 a year, but the student is charged only £50. The colleges have to settle the bills from any surpluses that they create. I am sure that the Minister can understand the burden that that places on colleges such as West Somerset.
The problem is much worse in rural areas where scheduled buses are few and far between. Often colleges must commission private coach operators, which does not represent common-sense policy making. Surely it would be better to spend more public money bolstering up West Somerset college than paying for needless bus rides across the county. I am all for extending choice, but it makes more sense to offer equal choice in education, wherever someone may live.
I know that the Government already have plans to alter the financing of school transport. In September, the education maintenance allowance will be introduced. That will lift some of the financial burden from the shoulders of local authorities for providing school transport, but it will bring a new and unexpected load for students. The allowance will be means-tested. If one qualifies, it will put £30 in one's pocket. Those who live in west Somerset who go to Bridgwater college by bus will just about be able to pay the fare with that

431WH
money. However, those who live in Bridgwater, who make their own way to college, will be £30 better off. The policy needs serious reconsideration. I wonder whether the impact of that way of alleviating the plight of students in constituencies such as mine is right.
There is another source of anxiety. As the Minister knows, the colleges work to a three-year delivery plan. However, the current funding allocations do not match those plans. From what I can gather, that will be an immediate problem. Some colleges have been told that there will not be enough money to finance even next year's delivery plans. That is a stark problem, and a real responsibility. The Government may have promised to boost higher education, but the money available simply is not enough. There is a proven demand for learning, and a real hunger in the business community for students with proper skills, but the three-year delivery plans are already being cheese-pared.
Those who telephoned me late last week may be sitting back in some relief: "Phew", they are probably saying, "Liddell-Grainger did not sink his fangs into our ankles." However, I am about to discuss Somerset county council right now. There is serious disquiet in Somerset about the way in which the county council runs its affairs. In the past couple of years, it has managed to create around 500 extra jobs at county hall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). It is a costly new generation of pen-pushers. As the bureaucracy grows, the openness shrinks, particularly when it comes to education.
I have become a hate figure in county hall for raising issues that my constituents have raised with me. The council hates me for doing my job. I shall spell out the nature of the disquiet that has been reported to me. Over the past few months, teachers, governors and parents have approached me directly, asking me to make inquiries. They are concerned, and somewhat alarmed, at the way in which money promised by Whitehall for education has failed to materialise. They point to teacher redundancies, to the appointment of classroom assistants instead of teachers, and to the number of inadequate classrooms that were meant to have been replaced. Somerset will lose many of its after-school clubs. They are valuable social units that offer real activity programmes to youngsters who might otherwise hang around on street corners. I understand that many clubs now face the axe. Is that at the decree of the Minister's Department, or is it another county council blunder?
Of greater concern is the fact that my teachers also cite the manner in which special needs children are being statemented. For the benefit of the uninitiated, I shall explain. If a child needs special help, it is normal to issue a statement, and then draw down additional funds to provide help. If the statements are issued later—perhaps when a child is 13 or 14—it will clearly cost the education authority a great deal less. The word on the street is that Somerset has been notorious for late statementing.
Why do teachers who complain to me not complain directly to the county council? It is because a lot of fair-minded teachers are scared for their jobs. The worst that Somerset county council can do to me is pass a censure motion and report me to Mr. Speaker. The worst that it can do to a teacher who informs is sack her.
432WH
Last year, the Government provided considerable extra finance for my county. We could do with more, but it is a start. Since then, I have been trying, and failing, to find out how and where money earmarked for education has been spent. The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I fairly recently that he was not entirely sure. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. If the county council were a plc, it would be taken to the cleaners for failing to provide detailed accounts. The Secretary of State does not know the answer to my question, the schools do not know, and I do not know.
The longer I wait for the county council, the more suspicious I become. The longer I wait for answers, the more I listen to teachers and governors who believe that much of the money has been diverted, or sat on. I have raised the matter with the Prime Minister, who shares my doubt about Liberal Democrat-run councils. The people whom I represent need and deserve straight answers.
The debate is about learning and skills. I applaud the patient efforts of Somerset teachers and the foresight of heads and principals. However, it is fair to doubt the skills of the county council in administering what is, after all, public money.
3.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing a debate in Westminster Hall. I offer broader congratulations to hon. Members for Somerset constituencies, because this is the third consecutive Westminster Hall debate that I have attended relating to education in the county. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) secured the last of those, on schools funding, not so long ago.
I fully associate myself and my ministerial colleagues with the positive remarks made by the hon. Gentleman about the excellent work of Bridgwater college. He is rightly proud of its work. It is a beacon college—one of the top colleges in the country. Its most recent Ofsted inspection described it as outstanding, and I am sure that he would want to join me in paying tribute to the principal, Fiona McMillan, who is also the convener of the national tertiary colleges group.
I want to discuss some of the broader issues that the hon. Gentleman drew to our attention, and I hope that he and you, Sir Nicholas, will bear with me as I try briefly to outline the national context. The emphasis on skills and skills-based education is a key priority for the Government and our Department, for reasons of social justice and economic success. A fully skilled economy is critical to the country's future—a point with which I think hon. Members of all parties would agree.
Some good progress has been made nationally in that respect. Between April 2001 and July 2003, nearly 2 million learners participated in skills for life programmes, with more than 400,000 achieving qualifications. We are confident that we shall reach the target of at least 750,000 adults obtaining basic skills qualifications by the end of 2004. That is the national context for considering what is happening in Somerset.
One of our tools for ensuring the highest possible quality, which is, I know, what the hon. Gentleman has been concerned with today, is the process of strategic

433WH
area reviews by the Learning and Skills Council. I want to talk about that process because it is relevant to the areas of concern that the hon. Gentleman raised, particularly transport and the position of the West Somerset community college in Minehead.
We have set out, nationally, five key principles to underpin the organisation of provision for the 16-to-19 age group. Those are quality, the distinctiveness of the provision, diversity to ensure curriculum breadth, learner choice and affordability, value for money, and cost effectiveness. I shall not go into each of them in detail, but they are relevant to the discussion that is going on in Somerset, and particularly to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about transport and learners' transportation costs. In considering 16–19 provision, we want to ensure equity of access to high-quality services. A young person's ability to get the best possible service should not be determined by where he or she lives. It is important for there to be distinct provision to meet the particular needs of the 16–19 age group. There should be separate management arrangements, and it should be clear who is responsible for ensuring that the learning experience of all 16–19-year-olds is appropriate and coherent.
We want to ensure that there is curriculum breadth and learner choice, a principle that is most relevant to the issue of transport. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reference to the national launch of education maintenance allowances in September. They will bring great benefit to many young people. However, he is right to say that we want to ensure that there is equity in the process. One factor highlighted by the EMA pilots has been the cost of transport, particularly, for obvious reasons, in rural areas. As this is not directly my policy area, I should like to discuss with colleagues the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has made about EMAs and their relevance to his constituency and the county of Somerset. I undertake to write to him on that.
Mr. Flook: The Minister rightly said that he will look at the issue in the round. May I alert him to two written questions that I have addressed to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about funding for Somerset county council's transport budget? As Somerset is a rural county, the Government have appeared to be generous, but the county council sounds as though it is going to withdraw money, and it could therefore lose centrally funded rural provision. That could have an impact on students going to Minehead, some of them from the western end of my constituency, around Dulverton and Exford.
Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that matter on the record. I am sure that he will receive a response from my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is important to gain maximum benefit from the money that has been made available to support work in rural areas. I am responsible for the draft School Transport Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech. That will enable a number of authorities to pilot alternative arrangements to ensure that the school transport regime is of the highest possible quality and equity. Although the statutory provisions do not apply
434WH
to further education colleges, we shall be able to learn from the experience of FE and the EMA pilots that I have mentioned, and vice versa.
The Learning and Skills Council has a critical role to play. Its new powers enable it to fulfil its responsibilities for planning post-16 provision. It is vital that that be driven by the needs of individual learners, not by other bureaucratic processes and pressures, a fact borne out by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bridgwater. I acknowledge the constructive role that he has played by working with his LSC on the proposals to merge the colleges at Bridgwater and Cannington, seeking to learn from the excellence on the ground in his constituency that he described.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater referred to the broader picture of education in Somerset. He talked about two specific issues. One concerned after-school clubs, and the other the procedure for statementing for children with educational needs in the area covered by Somerset county council. He will understand that I am not in a position to respond fully to those questions immediately, but I will do so in writing. Suffice it to say that the statement that the Department and the Government have given keeps very much to the principle of the extended school not only as a resource for the core national curriculum but as a wider resource for the community. We seek to extend, not to cut back, the availability of breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and the opening-up of schools on Saturdays. I will consider the situation in Somerset, but I can say today with some confidence that the Department is not directing policy to close after-school clubs. We very much want them extended.
There is a general concern about late statementing. We will shortly set out an action plan on special educational needs, because the Department and the Government are acutely aware that the quality and efficiency of the statementing process for children with special educational needs varies enormously from one part of the country to another. We want to ensure the highest possible standards in every part of the country, so that every child with those needs receives the support that he or she has every right to expect.
Somerset schools and colleges have been involved with several projects, to which I want to pay tribute in the remaining couple of minutes. Building on the work of the sustainable development education panel's report, "Learning to last", the LSC funded two phases of development projects throughout the country, with 11 projects in each phase. Somerset further education colleges are involved in both phases, examining the work of sustainable development curriculum champions who are working between colleges and schools, and involving work-based learning providers, such as the Somerset College of Arts and Technology, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Taunton. These projects demonstrate the very good practice of those colleges and some of the lessons that the FE sector and schools throughout Somerset and in other parts of the country can learn from them. I want to say for the record how important that work has been and to pay tribute to SCAT and the other colleges involved in that important work, such as the centre of vocational excellence in construction at SCAT, from which I know other colleges have sought to learn lessons about how best to extend best practice in sustainable education. Broader lessons are also to be learned.

435WH
The hon. Member for Bridgwater commented on his county council. I am wary of being drawn into conversations between him and members of Somerset county council, although I was pleased to hear him acknowledge the extra funds from central Government for schools in Somerset. I join him in paying tribute to the work done by schools in Somerset, and I pay special tribute to the head teachers, teachers, governors, other staff and pupils for their achievements. There is much to pay tribute to, especially when one considers the results of schools, especially of secondary schools, in Somerset. The measure of five A* to C grades at GCSE level and the 2002 Ofsted inspection report on Somerset, for example, demonstrate a pattern of performance that is consistently above the average for our country.
Recently published information about key stage 3 indicated that performance was very impressive, and that primary and secondary schools were achieving much with the new value-added measures that we published. I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the excellent work done in schools in Somerset, and to the work of FE colleges in Somerset. I hope and trust that the strategic area of the review process will ensure that there is that high quality, high equity and high level of learner choice to which everyone in this House is committed, so that the excellence that we heard about at Bridgwater college is available to young people in all FE colleges throughout Somerset.

International Small Arms Treaty
4 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: If someone were to be shot in this Chamber now, I have no doubt that the Minister for Trade and Investment and I would abandon our debate to do all in our power to save the life of the victim and to apprehend the attacker. After all, what would be the point of debating the control of small arms but ignoring the practical effect? Not one life in this Chamber will have been taken by small arms by the end of our debate, but the fact is that 30 lives will have been extinguished elsewhere: one for every minute that we pontificate and prevaricate.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will have etched in his memory, as I have in mine, that day almost exactly three years ago when the Gujarat earthquake struck. The world was horrified at the loss of approximately 20.000 people, which ripped so many villages and so many communities apart at the start of the new millennium. Action was taken immediately by Governments around the world and millions of pounds in aid were given for relief and for the work of reconstruction. Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that since the start of this year just 20 days ago, more than 28,000 people around the world have been killed by small arms, yet the Governments of the world have done nothing?
The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems and, in most years, exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms could be described as weapons of mass destruction, but there is still no global non-proliferation regime to limit their spread. Those are not my words, but the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan in his millennium report to the General Assembly.
There are more than 500,000 deaths each year. That figure is hard to understand and those deaths have an enormous impact on communities, families and whole economies. What is even more difficult to understand is that there is no global non-proliferation regime to limit the spread of conventional weapons. Governments do not believe that it is practical. Governments do not believe that it is necessary. Governments do not believe that it is politically possible.
Today, I speak not for our Government or any other. I speak only for those ordinary people in our world who believe that an international arms trade treaty is not impossible and for those ordinary and decent people who consider it the duty of politicians, when confronted with such appalling carnage, to construct such a treaty and to make it happen. We need not only a binding treaty to deal with states that use conventional weapons against their own people, but a treaty that will also tackle those states that produce the weapons and sanction the arms deals that enable that to happen.
Such a treaty has already been drafted. It is the framework convention on international arms transfer, which was prepared under the auspices of a group of Nobel peace prize laureates and convened by Costa Rica's former President, Oscar Arias. It is supported

437WH
by Oxfam, Amnesty International, Safer World and many other international non-governmental organisations working for peace and justice. I commend them for their work on that and urge people to join the "million faces" campaign that seeks to build support for it in this country.
Article 1 simply provides that contracting parties shall adopt and apply in accordance with their national laws and procedures a requirement that all international arms transfers be authorised by the issue of licences.
Article 2 provides that a contracting party shall not authorise international transfers of arms that would violate its obligations under international law, which include those pursuant to the United Nations charter, international treaties already binding on the contracting party and the prohibition on the use of arms that are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians or are such as to cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering.
Article 3 sets out that a contracting party shall not authorise transfers of arms in circumstances in which it has knowledge, or reasonably ought to, that transfers of arms such as those considered are likely to be used in breach of the UN charter of corresponding rules of international law, in the commission of serious human rights violations, in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law, in the commission of genocide or crimes against humanity or used after they have been diverted and then used in any of those ways. I do not propose to adumbrate all nine clauses of the draft framework convention, but I hope that the clauses that I have referred to appear clear and sensible because that is what they are.
The Minister will be well aware that I have been critical in the past of the Government's failure to implement full extra-territorial controls, a register of brokers and checks of end-users as part of the secondary orders for the Export Control Act 2002. I recognise that the Government have gone further than their predecessors in strengthening arms export controls, but we have stopped short of the regulations that would establish the highest standards in the area.
In exchanges with the Quadripartite Committee and in response to 130 or so parliamentary questions that I have tabled on the issue, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has appeared to put what she considers the needs of industry above the humanitarian need that the arms industry creates. I well remember in one exchange with her officials being told that the Secretary of State was concerned not to impose bureaucratic controls on brokers who might legitimately be selling small arms to a foreign police force. I suspect that neither the Secretary of State nor her official had bothered to check the percentage of small arms held by police forces around the world. It is just 2.8 per cent. of all those in circulation—a tiny fraction.
That showed that our Government have lost track of the genuine scale of the problem. By contrast, 52.9 per cent. of all the world's small arms are held by private individuals. A further 37.8 per cent. are held by Government armed forces. Just 0.2 per cent. are held
438WH
by armed opposition groups. It is the overwhelming availability of those arms that creates the desperate loss of life to which I refer, and yet our Government sought to justify their refusal to implement a register for brokers and full extra-territorial controls on the basis of the problems that that would create for just 2.8 per cent. of the global market. Let us face it. a lot of those police forces are ones to which we should not be too happy about selling arms.
We must realise that this has ceased to be a theoretical policy issue about bureaucratic interference in the legitimate export of arms manufactured in this country. It is a humanitarian issue about how we address global suffering on an enormous scale. Action is required now to deal with the humanitarian consequences of the arms trade and, because it is an international trade, the best way to deal with it is at an international level. We have binding international treaties on the movement of peoples and the flow of funds. It therefore does not seem unreasonable to have a unique and binding international treaty on arms control.
The availability of arms fuels violent conflicts. More than that, however, it distorts the real priorities of nations and communities. With global military spending amounting to $839 billion each year, the world is truly over-armed and underdeveloped. By contrast, it would cost just $10 billion to establish universal primary education for Africa, which is one of our millennium development targets for the continent.
Deaths from conventional weapons in developing countries do not give the full picture of misery, however. Of course it is crazy that there should be one gun—usually a Kalashnikov—for every 5.8 people in Pakistan. However, the arms and shooting fatalities figures do not show the number of people who die when immunisation programmes for children break down because of armed violence caused by the proliferation of weapons or how AIDS programmes in Africa cannot function in the middle of a war zone. It is important to understand that deaths at the end of the barrel of a gun are just the tip of a very cold iceberg. One person every minute dies because of conventional weapons, but we cannot calculate how many die because of the chaos that such weapons bring.
Highly developed countries do not experience civil war and armed conflict. Some 2 per cent. of the world's most developed countries experience any sort of civil war, but 56 per cent. of the world's least developed nations—a clear majority—are gripped by civil war. The opportunity costs to their economies are horrifying. The civil war in Sri Lanka was calculated in 1998 to have cost a staggering $20.8 billion dollars. Interestingly, more than $13 billion of that loss came not from direct expenditure on munitions and the military, but from the loss in economic output. Educated and skilled Sri Lankans fled the country and inward financial investment plummeted. The World Bank has suggested that conflict in Africa causes a 2 per cent. loss of economic growth year on year in every country on the continent. The world cannot afford to continue wasting its human and economic capital in that way.

439WH
It is equally important to understand that the problems do not just disappear when a conflict ends. Half of all post-conflict countries revert to war again within 10 years of peace. If weapons are not removed and alternatives livelihoods are not found for returning combatants, the culture of violence begins to embed itself in a society and violence becomes the accepted means of resolving differences. Crime, smuggling and organised violence establish a pattern that once again destabilises any emerging civil structures.
Only a few months ago. I had occasion in this Chamber to warn of the folly of demobilising the Iraqi army without first depriving those men of their weapons or offering them any programme of reintegration into civil society and alternative paid employment. It is now accepted that that failure has in large measure contributed to the dangerous security situation that continues in that country. The consequent loss of life among both Iraqis and coalition forces has been a heavy price to pay for such an elementary mistake.
Conventional and small arms wreak global havoc. They do so first as the precursor to conflict, precipitating the transformation of civil disputes into wholesale civil wars. That is widely recognised to have been the case in Rwanda prior to the civil war there in 1994. Huge volumes of arms, shipped in from France and China, acted as the trigger that moved the country from tension to conflict and genocide. That genocide was ultimately carried out with agricultural implements, but it was precipitated by the build-up of conventional and small arms, which raised the tension to boiling point.
The availability of these weapons perpetuates and entrenches undemocratic and anti-democratic regimes that systematically violate the human rights of their citizens. All sovereign states have a legitimate resort to arms but that legitimate monopoly on the use of force is strictly circumscribed in international law. The resort to arms can be made only to protect the life and liberty of their citizens from either external attack or internal assault by others.
Arms cannot legitimately be used as a tool of repression by Governments to undermine those very rights to life and liberty. Yet our own Government, along with France and the United States, have recently approved enormous exports of arms to Saudi Arabia, knowing that the Saudi authorities allow no criticism of the state. All political organisations are illegal, and the country has a record of arbitrary detention of its citizens that goes back many years. I say to my hon. Friend that such arms exports ally and associate our Government with regimes that he and I should openly condemn.
Conventional weapons drain the coffers of developing countries, diverting spending from health care and education that is so desperately needed to raise the living standards of their people. Is it not obscene that a country as poor as Pakistan—I make no comment about the nature of its Government—receives $1.3 billion in aid from the US that is spent entirely on arms and so-called security?
An international arms treaty is required to control and monitor arms flows and to ensure that Governments are transparent in their arms deals and
440WH
that there are no safe havens for illicit trading. The present system of weak international control on arms sales and highly unresponsive sanctions regimes delivers very little. People now want more.
A similar mood took hold in the mid-1990s when calls for an international treaty banning land mines reached fever pitch. In the UK, the Government were not prepared for those calls; they took them by surprise. Writing about the land mines treaty in 1995, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), then a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, averred that a treaty would sacrifice
"the effectiveness of our armed forces on the altar of political correctness."
I have often wondered why any man as intelligent as the current shadow Home Secretary would ever willingly embrace political wrongness, but it was his policy, party and Government that the public found to be wrong politically. The Ottawa land mines treaty was one of the early achievements of our Labour Government. I trust that the Minister will consider the quotation as a cautionary tale and not treat the international arms trade treaty in the same cavalier fashion as his predecessor.
The international arms treaty would bring arms exports standards into line with existing responsibilities under international law. By explicitly linking existing international humanitarian legislation with the arms trade it will be possible to enforce breaches more easily. It would legislate for greater co-operation between countries, an international record of transactions and an international database of dealers. It would build on some of the good mechanisms already developed in the EU code of conduct on arms control and other agreements.
I realise that a commitment to sign up to a binding international arms treaty would be a bold step and that many would criticise such a move as anti-business and anti-competitive. The same arguments were used against on a ban on land mines. The call for an international arms treaty is not about ending the legitimate arms industry, or about stopping a country's sovereign right to protection and self defence; it is about developing an effective international system to prevent the humanitarian consequences of the current illicit trade. I do not deny that it could make legitimate arms dealing more expensive, but the idea of the treaty, just like the EU code of conduct, would be to stop undercutting by the illicit market and to allow legitimate arms companies to continue to offer a competitive advantage.
I make no pretence that my primary concern is the bottom-line costs of arms manufacturers. My concern is the cost to people affected by illicit arms, the cost to economic and social development in poor countries and the costs of maintaining national defences in developed countries against international terrorists, who use many of the same supply chains.
I am proud to be part of a Government who have placed an unprecedented emphasis on international development. They have not only increased spending on international development, but have dramatically raised the prominence of development issues at the international level through debt relief, the millennium

441WH
goals and a radical agenda for stimulating growth and development in the poorest countries. This Government understand the humanitarian imperative. It is, therefore, all the more difficult to understand why they have so far failed to address the humanitarian imperative that is the need for a binding international treaty on arms transfers.
I ask the Minister three questions. First, will he meet me and representatives from Oxfam, Amnesty International and Save our World to discuss how the UK may contribute to a treaty along the lines of the Ottawa convention? Secondly, will the Minister commission a review to assess any problems that might exist in relation to the implementation of such a treaty into UK law? Thirdly, will he agree to end his speech 30 seconds before you call order, Sir Nicholas, so that we might spare 30 seconds to reflect in silence on the 30 people who will have died since the start of our debate because of the small arms that have taken their lives?
4.21 pm
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has spoken for 20 minutes, and although it would be right and proper to give him those 30 seconds, it would prevent me from dealing with many of the points that he has raised. Those points are important and therefore, if he will forgive me, and with the greatest respect for those losing their lives—half a million a year—I shall try to deal with some of his points so that we can make some progress.
I welcome the debate. The issues that my hon. Friend raises are important. As there is little time to discuss them, I shall do my best to respond to as many of his points as I can, and set out the Government's concern about the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. My hon. Friend claimed that Governments are doing nothing, but as far as this Government are concerned, we have acted, and done rather a lot.
We have an export control system that is responsible, transparent and accountable. In 1997, we established the first UK criteria on arms exports, which prohibit any exports of arms where there is a clear risk of their use for either internal repression or external aggression. The Quadripartite Committee of this Parliament has often praised the workings of the Government's export control system and its openness.
However, my hon. Friend is right to the extent that it is not enough for us alone to follow a responsible arms export policy. The British Government gained agreement for a European Union code of conduct during our EU presidency in 1998. That was a significant achievement. We regularly encourage other countries to adopt stricter arms export policies in the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the EU, NATO and bilaterally. We consider that important, and it is certainly worthwhile work. For that reason, I strongly welcome the debate that the arms trade treaty proposal has fostered.
It is clear from the number of letters received by the Government that the issue of stopping irresponsible arms transfers is one that the British people take very
442WH
seriously. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government take those concerns very seriously, too. The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have already met representatives of a number of the non-governmental organisations that have been the main advocates of this treaty, to discuss its contents. In terms of the point that my hon. Friend raised, therefore, meetings have already taken place. If he wishes to organise a further meeting, we shall be very happy to talk with him and with some of the other non-governmental organisations.
We are also looking at the detail of the treaty and examining the way in which it would impact on arms sales. On the day that non-governmental organisations launched their campaign in support of the treaty, the Government praised it as an important contribution to the international debate on arms export control issues. I stand by that today. It has stimulated debate and pushed the agenda forward, and it is very strongly to be welcomed.
The Government judges initiatives in this area by the real world impact that they will have. Will the initiatives deliver as effectively as the NGOs say? In other words, will they change the practices of those countries—Ukraine and Belarus come to mind, but are by no means alone—whose export control standards are weak? Clearly, in order to be effective, any international instrument in this area would have to enjoy the support of such countries, and indeed of all major arms-exporting countries. It is no use merely trying to raise still further the standards of countries whose standards are already high. That would not address the problem that my hon. Friend has identified.
We are studying carefully the detail of the arms trade treaty and looking at the problems that it poses, and we hope to work through those issues with NGOs as they refine their wishes. We will take into account the results of the consultations that they are undertaking at the moment. Much of the treaty's substance is along similar lines to the EU code of conduct on arms exports. Consequently, the idea itself is not contentious for us, but there are some proposals that break new ground. Government experts are in dialogue with the representatives of the sponsoring NGOs better to understand the effect of those points.
That does not detract from the general welcome we have given to the draft treaty. What we need now, if it is to have some real impact, is to gather support from a wider range of countries, not just those, such as the UK, that are already seen as practising responsible policies. That will require a wide-ranging effort, not just sponsorship by a few western Governments. There are clear elements in common between the initiatives for an arms trade treaty and the work that we have undertaken to improve global export controls on small arms. I agree with my hon. Friend that the statistics are shocking: around 500,000 deaths a year result from the misuse of weapons. The easy availability of small arms is a major source of insecurity and poverty in many regions of the world today. I strongly commend the NGOs that support the arms trade treaty for their work to highlight the problem.
Controlling the supply of weapons is not straightforward. An emotive response does not get the job done. Arms have legitimate uses, and production or sales cannot therefore be banned outright. The problem is exacerbated because production and manufacture are

443WH
highly decentralised. Strengthening national, regional and international export controls is essential to stemming the flow of arms from legal transfers to illegal possession and subsequent misuse.
The UK works hard to raise global awareness of the need to improve controls on small arms transfers, and to incorporate them into wider export controls. We lead in the global effort to develop common international standards on small arms exports. As a Minister who was closely involved in developing the controls, I can say that a key UK achievement in 2002 was securing the adoption of the best practice guidelines for export of small arms and light weapons in the Wassenaar arrangement, which is a group of 33 of the world's major arms exporters.
We have also fully supported the UN programme of action on small arms and light weapons. Between 2002 and 2004, we will make available more than £20 million to control and reduce the supply, demand and
444WH
availability of such weapons. That funding supports projects that assist UN agencies, regional organisations, Governments and NGOs. We stay in close contact with interested NGOs on our work on small arms.
We are working practically and seriously to address the sorts of problems that my hon. Friend has rightly raised. The UK fully supports the call to highlight the need for co-ordinated and comprehensive approaches to arms exports and, in particular, small arms controls. I am confident that the outline that I have given shows that we are prepared to work with NGOs and to ensure that the efforts needed to reduce the threat that small arms pose to far too many people in this world are undertaken. The death of 500,000 people each year from small arms is a toll that can be significantly reduced. It requires international effort, and we are prepared to undertake it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.

HEALTH

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings of the most recent survey of people's perceptions of organ donation. [148800]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Research has confirmed that 90 per cent. of the UK population support organ donation and nearly 20 per cent. have registered their intention to donate on the NHS Organ Donor Register.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the funding of children's hospices. [148801]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding for children's hospices is available through primary care trusts which are responsible for funding health care for their resident population. Local authorities can also fund services, including children's respite care. The New Opportunities Fund has provided £48 million over three years in support of palliative care projects for children.

  Hepatitis C
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed introduction of a compensation scheme for hepatitis C sufferers infected with contaminated blood products. [148802]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Work on the detail of the scheme is being finalised and we hope to be in a position to announce the details soon.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the work of the World Health Organisation. [148803]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health is responsible for the United Kingdom's annual subscription to the World Health Organisation. This contribution is based on the United Nation scales of assessment, with the UK contributing—in 2003–04—5.5 per cent. of WHO's regular programme budget, or £13.5 million. In addition the Department supports WHO in practical ways, including secondment of staff, membership of expert committees and work in the formal meetings of the governing bodies of WHO.

  NHS Dentistry
  Shona Mdsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dental treatment in North Lincolnshire. [148804]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government remain committed to ensuring that national health service dentistry is available to all who need it and seek it. We recognise however that access to NHS dentistry can be difficult in some areas. We have announced additional resources totalling £59 million over this year and next to support dental access.

  A NHS support team is working with the hardest pressed areas, including North East Lincolnshire, and we hope that this and other local initiatives will ease the pressure on dental services in North Lincolnshire. We have also made available a one-off payment of £30,000 to North Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust to improve access to NHS dentists. The PCT will use this money to extend a general dental practice in the area, which will allow that practice to register more NHS patients on an agreed basis over a three year period.

  We are also working with the PCTs and dentists in North and North East Lincolnshire to see what support can be provided to move dentists on to personal dental services arrangements, which would take them off the bureaucratic treadmill of item of service fees.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the 2001 restrictions on non-EU-trained dentists practising in the United Kingdom on the availability of dentistry. [147504]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  From 2001, the General Dental Council (GDC) ceased making visitations to dental schools in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, with the result that dentists who qualified after this date and wish to practise here have to sit the GDC's international qualifying examination. The number of dentists from those countries admitted to the GDC register since 2000 is shown in the table.

  Australia

  New Zealand

  South Africa

  2000

  174

  134

  876

  2001

  178

  142

  938

  2002

  168

  136

  1,022

  2003

  168

  125

  1,037

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foreign-trained dentists were practising in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990, broken down by(a) headcount and (b) full-time equivalents. [147505]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of general dental service (GDS) foreign-trained dentists practising in England and Wales in each year since 1993. Information is not available for years before 1993.

  Information on a full-time equivalent basis is not available. GDS dentists can vary the amount of dental work they do and the proportion carried out in the GDS.
  1105W

  General Dental Service: Number of foreign trained dentists practising in England and Wales—September each year

  Number of dentists

  1993

  1,556

  1994

  1,497

  1995

  1,530

  1996

  1,701

  1997

  1,896

  1998

  2,180

  1999

  2,475

  2000

  2,713

  2001

  2,869

  2002

  2,950

  2003

  3,004

  Notes:

  1. Dentists include principal, assistant and vocational dental practitioners.

  2. Dentists exclude those whose status is currently shown as Statutory Exam or Awaiting Entry.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to promote respite care. [148805]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are committed to seeing a range of services available locally for people who need services and their carers.

  The carers grant has provided an extra £325 million since 1999 to support local councils in arranging breaks services for carers.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he envisages for the private sector in providing respite care facilities for people with learning difficulties. [148687]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The private sector has an important role in providing respite care and short break services for people with learning disabilities and we envisage that this will continue to be the case. Respite care and short break services should provide high quality and flexible support to people with learning disabilities and their families. Such support can be provided in different ways by agencies from a variety of sectors including the private sector. People with learning disabilities can also use direct payments to directly purchase for themselves services, from a variety of sources, to meet their assessed needs include respite care and short breaks.

  Ehler-Danlos Disease
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will fund research into Ehler-Danlos disease. [148806]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is not currently funding any research into Ehlers-Danlos though it does fund a number of research projects into connective tissue and also into collagen physiology. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent statistics for the mortality rate from coronary heart disease are in the area covered by the Bolton primary care trust. [148807]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2002, the most recent year for which data are available, the mortality rate from coronary heart disease for residents of Bolton Primary Care Trust was 230 male deaths per 100,000 population and 108 female deaths per 100,000 population.

  Audiology Services
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance indicators are in place for NHS audiology services. [149081]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no national performance indicators for national health service audiology services. It is for primary care trusts to plan these services in response to the needs of their local communities.

  Delayed Discharges
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to fine social services departments in the case of delayed discharges in community hospitals. [148370]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We plan to extend the system of reimbursement for delayed discharges to all hospital patients in a phased way, once it begins to make an impact in the acute sector.

  Emergency Readmissions
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason his Department no longer collects information for patients aged 75 and over on emergency readmissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge. [149008]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The target, and subsequently the collection of monitoring information on emergency readmissions, was changed from that relating only to patients aged 75 because it was perceived as being ageist in that older people could be denied access to hospital services in order to meet a performance target. Emergency readmissions targets and data collections have, therefore, covered all ages since April 2002.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 12 January 2004, Official Report, column 602W, on foundation hospitals, if he will list those applications for foundation hospital status which have been submitted to the Independent Regulator. [148409]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written ministerial statement of 19 January 2004, Official Report, column 49WS.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the preparatory materials submitted by the national health service trusts seeking the Secretary of State's support for an application for NHS foundation trust status. [147933]
  1107W
  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave on Monday 5 January 2004, Official Report, column. 189W. I will arrange for copies of the applications submitted to the independent regulator to be placed in the Library. I will also arrange for the Department's summary of each applicant to be placed in the Library in due course.

  Geriatricians
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultant geriatricians and(b) geriatricians below the level of consultant were employed by the NHS in each year since 1997. [148827]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of consultants in geriatric medicine and geriatricians below the level of consultant who were employed by the national health service in each year since 1997.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Consultant grade and other staff with a specialty in geriatric medicine

  England1

  Number (headcount)

  All staff

  of which:

  Consultants

  Non-consultants3

  June 2003

  2—

  894

  2—

  2002

  2,707

  861

  1,846

  2001

  2,558

  781

  1,777

  2000

  2,572

  767

  1,805

  1999

  2,505

  719

  1,786

  1998

  2,560

  712

  1,848

  1997

  2,527

  677

  1,850

  1Data as at 30 September except 2003, where data as at 30 June.

  2Data not available. This is due to 2003 data being taken from the mini census, which collected consultants only.

  3Grades below the level of consultant include staff grade, associate specialist, registrar group, senior house officer, house officer, hospital practitioner, clinical assistant and other staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  The number of consultants employed by the NHS in geriatric medicine has increased by 32 per cent. between September 1997 and June 2003.

  Health and Social Services (Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been provided(a) in absolute terms and (b) per head of population served by the Trust for the United Lincolnshire NHS Trust in each year since 1995. [148474]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding is not allocated to national health service trusts. NHS trusts as providers of services receive the bulk of their revenue funding from commissioning by primary care trusts. Since 2003–04 funding has been allocated to PCTs, and before then to health authorities.

  The table shows cash allocations and allocations per head of population for Lincolnshire health authority, East Lincolnshire PCT and Lincolnshire South West Teaching PCT. Prior to 1996–97 allocations were made to regional health authorities, no information is available for Lincolnshire.
  1108W

  Period

  Total allocation (£000)

  Allocation per weighted head of population (£)

  Allocation per unweighted head of population (£)

  Lincolnshire HA

  1996–97

  256,520

  431

  416

  1997–98

  266,305

  448

  428

  1998–99

  278,608

  463

  445

  1999–2000

  394,990

  632

  615

  2000–01

  429,691

  681

  664

  2001–02

  469,403

  736

  717

  2002–03

  519,957

  811

  785

  East Lincolnshire PCT

  2003–04

  241,038

  884

  904

  2004–05

  264,418

  970

  991

  2005–06

  288,857

  1,060

  1,083

  Lincolnshire South West Teaching PCT

  2003ߝ04

  143,841

  934

  785

  2004ߝ05

  156,714

  1,018

  855

  2005ߝ06

  170,113

  1,105

  928

  West Lincolnshire PCT

  2003ߝ04

  180,080

  887

  855

  2004ߝ05

  197,501

  973

  938

  2005ߝ06

  215,736

  1,063

  1,025

  Note:

  1999ߝ2000 is the first year of unified allocations covering HCHS, prescribing and GMS cash limited. These figures are not comparable with those for previous years which cover HCHS only.

  Source:

  1996ߝ97 to 1999–2000 Health Authority Cash limits Exposition Book

  2001ߝ02 Health Authority Revenue Resource Limits Exposition Book

  2003–04 to 2006 PCT Revenue Resource Limits Exposition Book

  Independent Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require independent diagnostic and treatment centres to have patients' forums. [148680]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans to require independent treatment centres to have patients' forums. The patients forums set up for primary care trusts (PCTs) that commission services from independent treatment centres can monitor and review services that the treatment centre provides, as well as carry out their other functions in relation to them. Directions issued to PCTs on 27 November 2003 require PCTs to ensure that contracts they place with all independent sector providers includes provisions that:require those providers to allow entry to patients' forums to enter and inspect premises where those services are provided; and
  require those providers to give information in relation to those services to patients' forums when requested.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights of access to(a) people, (b) papers and (c) premises (i) overview and scrutiny committees and (ii) primary care trust patient forums will have in respect of independent diagnostic and treatment centres operating within their area. [148679]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]In relation to the operation of independent treatment centres, overview and scrutiny committees (OSCs) do not have rights of access to people, papers or premises of independent treatment centres. OSCs that
  1109W
  want to scrutinise independent services should do so via the primary care trust (PCT) that commissioned the services.

  Patients' forums have a right to enter and inspect independent premises and the right to information only if the contract between the PCT and the provider is compliant with directions issued to PCTs last November. These directions require PCTs to ensure that contracts they place with all independent sector providers include provisions that require those providers to allow entry to patients' forums to enter and inspect premises where those services are provided and require those providers to give information in relation to those services to patients' forums when requested.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how public-patient involvement will be delivered for independent diagnostic and treatment centres. [148682]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for ensuring that section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001—the duty to involve and consult patients and the public—is complied with when making arrangements for another organisation, person or people to provide services. This includes independent treatment centres (ITCs).

  PCT patients' forums have powers to monitor and review the services provided by ITCs. Contracts between PCTs and ITCs will include a requirement to allow PCT patients' forums to enter the premises of ITCs.

  Local authority overview and scrutiny committees with the power to review the planning, provision and operation of services will be able to use those powers in relation to ITCs, through the scrutiny of those PCTs which contract with ITCs.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the additional cost of implementing in full the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long-term Care. [143376]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The cost of introducing free personal care for everyone in England has been estimated at £1.5 billion. The cost would increase to £1.8 billion with equivalent payments to the devolved Administrations. None of this extra expenditure, were it to be made in this way, would increase choice or services available to older people.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for in-patient treatment in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many people have been waiting over 12 months for inpatient treatment. [147989]
  1110W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [pursuant to his answer, 15 January 2004, Official Report, column 858W]:I regret my previous answer was incomplete. The response should read as follows.

  As of 30 November 2003, 7,972 patients were waiting for elective inpatient admission, and no patients were waiting over 12 months. The source of this data is the Department of Health monthly monitoring.

  Miller Group
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list contracts his Department has awarded to the Miller Group in each of the last three years. [149431]

  Mr. Hutton
  No contracts have been awarded by the Department of Health to the Miller Group in any of the last three years.

  National Fruit Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the monitoring and roll out of the national fruit scheme and its impact on the consumption of fruit by four to six-year-olds in deprived areas. [148793]

  Dr. John Reid
  Following successful national piloting, the National School Fruit Scheme will be extended nationwide by the end of 2004. It already operates in four regions and covers 35 of the 50 most deprived wards in England.

  This extension means that more than 2 million children will now benefit.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will clarify the National Institute for Clinical Excellence advice on the provision of medicines to those patients diagnosed with osteoporosis. [148276]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is consulting on the first draft of a technology appraisal on the use of medicines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. The document does not constitute NICE's formal guidance on this technology: the recommendations are preliminary and may change after the consultation. The draft document is available on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Personal Care Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total charges collected from local authorities for personal care in each of the last six years. [144294]
  1111W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The information shown in the table shows total resident/service user contributions to care costs including personal care. The Department of

  Income from client contributions (sales, fees and charges)—England

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Older people (aged 65 or over) including older mentally ill

  Nursing home placements

  228,539

  314,022

  352,600

  417,420

  473,685

  486,375

  Residential care home placements

  583,604

  633,776

  738,424

  819,193

  909,022

  943,997

  Home care

  93,969

  113,876

  140,433

  159,148

  170,310

  173,915

  Total older people

  906,112

  1,061,674

  1,231,457

  1,395,761

  1,553,017

  1,604,287

  Adults aged under 65 with a physical disability or sensory impairment

  Nursing home placements

  9,060

  12,772

  13,784

  18,597

  21,574

  25,289

  Residential care home placements

  29,361

  34,953

  39,999

  44,071

  46,958

  48,680

  Home care

  5,820

  8,901

  10,408

  16,438

  17,508

  16,709

  Total adults aged under 65 with a physical disability etc.

  44,241

  56,626

  64,191

  79,106

  86,040

  90,678

  Adults aged under 65 with learning disabilities

  Nursing home placements

  4,697

  7,296

  7.846

  7,115

  9,767

  9,810

  Residential care home placements

  129,471

  153,623

  200,848

  212,472

  216,321

  240,966

  Home care

  2,012

  3,397

  7,328

  8,822

  10,195

  14,039

  Total adults aged under 65 with learning disabilities

  136,180

  164,316

  216.022

  228,409

  236,283

  264,815

  Adults aged under 65 with mental health needs

  Nursing home placements

  8,835

  6,713

  8,947

  10,503

  10,104

  11,168

  Residential care home placements

  39,634

  47,163

  51,193

  59.765

  52,098

  52,872

  Home care

  1,164

  1,424

  1,470

  1,920

  1,952

  1,982

  Total adults aged under 65 with mental health needs

  49,633

  55,300

  61,610

  72,188

  64,153

  66,022

  All adults and older people

  Nursing home placements

  251,131

  340,803

  383,177

  453,635

  515,130

  532,642

  Residential care home placements

  782,070

  869,515

  1,030,464

  1,135,501

  1,224,398

  1,286,515

  Home care

  102,965

  127,598

  159,639

  186,328

  199,964

  206,645

  Total adults and older people

  1,136,166

  1,337,916

  1,573,280

  1,775,464

  1,939,492

  2,025,802

  PET Scanners
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to increase the number of PET scanners in the NHS. [148062]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In response to requests from national health service and research stakeholders the Department of Health will shortly publish a framework for positron emission tomography (PET) scanning for consultation. This framework will set out a national policy position for PET in the NHS which will set out, from the evidence, which tumour groups would benefit from PET scanning, likely future demand, and the optimal configuration and location of PET scanners.

  Vaccinations (Staff)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the provision of smallpox vaccinations for medical personnel. [148762]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]: As part of its overall preparedness strategy for dealing with bioterrorism, the Department has produced a detailed smallpox plan. This plan requires that each standard Government region should have a regional response group consisting of five response teams each comprising of five members vaccinated against smallpox. Corresponding arrangements are being made for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This cohort of healthcare workers would be the first responders in investigating any suspected or confirmed cases of smallpox and therefore need to be protected against the threat of disease. A programme to
  1112W
  Health does not collect information on resident/service user contributions for personal care only.

  vaccinate the necessary cohort for England commenced in December 2002 and to date we have vaccinated 276 healthcare workers; exceeding our target of 261. The cohort comprises infectious disease physicians and paediatricians, public health physicians, microbiologists/virologists, acute care and communicable disease control nurses and occupational health staff. In addition, a further target of 90 ambulance staff to be vaccinated has recently been set for England. These are the only personnel being offered smallpox vaccination in the absence of disease.

  While there is no evidence of a specific threat of smallpox attack on the United Kingdom, it is sensible and prudent to ensure that the national health service can deal effectively with any potential threat.

  The Department's smallpox plan is available in the Library and also on the Department's web-site at www.doh.gov.uk/smallpox/smallpox.htm.

  Variant CJD
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current funds are in the discretionary fund available to victims and families of new variant CJD; what the outstanding claims are on that discretionary fund; and if he will make a statement on the future operation of the discretionary fund. [145112]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It was in recognition of the special plight of those affected by variant CJD (vCJD) that the Government established the vCJD Trust which oversees the payment of no-fault compensation to the families involved.
  1113W
  The terms of the trust were agreed with representatives of the families following a lengthy period of consultation. The compensation scheme provides for payments to be made in respect of 250 cases up to a maximum of £55 million.

  On top of this £55 million, the Government also agreed to meet the families' request to pay a further £50,000 to every victim or their family in each of the first 250 cases.

  Additionally, the trustees can make extra payments in prescribed circumstances where particular hardship is involved and where the trustees consider that further payment should be made. Such payments can be made from the discretionary fund although there is no entitlement as of right for those making claims upon this fund since further payments from it are entirely at the discretion of the trustees.

  To date, the trustees of the vCJD Trust have made payments of £1,509,353.99 from the discretionary fund in respect of 96 cases. This leaves a balance of £3,490,646.01 in the discretionary fund.

  Further information about the vCJD Trust will be available on the trust's website www.vcjdtrust.co.uk shortly, to which the trust's first Annual Report covering the period 15 March 2002 to 5 April 2003 will be added in the next couple of weeks.

  I will place a copy of the trust's report in the Library.

TREASURY

  Banking Regulation
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the level of supervision of banks. [149499]

  Ruth Kelly
  The regime for prudential supervision of banks is kept under constant review, both at home and internationally, in forums such as the European Union and the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision. On 1 June 1998, responsibility for the supervision of banks moved from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority. The legislative framework for the regulation of banks was subsequently reformed under the Financial Services and Markets Act; this came into effect on 1 December 2001.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Cousins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the income thresholds were for each decile of the household income distribution in (a) 1997–98 and (b) the most recent available 12-month period. [149640]
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins dated 20 January 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the income threshold for each decile of the household income distribution in 1997–98 and the most recent available 12-month period. which is 2001–02.
  1114W
  Estimates in the following table are produced from the Office for National Statistics' analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income" published on the National Statistics website on October 21st 2003 at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. The analysis includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey.

  The table shows, for the UK in 1997–98 and 2001–02. the boundaries between equivalised disposable income deciles for all households. Equivalisation is a standard methodology that takes into account the size and composition of households and adjusts their incomes to recognise differing demands on resources. For example, the 1st decile boundary is the income level below which one tenth of households are estimated to lie.

  Income decile

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Bottom

  6,766

  8,214

  2nd

  8,504

  10,356

  3rd

  10,146

  12,361

  4th

  11,922

  14,670

  5th

  13,917

  17,179

  6th

  16,342

  19,910

  7th

  19,316

  23,691>

  8th

  23,457

  28,469

  9th

  30,451

  37,095

  Top

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income', published on the National Statistics website and in Economic Trends.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to produce an Inland Revenue leaflet covering all the Inland Revenue help available for those with special needs. [148385]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are researching the most appropriate methods, including leaflets, of effectively publicising the help available to those with special needs and have been working closely with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met(a) Sir Eddie George and (b) Mr. Brian Quinn. [149497]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists, as appropriate.

  National Savings
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for the National Savings Ordinary Account as they effect(a) existing and (b) potential new account holders. [149483]

  Ruth Kelly
  National Savings and Investments will shortly launch a new savings account in response to changing customer needs. The new account will replace the Ordinary Account, which was introduced in 1861 and has not kept pace with changes in the savings market. The Ordinary Account is expensive to run and therefore only offers modest returns to savers.

  The new account has been designed to meet these changing customer needs and will be straightforward and simple to operate, offering customers greater flexibility in the way they manage their savings. They will be able to make deposits at post offices, by telephone and by post and they will be given an account card which will allow cash withdrawals at post offices or ATMs in the LINK network. This means the new savings account will be cheaper to run compared to the Ordinary Account and the savings will be passed onto the customer in the form of better interest rates.

  The new savings account will be available on 29 January 2004 and new Ordinary Accounts will not be available after 28 January 2004. In order to give existing Ordinary Account customers plenty of time to consider what to do with their savings, they will be able to continue using their account in the normal way until 31 July 2004. After that date, no further deposits can be made and any withdrawal will have to be for the full balance to close the account. In the meantime, National Savings and Investments will be writing to Ordinary Account customers explaining their options, including information about the new account and a simple transfer form for those wishing to transfer their savings into the new account.

  Public Expenditure
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last conducted a needs-based review of public expenditure levels in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [149454]

  Mr. Boateng
  Public expenditure of UK Government Departments has been reviewed in each spending review. The funding for the Devolved Administrations has been determined using the Barnett formula. Details were published in the Statement of Funding Policy in July 2002.

  Spirits (Duty)
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions there were for evading duty on spirits in the most recent year for which figures are available. [147324]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]:In 2002–03, there were 24 prosecutions for evading duty on spirits. Of these, 21 were successful and three were unsuccessful.
  1116W
  Additionally, 62 prosecutions were brought for cases involving the evasion of duty on mixed excise goods, some of which may have included spirits.

  Figures for the current and future years will be reported on an annual basis by HM Customs and Excise in their Annual Report.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people employed in his Department have claimed statutory sick pay for(a) less than one week, (b) one to three weeks, (c) four to six weeks, (d) seven to 12 weeks, (e) 13 to 20 weeks and (f) 21 to 28 weeks in each year since 1997. [148622]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Treasury, Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise pay full pay for six months and a further six months at half pay for staff who are absent due to sickness. SSP is paid only when employees are not receiving full pay. SSP is paid for up to 28 weeks.

  There are very few payments of SSP made due to the sick absence scheme we operate.

TRANSPORT

  Flying (Health)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the implications for human health of travelling in passenger aircraft at altitudes in excess of 30,000 feet. [148588]

  Mr. McNulty
  Although scheduled passenger aircraft routinely fly at altitudes of between 30,000 and 37,000 feet, the cabin is pressurised to the equivalent of between 6,000 and 8,000 feet to compensate for the reduction in atmospheric pressure. The Government are actively examining the effects of air travel on the health of passengers, notably in relation to the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and cabin air quality. In conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Radiological Protection Board, the Department has also issued advice on limiting airline crew's exposure to cosmic radiation in accordance with Article 42 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom.

  Shipping (Accidents)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) injuries and (b) fatalities there were caused by accidents involving personal transfer baskets used in British waters in each year since 1997. [148501]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch of DfT has no record of injuries caused by accidents involving transfer baskets used in British waters since 1997.

  Air Transport
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he received from the National Air Traffic Service on the feasibility of the proposals
  1117W
  contained in the White Paper on "The Future of Air Transport" (a) prior to publication of the White Paper and (b) subsequently; [149044]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the proposals in the White Paper on "The Future of Air Transport" on the design of UK airspace; [149047]

  (3) what discussions his Department has held with the National Air Traffic Service on the impact of increased airport capacity at (a) Heathrow and (b) Stansted on the design of London Terminal Area airspace; [149048]

  (4) what simulations have been undertaken by the National Air Traffic Service of the impact of increased airport capacity in the South East on the design of London Terminal Area airspace; [149049]

  (5) what assessment he has made of how long it will take the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) to (a) design and (b) implement changes necessary to the London Terminal Area airspace as a result of the proposed increases in airport capacity in the South East; and when NATS expects to begin this work. [149050]

  Mr. Darling
  The studies that preceded "The Future of Air Transport" included a high-level assessment of airspace issues by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the body responsible for the planning and regulation of UK airspace, and National Air Traffic Services (NATS). This work concluded that the necessary airspace capacity could, in broad terms, be provided safely through the redesign of airspace and the introduction of enhanced air traffic techniques and systems. Copies of the relevant report have been placed in the House Libraries. Both organisations also responded to the consultation that preceded the White Paper. In their response, NATS supported the need for new runways in the South East and expressed a preference for development at existing airports.

  Paragraphs 12.25-12.27 of "The Future of Air Transport" set out the Government's expectation that the CAA will make early progress in bringing forward a programme of work, involving other key bodies including NATS, for the redesign of airspace to accommodate forecast growth in air traffic.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much government grant per capita was allocated for concessionary fares on public transport in 2003–04 in(a) West Yorkshire, (b) South Yorkshire and (c) North Yorkshire. [149386]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government provision for existing concessionary travel schemes is included in the general grant for local authorities. This is distributed using formula spending shares and it is not possible to provide an allocation for each authority. It is for local authorities to decide their spending priorities in the light of their responsibilities and the wishes of their electorate.1118W
  Spend on a per capita basis in 2002–03 by each of the three authorities on concessionary fare reimbursement was approximately as follows:
  West Yorkshire—£11.45 per head
  South Yorkshire—£9.85 per head
  North Yorkshire (on an aggregate of its seven district councils) —£2.33 per head.
  In North Yorkshire the concessionary fare schemes were funded by district councils, not the county.

  West Yorkshire PTE's concessionary fares scheme provides for a flat fare on buses and rail services for older and disabled people. Schoolchildren and students can also travel at a reduced fare. South Yorkshire PTE's scheme provides for flat fares on local bus, tram and train services for older and disabled people, schoolchildren and students. In North Yorkshire the seven district councils all provide a half fare scheme on bus services for older and disabled people only, with some providing concessionary travel on other modes.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the introduction of compulsory hazard perception tests for existing approved driving instructors; and if he will make a statement. [145334]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received representations from a wide variety of sources since our decision to add moving-image Hazard Perception Testing (HPT) to the supervision of existing Approved Driving Instructors (ADIs) was announced in December.

  HPT has been part of the qualification process for learner drivers, car, lorry and bus drivers, motorcyclists and prospective ADIs since November 2002. Our announcement followed consultation exercises in December 2001 on HPT for learner drivers and riders and prospective ADIs, and in April 2003 for existing ADIs. On both occasions, instructor interests mainly favoured introduction for drivers and prospective ADIs, but not for existing ADIs. Other interests, such as road safety bodies and the police, mainly favoured the proposals, including for existing ADIs.

  The ADI registration scheme already requires instructors to have their competence periodically re-assessed. We now plan to use modern technology to assess standards objectively against the same benchmark—regardless of when ADIs were registered. This should ensure that ADIs are familiar with the nature of the tests faced by trainees.

  Insurance Discs
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the merits of introduction of insurance discs. [148221]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have commissioned an independent review, by Professor David Greenaway, of the UK motor insurance system with a particular focus on uninsured driving. The review will include an assessment of the merits of the introduction of insurance discs. Professor David Greenaway is expected to report in April and we will study carefully his recommendations.

  M6
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money will be spent on the M6(a) maintenance and (b) upgrading in (i) Lancashire, (ii) Cheshire and (iii) Staffordshire in each of the next five years; and how many miles of the M6 motorway will be affected in each of the counties. [148222]

  Dr. Howells
  Maintenance programmes are established on an annual basis, based upon an assessment of network condition and availability of funds.

  Subject to the availability of funds, the Highways Agency plans to invest in a Motorway Incident Detection Automatic Signalling System (MIDAS), which includes upgrading the current Variable Message Signs, on the Lancashire section of the M6.

  Traffic Management Bill
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many uniformed patrols will be set up by the Highways Agency under the Traffic Management Bill; what their annual cost will be; and how many new posts will be created. [145825]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 7 January 2004]The number of uniformed patrols (a liveried vehicle and uniformed Traffic Officers) will depend on day-to-day operational requirements and is currently envisaged to be about 100 when fully phased in on motorways. The annual cost is about £40 million. It is currently envisaged that the number of new posts created will be about 1,200 Traffic Officers.

  The Highways Agency and Association of Chief Police Officers "Roles and Responsibilities Report" identified plans that could free up the equivalent of about 540 full-time equivalent police officers. Based on figures from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary of 6,540 designated roads police in 2001–02, the report estimated that a transfer of non-core police activities to the Highways Agency enabled approximately 8½ per cent. of police time to work on other key tasks. Resources will be freed up over a period of about three years as Highways Agency Traffic Officers are phased in across all motorways and some key trunk roads.

  Transport Investment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment there was in transport in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last five years. [148220]

  Dr. Howells
  Lancashire has received:

  Year

  £ million>

  2000–01

  10.896

  2001–02

  27.83

  2002–03

  29.704

  2003–04

  25.388

  2004–05

  29.202

  The figure requested for Chorley cannot be disaggregated from the Lancashire totals identified above. However Chorley has benefited considerably
  1120W
  from these monies; an example of which is the £2.873 million Chorley Bus Interchange completed in March 2003, which has brought attractive and safe conditions to bus travel in Chorley.

  Urban Bus Challenge
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities in the West Midlands made bids in the Urban Bus Challenge competition. [149430]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following local authorities in the West Midlands made bids in the 2003 Urban Bus Challenge competition.

  Authority

  Number of bids

  Staffordshire County Council

  1

  Stoke-on-Trent Council

  2

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  1

  Warwickshire County Council

  2

  West Midlands PTA

  7

  Worcestershire County Council

  1

DEFENCE

  Army Regiment Strengths
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength against requirement is of each regiment of the British Army. [147960]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not held centrally in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, details on the current trained Regular Army manning state by Arms and Service as at 1 December 2003 are shown in the table.

  Arms/Service

  Requirement

  Strength

  Household Cavalry/Royal Armoured Corps

  5,975

  5,885

  Royal Artillery

  8,330

  7,815

  Royal Engineers

  9,160

  8,790

  Royal Signals

  8,635

  8,580

  Infantry

  26,185

  25,830

  Army Air Corps

  2,105

  1,820

  Royal Army Chaplains Department

  165

  145

  Royal Logistics Corps

  16,205

  15,200

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  2,920

  2,645

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  10,370

  9,635

  Adjutant General Corps (Provost)

  2,075

  2,055

  AGC (Stall Personnel Support)

  4,645

  4,615

  AGC (Education and Training Corps)

  315

  320

  AGC (Army Legal Service)

  95

  90

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  190

  175

  Small Arms School Corps

  145

  150

  Royal Army Dental Corps

  420

  405

  Intelligence Corps

  1,410

  1,335

  Army Physical Training Corps

  455

  425

  General List

  —

  —

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  1,035

  800

  Corps of Army Musicians

  1,155

  1,025

  — = zero or rounded to zero.

  Notes:

  1. The trained requirement for individual Arms and Service Directors is derived from the Regular Army strength requirement (excluding Gurkhas and FTRS), which is published in DASA's Tri-Service Monthly Publication (TSP) 3.

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest 5.

  Base Closures
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Royal Navy bases he proposes to close. [148459]

  Mr. Caplin
  The MOD keeps the size and location of its bases under constant review. In the estate strategy, "In Trust and On Trust" the Department set out its intention to define its mainland Great Britain sites as core' or 'non-core'. Initial classification work was conducted last year. Building on this the Department is now undertaking further work to identify where estate rationalisation may be possible. This work is consistent with the Department's contribution to the Government's Independent Review of Public Sector Rationalisation—the Lyons review. Any specific proposals arising from these studies will be subjected to full consultation in due course.

  Call-out Notices
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compulsory call-out notices have been issued in each of the last three years; and how many individuals were mobilised in each of those years. [R] [147136]

  Mr. Caplin
  In 2003, over 13,500 call-out notices were issued. However, it should be noted that some individuals received more than one call-out notice to report for a particular operation. The number of call-out notices issued in 2001 and 2002 is not centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of reservists who were mobilised in the last three years is as follows:

  Number

  2001

  920

  2002

  1,720

  2003

  9,550

  These figures include Volunteer Reserves, Regular Reserves and Sponsored Reserves.

  Communications
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what shortcomings were identified in the Oscar strategic communications system procured for use during Operation TELIC; and how much was spent on the system. [147276]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Operations and Strategic Communications Architecture (OSCA) system was procured at short notice to enhance our strategic communications capability. The lack of scope to engineer the solution full and the requirement to integrate OSCA into the existing UK military communications infrastructure caused some difficulties. These difficulties did not significantly affect the operational outcome.

  Some £13 million was spent on acquiring the hardware and costs of some £20 million have been incurred in running the system up to December 2003.

  Death-in-service Benefit
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the proposed increase in death-in-service benefit from one and a half to four times salary will be payable to Service personnel who opt to remain within the existing Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [148063]

  Mr. Caplin
  No, but those who wish to have that benefit will be able to transfer to the new scheme, which is entirely a matter of choice for each individual member of the armed forces.

  Dog Patrols
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dog patrols were made on(a) Army bases and (b) RAF stations in the United Kingdom on (i) 1 January 1997 and (ii) 1 January 2003. [148397]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information is not recorded as there is no requirement to do so. Security at MOD establishments is kept under constant review and dog patrol duties, which form an important element of security procedures at MOD establishments, are no exception.

  Gulf Campaign Medal
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British servicemen and women were awarded the Gulf Campaign Medal for Operation Desert Storm in 1990–91, broken down by armed service. [148320]

  Mr. Caplin
  Operation Desert Storm was the name given to the American operations during the Gulf War of 1990–91. The term used to describe the British operations was Operation Granby. The Gulf Medal 1990–91 was either awarded on its own, or together with one of two clasps which were attached to the medal ribbon and acknowledged specific periods of operational service. The details were published in Command Paper 1627 which the then Prime Minister presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty The Queen, in August 1991. A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  As far as can ascertained from records held by the Ministry of Defence's four single service medal offices, a total of 59,687 medals with and without clasps were issued to Service personnel, including those people recalled to the Armed Forces from the Reserves for service during the conflict. The distribution of these medals can be broken down as follows:

  Service

  Medal only

  Medal with clasp 2 August 1990

  Medal with clasp 16 January— 28 February 1991

  Total

  Royal Navy

  2.409

  Nil

  3,942

  6,351

  Royal Marines

  130

  Nil

  407

  537

  Army

  4.093

  46

  34.692

  38,831

  Royal Air Force

  5,673

  20

  8,275

  13,968

  Total

  12,305

  66

  47,316

  59,687

  In addition, medals with and without clasps, were awarded to members of various civilian organisations and to foreign nationals who served with British Forces in the Middle East.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf War veterans of 1990 were still serving in the armed forces in 2003. [148269]

  Mr. Caplin
  Approximately 16,600 of the 53,464 United Kingdom armed forces personnel who served in the Gulf conflict of 1990–91 were still in Service on 1 January 2003.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the extra-territorial applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights in territories under the military occupation of United Kingdom forces. [141685]

  Mr. Ingrain
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost is since September 2002 of the deployment of United Kingdom forces in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [148298]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outturn information for 2002–03 on the cost of operations in Iraq which have been subject to National Audit Office (NAO) audit, have been published as part of the Department's Annual Report and Accounts. Operating Costs for 2002–03 for operations in Iraq total £629.531 million. Expenditure on capital equipment amounts to £217.680 million. The grand total is, therefore, £847.211 million.

  For 2003–04, funding voted at Winter Supplementary Estimates amounted to £1.2 billion and covered the cost of peacekeeping and associated Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs). The Ministry of Defence will seek a further £300 million at Spring Supplementary Estimates to cover primarily the cost of the Recuperation of the Department's operational capability. Thus, the total sought in 2003–04 will be £1.5 billion.

  It is too early to say what costs might be incurred after 2003–04.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 127W, on Iraq, what the latest total is of deaths in British custody; what the status of investigations into them is; and if he will make a statement. [148435]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer on 19 January 2004]:There have been a total of 6 deaths of Iraqis in UK custody in Iraq. All are, or have been, the subject of investigations by the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch. The investigation into the death of Radhi Nama concluded that he died of natural causes. The other five investigations are continuing and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment further until they are complete.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 30W, on Iraq, how many of the armoured Land Rovers operating in Iraq have been used in field operations. [148550]
  1124W
  Mr. Ingram
  All of them.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 5 January 2003,Official Report, column 30W, on Iraq, how many of the Gazelle and Puma helicopters operating in Iraq have been used in field operations. [148585]

  Mr. Ingram
  All of them.

  Manning Control
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to compensate soldiers who were subject to manning control where it is proved that the wrong procedures were applied to their discharge; [147890]

  (2) what plans he has (a) to compensate and (b) to re-instate soldiers who were subject to manning control and then engaged on S-Type contracts where it is proved that the wrong procedures were applied to their discharge. [147891]

  Mr. Caplin
  There is no evidence to suggest that incorrect procedures have been applied to soldiers who have been discharged as a result of manning control, and the issue of compensation has therefore not arisen. Should any such cases come to light, the onus would be on the individual to make a claim against the Ministry of Defence. Anyone believing they have been wrongly discharged from the Army is entitled to redress of complaint which, if successful, could lead to reinstatement.

  Overseas Deployments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which United Kingdom troops are stationed, giving numbers in each case. [147400]

  Mr. Ingram
  Approximate numbers of British troops stationed permanently overseas are:

  Number

  Germany

  22,900

  Cyprus

  2,800

  Falkland Islands

  1,200

  Brunei

  1,100

  Gibraltar

  780

  Canada

  210

  Diego Garcia

  40

  Belize

  30

  Kenya

  10

  In addition, some 650 Service personnel are posted overseas on representational duties in British Embassies and High Commissions, or on Loan or Secondment in support of the Government's Defence Diplomacy objectives.

  Reservists
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 in ensuring that(a) reservists' jobs are safeguarded, (b) adequate compensation is payable when they are not, (c) the procedure to be

  1125W
  followed is as simple as possible and (d) employers do not misuse economic restructuring to minimise compensation. [146183]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 454W.

  However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 11 December 2003 that the Ministry of Defence will be examining the effectiveness of the 1985 Act as part of the White Paper process.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists serve as(a) full-time reservists with full commitment contracts, (b) full-time reservists with limited commitment contracts, (c) full-time reservists with home commitment contracts and (d) volunteer reservists. [148668]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 3:UK Armed Forces Strengths and Requirements, and UK Defence Statistics (UKDS) 2003. TSP 3 shows strength figures of full-time reservists broken down by commitment type. Table 2.13 of UKDS shows the strength of the Volunteer reserves as at 1 April each year.

  These are both available in the House of Commons Library; TSP 3 and UKDS are updated on a monthly and yearly basis, respectively. TSP 3 for 1 November 2003 was published on 10 December 2003. The 1 December 2003 issue is due for publication shortly.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department gives to a reservist prevented from returning to his previous employment; and if he will make a statement. [146180]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 454W. The Ministry of Defence's Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers (SaBRE) campaign team provides a helpline and a website which gives additional information and advice.

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to implement recommendation 8.6 of the Quinquennial Review of Service Children Education published in May 2003. [147139]

  Mr. Caplin
  Although the Quinquennial Review Report into the Service Children's Education Agency was dated May 2003, the review process was not completed until 2 December 2003, at which point the outcome was reported to the House. No steps have therefore yet been taken to implement recommendation 8.6, but work on this is now in progress.

  Union Flag
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on the display of the Union Flag on Army recruitment and careers literature in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [149092]

  Mr. Caplin
  All Army recruitment literature is produced for use throughout the United Kingdom, and as such, bears images of the Union Flag. However, local press advertising in Northern Ireland uses the Army crossed sword/crown logo instead of the Union Flag but television advertising retains the use of the Flag.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Army's policy is on the display of the Union Flag(a) at its bases in Northern Ireland, (b) at Palace Barracks in Holywood, County Down and (c) within the recruitment office at Palace Barracks. [149093]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army's policy on the flying of the Union Flag within Northern Ireland is that it should be flown at flag stations designated in Queen's Regulations or those authorised by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland. One of the flag stations designated in Queen's Regulations is Palace Barracks, Holywood. The Armed Forces Careers Office within Palace Barracks, as a recruitment office for all three Services, flies the three Service Flags outside their office.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of relocation of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146860]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146876]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement; [146902]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible relocation of staff in his Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146932]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Sir Michael Lyon's Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation was established by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister to examine the scope for relocating public sector activity, to improve the delivery and efficiency of public services and to benefit regional economies.

  Sir Michael's review will be informed by research from King Sturge on suitable alternative locations, and Experian Business Strategies on lessons from previous relocations, and the economic impact of relocation. Summaries of this research will be available shortly on the Treasury website.

  Sir Michael's final report will be published in March 2004 and we will develop relocation proposals in light of his findings.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many speeches during 2003 he declared support for the Government's policy on the euro. [147299]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 12 January 2004,Official Report, columns 516-17W.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the value of fee repayments by graduates arising from his proposals for variable top-up fees, in each year from 2008 to 2020. [149387]
  1128W
  Alan Johnson
  The value of fee repayments will depend on the number of students that decide to defer payment of their fees and take out a fee loan; on the levels of fees that institutions decide to charge; and on the earnings of the graduate population overtime. It is not possible to predict these numbers with certainty and therefore it would not be meaningful to estimate the value of fee repayments year-by-year, given the uncertainties above.

  Estimates of the cost of fee loans using a variety of different scenarios are contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the HE Bill. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Leak Inquiries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list occasions on which his Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if he will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public(a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [146940]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]:Since 1997 my department has investigated 23 suspected leaks.

  In line with exemptions 1(a) and 7(b) set out in Part II of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", it has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  Modern Language Teachers
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what progress is being made on the production of specialised resources for the teaching of modern languages in primary schools; [148377]

  (2) what percentage of teaching time he aims to allocate to foreign languages in primary schools by 2010; [148378]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the progress since November 2002 of Government plans to upgrade foreign languages in primary schools. [148379]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There has been considerable progress on the development of language learning in primary schools since November 2002, underpinned by the launch in December 2002 of the Department's National Languages Strategy for England. Implementation of the Strategy is being driven by Dr. Lid King, the National Director for Languages.
  1129W
  The Strategy recognises the importance of developing a workforce and resources to support successful implementation of primary language learning, and much of our work to date has focused on these areas. In developing a school workforce, we are building up a cadre of specialist teachers and non-teacher specialists to support primary language learning. 499 places have been filled this year for Primary Initial Teacher Training with a specialism in French, German or Spanish. 119 primary MFL Advanced Skills Teachers are now in place, and we have allocated 50 primary MFL places to the Graduate Teacher Programme. We are working with the TTA to pilot a CPD course for existing primary teachers to develop language skills and MFL pedagogy. The TTA has also begun the process of approving training providers for Higher Level Teaching Assistants, and we are working with the British Council to extend the foreign language assistants programme into primary schools.

  On resources, we are working with a range of partners to develop a framework for language learning at Key Stage 2, to be published in autumn 2005. It is intended as a shared national reference point for all those involved in teaching modern foreign languages in primary schools. It will offer guidance on key considerations such as pedagogy, cross-curricular links, curriculum delivery models and transition at age 11. The framework will supplement existing non-statutory guidance for modern foreign languages at Key Stage 2, which contains a programme of study and attainment targets for listening, speaking, reading and writing.

  In addition, we are developing schemes of work with QCA in Spanish and German to mirror those that already exist in French. The Spanish scheme of work will also be developed into a digital online resource. The Department has also funded the establishment of NACELL—the National Advisory Centre on Early Language Learning—which provides access to appropriate information, including resources and has an extensively used website for language teachers.

  In addition to workforce and resource development, in September 2003 the Department launched MFL pathfinders in 19 LEAs to explore how language learning can best be introduced at Key Stage 2. The findings from those pathfinders will provide practical guidance and help to inform teachers, schools and LEAs of good practice. We are also developing the National Recognition Scheme, as outlined in the Strategy, and are currently trialling the scheme in a range of settings, including primary schools.

  On time allocation, the Department does not specify how much time should be allocated to deliver modern foreign languages in primary schools, or indeed to any other subject. It is for head teachers to decide how they introduce language learning at Key Stage 2 and the amount and frequency of language teaching time. The Department will, however, be issuing guidance and good practice to help inform such decisions.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his statement of 8 January 2004,Official Report, column 418, on higher
  1130W
  education (student support), whether the student loan repayment to be written off after 25 years applies to all money owed to the Student Loans Company. [148267]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]:Under the student support proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 8 January, the Government intend to write-off outstanding student loan balances 25 years after graduates enter liability to repay their loans, which is from the April after graduation. This policy will apply to those entering HE from 2006 and graduating in 2009 and cover both maintenance and fee loans.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the age limit is on eligibility for student loans; and how he proposes to change that in the event of a repayment period capped at 25 years. [149636]

  Alan Johnson
  The age limit is 50 for eligible students meeting the residence requirements. Those aged 50 to 54 at the start of their course can also apply for a student loan provided that they plan to return to work after finishing their course. We have no plans to change the age limits.

  We already cancel loans when a borrower reaches the age of 65. We also intend to put a 25 year cap on the loan repayment period, so that outstanding loan amounts are written off after 25 years (or age 65, whichever is the earlier).

  Student Places
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many additional student places will be made available in higher education in(a) 2006 and (b) each year to 2020 under (i) the present arrangements and (ii) his proposals on top-up fees. [148710]

  Alan Johnson
  The planned number of student places is set during spending reviews in the light of the Government's target of increasing participation in higher education towards 50 per cent. of those aged 18 to 30 by the end of the decade. Planned student numbers for 2005–06 to 2007–08 will be set as part of the current spending review, which will conclude next summer. However, the additional funds that we estimate will be raised by higher education institutions from charging variable fees are equivalent to the resources that would be required for around 135,000 students.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of staff employed within the Office are over 55 years of age; and what(a) number and (b) percentage of staff recruited over the last 12 months are over 55 years of age. [145769]

  Mr. Alexander
  The following Table shows the number and percentage of staff in departments and agencies aged 55 and over at 1 April 2003. The figures are based on the headcount of permanent civil servants.
  1131W

  Department

  Age 55 +

  Others

  Total

  Per cent. 55 +

  Cabinet Office

  190

  1,780

  1,970

  9.6

  COI

  30

  330

  360

  8.1

  Sec. & Intelligence Services

  490

  4,200

  4,690

  10.4

  DCMS

  50

  640

  690

  7.5

  MOD

  18,550

  74,900

  93,450

  19.8

  ODPM

  350

  2,600

  2,940

  11.9

  DfES

  470

  4,760

  5,220

  8.9

  OFSTED

  340

  2,310

  2,650

  12.9

  DEFRA

  1,410

  9,680

  11,080

  12.7

  DoHealth

  320

  3,260

  3,580

  9.0

  Home Office

  1,900

  20,520

  22,420

  8.5

  Charity Commission

  50

  520

  580

  9.0

  HM Prison Service

  6,100

  38,060

  44,160

  13.8

  DfID

  110

  1,030

  1,140

  9.7

  Crown Prosecution Service

  550

  6,890

  7,440

  7.4

  Legal Secretariat

  10

  30

  30

  16.7

  Treasury Solicitors

  40

  500

  540

  7.8

  CPSI

  10

  40

  40

  11.9

  DCA

  2,210

  10,310

  12,530

  17.7

  HM Land Registry

  1,100

  7,840

  8,940

  12.3

  Public Record Office

  70

  450

  520

  13.9

  Trade and Industry

  1,280

  8,970

  10,240

  12.5

  ACAS

  150

  750

  900

  16.8

  ECGD

  50

  340

  390

  12.7

  Office of Fair Trading

  80

  330

  410

  20.1

  OFGEM

  10

  260

  270

  2.9

  DTLR

  2,900

  12,890

  15,790

  18.4

  Health & Safety Executive

  580

  3,680

  4,260

  13.6

  OFWAT

  10

  230

  240

  5.4

  OS

  140

  1,640

  1,780

  7.6

  DfT

  250

  1,700

  1,940

  12.7

  HM Treasury

  60

  980

  1,040

  5.4

  Customs & Excise

  2,490

  20,470

  22,950

  10.8

  GAD

  10

  90

  100

  10.3

  Inland Revenue

  8,580

  74,260

  82,840

  10.4

  DNS

  10

  100

  110

  10.5

  ONS

  340

  3,130

  3,470

  9.8

  Royal Mint

  90

  720

  810

  10.6

  DWP

  11,860

  12,2410

  134,270

  8.8

  Northern Ireland Office

  320

  160

  190

  17.7

  Privy Council Office

  1—

  30

  30

  8.8

  Scottish Executive

  1,190

  10,920

  12,110

  9.8

  Crown Office & PFS

  80

  1,380

  1,450

  5.4

  General Register Office (Scotland)

  40

  180

  220

  17.7

  National Archive for Scotland

  20

  130

  150

  12.6

  Office SOS for Scotland

  10

  90

  100

  11.7

  Registers of Scotland

  90

  1,280

  1,370

  6.8

  National Assembly of Wales

  430

  3,290

  3,720

  11.6

  OHMCI

  10

  80

  90

  14.6

  Wales Office

  10

  40

  50

  18.8

  1Numbers and percentages less than 5.

  The following Table shows the number and percentage of recruits to departments and agencies over the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 who are aged

  Department

  Age 55 +

  Others

  Total

  Percentage of recruits aged 55 +

  Cabinet Office

  10

  190

  200

  7.0

  Parliamentary Counsel Office

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  COI

  1—

  80

  80

  1—

  Sec & Intelligence Services

  10

  220

  230

  6.1

  DCMS

  1—

  50

  60

  1—

  MOD

  1,330

  6,360

  7,690

  17.3

  ODPM

  50

  310

  350

  12.8

  DfES

  30

  320

  340

  7.8

  OFSTED

  60

  400

  450

  12.6

  DEFRA

  60

  620

  680

  9.1

  DoH

  60

  510

  570

  10.9

  Home Office

  310

  3,250

  3,560

  8.7

  Charity Commission

  1—

  70

  70

  1

  1132W
  55 years and over. Figures are based on the headcount of Permanent civil servants.
  1133W

  Department

  Age 55 +

  Others

  Total

  Percentage of recruits aged 55 +

  HM Prison Service

  480

  3,790

  4,270

  11.2

  DfID

  1—

  30

  30

  1—

  Crown Prosecution Service

  60

  720

  780

  7.4

  Legal Secretariat

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  1—

  90

  90

  1—

  Lord Chancellors Department.

  220

  1,390

  1,610

  13.9

  HM Land Registry

  60

  520

  580

  9.5

  Public Record Office

  10

  90

  100

  9.5

  Department. of Trade and Industry

  60

  640

  690

  8.4

  ACAS

  1—

  40

  40

  1—

  ECGD

  1—

  50

  60

  1—

  OFGEM

  1—

  50

  50

  1—

  DTLR

  160

  1,110

  1,270

  12.8

  Health & Safety Executive

  10

  280

  300

  4.1

  OFWAT

  0

  50

  50

  0.0

  OS

  10

  70

  80

  9.3

  HM Treasury

  1—

  80

  80

  1—

  Customs & Excise

  90

  1,150

  1,240

  7.3

  GAD

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  Inland Revenue

  1,320

  12,100

  13,420

  9.8

  DNS

  1—

  20

  30

  1—

  ONS

  20

  350

  370

  5.7

  Royal Mint

  1—

  20

  30

  1—

  DWP

  1,710

  12,340

  14,050

  12.2

  Northern Ireland Office

  1—

  20

  20

  1—

  Privy Council Office

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Scottish Executive

  90

  960

  1,040

  8.2

  Crown Office & PFS

  20

  220

  240

  8.6

  General Register Office (Scotland)

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  National Archive for Scotland

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  Office SOS for Scotland

  0

  10

  10

  0.0

  Registers of Scotland

  10

  120

  140

  10.1

  National Assembly Wales

  110

  350

  460

  24.0

  OHMCI

  1—

  10

  10

  Wales Office

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1Numbers and percentages less than 5.

  Source:

  Mandate The data from Mandate incorporate information on almost 98 per cent. of civil servants.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Rounding may lead to inconsistencies between the sum of individual cells and the totals are calculated from the unrounded numbers.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for lottery grant funding have been received in the last year from applicants in the Billericay constituency; what the total value was of these applications; how many were successful; what the total value of grants was; how many applications were received in the United Kingdom; what the total value was of these applications; how many applications were successful; and what the total value of grants was. [149381]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect information concerning the number and value of applications for lottery funding received by the distributing bodies.

  In the last full financial year (2002–03), 22 awards worth a total of £495,535 have been granted in the constituency of Billericay.

  In the same period across the UK, over £1.6 billion was awarded to 26,841 awards.
  1134W
  These numbers are derived from the Department's database of lottery awards, which is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Racehorses
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provisions are included in the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill for(a) veterinary care at racecourses, (b) support for the re-housing of retired racehorses, (c) support for the improvement of the breeds of horses and (d) support for veterinary science and education. [148777]

  Mr. Caborn
  Clause 16(6)b of the Bill provides that Levy Board assets may be transferred to a third party only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that they would be used for one of the following purposes: the improvement of breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education; the improvement of horse racing.

  Regional Television
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what role Ofcom has in maintaining levels of regional television broadcasting output in(a) the East Midlands and (b) other regions. [148670]
  1135W
  Estelle Morris
  Under the Communications Act 2003 all public service broadcasters will have to agree targets with Ofcom for regional programming and/or regional production.

  Every Channel 3 licensee will agree targets with Ofcom for regional production and investment in programme-making for Channel 3.

  Within these targets, regional Channel 3 services will also have requirements for programme production and investment in programme-making for Channel 3 regional programmes on a regional or national Channel 3 service, and local programmes on any local Channel 3 service. These regional programmes should be of high quality and a sufficient proportion must be shown at or around peak time.

  Ofcom will also agree targets with Channel 4 and Channel 5 for programme production and investment in the regions.

  Obligations similar to those for Channel 3 will be applied by Ofcom to the BBC by way of the BBC Agreement.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how levels of regional television output have changed since the adoption of the Charter for the nations and the regions in(a) the East Midlands and (b) other regions. [148675]

  Estelle Morris
  The Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions is an agreement between the ITV companies and the ITC setting out a broad range of measures designed to provide a common benchmark for regional activity. It was adopted in May 2002. The weekly average regional hours for the ITV regions, provided by Ofcom, are shown in the following table. Carlton Central is the licensee for the East Midlands area.

  Regional hours

  Hours, minutes

  Broadcast hours, weekly averages

  12001

  12002

  1,22003

  Anglia

  9:41

  9:08

  9:12

  Border

  5:58

  5:57

  6:45

  Carlton

  8:59

  7:43

  6:15

  Carlton Central

  8:29

  8:08

  9:01

  Channel

  5:33

  5:46

  5:44

  Grampian

  7:30

  7:43

  7:30

  Granada

  9:15

  9:09

  9:16

  HTV Wales

  10:53

  10:33

  10:11

  HTV West

  10:50

  9:45

  8:56

  LWT

  3:33

  3:20

  2:42

  Meridian

  10:44

  9:55

  9:13

  STV

  14:51

  13:21

  12:19

  Tyne Tees

  10:24

  9:35

  9:24

  UTV

  11:07

  10:44

  10:13

  Carlton Westcountry

  10:53

  10:08

  8:55

  Yorkshire

  9:21

  8:54

  9:17

  1Calendar years

  2January to September 2003, final figures for 2003 are not yet available.

  Note:

  These figures exclude repeats and all programmes transmitted after 12.30am to allow comparison.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy on the use of sunset clauses in legislation; and which Acts containing such clauses relevant to her Department were passed in each year since 1997. [149327]

  Mr. Caborn
  None of the Bills the Department has introduced since 1997 have contained sunset clauses. Decisions on the future use of such clauses will be made on a case by case basis and will be communicated to the House in the usual way.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma (Displaced People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent estimate he has made of the number of displaced Burmese people; and how many of them are in refugee camps. [148120]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID uses estimates of displaced Burmese people made by UN agencies. According to the latest figures obtained from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, there are 19,500 Burmese in refugee camps in Bangladesh and 116,711 in refugee camps in Thailand. There are no accurate figures for the number of displaced Burmese people in other locations.

  Burundi
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people have been prosecuted for breaches of human rights in Burundi since January 1994. [148117]

  Hilary Benn
  As a result of political instability, widespread insecurity and fighting between rebel groups and the Government of Burundi army since 1993,there has been internal displacement of over 281,000 people with over 800,000 refugees living in neighbouring countries, mainly in Tanzania. The majority of the remaining population in the country continued to be victims of human rights violations caused by the rebels or undisciplined regular soldiers. Torture, cruelty and inhuman degradation and punishment were everyday burdens for the ordinary citizen who could not get effective recourse because of a poor justice system. About 8,300 Burundians are in prison but only 44 per cent. have been sentenced.

  It remains difficult to get a clear distinction between ordinary crimes and violations of human rights. We assume that most prisoners' offences fall into the category of human rights violations.
  515 prisoners are on death row because of different atrocities e.g. murder, assassination, homicide, cannibalism, attempt to destabilise national security etc.
  Six people (including a headmaster) were executed in July 1997 for their direct involvement in crimes on ethnic grounds.
  About 700 people were sentenced to life imprisonment.
  There are currently about 400 soldiers accused of violating fundamental rights.
  Two civil servants (members of the judicial police) were prosecuted for violating human rights.

  Chad/Cameroon
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions his Department has had with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees regarding Sudanese refugees in Chad. [149163]

  Hilary Benn
  Since the latest movement of refugees into Chad we have been in regular contact with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Geneva and their field teams in eastern Chad.

  Our Humanitarian Adviser will be visiting eastern Chad in two weeks' time to assess the refugee situation there; the visit will be hosted by the UNHCR.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how his Department will respond to the appeal for $11 million by the World Food Organisation for the Sudanese refugees in Chad. [149178]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to my response of 19 January 2004 to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett),Official Report, column 929W.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of Chad's ability to cope with the influx of refugees fleeing war in Sudan and the Central African Republic. [149217]

  Hilary Benn
  Chad is making efforts to address this situation, but it lacks the resources properly to meet the needs of the refugees: the UN and international NGOs are therefore assisting them in this task.

  We appreciate the efforts the Chad Government are making to help bring about a peaceful end to the fighting in Darfur.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the total financial contribution made by the United Kingdom is for the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project; [148119]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the quality of the auditing of the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project. [148118]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government are not providing any direct financing for the Chad/Cameroon Oil Pipeline Project, nor is it directly engaged in other way e.g. provision of technical assistance. Our interest is indirect through the World Bank and the European Investment Bank.

  DFID is confident that the World Bank's systems for monitoring and implementing this project are appropriate. In relation to the quality of auditing and fiscal accountability, Bank policy identifies two sets of appropriate auditing standards: the International standards on Auditing published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and the Auditing Standards published by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit institutions. Project arrangements provide for regular audits, on the Chad/Cameroon pipeline projects' accounts, plus independent opinions from the International Advisory Group (IAG) and the External Compliance and Monitoring Group (ECMG) who carry out regular independent supervisions of the technical and environmental aspects of the project and from the Inspection Panel who respond to requests from private individuals.
  1138W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) for what reason the external independent quality assurance and quality control audits relating to the Chad/Cameroon project have been circumvented; [148521]

  (2) if he will make a statement on environmental protection measures relating to the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project; [148714]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the standard of fiscal accountability and transparency measures since the commissioning of the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project; [148715]

  (4) for what reason quality assurance and quality control audits of the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project have not been conducted by the World Bank; [148522]

  (5) for what reason internal audits of the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project have not been conducted; [148523]

  (6) for what reason bills of quantities in relation to the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project have been approved in the absence of packages for quality assurance and quality control; [148716]

  (7) for what reason work on the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project continued without procedures for quality assurance and quality control; [148524]

  (8) for what reason the project design change orders on the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project were negotiated and approved without plans for quality assurance and quality control; [148525]

  (9) what assessment has been made by international aid agencies of the adequacy of compliance with quality assurance and quality control in relation to the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project; [148526]

  (10) for what reason the World Bank has employed contractors who are not fully I.S.O. 9000 series accredited; [148527]

  (11) whether project completion certificates for the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project have been approved; [148700]

  (12) if he will make a statement on levels of insurance cover relating to the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project; [148713]

  (13) for what reason bills of quantities for the Chad/Cameroon pipeline project have been approved without packages for front end engineering design. [148717]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not directly involved in funding or implementing this project. DFID therefore does not have first-hand information on detailed implementation issues concerning quality assurance and control audits, internal audits, quality assurance and quality control, project design change orders, accreditation of contractors, project completion certificates, levels of insurance, fiscal accountability and transparency measures, and bills of quantities.

  However, DFID is confident that the World Bank's systems for the monitoring and implementation of this project, and for the investigation of any warranted complaints are appropriate.
  1139W
  Since the project was approved in June 2000, exceptional resources have been allocated by the Bank and the International Finance Corporation, to monitor and support the project's implementation against Internationally agreed standards. This includes the establishment of the Independent Inspection Panel (HP) and the External Compliance Monitoring Group (ECMG).

  In relation to the quality of auditing and fiscal accountability, Bank policy identifies two sets of appropriate auditing standards: the International Standards on Auditing published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and the Auditing Standards published by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions. Project arrangements provide for regular audits of the Chad/Cameroon pipeline projects accounts, plus independent opinions from the International Advisory Group (IAG) and the External Compliance and Monitoring Group (ECMG), which carries out regular independent supervisions of the technical and environmental aspects of the project, and from the Inspection Panel which may investigate complaints from people who believe they have been negatively affected by a World Bank project.

  The Chad/Cameroon pipeline is subject to a number of monitoring and supervision controls to ensure quality control, application of environmental regulations, design and implementation adhere to International rules and regulations. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has strict requirements and specifications, and compliance with these by all parties is spelled out in legally binding agreements. Strong remedies are provided in legal agreements with all parties in case they fail to comply with this obligation. The EMP represents an extensive analysis of the potential environmental and social impacts of the project.

  The World Bank are being advised by the ECMG in monitoring the implementation of the Environmental Management Plan, and by an International Advisory Group on broader implementation issues, including those that need to be addressed to achieve the project's developmental objectives. Both the ECMG and IAG make regular site visits. These third party reviews supplement the Bank's own monitoring and supervision of the project which includes site visits, internal reporting and continual discussions with the project sponsors.

  The above measures are additional to on-going monitoring by the Consortium and by the Governments of Chad and Cameroon. The Consortium provide quarterly reports which are publicly available.

  DFID's interest is as a member of the Executive Board of the World Bank. We do and will continue to take our role on the Executive Board seriously, ensuring that issues identified by the Independent Inspection Panel and External Compliance Monitoring Group are raised, monitored and rectified.

  The investigation reports mentioned are available in the public domain and can be found on http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ccproi/index.htm.

  Darfur
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to visit Darfur. [148544]

  Hilary Benn
  I have no plans at present to visit Darfur, but my Humanitarian Adviser intends to do so during his visit to Sudan next week.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the safety of humanitarian aid workers in Darfur. [148545]

  Hilary Benn
  We have made no specific assessment; however we are aware of threats to humanitarian aid workers as a result of the insecurity there, which will have been exacerbated by the recent conflict.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what expansion of humanitarian access to(a) drought-affected people in West and North Darfur and (b) vulnerable people in South Darfur has taken place since June 2003; and what contribution has been made by his Department. [148546]

  Hilary Benn
  Humanitarian access to Darfur is constrained by the continuing conflict between government and rebel forces in the area. We have made representations to both sides that they should allow access from recognised international relief organisations for humanitarian purposes. I myself raised the issue with the Government of Sudan in my most recent visit there.

  After June 2003 access improved briefly but, with the breakdown of the ceasefire and resumption of hostilities, access is now limited to the three provincial capitals.

  We continue to make efforts to help both sides achieve a peaceful solution to their dispute.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the level of movement of people and goods in Darfur. [148547]

  Hilary Benn
  Conflict between government and rebel forces continues in Darfur. The Government controls the main towns, and has varying control in those areas outside. The rebels appear to be able to move freely in most areas, and can close roads between towns. Much movement between towns is by air. This is clearly impacting on the free movement of people and goods in the region.

  Of particular concern is the difficulty of gaining access for humanitarian work: United Nations reports indicate that they have access to less than 15 per cent. of the population. Recent reports suggest the situation will worsen. My humanitarian adviser will be travelling to Sudan next week and plans to visit Darfur to assess conditions there.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the United Nations about the planned joint assessment of the humanitarian
  1141W
  situation in Ituri, referred to in his written answer of 22 May 2003 to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). [148077]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN joint assessment mission that took place last May found a critical humanitarian situation, a lack of security due to simmering tension between rival Hendu and Lema militias, and the town of Bunia nearly deserted. Aid groups were only able to assist a small number of people within Bunia, providing medical services to some 9,000 at camps concentrated around the local airport and 6,000 sheltering near the local UN compound. They had virtually no access to populations elsewhere in Ituri. My reply to the hon. Member of 19 January 2004,Official Report, column 931W, describes the improvements since that assessment.

  We have regular discussions with the UN over the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including Ituri. In addition, a DFID humanitarian adviser visited the DRC in June, and following his assessment we agreed to fund a number of humanitarian activities in Ituri and North Kivu totalling over £1.8 million.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has made to the government of Ethiopia regarding acceptance of the Independent Boundary Commission's proposed boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [147823]

  Hilary Benn
  Her Majesty's Government keep in touch with the Governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea at all levels. Towards the end of last year the Prime Minister wrote to both the Prime Minister of Ethiopia and the President of Eritrea indicating that the Boundary Commission's decisions are final and binding and that the two parties should engage in dialogue.

  I met the Ethiopian ambassador last month, during which we discussed the Peace Process. I also discussed the matter with the Eritrean Foreign Minister during his visit to London at the beginning of December.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has had extensive discussions on the Boundary Commission's report including meetings with the President of Eritrea and the Prime Minister of Ethiopia during his recent visit to the two countries.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much development aid has been provided to Ethiopia in each of the last three years. [148278]

  Hilary Benn
  The total net Official Development Assistance (oda) to Ethiopia over the last three years for which figures are available was as follows. These and all other figures include both development and humanitarian assistance.

  US$ million

  2000

  693.00

  2001

  1,157.70

  2002

  1,306.70

  1142W
  DFID bilateral expenditure in Ethiopia over the same period was:

  £ million

  2000

  7.2

  2001

  18.9

  2002

  27.6

  EC total net oda was:
  2000: £45.6 million of which DFID's imputed multilateral share was £8.4 million.
  2001: £69.4 million of which DFID's imputed multilateral share was £11.5 million.
  2002: Figures not yet available.

  EU Development Assistance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about possible further reforms to EU development assistance. [148516]

  Hilary Benn
  The EC's reform of its external assistance programmes is coming to an end. The UK Government, together with other member states, have urged the Commission to undertake an in-depth final assessment of this programme to assess its impact but, more importantly, to identify any need for further reforms. We believe further reforms should focus on increasing the level of resources to low income countries and also introducing more consistent use of best development practice throughout all EC programmes. A stronger focus on quality and results and a more rational institutional set up for managing EC aid are also important.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reduction in the trafficking of women in(a) Laos, (b) Thailand, (c) China (Yunnan), (d) Cambodia and (e) Vietnam has been achieved by the International Labour Organisation. [148580]

  Hilary Benn
  Because the activity is criminal there are no accurate figures for the numbers of people who are trafficked and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) lacks hard data on progress with reductions. DFID is supporting ILO with a £6 million grant (over five years) to reduce vulnerability to trafficking through low incomes and ignorance of the realities. There is work in all five countries. The indications from China are that trafficking has been reduced or eliminated in communities (numbering around 80,000) participating in the programme. The programme includes work to improve the data.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian assistance has been provided to Iraq since April 2003 by(a) Australia,(b) Austria, (c) Bangladesh, (d) China, (e) Croatia, (f) the Czech Republic, (g) Denmark, (h) Finland, (i) France, (j) Germany, (k) Greece, (l) Iran, (m) Ireland, (n) Italy, (o)Japan,(p)Korea, (q) Kuwait, (r) Malaysia, (s) the Netherlands, (t) New

  1143W
  Zealand, (u) Norway, (v) Russia, (w) Saudi Arabia,(x)Spain, (y) Sweden, (z) Switzerland and (aa) the United States of America.[148579]

  US$ millions

  Country

  Contribution

  Details

  Australia

  64.9

  UN agencies, ICRC, and NGOs

  Austria

  1.1

  UNICEF

  Bangladesh

  2

  Food assistance

  China

  N/a

  Tents

  Croatia

  2.8

  Blankets, sleeping bags, flour, sugar, water purification disinfectants

  Czech Republic

  41

  UNCHR, WFP, and assistance for refugees, health, and education

  Denmark

  54

  Various

  Finland

  5.1

  ICRC, UN OHA, UNICEF, WFP

  France

  10.7

  UNICEF, WFP, NGOs

  Germany

  50

  UNCHR, WFP, ICRC

  Greece

  4.6

  UNHCR, ICRC, NGOs

  Iran

  11

  Refugee camps

  Ireland

  55.3

  UN agencies and NGOs

  Italy

  23

  FAO UNICEF, WFP, WHO and IFRC

  Japan

  212

  UN agencies, NGOs, bilateral assistance

  Korea

  10

  UN agencies and Korean NGOs

  Kuwait

  40

  UNHCR, WFP, UNICEF, ICRC, water and sanitation, health

  Malaysia

  2.5

  Humanitarian assistance

  The Netherlands

  22

  UN Consolidated appeal and ICRC

  New Zealand

  3.3

  UN agencies and NGOs

  Norway

  56

  UN agencies, ICRC, and NGOs

  Russia

  N/a

  500MT of grain

  Saudi Arabia

  13.3

  Medical assistance

  Spain

  56.7

  UN agencies, bilateral refugee assistance, and NGOs

  Sweden

  38

  OCHA, UNICEF, ICRC, IFRC

  Switzerland

  21.9

  ICRC, UNCHR, IOM, IFRC, OCHA

  United States of America

  623.6

  UN agencies, ICRC, IFRC, and NGOs

  The countries listed above made the following pledges of reconstruction assistance for 2004–07 at the Madrid Donor's Conference on Iraq last October:

  US$millions

  Country

  Pledge

  Australia

  46

  Austria

  5

  Bangladesh

  —

  China

  25

  Croatia

  —

  Czech Republic

  15

  Denmark

  27

  Finland

  6

  France

  —

  Germany

  —

  Greece

  4

  Iran

  5

  Ireland

  4

  Italy

  236

  Japan

  4,914

  Korea

  200

  Kuwait

  500

  Malaysia

  —

  The Netherlands

  9

  New Zealand

  3

  Norway

  13

  Russia

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  500

  Spain

  220

  Sweden

  33

  Switzerland

  —

  United States of America

  18,649

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State forn International Development what his most recent estimate
  1144W
  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows contributions announced for humanitarian aid to Iraq since April 2003:

  is of the total cost of post-war reconstruction in Iraq; and how much (a) the United States and (b) EU member states will contribute to meeting that cost.[148581]

  Hilary Benn
  Needs assessments prepared by the United Nations and the World Bank, by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and Iraqi administrators,have estimated the reconstruction costs for Iraq to be $55 billion for 2004–07. These plans were presented by Iraqi Ministers at the Madrid Donor's Conference on Iraq in October 2003, and at least $33 billion in grants and soft loans was pledged. This includes pledges from the US of $18.6 billion, and a further $1 billion from EU member states (and acceding countries)

  The balance of Iraq's investment requirements should be met from loans, foreign direct investment and Iraqi oil revenues.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how often meetings take place between representatives of his Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority to review progress of CPA projects funded by the Department.[149036]

  Hilary Benn
  The CPA projects funded by DFID are located in southern Iraq. Members of DFID staff seconded to CPA South are responsible for keeping these projects under review. They report to DFID Headquarters frequently.

  Swaziland
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of his Department's aid to Swaziland went directly into
  1145W
  development projects in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage was allocated to the national government.[149157]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2002–03 (the last year for which figures are available) DFID spent around £800,000 bilaterally on development assistance to Swaziland. None of this was channelled through the Swazi Government.

  Learning Disabilities (Iraq/Afghanistan)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the number of people suffering from learning disabilities in(a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan.[148085]

  Hilary Benn
  In Iraq, UNICEF are taking the lead, with USAID, on assessing the post-war state of the education sector. UNICEF are currently undertaking an education survey to be completed by the end of February. But due to continuing high levels of insecurity for staff of international organisations, and low-capacity in many parts of the Iraqi education system, it currently remains difficult even to mount a simple survey of the number of schools, classes, pupils and teachers-and only in a limited range of geographical areas. We therefore understand that issues such as the number of special needs students will not be included in the present survey. UNICEF do, however, have a strong concern for special needs and will be seeking to encourage the Ministry of Education to take action in this area at the earliest realistic opportunity

  In Afghanistan, surveys show that one in three children suffer from iodine deficiency which can lead to goitre, learning difficulties and, in extreme cases, severe mental impairment. UNICEF have begun a national iodized salt programme and are working through Mother and Child Health Clinics to treat and prevent iron-deficiency anaemia

  Malaria
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the rise in the reported cases of malaria in Africa.[149218]

  Hilary Benn
  While great progress has been made in reducing malarial mortality in the 1970s and 1980s, in many parts of Africa malarial mortality rates are now increasing. Malaria is Africa's leading cause of child mortality and constitutes 10 per cent. of the continent's overall disease burden. Approximately 3,000 people die from malaria each day in sub-Saharan Africa, most of them children

  A key cause of the rise in malaria deaths is an increase in resistance to antimalarial drugs, and the lack of affordable alternatives. In addition, the capacity of health systems to respond effectively to malaria is often inadequate

  None the less, malaria remains a disease that is preventable, treatable and curable. The Department for International Development (DFID) remains strongly committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goal to halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria by 2015, recognising the importance of malaria,
  1146W
  not just in terms of disease burden, but also the potential it has to undermine economic growth and human development.

  Since 1998 DFID has provided in excess of £110 million to support malaria control activities globally and at country level. At the global level this includes support to Roll Back Malaria; a $280 million commitment to the Global Fund to Fights AIDS, TB and Malaria (which will fund distribution of insecticide impregnated bednets and appropriate anti-malarial medication); support to the Medical Research Council; support to the Malaria Consortium Resource Centre; and initiatives to help find new low-cost malaria treatments

  DFID also supports malaria control activities at country-level through our bilateral country programmes, either through direct support to the health sector or through general budget support. DFID is committed to supporting national governments and their partners to help ensure that effective drugs and commodities are accessible to the poor. Since 1997 we have committed over £1.5 billion to strengthen health systems to deliver vital drugs and health care treatment.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the results have been of his Department's work with the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and UN Population Fund to strengthen global leadership on maternal mortality;[148513]

  (2) what the nature is of his Department's collaboration with the World Bank to strengthen global leadership on maternal mortality;[148514]

  (3) what performance targets he has set for his Department's involvement in the World Health Organisation Partnership for Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health.[148515]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development makes significant contributions to UNFPA, UNICEF, the World Bank and other international and national civil society groups to support their efforts to improve maternal health

  For the period July 2002 to June 2005, DFID has contributed £300 million per year (10.14 per cent. of total donor contributions) to the World Bank. In 2003, the percentage share of IDA's total lending on health and other social services was 19 per cent. ($1.4 billion). DFID country based offices work closely with the World Bank in financing and developing the health sector with country governments

  The Department provided £12.5 million in 2003 to WHO international programmes, including support for their "Making Pregnancy Safer" Programme. This programme is providing technical support to countries to disseminate and apply evidence-based policy and practice in maternal health, particularly on skilled attendance, management of complications, and strengthening health systems. This includes work with government on regulatory frameworks that better support women's health, on training programmes for skilled attendance and on translating national maternal health strategies into provincial and district plans and

  1147W
  budgets. The programme is also carrying out research to support its work, for example, on links between maternal and newborn health and poverty.

  DFID is represented on the steering committee of the Partnership for Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health together with the World Bank, the WHO, UNICEF,UNFPA, and other organisations. The Partnership aims to raise awareness of the extent and consequences of maternal deaths and ill health, disseminate lessons learnt, and encourage action to help vulnerable populations. DFID will be monitoring the impact that its contribution makes to global partnerships, including the Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health Partnership.

  DFID gave UNFPA £18 million in 2003. UNFPA plays an important role in providing the widest achievable range of safe and effective family planning and contraceptive methods, including condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. UNFPA is putting in place a medium term strategic plan, which seeks to enhance its organisational effectiveness. The UNFPA programme focuses on family planning, skilled attendance at birth and emergency obstetrics to prevent maternal mortality.Reproductive health and rights continue to be a key priority area for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 ICPD target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015. We have continued to lobby hard for reproductive rights in international fora, and we work closely with partners such as the United Nations Population Fund.

  DFID supports UNICEF's Medium Term Strategic Plan and in 2003 we provided £17 million in core resources. UNICEF implements programmes aimed at reducing maternal mortality. Achievements in this area during 2002 were:
  In 58 countries with high child and maternal mortality and morbidity rates, UNICEF implemented an integrated approach to early childhood development that linked national policies,the provision of basic services (preventive health, nutrition, safe water, sanitation and hygiene), and improved family care practices for young children and mothers.
  Improved families' access to insecticide-treated mosquito nets,anti-malarial and other essential drugs, and micro-nutrient supplements in 44 countries, primarily in Africa. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to malaria.
  Strengthened capacity for safe delivery, including training of obstetricians and birth attendants, provision of birth kits and equipment. A strategy for emergency obstetric care was successfully implemented in the six South Asian countries where most of the world's maternal deaths occur.
  Improved access for HIV-infected mothers and their partners to antiretroviral therapy (in conjunction with other UN agencies).

  Poverty(Definition)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what definition he uses of(a) poor and (b) middle income countries; and if he will list the countries so defined.[148499]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The poorest countries are those classified as low income, while poor countries also include those classified as middle income. DFID uses the same classification system as the Development 1148W
  Assistance Committee of the OECD. Under this system, countries are classified according to their GNI per capita levels in 1998:
  Low income countries are those with a 1998 GNI per capita less than $760.
  Lower middle income countries have a 1998 GNI per capita level of $761 or above but not exceeding $3,030.
  Upper middle income countries have a 1998 GNI per capita level of $3,031 or above but not exceeding $9,360.

  The following list shows the countries that fall into each of these categories and current statistics are based on these groups.

  These classifications will change for aid flows after 1 January 2003 when thresholds based on 2001 GNI per capita levels will be used.

  Low income

  Afghanistan

  Angola

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Bangladesh

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Burkina Faso

  Burma

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  China

  Comoros

  Congo

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)

  Cote d'lvoire

  Eritrea

  Ethiopia

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Haiti

  Honduras

  India

  Indonesia

  Kenya

  Korea (North)

  Kyrgyzstan

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  Mozambique

  1149W

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Rwanda

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  Sudan

  Tajikistan

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Turkmenistan

  Tuvalu

  Uganda

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Lower middle income

  Albania

  Algeria

  Belarus

  Belize

  Bolivia

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Bulgaria

  Cape Verde

  Colombia

  Costa Rica

  Cuba

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Dominican Republic

  East Timor

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Fiji

  Georgia

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kiribati

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Macedonia (FYR of)

  Maldives

  Marshall Islands

  1150W

  Micronesia, Fed. States

  Moldova

  Morocco

  Namibia

  Nieu

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Pitcairn

  Romania

  Russia

  Samoa (Western)

  Serbia and Montenegro

  Slovakia

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  St. Vincent

  Surinam

  Swaziland

  Syria

  Thailand

  Tokelau

  Tonga

  Tunisia

  Turkmenistan

  Ukraine

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Wallis and Futuna

  West Bank and Gaza Strip

  Upper middle income

  Anguilla

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Bahrain

  Barbados

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Chile

  Cook Islands

  Croatia

  Czech Republic

  Estonia

  Gabon

  Grenada

  Hungary

  Lebanon

  Malaysia

  Mayotte

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Montserrat

  Nauru

  Oman

  Palau Islands

  Panama

  Poland

  1151W

  Saudi Arabia

  Seychelles

  St. Helena and Dependencies

  St. Kitts-Nevis

  St. Lucia

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Uruguay

  Venezuela

  Poverty Reduction Strategies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the adoption and implementation of effective poverty reduction strategies by 2004 in all countries accessing International Development Association high impact or adjustment lending.[148520]

  Hilary Benn
  All countries accessing resources, including adjustment loans, from the concessional lending arm of the World Bank—the International Development Association (IDA)—are required to have completed, or be in the process of completing, full Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). Of the 53 countries that are already in the process, 32 are implementing full PRSPs. In 2003, 14 countries with interim strategies moved to full PRSPs. It is expected that, during 2004, a similar number of interim strategies will be finalised.

  DFID attaches importance to countries preparing their PRSPs in a way that builds and sustains country ownership through broad participation and consultation. Some countries take longer than others to finalise their PRSPs, particularly if they are affected by conflict.

  DFID continues to press for improvements in the PRSP process to correct weaknesses that have been identified, such as inadequate specification of priorities, insufficient attention to public expenditure management systems, and weak analysis of the poverty impact of policies. We welcome the progress which IDA is making in aligning its assistance in support of PRSPs, and are encouraging other multilateral and bilateral donors to do so, too.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of(a) the level and (b) the effectiveness of humanitarian aid in Southern Sudan.[148124]

  Hilary Benn
  For 2003 the UN reports that $237 million was provided for humanitarian assistance in Sudan, compared to a Humanitarian Appeal of $262 million: although the UN do not provide a breakdown, more than half of this is spent in south Sudan. In 2004 the UN is requesting $465 million. The larger amount this year takes into account the need to fund a wider range of activities in expectation of a peace agreement to end the civil war.
  1152W
  We consider humanitarian aid in south Sudan to be effective. We provide significant support to agencies who are active there.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many international secondments have been made by his Department to Sudan in each of the last three years; and if he will list their responsibilities.[148125]

  Hilary Benn
  There are two members of DFID staff seconded to Sudan:One is seconded to the post of UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan (May 2002 to April 2005)
  The other is seconded to the United Nations Development Programme as Post Conflict Recovery Programme specialist (April 2003 to September 2004)

  Tanzania
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent estimate he has made of the(a) level and (b) geographical distribution of food shortages in Tanzania.[148123]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Tanzania (GoT) carried out an initial crop assessment in May 2003 followed by a rapid vulnerability assessment in July. A further vulnerability assessment will not be appropriate until after the February 2004 harvest is complete. However, food insecurity remains widespread with pockets of scarcity in at least 17 regions of Tanzania. As requested by GoT, DFID is funding Save the Children and Oxfam to facilitate the production of a food security update over the coming month.

  UN GDP Target
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by when the Government are committed to achieving the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of national income to be spent on development assistance.[148456]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1997 the UK's level of official development assistance (oda) has increased in real terms by 93 per cent. UK oda will reach an oda/gni ratio of 0.40 per cent. in 2005–06, up from 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04, exceeding the EU target of 0.39 per cent. for member states. and more double the current G7 average of 0.19 per cent. The UK remains committed to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. Oda/GNI and to meeting the Millennium Development Goals. To this end the Chancellor has proposed an International Finance Facility that would raise an additional £50 billion per year for development assistance up to 2015. Any timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent. Oda/GNI will be a matter for future Parliaments.

  Zimbabwe
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact which the decision of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to commence foreign currency auctions will have on the ability of aid agencies to deliver humanitarian assistance in the country. [147775]
  1153W
  Hilary Benn
  As a result of the new auction system, the sale of foreign exchange at a realistic rate within Zimbabwe is now legal. This should make financial operations easier for aid agencies when exchanging their foreign exchange for Zimbabwe dollars and we do not expect it to have any negative impact on the ability of aid agencies to deliver humanitarian assistance.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much money his Department has contributed since the start of the 2003–04 financial year through(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) UN feeding programmes to assist the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; and how much he plans to spend in 2004–05; [148542]

  (2) if he will formally request the Government of Zimbabwe to release the results of its vulnerability assessment; [148583]

  (3) if he will formally request the Government of Zimbabwe to release a revised crop forecast and the assumptions on which it is based; [148584]

  (4) if he will list the areas in Zimbabwe which suffer from (a) raised levels of malnutrition, (b) unmet needs and (c) continuing dependence on food aid. [148642]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial

  1. So far this financial year DFID have spent £20.5 million in Zimbabwe, from a total budget of £35 million. Of the total budget, we have committed £5 million to WFP for general food distribution and we are considering a further contribution. £19 million will be channelled through NGOs for targeted food distributions and subsistence farming inputs. The remaining funds are for HIV/AIDS mitigation, prevention and basic vaccines. Due to the anticipated continuation of the humanitarian crisis, funding for the financial year 2004–05 is expected to be at a similar level.

  Vulnerability assessment

  2. The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) conducts the national vulnerability assessments that form the basis of the humanitarian response. This committee is composed of government, NGO and UN Agencies' representatives. The most recent assessment undertaken by the ZimVAC is the Urban Vulnerability Assessment, which the Government are expected to release by the end of this month.

  Crop forecast

  3. Initial government crop forecasts are usually made by the end of January. However, given the present capacity of the Government, these are unlikely to be accurate or reliable. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation are already working on their own forecasts which should also be available at the end of January. Preliminary estimates by one of the major donors suggest a harvest of around 500,000 MT of maize. This compares to a 2003 cereal harvest of about 900,000 MT and a cereal requirement of approximately 2 million MT.

  Malnutrition

  4.(a) The most recent national nutrition survey, conducted in February 2003, showed that levels of acute malnutrition were relatively low throughout Zimbabwe (approximately 5 per cent.) in comparison to other
  1154W
  food-based emergencies, suggesting the effective coverage of the humanitarian relief operation. However, levels of severe acute malnutrition are disproportionately high relative to levels of moderate malnutrition, suggesting a high incidence of paediatric HIV/AIDS. Provinces with the highest rates of acute malnutrition were Manicaland (6.6 per cent.) and Midlands (6.0 per cent.).

  Unmet needs

  (b) Unmet needs exist most evidently in areas that were not addressed by the original UN WFP operation in the expectation that the Zimbabwean Government would make food and agricultural inputs available. These areas include the former commercial farming areas and urban centres such as Harare and Bulawayo. The humanitarian community is working to address these needs.

  Food aid dependence

  (c) Dependence on food aid is a concern, particularly in areas of low employment and agricultural activity, such as Binga District where approximately 90 per cent. of the population are dependent on food aid. DFID is working in collaboration with development partners to reduce food aid dependence by providing agricultural inputs to enable subsistence farmers to grow food crops to feed themselves.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assistance his Department(a) has given and (b) plans to give to humanitarian aid workers affected by the banking crisis in Zimbabwe; [148637]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the banking crisis in Zimbabwe on the ability to (a) pay aid workers and (b) deliver aid; [148688]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the impact on food aid to Zimbabwe arising from the estimated $111 million shortfall in donations to the World Food Programme. [148689]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:Humanitarian aid workers affected by the banking crisis

  My Department is in frequent contact with the nongovernmental organisations delivering UK funded humanitarian aid in Zimbabwe. The banking crisis has not significantly affected their operating capacity so far but we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Impact of the banking crisis

  The main impact of the banking crisis has been that cheques from a few, generally newer, banks were not accepted by a number of retailers and the more established banks. Few, if any, of the aid agencies and their employees working with my Department have accounts with these banks. Following the intervention of the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank, these affected banks are now clearing their cheques again and individuals have been able to access their accounts.

  WFP funding shortfall

  On 16 January 2004 the World Food Programme's appeal of approximately US$195 million for the current emergency operation in Zimbabwe was 80 per cent. funded. The funding shortfall is therefore approximately US$39 million. DFID have already committed £5 million to WFP operations in Zimbabwe

  1155W
  this financial year and we are currently considering a further pledge. DFID will contribute approximately £30 million to humanitarian operations this year and has contributed a total of £62 million since the start of the crisis in September 2001.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Airport Security
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has made to the owners of Belfast International airport on maintaining adequate police security at the airport. [147197]

  Jane Kennedy
  My officials have had recent and ongoing communications with the Belfast International airport authorities and other interested parties to ensure that appropriate policing standards are maintained.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the implications for security of the reduction in the number of police officers patrolling Belfast International airport. [147198]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following a review of security at the Belfast International airport, new arrangements have been put in place for some static police posts. However, there is to be no reduction in the number of police officers patrolling at Belfast International airport, neither within the terminal building or the wider complex. Indeed, new policing arrangements will result in a net increase in this activity.

  Caesarean Sections
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to review practice on the performing of caesarean sections in hospitals in Northern Ireland. [148828]

  Angela Smith
  In 2001, Northern Ireland hospitals took part in the "National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit", in collaboration with the Department of Health in England and Wales and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). The audit was undertaken by the Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and was carried out in response to concerns over the variation in caesarean section rates across the United Kingdom.

  Language

  Speakers

  Source and comment

  English

  1,700,000 +

  All Irish and Ulster-Scots speakers are bilingual. See "In other words", Daniel Holder (2003) for information on knowledge of English among speakers of other languages

  Chinese

  4.200

  Various dialects are spoken. NI census (2001) recorded 4,200 people of Chinese ethnic origin. Holder (2003) estimates 8,000

  British Sign Language

  3,000

  British Deaf Association

  Irish Sign Language

  1,500

  British Deaf Association

  Cant/Shelta/Gammon

  1,700

  Oral languages of the Irish Traveller Community Holder (2003), Kirk and O Baoill (2002)

  Arabic

  1,000-1,500

  Holder (2003), Modern Standard Arabic, also including speakers of Western and Eastern Arabic

  Portuguese

  1,000 +

  Holder (2003)

  Tagalog

  600

  Holder (2003) (National Language of the Philippines)

  Bengali

  450-500

  Holder (2003)

  Hindi or Punjabi

  1,700

  Holder (2003)

  Southern Indian Languages

  500

  Holder (2003) includes Tamil, Kannada, Kanta, Malay ala, Marati, Oriya and Telugu

  Farsi

  350

  Holder (2003)

  1156W
  Following the audit, the Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit on behalf of NICE has been developing clinical guidelines for caesarean section. The Department, Boards and Trusts will carefully consider these guidelines when they are produced. In the meantime, the Department will continue to work with the professionals concerned to ensure that care delivered locally is of the highest quality.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of births in Northern Ireland were by caesarean section in the last 12 months for which figures were available; and what the figures were(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 15 years ago. [148835]

  Angela Smith
  The table sets out the percentage of births to Northern Ireland residents that were by caesarean section.

  Percentage

  Year of Birth

  Caesarean Sections

  19881

  N/A

  1993

  14.2

  1998

  20.3

  20032

  26.2

  1Data not available for 1988

  2Data for 2003 is provisional

  Source:

  Child Health System

  Lesser-used Languages
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the number of speakers of (a) each European lesser-used language and (b) other languages used in Northern Ireland. [149227]

  Angela Smith
  The following table provides details of speakers of lesser-used languages recognized under the Council of Europe?s Charter of Regional or Minority Languages:

  Language

  Speakers

  Source and comments

  Irish

  106,844

  Persons aged three and over (NI census, 2001). In total 167,490 persons have 'some knowledge? of Irish

  Ulster-Scots

  35,000

  Approximate, based on 2 per cent. Of population. (NI Life and Times Survey, 1999)

  We have no information on the number of users of other European lesser-used languages. I estimate their numbers to be minimal

  The approximate numbers of speakers of other languages used in Northern Ireland are as follows:
  1157W
  There are also smaller numbers of other language speakers such as Albanian; Turkish; African Languages such as Swahili; Afghani; Russian; Japanese; Hebrew; Korean; Vietnamese; Mallayo; Thai and speakers of other European Languages such as French and Spanish (both from those countries and from other countries where those languages are spoken). In total there are over 70 minority ethnic languages spoken in Northern Ireland (Holder, 2003).

  HIV
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of HIV sufferers in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [148773]

  Angela Smith
  The estimated number of HIV sufferers in Northern Ireland between 1998 and 2002 is shown in the following table.

  HIV infected individuals

  1998

  181

  1999

  195

  2000

  214

  2001

  233

  2002

  257

  Notes:

  The figures refer to persons diagnosed with HIV and show the cumulative number of HIV infected individuals each year, i.e. the number up to and including the relevant year. Some persons who are no longer living in Northern Ireland may be included.

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

  House Fires
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many house fires there were in Northern Ireland in 2003; and how many deaths arose from them. [148840]

  Angela Smith
  The total number of fires in dwellings during 2003 was 1606, from which there were 11 deaths.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the timescale is for the issuing of industrial tribunal decisions to the appellant. [149215]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is no statutory time scale for issuing industrial tribunal decisions to the parties. However the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal aim to issue 80 per cent. of decisions within six weeks of the end of the hearing.

  Hare Hunting
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to increase the three week consultation period before imposing the temporary ban in hunting and coursing of hares in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [142940]

  Angela Smith
  The proposed temporary ban on the killing or taking, or the sale or purchase, of Irish hares would be made through a special protection order, under the provisions of section 7C(1) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. Section 7F(5) of the Act 1158W
  requires that notice of the proposed ban be placed in the Belfast Gazette, specifying the time within which objections may be made. A four-week period for this purpose was considered to be reasonable.

  Accordingly, a notice was placed in the 31 October edition of the Belfast Gazette, specifying a four-week deadline, to 28 November, for objections to be lodged. The Department of the Environment also published the notice in the three Belfast daily newspapers on 3, 4 and 5 November and wrote directly to a number of interested parties

  Almost 3,000 objections to the proposed Order were received within the specified period. Such a volume of replies would suggest that the period for objection was sufficient for those who wished to express their opposition to the proposed ban. I expect to make a final decision on the proposed Order shortly.

  NHS Suspensions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many employees of the NHS in Northern Ireland are suspended from work; [148943]

  (2) what the cost to the NHS in Northern Ireland was in the last 12 months of the suspension from work of employees; [148944]

  (3) how many NHS employees in Northern Ireland were dismissed in each of the last five years. [148946]

  Angela Smith
  26 Health and Personal Social Services employees are currently suspended from work

  The cost to the Health and Personal Social Services of employees suspended from work in the financial year April 2002 to March 2003 was £214,185. This is the most recent period for which figures are available:

  The number of Health and Personal Social Services employees whose contract of employment have been terminated on disciplinary grounds in the last five years is set out in the following table:

  Permanent staff

  Temporary staff

  Total

  1998–99

  34

  1

  35

  1999–2000

  35

  3

  38

  2000–01

  48

  3

  51

  2001–02

  45

  7

  52

  2002–03

  30

  2

  32

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on measures to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland. [147837]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force was established to further enhance co-operation between the law enforcement agencies in combating organised crime and to co-ordinate and focus their efforts. This has resulted in greater success and effectiveness and I pay tribute to the activity of the law enforcement agencies, which have made a significant impact against the organised criminals over the past 12 months. These have included: unprecedented successes against illegal drug importation; a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of
  1159W
  attacks on cash-in-transit vehicles; and a second year of growth in the levels of legitimate deliveries of road fuel oils into Northern Ireland after five years of decline

  The Government are also fully committed to working with the Government in the Irish Republic to develop a cohesive strategy to tackle and manage the joint response to cross-border organised crime.

  Private Health Care
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the sum spent in Northern Ireland on private health care in each of the last five years. [148942]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available. However, a report published by my Department in April 2002, "Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-term view-Northern Ireland Position", calculated that in 2000, some 6 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population was covered by private medical insurance, compared to 12.5 per cent. in Great Britain.

  Racism (Chinese Community)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to deal with the problem of racism and racist incidents towards the Chinese community in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [148258]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Community Safety Strategy, being implemented through the Community Safety Unit of the Northern Ireland Office, identified Key Issue 6: Offences Motivated by Prejudice and Hatred, as a central theme in making Northern Ireland a safer place for all its citizens.

  Specifically, it seeks to reduce the levels of crime motivated by sectarianism, and promote and enhance the safety of minority ethnic residents

  Currently, it is facilitating a working group of relevant voluntary and statutory organisations, which aims to establish a clear framework for the recording and monitoring of racial incidents. It is hoped to bring forward such an agreed framework by the spring 2004

  Also, within its community safety grant programme, the challenge competition, it has provided funding towards four projects that have a central theme of countering prejudice and hatred, at a total value of £273,255

  In addition to these initiatives the Government will publish shortly for consultation, draft legislation for Northern Ireland, aimed at tackling racially motivated offences. The proposed draft Order introduces provisions that will require sentencers, where offences are aggravated by such hostility, to treat racial and religious aggravation as an aggravating factor when sentencing. (The legislation will also cover offences motivated by hatred of sexual orientation.) The provisions will also increase maximum sentences available for certain specified, mainly violent, offences including where racial, religious or sexual aggravation is proven. While I recognise the unacceptable nature of
  1160W
  recent attacks, these provisions will cover a broad range of racial and ethnic groups, not just the Chinese community

  The Government have frequently put on record their abhorrence of all forms of intolerance and are committed to eradicating such manifestations of hatred, whether based on racism or based on sectarianism. I reiterate the acknowledgement in the Belfast Agreement of the unique opportunity that exists here to bring about a society
  "which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and worth of identities, senses of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland".

  River Pollution
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to prevent the discharge of harmful materials into rivers. [148831]

  Angela Smith
  Under the Water (NI) Order 1999, it is an offence to discharge or deposit, whether knowingly or otherwise, any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter so that it enters a waterway, the penalty for which on summary conviction is imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both. The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), an Executive Agency of the Department of the Environment (DOE), is responsible for enforcing this legislation

  To prevent pollution incidents from occurring, and to minimise the effect of any pollution on the environment, pollution prevention advice is offered by EHS to educate the public and industry, in promoting good environmental practices. If a pollution incident is reported or discovered, EHS aims to locate and stop the source of the pollution, identify the polluter and if appropriate, collect sufficient evidence to secure a prosecution

  It is also an offence to discharge effluent to waterways or groundwater without the consent of the DOE. EHS is responsible for issuing "consents to discharge" that detail specific conditions relating to the quality and quantity of effluent discharged. The conditions are formulated to ensure that the discharge can be sustained by the receiving waterway without damage to the aquatic environment and without breaching national or EC Directive standards. Failure to comply with the conditions of a consent is also an offence under the Water Order, and where consent compliance is consistently poor, or there is a pollution incident, enforcement action will be considered

  Water Service is not bound by the statutory discharge consent requirements of the Water Order, however a separate but similar regulatory system has been established to control Water Service discharges. This system has been detailed in the recently published report "Regulation of Water Service Discharges 2001", a copy of which has been placed in the Assembly library. The report is also available on the EHS website at http://www.ehsni. gov.uk/pubs/publicat ions/Reg WSD.pdf

  School Fruit
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on plans to make fruit available to school pupils. [148772]

  Angela Smith
  A pilot Fresh Fruit in Schools Scheme was launched in Northern Ireland in October 2002. It currently provides a free piece of fruit daily to over 4,800 Primary 1 and 2 children in 87 primary schools within Health Action Zone areas. An initial evaluation of the scheme has recently been completed and consideration is currently being given to extending the scheme to include a larger number of children.

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of sufferers of(a) chlamydia, (b) gonorrhoea and (c) syphilis in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [148774]

  Angela Smith
  Information is not available on the estimated number of sufferers of(a) chlamydia, (b) gonorrhoea and (c) syphilis in Northern Ireland. Information is, however, available on the number of cases seen each year at Genito-Urinary Medicine clinics, and is shown for the years 1998 to 2002 in the following table.

  Cases seen

  chlamydia

  Gonorrhoea

  Syphilis

  1998

  660

  61

  0

  1999

  794

  110

  1

  2000

  963

  143

  0

  2001

  947

  148

  11

  2002

  1,170

  117

  20

  Notes:

  The figures refer to the number of cases seen at Genito-Urinary Medicine clinics each year. Some of these cases may also have been seen in previous years, therefore it is not possible to provide a cumulative total of persons with these diseases. Figures are shown in respect of uncomplicated genital chlamydia, uncomplicated gonorrhoea and primary and secondary syphilis.

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support and advice are being given to the interim government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in respect of(a) respect for human rights and (b) the nurture of democratic institutions. [148080]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are committed to promoting respect for human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) through continued dialogue with the DRC authorities, the UN Mission in Congo (MONUC—who have specialist human rights staff) and human rights Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
  1162W
  In collaboration with other donors we are considering ways to provide core financial support to the five Democracy Support Commissions that form part of the framework of transitional institutions in the DRC. These are the Independent Electoral Commission; the High Media Authority; the Anti-Corruption and Ethics Commission; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; and the Human Rights Observatory

  We have contributed €1 million to the European Community/World bank Trust Fund to provide startup logistical support to DRC transitional institutions and new Ministries created by the 2002 Global Accord. We are providing technical assistance to the Anti-Corruption Commission, for which we are the lead donor. We are also funding the NGO Panos Paris to build capacity in the media sector in close co-operation with the High Media Authority.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the upholding of human rights in the conflict zones of the Congo is undertaken by United Kingdom representatives; and if he will make a statement. [148300]

  Mr. Mullin
  We monitor closely the human rights situation throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This is achieved through our Embassies in the region and through discussions with the DRC's National Human Rights Observatory, Non-Governmental Organisations, the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) and other UN bodies.

  Robert Ellis
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations on behalf of Mr. Robert Ellis were made by the Minister of State when he visited Turkey this month. [149392]

  Mr. MacShane
  The case of Mr. Robert Ellis was discussed during my meeting with the Head of the Turkish European Secretariat General (equivalent to the European Secretariat) in Ankara on 13 January. As the right hon. Member is already aware from my letter to him of 7 January 2004, the Ambassador and his staff have made vigorous efforts on behalf of Mr. Ellis during the last six years.

  Departmental Relocation
  Joan Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of re-location of staff to North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146865]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146881]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Department to North Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement; [146894]
  1163W
  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in his Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146925]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 12 January 2003,Official Report, column 516W.

  Joan Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in his Department work in(a) the West Midlands and (b) North Staffordshire. [146910]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office do not employ staff in the West Midlands or North Staffordshire. UKTI (jointly responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and me) fund the delivery of services through a Regional UKTI Team and staff employed by the Business Link/Chamber network in the region.

  In the West Midlands the total number of staff working on the UKTI agenda is 41 of which 19 are civil servants (employed by the Government Office on UKTIs behalf). The Staffordshire UKTI Team consists of eight (two civil servants) and of these five are based in North Staffordshire (one civil servant).

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance applications were(a) made and (b) refused worldwide in each of the last six years. [147064]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following table shows the number of entry clearance applications received and refused worldwide during each year from 1998. Since 2001, statistics have been collated by financial year (1 April to 31 March) rather than calendar year.

  Year

  Received

  Refused

  1998

  1,462,599

  85,041

  1999

  1,514,764

  100,616

  2000

  1,674,110

  117,142

  FY 2001–2002

  1,750,459

  176,217

  FY 2002–2003

  1,941,910

  249,830

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance applications were(a) received and (b) refused in (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) China, (iv) Nigeria, (v) Ghana, (vi) Russia, (vii) Poland. (viii) Ukraine, (ix) Zimbabwe and (x) the Philippines in each of the last six years. [147065]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following table shows the numbers of entry clearance applications received in the countries specified during each year from 1998. Since 2001, statistics have been collated by financial year (1 April to 31 March) rather than by calendar year.

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  FY 2001–02

  FY 2002–03

  India

  159,689

  175,664

  186,725

  210,049

  236,431

  Pakistan

  77,150

  81,102

  96,796

  111,959

  74,043

  China

  39,492

  47,841

  69,090

  94,331

  116,620

  Nigeria

  55,616

  72,101

  83,725

  108,448

  144,245

  1164W

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  FY 2001–02

  FY 2002–03

  Ghana

  22,901

  28,308

  34.144

  46,425

  65.684

  Russia

  77.323

  56,736

  65,544

  68,956

  73,971

  Poland

  1,409

  1,568

  1,509

  1,710

  2,189

  Ukraine

  23,727

  22,693

  26,145

  23,712

  24,734

  Zimbabwe

  1,955

  1,900

  2,960

  3,272

  14,377

  Philippines

  17,868

  19,868

  25,868

  28,290

  30,484

  The following table shows the numbers of entry clearance applications refused in the countries specified during each year from 1998.

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  FY 2001–02

  FY 2002–03

  India

  14,261

  18,187

  20,622

  24,136

  39,642

  Pakistan

  10,493

  15,214

  15,989

  32,324

  10,173

  China

  2,602

  3,727

  6,363

  10,399

  14,210

  Nigeria

  10,073

  10,044

  12,139

  16,711

  33,221

  Ghana

  5,078

  5,355

  7,783

  21,016

  33,985

  Russia

  2,105

  1,248

  1,421

  2,552

  2,331

  Poland

  116

  115

  213

  109

  178

  Ukraine

  2,580

  2,843

  3,121

  3,794

  3,862

  Zimbabwe

  254

  222

  444

  555

  4,240

  Philippines

  1,584

  1,274

  1,161

  1,761

  4,074

  The significant increase in figures for received and refused applications in Zimbabwe during the financial year 2002–2003 is the result of the implementation of the Visa regime in Zimbabwe on 8 November 2002 coupled with the increased demand for visas because of the unstable political situation in Zimbabwe during this period.

  Ethiopia/Eritrea
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement the Government's representative had in promoting acceptance of the Boundary Commission Report on the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [148301]

  Mr. Mullin
  I, together with our Ambassadors in Addis Ababa and Asmara, take every opportunity to emphasise to both parties that the Boundary Commission's decision is final and binding; that both should avoid any return to war; and that dialogue is essential to address all the issues separating Ethiopia and Eritrea. I visited Eritrea and Ethiopia between 13 and 19 January during which time I had extensive discussions on the border with a range of interested parties including President Isaias of Eritrea and Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia.

  Ghana
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that Ghana adheres to international standards on human rights. [148157]

  Mr. Mullin
  Ghana generally performs well on human rights issues. We welcome the fact that Ghana has signed up to and ratified the six major UN treaties on human rights. Ghana also volunteered to be one of the
  1165W
  first countries to participate in the African Peer Review Mechanism (a voluntary process to monitor and raise governance standards in Africa).

  We regularly meet with the Government of Ghana to discuss a range of governance issues and raise concerns on human rights in this context. We regularly lobby the Ghanaians on the removal of the death penalty from their statute book.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government will seek to recoup any of the costs incurred in(a) investigations into the Lockerbie bombing and (b) holding the (i) trial and (ii) appeal by the accused; and if he will make a statement. [143009]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are arrangements in place for the US Government to contribute to the overall costs of the Lockerbie trial and appeal. There is no power in Scottish criminal procedure to make awards of expenses against the accused.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost to the UK taxpayer was of the(a) investigations into the Lockerbie bombing, (b) trial of those accused of the bombing and (c) appeal by the accused. [143010]

  Mr. Rammell
  Responsibility for the accounting of all costs of the Lockerbie trial and its aftermath is a matter for the Scottish Executive. They calculate that the total costs of holding the trial in the Netherlands, including pre-trial and appeal costs, amounted to £75.8 million.

  Middle East
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress in the implementation of the Middle East roadmap proposals. [148467]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]:Despite the welcome undertakings made at the Aqaba Summit, there has been a disappointing lack of progress on the roadmap's Phase One requirements. Israel has implemented neither the settlement freeze nor the dismantling of settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The Palestinian Authority has not begun sustained, targeted and effective operations against terrorists. Both sides should now simultaneously fulfil the obligations they have both accepted under Phase One of the roadmap.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government concerning the burning down by Muslim extremists of churches and church-owned properties during November 2003 in the town of Kazaure, Jigawa state. [149082]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are in close touch with the Nigerian authorities. We are concerned about the violence. which affected Muslims as well as Christians. The Jigawa State Government has said that it will take strong measures against the wrong-doers. Officials from the British High 1166W
  Commission in Abuja take every opportunity to emphasise to the States Governors that all criminal acts, including violence, should be dealt with by proper authorities through the courts.

  The UK believes that establishing dialogue between Christians and Muslims at all levels is the best way to create understanding and mutual tolerance. We support the work of Coventry Cathedral's Centre for Peace and Reconciliation in Kaduna and are looking to expand this work to other States in Nigeria.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people entered the UK from(a) Russia and (b) China in the latest year for which figures are available. [148410]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom under all categories, by nationality, 2002

  Number of journeys—all categories

  Russia

  167,000

  People's Republic of China

  228,000

  The figures in this table have been rounded to three significant digits.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom are published in the Command Paper `Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002' (Cm6053), obtainable from the Library, The Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubsl.html.

  St. Helena/Tristan da Cunha
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) St. Helena and (b) Tristan da Cunha. [148230]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are working hard to help the people of St. Helena. A range of issues is under consideration at the present time with air access, a new constitution, improved sea access, exports of wild honey and student fees among them. Many of these issues require co-ordination across Government departments, which is currently under way. It is our intention and has been our practice to ensure that the Government of St. Helena gets the best possible advice from the relevant experts, funded in the main by the Department for International Development. The next major visit to the island by DfID/FCO officials will be in April/May when budgetary talks are due to take place.

  The smaller territory of Tristan da Cunha reports its activities on a periodic basis to its Governor, based in St. Helena. Largely self-sufficient through its fishing and related export activities, it receives a small amount of funding each year from the Department of International Development. It is constantly on the lookout for new ways of raising revenue so that it can become more financially independent and start to build its reserves. Tristan Islanders are working with EU officials to gain a licence that would enable them to export crayfish caught in their waters for sale in the EU.

  Visa Charges
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to introduce visa charges for US citizens who wish to visit the United Kingdom. [148155]

  Mr. Mullin
  US citizens do not require a visa to visit the United Kingdom and therefore no visa charges will be introduced.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her European Union counterparts on the proposed location of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; and if she will make a statement. [149380]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ministers and officials have taken part in various discussions with other members of the European Union on the proposed location for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. I attended the 11 November 2003 Competitiveness Council discussion on the European candidate site and expressed the UK's support for the European bid.

  Broadband
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the roll out of broadband in Lancashire. [148415]

  Mr. Timms
  Under the Department's £30 million broadband fund, the North West Development Agency (NWDA) is launching three pilot demonstrator projects in Lancashire, which will focus on encouraging access and take up of ICT over broadband. The NWDA is in the final stages of procurement for Project ACCESS, which will enable provision of affordable broadband access in Cumbria and that part of Lancashire north of the Lancaster district boundary. The NWDA has also supported the formation of the Lancashire Digital Development Agency (LDDA), a grouping of public, private and voluntary sector partners who take the responsibility for promoting the delivery of an advanced broadband infrastructure and to maximise its take up. (Source: www.nwda.co.uk).

  Under the Department's Broadband Aggregation Project (BAP), the North West Regional Aggregation Body (NW-RAB), has been incorporated to aggregate and procure public sector demand for broadband connectivity. The NW-RAB is working with stakeholders in the region to develop a strategy that will offer best value for money and the widest availability of broadband to surrounding communities.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the county of Durham has broadband coverage; and what action she intends to take to encourage greater coverage. [148854]
  1168W
  Mr. Timms
  The data for the percentage of broadband coverage in the county of Durham are not available within Government.

  The regional development agency, One NorthEast, in partnership with Durham county council and the local district councils, is driving forward a major £5.1 million project (DurhamNet) to provide a broadband network across the county, via high speed radio technology. Stage one of the project aims to provide broadband access to business, education and community facilities. This work is well under way, with broadband provision to the county's public libraries already in place. The county council is now leading a regional initiative to ensure that all telephone exchanges in the north-east are upgraded to deliver broadband to the region. (source: www.durham.gov.uk/).

  The North East Regional Aggregation Body has been incorporated to aggregate and procure public sector demand for broadband connectivity. It is working with stakeholders in the region to develop a strategy that will offer best value for money and the widest availability of broadband to surrounding communities.

  Business Link
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of business link organisations; and what plans she has to change these schemes. [148172]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Overall, Business Link Operators have been successfully delivering business support within their local areas to increasing numbers of small businesses, while at the same time seeing their levels of customer satisfaction continue to rise.

  Last year Business Link Operators helped over 300,000 firms and individuals, an increase from 150,000 in 2002, and exceeded their key performance indicators. Market penetration increased from 14 per cent. to 17 per cent. in 2001–02, customer satisfaction with BLO services increased to 84 per cent. from 81 per cent. the previous year and brand awareness increased 9 per cent. to 74 per cent. Results for the current year are also showing a further increase in performance levels. By the end of quarter 2 2003–04, 88,000 more businesses had been assisted than the same time last year; the business penetration rate of 18.5 per cent. was already exceeding last year's performance; and the provisional average customer satisfaction rate of 85.4 per cent. shows a 1 per cent. increase on the last six months and a 3.2 per cent. increase on the same period last year.

  The Small Business Service is now engaged in a review of the Business Link business and brand with the aim of building on the brand as the recognised gateway through which small businesses can access appropriate sources of help or support and so will have an impact on the way BLOs operate. The review should conclude during 2004–05 and the principal outcomes be implemented by April 2005.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect Business Link has had on(a) the overall productivity of UK businesses, (b) reducing disparities in regional productivity, (c) the

  1169W
  overall profitability of UK businesses, (d) UK business investment and (e) levels of private sector employment in the UK. [148186]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service has introduced from this year a Gross Value Added measure as part of its Performance Management Framework for Business Link. This enables operators to quantify the impact they have had on businesses with which they have formed a more intensive relationship, in terms of wealth creation and productivity improvement.

  The most recent evaluation of Business Link did not explore the impact on productivity. However, it did conclude that Business Link provided good value for money in terms of the additional jobs, turnover, profits, assets and exports created at the national, regional and local level. The report on the evaluation, which was carried out by independent consultants Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC), is available on the DTI website (www.dti.gov.uk/about/evaluation).

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures are in place to ensure the accountability of business link organisations. [148195]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The procedures in place are as follows:

  Each year the Small Business Service (SBS) agrees an annual Delivery Plan (DP) with each Business Link Operator (BLO). The Plans are in a common format and include a set of Key Performance Indicators against which targets are agreed between the respective BLO and the SBS.

  Each BLO's performance against these targets is monitored by SBS Regional Teams, or by the Regional Development Agency in the East Midlands and North West. BLOs are subject to a Quarterly Performance Review that assesses their performance against the set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Three of the KPIs, Customer Satisfaction, Market Penetration and Number of Intensive Assisted Users, are subject to contractually binding Minimum Performance Levels. BLOs provide performance data on a quarterly basis as part of the SBS Management Information Requirement.

  BLOs provide detailed Financial Information at the end of each quarter, which is monitored by the SBS. On an annual basis BLOs are subject to an independent audit of their finances and management information systems by an auditor appointed by the SBS to ensure its funding has been spent on the purposes for which it was given.

  All BLOs are subject to UK company law.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff have been employed by each business link organisation in each year since their formation; and if she will break the figures down by salary band. [148196]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link Operators are autonomous independent companies and the Small Business Service does not collect information about their staffing numbers or rates of pay.
  1170W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used to measure the(a) success and (b) effectiveness of business link organisations. [148198]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service (SBS) has developed a core set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the success and effectiveness of Business Link Operators (BLOs). These indicators are contained in a Performance Management Framework and reflect the performance, value and contribution to the economy made by BLOs.

  The indicators are:

  awareness of Business Link (prompted and unprompted);

  understanding of Business Link services;

  use of Business Link branded services (by both businesses and individuals);

  financial efficiency (of BLOs);

  customer satisfaction;

  intensive assisted users of BL branded services;

  perceived business benefit; and

  changes in Gross Value Added (GVA) of BL customers.

  SBS negotiates a delivery plan each year with each BLO individually. The plan includes targets for each KPI that reflect the needs and constitution of each specific BLO area. SBS then subsequently monitors each BLO's performance against their respective targets on a quarterly basis with view to taking appropriate action to address specific or general shortcomings.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley have used Business Link in each of the last three years. [148701]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The answer to the question is shown in the following table:

  2001–02

  2002–03

  April-September 2003

  Business Link Operator usage-business customers, in-year cumulative

  East Lancashire

  2,973

  3,187

  2,403

  North and west Lancashire

  3,156

  6,435

  5,996

  Lancashire total

  6,129

  9,622

  8,399

  Business Link Operator usage-pre-starts, quarterly trend

  East Lancashire

  1,825

  2,534

  1,642

  North and west Lancashire

  750

  2,865

  1,390

  Lancashire total

  2,575

  5,399

  3,032

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the(a) actual and (b) percentage change in private sector employment was in each month since 1997; [146143]

  (2) how many people have been employed in (a) the public and (b) the private sector in each quarter over the last ten years. [148188]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1171W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 20 January 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about jobs in the public and private sectors. (146143, 148188)
  Job levels for the private and public sectors are obtained from administrative returns from public bodies and the Labour Force Survey, and are available only on an annual basis. The attached table shows the number of UK jobs in the public and private sectors for each of the ten years from 1993 to 2002, the latest year for which data are available. The table also shows the actual and percentage annual changes.

  Numbers of public and private sector jobs in the UK, 1993–2002

  Thousands

  Number of jobs

  Annual change

  Annual percentage change

  Public

  Private

  Public

  Private

  Public

  Private

  1993

  5,477

  20,791

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  5,292

  21,229

  -185

  438

  -3.4

  2.7

  1995

  5,211

  21,995

  -81

  766

  -1.5

  3.6

  1996

  5,069

  22,307

  -142

  312

  -2.7

  1.4

  1997

  4,954

  22,811

  -115

  504

  -2.3

  2.3

  1998

  4,944

  23,083

  -10

  272

  -0.2

  1.2

  1999

  5,094

  23,272

  150

  189

  3.0

  0.8

  2000

  5,094

  23,537

  0

  265

  0.0

  1.1

  2001

  5,212

  23,521

  118

  -16

  2.3

  -0.1

  2002

  5,298

  23,610

  86

  89

  1.7

  0.4

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey and administrative returns from public bodies

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were in(a) public and (b) private sector employment, broken down by (i) salary and (ii) employment type for each of the last ten years. [148187]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 20 January 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about jobs in the public and private sectors. (148187)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides information on earnings and employment type by sector. However, these figures are based on respondents' own perception of the sector in which they work, and may not correspond to the official classifications of the public and private sector.
  Table 1 shows the average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in the UK, split by sector. Table 2 shows the proportions of full-time and part-time employees in both the public and private sectors. In both cases, data are for twelve month periods ending in November in the years 1994–2003.
  Information on the number of jobs in the public and private sectors in each year from 1993–2002 has been provided in an answer to another recent Parliamentary Question that you have asked (148188). However, please note that this information is provided for calendar years and is derived from other sources besides the LFS. It is therefore not consistent with the information on earnings and employment type given in this answer.

  Table 1: Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in the UK

  £

  Year1

  Public Sector

  Private Sector

  1994

  328

  291

  1995

  332

  303

  1172W

  Table 1: Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in the UK

  £

  Year1

  Public Sector

  Private Sector

  1996

  346

  315

  1997

  355

  329

  1998

  367

  345

  1999

  383

  363

  2000

  396

  382

  2001

  414

  403

  2002

  431

  417

  2003

  448

  431

  1 12 month period ending in November of given year

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Percentage of UK public and private sector jobs that are full and part time

  Percentage of total employment

  Private Sector

  Public Sector

  Year1

  Full Time

  Part Time

  Full Time

  Part Time

  1994

  78

  22

  73

  27

  1995

  78

  22

  72

  28

  1996

  77

  23

  71

  29

  1997

  77

  23

  70

  30

  1998

  77

  23

  70

  30

  1999

  77

  23

  71

  29

  2000

  77

  23

  70

  30

  2001

  77

  23

  70

  30

  2002

  77

  23

  70

  30

  2003

  76

  24

  70

  30

  1 12 month period ending in November of given year

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Energy Bill
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Energy Bill has been notified to the European Commission. [149620]

  Mr. Timms
  The Energy Bill is a public document. There is no requirement to notify the Energy Bill as such to the European Commission. In accordance with Article 88(3) of the European Treaty establishing the European Community, the Government notified to the Commission on 19 December 2003 the state aid that would be involved in the funding of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) under the Bill.

  Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Energy Bill will implement Directives 2003/54/EC and 2003/55/EC and we shall be notifying the commission when the relevant clauses come into force.

  We shall consider whether we need to notify to the commission of the changes arising from the introduction of the Renewable Obligation in Northern Ireland, planned for 1 April 2005.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost to her Department of using management consultants has been in each of the last five years. [148028]

  Ms Hewitt
  Central records indicate that contracts for management consultants amounted to the following:
  1173W

  £ million

  Financial year

  Management consultant contracts

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  36

  2001–02

  64

  2002–03

  42

  The higher figure for 2001–02 includes £25 million for Consignia/Post Office in connection with the Government General Practitioner/Your Guide pilot.

  Data for 1998–99 are not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Miners' Compensation
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the 10 firms of solicitors who have received the most in fees for dealing with miners' compensation claims; and how much each has received. [146657]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 7 January 2004 the figures are:

  £ million

  Top 10 solicitors

  Total solicitors costs

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  35.8

  Thompsons Solicitors

  34.6

  Raleys Solicitors

  23.7

  Browell Smith and Co

  13.6

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  10.3

  Graysons Solicitors

  8.7

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  8.0

  Watson Burton Solicitors

  7.6

  Towells Solicitors

  7.6

  Beresfords Solicitors

  6.3

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what amounts were paid to(a) firms of solicitors and (b) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers for cases undertaken under the miners' compensation schemes in 2003. [148286]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures are as follows:

  £ million

  COPD

  VWF

  Solicitors cost

  119.6

  18.0

  UDM

  3.9

  0.9

  Total

  123.5

  18.9

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which trade unions have applied to pursue claims directly under the miners' compensation schemes; and what the reasons were for(a) granting and (b) rejecting such an application in each case. [148310]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 15 January 2004]: The Department has signed agreements with those bodies appointed by or on behalf of claimants to act for them. In May 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) the then Minister for Energy, invited the mining unions to contribute to these arrangements through their solicitors.
  1174W
  The UDM were themselves dealing with claims and a Claims Handling Agreement was signed with them. The compensation terms were identical to the agreement with the miners' solicitors.

  The NUM inquired about having a direct agreement. This was not pursued beyond initial discussions.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms of solicitors are handling coal health claims in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; and how many are involved with the Claimants Solicitors Group. [147201]

  Nigel Griffiths
  To date the figures are:

  CSG solicitors

  Non-CSG solicitors

  Total number

  England

  353

  200

  553

  Scotland

  24

  41

  65

  Wales

  56

  40

  96

  Total

  433

  281

  714

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many training days the insurers handling the coal health claims have held for solicitors to date; and how many firms have attended. [147202]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 13 January the figures are:

  Training

  Number of days

  Number of firms attending

  Planning days

  2

  32

  Regional workshops

  5

  69

  Solicitors training day, Sheffield Office

  2

  41

  Solicitors Training Day, Edinburgh Office

  1

  8

  Solicitors Training Day, Cardiff Office

  1

  6

  Informal in house operational training

  17

  10

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid to date by the Department to(a) the insurers handling the coal health claims and (b) the company carrying out the medical assessments. [147204]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of mid January 2004 nearly £158 million has been paid to IRISC, the Department's claim handlers and nearly £212 million to the companies who provide the medical assessments.

  Regional Productivity
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the rate of productivity growth was in each region of the UK in each of the last five years. [146131]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  1175W
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 20 January 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the productivity of UK companies. (146131)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not currently produce estimates of productivity growth by region. Current regional productivity measures estimate the relative performance of regions at a point in time.
  We do, however, produce figures on Regional output per hour worked and Regional output per filled job for 1996–2001. These figures can be accessed from the ONS website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdataset.asp?vink = 4858&More = Y and http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdataset.asp?vInk = 4860&More = Y

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons her Department does not include printer cartridges in the implementation of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. [148737]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have always considered printer cartridges as consumables and this interpretation has been confirmed by the Department's lawyers. The WEEE Directive only applies to whole products placed on the market and not to individual components, sub-assemblies or consumables.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of abolishing the rule on freezing state pensions for those citizens entitled to state pensions who reside in countries for which the United Kingdom has an aid programme; and if he will make a statement; [148536]

  (2) how many individuals in each country for which Her Majesty's Government has an aid programme who are entitled to a United Kingdom state pension have them frozen; and if he will make a statement on his policy on frozen pensions. [148537]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of individuals in each country for which this Government has an aid programme who receive a frozen UK State Pension is not available.

  However, there were 60,000 recipients of a frozen UK State Pension in the twenty countries receiving the largest amount of UK bilateral aid in 2002–03. The cost of now paying those frozen pensions, using the April 2004 rates, would be around £40 million, with ongoing costs of £40million per annum and rising in future years.

  The UK State Pension is uprated in countries with which the UK has a reciprocal social security agreement or where there is a legal requirement to do so. The Government are focusing their resources on helping poorer pensioners in the UK and have no plans to unfreeze UK State Pensions paid overseas.
  1176W
  Notes:

  Caseloads have been produced using the DWP Pensions administrative dataset for March 2003.

  The nominal costs are calculated using 2004 pension rates, and deflated to 2003–04 price terms.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average increase in income has been for pensioners in Warrington, North since the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. [148249]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  The average income support award to pensioners in Warrington, North was £37.36 in August 1998, when 2,200 pensioner households were receiving income support. Under Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), which was introduced in April 1999, there were 2,800 pensioner households in Warrington, North receiving an average of £44.29 a week in MIG in August 2003.

  In December 2003 there were 3,426 pensioner households receiving an average of £41.19 a week Pension Credit in Warrington, North.

  Following the introduction of Pension Credit in October 2003, some elements of the support previously provided through MIG are now provided through local authority funding for people in care homes, and through tax credits for children. In addition, average Pension Credit awards are expected to be lower than MIG because a savings credit of up to £14.79 (single) or £19.20 (couples) is available for people with modest incomes above the guarantee level who previously received nothing from MIG.

  As at 31 December, the average level of weekly gain shared by the 1.44 million households now receiving more money as a result of Pension Credit introduction is £10.80.

  Notes:

  1. MIG caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands, weekly amounts to the nearest penny.

  2. MIG figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many properties were inspected by the Health and Safety Executive in connection with suspected carbon monoxide poisoning in the last 12 months; what steps his Department has taken to promote awareness of the problem; and if he will make a statement. [147458]

  Mr. Browne
  For the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, the latest period for which we have a full year's figure, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated 86 carbon monoxide (CO) incidents. This figure is provisional.

  Measures being taken to promote awareness of carbon monoxide poisoning include the annual winter gas safety awareness campaign overseen by HSE, which this year is targeting students and other first-time renters, elderly people and parents of young children.
  1177W
  HSE's gas safety website contains information on the causes and symptoms of CO, and what to do if poisoning is suspected. This website is currently being upgraded to provide links to other relevant organizations, and access to videos giving detailed information on carbon monoxide poisoning and personal statements from sufferers.

  HSE produces free leaflets on gas safety both for general consumers and landlords, including information on carbon monoxide, in twelve community languages as well as English. These are also available on the HSE website.

  HSE also operates a Gas Safety Advice line providing free advice to callers. Additionally, where possible, HSE officials actively participate in awareness-raising events run by other organizations such as local community groups when called upon to do so.

  During 2003, HSE's gas publicity Working Group examined the feasibility of a carbon monoxide awareness campaign to be voluntarily funded by the gas industry. In September HSE hosted a meeting seeking support for this initiative from the six main gas supply companies. The industry players have committed to produce an agreed strategy plan, which should be implemented this year. The level of funding, although not yet finalized, will be in the region of £3 million a year for a period of seven years to be evaluated after three years.

  Electronic Data Systems
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions the Department has made compensation payments to Electronic Data Systems as a result of contractual changes to the Child Support Agency Reforms information technology project; and what the value was of each of those payments. [149517]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department has not made any compensation payments to EDS. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 January 2003,Official Report, columns 564–68, the Department has previously agreed an increase of around 7 per cent. in the value of the original contract, over its term. This increase reflected that the IT system had proved to be more complex than had been thought at the outset, something not uncommon in large scale IT systems.

  Departmental Policies (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies in Regent's Park and Kensington, North constituency since 1997. [145416]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001; since then, we have undertaken a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent.
  1178W
  We are making a significant contribution to the Government's objective of eradicating child poverty in 20 years and halving it within 10, and there are now half a million fewer children in relative low income than there were in 1997. Child Benefit is now worth £16.05 a week for the eldest child, compared to only £11.40 in 1997, benefiting 13,385 families in Regent's Park and Kensington, North.

  Through Jobcentre Plus, we are promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age. The number of people in work is at historically high levels of over 28.15 million; in Regent's Park and Kensington, North, the proportion in employment has risen to 62.3 per cent. Our New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, disabled people, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. Nationally over 950,000 people have been helped into work by the New Deals, and over 2,200 have been helped into work in Regent's Park and Kensington, North.

  We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country, and our first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners. The Government will be spending an extra £9.2bn in 2004/5 (in 2003–04 prices) on pensioners as a result of measures introduced since 1997, including around 4.3 billion on the poorest third of pensioners. Our reforms include the State Second Pension, which helps more of tomorrow's pensioners build up better pensions.

  Pension Credit, introduced from October 2003, provides a contribution to a guaranteed minimum income for those aged 60 and over and, for the first time, those over aged 65 and over may be rewarded for modest savings and income. Around 5,900 pensioner households in Regent's Park and Kensington, North are already benefiting from Pension Credit, with an average award of £70.33 per week.

  Our reforms include the State Second Pension, which helps more of tomorrow's pensioners build up better pensions. Pension Credit, introduced from October 2003, provides a contribution to a guaranteed minimum income for those aged 60 and over and, for the first time, those over aged 65 and over may be rewarded for modest savings and income. Around 5,900 pensioner households in Regent's Park and Kensington, North are already benefiting from Pension Credit, with an average award of £70.33 per week.

  We know that older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, and this winter (2003–04) we have made available a Winter Fuel Payment of £200 for each eligible household to help with their fuel bills. In addition, the introduction of the 80 + Annual Payment gives an extra £100 to households where there is someone aged 80 or over. We estimate that around 17,000 older people in Regent's Park and Kensington, North have received a payment this winter.

  Some 14,000 pensioners in Regent's Park and Kensington, North benefited from the above inflation increase in the rate of basic state pension from April 2003. Those over 75, of whom we estimate there are about 6,300 in Regent's Park and Kensington, North may also qualify for free TV licences.

  Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions why there is a separate form for declaring an industrial injury from that for claiming industrial injury disablement benefit. [1479431

  Mr. Browne
  Different information is required for a declaration of an industrial injury than for a claim for Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit (IIDB). For example, in the case of a claim for IIDB, information is required as to whether other benefits are in payment; in the case of a declaration, an injured employee may not wish to claim benefit, and therefore information is required only to establish whether an incident can be accepted as an industrial accident.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time workers were employed by Jobcentre Plus in Cambridgeshire in each of the last three years. [146441]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, dated 20 January 2004:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of full time staff working for Jobcentre Plus in Cambridgeshire over the last three years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I am only able to give you staffing figures from April 2002 as this was when Jobcentre Plus was launched.
  As you will understand staffing during the year fluctuates for business reasons. Since April 2002 the number of full time staff has ranged from 374 to 433 with the total staffing levels ranging from 474 to 560 full time equivalents. Currently we have 433 full time staff working in Cambridgeshire, with 166 part-time staff. This equates to a total full time equivalent of 543 staff.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the arrangements for ensuring the quality and relevance of mandatory work-focused courses for jobseeker's allowance claimants. [145814]

  Mr. Browne
  Mandatory work-focused training for jobseeker's allowance claimants is purchased through regionally based Jobcentre Plus contracting teams, in consultation with district partners. Provision is delivered through private and not for profit providers and, during development, consideration is given to the recruitment needs of local employers and the training requirements of JSA claimants.

  Providers are subject to thorough contractual and quality audits. Individual contract reviews are conducted by Jobcentre Plus field contracts managers and district programme quality management teams. Reviews assess the administration, delivery, quality and propriety of the provisions being delivered against the requirements set out in providers' contracts.
  1180W
  In addition, the Adult Learning Inspectorate in England and ESTYN in Wales, play a pivotal role in the quality assurance of provision, under the provisions of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. All inspection under the provisions of the Act is carried out in accordance with the Common Inspection Framework. The framework focuses on the learner, and on evaluating the effectiveness of education and training in meeting all learners' needs.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average change in income has been for pensioners in Chorley since the introduction of the minimum income guarantee.—1148495]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  The average income support award to pensioners in Chorley was £52.45 in August 1998, when 2,500 pensioner households were receiving income support. Under Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), which was introduced in April 1999, there were 2,700 pensioner households in Chorley receiving an average of £49.47 a week in MIG in August 2003.

  In December 2003 there were 3,064 pensioner households receiving an average of £40.08 a week Pension Credit in Chorley.

  Following the introduction of Pension Credit in October 2003, some elements of the support previously provided through MIG are now provided through local authority funding for people in care homes, and through tax credits for children. In addition, average Pension Credit awards are expected to be lower than MIG because a savings credit of up to £14.79 (single) or £19.20 (couples) is available for people with modest incomes above the guarantee level who previously received nothing from MIG.

  As at 31 December, the average level of weekly gain shared by the 1.44 million households now receiving more money as a result of Pension Credit introduction is £10.80.

  Notes:

  1. MIG caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands, weekly amounts to the nearest penny.

  2. MIG figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Chorley have(a) applied for and (b) received pension credit; and what the average consequent change in income per pensioner is. [148496]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 31 December 2003 there were 3,064 pensioner households (3,659 individuals) in the Chorley constituency receiving Pension Credit. Information on the number of Pension Credit applications in individual constituencies is not available. The average weekly rate of Pension Credit awards in Chorley is £40.08. Information on the average amount gained by pensioners in individual constituencies, since
  1181W
  the introduction of Pension Credit, will become available following publication of the November 2003 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry on 17 March 2004.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total amount spent on pension credit in Warrington, North constituency has been since its introduction. [148251]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The latest departmental information suggests that between 1 October 2003 and 30 November 2003 an estimated £12 million was spent on pension credit in Warrington, North.

  Notes:

  1. Pension credit was introduced on 6 October 2003, therefore this figure includes five days of expenditure on the minimum income guarantee (the benefit pension credit replaces).

  2. This figure is based on total expenditure on pension credit in Great Britain (GB) from the departmental Programme Accounting Computer System (PACS) data. The constituency level expenditure is estimated using 100 per cent. Generalised Matching Service (GMS) data.

  3. This estimate has been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Direct Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what date pensions were credited to the Post Office card accounts of pensioners who would normally have collected their pensions on 29 December 2003; and if he will make a statement. [149516]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department arranged that where customers were due payments on 29 December 2003, the customers would have pensions credited to Post Office card accounts on 24 December 2003.

  Pensions Bill
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to publish the Pensions Bill announced in the Queen's Speech. [149303]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pensions Bill announced in the Queen's Speech will be published as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Regulations (Consultation)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of regulations introduced by the Department have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks since the introduction of the Code of Practice on Consultations. [142485]

  Mr. Browne
  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation came into effect on 1 January 2001. The Department for Work and Pensions came into being in June 2001. In the period 1 June 2001 to 31 December 2002, DWP has published 22 consultations under the code, of which three were less than 12 weeks. 11 consultations have led to regulation. Four others have informed the Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice—working and saving for retirement" from which further regulatory activity is under consideration.

  The Health and Safety Executive has been sponsored by DWP since 24 July 2002. Up until 31 December 2003 there have been 13 consultations of which four are still open; all but one meeting the 12-week timescale. The one consultation that did not meet the 12-week minimum did
  1182W
  not pertain to regulations. Information on which consultations lead to regulation is not held in a separate register but is kept on the consultations page on the HSE website.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what forums he is advertising the availability of winter fuel payments. [147770]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In order to promote the availability of winter fuel payments a series of advertisements were placed in national and regional press and consumer magazines, a variety of promotional products were also made available to support the campaign. The following items were produced:"Your Guide to Winter Fuel Payments 2003"—An A5 leaflet available in English, Welsh, Braille, Audiocassette and Large Print. This leaflet was translated into Punjabi, Chinese, Gujarati, Vietnamese, Somali, Arabic, Bengali and Urdu, electronic versions were made available via the Pension Service and DWP websites;
  A3 and A4 promotional posters displaying the 'Winter Fuel Payments are on their way' and 'Don't miss out' messages; and leaflet dispenser.

  Products were made widely available to Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff, the media, advisers and the general public. Mailings were sent to over 30,000 relevant advisory organisations such as welfare rights groups and libraries; Citizens Advice; Age Concern; National Pensioners Convention; and the Local Government Association.

  Leaflets and posters were displayed in: post office branches; doctors surgeries; Gala Bingo branches; Co-op/Alldays stores; Lloyds Pharmacy; the Pension Service (pension credit) truck; and Paypoint and Payzone outlets.

  Copies of the leaflet were distributed direct to customer groups by: Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS), meals on wheels scheme; St. Vincent de Paul Society; Powergen Warm Front and Stay Warm advisers.

  Promotional material was sent to the National Energy Action team to support Warm Homes week, which took place in November 2003.

  Leaflets and posters were sent as part of a DWP mailing targeted at care and residential homes throughout the UK in October 2003.

  Promotional products-were made available at a consumer event organised by Yours magazine.

  Leaflets were available to order via the Department of Health's Winter Warmth Advice Line.

  The Pension Service website (www.thepensionservice.gov.uk) was heavily utilised throughout the 2003–04 winter fuel payments campaign. Customers were signposted to the dedicated winter fuel payments section of the website through all promotional literature. Winter fuel leaflets were available for customers to download from the Pension Service resource centre.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 17 to 18 December; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [145518]

  Margaret Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 17 December. The Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers responsible for Agriculture and Fisheries were also present.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority a Regulation providing for the total allowable catches for fish stocks for 2004. Important increases in quota for haddock and nephrops were agreed subject to special licensing and control conditions (those for nephrops to be developed by the end of next February). Annex V of the Regulation provides for limits on fishing time in 2004 for vessels which can catch cod, which operate in the North Sea and west of Scotland waters (as for 2003) and for the first time for vessels in the Irish Sea and the eastern English Channel. Annex VI introduces an effort management scheme for the North Sea sandeel fishery, for which the Regulation also sets significantly reduced quotas.

  The Council also agreed by qualified majority a long term recovery plan for cod stocks, setting a mechanism for deciding on multiannual catch limits, and providing for annual limits on fishing effort as in Annex V to the TAG Regulation. It explicitly enables the Council to adjust the mechanism for fishing effort during 2004 should it so wish. Finally the Council agreed the guide prices for fish species for 2004.

  The Council adopted by qualified majority the Presidency's compromise text for a regulation reinforcing the current requirements regarding identification of sheep and goats. I welcomed this proposal which met the main concerns we had registered during negotiation. The arrangements take account of the unique structure of our sheep sector; and, subject to approval by the Commission, our current national sheep and goat identification system of movement tags, backed up by the animal movement licensing system, will remain until 2008; followed thereafter by the introduction of electronic ID, which we support.

  The Council noted progress made in discussion of the proposal to update rules governing the welfare of animals during transport. The proposal was remitted for further official discussion, in particular as regards the establishment of maximum journey times.

  The Council took note without discussion of progress on a draft regulation harmonising official controls on food and feed. A number of issues, notably the scope of regulation and the charges to be made in connection with its enforcement, remain to be settled.

  The Council also took note of progress in discussion of a draft regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides.
  1184W
  There was no discussion. The Council discussed the package of proposals to reform the CAP regimes for tobacco, olive oil, cotton and hops. We reiterated our support for the Commission in extending the principles of CAP reform to these sectors but argued for greater decoupling of subsidies to the olive oil and—particularly—cotton sectors. We expressed support for full decoupling in the tobacco sector, as the Commission has proposed, and called for the shortest possible transition period. Detailed negotiation of these proposals will resume under the Irish presidency.

  Under Other Business, the Italian Presidency tabled a written report outlining progress on specific hygiene rules in the animal feed sector. The Presidency also reported on progress in negotiation of a veterinary equivalence agreement with Russia. Austria pressed for early action to deal with low prices in the pigmeat sector; we and several other Member States cautioned against reliance on export refunds in this sector. We raised the problems caused for Pakistan by recent changes in the concessionary import terms applicable to Basmati rice. The Commission took note and reported that it was consulting with Pakistan and India over the latest information available on prices and varieties.

  Angling
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) British Waterways, (b) the British Disabled Angling Association and (c) the National Angling Association about the provision of greater access for disabled anglers under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by 1 October. [148423]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government recognise the social and recreational importance of angling and are committed to improving access for the disabled. In response to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group report, the Government committed the Environment Agency to promoting angling.

  The Environment Agency works with a number of national and local bodies to provide angling opportunities for all. The Agency is working closely with the British Disabled Angling Association (BDAA) to integrate disability access into its work programme.

  The Agency has also encouraged the Joint Angling Governing Bodies (those organisations of the National Angling Association responsible for angling development and coaching) to work closely with the BDAA. To facilitate this co-operative work a Disability Working Group has been set up and is attended by all the main bodies involved in disabled angling and angling governance.

  The Agency also works with British Waterways on a number local initiatives. British Waterways aim to incorporate facilities for disabled anglers on its existing network and is committed to ensuring that all of its new angling facilities at reservoirs and other sources of closed waters are accessible for people with disabilities.

  Animal Slaughter
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the Government's policy in respect of the ritual and religious slaughter of animals. [149024]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The religious slaughter of animals without prior stunning is permitted under both EU and domestic legislation.

  We are still considering our response to the recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of red meat animals at slaughter, including the recommendation that slaughter without prior stunning should be banned in this country. We expect to issue our draft response document for public consultation within the next few weeks, but I am unable to provide an exact date at this stage. The public consultation exercise will be widely publicised. We anticipate issuing the Government's final response to the recommendations towards the middle of the year.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are humane methods licensed for the stunning and slaughter of animals and poultry which rely on gases to render animals unconscious prior to their slaughter. [148652]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended) lay down the permitted stunning and killing methods for both red meat animals and poultry. The permitted methods have been assessed for humaneness. The use of gas mixtures is a permitted method for rendering pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys unconscious. The use of gas mixtures is actually a stun-kill method, in that the animal or bird has to remain in the gas until it is dead.

  Badgers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who owns the traps and other equipment used for badger trapping exercises carried out on behalf of the Department. [148653]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The traps and other equipment used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial are owned by Defra.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the administrative boundaries of the Krebs proactive areas necessarily coincide with the areas inhabited by badgers. [148658]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The boundaries of treatment areas in which badger culling would take place were only prescribed once putative badger social group territories had been delineated. Any sett outside a trial area boundary which was associated with a social group of badgers whose territory fell within the trial area would be subject to the same treatment as the sett within the trial area (proactive or reactive culling) once allocated.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests have been carried out by the Department to determine 1186W
  whether healthy badgers have acquired or are likely to acquire infection after colonising setts left vacant as a result of clearance of TB infected badgers. [148661]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is likely that the lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity inside a badger sett would favour the survival of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis). However, as there is currently no effective live test for TB in badgers, it would not be possible to tell if an incoming badger was healthy when colonising a vacant sett.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what controls are imposed on the relocation of badgers which are treated by animal hospitals and sanctuaries; [148662]

  (2) what controls are imposed on the relocation of badgers removed from setts. [148664]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to take (or attempt to take) a badger from the wild, including for the purpose of relocation elsewhere (Protection of Badgers Act 1992, s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

  There are certain exceptions to this offence, two of which are specifically relevant to the issue of relocating badgers. These are the treatment of injured or sick badgers, and relocations carried out under the authority of a licence.

  Under section 6, a person is not guilty of an offence by reason only of:

  "(a) taking or attempting to take a badger which has been disabled otherwise than by this act and is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of tending it;"

  Like other native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers are released once they have recovered from treatment. Once recovered, the badger will normally be returned to the location where it was originally found. This approach is recommended by Defra on welfare grounds due to their territorial nature, and also to avoid any risk of transmitting disease. However, there it is recognised that there are situations in which this course of action may not be feasible (particularly in the case of orphaned cubs).

  A voluntary code of practice (prepared by the RSPCA, National Federation of Badgers Groups and Secret World Wildlife Rescue) provides comprehensive guidance on rehabilitating and releasing badgers. This adopts a precautionary approach aimed at protecting the welfare of badgers and critically, minimising the risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB). The code is publicly available via the internet at: http://www. badger. org. uk/action/badger-rehabilitation- protocolcontents.html

  Under the code of practice, an adult badger is to be released at the exact location from which it was recovered. If this is not possible the code advises that the animal is euthanased. Badger cubs may be released at a different location. Animals to be relocated are tested for TB three times. Only badgers testing negative to all three tests are released and any animal testing positive is

  1187W
  euthanased. The code also requires that released badgers are permanently marked (by a tattoo or microchip) and registered.

  Under section 10 of the Act, licences may be issued to permit badgers to be taken from the wild (and relocated if necessary) for a limited range of specified purposes. These include scientific investigation, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing serious damage to property. Depending on the purpose of the operation, licences are issued by either the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England).

  Licences to relocate badgers are only issued if such action is clearly justified and where there is considered to be a very low risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB).

  Before any badgers are released at a new location all animals must be tested three times for TB. All badgers testing positive to any of the three tests, or in contact with a badger testing positive, are euthanased.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which persons and organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers; what conditions are imposed on them; and under what circumstances badgers are allowed to be slaughtered. [148663]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No persons or organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers.

  Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000 (this applies to each badger killed).

  There are certain specified exceptions to this offence under which badgers may be lawfully killed. These are summarised as follows.

  Section 6—General exceptions

  A person is not guilty of an offence:
  where a seriously injured badger is killed or attempted to be killed as an act of mercy;
  where a badger is unavoidably killed or injured as an incidental result of a lawful action; and
  doing anything which is authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 eg experimental procedures approved under licence to advance biological or behavioural knowledge etc.

  Section 7—"Farmer's defence"

  A person is not guilty of an offence by reason of killing a badger if the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or other form of property.

  This defence cannot be relied upon if it was apparent before that time that action would prove necessary and a licence had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable, or where an application for such a licence had been determined.
  1188W
  Section 10—Licences

  Licences may be granted to permit badgers to be killed for the following purposes:
  scientific or educational purposes or the conservation of badgers;
  preventing the spread of disease;
  preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.

  All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.

  The exceptions, and any conditions that apply, are stated in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online at: www. legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga_19920051_ en_l.htm.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what circumstances badgers may be removed from setts; and what regulations govern such removals. [149221]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to remove (or attempt to remove) a badger from its sett, either forcibly (including the use of dogs) or by installing exclusion measures (such as one-way gates), or by obstructing access of a badger to its sett (Protection of Badgers Act 1992). A person guilty of any of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5000.

  The legislation includes provisions for the granting of licences, which, where justified, could be used to permit the removal (by exclusion) of badgers from a sett. The purposes for which licences may be issued are summarised as follows:

  Science, education or conservation of badgers

  Zoological collections

  Ringing or marking

  Development

  Archaeological preservation or investigation

  Investigating offences

  Preventing the spread of diseaes

  Preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property

  Agricultural or forestry operations

  Drainage or sea defence

  These purposes are described in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online at: www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga_19920051_en_lhtm.

  All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.

  Controls relating to the removal of badgers from setts where the intention is to relocate the animals elsewhere—rather than simply denying access to a particular sett— are described in the joint response to parliamentary questions 0673 2003–04 and 0675 2003–04.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of TB in cattle that arises from cattle-to-cattle spread. [148654]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No such estimate has been made. In many cases, it is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between environmental sources (including wildlife) and cattle, are not fully understood.

  Part of the TB research programme includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.

  CFCs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions there have been of companies that illegally supply CFCs within the UK over the last five years. [148007]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Under EC Regulation 2037/2000 on ozone depleting substances and the production and supply of CFCs, except for a very small amount for laboratory and analytical uses and essential uses, was banned in the UK and other member states from January 1995. This reduced and subsequently phased out any existing stocks of CFCs in the UK. The supply of CFCs for these uses is controlled by a licencing system, in which suppliers are given an import or export declaration. The amounts of CFCs requested by companies are also agreed in advance by member states. All import declarations are processed by Customs and Excise to ensure appropriate licences have been obtained, and no illegal imports have been detected in recent years.

  Cod stocks in EC waters where UK has quota (tonnes live weight of fish)

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003 1

  North Sea

  UK quota

  55,660

  34,149

  20,265

  20,377

  10,696

  [11a(EC), IV]

  Landings

  33,436

  27,701

  19,448

  18,612

  9,905

  West of Scotland [

  UK quota

  5,960

  3,530

  2,322

  2,770

  1,084

  Vb(EC),VIXII, XIV]

  Landings

  3,487

  2,654

  1,845

  1,788

  966

  Irish Sea

  UK quota

  2,320

  950

  925

  1,378

  612

  [Vila]

  Landings

  1,742

  835

  902

  1,160

  514

  Vllb-k, VIM. IX,

  UK quota

  1,870

  1,740

  1,287

  802

  554

  X, CECAF 34.1.1 (EC)

  Landings

  1,412

  1,132

  1,115

  740

  476

  1 Landings data for 2003 are provisional at the current time

  Fishing Research
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent on fishing research in each of the last five financial years. [149140]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has spent the following amounts on marine fisheries research in each of the last five financial years.
  1190W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department is working with(a) other Departments, (b) the EU and (c) governments of developing countries to help them tackle their illegal CFC trade. [148008]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]Within the EU, licences issued by the Commission and quotas that are agreed in advance by member states control trade in CFCs. UK Customs and Excise have a monitoring system known as CHIEF system that processes import declarations. Profiles are set against commodity codes on products that could contain a potential ozone depleting substance. Customs officers then seek clarification from my officials at Defra, when there is a potential problem with an import.

  The Montreal Protocol established the Multilateral Fund to assist developing countries in their phase-out of ozone depleting substances. The UK has so far contributed over $105 million to the fund. The fund supports projects prepared by developing countries and Implementing Agencies (UNEP, UNIDO, UNDP and the World bank) aimed at phasing out ozone depleting substances. Their projects include institutional strengthening and capacity building, and also the compliance assistance programme run by UNEP. An example of activities supported by the fund are compliance with the Montreal Protocol, customs training, illegal trade information exchange and awareness raising workshops being organised by UNEP in regions such as South Asia and South East Asia. The UK has been an active member of the South Asia Network.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the yearly cod quota was, broken down by area, over the last five years; and what amounts of cod were caught in those areas in those years. [147087]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK's cod quotas for EC waters and corresponding landings made by UK vessels for each of the last five years are given in the table.

  £ million

  2002–03

  3.37

  2001–02

  3.35

  2000–01

  3.57

  1999–2000

  3.07

  1998–99

  4.10

  Flooding
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many houses in England she estimates are uninsurable owing to flood risk. [147736]

  Mr. Morley
  According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI), it is the intention of the insurance industry, working in partnership with the Government, that flood insurance should continue to be available to the vast majority of existing properties. As set out in the ABI's Statement of Principles1, of the 1.9 million properties on the floodplain, flood insurance will continue to be available for all those properties defended to a minimum standard of 1 in 75, or for those properties where such defences are planned by 2007.

  For other properties (currently estimated at 200,000), insurers cannot guarantee to maintain cover, but will examine the risks on a case-by-case basis, and will use their best efforts to continue to provide cover. ABI believes that nearly all homes are insurable to a degree, provided appropriate local action is taken to protect the property, e.g., use of flood resilient design, accredited protection products, and temporary defences. However, the insurance industry has signalled that inappropriate new developments in the floodplain are unlikely to be able to secure insurance cover.

  1www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/78/Statement_of Principles.doc

  Greyhounds (Welfare)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve the welfare of racing greyhounds; and if she will make a statement. [149418]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are considering a range of possible measures under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill to improve greyhound welfare with the racing industry and welfare organisations.

  Indigenous Flora
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to encourage the planting of local, indigenous flora. [145099]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), one of the main outcomes of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, aims to ensure the conservation of biodiversity, its sustainable use, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. As part of the Government's commitment to the CBD the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) was published in 1994. The UK BAP sets targets for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the UK and individual action plans have now been published for 391 species and 45 habitats of conservation importance, including for 75 flowering plants.

  With regard to payment of grants under the Defra agri-environment schemes, we encourage the use of native and local provenance seed as far as possible. Detailed guidance is provided in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme Handbook. For instance, when re-creating grassland on cultivated land the species of
  1192W
  grass used should be from a specified list of species and of native and local provenance. If applicants have problems in obtaining native seed or stock they are advised to discuss other options with their stewardship advisor. In some circumstances alternative seed mixes may be agreed and wild flower seed may be added.

  There is also a specific stewardship payment which helps meet the cost of buying in seed. However, to qualify for this payment the seed must be native seed of local provenance. Similarly with tree and hedge planting and management, Countryside Stewardship agreement holders are required to use stock of native and local provenance where possible. Where this is not possible alternative options are to be discussed with the Stewardship Adviser. As regards EU legislation on accredited sources of seed for trees and the production of locally sourced plants, on 1 January 2003 the Forestry Commission brought in the Forest Reproductive Material (Great Britain) Regulations 2002, implementing EU Directive 1999/105 on the marketing of forest reproductive material. These regulations increase the number of species controlled by law to 46 species and the genus "Populus". This includes 15 tree species which are native to Great Britain. The regulations are deliberately structured in a way to encourage the collection of local seed. Sellers of planting stock are required to issue a supplier's document to the buyer, setting out whether or not the stock is locally sourced.

  In addition, for native species not controlled by law, the Forestry Commission promotes the harvesting of local seed from native trees and shrubs through the Voluntary Scheme for the Certification of Native Trees and Shrubs. Further details of this scheme can be found on the Forestry Commission's website at: http://forest ry.gov. uk/frm

  In July this year we published the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate which set new targets to measure progress made to protect and improve biodiversity on the Government Estate. They include a target to assess and improve the condition of Government owned Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); a requirement for all Government Departments who own sites of significant biodiversity interest to produce Biodiversity Action Plans; and a requirement to set a biodiversity target in contracts for new and refurbished Government buildings. The guidance which accompanies the targets encourages Departments, when renewing maintenance contracts, to consider building in clauses on the purchase/planting of native species of plants.

  In 2001, recognising concerns that present arrangements for handling issues relating to non-native species were insufficient, Defra commissioned a Review of Non-native species policy. A range of organisations was represented on the working group, and its report was published in March 2003. The issues which it raises are complex, and a combination of measures will be required to address these. The report highlighted problems with non-native genotypes and recommended that there was a need to raise public awareness of this issue.

  The Government have published their initial response to the report and are carrying out a consultation exercise with the aim of developing a framework for dealing with

  1193W
  invasive non-native species. Details of the consultation can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/nnspecies-policy/index. htm

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of trees planted by local authorities she requires to be native; and what steps is she taking to ensure that this requirement is met. [145100]

  Phil Hope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government place no such requirement on local authorities. We encourage the planting of the appropriate trees in appropriate places and authorities are advised to choose species which are suitable for their intended purpose, whether for screening, shade, ornamentation, landscape character or wildlife habitat. The soil and conditions prevailing on the site are also important considerations in species selection.

  Joint Environmental Markets Unit
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the responsibilities of the Joint Environmental Markets Unit. [144574]

  Mr. Morley
  DTI and Defra's Joint Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU), part of DTI's Business Group, aims to increase the UK's share of domestic and global markets for environmental goods and services. In response to the Environmental Goods and Services Innovation and Growth Team report of 2002, the Government are expanding JEMU to promote innovation in the environmental goods and services industry.

  The Government have decided to transfer responsibility for JEMU's international trade promotion work to UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) to form a dedicated Environment Sector unit in UKTI. This will bring arrangements for promoting the UK environmental goods and services industry overseas, in line with those for most other industry sectors, and build on the current close working between JEMU and UKTI. The Business Group and UKT&I units will continue to work closely together and there will continue to be close involvement of Defra and DTI in the work of both units.

  Kyoto Targets
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated about compliance with the Kyoto agreement targets by EU member states; and what instruments are available to the Commission to ensure that these targets are met. [147741]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Union and its member states agreed to a target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 per cent. below base year levels by 2008–12. The EU and its member states have agreed to meet their commitments jointly and, under a burden-sharing arrangement, the EU target has been redistributed between member states to reflect their national circumstances, requirements for economic growth, and the scope for further emission. reductions.
  1194W
  Under the provisions of the Monitoring Mechanism Decision (Council Decision 93/389/EEC as amended by Decision 99/296/EC), member states are required to report annually to the Commission on their anthropogenic emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol and on their national projections for emissions of these gases.

  The European Commission uses this information to assess annually, whether the actual and projected progress of member states is sufficient to ensure fulfilment of the EU's and member states' commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. The latest progress report, published in December last year, provides data for members states' emissions in 2001, and their projected emissions for 2010. That report notes that the EU had cut its total emissions to 2.3 per cent. below base year levels and that aggregate member states' "with existing measures" projections suggest that in 2010 EU emissions will have decreased by 0.5 per cent. leaving a gap of 7.5 per cent. from the Kyoto target. Eleven member states have identified additional policies and measures to achieve their commitments under the burden-sharing agreement. Taking into account these "with additional measures" projections shows that six member states—Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Sweden and the UK—would over-achieve their individual commitments. The overachievement by those member states would result in emissions reductions for the EU as a whole of 7.2 per cent. below base year emissions.

  The performance of the individual member states in 2001 and where they project their emissions will be in 2010 are set out in the following table.

  Member states Kyoto Protocol (burden-sharing) targets compared with emissions projections to 2010

  Percentage of base year emissions

  In percentage of base year emissions

  Emissions target for 2008–12 under EU burden-sharing agreement

  Change of emissions in 2001 compared with base year

  Gap between burden- sharing target and projected emissions in 2010 based on existing policies and measures

  Gap between burden-sharing target and projected emissions in 2010 based on both existing and additional policies and measures

  Austria

  -13.0

  9.6

  24.5

  5.7

  Belgium

  -7.5

  6.3

  22.9

  13.4

  Denmark

  -21.0

  -0.2

  37.8

  35.1

  Finland

  0.0

  4.7

  16.5

  -0.5

  France

  0.0

  0.4

  9.5

  -1.2

  Germany

  -21.0

  -18.3

  1.3

  1—

  Greece

  25.0

  23.5

  10.7

  -0.8

  Ireland

  13.0

  31.1

  26.8

  -0.3

  Italy

  -6.5

  7.1

  10.2

  3.1

  Luxembourg

  -28.0

  -44.2

  5.6

  1—

  Netherlands

  -6.0

  4.1

  12.1

  10.7

  Portugal

  27.0

  36.4

  14.0

  1—

  Spain

  15.0

  32.1

  33.3

  13.0

  Sweden

  4.0

  -3.3

  -3.3

  1—

  UK

  -12.5

  -12.0

  -1.4

  -10.0

  EU total

  -8.0

  -2.3

  7.5

  0.8

  1No data provided

  The "with existing measures" projections only consider the policies and measures currently implemented, while the "with additional measures" projections also take those policies and measures into account which are under discussion and have a realistic

  1195W
  chance of implementation. Neither set of projections, however, take into account the effects from several policies and measures being developed under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), particularly the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which is due to be start in 2005 and has the potential to deliver substantial additional emission cuts.

  The Government consider that placing the responsibility on member states to take the necessary action so that they meet their burden sharing targets is the best way of ensuring that the EU meets its target under the Kyoto Protocol. They will therefore support the European Commission's efforts to ensure that member states implement the policies and measures set out in the European Climate Change Programme fully and effectively.

  Under the new Monitoring Mechanism Decision, which will replace Decision 93/389/EEC, member states must, following the completion of the review of their national inventories, retire allowances (assigned amount units, removal units, emission reduction units and certified emission reductions) equivalent to their net emissions during that year for each year of the Kyoto Protocol's five year commitment period. This requirement to retire allowances annually means that member states are obliged systematically to take steps to comply with their targets over a number of years. It will give early notice of any difficulties arising where member states are not likely to have sufficient allowances to cover their emissions over the full commitment period and so will need to take further action to reduce their emissions or to acquire allowances from other Parties to the Protocol that have a surplus.

  Where member states fail to comply with obligations arising under EC law with respect to emissions reductions, the European Commission may bring proceedings against them under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. Moreover, in the event that a member state fails to comply with a judgment of the European Court of Justice, the Commission may take further action under Article 228, which could result in the imposition of fines. Member states' commitments under the burden-sharing agreement may therefore be enforced by legal action resulting in sanctions.

  North Kent Marshes
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to remove the special landscape area designation for the North Kent Marshes, with particular reference to Elmley; and if she will make a statement. [148726]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 20041 Elmley is in the North Kent Marshes Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), which was first designated in 1993. The ESA contains grazing marsh habitat that is internationally important for over-wintering and breeding birds and there are no plans to remove the ESA designation which has been successful in safeguarding these interests. New agri-environment schemes are being developed so that we can build on these achievements and enhance biodiversity.

  Plant Passports
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many plants have been imported without passports in each year since passports were introduced. [149260]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The plant passporting regime applies to certain plants and plant products known to host the most serious ("quarantine") pests and diseases. It applies only for movements within the European Community and there are no border checks carried out, although spot checks may take place anywhere in the trade chain. Producers of such material are required to be officially registered and be subject to official inspection at least annually in order to be authorised to issue plant passports.

  There are no data available either on the number of consignments received in the UK for which a plant passport has been issued by a producer, or the number of consignments received for which a passport is not required. EU legislation does not require such information to be recorded, although those despatching and receiving passported material must maintain records to facilitate monitoring and enforcement.

  In cases where official monitoring detects that a plant passport is missing on a plant or product covered by the passporting requirements, enforcement action is taken. This involves notification of the plant health authorities in the member state in which the material originated, as well as the return or destruction of the material.

  Sudden Oak Death
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of using helicopters for the purpose of identifying trees infected with sudden oak death; and if she will make a statement. [148557]

  Mr Bradshaw
  It would not be possible to spot signs of infection of Phytophthora ramorum from the air unless infection and dieback of trees and shrubs was extensive. The employment of helicopters would therefore only be of assistance to identify areas of dense planting and woodland for further investigation in areas where the infection is considerably more severe than any of the UK outbreaks identified to date. Plant health inspectors already have access to an on-line aerial photograph mapping facility to assist them in planning ground based inspections. They also have experience of using aerial surveys to detect plant disease on arable crops, although this has been with fixed wing aircraft rather than helicopters. The possibility of aerial surveys will be kept under review.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the effects of using methyl bromide as the fungicide of choice for combating sudden oak death; and if she will make a statement. [148558]

  Mr Bradshaw
  Methyl bromide is a fumigant approved for use as a pre-planting soil sterilant against some soil borne diseases including some Phytophthora species mainly in horticultural situations. Its effectiveness specifically against Phytopthora ramorum has not been evaluated because this is a new species. The
  1197W
  pesticide may already be used by nursery staff growing plant stock for the purpose of eradicating other known pests and diseases in soil pre-planting. However it is not approved for use against fungal pathogens on growing plants due to phytotoxicity problems caused by the high doses that would be necessary. The methodology of applying soil fumigants would also make it impracticable to use this a means of dealing with infection in the wider environment. There are considerable health and safety implications attached to the use of this acutely toxic substance.

  The only form of treatment currently available to eliminate infection by Phytophthora ramorum is removal and destruction of plant material. Currently approved fungicides have a suppressive effect which masks symptoms rather than eradicating the pathogen from infected plants. However, Horticulture Development Council funded research at the Central Science Laboratory is looking at a range of substances to see how well they can eradicate infection or protect healthy nursery stock from new infection.

  US Ships (Decommissioning)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the US ships intended for decommissioning by Able UK contain chemicals banned in the US. [142022]

  Mr. Morley
  The US Toxic Substances Control Act generally prohibits the export of PCBs greater in concentration that 50 ppm although an enforcement discretion permitted the export of PCBs above this concentration on the condition that all liquid or easily accessible PCBs were removed beforehand. We understand that all such PCBs were removed as part of the contractual obligations between the US Maritime Administration and Able UK Ltd.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the High Court ruling on 8 December regarding the dismantling of the contaminated former US naval ships. [143988]

  Mr. Morley
  No. Defra were not a party in the case and it is possible that parties will appeal against the decision. The ships are not contaminated any more or less than any similar ship of their age. To describe them as such is misleading.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent steps the Department has taken to promote(a) freedom of information, (b) data protection and (c) human rights. [146674]

  Mr. Lammy
  Details of the steps taken to promote freedom of information in the last year are included in the annual report on bringing into force those provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which are not yet fully in force. This was laid before both Houses on 27 November 2003 and copies have been 1198W
  placed in the Library. The Department has also produced a model action plan to assist public authorities in their preparations for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act which includes sections on raising awareness of freedom of information with staff, stakeholders and the public. Copies are available from the Department and its website.

  The Department has regular meetings with the Information Commissioner, who has statutory responsibility for promoting the observance of the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 by data controllers and for disseminating information to the public about the operation of the Act. The Information Commissioner also has responsibility for the promotion of awareness and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Both the Commissioner and the Department keep under review the operation of the Data Protection Act and closely monitor and contribute to the development of international initiatives in the data protection field.

  Officials at the Department have delivered eight awareness raising roadshows on human rights in the past year. The delivery of roadshows is on-going and with further dates already confirmed in Leeds and Oxford.

  The Department maintains a dedicated human rights helpdesk to assist members of the public and produces publications including a detailed "Study Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998", a leaflet entitled "An introduction to the Human Rights Act," which is available in nine different languages, plus an audio tape and a copy of the study guide in braille. The officials are also in the process of commissioning CD- ROM guidance on the Act, a further edition of the study guide and special guidance for those with learning disabilities. The Department's human rights website attracts praise from a number of key stakeholders, and receive an average of 1,150 hits per week.

  The Department provides assistance to the Institute for Global Ethics and Citizenship Foundation in delivering the Impetus Project—encouraging children across the UK to learn about human rights as part of their citizenship education.

  I have written in my capacity as Minister for Human Rights to each Council Leader and Public Authority Chief Executive in England and Wales—enclosing a copy of an Audit Commission report on human rights. The Act can be a valuable tool for driving up standards of public service delivery.

  I am keen to ensure that the Department takes advantage of every opportunity to speak on human rights.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Building Regulations
  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the system for ensuring compliance with the building regulations in the construction of new houses. [148880]
  1199W
  Phil Hope
  A person intending to build a new house must either apply to the local authority's building control department or they must engage an inspector approved under Part II of the Building Act 1984. The local authority or the approved inspector will then check the plans and the building work for compliance with the Building Regulations.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what recent representations he has received from the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group; [148973]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group on the effect competition has had on standards in building control. [148974]

  Phil Hope
  No recent discussions have taken place with the Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group nor has the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received any representations from them. The Group are welcome to raise with me, at any time, any matters relating to standards in building control.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 142W, on the fenestration self-assessment scheme, how large the sample of work monitored to ensure compliance with building regulations is; and if he will publish the report on compliance. [148978]

  Phil Hope
  The Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme (FENSA) routinely monitors annually 1 per cent. of the work of its member firms, with a minimum of two inspections per year. Where an inspection shows that the work has not complied, the rate of inspection for that firm will be increased. Extra inspections are also carried out in response to complaints that work does not comply. Local authorities retain their right to inspect work carried out by registered FENSA installers and to take enforcement action against them where appropriate. Local authorities will use these powers in response to a complaint.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's report on compliance is available on the ODPM website. Copies are also available in the Libraries of the House.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the results of studies into pressure testing of homes to assess whether requirements of Part L of the Building Regulations are being fully implemented. [149364]

  Phil Hope
  The current requirements in Part L for the airtightness of new homes came into effect on 1 April 2002. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish the results of pressure tests on a sample of new homes built to these standards in support of the consultation on the proposals for the next major revision of Part L, planned for this summer.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the Airfield Support Services Project on Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh. [149054]
  1200W
  Phil Hope
  The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has not yet made a decision on the Airfield Support Services Project. The possibility of joint working with the MoD on airfield support fire service training is warmly welcomed by the Fire Service College and is being taken into account in its strategic planning process.

  Local Authority Debt
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) which local authorities in England are operating on a debt-free status; [148705]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to protect the debt-free status of local authorities; [148706]

  (3) how much funding derived from capital receipts has been transferred by his Department in each of the last five years from debt-free local authorities to Metropolitan local authorities; [148707]

  (4) if he will end the transfer of funding derived from capital receipts from debt-free local authorities to Metropolitan local authorities. [148708]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table below lists the 134 local authorities that had debt-free status as of 30 September 2003:

  It was formerly our practice to take into account local authorities' capital receipts when issuing the credit approvals which allow them to borrow. That ended in April 2003. No estimates are available of the resources thereby redistributed from debt-free authorities to metropolitan authorities.

  The redistribution of resources remains a fundamental principle of the housing finance system. It is currently achieved by the requirement for authorities to set aside for debt redemption part of their housing capital receipts. Debt-free authorities are exempt and have thus enjoyed an advantage unavailable to others, but that anomaly will be corrected from 1 April this year, when set-aside is replaced by pooling, under which all authorities must pay part of their housing capital receipts to the Government. Transitional measures will protect debt-free authorities from the full impact of this new redistribution mechanism for three years. Thereafter they will be treated on the same basis as authorities with debt. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consider that the recently introduced the new prudential framework for local authority borrowing and authorities who need to borrow and can afford to do so should not be deterred by artificial incentives to remain free of debt.

  Local authorities who have reported that they have 'debt free status' as at 30 September 2003

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Babergh

  Barking&Dagenham

  Basingstoke&Deane

  Bath&North East Somerset

  Bedford

  Bracknell Forest

  Breckland

  Bridgnorth

  Broadland

  Bromley

  Bromsgrove

  1201W

  Broxbourne

  Cambridge

  Chelmsford

  Cherwell

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  City of London

  Congleton

  Corby

  Cotswold

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Hampshire

  East Lindsey

  East Northamptonshire

  Eastleigh

  Eden

  Elmbridge

  Epping Forest

  Epsom&Ewell

  Erewash

  Exeter

  Forest Heath

  Fylde

  Guildford

  Hambleton

  Harlow

  Hart

  Havant

  Hertsmere

  Horsham

  Huntingdonshire

  Kennet

  Lichfield

  Macclesfield

  Maldon

  Malvern Hills

  Mendip

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Sussex

  Mole Valley

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  North Devon

  North Dorset

  North Wiltshire

  Penwith

  Redditch

  Reigate&Banstead

  Rother

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Sevenoaks

  Shrewsbury&Atcham

  1202W

  South Bucks

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Hams

  South Lakeland

  South Northamptonshire

  South Oxfordshire

  South Shropshire

  South Somerset

  South Staffordshire

  Spelthorne

  St. Albans

  St. Edmundsbury

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Swale

  Tandridge

  Tewkesbury

  Three Rivers

  Ton bridge&Malling

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tynedale

  Uttlesford

  Vale Royal

  Vale of White Horse

  Watford

  Waverley

  Wellingborough

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Berkshire UA

  West Devon

  West Dorset

  West Lindsey

  West Oxfordshire

  West Wiltshire

  Winchester

  Windsor&Maidenhead

  Woking

  Worthing

  Wychavon

  Wycombe

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  Dorset police authority

  Kent police authority

  Suffolk police authority

  Sussex police authority

  Wiltshire police authority

  Dartmoor national park authority

  Exmoor national park authority

  Lake District national park

  North York Moors national park authority

  Northumberland national park authority

  Peak national park authority

  The Broads Authority

  Yorkshire Dales national park authority

  North London waste authority

  1203W
  For the purpose of this table, an authority is 'debt-free' only if:
  (a) at 31 March 2003, the authority's credit ceiling was nil or a negative amount and
  (b) at 30 September 2003, the authority had no money outstanding by way of external borrowing other than short-term borrowing or hard to redeem debt, as defined in Regulation 154 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his policy of requiring councils to submit proposals for disposing of their housing stock by July 2005 applies to(a) all councils and (b) only those councils unable to meet decent housing targets; how many councils have so far had applications for disposal of their housing stock accepted; what steps he is taking to ensure that the rest apply; how many proposals have been rejected by tenants' ballots; and how local authorities whose tenants reject proposals in ballots are to be helped to reach the decent housing targets. [148066]

  Yvette Cooper
  All local authorities must produce a robust stock appraisal by July 2005, which must be signed off by the relevant Government Office of the Region. Where that process identifies that additional investment is required to meet the decent homes target, local authorities can choose from three options singly or in combination: set up a high performing Arms Length Housing Management Organisation (ALMO); pursue a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme; and transfer housing to one or more housing associations.

  Since April 2001, 29 local authorities have transferred whole or part of their stock and 11 transfers have not proceeded because tenants have voted against the proposal.

  The option appraisal process is designed to ensure that tenants are involved in the decision making process from the start and that they are fully informed about the scale of the task in delivering decent homes.

  Where there is a no vote it is for the authority and tenants to re-examine the options that are available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will make a statement on(a) the local government finance settlement, (b) the supported borrowing allocation for capital spend and (c) the Supporting People grant notification for 2004–05. [148809]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Announcements on these issues will be made shortly.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2004,Official Report, columns 399–400W, elected regional assembly for Yorkshire and the Humber, if he will place in the Library the evidence upon which his assertion was based. [149691]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are committed to promoting economic growth in Yorkshire and the Humber and an elected regional assembly is very much 1204W
  part of this framework. An elected assembly would clearly bring greater democratic accountability to the region because, for the first time, activities which are currently carried out by central government, its agencies and quangos, would become the responsibility of a democratically elected regional assembly. However it will be a matter of choice for the regional electorate as to whether they wish to have an elected regional assembly.

  The White Papers "Your Region, Your Choice" and "Our Fire and Rescue Service" are already available in the Library of the House and fully set out our proposals for the regional responsibilities of elected regional assemblies, including the economic arguments, in favour.

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. David Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the operation of the Supporting People programme. [149083]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Supporting People programme which went live on 1 April 2003 provides housing related support services for more than 1 million vulnerable people—including the homeless, women fleeing domestic violence and older people—to live independently in their accommodation.

  The programme introduced an integrated planning and funding framework for housing related support services.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on funding for the Supporting People programme in its first year of operation; and what its estimated budget is for the next two years. [149084]

  Yvette Cooper
  Last October, the Government issued a written statement in the Houses of Parliament announcing funding of £1.8 billion for the first year of the Supporting People programme in England.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be making an announcement about 2004–05 funding shortly.

  An announcement for 2005–06 funding will be made in the summer.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Misuse
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives the Government plan to reduce the harm associated with alcohol misuse; and if he will make a statement. [148796]

  Ms Blears
  The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published an interim analytical report on the harms associated with alcohol misuse on 19 September 2003. This report identifies the following broad areas for policy interventions: education, information and communication; supply and pricing; health and treatment services; the community safety and criminal justice. The findings of this report have been used to inform development of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy, which will be published shortly.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the stakeholder forum on the care and use of primates in experiments will be set up; what the terms of reference will be; who will be included on the forum; and when it will report. [146169]

  Caroline Flint
  Establishment of a stakeholder forum to consider issues relating to the use of non-human primates in scientific procedures was recommended in the report by the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) "The Use of Primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986".

  This recommendation was accepted, and a forum has accordingly been set up. It will meet on 9 January. It has no formal terms of reference. Its principal task is to consider other recommendations in the APC's report. The aim is to hold an informed debate that will assist preparation of a ministerial response to the issues that the ARC has raised.

  Attendance at the forum is by invitation only. Invitees include a broad range of organisations with practical experience of the use of primates in scientific procedures, as well as those from funding and regulatory organisations and other Government Departments.

  A report of the forum's meeting and conclusions will be placed on the Home Office and ARC websites as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the feasibility of implementing the recommendations in the House of Lords report on the use of animals in scientific procedures; and if he will make a statement. [147328]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office has not commissioned, or evaluated, any formal research into the feasibility of implementing the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, published in July 2002. The Government's response to the Select Committee's report was published on 20 January 2003 (Cm 5729). Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government welcomed the Select Committee's report and noted in particular, and endorsed, its finding that animal experiments are currently necessary to develop human and veterinary medicines and to protect humans and the environment.

  We also reaffirmed our commitment to the fullest possible application of the 3Rs— the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction in the numbers of animals used and their replacement wherever possible—and to greater openness regarding the use of animals in scientific procedures, subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information.

  We were unable to accept four of the Select Committee's recommendations (numbers 15, 19, 23 and 27). These related to the inspection of establishments, the training requirement for visiting scientists and students from overseas, the requirement for lay members of local Ethical Review Processes, and the reporting of genetically modified animals which are bred but not used in the annual statistics on animal use.
  1206W
  We agreed, or broadly accepted, eleven recommendations (11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30 and 31). Action on these is in hand. In particular, we are currently exploring the recommendation that a United Kingdom centre for research into the 3Rs should be established. As part of this work the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate has sought the views of interested parties—primarily those who fund and undertake animal research—to gather information on the scope for such a centre.

  We are also looking again at the possible streamlining of the project licence application form, and at the arrangements for publication of licensing information, through a joint project team with scientific stakeholders. I have asked for progress reports on all of these issues early in 2004. In addition, the Animal Procedures Committee has been asked to review the annual statistics publication and is due to report by the end of 2004.

  One other recommendation (28), regarding the repeal of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, has been the subject of a further period of review and consultation since publication of the Government reply. I hope to announce the outcome shortly.

  The remaining eight recommendations (8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 21, and 26) broadly endorsed existing Home Office policy and practice.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of licence applications under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were(a) accepted without alteration, (b) returned for redrafting before resubmission and (c) rejected in the last year for which figures are available; and how many and what percentage were referred for consideration to the Animals Procedures Committee. [147407]

  Caroline Flint
  A feature of the regulatory regime under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the discussion that often takes place at an early stage between applicants (or prospective applicants) and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. This means that proposals unlikely to meet the Act's stringent requirements are revised or withdrawn before formal refusal becomes necessary.

  Our central database records do not show all these dealings that commonly go on between applicants and individual Inspectors at various stages in the application process, and much of the requested information is therefore not readily available.

  We can say that in 2002, the last year in which figures were published, one project licence application was formally refused. Over the same period, 97 project licence applications, 17 personal licence applications and one application for a certificate of designation are recorded as not proceeded with.

  For additional information, paragraph 12 of Appendix A of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Great Britain) 2002 (Command 5886, available in the Library) provides the total number of project and personal licences, and certificates of designation, granted and revoked during 2002, showing how many were in force on 31 December 2002.
  1207W
  During 2002. a total of four project licence applications were referred to the Animals Procedures Committee for consideration. This represents 0.58 per cent. of the total project licences granted that year.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been(a) granted and (b) refused by each magistrates bench in North Wales since their introduction. [148492]

  Ms Blears
  A total of 16 notifications have been received by the Home Office, of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) granted within North Wales, up to 30 September 2003 (latest available). Of this total, 15 have been issued within magistrates courts, details of which are given in the table, and, following implementation of the Police Reform Act (December 2002), one ASBO has been given by the Crown court at Mold (North Wales and Chester Crown court group). No notifications have been received of ASBOs refused in North Wales.

  The number of notifications of ASBOs issued within North Wales, as reported to the Home Office, up to 30 September 2003, by magistrates court.

  Magistrates court

  Total issued

  Conwy psa

  3

  Flintshire psa

  3

  Gwynedd psa

  2

  Wrexham Maelor psa

  7

  Immigration
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has had with hon. Members about immigration cases in the last 12 months. [145415]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Minister of State with responsibility for immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) regularly meets hon. Members to discuss particular immigration cases.

  Asylum
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the circumstances in which it would be in the interests of children of asylum seekers to separate them from their parents. [142767]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 December 2003]The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill does not change in any way the grounds on which children may be taken into care. The Government's policy remains to ensure that families whose asylum claims have failed are removed together. Where there are difficulties or delays with enforced removal, but families have been provided with opportunities to return voluntarily and at no cost to themselves, the Bill provides that families who refuse these opportunities would no longer be entitled to support at the expense of the taxpayer. If parents fail to take these opportunities to leave and put their children 1208W
  at risk, it would be for the local authority to decide how the interests of their children should be protected under existing child protection legislation.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many unaccompanied child asylum seekers arrived at Gatwick in each of the last three years; and how many of them are registered in care; [144994]

  (2) how many unaccompanied child asylum seekers have presented themselves at UK ports of entry in each of the last six years. [141057]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data on the number of asylum seekers without documentation claiming to be minors that arrive at specific ports of entry are not recorded and collated centrally. This information could therefore be obtained from individual case files only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum statistics is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http:// www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1. html.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were allowed to enter the United Kingdom as political or religious refugees from Somalia during 2003. [148071]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of Somali men and women allowed to enter the United Kingdom as political or religious refugees during 2003 is not currently available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Information on asylum applications and decisions by gender and nationality is published annually. The annual publication for 2003 will be available at the end of August 2004 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at ht tp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1. html.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policies to tackle cannabis abuse. [148603]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government are determined to support the police in tackling the problem of drug abuse with an effective and realistic approach to drug legislation, enforcement and education. Cannabis will not be legalised or decriminalised. It is a harmful drug that will remain illegal following its reclassification as a Class C drug on 29 January.

  Our drugs laws and our educational messages to young people must reflect the relative harms of drugs, in accordance with the available scientific and medical advice, if they are to be credible. Reclassification will enable a more convincing and ultimately more effective educational message to be conveyed to young people about the dangers of misusing different types of drug, including cannabis.

  We are publishing information about what reclassification will mean in practice—through making a leaflet widely available to young people and through extensive radio advertising, beginning on 22 January—to ensure that the clear message that cannabis is illegal

  1209W
  and harmful continues to be heard. This information will feed into the three year FRANK publicity campaign to better inform people's understanding of drugs and to provide a single, easily accessible source of advice and support for those affected by drug use. This will help young people, in particular, to understand what will happen to them if they are found in possession of cannabis (or any other illegal drug) or are supplying drugs.

  Reclassification also sends a clear signal to the police that the priority is Class A drugs, like heroin and crack cocaine, which do the most harm. The Association of Chief Police Officers' cannabis enforcement guidance is rightly directed at ensuring that those who cause public order problems, those who persist in misusing cannabis, and those who use cannabis close to places where children are present are dealt with appropriately. But where none of these factors apply, it is not right that someone who is an adult who is found with cannabis should take up police time.

  Time saved as a consequence of policing cannabis possession offences in this way, following reclassification, will provide the police with an opportunity to focus greater resources on priority areas like tackling Class A drug supply offences.

  Catapults
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of damage or injury caused by the use of catapults have been reported in each of the last five years; and how many of these cases have led to(a) arrest and (b) prosecution. [148538]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not collected centrally and could be done so only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to outlaw the sale and use of catapults; and if he will make a statement. [148541]

  Ms Blears
  We are not satisfied that the problem of the misuse of catapults is serious enough to merit their inclusion on the current list of prohibited weapons. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Coroners' Salaries
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the salaries are of(a) the Cleveland Coroner, (b) his deputy and (c) his assistant deputy. [147651]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 13 January 2004]Coroners' salaries are agreed with the relevant local authorities and the Home Office has no information about individual salary levels. The Cleveland lead authority is Middlesbrough Borough Council and it is a matter for that authority to decide whether or not to provide the requested information.

  Corporate Killing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce legislation on corporate killing. [146541]
  1210W
  Paul Goggins
  The Government are committed to reforming the law on corporate manslaughter. We intend to publish our proposals for legislation in the near future, followed by a draft Bill in the spring.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Atem; [144636]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Atem; [145965]

  (3) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 November 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Atem. [147618]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 13 January 2004.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 1 December 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Abdul Hussain Talash. [149547]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 19 January 2004.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the most recent annual cost of credit card fraud. [148836]

  Ms Blears
  The Government do not collect figures on the cost of credit card fraud but the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) assesses the cost of all plastic card fraud in 2002 (the most recent figures available) to be £424.6 million.

  In April 2002, the Government launched a two-year pilot of a unique policing unit (the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU)) based in London, which works closely with the banking industry to reduce organised card and cheque fraud, using intelligence largely provided by the card industry. DCPCU had significant success in its first year including recovery of more than 4,000 cards and 525 cheques, resulting in 59 arrests. Potential savings amount to £13.35 million. DCPCU cases have so far led to 31 convictions, all following guilty pleas.

  Government are actively supporting "Chip and PIN", a major finance and retail industry initiative which is the introduction of microchips into payment cards to help authentication combined with the introduction of PIN codes in place of signatures. The banking industry anticipates that, by 2005, the new Chip and PIN technology will eliminate over half of the predicted level of plastic card fraud in the UK.

  Departmental Relocation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment his Department has made of the benefits of re-location of staff to north Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement; [146864]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of proposals to relocate Government jobs on the Department's ability to meet (a) departmental policy objectives and (b) departmental public service agreements; [146880]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of possible relocation of staff in his Department to north Staffordshire on (a) job creation, (b) sustainable development, (c) the local economy and (d) tackling regional economic disparities; and if he will make a statement; [146893]

  (4) what plans he has to establish procedures for assessing the impact of possible re-location of staff in his Department to the regions; and if he will make a statement. [146924]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave her to similar questions to his Department on 12 January 2004.Official Report, column 516W.

  Driving Standards
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department has set for the police concerning motorists(a) eating, (b)smoking and (c) drinking non-alcoholic drinks whilst driving. [148413]

  Caroline Flint
  Drivers must have proper control of their vehicles and drive carefully and safely at all times. Any motorist who fails to do so, for whatever reason, is liable to prosecution for failing to exercise proper control of a vehicle, careless or inconsiderate driving, or dangerous driving. The police will consider in each case whether eating, drinking or smoking whilst driving might amount to or contribute to the commission of one of these offences and charge accordingly. The Association of Chief Police Officers is content that the existing legislation provides sufficient powers to prosecute successfully any driving offences that may arise from distracting behaviour.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers failed a breath test in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [148363]

  Ms Blears
  Information for Lancashire from 1997 to 2001 is given in the table. Data for 2002 will be available in the spring 2004.

  Number of positive or refused breath tests within Lancashire police force area, 1997–2001

  Positive/refused

  1997

  2,700

  1998

  1,900

  1999

  1,900

  2000

  1,600

  2001

  2,500

  1212W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of drivers failed a breath test during December in each year since 1997; [147925]

  (2) how many breath tests were taken by drivers in each year since 1997; and how many accidents were caused by drunk drivers in each year since 1997. [147926]

  Ms Blears
  Information for England and Wales is given in the tables.

  Table A—Screening breath tests and the number and percentage of positive or refused within the month of December, 1997–20011—England and Wales

  Total tests

  Positive/refused

  Percentage positive/refused

  1997

  142,900

  9,100

  6

  1998

  142,500

  8,100

  6

  1999

  120,300

  8,900

  7

  2000

  107,600

  8,900

  8

  2001

  99,100

  9,000

  9

  1Figures for 2002 are not available.

  Source:

  Home Office

  Table B—Number of screening breath tests, 1997–2001 1—England and Wales

  Total number of breath tests

  1997

  800,300

  1998

  815,500

  1999

  764,500

  2000

  714,800

  2001

  623,900

  1Figures for 2002 are not available.

  Source:

  Home Office

  Table C—Accidents in which at least one driver provided a positive breath test or refused, 1997–2002—England and Wales

  Accident severity

  Total number of accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1997

  7,309

  131

  1,609

  5,569

  1998

  6,916

  111

  1,419

  5,386

  1999

  6,982

  88

  1,319

  5,575

  2000

  7,391

  98

  1,370

  5,923

  2001

  7,534

  98

  1,433

  6,003

  2002

  7,555

  91

  1,395

  6,069

  Source:

  Department of Transport

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs of drug-related crime in each year since 1997. [148605]

  Caroline Flint
  Estimates of the costs of drug-related crime are not available annually. However, a recent study published by the Home Office provides estimates of the total economic and social costs of Class A drug use and puts these in the range of £10.1 to £17.4 billion for the year 2000. These costs include the costs of drug-related crime, which are estimated to fall in the range £8.8 to £15.8 billion. The costs of drug-related crime include victim costs and those accruing to courts, prisons and other parts of the criminal justice system.

  Durham Police Force
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the strength of the Durham police force was in each year since 2000, broken down by rank; and how many civilian personnel there were in each year. [148780]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out in the table. Decisions on the number of officers in each rank below that of Assistant Chief Constable is the responsibility of the Chief Constable.

  (I) Police Strength by Rank (Durham Constabulary)

  Rank

  31 March 2000

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  ACPO Ranks1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Chief Superintendent2

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Superintendent

  19

  19

  18

  4

  Chief Inspector

  23

  21

  21

  18

  Inspector

  78

  81

  80

  85

  Sergeant

  209

  207

  215

  218

  Constable

  1,226

  1,264

  1,277

  1,313

  1 ACPO ranks include Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable.

  2 Chief Superintendent rank was abolished in April 1995 and was reintroduced from 1 January 2002. Separate collection of Chief Superintendent and Superintendent data was not reintroduced until March 2003.

  (II) Police (Support) Staff

  Year1

  Number of Police Staff

  2000

  590

  2001

  566

  2002

  660

  2003

  602

  1As at 31 March

  Early Release
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many under 18-year-olds have been released under the early release of short-term prisoners; and how many were assigned a mentor on release. [146997]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]The standard custodial sentence (up to 24 months) for offenders under 18 is the Detention and Training Order (DTO). Half the term is spent in custody and the remaining half under supervision in the community. Early release from custody (of one month, in the case of offenders serving terms of eight, 10 or 12 months; or one or two months, for those serving 18 or 24 months) has been available since the DTO was introduced in April 2000. In May 2002, new guidance specified that, in future, DTO trainees granted early release would be electronically monitored up to their original release from-custody date.

  Since 29 May 2002, 2,451 DTO trainees have been granted early release. The guidance does not specify that those released should be assigned a mentor. It is open to Youth Offending Teams to arrange this, and those offenders who undertake an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme during the community part of their DTO are usually assigned a mentor, but figures on this are not collected centrally.

  Emergency Services (Radio Systems)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Government will ensure that usable spectrum is available to bidders seeking to supply and manage new radio network systems for the emergency services following the award of the contract for a new modern digital radio system for the police service to Airwave/02 in February 2000. [147809]

  Ms Blears
  Potential suppliers of public safety radio networks may apply to the interdepartmental Public Safety Spectrum Policy Group (PSSPG) for suitable radio spectrum. The PSSPG is an interdepartmental committee that ultimately answers to the UK Spectrum Strategy Committee of the Cabinet Office. Regularly updated information on available spectrum is available on the Ofcom website.

  EU Accession Countries
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the residents of the nations securing membership of the EU in May will have automatic right of access to the United Kingdom on that date; and whether they will have access to social security and housing benefits; [146651]

  (2) which member states of the EU have placed restrictions for seven years on the entitlement of new EU citizens to gain access and to secure benefits in their nations; and whether the UK is able to seek similar restrictions. [146652]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]Under the EU Accession Treaty, citizens of all 10 new member states will enjoy the same right to travel freely across the EU as is enjoyed by citizens of the current member states, for all but one of the purposes envisaged by the EC Treaty. The Accession Treaty allows the 15 current member states to impose temporary restrictions on the right of citizens of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia to travel freely across the EU for the purpose of work. These restrictions may last, at the most, until 30 April 2011. Cypriot and Maltese citizens will enjoy free movement for work across the EU automatically on accession.

  The United Kingdom Government, along with Denmark, Netherlands, Greece, Ireland and Sweden, have decided to allow access to their labour markets immediately upon the accession. Many other member states have yet to make any final decisions. France and Germany have indicated that they will impose some temporary restrictions on workers for at least two years from accession.

  Citizens of the new member states will have the same rights and restrictions as citizens of existing EU member states in relation to access to social security and housing benefits.

  Under EC law, a citizen of the European Union may not be discriminated against on the grounds of nationality and must enjoy the same access to social security benefits as a national of the state of residence.
  1215W
  The habitual residence test, which applies to income related non-contributory benefits, such as housing benefit and pension credit, has to be satisfied before a person can receive these benefits.

  Entitlement to contributory benefits, such as state pension, depends on payment of national insurance contributions.

  Citizens of other EU member states cannot come to the UK simply to claim benefits. They must first meet the Habitual Residence Test (HRT). The HRT covers non-contributory benefits including income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit, and council tax benefit.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the benefits system and the taxpayers who support it are protected against abuse by people with little or no connection with the UK. Measures already in place under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, together with the HRT, help insure this. This area is kept under constant review to ensure that the benefit system remains fully robust and resistant to abuse.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding was provided to local authorities for the training of public service providers, with particular reference to police, teachers, doctors and nurses, to enable them to understand and identify women who have undergone female genital mutilation in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; [146054]

  (2) what funding was provided to (a) St. Helens and (b) Merseyside for the training of public service providers, with particular reference to police, teachers, doctors and nurses, to enable them to understand and identify women who have undergone female genital mutilation in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003. [146044]

  Paul Goggins
  No specific funding was provided to local authorities for this purpose.

  However, the voluntary organisation the Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development (FORWARD) received a core grant of £40,000 for each of the three years to 2004–05 and an additional sum of £25,000 for each of the three years to 2003–04 for a project aimed at mobilising professionals who work with children from communities where Female Genital Mutilation is practised. This involves assessing the training needs of a range of professionals and offering them training.

  The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 received Royal Assent on 30 October. The Government will take steps to ensure that relevant professionals are informed about this new legislation and their duties under it.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the case for private finance initiative for the Forensic Science Service to upgrade its laboratories. [148213]

  Ms Blears
  The independent McFarland Review identified that if the Forensic Science Service (FSS) were to remain a Trading Fund, funding for investment in 1216W
  laboratories would probably need to come from some form of Private Finance Initiative (PFI). This has not been assessed in detail as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, accepted the review's main conclusion that more fundamental changes were needed to secure the FSS' future growth and that this should be achieved by its transformation into a public private partnership.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of expenditure required to upgrade the Forensic Science Service laboratories in each of its centres; and if he will list the centres. [148365]

  Ms Blears
  Assessment of the capital expenditure requirement for the Forensic Science Service (FSS) was undertaken within the recent review of this organisation, led by Robert McFarland. It was estimated that the FSS requires capital expenditure in the region of £20 million to £30 million to sustain business at its present level in the emerging competitive climate. The Review team did not undertake a detailed study of the FSS's capital investment needs, which would be necessary to determine a precise figure and establish the investment required at each of the centres.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress his Department is making in dealing with(a) passport fraud and (b) duplicate or false national insurance numbers. [147327]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 13 January 2004.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed in each year since 1996–97 involving(a) handguns, (b) rifles, (c) shotguns, (d) air weapons and (e) imitation firearms; and how many gun crimes for each year were drug-related. [148312]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The relevant information is given in the table.

  Number of recorded crimes in which a firearm was used1

  Year2

  Handguns

  Rifles

  Shotguns

  Air weapons

  Imitation firearms

  1996

  3,347

  63

  933

  7,813

  498

  1997

  2,648

  51

  580

  7,506

  511

  1998–993

  2,687

  43

  642

  8,665

  566

  1999–2000

  3,685

  67

  693

  10,103

  823

  2000–01

  4,109

  36

  608

  10,227

  787

  2001–024

  5,871

  64

  711

  12,340

  1,201

  1Fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat.

  2Calendar years up to 1997 and financial years thereafter.

  3There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which may have had an inflationary effect on firearm offence statistics.

  4Some police forces adopted the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002, and this may have had an inflationary effect on firearm offence statistics.

  Statistics of whether firearms offences are drug-related are not collected centrally.
  1217W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegally owned or carried(a) handguns, (b) rifles, (c) military weapons, (d) automatic weapons and (e) semi-automatic weapons have been recovered by (i) police forces in England and Wales and (ii) Customs and Excise at ports of entry in the UK in each of the last five years. [147384]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]The information requested on weapons recovered by the police is not currently available.

  Customs and Excise have provided the following details to the Home Office of the numbers of firearms they have seized in the last five years. These figures include imports and exports. Any military, automatic and semi-automatic weapons will be included in the totals and are not separately identified.

  Number of illegal firearms seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Year ended 31 March

  Hand guns

  Rifles

  Shotguns

  1999

  85

  106

  55

  2000

  420

  100

  135

  2001

  168

  49

  51

  2002

  305

  113

  230

  2003

  127

  102

  41

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for conversion of(a) air and (b) imitation weapons to fire live ammunition in each of the last five years. [147395]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]The available information is given in the table. The statistics collected centrally relate only to the illegal conversion into firearms of anything which, though having the appearance of being a firearm, is so constructed as to be incapable of discharging any missile through its barrel. It is not possible to make a distinction between the type of guns converted, but the conversion of air weapons is not covered by the offence under section 4(3) of the Firearms Act 1968 since most are already classified as firearms.

  Persons proceeded against for conversion of firearms, England and Wales

  Number

  1998

  4

  1999

  3

  2000

  11

  2001

  3

  2002

  4

  1 Excludes figures for Staffordshire.

  Note:

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Lancashire Police Force
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the full-time equivalent strength of the police force in Lancashire, broken down by rank, for each of the last three years. [148366]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out in the table. Decisions on the number of officers in each rank below that of Assistant Chief Constable is the responsibility of the Chief Constable.
  1218W

  Rank

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  ACPO Ranks1

  4

  4

  4

  Chief Superintendent2

  —

  —

  8

  Superintendent

  33

  31

  20

  Chief Inspector

  37

  35

  41

  Inspector

  163

  166

  174

  Sergeant

  513

  513

  514

  Constable

  2,505

  2,555

  2,578

  1 ACPO ranks include Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable.

  2 Chief Superintendent rank was abolished in April 1995 and was reintroduced from 1 January 2002. Separate collection of Chief Superintendent and Superintendent data was not reintroduced until March 2003.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in Lancashire, in each of the last three years, broken down by rank. [148367]

  Ms Blears
  Home Office figures on police strength moved to an annual cycle from March 2002 and are available in the House Library, as are previous publications. The total number of Special Constables in Lancashire for each of the past three years is as follows:31 March 2001–360
  31 March 2002–363
  31 March 2003–351

  There are no ranks specified in Regulations for the Special Constabulary and information concerning grades used within forces is not collected centrally.

  Leak Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries his Department has conducted into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and on what occasions the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public(a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. [147008]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 12 January 2004]Since 1997, the Home Office has investigated 65 suspected leaks. In line with Exemptions 1(a) and 7 (b) set out in Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it has been the practice of successive governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements.

  Migrant Workers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many migrant workers there are in the UK(a) from the EU and (b) from outside the EU; and what percentage he estimates are legal migrant workers. [142417]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. Such information we can provide is set out in the table.
  1219W

  The total number of migrant workers with a UK arrival date April 2001 to March 2002; applying for a national insurance number

  Number

  Total

  156,400

  EU

  43,265

  Outside the EU

  113,135

  Notes:

  1. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Figures are taken from a 100 per cent. sample and are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre

  Murders (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were(a) committed and (b) solved in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [148211]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Numbers of homicide1 offences recorded by Lancashire Police

  Offences recorded

  Offences detected

  1998–99

  24

  24

  1999–2000

  19

  18

  2000–01

  27

  26

  2001–02

  21

  21

  2002–03

  28

  24

  1Homicide is comprised of murder, manslaughter and infanticide offences.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people visited the United Kingdom from(a) Cameroon, (b) Romania and (c) South Africa in the last year for which figures are available. [147781]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information is given in the following table.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors, by nationality, 2002

  United Kingdom

  Number of journeys

  Total

  Ordinary visitor

  Business visitor

  Romania

  30,800

  11,400

  19,300

  South Africa

  189,000

  146,000

  42,900

  Note:

  The figures in this table have been rounded to three significant digits;

  because of this the sum of the constituent items may not agree with the total as shown.

  Police officer strength1

  Rank order

  Alphabetical order

  Police force area

  March 19972

  Police force area

  March 20032.3

  Police force area

  March 19972

  Police force area

  March 20032.3

  Metropolitan Police4

  367

  Metropolitan Police4

  401

  Avon and Somerset

  204

  Avon and Somerset

  212

  Merseyside

  296

  West Midlands

  303

  Bedfordshire

  200

  Bedfordshire

  195

  Gwent

  275

  Merseyside

  301

  Cambridgeshire

  188

  Cambridgeshire

  195

  West Midlands

  270

  Greater Manchester

  296

  Cheshire

  209

  Cheshire

  215

  1220W
  I regret that is not possible to identify Cameroon separately in our visitor statistics.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom are published in the Command Paper `Control of immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002' (Cm6053), obtainable from the House Library, The Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubsl.html.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people entered the UK from the USA in the latest year for which figures are available. [148411]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information shows that a total of 4,220,000 USA nationals were admitted to the United Kingdom during 2002.

  Data on passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom are published in the Command Paper `Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002' (Cm 6053), obtainable from the Library, The Stationery Office and via the Home Office website http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hobpubsl.html

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to written question No.142767 of 8 December 2003; [149507]

  (2) when he will reply to written question No.142763 of 8 December 2003. [149508]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have replied to both written questions 142763 and 142767 from the hon. Member. The former was answered on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 877, and the latter was answered today, 20 January.

  Police
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current level is of police civilian support staff. [148315]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The number of full-time equivalent police staff for the police service in England and Wales (includes 43 police force areas and the National Crime Squad) was 63,105 on 31 March 2003. This figure excludes community support officers and traffic wardens.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force in England and Wales(a) in rank order and (b) in alphabetical order the ratio of full-time equivalent police officers to population (i) in 1996–97 and (ii) on the latest available date. [148313]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The following table provides the ratio of police officers to population for 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2003.
  1221W

  Police officers strength 1

  Rank order

  Alphabetical order

  Police force area

  March 19972

  Police force area

  March 2003 2,3

  Police force area

  March 19972

  Police force area

  March 20032,3

  Greater Manchester

  268

  Cleveland

  292

  City of London4

  —

  City of London4

  —

  Cleveland

  261

  Northumbria

  285

  Cleveland

  261

  Cleveland

  292

  Northumbria

  256

  Durham

  279

  Cumbria

  233

  Cumbria

  234

  West Yorkshire

  247

  South Wales

  270

  Derbyshire

  187

  Derbyshire

  209

  South Yorkshire

  242

  South Yorkshire

  251

  Devon and Cornwall

  186

  Devon and Cornwall

  203

  Durham

  240

  Gwent

  243

  Dorset

  189

  Dorset

  204

  Cumbria

  233

  Humberside

  242

  Durham

  240

  Durham

  279

  Humberside

  230

  West Yorkshire

  242

  Dyfed-Powys

  212

  Dyfed-Powys

  235

  Lancashire

  228

  Nottinghamshire

  237

  Essex

  197

  Essex

  185

  Nottinghamshire

  225

  Lancashire

  236

  Gloucestershire

  205

  Gloucestershire

  217

  South Wales

  223

  Dyfed-Powys

  235

  Greater Manchester

  268

  Greater Manchester

  296

  Dyfed-Powys

  212

  Cumbria

  234

  Gwent

  275

  Gwent

  243

  Leicestershire

  211

  North Wales

  232

  Hampshire

  198

  Hampshire

  206

  Sussex

  211

  Leicestershire

  229

  Hertfordshire

  205

  Hertfordshire

  189

  Kent

  210

  Kent

  221

  Humberside

  230

  Humberside

  242

  Staffordshire

  209

  Gloucestershire

  217

  Kent

  210

  Kent

  221

  Cheshire

  209

  Cheshire

  215

  Lancashire

  228

  Lancashire

  236

  Surrey

  209

  Avon and Somerset

  212

  Leicestershire

  211

  Leicestershire

  229

  North Wales

  208

  Staffordshire

  210

  Lincolnshire

  196

  Lincolnshire

  189

  Gloucestershire

  205

  Derbyshire

  209

  Merseyside

  296

  Merseyside

  301

  Hertfordshire

  205

  Hampshire

  206

  Metropolitan Police4

  367

  Metropolitan Police4

  401

  Avon and Somerset

  204

  Dorset

  204

  Norfolk

  185

  Norfolk

  188

  Bedfordshire

  200

  Devon and Cornwall

  203

  North Wales

  208

  North Wales

  232

  Hampshire

  198

  Sussex

  200

  North Yorkshire

  183

  North Yorkshire

  192

  Essex

  197

  Warwickshire

  197

  Northamptonshire

  196

  Northamptonshire

  192

  Northamptonshire

  196

  Bedfordshire

  195

  Northumbria

  256

  Northumbria

  285

  Lincolnshire

  196

  Cambridgeshire

  195

  Nottinghamshire

  225

  Nottinghamshire

  237

  Wiltshire

  195

  West Mercia

  195

  South Wales

  223

  South Wales

  270

  Dorset

  189

  North Yorkshire

  192

  South Yorkshire

  242

  South Yorkshire

  251

  Cambridgeshire

  188

  Northamptonshire

  192

  Staffordshire

  209

  Staffordshire

  210

  Derbyshire

  187

  Hertfordshire

  189

  Suffolk

  180

  Suffolk

  187

  Devon and Cornwall

  186

  Wiltshire

  189

  Surrey

  209

  Surrey

  180

  Warwickshire

  186

  Lincolnshire

  189

  Sussex

  211

  Sussex

  200

  Norfolk

  185

  Norfolk

  188

  Thames Valley

  180

  Thames Valley

  183

  West Mercia

  183

  Suffolk

  187

  Warwickshire

  186

  Warwickshire

  197

  North Yorkshire

  183

  Essex

  185

  West Mercia

  183

  West Mercia

  195

  Thames Valley

  180

  Thames Valley

  183

  West Midlands

  270

  West Midlands

  303

  Suffolk

  180

  Surrey

  180

  West Yorkshire

  247

  West Yorkshire

  242

  City of London4

  —

  City of London4

  —

  Wiltshire

  195

  Wiltshire

  189

  Total

  241

  252

  Total

  241

  252

  1Full-time equivalents

  2Police strength per 100,000 population

  3Comparable strength

  4City of London and Metropolitan Police combined

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Tetra technology was chosen for the UK police force modern digital radio system, excluding competition from other technologies. [147810]

  Ms Blears
  Expert assessments of available technologies were made at the start of the procurement process for the new police radio system. The experts concluded that TETRA was the only standard to meet fully the requirements of the police service.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers, broken down by(a) sex and (b) ethnicity, were employed by each English police force in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997, (iii) 2001 and (iv) at the latest date for which figures are available. [148407]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the following tables:

  Police officer strength1 in England by gender as at 31 March

  English police forces

  1992

  1997

  2001

  2003

  Males

  Avon and Somerset

  2,769

  2,622

  2,530

  2,638

  Bedfordshire

  940

  911

  837

  881

  Cambridgeshire

  1,107

  1,119

  1,105

  1,144

  1222W

  Police officer strength 1 in England by gender as at 31 March

  English police forces

  1992

  1997

  2001

  2003

  Cheshire

  1,649

  1,759

  1,669

  1,725

  Cleveland

  1,319

  1,251

  1,163

  1,321

  Cumbria

  1,041

  970

  870

  901

  Derbyshire

  1,531

  1,564

  1,553

  1,643

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,769

  2,458

  2,428

  2,600

  Dorset

  1,135

  1,105

  1,121

  1,165

  Durham

  1,264

  1,229

  1,295

  1,316

  Essex

  2,554

  2,493

  2,419

  2,413

  Gloucestershire

  1,046

  979

  945

  979

  Greater Manchester

  6,142

  5,774

  5,627

  5,940

  Hampshire

  2,852

  2,917

  2,833

  2,934

  Hertfordshire

  1,446

  1,453

  1,546

  1,530

  Humberside

  1,840

  1,761

  1,604

  1,700

  Kent

  2,660

  2,734

  2,683

  2,784

  Lancashire

  2,833

  2,722

  2,676

  2,716

  Leicestershire

  1,626

  1,630

  1,707

  1,758

  Lincolnshire

  1,078

  1,047

  1,034

  1,020

  City of London

  713

  739

  607

  676

  Merseyside

  4,083

  3,561

  3,413

  3,407

  Metropolitan police

  24,416

  22,779

  20,946

  23,290

  Norfolk

  1.288

  1,239

  1,195

  1,250

  Northamptonshire

  1,044

  1,006

  959

  963

  Northumbria

  3,117

  3,160

  3,244

  3,272

  North Yorkshire

  1,249

  1,160

  1,109

  1,197

  Nottinghamshire

  2,103

  2,006

  1,795

  2,011

  South Yorkshire

  2,676

  2,684

  2,600

  2,551

  Staffordshire

  1,883

  1,839

  1,708

  1,766

  1223W

  Police officer strength1 in England by gender as at 31 March

  English police forces

  1992

  1997

  2001

  2003

  Suffolk

  1,084

  996

  935

  1,003

  Surrey

  1,491

  1,386

  1,703

  1,501

  Sussex

  2,665

  2,633

  2,361

  2,390

  Thames Valley

  3,252

  3,106

  3,051

  3,086

  Warwickshire

  883

  800

  780

  815

  West Mercia

  1,783

  1,740

  1,625

  1,822

  West Midlands

  5,934

  5,742

  5,775

  5,926

  West Yorkshire

  4,490

  4.403

  3,985

  4,038

  Wiltshire

  1,080

  1,001

  914

  917

  Females

  Avon and Somerset

  312

  367

  430

  511

  Bedfordshire

  153

  183

  199

  225

  Cambridgeshire

  143

  183

  191

  240

  Cheshire

  225

  287

  334

  394

  Cleveland

  158

  209

  244

  261

  Cumbria

  138

  174

  178

  239

  Derbyshire

  175

  227

  270

  360

  Devon and Cornwall

  312

  407

  506

  602

  Dorset

  154

  179

  233

  251

  Durham

  125

  232

  300

  336

  Essex

  344

  468

  468

  576

  Gloucestershire

  141

  154

  228

  248

  Greater Manchester

  919

  1,148

  1,282

  1,403

  Hampshire

  359

  535

  602

  734

  Hertfordshire

  249

  306

  376

  428

  Humberside

  186

  284

  314

  405

  Kent

  414

  526

  635

  703

  Lancashire

  365

  525

  579

  623

  Leicestershire

  219

  319

  326

  355

  Lincolnshire

  118

  149

  169

  202

  City of London

  95

  120

  96

  132

  Merseyside

  583

  669

  668

  692

  Metropolitan police

  3,738

  3,899

  3,932

  4,694

  Norfolk

  126

  193

  225

  249

  Northamptonshire

  114

  171

  198

  247

  Northumbria

  347

  517

  614

  672

  North Yorkshire

  149

  178

  196

  246

  Nottinghamshire

  228

  318

  417

  400

  South Yorkshire

  332

  475

  597

  633

  Staffordshire

  293

  372

  420

  436

  Suffolk

  134

  184

  197

  250

  Surrey

  215

  234

  363

  406

  Sussex

  319

  452

  495

  599

  Thames Valley

  520

  589

  652

  747

  Warwickshire

  107

  126

  146

  182

  West Mercia

  251

  301

  326

  434

  West Midlands

  1,007

  1,371

  1,648

  1,825

  West Yorkshire

  597

  806

  830

  990

  Wiltshire

  141

  153

  206

  241

  1Full-time equivalents

  Minority ethnic police officer strength1 as at 31 March

  English police forces

  19923

  1997

  2001

  20032

  Males

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  25

  29

  36

  Bedfordshire

  30

  0

  27

  42

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  20

  23

  29

  Cheshire

  1

  4

  6

  8

  Cleveland

  10

  15

  17

  22

  Cumbria

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Derbyshire

  23

  30

  36

  53

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  4

  9

  15

  Dorset

  3

  5

  7

  10

  Durham

  3

  6

  12

  20

  Essex

  20

  25

  23

  35

  Gloucestershire

  10

  9

  14

  17

  Greater Manchester

  105

  137

  163

  199

  Hampshire

  13

  26

  33

  40

  Hertfordshire

  13

  16

  25

  33

  Humberside

  5

  9

  8

  16

  Kent

  9

  13

  35

  40

  Lancashire

  25

  26

  41

  64

  Leicestershire

  49

  66

  76

  82

  Lincolnshire

  1

  3

  8

  9

  1224W

  Minority ethnic police officer strength1 as at 31 March

  English police forces

  19923

  1997

  2001

  20032

  City of London

  6

  11

  14

  23

  Merseyside

  48

  61

  65

  50

  Metropolitan police

  433

  641

  840

  1,269

  Norfolk

  0

  7

  12

  14

  Northamptonshire

  17

  25

  26

  33

  Northumbria

  11

  21

  28

  45

  North Yorkshire

  4

  7

  5

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  45

  48

  68

  South Yorkshire

  24

  58

  69

  64

  Staffordshire

  14

  21

  22

  20

  Suffolk

  4

  8

  12

  18

  Surrey

  13

  17

  24

  28

  Sussex

  12

  15

  22

  25

  Thames Valley

  45

  61

  71

  90

  Warwickshire

  7

  15

  18

  26

  West Mercia

  14

  23

  21

  23

  West Midlands

  145

  208

  264

  315

  West Yorkshire

  72

  108

  110

  129

  Wiltshire

  11

  11

  8

  11

  Females

  Avon and Somerset

  5

  5

  5

  8

  Bedfordshire

  11

  12

  11

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  8

  8

  6

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Cleveland

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Derbyshire

  4

  7

  9

  9

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  0

  3

  6

  Dorset

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Durham

  1

  2

  2

  5

  Essex

  2

  6

  10

  15

  Gloucestershire

  2

  3

  2

  1

  Greater Manchester

  21

  24

  25

  37

  Hampshire

  2

  5

  6

  9

  Hertfordshire

  5

  3

  6

  10

  Humberside

  1

  2

  4

  6

  Kent

  2

  5

  8

  11

  Lancashire

  5

  7

  11

  12

  Leicestershire

  5

  11

  16

  15

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  2

  3

  City of London

  2

  8

  4

  5

  Merseyside

  9

  15

  16

  12

  Metropolitan police

  130

  184

  209

  316

  Norfolk

  0

  1

  3

  2

  Northamptonshire

  2

  5

  5

  6

  Northumbria

  2

  5

  5

  7

  North Yorkshire

  0

  5

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  16

  17

  13

  South Yorkshire

  4

  11

  15

  16

  Staffordshire

  5

  6

  8

  11

  Suffolk

  2

  4

  6

  9

  Surrey

  2

  3

  7

  14

  Sussex

  4

  7

  8

  8

  Thames Valley

  12

  12

  21

  28

  Warwickshire

  2

  5

  5

  5

  West Mercia

  4

  3

  2

  4

  West Midlands

  47

  75

  112

  124

  West Yorkshire

  17

  22

  29

  34

  Wiltshire

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1Headcount

  2Year 2003 not comparable with previous years as previously published figures exclude officers on career breaks and maternity/paternity leave

  3Full-time equivalent

  Prisons
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged over 65 years are serving sentences in England and Wales; and what provisions are being made to meet their health, social and rehabilitation needs. [145626]
  1225W
  Paul Goggins
  The number of sentenced prisoners in prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 2002 who were aged 65 and over was 636.

  The Prison Service does recognise its duty to care for older prisoners and seeks to meet all their needs, including medical, according to individual circumstances. The Service does not allocate specific resources to the rehabilitation of older prisoners but rather through a system of sentence planning for all prisoners it ensures that they undertake activities necessary to reduce the risk to the public on release as well as providing any necessary resettlement support.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile prisoners in each prison are foreign nationals. [144352]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the number of prisoners aged under 18, in each prison in England and Wales, who are foreign nationals is given in the following table.

  Foreign national prisoners aged under 18 as at 30 April 2003

  Number

  Ashfield

  2

  Brinsford

  4

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  Castington

  1

  Dover

  1

  Feltham

  59

  Hindley

  1

  Hollesley Bay/Warren Hill

  14

  Holloway

  2

  Huntercombe

  20

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  New Hall

  2

  Onley

  4

  Pare

  1

  Stoke Heath

  4

  Thorn Cross

  1

  Werrington

  1

  Wetherby

  5

  Total

  126

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) the prison population and (b) young offenders had previously been in local authority care in each of the last five years. [147336]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the percentage of the prison population who had previously been in local authority care is not held centrally.

  The National Prison Survey 1991 reported that 26 per cent. of prisoners surveyed were in care as a child. For those prisoners aged under 21, 38 per cent. were in care as a child.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the longest-serving(a) male and (b) female prison inmate has been held in prison; and for what offence they were convicted when they were originally sentenced to imprisonment. [148598]

  Paul Goggins
  The longest serving male prison inmate was received into custody 51 years ago and was convicted of murder. The longest serving female prison inmate was received into custody 22 years ago and was convicted of kidnapping.
  1226W
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in HM prisons in England and Wales are sharing(a) two to a cell designated for one and (b) three to a cell designated for two. [146956]

  Paul Goggins
  At the end of November 2003 16,692 prisoners were held two to a cell designed for one, while 1,206 prisoners were held three to a cell designed for two.

  The data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the weekly cost of keeping a prisoner in prison was in the last year for which figures are available. [147412]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 4 January 2004]The weekly cost per prisoner for prisons in England and Wales in 2002–03 was £697. This figure is expressed in resource accounting terms.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all(a) private and (b) voluntary providers of services to the Prison Service, together with the services they provide to each prison. [147370]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. At the present time there are around 20,000 organisations— voluntary, public and private— providing goods and services to the Prison Service.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the visiting hours and days were for each prison in April in each year since 1997; and what the visiting hours and days will be for each prison in April 2004. [147950]

  Paul Goggins
  Prisoners' minimum entitlements to visits, in terms of regularity and length are prescribed centrally. The arrangements for both social and official visits are, however, determined locally by individual governors, taking into account operational matters and resources. Data on these arrangements are not centrally collated and to do so would be at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Heyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to increase the opportunities for prisoners to find employment once released back into the community. [148314]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 19 January 2004]The Government are investing £14.5 million a year in the Prison Service Custody to Work initiative. This is linked to a target of 31,500 job, training or education outcomes for prisoners on release in 2003—04. The Prison Service is increasing skills training and jobsearch training and support for prisoners, developing closer partnerships with employers and Jobcentre Plus, and providing more housing advice and support services for prisoners.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce re-offending by(a) involving families in resettlement work throughout the prison sentence and (b) maintaining prisoners' family ties. [146229]
  1227W
  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service acknowledges that family and other community links are vital to effective resettlement of prisoners, and that families have a valuable role to play in helping to reduce re-offending and protect the public.

  With regard to offenders under the age of 18, and all those sentenced to the detention and training order, there is a mandatory requirement on governors to ensure that, where appropriate, families are given the opportunity to contribute to the sentence planning process throughout the custodial part of the sentence. For adult prisoners the extent of involvement is left to the discretion of individual establishments.

  The Prison Service has been working, together with other agencies, to develop an integrated approach to supporting prisoners and their families in sustaining their relationships. Examples of such work include:
  Participation in the Inter-Ministerial Group response to the Social Exclusion Unit report "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners", in particular how best to take forward the proposal for a National Rehabilitation Strategy.
  Establishment of a seven-year partnership with voluntary and statutory agencies in the Eastern Area offering a comprehensive package of services and support to the families of prisoners within prisons and in the wider community.
  Providing information to prisoners to enable them to maintain family links and giving advice to families about prisons and the opportunities for keeping in touch.
  Enabling prisoners' families to maintain ties through improved visiting conditions, such as extended family visits; play areas and story tapes for children recorded by the imprisoned parent; and increasing the number of visitors' centres which offer additional support.
  Development of family learning programmes, some of which include attendance by partners and children.
  Refocusing of the multi-agency Family Ties Consultative Group to enhance policy development in this area.
  Continuing to offer financial assistance for families on low incomes visiting prisoners through the Assisted Prisons Visits scheme.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many transsexuals are serving prison sentences. [147697]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is not held centrally on the number of transsexuals serving prison sentences.

  Departmental Procurement
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147587]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office procurement policy follows standard Government procurement policy that all public procurement is based on value for money, having due regard to propriety, security of information and regularity. The Home Office comply with the requirements of the EU Treaty, including the principal of non-discrimination, the EC procurement 1228W
  directives and the UK's international obligations. This procurement policy applies to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing.

  The Home Office is not currently outsourcing IT or call centre jobs to offshore companies and has not spent anything on outsourcing these services to offshore companies in the last two years.

  No funds have been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years.

  Prostitution
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the reform of laws relating to prostitution; and if he will make a statement. [147074]

  Caroline Flint
  The Sex Offences Act, due to be implemented in May 2004, introduces a range of new offences specifically dealing with the exploitation of children and adults through prostitution.

  We are currently examining what further changes to the criminal law are needed in respect of prostitution, as well as some of the wider associated issues-including the links with serious drug abuse, violent and other crime, and damage to local communities. We hope to publish a paper for public consultation later this year.

  Criminal Convictions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the change in(a) criminal convictions and (b) the custodial population between 1980 and 2000. [141794]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 18 December 2003.

  Parole
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) age of victim, (b) type of offence, (c) age of complainant and (d) relationship of accused to complainant was for each of the deniers who applied for parole, referred to on page 17 of the latest Parole Board report. [146287]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not held centrally and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the offence categories were for the prisoners who were denied parole on the basis of their continuing denial of guilt in April 2003. [146288]

  Paul Goggins
  There were no prisoners refused parole in April 2003 on the grounds of their continued denial of guilt. It would be unlawful for the Parole Board to refuse parole on the basis of denial of guilt or any factors that may stem from it.

  The Prison Service does not maintain a central record of prisoners who deny their guilt. However, since January 2003, the Parole Board has kept a record of all such cases referred for their consideration. Its records show that in April 2003 the following categories of prisoners who denied guilt had a parole review.
  1229W

  Number

  Sexual offenders

  18

  Violent offenders

  4

  Property offenders

  2

  Drug offenders

  4

  Other

  1

  Somerset Drugs Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons why the Somerset Drugs Service has stopped providing drug rehabilitation support for drug addicts in the Yeovil constituency other than for pregnant women and suicide risks; and what assessment he has made of the effects of this decision on levels of crime. [147416]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 14 January 2004]The Government have provided the Somerset Drug Action Team (DAT) with substantially increased funds in order to reduce waiting times for admission to treatment in the county. This year Somerset Drugs Service (SDS), one of the service providers, had their budget increased by £200,950 to £1,763,214. Following the consequent increase in availability of treatment there has been a substantial increase in those seeking treatment. In quarter 2 of 2002 SDS had 287 active clients of whom 74 were in Yeovil; in quarter 2 of 2003 SDS had 426 active clients of whom 146 were in Yeovil representing almost a 100 per cent. increase in demand in the town in the space of a year. Such dramatic increases have put some short-term pressure on budgets, which has temporarily prevented waiting times being reduced as quickly as originally anticipated. However no one who needs it will be denied treatment. All those presenting for treatment continue to be to prioritised according to assessed need and the risk of harm to self and to the community.

  In order to continue to expand the service to drug users and provide the most effective treatment in the face of increasing demand the DAT commissioned a strategic review from Oxford Brookes University of the whole of its adult drug treatment system. The results of this review are being considered at a meeting on 13 January. In addition to £35,000 allocated this financial year, from April, the DAT has been allocated an extra £284,462 from the Governments Criminal Justice Intervention Programme Throughcare and Aftercare Budget. These increases will ensure that treatment provision continues to improve by assisting the DAT and implement the recommendations of its strategic review.

  As a result of targeting prolific offenders and making rapid treatment available to them, where necessary, the county has seen significant falls in rates of burglary over the first three quarters of this financial year when compared to the same period last year.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on street crime in towns and cities, with particular reference to Romford. [148489]

  Ms Blears
  The Street Crime Initiative was launched on 17 March 2002 to reduce levels of robbery in England. It covers the 10 police force areas which together account 1230W
  for the great majority of recorded robbery: Avon and Somerset, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, the Metropolitan Police, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Thames Valley, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire.

  The Initiative involves a wide range of agencies working in partnership and delivering a programme of practical measures. Through this work, the Government has reduced street crime in the 10 police force areas by 17 per cent. in 2002–03, which means 17,000 fewer offences, and by 21 per cent. in the Metropolitan Police area. Havering, which includes Romford, saw a 13 per cent. reduction in robbery in 2002–03, with 479 offences, down from 549 in 2001–02.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that speed cameras do not take pictures of a vehicle's reflection rather than the vehicle itself to calculate speed; and how many drivers he estimates have been wrongly penalised by reason of such errors. [149006]

  Caroline Flint
  The rigorous type approval process operated by the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) is designed to ensure that speed camera evidence can be fully relied on

  As a further precaution, however, all automatic static camera devices provide for a secondary check. This enables the officer viewing an apparent offence to make a judgment as to the vehicle's speed independent of the speed measured by the device. To enable this check, the device takes two photographs 0.5 seconds apart. The secondary check is performed by measuring the distance travelled along white lines painted on the road between the taking of the two photographs and calculating the vehicle's speed from these.

  While it is technically possible for a camera to record a vehicle's reflection, rather than the vehicle itself, this is extremely rare in practice. Where it does occur, the difference revealed by proper application of the secondary check will make it obvious that there has been an error.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic wardens there were in Lancashire in each of the last three years. [148368]

  Ms Blears
  The number of full-time equivalent traffic wardens in Lancashire police force in each of the last three years were as follows:

  Traffic wardens

  31 March 2001

  87

  31 March 2002

  84

  31 March 2003

  50

  Visas (School Children)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to overcome
  1231W
  administrative problems over visas required by children at school in the UK who are resident abroad to travel home for holidays. [144933]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate gives priority attention to applications for children who need to travel urgently. Extra staff have been allocated to resolving payment issues and process timelags that can delay these applications from being decided. Resources have been prioritised to ensure every effort is made so that schoolchildren and other customers who wish to travel urgently have their applications completed or a short period of leave granted to enable them to travel.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to provide drug treatment for young offenders addicted to hard drugs. [148602]

  Caroline Flint
  To ensure that effective treatment is available when it is needed, we have made significant investments in the youth justice system and drug treatment sector.

  An arrest referral scheme for young people is currently being piloted, to get young offenders into treatment or other appropriate interventions as early as possible. £6 million is being invested to pilot arrest referral for young people in 10 high crime areas across England. Trained staff in the police custody suites identify if young people have a substance misuse issue and refer them to appropriate treatment or intervention.

  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has provided £8.5 million funding each year for all 155 youth offending teams across England and Wales to have access to an allocated named drugs worker. The drugs worker is able to assess the needs of young people and ensure that they receive appropriate treatment or other interventions.

  80 per cent of drug action teams areas now have access to community-based young people focused treatment services. DATs across the country are
  1232W
  continuing to improve and build on existing provision so that the number of different modalities of treatment for young people are increased.

  The Youth Justice Board is investing £10 million this year and for the next two years. This will establish integrated substance misuse services through out all juvenile custodial institutions that will ensure that young people are able to access similar levels of service provision within the juvenile secure estate as in the community. The Youth Justice Board will ensure that custodial institutions are able to provide: identification, assessment and planning services; prevention and education work; support and appropriate programmes; detoxification and clinical management; and on release throughcare and resettlement.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision to re-introduce young offenders into Gloucester Prison; and whether the decision was affected by the closure of Ashfield Young Offenders Institution. [146729]

  Paul Goggins
  The allocation of young adult offenders (YAOs), aged 18–20, into Gloucester prison forms part of the ongoing programme to adjust the population mix of adult and young prisoners at a number of establishments. This is in response to the requirements of the Youth Justice Board for juvenile places and to increasing demand for spaces for adult male prisoners. This will be achieved through careful monitoring of population changes and the allocation of prisoners to establishments appropriate to their needs. It will also ensure maximum use of all available spaces in the prison estate, while minimising the distance of remand prisoners from the courts. This will enable the Prison Service to maintain its service to the courts despite the population pressures.

  Ashfield prison is not being closed, but will instead only hold young prisoners, aged 15–17. Gloucester and other prisons in the area will hold remand and sentenced YAOs. Sentenced YAOs returning from court will be held at Gloucester for the minimum time possible before being transferred on to other establishments with YAO regimes.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  "The Planning Service: Costs and Fees"
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have today published "The Planning Service: Costs and Fees". This is a report prepared by Arup Economics and Planning into the way in which the powers in clause 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill might be used. Using the report, we are considering the nature and scope of any fees and charges that might be prescribed by the Secretary of State under that clause. The objective is to ensure the proper resourcing of planning services so that they can deliver for business and communities. We will bring forward full proposals for public consultation in the summer.

  Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the website of The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.host?n=2445&1=2

TRANSPORT

  King's Cross Underground Station
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)
  I have asked for a review of the final phase of the planned development of the London Underground station at King's Cross.

  The Department is funding works being undertaken by London Underground to deliver a significantly enhanced Underground station at King's Cross, in order to assist dispersal of passengers from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and in part to meet the recommendations of the Fennell Inquiry into the 1987 King's Cross fire.

  The works under way to improve the existing Underground ticket hall and to construct a new Western Ticket Hall are not affected by the review. They will deliver a significant increase in capacity and meet the Fennell recommendations, and are on course to be delivered by the beginning of 2007.

  Progress with the final phase of the works, involving construction of a new Northern Ticket Hall, is at a much less advanced stage. The cost has roundly doubled since 1999, to something of the order of £250 million. I have concluded that the case for proceeding with these works should be reviewed before further significant expenditure is undertaken.

  I have therefore asked Mott Parsons Gibb, the Department's technical advisers for the CTRL project, to undertake a thorough review of the case for the Northern Ticket Hall works, in consultation with key
  56WS
  stakeholders who might be affected by a change in the current plans, and to report back to me by the summer on the options and their practical, operational, and financial implications.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today laying before Parliament a draft Order to continue the powers of detention in the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCS) for a further twelve months It will be debated, by both Houses of Parliament, by early March.

  The public emergency which necessitated the introduction of these powers—and which arises principally as a result of the threat of international terrorism posed by foreign nationals—still exists. Where terrorism is concerned, our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. Where a foreign national is suspected of terrorism of the sort which led to September 11 2001 and is considered to be a threat to national security but cannot currently be removed—and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option—we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal. The person would be free to leave the United Kingdom if he wished to do so.

  The draft Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21–23) Order 2003 provides for the continuation of the immigration powers under Part 4 of the 2001 Act to certify, and to detain pending removal, suspected international terrorists, subject to safeguards. The continuation is from 14 March 2004 until 13 March 2005.

  To date, 16 people have been certified and detained under the powers contained in Part 4 of the ATCS Act. Two of these have chosen to leave the United Kingdom as the detainees are free to do at any time. One further individual has been certified but is currently detained under other powers.

  My decisions to certify and detain these individuals were made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. All those certified have appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) including the two who left the United Kingdom. SIAC have rejected the appeals against certification made by the first ten ATCS detainees which were heard between May and July last year. The determination for a further two cases that have been heard have not yet been handed down.

  The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a superior court of record. It has the power to overturn the certificates which I have issued in respect of these detained.

  The detention powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act are a cornerstone of the UK's anti-terrorism measures. It is essential that we are able to take firm, swift action against those who threaten the safety of this country. We will be looking carefully at the conclusions and recommendations of the report of Lord Newton and his Committee, which I laid before the House on 18 December 2003, together with the reports of Lord Carlile, the second of which will be laid before

  57WS
  the House shortly. We will be reporting to the House when we come to debate Lord Newton's report and the renewal powers, and I look forward to a full and vigorous debate. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that the part 4 powers are a necessary and proportionate response to the current threat.

CABINET OFFICE

  Code of Practice on Consultation
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Today I am launching a revised Code of Practice on 58WS
  Consultation. It will come into force on 1 April 2004 and replaces the Code of Practice on Written Consultation published in November 2000.

  This revised Code will help in the Government's continued drive to improve consultation. It is shorter and clearer; it strengthens the commitment to providing respondents with feedback and to following better regulation best practice in developing policy options.

  The Code is supported by web-based guidance available at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/consultation-guidance. I encourage all Departments and relevant public bodies to use it effectively.

  Copies of the Code have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark

Draft Disability Discrimination Bill: Timetable
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their proposed timescale for the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the draft Discrimination Disability Bill will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. We expect the committee to report at the end of April and that we shall publish our response in the summer. The legislative programme for the next Session of Parliament will be announced in the usual way.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that practically all of the major disability organisations have given a very warm welcome to the Bill because of its important provisions and that practically all of these organisations are concerned that there may be an undue delay because it is only a draft Bill? In view of the fact that we have had consultations for more than four years with disabled people, business, trade unions and the public sector, will the Government try to expedite the enactment of the Bill so that disabled people can soon get the extra protection against discrimination that the Bill will afford?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is our intention that the Bill will be passed this Parliament, although obviously I cannot pre-empt exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, while the draft Bill is welcome, there is widespread concern that it has not been introduced as a substantive Bill at this stage? The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that there have been years of widespread consultation and a general consensus seems to have been reached. Will she tell us which particular aspects of the Bill made it necessary to send it to a Joint Committee? Are we to understand from what she has just said that the substantive Bill will not be introduced in this Session and that instead we shall have procrastination in the Joint Committee?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would not use words such as procrastination; that is quite inappropriate. There are procedures, including roll-over, which are available to the usual channels, if that
896
is what they want to pursue. To go back to the substance of the noble Lord's question, Bert Massie, who is the chair of the Disability Rights Commission, said this month:
"The pre-legislative scrutiny process offers to engage a wide range of stakeholders in understanding the current law and benefits of the proposed changes as well as to explore ways in which the Bill might be further strengthened to the benefit of disabled people".
I think that answers the noble Lord.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us some indication of the Government's thinking about the implementation of any final Bill? One of the problems with the original legislation was that it took so long to be implemented that it went from being a long-term project, to a medium-term project, to a panic. Can we make sure that there will be better planning over time for the final implementation of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. That is again where we would expect the support of the scrutiny committee. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the membership of that body. It includes, for example, from your Lordships' House—it will be on the Order Paper tomorrow—the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Carter, Lord Rix, Lord Swinfen and Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Given that degree of strength on the Scrutiny Committee—I do not know about your Lordships but the committee certainly terrifies me—I am confident that they will not allow any such delay or hesitation in implementation as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, for how long do the Government expect the Bill to remain a draft? Are the Government already receiving proposed amendments and additions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that I had attempted to answer that. I clearly did not. This is a draft scrutiny Bill. The committee will be receiving the evidence and reporting to the Government by the end of April. It is our intention that a Bill will be introduced into Parliament and completed before this Parliament ends. We are on track to meet our manifesto commitments in that respect.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, most warmly welcome the Government's enormous progress in this field and congratulate my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues, more especially, of course, Maria Eagle, as Minister for disabled people. But can my noble friend say whether the draft Bill will be available in all the different formats necessary to make it accessible to blind people and others in need of them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is right, it is important that, if one is having a draft scrutiny process, all possible stakeholders are aware of the issues involved. As a result, the Bill is already available in Braille, it is on the DWP's website and by the end of the week there will

897
be an easy-reading version for people with learning difficulties. I have a draft with me. It has cartoons and so on and may be of particular appeal to your Lordships. Also, and more interestingly, if I may say so, by the end of the month we expect to have a video available in British Sign Language. All of the obvious formats are covered in ways that probably have not been done before in legislation.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, as much as the Bill is enabling in nature, will my noble friend give an assurance that the draft regulations will be made available at the earliest opportunity so that the Joint Committee can give proper scrutiny to the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that the regulations will not be ready in draft form while the committee is sitting but that the officials intend to submit an explanatory memorandum describing the import of the regulations which I trust will be of value to the committee.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the definition of disability could be improved to include people with mental health problems who currently have a lot of problems and suffer a great deal of discrimination in getting benefits and claiming protection under the DDA?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. The definition of disability, as opposed to sickness, is that it is long-standing and has an adverse effect on daily life. It tends to mean, for example, that if somebody has severe mental health problems, they would normally have lasted perhaps 12 months or be of a recurring nature. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is one of the biggest growth areas, if I can use that phrase. Of the increasing numbers of people claiming disability benefit, nearly one-third have mental health problems and learning difficulties. They are people who find it extremely difficult to re-enter work, whereas people with what would appear to be more severe disabilities, such as blindness or deafness, actually manage to re-enter the labour market more effectively. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that it is a very difficult area. I certainly compliment the Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Richmond Fellowship on the work that they do in trying to help people with severe mental health problems to build their confidence and re-enter the labour market. As I say, this is an extremely difficult area.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Minister said about including cartoons for those who have difficulty reading. Is she aware that 10 per cent of the population have dyslexia? Is the Bill written in accordance with the recommendations of the Dyslexia Association whereby the correct fonts, the correct spacing and the correct colour of paper are used? Has she followed those recommendations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that that has been done regarding
898
font size and so on. However, I shall check on the point about colour as that also affects people with red/green colour blindness, not just dyslexics.

Westminster Elections: Voting System
2.43 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to carry out a review of the voting system for Westminster elections following the European elections next June, to be coordinated by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, no decision has yet been made on the timing and structure of the review.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords—
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have prepared two supplementary questions, one in the event that the Answer was yes and one in the event that it was no. However, I am not sure which Answer I have been given except that the Minister responding to the Question is not the constitutional affairs Minister. Will the Minister confirm the report in the Independent of 23 December last year that states:
"SECRET TALKS between the Government and the Liberal Democrats over reforming the voting system have begun in a move which could see the abolition of the first-past-the-post method"?
I am not asking about the last part of that quotation but about the first part. The article continues:
"The review is expected to be co-ordinated by the [wrong] Department",
but nevertheless we now know which department it will be. Will the Minister confirm that a promise of such a review was to be found in the Labour manifesto at the previous general election? Will he also confirm that his reply meant that such a review is to take place but the Government have not yet decided when and how?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the 2001 manifesto clearly set out our commitment to review the experience of the new systems and the Jenkins report to assess whether changes might be made to the actual system of elections to the House of Commons. As to the report

899
in the Independent, which I read with interest as one always does with newspaper reports, I think that the noble Lord is much better placed than I am to check with Charles Kennedy whether he considers that to have been an accurate newspaper report.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that what are referred to in the Question as "Westminster elections" are elections to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that it is important that the government of the day should have the choice of the timing of those elections within five years rather than that choice becoming subject to any kind of European influence?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, on the first point, the Question is, indeed, about the electoral system to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. more specifically to the House of Commons. On the second point, there is no focus to my knowledge of this being about any European regulation or directive.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in considering the review, will my noble friend give particular attention to the Westminster voting system in Northern Ireland where the situation is rather different from the rest of the United Kingdom, where there is a different voting system for European elections anyway and where a fairer result might be achieved by a change in the system?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am well aware that in Northern Ireland for all elections apart from elections to the House of Commons STV is the electoral system that is used. One knows well the history and reasons for that having been introduced in the Province. No doubt that is one of the issues that would be on the list for consideration when a review is carried out.
Lord Henley: My Lords, has the Minister made any assessment of the impact of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 which brought in closed lists and which was valiantly opposed by my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, as the noble Lord will remember? Has he made any assessment of the impact of that on all elections and on voter turnout in those elections?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think the likelihood of there being an impact from the closed list system regarding European elections on other electoral systems is fairly remote. As to the impact of closed list systems on turnout, voter confidence or any of the other criteria that one might wish to inspect as part of an assessment of how a different form of PR is operating, it is a little too early to judge. We shall be best placed to do so post-June 2004 when we shall then have seen two rounds of European elections on a proportionate basis. No doubt the academics and others will inspect those results with considerable interest as a consequence.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the system of all-postal voting which is to be piloted in the European elections makes secrecy of the ballot far less certain. Does the Minister agree that before we go ahead with rolling out this pilot into the Westminster elections, we must have full research into possible voting abuses? Does he accept that that research must involve proper random sampling of the voters to check on possibilities of personation or pressure on electors and that the investigation must not just rely on complaints?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's ball is out of court but in a spirit of charity I shall nevertheless respond. Clearly we see the benefit in piloting in the European elections in June the further operation of an all-postal voting system, as the House well knows. However, the noble Lord will also be well aware that the Electoral Commission has signalled some important issues for consideration, one of which he referred to, before there is an introduction of universal postal balloting in a Westminster parliamentary election.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive my over exuberance as chair of Make Votes Count in welcoming his confirmation that in this Parliament—unlike the previous one, I am afraid—we shall carry out our manifesto pledge to stage a review? Will he ensure that when that review is carried out it takes full account of the superb work being done by the independent commission on precisely this subject? It was set up by the Constitution Unit, under the chair of David Butler and Peter Riddell, and will help to prepare the ground for a review that is appropriately timed for after the next round of elections.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that the independent review of proportional representation systems by the Constitution Unit will be extremely interesting, both to the Government and to those in politics and academic life who take an interest in electoral systems. We look forward to seeing its report in March. One should put on record the Government's remarkable achievement in bringing in proportional representation. Every single new governmental organisation introduced since 1997 has had a proportional representation system. Without being too party political, we have seen more PR systems introduced by this Government than by any other party, or combination of parties, in the past 100 years.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, if the Minister cannot tell us when the review is due to start, when will the Government decide when the review will start?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the immortal words of Stanley Baldwin, "wait and see".

Millennium Dome
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the total cost to public funds of the Millennium Dome since its closure on 31st December 2000; and when it is anticipated that it will cease to require the expenditure of public money.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company was responsible for the Dome until June 2001 and incurred post-closure costs, met by the Lottery, of £4.3 million after deduction of income.
English Partnerships took over in July 2001. Up to September 2003 it incurred costs, after deduction of income, of £26.6 million. English Partnerships's expenditure will reduce when construction of the new arena begins and will cease when it is completed. English Partnerships's costs will be recovered from sale proceeds.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am appalled when I think how that amount of money could have been spent so usefully on, for example, schools, hospitals and other worthwhile causes. The Minister said that he expects the spending to end, but when will sums actually flow back to English Partnerships and NMEC under the Government's deal?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the final Section 106 agreement for the planning application is being put together as we speak. It is probably the most complex and large Section 106 agreement ever conducted on any planning application in the UK. The deal will become unconditional later in the spring; construction cannot start for a year, because contracts have to be bid for and completed; and then there will be the time that construction takes. Meanwhile, English Partnerships is looking after the security, the rates and insurance for the Dome. The costs incurred by English Partnerships are infinitesimal, compared to the returns in due course once the arena is constructed. The income after the Greenwich peninsular is developed will make the figures that I have given today look like seed corn.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that in the year that the Millennium Dome was open, although it should have been sited in Birmingham, it was the most well attended visitor attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he remind the House of the benefits that the Dome has left behind?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there were 6.5 million visitors. It was the most successful visitor attraction in the country. Regarding its legacy: 300 acres of derelict
902
land have been dealt with; currently 800 homes are complete or under construction; there is an ecology park, 50 acres of parkland, a new primary school and health centre, a small hotel and a 14 screen cinema; and £280 million of private finance has already been invested. As for what will happen when the planning application is finally agreed and put together, there will be an arena with a capacity of 26,000, 10,000 new homes—4,000 of which will be affordable—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise for falling into ODPM ministerial speak. They are all affordable but 4,000 will be for key worker accommodation. There will be a four or five-star hotel, a secondary school and community facilities, three and a half million square feet of commercial office space, significant transport infrastructure, £550 million of cash returned and 20,000 permanent jobs—including over 5,000 for Greenwich Thames Gateway. I could go on—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the legacy of what will come from dealing with a site that was left derelict for many years will be massive for people in that part of London.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he left out one significant fact? The Millennium Dome proved to be the most wonderful venue for a recent carol service before Christmas, attended by more than 7,000 people. So it is not a totally wasted asset.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no, it is not. One of the difficulties while income has been small is that the Dome is so large that there is a limited number of enterprises and events that can fill it. The best has been done to generate income and I am pleased to hear about that latest event.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem is that the Dome has not been affordable? I thought it significant that the word "affordable" was used. We have waited for 20 months since conditional contracts were signed with developers. In particular, what is the long-stop date in the contract after which the Government can withdraw should that be necessary if the negotiations can not be concluded? In a Written Answer to me on 11 December 2003, the Minister assured me:
"All of English Partnerships' costs in relation to the Dome will be recovered from sale proceeds".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. WA79.]
We have heard that he is optimistic about that, but was that statement made with an unconditional guarantee by the developer or is it just a fond hope?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no. I draw attention to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, on 11 December at cols. WA78–79 of the Official Report. That remains the position. All of English Partnerships's costs in relation to the Dome, including those incurred over that year after the deal becomes unconditional, will be met and will be recovered from the substantial amounts of money received from the sale of the Dome—close on half a billion pounds, although that is £240 million at net present value.
I have said that as we speak the Section 106 deal is being put together and the deal will become unconditional around May this year, by which time there will have been a period of three months that has to be left in case there is a judicial review, but there is no sign that that will happen. The developer then will have a year to let the contract. It is expected that the arena built inside the Dome will be open in 2007. Many of the other developments that I mentioned will be ongoing while the arena is constructed. It is not a question of one thing following another. We expect that there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations, led by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of how much I have enjoyed listening to his exposé of Never Never Land? Have the Government ever undertaken an exercise to compare the cost and value to this country of keeping the Royal Yacht, compared with the cost and value of the Dome?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not Never Never Land, because I invite the noble Baroness to visit the Greenwich peninsular and see what is there now —not what will be there in the future. Then she can return to this House and say that she would prefer it to remain derelict, as it was for many years. The nearest thing to Never Never Land was the recent announcement by the Conservative Party in its so-called campaign on waste regarding figures used for the Dome. They do not stack up and can not be justified by those who made the claim for what was put in Yard 10. I am not surprised that no one has had the gumption to raise that today, because they know those figures. That is the Never Never Land of the Tory Party regarding the Dome.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one item on the list of benefits that he forgot to mention was the construction of the Jubilee Line?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I mentioned transport infrastructure. There are 1,200 construction jobs at any one time during the 20-year period and the Dome may play a role if London is successful in the Olympic bid. There are one or two other little goodies that I could mention, but it would be unfair, given the time, to go over the goodies that will come from the Dome.

Offshore Financial Centres
2.59 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent financial scandals and evidence of tax evasion, they propose to review their relations with offshore financial centres under British sovereignty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, it is important that all financial centres comply with international standards, regardless of whether they are offshore or onshore. The Government are firmly committed to seeing international standards of regulation and anti-money laundering implemented effectively throughout the world. We are equally firmly committed to encouraging the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to match international standards on exchange of information for tax purposes and on fair tax competition.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he accept that, on some estimates, nearly half the offshore business which goes to offshore financial centres goes to such centres under British sovereignty—both in the Crown dependencies and in the dependent territories? Therefore, it would seem to he a duty for the British Government, in particular, to consider the role of offshore financial centres in the world economy. Is he familiar with the recent report of the Public Accounts Select Committee in another House, which states:
"Around a quarter of serious fraud cases investigated by the [Inland Revenue] involve the use of offshore accounts and structures"?
Did the noble Lord see the report in the New York Times which stated that, of the 881 subsidiaries of Enron in offshore financial centres, 692 were in the Cayman Islands, 119 in the Turks and Caicos Islands and eight in Bermuda? Does he recall that in the Parmalat saga, both the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands played a substantial part in the disappearance of money? Is it not time that the British Government examined the costs and benefits to the world economy of those offshore financial centres, which are under our eventual control?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to begin with, I believe it would be wise for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to distinguish between the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Crown dependencies are far more limited. They have different tax regimes but we are satisfied that they comply with all the regulatory conditions that we have in this country. We are also satisfied that they have adequate protection against fraud.
As for overseas territories and other offshore jurisdictions, this country, together with the OECD in particular, has been relentless in pursuing cases of fraud and bad regulation. I shall not comment on the

905
Parmalat aspect of the Cayman Islands, but those islands, as an overseas territory, were on the blacklist of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and have been taken off because they have conformed. They have still not conformed to the savings directive but we are working very hard at that. If the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, looks at the record, he will see that we are collaborating powerfully with other OECD members in pursuit of the non-cooperative jurisdictions.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is often a fine line between tax evasion and tax avoidance, particularly in the case of offshore islands? Is it not possible to ask the Inland Revenue, the Treasury or Parliament to decide how to deal with some of the large amount of tax avoidance which is really tax evasion by another name?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was always taught that tax evasion was illegal but that tax avoidance was not. It depends on the tax jurisdiction with which one is dealing. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I believe we should make a distinction between the offshore jurisdictions which are attractive because they have low tax regimes, which is legitimate, and those which have poorer regulation and which fail to comply with international standards of exchange of information or, indeed, of withholding tax. That is the direction in which we should target our efforts.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, turning to the financial scandals aspect of this Question, can the Minister say whether this is one of those rare occasions when the Government can throw the challenge where it should lie—that is, with the leading firms in the major financial centres? I think particularly of the City and Wall Street and the leaders of those leading firms. Is it not the case that a year ago on Wall Street an unprecedented ramp, fraud or conspiracy—call it what you will—took place, involving more than 50 of the leading merchant banks there, including all the major players in the City of London, and where the 11 malefactors were fined 1.35 billion for concerted fraud? Is it not the case that, unless these great firms show an example, frankly, laws will not do the trick?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that those who practise to deceive do, indeed, weave tangled webs. One of the tangled webs that they weave is the use of offshore havens. I believe that it would be good advice to investors in any country to look at the extent to which the companies in which they seek to invest use offshore tax havens and the extent to which they seek to complicate, and therefore to obfuscate, the nature of the financial control. I believe that that is all good advice for investors, wherever they may be.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to tax evasion and not tax avoidance. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the Government have in place adequate
906
measures to deal with tax evasion in these offshore centres? If he believes that they have, will he say what effect those measures have had?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we pursue tax evasion at every possible opportunity. We are frequently criticised for the complexity of the Finance Act and of our tax legislation. Much of that complexity arises from the necessity to do precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said—to pursue tax evasion. We do not apologise for the complexity when it is necessary for the effective pursuit of tax evasion.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is concern both in Britain and in the United States about the use of offshore credit card accounts as a means of tax evasion. Are the Government paying particular attention to that and are they also collaborating with the United States on the use of Caribbean tax havens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not familiar with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is making. However, I shall become closely involved in it as I pursue the draft Gambling Bill, which is now before a Joint Committee, because clearly offshore credit cards are a particular risk there. I take seriously the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and I shall pursue it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister put up a spirited defence of complicated tax legislation. However, that was not the question that I asked him. Will he say whether the measures that have been put in place are effective against tax evasion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are generally effective, but people find ways of getting round them. The lawyers and accountants available to the private sector are paid more than the lawyers and accountants available to the Government. Sometimes they are ahead of us, but we catch up.

EU Students at British Universities: Loans
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether European Union students at British universities will enjoy the same access to student loans for the payment of fees as British students.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we are planning to abolish up-front payment of fees for full-time undergraduates from 2006. From that date, European Union students will have access to loans for payment of fees on the same basis as British students.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she confirm that, at any

907
one time, approximately 10,000 students from the European Union are resident in the UK as students and that each of them would therefore be eligible in 2006 to take up a £3,000 loan? Can she tell us how the Government propose to pursue the repayment of the loans from those students?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's first question, I cannot confirm that 10,000 students from the European Union are resident in the UK because, in fact, 35,000—students 35,641 to be precise—come to our universities in order to study. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Student Loans Company already has in place a system to collect maintenance loan debts from those who live outside the UK. It is exploring, and continues to explore, ways of building relationships with other European states, including those which may join the European Union in the future. That system will continue to operate successfully when the changeover takes place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have had personal experience of the great difficulty involved in collecting money from someone who has returned overseas. Can the Minister tell me whether any system will be in place whereby a surety or a guarantee in this country will be required? Will the loans be covered under English law? What will be the jurisdiction and what action will the Government be able to take if the money is simply not forthcoming?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are already a number of systems available through existing international money transfer facilities offered by financial providers. International trace agencies are used by the Student Loans Company, which is used to tracing students and recovering debt. There are also issues that we can pick up through legal and commercial recovery systems, if need be. These are well established routes that have been successful.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will British students at European universities be able to avail themselves of these loans?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. There are currently 6,290 UK undergraduates studying in the European Union.

Angela Cannings
3.11 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, with permission I wish to make a Statement on the case of Angela Cannings.
Yesterday's judgment in the Court of Appeal in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has serious and far-reaching implications. The judgment has demonstrated that, in relation to unexplained infant deaths, where the outcome of the trial depends exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious
908
disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unsafe to proceed. I share the unease expressed by the Court of Appeal in relation to such convictions.
Following similar reported comments of concern by the Court of Appeal at the conclusion of the hearing of this tragic case in December, I asked for all cases potentially involving sudden infant death syndrome to be identified as quickly as practicable. To date, some 258 convictions over the past 10 years have been identified involving the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant aged under two years by its parent.
Those cases will be considered further as a matter of urgency to establish whether any, and if so, how many, bear the hallmarks of a conviction which the Court of Appeal judgment yesterday indicated may be unsafe. I expect this process to be completed swiftly over the coming weeks. I propose that in all cases which appear to meet the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal the convicted person will be informed of these developments as soon as possible. The possibility then will be for the case to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or for the convicted person, with legal advice, to consider an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 to consider whether the convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
I am particularly concerned about cases where the defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is still being served. We have so far identified 54 such cases which may involve sudden infant death syndrome. These will be accorded the highest priority.
I have already spoken to the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and will be meeting him in the coming week to discuss how the review of these cases can be expedited. I have also asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases involving an infant death of the sort described in yesterday's judgment.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for repeating that Statement. But does he find it extraordinary that he has to be dragged to the House to repeat word for word—I believe he changed three words: "today", "today" and "today" were changed to "yesterday"—a Statement he made in written form only yesterday? He had to be dragged to the House purely in response to a Question tabled by my honourable friend Dominic Grieve in another place.
Clearly the Speaker thought the matter important enough for a Question; obviously the noble and learned Lord thought it was important, because he said that the case has "serious and far-reaching implications". Therefore would it not have been better had he volunteered a Statement to the House from the start—I believe that he was present yesterday—rather than first making a Written Statement and then

909
repeating that Written Statement in the manner of an oral Statement to the House? I have never known that in my 25 years in this House.
This is an important matter. I understand from the Statement that some 250 criminal cases are involved. There are 54 women still in prison. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how the review will be structured and what urgency will be given to dealing with those cases where the convicted are still in prison? With what urgency will he be able to deal with them and ensure that they are released as soon as possible?
Will he tell the House how long the Criminal Cases Review Commission intends to take in its review of the case and whether that is a further review over and above the review that the Government are mounting? Still on criminal matters, will he comment on the various adjustments that have been made to both the burden of proof and standard of proof in various Criminal Justice Acts in recent years? Does he agree that this matter shows how dangerous that can be? It would be best if we could see in all criminal cases the need to maintain the rule that no one should be convicted unless—I stress—the prosecution can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
I turn to the civil aspects. We understand from what I suspect was a rather ill judged interview in the Sunday Telegraph with Margaret Hodge—whom I gather is called the "Minister for Children"—that some tens of thousands of cases might be affected by the evidence of Sir Roy Meadows and others. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how many cases there will be; whether the Government will appoint a judge to review all those cases; what note they will take of the GMC's review into the evidence of Sir Roy Meadows and others; and whether legal aid will be available to all those involved?
It may be, as the so-called Minister for Children said, that it will not be possible to return those children to their parents. Even so, they have a right to have their cases reviewed, because they are entitled to have the stigma of their children's removal removed from them. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how those civil cases will be resolved?
Finally, following what I described as her rather ill judged interview in the Sunday Telegraph, what advice will the noble and learned Lord be offering to the Minister for Children, particularly in regard to her statement that it would not be possible to return children to their parents? Is that the case for every case?
3.20 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement by the Attorney-General, although we agree that it would have been better if an oral Statement had been made yesterday. This is clearly a high profile matter that has caused great public concern. It would plainly have been appropriate for the Statement to be made orally.
910
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that these cases show the vital importance of ensuring that the innocent are not convicted and that the law does not assist in convicting them? Does he agree that the prosecution must avoid using experts who have a personal commitment to a contentious view; and that it is the prosecution's job to put a case fairly and in a balanced manner before the jury, which should not involve the use of committed experts where their views are open to question?
The case recalls to mind the Orkney case some years ago which came under Scottish rather than English jurisdiction, where children from several families were taken away from their parents and some parents put on trial on the basis of what appeared ultimately to be the wholly inaccurate views of experts who believed that the children were being abused by families through satanic rituals. How quick will the review be? There are 258 cases. Some of those 258 will probably be found to have been rightly convicted, but it is clear that many appeals will be allowed; some may involve mothers who have spent years in prison wrongly convicted of a heinous crime.
Resources must be made available to ensure that appeals are heard as quickly as possible. Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give any timescale? Do the Government intend to compensate those who have been convicted on the basis of discredited evidence put forward on behalf of the prosecution? What about babies who have been separated from their families and taken into care because a previous sibling has died unexpectedly? The mother may not have been prosecuted but taking away the baby in those circumstances is a hideous punishment for a crime of which the mother has either been acquitted or not been charged.
Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General assure the House that unless there are grounds for suspicion over and above the fact of the unexplained death of a previous baby, babies will not be removed from their families? Will steps be taken to restore children already taken away to their birth parents? Removing a new-born baby from birth parents and taking it into care is immensely damaging both to the child and to the child's family. Surely, removal should happen only where there is not just a risk but a substantial risk that the baby will become a victim of murder.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for welcoming the Statement. I may have missed it, but I did not notice that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did that. I would have hoped that Members of the House would welcome the fact that within a very short time of an important judgment being given, I was able to announce an important review and to give an indication of the steps I was proposing to take and was taking in order to deal with that matter.
I take my responsibilities to this House very seriously. That is why yesterday I ensured that I put in the House by way of a Written Statement details of the

911
steps I was taking. I am glad that noble Lords and other Members of the two Houses are interested to know more on this issue and want to ask questions about it. I am happy to answer questions, but perhaps I may respectfully suggest that it is simply a political point to complain about being dragged to the House when I have made such an effort both to identify the steps that should be taken and to take them.
I shall move on to the other questions raised. The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, asked, very understandably, about the time the review would take. As I have said, before the judgment in the Cannings case was produced but as a result of comments made by the Court of Appeal, I asked to identify as quickly as we could all the potential cases which might fall within the category which the Court of Appeal has now identified; that is, a category of case where the conviction is based exclusively or almost exclusively on contested, disputed, expert evidence. The interdepartmental group that I set up in the light of the Sally Clark case was able to identify 258 cases.
I have made it clear that it is extremely unlikely that more than a small proportion of those 258 cases fall within those criteria. Those are cases of infant deaths; infants killed by a parent in the past 10 years. Sadly, in some of those cases there will be clear evidence of violence having been used by a parent on a child, and such cases do not fall within that rubric. The most urgent step is to deal with the cases that I have also identified where a parent is currently serving a term of imprisonment, to consider those cases and to identify which may fall within this category so that they can be reviewed urgently and as the highest priority. I shall want to see the other cases identified. As I indicated in my Statement, I hope that that process of identification will be completed within the next weeks.
As to the next step, again, as I have indicated there are two possible courses: first, for the defendant himself or herself to consider appealing to the Court of Appeal, which may be possible—that may depend on what has happened before—or secondly, for the matter to be dealt with by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I have therefore spoken twice with the chairman of that commission and, as I have said, I shall meet him again in the next few days to discuss how the commission can be in a position to expedite such cases that come before it. I agree with everything said by both noble Lords about the importance of urgency in relation to these cases.
As I indicated in my Statement, I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases in which the same issue may arise. I am very pleased, but not the slightest surprised, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has already issued guidance to his Crown prosecutors asking them personally to review all such cases within the next 28 days and to send them to him so that he can consider them and decide whether any such case should be pursued. I am not at all surprised by that immediate action by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
912
I turn to the other points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether this is in some way indicative of problems resulting from a change in the burden and standard of proof in various criminal statutes. I am not aware of a change in the burden or standard of proof in any of the criminal statutes. The burden of proof remains very clearly on the prosecution. The standard of proof, except in those exceptional cases where the burden is upon the defendant to prove, remains for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant so that, as is said these days, the jury feels sure. As far as I am aware, that remains true in all respects and I regard it as a very important part of our justice system.
Still on the question of the criminal cases, before I turn to the other cases, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whether this case shows the vital importance of the courts not being used to convict the innocent. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict the guilty but to ensure that the innocent are acquitted. Whenever we have a circumstance in which that does not appear to be working as it should, we in the justice system must pay the closest attention to it. That is why I have acted as I have done in this case.
The noble Lord raised the question of experts. Experts need to be used in many cases. Frequently, without expert evidence in criminal cases, it would not be possible to bring a criminal to justice. The noble Lord is right to say that it is important that when experts give their evidence to a court they should do so objectively, dispassionately and impartially and should put their own expert experience before the court, not some personal commitment to a particular cause.
There is one other matter with which I should deal which touches on the criminal cases. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also asked whether the Government intend to compensate any persons who have been wrongly convicted. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me; it is too early to make a Statement in relation to that as we are simply on the eve of considering these cases. It is a proper question to raise and no doubt is one to which we shall return in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, both raised questions about civil cases. As noble Lords will appreciate, such cases raise different issues and different considerations. In a criminal case what matters is, "If you cannot be sure on the evidence that someone is guilty, that person must go free". In children cases, the paramount consideration is always the welfare of the child, which gives rise to different considerations. DfES Ministers, who are responsible for children at central government level, are considering the implications of this judgment for care and adoption cases. I am sure that as soon as they have reached a conclusion they will announce whether any—and, if so, what—steps need to be taken in relation to those cases. Noble Lords will know that it is not simply central government who have a responsibility in this area; indeed, if anything it is much more local authorities which have a responsibility in

913
relation to child cases, and other cases are matters between private citizens. So, the role of central government is much more limited than in the case of prosecutions. I hope those answers deal with the questions raised by the two noble Lords.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not the function of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to concern himself with the Family Division. Can he tell us whether the Official Solicitor is taking or contemplating taking action to investigate this situation through the family courts? On one other matter, the Attorney-General has quite rightly said that there have not been specific changes in recent legislation; for instance, the Criminal Justice Act 2003. But what has been sought to be done and admitted by the Home Secretary is that he wishes to shift the balance between the prosecution and the defence. That is why we had long debates about the admission of previous convictions, bad character, propensity and the like. So there is substance in the proposition that we should watch with great care the extent to which we yield to proposals to alter the balance between the Crown and the litigants, be they criminal or civil.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his questions. He asked whether the Official Solicitor is taking action. I believe the position is this:since the passing of new legislation the Official Solicitor does not have a role at this stage. The matter has become one for local authorities which, having taken care proceedings, are under an obligation to review those orders with regularity. They are required to bring matters back to court if that is their opinion. That, as I stand on my feet, is the answer I give to the noble and learned Lord but I shall see if there is anything further I can say or any correction to be made. If so, I shall send it to the noble and learned Lord and put a copy in the Library.
As regards his second point, I am grateful for his confirmation that there is nothing that he is aware of that has changed the burden or the standard of proof. I am well aware that there are many noble Lords and other commentators who will be watching the operation of the Criminal Justice Act as it goes through. I will not make any comment on particular provisions; we debated those at considerable length. We stand by the fundamental proposition that the prosecution must prove guilt and must prove it to the criminal standard.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I congratulate the Attorney-General on the speed with which he has acted, the all-embracing nature of his proposals and the priority he is giving to those in prison. Will he confirm that the category he is looking at is much wider than the cases involving Sir Roy Meadow. Further, given the eminence of Sir Roy in this field, what influence has he had on other experts in cases in which they have given evidence?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his opening remarks.
914
Coming from a former Attorney-General, it is gratifying to hear his approval. He is absolutely right in saying that the category is wider than those covering Professor Sir Roy Meadow or indeed the other expert, Dr Williams, whose name was mentioned in connection with the Sally Clark case. The Court of Appeal said in its important and thoughtful judgment that it is necessary to recognise that medical science is at the frontier of knowledge. There may be cases where there is no apparent explanation for a death or series of deaths but it may still be entirely innocent and not consistent with a criminal act. The review will go further and look at all cases where there is a sudden unexplained infant death and where the conviction appears to have been based almost entirely on expert evidence, whichever expert that may have been.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord address the particular problem which many feel is the most difficult issue that came out of the interview in the Sunday Telegraph referred to by my noble friend Lord Henley. In that interview the Minister said that it would not be possible—one assumed never would it be possible—for women who were found subsequently to be perfectly innocent of harming their children ever to get their children back. That matter worries many people because nothing could be worse than the denial of one's child. Will those women who had their children taken from them wrongly ever get them back?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I fully understand the concern which underlies that question. As I indicated before, the responsible Ministers in the DfES are considering the implications of this judgment and what, if any, steps need to be taken. I do not wish to prejudge what they may say. As a lawyer rather than the Minister responsible, I will simply say this. I do recognise that in children's cases the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. I will say no more than that I can understand that there will be some cases—I do not say all cases—where a child may have been adopted or put into some long-term relationship. That child now has new parents, new family, new brothers and sisters. For any court dealing with that situation that may be a difficult issue to deal with—whether it is right to unravel that or to recognise that the child's best interest may be to be left where the child is.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very helpful Statement. I am sure that the whole House is appalled at the idea of an innocent person being convicted of such an awful crime. Does he agree that we need to keep a very open mind in these matters? Sadly, there are parents who do deliberately harm their children. That being so, does he accept that we will always need expert witnesses? Rather than lose confidence in their role, is it not important that we take this opportunity to improve their training? Only this evening, guidance will be

915
produced for those in the paediatric services on how people in this field can be alerted to early signs of deliberate harm.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in everything he has said. We must all be appalled at the thought of a mother tragically losing her child or children and then, even worse, being accused and convicted of a crime which she did not commit. I made that point clear in an answer in the House to a Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. He is right. It sadly is the case that there are parents who do deliberately harm, even kill, their children. They are among the most vulnerable of our citizens and we plainly have to do as much as we can to protect them properly. The noble Lord with his experience from the inquiry he chairs knows better than most just how awful that can be and how parents can do that. We will therefore need expert evidence in cases. However, he is also correct to say that we need carefully to consider how that expert evidence is produced. I would not go so far as to confirm today that we should have some overall training exercise for experts. The noble Lord mentioned one field for which the Home Office is responsible where further training is being given to pathologists and I very much welcome that fact.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too commend the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has dealt with an extremely difficult matter. Given his unique position in terms of public access via the broadcasting media, perhaps I may ask him to get across two matters over which there is huge public misperception? The first, already referred to, is the paramountcy of the interests of the child which is the prevailing principle in civil matters. However, that has no bearing at all on criminal trials. There has been a tendency—and perhaps by juries too—to believe that somehow a different standard of proof is involved where a child is the subject of an alleged offence.
Secondly, some noble Lords may have heard last night a leading spokesman for one of our most famous children's charities, suggesting—quite explicitly—that while no innocent parents or mothers must be convicted wrongly, no malefactors must ever be acquitted wrongly. That of course is an impossible proposition. There are a great many cases of greyness where one cannot be certain one way or the other. Unless the great British public—and particularly the tabloids—accept that to maintain the much admired standards of our system we must accept a certain number of wrong acquittals as the price of no false convictions, we will not get very far.
Finally, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General responded to the point on legal aid raised by both Front-Bench spokesmen. If there is—and it seems inevitable—a large number of difficult and perhaps long cases arising out of the review, will he assure the House that legal aid will be available on the normal terms; and in particular that the extra sum, which may be large, will not be part of
916
its annual total? That would further reduce the amount available for civil legal aid, which is already in crisis.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his commendation. He is absolutely right that there is a great difference—as I tried to explain—between civil and criminal cases. The paramountcy of the interests of the child is what rightly drives us and our family courts. That has no bearing in criminal trials. I am not sure that I share the noble Lord's worry that juries are affected by that in their verdicts. Of course we do not know exactly what is in the minds of juries, but I can assure noble Lords that all judges summing up in such cases will remind juries clearly and repeatedly that it is their job to convict only if they are satisfied on the evidence and to put emotions out of their minds.
I also agree with the noble Lord that it would be remarkable and wonderful if we had a system of justice that would always convict only the guilty and never acquit the guilty. However, we cannot have quite such a system. Our strong approach in this country—which I entirely endorse and which the Court of Appeal endorsed in its judgment yesterday—is that, occasionally, by relying on the burden and standard of proof—as high as they are—there will be some who are guilty but who will in fact escape because the evidence is not there. That is how it should be; and has often been put in the terms that it is better that some guilty should go free than that an innocent person should be convicted.
I cannot while standing here give the noble Lord the assurances that he asks for regarding legal aid—would that I had that control over a budget operated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Obviously, I have that issue in mind, and I shall want to make sure that there are no obstacles to the review taking place as it should.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, from my point of view, the extent to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has been able to bring forward proposals for dealing with this complex issue in such great detail, considering the time that has elapsed, is highly to be commended. Certainly, I appreciate it very much.
I am very concerned about the Family Division and the county courts' work on the family side. The Attorney-General was—I have no doubt immensely helped in bringing forward today's proposals by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has overall responsibility for the criminal cases which are likely to be affected by this judgment; whereas in the family jurisdiction, particularly in view of what he has said about the Official Solicitor, there is much less of an integrated national system for finding out quickly which cases might be affected.
In children's cases—as the Children Act makes clear—unnecessary delay is very harmful from the point of view of the most satisfactory outcome. I understand fully and accept what the noble and learned Lord has said about the difficulty of uprooting

917
children—who may have been wrongly removed in the first place—who have now settled down in their new situation and extricating them again because the original decision was wrong. I can see that problem.
However, in view of what has happened, some kind of system for looking at the cases where the fundamental reason for the intervention has been an allegation that a parent has harmed a sibling of the child affected by the custody or the care order is highly to be sought. I know that it is not the Attorney-General's direct responsibility to look after these matters, but I take the view—I think rightly—that the Attorney-General has a general remit for helping the Government to reach a proper result in matters of law. I am sure that advice will be available to the Ministers in what is now the Department for Education and Skills. The issue used to be dealt with in another department, but it has now been moved.
It is very important that a national review is put in place as soon as possible. I appreciate the difficulties and the obstacles there will be, but I think that people and families—mothers particularly—who have been affected by such judgments are entitled to have the situation reviewed with the interests of their children still being paramount and very much the principal interest.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said at the beginning and also for his recognition of the difficulties that there are in the children's cases. When the noble and learned Lord held the high position of Lord Chancellor I know that that was a matter of great interest and concern to him.
I take the noble and learned Lord's point about there not being the same national system to enable cases to be identified as there is in the criminal system. That is the consequence of responsibility being with local authorities. I understand that point.
The noble and learned Lord makes important points about what should happen now. It is not possible for me to go further than to say that those very important points will be drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers. Indeed, one is sitting next to me on the Front Bench. I know that careful consideration is now being given to the implications of the judgment in those cases.
On my own position, I have provided—and, indeed intend to provide—such advice and assistance to Ministers in that department as it is within my ability to give to help to solve these difficult issues.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, following on from a previous answer by the noble and learned Lord, perhaps he will tell the House how many of the 258 defendants were actually charged or could have been charged with the crime of infanticide, as distinct from murder or manslaughter?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I cannot. As the Statement says, the convictions are for murder, manslaughter and infanticide—in relation to infants under two. I do not know at this very early stage how
918
many were for infanticide. I do not know whether any in the other categories might have been charged as infanticide. I suspect not, because that is a verdict to be preferred in a case where the conditions were met. But, if I am in a position to give a further breakdown once the review is completed, I will. Plainly, when we have broken down the issue, I shall want the House to know the number of cases affected by the judgment. If I can give some further breakdown in the way that the noble and learned Lord requests, I shall seek to do so.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the Cross-Benchers have just had their turn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of how deep and wide this evil runs? In my daily life, I see the little end of it, where the theories of experts are allowed to terrorise parents of children with special educational needs, particularly ADHD, dyspraxia, and the fringes of autism. All that needs to be mentioned is Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, and the parent is suddenly an evil person at the wrong end of social services and officialdom, without help and is suspected of being the one who is causing her child difficulties.
We have allowed the expert to start a witch hunt in a general way, which has terrorised tens of thousands of parents. They are among the most heart-rending things that I must deal with. Can we not use the terrible events that the noble and learned Lord has so rightly thrown light on to, and expressed an entirely admirable willingness to investigate, to reach down into the depths of our system and make sure that we offer relief in relation to not only these big cases but also the little cases? Can we ensure that we restore again the presumption that by and large parents care for their children and do not wish them harm? Will the Minister ask the Department of Health to withdraw their circular approving of this utterly discredited diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this is the wrong moment in the debate to get into such controversial issues as the noble Lord raises. Much in what he says would not be accepted by the department, but now is not the time for me, or anyone else, to attempt to deal with it.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
3.52 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF PART 1
Part 1 shall apply only if an elected assembly for the region has been established."
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos.14, 15, 134 and 135.
In his disarming speech when he wound up at Second Reading, the Minister described the Bill as having had a drubbing. He also said that he recognised the concern about the democratic deficit, and he said that he had got the message. If the message that he then identified led to the government amendments on a democratically elected sphere of government having a role in regional spatial strategy—we will debate them later—something has been lost in translation.
Many of us are enthusiasts for devolved government. Everyone in this House would say that we want to see government at the lowest practicable level, although our differences would be in identifying where that level is. Few in this House would say that powers should be transferred upwards and become more centralised. Yet, we have a Government who have promoted devolution and had the guts and the energy to enact a lot of it. Those of us who would have liked to go further are ready to acknowledge that. The Government have produced a version of devolution that transfers powers and responsibilities from an elected sphere—the counties to, bluntly, itself.
There is not merely a democratic deficit in the new proposals; there is a loss of democracy. I am genuinely sad to have to start the detailed work on the Bill on this note. There is much in the Bill that I support. When I said yesterday to the Minister that I was coming round to seeing the virtues of some of the later proposals, he told me not to apologise for that. Among the things that I support are regional and sub-regional planning. We have a regional spatial strategy, which in its first incarnation as the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance—I understand the Government's need to avoid a vacuum—is to be revised by a regional planning body that is designated by the Secretary of State.
The draft regulations for the composition of the regional planning body provide that recognition—and the Government are honest enough to say that that means funding—is dependent on at least 30 per cent of the membership with voting rights being from other than local authorities. I would have some reservations even if 100 per cent were from local authorities in this model. That comes from my experience of an indirectly elected body. For eight years, I chaired the London Planning Advisory Committee, which dealt with London planning issues after the abolition of the
920
GLC. The members, who were members of borough councils, did the job with interest and with some application, but it was not their prime responsibility, and reasonably so. Their first responsibility was for their own boroughs. One would routinely encounter members having to leave meetings early and some being less focused on strategic issues than they were on local issues. That response was entirely reasonable, but it is an inevitable outcome of one being indirectly elected.
I am sure that the Minister will later remind the House of his amendments and the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in announcing them. That is the role of the local authorities. I am delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister was able to say that the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network have agreed to give,
"full support to making the new regional planning arrangements a success".
Their members are reasonable and responsible people—of course they want to make the new arrangements a success. That does not mean that the government amendments are the best or the only way to deal with the democratic deficit that I have identified.
Our amendment is a sunrise provision to the effect that the regions should take on the functions of regional spatial planning when there are elected regional bodies to do so, working with the counties and the districts. Until then, let us find a way—the way that we are proposing is the right way—of observing the principles of democracy and accountability. That would mean retaining the status quo on the role of the counties. The Minister may say that we will have the status quo, because regional planning guidance will become the regional spatial strategy. Structure plans will be saved— that is the term—for three years. That does not meet our concern, but it makes it clear that there is an opportunity to get the structure and responsibilities right. I make it clear to the noble Lords opposite who, among others, may feel that by starting off in this way we are setting out the wreck the Bill. That is not so, and our amendment is not as devastating as it may be painted. In another place the Minister, Mr McNulty, said that some of the matters that I am referring to are matters for a regional powers Bill. Quite so.
In 1998 the Government identified problems with the production of regional planning guidance. Your Lordships should not be too impressed that I am about to quote from a document. I went to the website to see which documents were relevant to the Bill, and printed one off before I realised that it was five years old. However, it identified the following, and I think it is worth considering these criticisms.
According to the document, regional planning guidance lacks regional focus and vision and spends too much time reiterating national policies; apart from housing provision, it lacks targets which can be monitored and reviewed; it is too narrowly land-use orientated; it lacks sufficient environmental obiectives and appraisal; it takes too long to produce; it does not command commitment from regional stakeholders, and the process of producing it is insufficiently

921
transparent. I agree with much of that critique, but it does not seem to us necessary to reduce the role of elected representatives in order to meet those criticisms.
There is a practical aspect, too. It was expressed to me by a county councillor from North Yorkshire as follows: the likely outcome of the Government's proposals is that county council resources and expertise will slowly wither away and that political commitment will decline as a core function at the present time becomes, at best, an ancillary activity in future years. On Second Reading, many of your Lordships expressed concern about the lack of planning expertise and about expertise leeching away.
Amendments Nos.14 and 15, which propose that an elected regional assembly shall be the regional planning body, follow on from this. Amendments Nos.134 and 135 are also consequential. It took me some time to find in the Bill how county structure plans were being dealt with and, having found the references, I thought I would add them to the amendment. But the more serious point is that buried in a schedule are these unusual provisions which say, in effect, that unless an authority has got to such and such a point in its structure plan, it shall do no more. That is an interesting approach to what is very close to the repeal of primary legislation.
No doubt we on these Benches will be teased because we have been vociferous advocates of regionalism. Indeed we are—but of devolved, elected regional government, not of the emasculation of counties and certainly not of centralisation. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I want to make it clear at the outset that I support the noble Baroness's amendment. While we are not at all in favour of regional government—and that was made very plain in our discussions on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill—we are equally completely opposed to the proposals for an arrangement whereby a body, which is still largely unidentified, made up of largely unknown persons, produces a document of such significance as a regional spatial strategy. In particular, it will have to contain the regional guidance as laid out by the Secretary of State.
Where the Secretary of State is becoming involved to such an extent. there must be not only scrutiny of his policies but effective decision-making by elected members on the applicability of those policies. This is a paramount requirement, particularly when the Secretary of State's guidance may, and almost certainly will, include such matters as the provision of large-scale housing developments, infrastructure provision in the region—possibly including new methods of energy provision and the siting of wind farms—and the identification of preferred areas for housing.
The Secretary of State's policies under Clause 1 appear to be mandatory—a mandatory part of the spatial strategy—and his directions unchallengeable. Without elected members' input into these documents,
922
they will be put together, presumably by the civil servants of the regional government offices. Unless amendments regarding the county councils are agreed later in the Bill's proceedings, their role, which was formerly to deal with the structure plans, will be confined to assisting—I think that was the word used by the Deputy Prime Minister—the regional planning body. I am aware that the Minister will be moving an amendment to give the county councils this statutory advisory role. We will discuss then whether that is an appropriate and strong enough commitment. But I am bound to say that unless the Minister's words change my view, I do not believe that that is sufficient.
It still means that the primary work will be done, at best, in conjunction with the regional planning body, whatever that ends up as being. At worst, it will be done only by the Civil Service.
If the regional planning body were to be the regional assembly, that, too, would be unsatisfactory, as only a small proportion of the membership of those bodies is made up of elected members. The rest are appointed from business, the unions, environmental organisations and other interested organisations. While they are of course extremely interested and extremely valuable in the role they play at present, they are not democratically accountable for what is produced on their behalf.
All in all, we believe this to be extremely unsatisfactory. The impact of regional spatial strategies on communities could be immense. The means whereby those communities can play any part in vetoing any aspects about which they are concerned or do more than comment, in an advisory capacity, is opaque. For this reason, we believe that in the event that there is no elected regional assembly, there should be no possibility of Clause 1 being implemented. I support the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: I declare an interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor. County councils are, in most places in the country, the absolute epitome of democracy. There are high turnouts in county council elections, even in the years when there is no parliamentary election coincident with them. Admittedly, turnout was more than 80 per cent last year but normally it is well over 60 per cent in the county I represent, which is higher than in very many elections. Usually, the results of those elections are fairly proportional across a county, as between parties, which is not the case at parliamentary elections.
Most county councillors are known to a high proportion of their electors. Most of my colleagues attend meetings of parish councils once a month, and some attend as many as 13 or 14 of these meetings each month. There they give their reports and they hear questions and comments from members of the public assembled there. On planning matters, large numbers will often attend.
County councillors represent and serve people, and reflect their views in the council chamber, on structure plan working parties, and are well aware of housing pressures, educational difficulties, school and social services problems and matters affecting the police, the fire service and the libraries, to name some of their responsibilities.

923
I acknowledge that there is some place for a regional spatial strategy—there has to be one below central government. However, my main point is that I sincerely believe that the severing of the link between the electorate and those responsible for the structure plan will be a problem for the Government—and I strike a note of great caution here. We often make unpalatable decisions which we can sell to the electors because we know who they are; we can talk about trade-offs and everybody takes a share of what is unpleasant because they can see fairness within the county. However, the Government run the risk that taking those decisions away from the county will leave local people alienated and disaffected because they will see results and decisions being imposed on them by an unelected regional assembly to which, in most cases, they have no sense of belonging.
Lord Waddington: My support for the amendment should certainly not be taken as support for elected regional assemblies. To my mind there is absolutely nothing whatever to be said for them. I have always suspected that the Minister agrees with me, but because of the position in which he sits he cannot say so. Elected regional assemblies at best will be an expensive waste of time and at worst will hasten the Balkanisation of Great Britain.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is very useful, if only because it is a timely reminder of the sharp practice in which the Government are indulging. I believe that all along the Government's plan has been to give regional bodies powers that they should not have anyway, and then to plead that now that those bodies have the powers, there is deficit of democratic accountability, so we must have regional assemblies. That is the argument behind all that they have been advancing. Therefore, the obvious course is not to have regional assemblies, but to try to demolish the bureaucracies that at present are being created in regional government up and down the country.
In the regions, which are completely artificial creations and which in no way reflect natural loyalties or communities of interest, regional bureaucracies are already blossoming and one has only to read the Guardian to see the non-jobs that are being advertised for them. I have invited noble Lords before to take an interest in what is going on in the government office of the East Midlands. As long ago as 2002 that government office was advertising for the post of director of infrastructure and community affairs. The fatuous job description said:
"The holder of the job would have responsibility for ensuring GOEM delivers the step-changes we are seeking in the implementation of joined-up policy throughout our own geographical structure".
924
Such utter rubbish goes on and on. The Government should be busy dismantling such bureaucracies now rather than arguing that because we have them we should have some kind of elected assemblies to try to embark on the impossible task of knocking them into shape.
The passage of the Bill will perform a useful purpose if it reminds people of what lies behind it and the link between this Bill and the Government's plans for regional assemblies. The passage of the Bill will perform a useful purpose if it wakes people up to the fact that the Government's plans for the regions do not involve devolving power from central government to the regions; they involve robbing existing authorities like the county councils of powers such as planning powers. In other words, powers that have been part of our local government structure for generations will be taken away from authorities. That structure is well known to people and they can relate to it. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the fact that our local authorities are well respected and work extremely well as democratically elected bodies. Powers will be taken away from those well respected bodies and given to new authorities that will be more remote from the people. What good will come of that? I can see no good whatever coming from that.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I declare an interest as a county councillor in Suffolk and I inform the Committee that I have been a local authority member since 1991, involved both at district council level with development control and with the more strategic planning functions at county council level.
I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could address a practical issue that has caused me some concern. In the east of England we are, by the Government's own calculations, at least seven or eight years from an elected regional assembly, assuming that the people of the east of England want such a body, which is open to question. At the moment there is an embryonic planning function at regional level but because it is a very small operation and because there is no real elected or effective regional body, there is a very small staff and, in the main, the technical advice for the regional planning function comes from the county council.
I believe that the diminution of the county council's role to that of an advisory body, although it is now to be statutory, will have two effects. First, I believe that it will lead to a massive haemorrhaging of experienced planning staff from county councils who will be able to see their future role disappearing and therefore they will move away. Secondly, and more worryingly, county councils with a lot of pressure on their budgets will simply lower the level of resource that they put into what now is to be simply an advisory function. If that happens we shall have the worst of both worlds: we shall have an emasculated county council planning function but no robust regional planning function to

925
take its place. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain to me and to the Committee how that problem is to be addressed.
Viscount Ullswater: I support the amendment moved very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I declare an interest: I am a local councillor on the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, although I am not a member of the Development Control Board.
I support the amendment for three reasons. First, planning is very prescriptive and therefore should take place as close as possible to the local area. The Bill replaces local plans, which have been developed very well since being introduced by the previous government. It gives developers and local people much more certainty of what would receive permission. That, in turn, leads to the speeding up of the planning process and allows many more decisions to be delegated to the officers of the council if the application falls within the guidelines. The local plans work well; they deliver the right kind of targets; and they are updated constantly by local people subject to the planning guidelines handed down by regional planning guidance or by the Secretary of State.
The new development framework, as proposed in the Bill, which is to be made up of local development documents, is the old development plans with a nasty new twist, which is that the Secretary of State is to be given powers to intervene in the preparation stage in a way that is wholly unjustified. What right has the Secretary of State to direct the local planning authority to make amendments to the scheme as he thinks fit?
My second reason is that the introduction of a regional spatial strategy is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just mentioned, an attempt to give legitimacy to the shadow regional planning bodies that currently exist, without any form of authority, but which still wield power. The problem of giving power but no democratic legitimacy is that it creates huge resentment in the tiers below. At Second Reading the Minister said:
"The counties will be consultees on regional plans, and will continue to be responsible for transport, waste, and mineral plans. The regions can use the counties as agents on sub-regional planning".—[Official Report, 6/1/04; col. 100.]
With a swipe, the power of the council is removed from the elected bodies and transferred to an unelected regional planning body that is directly under the control of the Secretary of State. An example of the danger in that policy.—it was mentioned by my noble friend on the Front Bench—is likely to be the attitude taken to wind turbines. I am quite certain that it will become a regional planning policy directed by the Secretary of State, and local councils and county councils will not have any voice in its implementation.
Norfolk is designated to produce more than 10 per cent of its energy requirements by renewable resources, excluding what might be generated out at sea. It will require a veritable forest of wind turbines to generate that amount of energy. Without the consent of local people, that will be deeply resented.
926
Thirdly, in attempting to reform local government, the previous Conservative government tried to do away with many counties and local authorities and replace them with unitary authorities. I am sure that the Minister will recall that. There was an outcry from almost every part of the country, and different solutions had to be found. It would be wrong to go down the route that the Government propose without the consent of the people in the form of a referendum. Let us trust the people for a change.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I oppose the amendment, although I assure Members of the Committee that there will be many times during our proceedings when I shall be critical, as I would like to see many changes in the Bill. On this occasion, however, I oppose the proposal. I declare an interest in that I am the director of two businesses involved in the development world and consultant to a number of others.
The amendment says that Part 1 should not come into force unless there is an elected regional assembly. A number of the speeches seemed to indicate that that was a wrecking move, because if there were no elected regional assembly, there would be no Part 1. The question is, what is Part 1 trying to achieve? There is a need for a regional spatial strategy on a statutory basis. Such a strategy should be drawn up by a body that has its heart and soul in the development of that region. Regions vary considerably across the country, and solely leaving everything to regional guidance from central government has failed in the past, and continues to fail, to do justice to the regional variety and dynamics of the regions throughout England.
In my view, we need a regional spatial strategy that is based as firmly as possible within each region. I would much prefer that to he a body that is part of and responsible to a directly elected assembly. If, on the other hand, people from different regions decide that they do not want a directly elected assembly, that does not in my view diminish one jot the fact that we need strong regional strategies. It is best if they are drawn up, taken through and led by elected bodies but, if they are not, we still need such regional strategies.
The amendment, as I read it, says that if there is no directly elected assembly, no regional spatial strategy will be drawn up by people largely or entirely drawn from the individual regions. That would be a great loss. In my own region of Yorkshire and Humber, it is not simply a matter of county councils.—as much as I admire and respect the role of the local county council in North Yorkshire. It is a great mix of large cities, all-purpose authorities, county councils, district councils and so on. That does not result in a coherent, strong regional policy.—and nor will it, in my view.
Therefore, I oppose the amendment, which is a wrecking amendment in some parts, and expresses a desire to put one's credentials on the line in respect of directly elected assemblies. I would love to see them throughout the regions, and certainly in my own region. In the absence of that, the amendment would effectively wreck putting a regional spatial strategy on a statutory basis, drawn up by and driven by people

927
who are genuinely interested in taking their region forward. In my view, that would be a great mistake on the part of noble Lords.
Lord Greaves: I support my noble friend's amendment, and I do so from a slightly different point of view, although I agree with everything that she said. I also agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said. He said that there was a danger that under the Government's proposals for the regional assemblies, for which it is intended that we shall have referendums in three northern regions this autumn, the regional assemblies would be an "expensive waste of time".
I take a diametrically opposite view of regional government to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as I believe very strongly in effective, strong regional government based essentially on devolution of powers from the highly centralised state based in Whitehall and Westminster. However, my concern about the Government's proposals for regional assemblies is that they will be weak, will not have anything to do, will be expensive for what they do and that they are basically taking powers upwards from local government rather than devolving them from London. That is a concern, and a concern held by many people in my region of the north-west. I wish that concern was not there.
The amendment gets to the heart of one issue. If the people in the north-west, and in Yorkshire, are to be persuaded to vote for the Government's regional assemblies later this year, there will have to be seen to be a clear difference between what happens when there is a regional assembly and what happens when there is none. Merely having an elected body of probably quite well paid politicians who are not seen to do very much will not be a difference that people will appreciate.
People will have to see reasons why there should be an assembly. I have tabled Amendment No.10, which does a similar thing to this amendment but in a less drastic way. This amendment says that, when one has a regional assembly, the position is quite different, because the region will have something important to do, and that when one does not have a regional assembly, it will not. That is a basic issue that the Government will have to think very hard about across all sorts of policy areas in the next few months. We are discussing planning here, so we will talk about planning.
I remember vividly that during the Committee stage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, the Minister kept repeating a mantra: "no more powers, no more money". I believe that there ought to be more powers where there is an elected regional assembly. In this case, the regional spatial strategies will not simply consist in taking over what exists at the moment in terms of regional planning guidance at regional level, but will take powers upwards from local government in the form of the structure plan powers. Not only the county councils but the unitary authorities will be involved, such as the area of Leeds which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, represents very well in a general sort of way. Leeds will lose powers to the new regional
928
assembly or to a non-elected regional assembly, under the Government's proposals. Powers will go upwards from all local government, and not just the counties. If that is going to happen, the only possible justification for it is if the body that is taking over at regional level is elected.
The democratic arguments apply, but so do the practical arguments. I do not believe that the Government will persuade people in the north-west to vote for their regional assembly, unless it has an important series of jobs to be done. We can address the planning issue here by passing my noble friend's amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I support the amendment and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I take heart when I listen to the Prime Minister talking about the introduction of democracy to Iraq. I wish that he would bring that same sentiment closer to home and be as fond of democracy in the United Kingdom and this Chamber. However, democracy is a dirty word as regards application in this country. What is important is to pass powers upwards: to have things dictated by people who are sufficiently expert and broad in their vision to take decisions which, in the Government's view, need to be taken without bothering to consult people too much.
It may well seem to people who do not live in Norfolk that during the 50 years or so while we wait for global warming to transform it into a marina it would be a good idea to build a few wind farms there. One cannot impose such decisions on people and maintain a respect for and agreement to government. Governments depend on our agreeing to be bound by the strictures that Government put on us and to feel that it is government with our consent. Things that happen locally require decisions to be taken locally or we shall lose the feeling of consent.
It is a problem for the police. They have lost their local presence. They have lost the local policeman. Therefore, the police are alien to us. When they stop us for some minor offence they are not our police but the state's police. That is not constructive. It leads to a gradual diminution of people's enthusiasm for involvement with the state, with public processes, and a commitment to the way in which they are governed. If we allow this sort of thing to continue, it will have great consequences. The only way to stop it continuing is to deal with each of its minor appearances. We are here talking about imposing things on people which need not be imposed. We can gain consent locally albeit a little more slowly and with a little more trouble. Some areas may say no and create difficulties. But it is important to involve people and obtain their consent.
The development industry and the Government will find that inconvenient from time to time. But unless we proceed with people's consent, in the end we will

929
damage our democracy. We are prepared to fight for that elsewhere; it should be an issue for which we are prepared to fight little battles here.
Lord Haskins: I declare an interest as chairman of the Campaign for Yorkshire Devolution. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that natural loyalties and communities of interest are strong and flourishing in Yorkshire. I point him towards the front page of today's Financial Times which shows the underperformance of all our great provincial cities of Britain compared with the equivalent great provincial cities of Europe—and if we had had the same report on the great provincial cities of the United States, alas, we should have seen the same thing. The difference between those countries and ourselves is that they have elaborate regional democracies in place and we do not.
The objective of the campaign is to raise the democratic process by assuming substantial powers away from Whitehall. If that does not happen, we shall have failed in our efforts. Secondly, it is to call to account the unelected quangos—I am a member of one or two—about which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is understandably concerned. The only way to call them to account, if we have any regional structure, is to have regional democracy alongside us. We have to tackle the bureaucracy which, rightly, worries most of us, particularly around Whitehall. The purpose of such devolution is to undermine that bureaucracy and the second guessing which takes place. The basis for that regional democracy is a strong alliance between the county councils and the regional democracies, to strengthen the local authorities in their role in our modern government.
I believe, therefore, that the Government's proposals in this respect work best when devolved government is in place. I hope that Yorkshire will, not for the first time, show an example to the rest of the country in the referendum later in the year and that lessons will be learned from the success of devolution in Yorkshire so that the poor people of the east of England will be encouraged to follow with great enthusiasm in the years to come.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: I shall speak in favour of the amendment but not because I have been involved in local government. I seem to have been electing various authorities all my life. Sometimes I have agreed with them; sometimes I have not.
I am a great believer in democracy. I can assure the Committee that the feeling on this issue of citizens who have not been directly involved in local government is very strong. They wonder where democracy is going. I do not talk as a Londoner. In London we have an elected authority. I am not certain which party the mayor is in; perhaps we know now. But it is at least an elected authority and I have no right, therefore, to complain about what my fellow citizens want on the London plan.
However, I live in the east of England, in Essex. We do not know what is going on other than that unelected bodies will change our lives completely. Two
930
or three nearby local authorities agree with what the village community says on, for example, protecting the green belt. Essex County Council also agrees. But they are pushed to one side by a body which most of the people in the village had no idea existed until this issue arose. We shall now fight democratically in every way possible. But when considering such overruling, if we are asked to believe in democracy we cannot.
Lord Rooker: I suspect that during debate on the Bill we shall discuss the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act ad nauseam. People want to keep re-visiting it. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in choice anyway. They would impose regional government on the remainder of the country. They can shake their heads all they like. I am on my feet now and I shall not give way.
We seek to do it a different way. Some regions may not want regional elected government. We are giving the people the choice. The first three referendums will be held later this year. One cannot assume what will happen after that. The Liberal Democrat policy is clearly to impose regional government.
Having listened to noble Lords, there has been a big squeal of vested political interest in virtually every speech. People listening to our debates could be misled. No noble Lord mentioned that the planning authority which will deal with the planning applications for the citizens of this country is the elected district council. Nothing is changing. Anyone would think that we are wiping out the district councils: they are the planning authorities which will make the decisions on the planning applications. No one mentions that because we are having a different debate: one of political vested interest from the county councils. Heads may be shaken but that is the reality.
Viscount Ullswater: I wonder whether the Minister heard my speech. I devoted at least a third of it to local development plans and queried the need for the Secretary of State to involve himself personally in the new development framework. Local development plans which I said have worked well have already been mentioned in the debate.
Lord Rooker: I have not come to that. We shall have similar debates about the accretion to the Secretary of State of so-called powers which, frankly, is not of the scale which has been alleged compared with the status quo. There are no substantial massive changes there. The district councils are the planning authorities. They are democratically elected. When citizens put in a planning application, they will deal with their local council as they do now. Nothing will change. But the debate so far is clearly designed to prevent the reform of the regional planning system, which is what we are talking about here, and not development control. It is a fair point to make; it is a fair way to begin debate on the Bill. I do not object to that.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: Perhaps I may ask the Minister when Essex ceased to be a region? When did

931
I become an east Englander? I am not aware of any democratic process that decided that. I believe in regional local government. I call it Essex.
Lord Rooker: If the noble Lord believes in regional government and calls his regional government Essex, that is his choice. I do not think that anyone, including the noble Lord the leader of his county council would claim—I invite him to do so—that Essex is the region. One has to be realistic. I do not believe that that is a realistic proposition. Nevertheless, many legitimate points have been made and I shall do my best to answer them.
The bottom line is that this group of amendments, important though they are, is designed to prevent the reform of the regional planning system, which is what the Bill is about. To that extent, they are wrecking. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense, but it would simply undermine the whole purpose of the Bill.
Earl Russell: When the Minister begins a speech in so belligerent a manner, he creates the suspicion that he may be trying to distract the attention of the Committee from something. He has increased the Committee's curiosity as to what that might be.
Lord Rooker: So far as I am aware, the noble Earl was not here for most of the speeches that I have just listened to. Therefore, I am in no position to look into the window of his mind to see what he thinks I am about.
I have not been belligerent at all. I have made the point that I have heard a lot about political vested interests. I do not think that anyone is denying that. There are people here representing county councils, which they see as under threat. I do not see it that way, but it is a legitimate point to make.
I think the Liberal Democrats take the view that there ought to be regional government. They say that; indeed, they would impose it. We want to give people a choice on regional government. There is nothing belligerent about that. I do not have to sit here, listen and accept everything I hear. I want to try to make a legitimate response to what has been said. I have no hidden agenda: everything is out in the open. I am not trying to sugar-coat the Bill. I would not try to do that anyway.
The point about this group of amendments is the proposition that there should be regional spatial strategies and regional planning bodies only in areas where we have elected regional assemblies. I do not want to go over the previous Act now, but it is a step-by-step process if people decide whether they even want to have a referendum. One cannot assume what the end-game might be. Everyone knows that there will be three referenda later this year. That is the effect of this new clause in Amendment No.1.
Amendment No.14 would require the elected regional assembly to be the regional planning body. Amendment No.15 would remove the provisions that relate to setting
932
the criteria for recognising a body as the regional planning body in regulations, the powers of the Secretary of State to withdraw that recognition by direction and his power to exercise regional planning body functions where there is no regional planning body in place. Amendment No.134 would alter the transitional arrangements for structure plans. It would provide for authorities to continue with alterations or replacements of structure plans provided no elected regional assembly was in place.
To say that I am disappointed by these amendments is a fair assessment of the situation, though not in any kind of belligerent way. They offer no solution whatever to the problems with our planning system and our system of plans. They appear directly to undermine the reforms. The existing system is bogged down by too many plans that are often out of date—we have heard some examples of that in previous legislation—and not in line with one another. We also have three tiers of plans, which we believe to be simply too many.
We accept—and I do not think there is any difference between any of us on this—that we need strong regional planning. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say "regions" I am talking about the regions as set out by the previous government, not the counties. Regional planning policies that form part of the development plan are needed to address the particular opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. In effective regional planning policy, we think it is vital to tackle the historic regional disparities that exist and to respond to the challenges of a modern economy. The point made by my noble friend Lord Haskins is wholly legitimate in this respect, given those figures that I, too, saw this morning on the front page of the Financial Times.
We need strong local plans at a level where the community can really engage with the process of plan making, where proposals to develop particular sites can be properly debated. That situation is absolutely fundamental. We want to make regional spatial strategies statutory and so part of the development plan. We do not think we should continue with a system where outdated lower-level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. That is the position that exists today. We want a system for strategic planning that is based around areas that are interdependent on the ground, not one constrained by administrative boundaries. I believe I said in a previous debate that when I visited the Thames Gateway, I flew over it at 500 feet as a lot of it is inaccessible. The great advantage of that is that you do not see administrative boundaries. You see it in a completely different way. I am not knocking the boundaries, but the fact is that we are tied down to some of the historical administrative boundaries and we need policies that are not necessarily constrained by those boundaries.
The county boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. That may be a point of disagreement between some of us, and we can have lots

933
of debates about it. But, by and large, there must be a consensus between the two Houses to make the point that counties cannot work as the basis for strategic planning at the level required. Many strategic planning issues—I do not claim all—cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at a regional or a sub-regional level, certainly not at the county level.
The regional planning process needs to be driven forward by a body able to represent the region and to take a strategic view. The regional chambers are best placed to fulfil that role. I do not accept that some sort of democratic deficit now arises as a result of regional chambers having responsibility for regional planning.
This does not represent a new departure. Responsibility for preparing regional strategies already rests with regional planning bodies which, since 1 April last year, have been the regional chamber in each region. We are proposing that these arrangements should continue, provided that the chamber is sufficiently inclusive. We are not suddenly transferring powers from counties to regions.
Under the existing system, county structure plans should be in line with and follow the strategic planning framework set in the regional planning guidance. What we are doing is removing a filter that has slowed down the expression of strategic regional planning policies in local plans. We are clearing out a system that allows out-of-date structure plans to take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. Now, hands up anybody who is in favour of that continuing? It is barmy. You cannot explain to the public that out-of-date structure plans, years old in some cases, should take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. You would have a hell of a job explaining that to the general public when they were concerned about their particular locality.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: Does the Minister—
Lord Rooker: I see that we now have an offer from a Liberal Democrat.
Lord Greaves: Yes, wisdom comes from all parts of the Chamber. Does the Minister really believe that structure plans are all many years out of date and will always be many years out of date; and that his wonderful new regional plans will all have been agreed and decided last week?
Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may comment on that point before the Minister answers. With structure plans one could have county spatial plans. It has not been the county structural plans that have held up the system; it has been various governments who have put various timetables on it. The faults have not been with counties but with governments on timetables. You could have very speedy county spatial plans in a modern way. Therefore, we cannot agree at all with what the Minister has just said.
Lord Rooker: The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—and the only one he is going to get is "No". That is the answer to the question. We are going to argue about this, I suspect, for some time. I take the point.
Lord Greaves: Does the—
Lord Rooker: I gave the noble Lord an answer. He asked me a specific question, and I answered him, "No". I am not going to elaborate. He may not like a one-word answer, but that is the answer I shall give however many times he asks the question.
Lord Greaves: What the Minister does not realise is that I am not going to ask the same question again. I want to point out that the whole of the Minister's argument has been based on his allegation that structure plans are always out of date and that the new regional spatial plans will always be up to date. That is the whole of his argument. He is asking: "Will people agree with that?" When I ask him whether that will always be the case, he says "No". So he has undermined his own argument, absolutely and completely in one word.
Lord Rooker: If the noble Lord checks Hansard tomorrow he will realise that he has put words in my mouth that I do not accept.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: I know what I said and I did not say what the noble Lord claims I said.
I accept that the chambers are not directly elected and that that is a bone of contention. We are being realistic about that; no one is arguing to the contrary. On the other hand, although there are all kinds of democratic structures, the levels of directness of democracy vary widely. For example, the parliamentary second chambers of some of our European partners are not directly elected but are composed of people elected in a different way. I am not arguing that that is not so. Those chambers are not directly elected, but they are representative of both local authorities and stakeholders more widely in the region.
Local authority members represent their local authority on the regional planning board. Members from other stakeholder groups such as business or the voluntary sector will equally speak up for the interests they represent. They will have been put there through some kind of process for the particular body concerned. However, that is not democratic in the sense that we understand the term, at a local government ballot box. Nevertheless, they are there as a voice to ensure that we have the widest possible sounding board for the region. I think that that is legitimate.
Through legislation and guidance we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest can get involved in the regional planning process. There will be consultation, representations and, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, an examination in public conducted by an independent panel. For the

935
first time we are requiring rather than encouraging consultation while the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy is being prepared. Ultimately, the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's document and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and to the other place.
We have heard that we must delay our reforms—a point put by one or two noble Lords—until the elected regional assemblies are in place. However, knowing the process being undertaken, anyone who makes that case should realise that such a move will simply delay putting into place the more effective planning system that we so urgently need. Planning Bills are not often considered by Parliament but are a double-decade opportunity. Currently there are too many plans and too much confusion. Our reforms will produce a simpler, faster and more flexible system that creates plans and delivers policies at the right level. They are the right thing to do and it is about time that we made the changes.
On referendums, which I mentioned already, we have not yet set dates for the other regions. We clearly stated why we have not set dates when we debated the previous legislation. We have made it clear, however, that a referendum will be held in a region if there is sufficient interest in holding one. These amendments are a recipe for muddle because there is no guarantee that referendums will be held in a particular region. There would be different structures for plan making between areas with elected regional assemblies and those without. In short, we believe that our planning reforms will produce a simpler and more comprehensible system and that these amendments would just cause more confusion.
Where an elected regional assembly is established— where there is a successful referendum; and legislation will be introduced in Parliament if there is a successful vote in one of the three regions—it is unarguably right that it should take over responsibility for regional planning. However, we should not conflate that with reform of the planning system. That reform needs to happen now. We cannot wait for such reform until the creation of elected regional assemblies, if that is what the people in those regions decide. As I said, the matter depends very much on the choice of people in those regions.
The assemblies may come to pass or they may not. However, our planning reforms—I plead with the Committee—should not be dependent on decisions which will be taken for wholly different reasons. These reforms stand on their own. Although they may be connected to the reform and election of regional government, for heaven's sake, given the current difficulties with the planning system, they should not be dependent on that. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Hamwee: When asked how long I thought debate on Amendment No.1 would take I said one hour. I shall therefore try not to extend the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and the Minister both used the word "wrecking" but then rowed back a little. This is not intended as a wrecking amendment.
936
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, described a body with its heart and soul in the region as the body to take responsibility for these matters. I wholly agree. Unfortunately, the criteria for the designation of regional planning bodies do not use that sort of language.
If there is no elected assembly then the Government's proposals will not be the way to go. If the Committee accepts the amendment some matters of detail will have to be considered. If the amendment is not accepted, a great deficit in the first part of the Bill will have to be addressed at the next stage. I did not try to rewrite the whole Bill for the Committee stage.
The main point is that there seems to be nothing to prevent the current regional planning guidance involving people in the region and becoming much more effective. That could trickle down in the way that the Minister says the Bill will allow. The Government themselves say that they will "save" structure plans for three years. So do we not have to an opportunity to get this right? In the Minister's presentation it seems that convenience overrides the issues of democracy and accountability to which so many noble Lords have referred.
The Minister suggested that noble Lords had perhaps based their arguments on a misunderstanding of how planning works, by ignoring the issues of development control and of dealing with individual planning applications. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said, he did indeed deal with that. Furthermore, Clause 18—the provision that deals with local development—says that the local development document "must have regard to" the regional spatial strategy for the region. Is it not verging on the disingenuous to suggest that the regional spatial strategy has nothing to do with how planning applications are dealt with? From the moment that the Green Paper was introduced many practitioners said that many problems could be dealt with without primary legislation. I suggest that this is one area where we do not need to take the drastic steps that the Minister is asking us to agree.
The Minister said that the proposed regional planning body needs to be sufficiently inclusive. It is up to the electors to decide who should represent them through that body. Regulation 4 of the draft regulations states:
"The criteria prescribed for the purposes of—
the relevant clause of the Bill—
"are that … at least 30 per cent of the members of the RPB are not also members of a relevant authority".
This provision divorces the electorate from the body that is going to take the decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we should be prepared to fight certain battles. This is not just a bone of contention, as the Minister described it; it is fundamental. This is a battle that we are prepared to fight. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Attlee, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Avebury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bridges, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market

Brookeborough, V.

L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buscombe, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Byford, B.

McNally, L.

Caithness, E.

Maddock, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mar, C.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chadlington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clement- Jones, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montrose, D.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Elton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ezra, L.

Northesk, E.

Falkland, V.

Northover, B.

Fearn, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Feldman, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Patten, L.

Fookes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fowler, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Plumb, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Goodhart, L.

Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Quinton, L.

Greaves, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hamwee, B. [Teller]

Razzall, L.

Hanham, B.

Reay, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rennard, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Higgins, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rogan, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Jopling, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Kimball, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

King of Bridgwater, L.

L.

Kingsland, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

938

Sandberg, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Seccombe, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Selborne, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Selsdon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sharman, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Waddington, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wakeham, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walmsley, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taverne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Tebbit, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ampthill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Andrews, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jordan, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brennan, L,

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laming, L.

Brookman, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Listowel, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cobbold, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Masham of Ilton. B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elder, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Radice, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goudie, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rooker, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gregson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Hardie, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harrison, L.

Sheldon, L.

Haskins, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Slim, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

939

Smith of Leigh, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stallard, L.

Varley, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Warner, L.

Strange, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Tenby, V.

Wilkins, B.

Thornton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Triesman, L.

Winston, L.

Turnberg, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Clause 1 [Regional Spatial Strategy]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—"( ) The RSS shall include a statement of community involvement."
The noble Lord said: After the excitement of the previous debate one may have to change some of one's speaking notes regarding other amendments. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
This is the first amendment that I shall move on this legislation. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Committee to try to improve the Bill. At Second Reading two weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out that the Bill received a drumming. It has also received a drumming as a result of the first amendment on which we have just divided.
It is important to keep stressing the message that this legislation could ruin our planning system. As some noble Lords mentioned at Second Reading, this legislation will break up a planning system of which we should be proud. We agree with speeding up the planning process but not with throwing out the baby at the same time as the bath water.
During the past few weeks I have had many meetings with many professional organisations. There is widespread consensus that, if we are not careful, in three years or so a new Bill will be presented that is designed to sort out the problems caused by the one that we are discussing. It is important that the Government listen to the arguments now. It is all too easy to upset the balance between democracy and efficiency. It is all too easy to call the planning system old and deny its many strengths in order to put something new in its place simply for the sake of newness. However, it will be much harder to undo any damage to the planning system once it has been done.
On Second Reading I said that it would be much better to reform the current system—I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also mentioned that— than to throw the whole thing up in the air. However, as we are where we are in the legislative process regarding this Bill, it is incumbent upon us all, regardless of our political hue, to do what we can to prevent the emasculation of the democratic element within the planning system.
We must be aware of paying lip service to democracy and community participation while casting these out with the county structure plans. We debated that matter just now. People must have a voice in planning decisions and those decisions must be made at as local a level as possible. The regional planning bodies must not simply be branch offices of Whitehall doing the Secretary of State's bidding.
Amendment No.2 would require the Government to put on the face of the Bill a measure to ensure that regional spatial strategies include statements of community involvement. The purpose of having such a statement of community involvement in each regional spatial strategy is threefold but each element is fundamentally aimed at addressing the democratic deficit that lies at the heart of this Bill. First, a statement of community involvement would ensure that the regional planning body must engage with the community that it serves. Planning authorities must make decisions that serve the people of an area; that is, decisions that are representative of those people. If regional spatial strategies do not include statements of community involvement, we shall have no mechanism by which to relate plans to the people they serve.
Statements of community involvement must establish minimum standards that regional planning bodies will have to meet in order to have any democratic legitimacy whatever through the regional spatial strategies. Without those minimum standards many potential problems threaten to emerge. People may feel that regional spatial strategies are irrelevant to them as they have no input or stake in their preparation. They may feel quite legitimately that their democratic right to express their concerns about development has been taken away. Local people will inevitably feel frustrated if they perceive that unwelcome planning decisions have been foisted on them by the Secretary of State or a regional planning body located miles away.
The second purpose of including statements of community involvement in regional spatial strategies, and following on from the first, is that they will allow a more general scrutiny and accountability of regional planning bodies. Through the statement of community involvement it will become apparent if a regional planning body is able to involve the community in the decision-making process in a meaningful way, let alone whether it is doing it well. People have the right to know how the RPG can affect public decisions that affect their lives.
The third purpose of the amendment is that it will make a new planning system fairer and more consistent. Clause 17 requires local planning authorities to prepare statements of community involvement. How can the Minister justify the current logic of the Bill whereby local authorities must work out how they will engage their communities, while regional planning bodies are under no such obligation?
The Minister will be aware of the research conducted by the Local Government Association in September/October 2002. It asked planning authorities if it would be easy for regional spatial bodies to secure meaningful community involvement in regional planning—95 per

941
cent of planning authorities said it would not be easy. Lest there should be any suspicion of counties wishing to do down regions, counties constituted less than 10 per cent of respondents to the survey. My speech could be changed following the debate on Amendment No.1, but we are still possibly going to have regional spatial strategies in those elected regions and we have a long way to go on the Bill, so I wish to pursue my arguments. Among the experts and those currently involved in delivering planning locally, there is real concern about how community involvement will be achieved.
Those three reasons that I have outlined in some detail on this important part of the Bill are crucial to securing greater community participation and democratic accountability in the planning process. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we also have Amendment No.59 in the group. It approaches the matter in a slightly different way, but they have the same objectives. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, provides for a statement of community interest to be included in the regional spatial strategy. We suggest that a statement of community involvement and consultation—the first of the subsections—is part of the process in moving towards a regional spatial strategy. But the thrust is much the same.
At a regional level I acknowledge it is more difficult to ensure that all necessary views are collected, but that does not mean that there is no responsibility to do so. I prefer to think of such matters in terms of participation, because planning is one of the activities of governance. Like other such activities it requires public trust, credibility and support. The "experts" cannot know it all. Indeed, sustainable development and sustainability are unachievable without public involvement, because changes of attitude and behaviour are fundamental to sustainability. We all need to think of "we" and "our" responsibilities, not "they". It all takes time and effort, but that is well spent.
The draft consultation on PPS 11 includes an annex on community involvement. I hope that the Government are open to that. I am sure they are, because all Ministers know that in any subject the more participation from interested people, the better the outcome. If the Government support that approach then why not put it on the face of the Bill?
Lord Judd: One can ponder on whether the amendments are helpful or not in their precise wording, but I hope that in responding to them my noble friend will not dismiss out of hand the thinking behind them. If one is to make a success of this new strategic approach, and I want to see the policy succeed, it is essential that the maximum good will is generated among those who carry the relevant responsibilities.
We all know how life develops in the public sphere. If people are not involved, there is a tendency for energy, commitment and professionalism to go into the negative rejectionist mode, instead of endorsing
942
what is proposed. I hope that in all that is done and put forward, there will be a real drive to generate a momentum of public good will and involvement.
In saying that, I should declare an interest. I am an active vice-president of the Council for National Parks and a member of the north-west regional committee of the National Trust. I am also a supporter of various environmental agencies such as CPRE. Therefore, I hope—not because of my involvement in those agencies but because of the argument I put forward— that my noble friend will be able to make reassuring comments in relation to these amendments.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I was not present at Second Reading of the Bill, but I believe that no one quoted that memorable observation of the Deputy Prime Minister in the early stages of the previous Parliament in the context of the decision relating to Stevenage. In effect, he said of the administration that the green belt was the achievement of a Labour government and that they proposed to build on it.
I am the first to acknowledge that that should not be taken literally, but its spirit is bound to have aroused the suspicions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister must allow for us being vigilant during the passage of this Bill.
My suspicions are prompted by a further consideration. I was a veteran of the Commons Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, as I told the Minister yesterday. The Mayor was responsible for ensuring the setting out of a large number of strategies. During the deliberations, I asked Glenda Jackson, who was at that stage leading for the Government, what would happen if the strategies were in conflict with each other. She memorably replied that they could not be because the Bill prevented them from being so. That did not seem to me to be a certain consequence of the relationship between human beings and legislation. I am wholly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield to ensure a degree of restraint and contribution by electors within the regions concerned if the Bill were to become law.
Lord Plumb: I support my noble friend's amendment for many reasons. I have not today heard anyone refer to the areas of outstanding natural beauty. Those areas and their representatives are many. I declare an interest as president of the Cotswolds AONB and there are 17 local authority members. In addition, some 40 park wardens, all voluntary, work successfully in the areas in monitoring the activities there and the people who wish to visit such a wonderful part of the world. Those people need to be consulted because they are on the ground and are concerned.
I am concerned that on reading the Bill there appears to be some superimposing of yet another tier to govern the existing bodies. The areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that in which I have an interest, have with a good deal of support been built up over a short time. I remember saying at our first meeting, over which I was presiding, that it was remarkable that the representatives of some 17 local authorities were all in agreement.

943
They were in agreement on a matter of concern to them all and they are the people who really matter. Adding words to the Bill which would make it clear that full consultation must take place would be effective and would demonstrate to those concerned that they are to be consulted and involved.
Lord Bridges: As the noble Lord referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps I may draw to his attention my Amendment No.36 and three others which address the issue. I hope he will be able to support me on them.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke of vigilance. If I were on the Back Benches, I would be watching myself here very carefully!That may be a Spoonerism, but I agree with him. There is no point of disagreement whatever. Furthermore, there is no departure between us on our aims. The Bill puts forward proposals for meeting those, together with background material, but there is no question that the involvement of the communities means that better quality decisions are reached. That is fundamental.
I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 2 and 59 together. I agree with all noble Lords that those with an interest in what the revised regional spatial strategy will look like should be consulted while it is being prepared. The regional planning body should from the very beginning plan for community involvement throughout the process. Perhaps the point of difference is how much we put on the face of the Bill and what is put in regulations and guidance. In terms of principle and practicality, there is no difference between us.
I want to remind the House of our existing proposals for community involvement in the context of the regional spatial strategies—
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that the regional planning bodies would be responsible for preparing the regional spatial strategy. Will he point me to the place where that is stated in the Bill?
Lord Rooker: Someone will give me a note and I will then answer the noble Baroness's question. It is not relevant to the point I am about to make, but it is a relevant point overall. There is a procedure which we explained yesterday to noble Lords who attended the meeting with me at which officials were present to answer some of the technical issues. I made it clear that that will happen, but at some point today I will explain the connection and how one will become the other. The answer is fairly straightforward, but I do not want to get it wrong off the top of my head.
Perhaps I may remind the House of our existing proposals for community involvement. In addition to the duty we are placing on the regional planning body to seek advice from counties and other authorities with strategic planning expertise in Clause 4, we are placing extensive statutory duties on the regional planning
944
body to consult in secondary legislation. The question is how much will be on the face of the Bill and how much in secondary legislation and other guidance.
Under the draft regulations to Part 1, to which reference has been made—
Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may pose a question. Why are the Government putting on the face of the Bill a statutory duty for local authorities, district councils and so forth but not for the regional planning bodies? If the duty should be in the Bill for one section, why not for the other? That seems logical.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: That is the point that I shall explain. We do not disagree with the principle or practicality of the consultation. The question relates to what is in the Bill as opposed to how it comes about in a statutory way. I shall explain that and, because it is important for those outside who watch our proceedings, I shall stick fairly closely to the briefing. Therefore, I shall go back and start that paragraph again.
Under the draft regulations to Part 1 of the Bill, the regional planning body will have a duty to consult certain bodies while preparing the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. To the extent that the regional planning body considers that it is affected by the revision, the RPB must consult a specific list of bodies—for example, county councils in or adjoining the region, local planning authorities in or adjoining the region, regional planning bodies for adjoining regions, and regional development agencies for the region and adjoining ones.
To the extent that it considers it appropriate to do so, at this stage the regional planning body must also consult organisations that represent the interests of particular groups; for example, voluntary sector bodies—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, stated—ethnic minority communities or, indeed, businesses.
When the regional planning body publishes, the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, it must consult both the bodies that it has consulted during the preparation of the draft and any other bodies and persons which it thinks may wish to make representations.
Although they are too detailed to be set out on the face of the Bill, those statutory requirements are just the bare bones of what we expect to see in terms of consultation and community involvement.
The draft planning policy statement on regional planning—PPS11—sets out what that consultation should and could look like as initial ideas and options are turned into firm proposals. It will involve more than sending out draft documents and collating responses. We expect the counties and other bodies with strategic planning expertise to be closely involved or to take the lead on sub-regional studies or other work that will underpin the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy.

945
To involve the community more widely, planning policy statement 11 suggests that the regional planning body holds workshops or seminars across topics and themes in the review. Once the regional planning body has identified a preliminary list of issues for the revision, it should hold a one-day public conference to seek agreement that the issues identified are the right ones. It should consider establishing a group, chaired and comprised of people from outside the regional planning body and local authorities to be consulted at key milestones as the draft regional spatial strategy emerges.
The regional planning body should plan for consultation and community involvement from the very beginning. PPS11 requires the regional planning body, as part of its project plan for the regional spatial strategy revision, to set out how it will involve the community throughout. That involvement needs to be documented. Draft regulations place a duty on the regional planning body to submit to the Secretary of State, at the same time as the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, a statement setting out how it has consulted stakeholders in the revision process and how the issues raised have been addressed in the draft revision document. That can be compared with what it said it would do in the project plan.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may—
Lord Rooker: If I may just complete this part, I shall be glad to give way to the noble Lord. In testing the soundness of the regional spatial strategy, the extent of community involvement and stakeholder participation will both be taken into account in the panel's examination of the draft revision. The Secretary of State could reject the revision if he was not satisfied that it had been properly prepared.
We believe that that all adds up to a comprehensive package of community involvement in the regional planning process, with checks in place to ensure that it does take place. Given the way in which it will be carried out, we do not consider that a statutory statement would add value, bearing in mind the process that we are to undertake. I shall now gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: Some of what the Minister has described is set out in draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning. However, there is one point on which I should be grateful to receive the Minister's advice. The document states that, after discussing community involvement, as the noble Lord outlined, the RPB may also wish to consider the likely cost to participants and whether there is any scope for it or other stakeholders to provide financial support for community and voluntary groups in order to assist their ability to participate in the process. Does the
946
Minister agree that that should not be discretionary and that, if one is to involve communities in the way that he described—I approve of everything that he has said thus far—there must be some financial burden on the RPB to assist that process?
Lord Rooker: I wholly agree with the point that the noble Lord makes. The short answer is that that is one reason why the Government have increased substantially the funding available for planning aid. This is a genuine issue. Off the top of my head I do not know what the figures are, but we have substantially increased the funds available for planning aid and for organisations in order to help in the exact circumstances identified by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Perhaps I may complete this part of my answer and I shall then turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness. I hope that it is fair to say that we need to get away from assuming that what is right at a local level might also be right at a regional level—that is, in terms of simple replication. A regional spatial strategy is a different document with a very different purpose from a local plan. To begin with, it will not be site-specific. The regional spatial strategy sets out the strategic framework for the region, and the local plan documents detail which sites should be developed. There is no reason why two such different documents should be subject to the same procedures in their preparation. However, in any event, community involvement is fairly important.
The statutory statement of community involvement is a case in point. Although it would not be valuable at a regional level, it would be valuable at a local level in setting out clearly for the local community how it would be involved in a plan-making process that might affect what its neighbourhood would look like in the years ahead. Local plans are literally much closer to home—that must be accepted—and the community has a far more direct stake in the process. Of course, members of the community may have an interest and want an input into the strategic policies in the regional plan. I go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said and the example that he gave of 17 local authorities in one area. Those policies would not be site-specific, but the communities would be absolutely entitled to be consulted right at the beginning and throughout the process.
In principle, there is no argument at all between us in terms of what happens at the local and regional levels. It is a question of how much detail would be on the face of the Bill, bearing in mind that some of that detail would be statutory—that is, in secondary legislation. I cannot recall whether the procedure would be affirmative or negative. However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House will bring forward suitable amendments to meet those recommendations in due course. I can say that now, without having the detailed report in front of me.
I have a list of the bodies which the regulations would require the regional planning body to consult. I shall place that list on the record, first, because it is important and, secondly, so that there is no doubt

947
about the detailed attention that we intend to pay to this issue. Earlier, I gave a summary of the list but I shall now give it in full.
To the extent that the regional planning body considers that the draft revision affects a body, the RPB must consult: a local planning authority, any part of whose area is in or adjoins the RPB's region; a county council, any part of whose area is in or adjoins the RPB's region; a parish council, any part of whose area is in or adjoins the RPB's region; the regional planning body for each adjoining region; the Countryside Agency; the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; English Nature; the Environment Agency; the Strategic Rail Authority; a regional development agency whose area is in or adjoins the regional planning board's region; any strategic health authority which exercises functions in the region; and any telecoms and infrastructure service provider which exercises functions in the region.
The RPB should also consult, as it thinks appropriate: voluntary bodies, some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the region; bodies that represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the region; bodies that represent the interests of different religious groups in the region; bodies that represent the interests of disabled persons in the region; and bodies that represent the interests of persons carrying on business in the region.
Once the lawyers get to work on that list, it covers an incredible spread of opinion. Most organisations will fit one of those criteria because they will be found to have an interest in the region. It is just a question of what we put in the Bill. I agree that the Bill is too long and already too detailed. That is always a difficulty, and one draws a compromise. In this case, there will be regulations and secondary legislation.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: I understand the Minister saying that the Bill already covers the community involvement issue; therefore there cannot be much incremental work. I therefore cannot understand why he resists the small number of words in the amendment; they at least would demonstrate that we support democracy upfront in Clause 1.
Lord Judd: My noble friend has encouraged us to watch his back. I assure him—and he knows—that I am not watching his back with any sense of hostility on the issue. I have the feeling that he shares our concern and our objectives and it is a matter of how we get right the Bill's wording. It is good to have a Minister with such sensitivity.
Does my noble friend agree that the trouble with illustrative lists is that the organisations that do not appear on the list inevitably hold some significance? I refer to my interests on the previous amendment: for example, there are two organisations—the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty, but I refer also to the national parks—that have tremendous responsibility on behalf of the
948
nation, not simply the local community, for protecting and enhancing those assets for the nation as a whole.
I listened carefully—I have a problem with my hearing; however, I do not think that this was due to it—but I heard neither the areas of outstanding natural beauty nor the national parks mentioned in the illustrative lists the Minister gave. I hope that he can say something from the Government Front Bench to the effect that those specific bodies, which carry terrific responsibility, will be consulted in the development of any strategies.
Lord Rooker: It is not my job to make policy at the Dispatch Box; I am not the planning Minister, but the answer has to be yes. There is no question about that. They may fit the descriptions I have given—frankly I would have thought that they do. They may fit under the definition of local authorities; the national parks are planning authorities, so they are probably defined in the law—I see the Liberal Democrats nodding, so apparently I have got it right off the top of my head.
So while I am not making policy on my feet, the answer to my noble friend's question must be "yes". We do not have a point of principle or difference between us.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: Will the Minister answer my question: therefore, why does he resist the amendment?
Lord Rooker: I was about to utter the immortal words, which are not on my brief: we will consider the matter. If anything has been missed out, that is no good because it undervalues what I have said. We need to be clear. As we are in Committee stage and at the moment the score is "county councils 1, Government 0", I will go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Keith Hill, the planning Minister, who proved to be good listening Ministers following the drubbing the Bill received on Second Reading. After Second Reading, we tabled massive amendments to Clause 4, to consider the matter and see whether we could accommodate the points I have made without adding masses of extra pages to the Bill.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the Bill does not say that the regional planning board is to prepare the regional spatial strategy. The Bill creates the regional spatial strategies from the existing regional planning guidances under Clause 1. I do not have the Bill in front of me, but there is a redefinition that one instrument becomes the new instrument. As we explained yesterday, that was done so that there are not great delays that take years. We take the existing regional planning guidance, which becomes the regional spatial strategy. Its revision in due course will be covered by many of the points I made earlier.
There cannot possibly be a case for pressing the amendment on the basis of what I have said. I hope that we can move on to the next debate with a degree of goodwill.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: Could I challenge the Minister a little further? I accept that the regional planning guidances will be at least part of the regional spatial strategy, but it does not say anywhere that they will be all of it. A number of discussions will ensue to shed light on what is involved in the regional spatial strategy.
It seems more than a little relevant that the regional planning board is responsible. The Bill does not say that it will do anything that the Minister said in his response. Clauses 2 and 3 give the RPB some general functions and say that it must keep the regional spatial strategy and the development of its regions under review and it must monitor and implement. It does not say anything about producing or about being responsible for the original implementation of the regional spatial strategy.
The regional planning bodies are being given a lacuna under the Minister's reply—I accept that the provision is in guidance, but it is not written in the Bill. Too often we rely on what goes into Hansard to justify the Bill and people have to go rummaging around to find the reference, when one subsection under Clause 1 would simply say that the regional planning body is responsible for introducing and implementing the regional spatial strategy. That is the reality of the situation, as the Minister indicated.
I am happy for the Minister not to reply tonight and to receive his reply at a later stage, but it would be helpful not only to us here, who are steeped in Bills and sentences and what people say. It is when it goes beyond here that we need to make clear what it is all about. I ask the Minister to review that provision and to ensure that we may return to it by putting it into a clause if he does not respond quickly. It is an important issue.
While I am on my feet, I declare the appropriate interests, such as being a member of a local authority and a member of a local planning committee, so that that is understood from the outset.
Lord Rooker: The declaration of interests in this place has always been a mystery to me. They are peculiar and I do not see why they have to be declared. I do not think that one has to apologise in this place for being a member of a local authority, but an apology is almost what a declaration of interest amounts to here. It has nothing to do with the Bill.
I have had a note that might help the noble Baroness. If there are any lacunas we will consider them. There will be nothing in the regional spatial strategy that is not in the regional planning guidance, but some parts of the existing regional planning guidance will not become the regional spatial strategy. It will be that way round. I am not sure about the mechanism for transferring one to the other; it may just be a direction. We will clear up those issues during the Bill's passage.
Lord Avebury: The Minister said that the existing regional planning guidance becomes the RSS, except for those parts that they decide to strike out. Could that be embodied in Clause 1(2)? Instead of giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to implement whatever policies he likes in the RSS, it could limit him to such of those policies as are embodied in the regional planning guidance at the moment when the Bill comes into effect, or something similar.
Lord Rooker: That sounds okay, but I think that my right honourable friends might have a problem with that, simply because the process of achieving regional planning guidance is one where there is a prescribed set of procedures which the Secretary of State has to ensure that he follows. So, I do not think that that will be a runner. However, it is a suggestion made in Committee and we shall consider it.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds on his amendment, perhaps I should remind my noble friends, if no one else, of the amendment to which the Committee agreed a few moments ago. I for one will not roll over, accept this and say, "We know that this will be undone at the other end when the Bill goes back there". Clearly, there are knock-on effects as to who creates the regional spatial strategy, which, as I have said before, for reasons of practicality have not been addressed in all our amendments.
Perhaps I may add briefly to what has been said. If there is no reference on the face of the Bill to a statement of community involvement as regards the regional spatial strategy but there is, and I welcome it, as regards local development, it must be implicit that less weight is attached to it—even though it is spelt out at 15-page length in guidance—if it does not appear in primary legislation.
Lord Hanningfield: As regards the amendment I moved a few moments ago and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he pointed out what might be in secondary legislation and for going through all the consul tees, and so forth.
The fact that this is not on the face of the Bill is worrying. When we refer to regional spatial strategies, often we are referring to numbers of houses within a community. The Minister knows very well—earlier, he declared my interest as leader of Essex County Council rather than me having to do that—that I am involved in two particular areas: the M11 corridor and the Thames Gateway, where considerable amounts of housing and infrastructure development are planned. To say that the region would not consult and involve those communities in that area—my noble friend referred in the earlier debate to his involvement in a discussion on development in the region—is disappointing. We are not talking about many words here. To repeat what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if it is included for local authorities why not for the regional spatial strategy?
We have heard what the Minister said and we shall read and consider it. But this is an issue to which we might have to return. However, I hope that the

951
Minister will think again and include these few words in the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6. at end insert—
"( ) The RSS shall consist of—

(a)a concise strategic framework for the spatial dimension of Government policies in delivering and maintaining sustainable economies, communities and environment in that region, including other regional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on the use of land such as (but not limited to) the regional economic strategy, the regional housing strategy and the regional cultural strategy;

(b)the regional transport strategy;

(c)policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land in that region (including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic); and

(d)such other matters as may be prescribed."

The noble Lord said: The subject of Amendment No.3 has been trespassed upon in a debate on the previous grouping. The same question arises as to what should be on the face of the Bill and what we should leave unsaid and assume will come out all right in the wash when all the guidance, instruments, and so forth are produced.
Regional spatial strategy is a relatively new phrase. It is used with increasing frequency and is at the very heart of the Bill. Yet nowhere in the Bill does it state what is meant by those three words. The purpose of tabling the amendment is partly to tease out from the Government what is meant by regional spatial strategy but also why it should not be set out clearly on the face of the Bill as previous planning legislation sets out, for example, the scope of a structure plan and other elements of the planning system.
The regional spatial strategy has been explained in various documents, in particular the annex to RPG11 and the information in PPS11, in other explanatory information and in interesting comments by the Minister. It is clear that the RSS will consist of two things which eventually will be the legacy of the two elements that will go into the RSS at the very beginning. The first is the regional planning guidance. In the debate on the previous grouping the Minister explained which parts of the RPG will become the bulk of the temporary RSS, the transitional RSS. The second part will be the successor to the existing structure plans in the case of county councils and to those parts of the unitary development plans in the case of unitary local government.
There are two clear sections to RSS. At the beginning they will be very obviously separate and different. It seems to me inevitable that that will continue to be the case even after the revisions have taken place. Therefore, we should set out what the RSS consists of. I do not claim that the words I suggest are the last words in perfection. But I have set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) what seems to me to be a concise summary of what the Government have stated in RPG11 and PPS11 will be in the RSS.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) contain the wording that applies to structure plans in the 1990 Act, with a little missed off the end. In other words, the Government state that this is what the RSS will consist of as it becomes the transformation of the RPG; this is what the RSS will consist of in so far as it will take on immediately the existing structure plans and, in due course, those structure plans will be turned into sub-regional strategic planning documents. That, as far as I understand, is how it will work.
Having read much of the Bill, much of the documentation and listened to the Minister, I am increasingly surprised that he claims that this will be a simplification of the system and will reduce the number of layers and complications. The more we look into it, the more complicated the whole issue seems to be
I tabled the amendment to ask the Government, first, why the definition of RSS, which is so important and so fundamental to the Bill, should not be on the face of the Bill and, secondly, to probe as to how, once the transitional phase is over and we have the RSSs in all their new super-efficient up-to-date glory, they will differ from existing regional planning guidance. Obviously they will differ in detail, but how will they differ in scope and style, in so far as they refer to sub-regional strategic planning, from the existing structure plans?
The more I read about this, the more it seems to be about process. However, in 10 years' time the documents will not differ much from existing structure plans; they will just have been put together by different people in a different process. Iri the case of Lancashire, for example, if the North West planning body decided to appoint Lancashire County Council as its agent for sub-regional planning in Lancashire, which would be sensible and practical, the documents will be put together by the same people, the only difference being the political accountability. So how will RSSs differ on those two levels and why should this not be on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Cobbold: Amendment No.7 stands in my name and is grouped with Amendment No.3. It addresses the same basic point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—what should be on the face of the Bill? We both believe that the Bill needs to be more specific about the issues that should be covered by the RSS. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has provided a detailed list of appropriate topics. My amendment is more concise, which should appeal to the Minister. It simply proposes the specific inclusion of major transport and infrastructure provisions. It seems to me that the reference in Clause 1(2) to development and use of land within a region is too vague. It does not seem necessarily to cover major regional planning issues such as motorway or trunk road construction and airport development. These are of major strategic importance at regional level. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Judd: When the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, moved his amendment, he said the objective was to tease out more information from my noble friend. I rather took it from that that this amendment would

953
not be pressed to a Division. I hope that in replying to the interesting observations made from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches the Minister will say in the context of this debate what I have heard him say powerfully on other occasions; that is, that one of the key planning purposes in our overcrowded, over-stressed society is the enhancement of the countryside and not simply for the benefit of those living there. Psychologically and physically it is absolutely indispensable for the health and well-being of the whole nation. Will the Minister say authoritatively that all that is being done shows the Government's determination to ensure that this rich resource—the countryside—is enhanced as an asset for the nation?
Viscount Ullswater: On this occasion I rise to help the Minister by opposing the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that it is a probing amendment. I hope he will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are made. I have always accepted that there should be regional planning guidance. Such guidance has informed the making of local plans and structure plans for many years and has been extremely successful. In another life I was Minister for Planning and therefore had a certain responsibility. I have already expressed my opposition to a statutory body such as the RSS without an elected assembly but I recognise that it is restrictive to put such constraints on the face of the Bill, as this amendment seeks to do. I hope that the Minister may find a way of writing into the Bill the fact that the RSSs will be the embodiment of RPGs instead of us having to rely on his words in Hansard. That would help the construction of the Bill and also your Lordships' understanding of it.
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may ask the Minister about one issue included in my noble friend's amendment. I refer to the regional housing strategies which are the responsibility of regional housing boards. Can the Minister explain either now or later exactly how he sees them tapping into this structure?
Lord Avebury: I should like to ask a question before the Minister comes to reply. I have read carefully the passages under the heading, "What is an RSS?" in the Consultation Paper on Draft Planning Policy, Statement 11. I see nothing in there about the specific question of wind power which has been quite controversial. Many applications for planning permission for wind turbines on land have been turned down on environmental grounds. While I accept entirely what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the primary objective of the RSS should be the enhancement of the countryside, I do suggest to the Minister that there are many areas, which are neither areas of outstanding natural beauty nor national parks, where wind farms would be perfectly suitable. I say that in the context of agriculture in this country. The primary agricultural purpose of land has become unprofitable. Many farmers are looking to alternative ways of making money. In upland areas, one of them could be the use of land no longer suitable for
954
sheep. Unless there is something in the RSS which specifically refers to it, will not local authorities continue to be as negative as they have been in the past?
Lord Rooker: I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question except that I was minded to look into the Moses Room where the Energy Bill is being discussed. That would be my immediate reaction. On the point that he raises, I have no doubt that I will get a note to help me to respond.
To respond to what my noble friend Lord Judd said, the Bill deals only with certain aspects of changes. As I said in my closing speech at Second Reading, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working to a master plan—the Sustainable Communities Plan published on 5 February last year. We make it clear that we are interested only in sustainable developments. We want to redevelop the cities to make them living bodies. My noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside said on Second Reading that the only real sustainable community is in a city. The other side of the coin is that the countryside is protected. It stops the flight from city to countryside if cities are good for living, working and quality of life.
In the Sustainable Communities Plan there is a map on Page 43 which I have used many times at various meetings. It shows the amount of land in England covered by national parks, green belt, and areas of outstanding natural beauty. You can superimpose the urban areas. It is an interesting set of statistics. We have to be very careful. What we have said is that in building sustainable communities, particularly in growth areas, we may have to impinge on certain parts of the green belt. However, we intend to grow it and leave more statutory green belt than we started with. We have already done this. There are an additional 30,000 hectares of green belt land now compared with 1997. I realise a large part is in one area of the country but nevertheless it is statutory and far bigger than it was. I would also say that green belt is not the same as AONBs. Most green belt serves as a buffer around urban areas. It is not land of high visual quality; it is purely designed to stop cities and towns joining up, which is quite right. But green belt and AONB are not the same thing and are separate from the statutory national parks.
This is an important issue. Quite obviously noble Lords are testing the Bill to discover the Government's thinking behind these issues which legislation in the form of a Bill does not always set out. I shall try to set out our thinking and also address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Somewhere in my notes is a reference to regional housing boards and I can definitely say that I will cover the noble Baroness's point.
Amendment No.3 would amend Clause 1(1) to provide that the RSS must consist of the following: first, a concise strategic framework for the spatial dimension of government policies in delivering and maintaining sustainable economies, communities and environment in the region. That would include other regional strategies and programmes that have a

955
bearing on the use of land, such as the regional economic strategy, the housing strategy and the cultural strategy.
Secondly, it should include the regional transport strategy. Thirdly, it should set out the policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land in the region, including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. Finally, it should include any other matters that are prescribed.
Amendment No. 7 of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, would amend Clause 1(2) to provide that, among other things, the regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's policies for major transport and infrastructure provision in the region.
By what I have said previously, I hope the Committee can agree that the Government concur with much of what is said in the amendments concerning the content of an RSS. We differ on whether it needs to be set out on the face of the Bill rather than in policy pronouncements and guidance and, if necessary, in regulations.
Paragraph 1.3 of draft planning policy statement 11 makes clear that the RSS should set out the regional transport and major infrastructure proposals that are necessary to deliver the strategy set out in the RSS. Detailed policy and guidance on what the regional transport strategy should contain are set out in Annex B to the document.
It is crucial that the RSS sets out the regional transport and major infrastructure priorities. In issuing an RSS the Secretary of State will endorse the principle of these proposals as he sees appropriate, taking full account of the report of the panel following the examination in public into the draft proposals. There will then be an opportunity for people to make representations on the precise location of these proposals through the normal statutory routes. The procedures for doing so include a planning inquiry, a highways inquiry and an inquiry into a Transport and Works Act order.
The RSS must be careful not to stray into such site-specific proposals and thereby subvert these statutory procedures and the safeguards they provide.
So, we want to emphasise the role of the RSS in relation to establishing regional priorities. Proposals of national importance need to be considered at the national rather than the regional level. The principle of the need for nationally important proposals will have been established not in an RSS but rather—for example—in a White Paper or in debate in this Chamber. A good recent example that I have used elsewhere is the airports document. The Bill changes how major infrastructure inquiries will be dealt with, but the key to making that change is a clear statement of policy by government on what the issue is—whether it be airports or other matters. So that is necessary; otherwise, the system will not work.
I turn now to the detail of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Paragraph 1.3 of draft PPS11 makes clear that the RSS should provide a broad development strategy for at least a 15-year
956
period. It goes on to state that the RSS should, among other things, identify the scale and distribution of provision for new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals extraction and waste treatment and disposal. I think that demonstrates that if we were to prescribe on the face of the Bill what the RSS should contain it would have to say more than the selective references to such matters as,
"the improvement of the physical environment",
to which the noble Lord's amendment refers.
I say that only because otherwise the legislation is left wide open to people who wish to frustrate development or misuse the proposals. All it does is to make loads of money for the lawyers and slows down the decision-making process. Whether the decision is yes or no does not matter; it slows it down.
Paragraph 2.8 of PPS11 makes clear that the RSS should provide the long-term planning framework for the three regional strategies—to which the noble Lord refers—and the other relevant strategies I have already referred to the policy and guidance in PPS11 on the contents of the regional transport strategy and to the role of that strategy as an integral part of the RSS.
There is, therefore, no issue between us of what the RSS should contain but merely where we should say it. We are not arguing on any issue of what it should contain. In our view it would be a mistake to fossilise it on the face of the Bill because we would be making references to what matters the RSS should contain, which may change in the future. This is where I turn to the example and answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, refers in his amendment to a new type of strategy introduced last year after the Bill had been introduced—the regional housing boards. Who knows what the future may hold? If we put things in great detail in primary legislation, we are making a rod for our own back with other changes that may occur in the future. There is a procedure for doing this. There is the policy and the guidance and, if necessary, the power to use regulation to make good any items that are missing or changes that have come about. So it is only a question of where the issue is written down.
I have some specific answers to give to points raised by Members of the Committee, which I hope I can deal with adequately. The RSS is not site-specific and so would not identify areas for wind farms. It will define broad locations and criteria for wind farm development, to be taken forward by the local development framework. The RSS will plan positively for renewable energy—I think that we take that for granted—but it would not go into that detail.
The regional housing strategy assesses the regional housing needs of the region. This is a fairly new process, which is less than a year old. It will identify housing investment priorities. The information forms the RSS, which sets out the housing requirements for which the planning authority should provide. The

957
point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that these issues are very delicate and sensitive, but unless there is planning we end up with sprawl, unsustainable growth and unsustainable communities and we diminish people's quality of life. Therefore, there are some tough decisions to be made.
I hope that the noble Lord in his guise as a local government bigwig of some quality will help me with the communities plan in the growth areas. Of course, as I have told my colleagues, I am working with people of quality in this place—some more important than others—because they carry a lot of clout on the communities plan.
I shall deal with how RSSs will be different from structure plans. Many structure plans repeat what is already national or regional policy. They do not address planning issues that cross administrative boundaries; in other words where the problems are. I explained that matter earlier. We want to explore that area in consultation. The boundaries are important but they are not the be-all and end-all. We need to reach across them. The problems stretch across the boundaries.
It is not true that RSSs will consist of the regional planning guidance and Part 1 of the UDPs and the structure plans. RSSs will be the regional planning guidance and, through time, the sub-regional policies that are actually needed in the relevant areas. They are obviously different around the country. They will not be the same in every area. The RSSs will evolve over time. It is a question of where it is written down—it will be written down. That is the point, and I hope that I have made it clear. The issues will be written down; the question is where they are written down. They will be written down in such a way that people will not be able to avoid them. I am confident of that.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: I am not sure that I am totally happy with that response. It is important that the Bill should state some of these important issues—the Minister mentioned the airport issue, which would clearly materially affect a region if central government decided that was to be done. I feel that RSSs must take account of these major national issues to the extent that they affect a particular region. I ask the Government to think about that. I will not be pressing my amendment.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that long and detailed explanation in reply to my point. I am grateful to the other Members who took part in the debate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already gone, I will still say that he hit a crucial issue in this Bill. There is real concern that enhancement of the countryside is being downplayed. That concern goes right back to the genesis of the Bill, which now seems a long time ago.
As everyone knows, the Bill was at least in part a result of pressure being put on the Government by development interests, if I can call them that, to say that
958
development in this country is not easy enough. It is being restricted. As the Minister said, the system is wide open to people who wish to frustrate development. Clearly, there must be a balance. One of the reasons why this Bill started off through its various consultation processes was a belief that development ought to be made easier, in the interests of national economic growth. That concern is a thread that will run through the discussions on the Bill.
The noble Viscount suggested that these proposals were too restrictive. There are two views and purposes of legislation. One is to allow people in authority, in particular the Government, to do what is thought to be necessary and to give rules and instructions and powers over people in the country to allow things to happen. The other view of legislation is that it is there to restrict the activities of people in power, including Ministers, to those areas that are thought to be necessary. Beyond those that are thought to be necessary, or perhaps highly desirable, they should not be allowed to do what they want, how they want in an arbitrary way. That is why, having listened to the debate, I still think that it would be a good idea to define this phrase in the Bill.
Can the Minister tell us of anywhere else in planning legislation where a phrase as important as "regional spatial strategy" is included but not defined? I do not want an answer now; I am happy to have one afterwards. It is an unusual process to say that they will put the words in legislation and then the Government, Ministers or civil servants will write it all down on pieces of paper and tell people what the legislation means. It might trip up the courts to do that. It is unusual. Where else in planning legislation does that happen?
As far as the difference is concerned, I understand now what will happen on structure plans. They will continue to exist as separate entities until they are superseded by the new sub-regional strategies. The Minister is nodding, so I understand how that will happen. How will the sub-regional strategies differ from existing structure plans, apart from boundaries? I understand that they may not follow the existing local authority boundaries, although not following them is a recipe for more confusion and more chaos. Again, I am happy for the Minister to tell us afterwards, or perhaps write to us. How will they differ? In what ways will they differ from structure plans? If we picked up a document, and it did not have a heading, would we read it and think that it was a structure plan, because it is simply the successor to those present plans? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): If Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 or Amendment No. 10, because of pre-emption.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Baroness said: People will probably realise that, given what happened with the first amendment, this amendment is philosophically in the

959
same vein, and I think that we will have to consider a bit further how to deal with the issue. I am not really going to pursue it tonight. Nevertheless—Part 3 is related to Part 2, so they are connected—I would be interested in the Minister's response to the issue raised here.
Lord Hanningfleld: I am not certain whether I can speak to Amendment No. 5, because the Deputy Chairman said that it could not be called if we agreed to Amendment No. 4. As they are grouped together— I will speak to it. This is an important amendment, so I want to go over it.
As the Bill stands, a regional spatial strategy is conceived as nothing more than a planning document that states the Secretary of State's policy agenda for a particular region. We all recognise the importance of the Government's role in giving strategic leadership to the planning system. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said during the debate on Amendment No. 1, Parts 1 and 2 of this Bill basically amount to the nationalisation of the planning system, and that is a very bad idea indeed.
This amendment is aimed at freeing up the regional planning bodies, via the regional spatial strategies, from being simply the mouthpieces of Whitehall policy. This is not a political point. This amendment addresses the concern, expressed by many interested parties, that unless there are changes in the way the regional spatial strategies are established in legislation, there will be no space for local accountability as planning policy is implemented on the ground.
We all want to help to speed up planning decisions. Centralised planning, while perhaps speeding up the system, will inevitably mean bad planning. Our current planning system needs reform, because it is too slow. We all agree on that. At least it has the distinct advantage of maintaining local accountability. As was mentioned at Second Reading, local responsibility for planning has meant that the quality of planning decisions has generally been good. At Second Reading, most noble Lords said that we probably had the best planning system in the world. Good quality planning must continue to be the key objective of any planning legislation.
Thus, it is vital that we establish more mechanisms for the exercise of community participation at the regional level—hence my earlier amendment and the long discussion that we had on that—and bolster the capacity of regional planning bodies to respond to local conditions. At the moment, this legislation simply fails to recognise the enormous differences and variations between and within regions—I know that well, in regard to the eastern region—in terms of local land use and the development of future needs.
As it stands, Clause 1(2) would lead to the accelerated fossilisation of regional spatial strategies, because they would have to constantly keep up with the rate at which new demands emanate from Whitehall in order to satisfy the requirements set out by the Secretary of State's policies. If the Government are serious about devolving power to the regions—we
960
have had lots of debates about this—and if they are serious about devolution, then how do they square that with a policy that makes regional planning bodies—even after the establishment of elected regional assemblies—simply the agents of Whitehall and Westminster?
Not only is democratic accountability being sucked out of the system by transferring powers upwards away from counties, but it also leaks out at the regional level. Regional planning bodies might find themselves accountable for policies that they do not support and over which they can exercise no control. In the brave new world of devolution and elected regional assemblies, one cannot simply transfer the old accountabilities on to the new regional structure.
The regional spatial strategy should not be a vehicle for simply setting out government policy. It should be a strategic vision that meets the planning needs of local communities. Their elected representatives should agree it. Of course, regional spatial strategies will still have to have regard to the Government's priorities, and this involvement maintains that important dimension.
This amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies are permitted the necessary flexibility to respond to conditions in their areas. It would go a small way towards restoring a better balance between local accountability and central control. Ultimately, by reasserting the principle of subsidiarity and reversing the tide of centralism found throughout the Bill, the amendment would ensure better planning decisions than would be the case otherwise.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I agree with the sentiments expressed in favour of the two previous amendments in the group.
Amendment No. 10, like others in Clause 1, is now rather redundant, in a technical way, following the acceptance of Amendment No. 1. I had tabled it as another means of making a distinction between the situation in regions which had an elected assembly and those which did not. The distinction I was making was that where there is a legitimately elected body in the region, that body, rather than central government, should have control over the policy behind the regional spatial strategy. It would be a value-added feature of an elected assembly as opposed to a region which did not have an elected assembly. It is simply another means of making elected regional assemblies mean something in the regions that decide to have them; indeed, it could give them some meaning when people are being asked to vote for them.
While we talked about regional assemblies in debating Amendment No. 1, the Minister several times put himself forward not only as an expert on his own Bill—which he is, and has every right to be—but also as an expert on Liberal Democrat policy on the subject. He kept telling us that we were in favour of imposing regional assemblies throughout the country whether or not people wanted them. Since then, I have been able to get a copy of the motion that was passed

961
at the Liberal Democrat conference the last time the matter was debated and party policy was made. The Liberal Democrat party still makes party policy in an open and democratic way at our conferences. Quaint and old-fashioned though that may now seem in the political system, we believe it is something we should do.
The motion was called "Creating Regional Government" and was passed at the federal conference of the Liberal Democrats in March 2002. I would love to read out the whole motion but it is about three pages long, so I will not. However, I am prepared to write to noble Lords and put copies in the Library if there is a demand. The relevant section says:
"Conference therefore calls on the Government to… enable regional referenda to be held as soon as possible, and pass a Regional Powers Act"
to say what powers they could take up.
It is quite clear from the policy document from which that is taken that the regional referendums would be triggered not by central government saying, "We think they'll do up north, but nowhere else, so they can have them whether they like it or not". Instead, referendums would be triggered by people in the region—a proportion of local authorities or by 5 per cent of the electorate—asking for a referendum. If there was a yes vote, they would get a regional assembly, with far greater powers, far more devolution and far more takeover of the regional quangos than the Government are proposing. But that is all for another day. If the electorate voted no, they would not get a regional assembly. I do not know where the Minister gets his information about Liberal Democrat policies from, but whatever his source, it is not very accurate.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. In the days, long ago, when I attended the Harvard Business School, there was, in the first year, a course devoted to personnel activity, most of which seemed to me to be quite astonishingly obvious. But one thing was said to us during that course which struck me freshly, and I have remembered it ever since— namely, one's responsibility, in any human organisation, for playing the part of a participant observer.
Those of us who sit on the Back Benches in debates of this sort, who embark on what will quite clearly be a series of engagements of test match quality, but who do not represent any particular interest outside which requires them to express opinions, have the opportunity for reflection during such a process. Other test matches in which they have taken part in the past, analogous to the one in which we are currently engaged, come back to them. The one which has come back to me is the Licensing Bill, and of those noble Lords in the Chamber tonight, it will also have come back to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for he was a veteran of the same Committee stage.
My recollection of the Licensing Bill, which also ran into a reaction from local authorities which we sought to express during those debates, is that the legislation was unduly centralising and prescriptive. My recollection is
962
that in that Bill, local authorities—which I substitute for the regional planning bodies and the regional spatial strategy in this instance—were obliged to produce policies in relation to their licensing activities. However, those licensing policies had to have regard to the advice which they received from the DCMS. Those were the very words to which, if my recollection is correct, my noble friend Lord Hanningfield referred in this amendment.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord may appreciate that the guidance has still not been published, after all these months. It has not yet appeared.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I do not want to press my analogy too hard, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to that particular foible in the process.
The words in the Licensing Bill were regarded as unduly prescriptive by the local authorities and therefore, by definition, the words to which my noble friend Lord Hanningfield is objecting in his amendment are more prescriptive still. I totally appreciate that circumstances alter cases and that the history of planning may be quite different from the history of licensing. The Minister may therefore have arguments relating to planning history which invalidate the analogy I have made. But because I recall the reaction of local authorities to the way in which they felt they were being imposed upon by the Government in having to pay respect to a national policy, I certainly support my noble friend and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.
Baroness Hanham: I pray in aid the consultation paper on draft planning policy PPS11 in this regard. It says that the regional spatial strategy should be specific to the region; while it should have regard to national policies, it should not simply repeat them. That is not what Clause 1 says. Subsection (5) says that the regional spatial strategy for a region,
"is so much of a regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes".
What we have been talking about throughout our debate is what is involved in the regional spatial strategy and its position. Either the guidance is wrong, in which case it should not say "should have regard to" but should state quite categorically that the regional planning guidance, as laid out by the Secretary of State, has to be part of the regional spatial strategy, or it is not what the Bill says. That is precisely what my noble friend has just described. I should have thought that the guidance should be correct. The policies will lay out the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance, and it should draw attention to that. Clearly, those will be subsumed into local plans—will be part and parcel of them—where practical and obvious. The Government have to get the matter right and they have to decide what we are discussing and what is to be the rationale.

963
While I am on my feet perhaps I could ask the Government not to split infinitives. "To better develop" is a split infinitive and when I was at school that was an absolutely heinous crime.
Lord Bradshaw: I support the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. We have here the possibility that regional planning guidance will be written in Whitehall which will not be applicable to particular regions or a particular region. On the other hand, if those in Whitehall write the strategies for regions, what are the people in the regions to do, if they must take account of that? We need some clarification because people must have room to move. One cannot centralise everything and expect someone below to interpret matters.
Lord Avebury: As the Minister has explained, in the first instance, the regional spatial strategy consists of such parts of the regional planning guidance as the Secretary of State chooses to read across. Every part of the RPG that is relevant, goes into the RSS and there is no discretion there, according to the description that the Minister gave earlier today. If the Bill had said that, there would have been less anxiety about the centralising tendencies of the Bill. If all that is to happen on day one is that the RPG becomes the RSS and has statutory force, whereas the RPG does not, people will see that the opportunity existed at a later stage, when the RPG comes to do the first revision, for changes to be made on a much more democratic basis, as the Minister has outlined.
I believe that it would help the Committee enormously—and I would like to know the answer— if the Minister could say which parts of the RPG the Government intend not to read across. The Minister has already said that parts will not go into the strategy. That is why he was reluctant to accept the notion that one could alter the wording in Clause 1 so that it said precisely what he has said from the Dispatch Box— that it would consist of the RPG less whatever words the Secretary of State chose to leave out. That could have been expressed as giving the Secretary of State a power to transfer the RPG in total, less any words that he would designate by an order.
He also said that nothing can be inserted in the RSS which is not already in the RPG. That is equally important because it means that until the first revision, which is conducted under Clause 5 by the RPB, nothing can go into the RSS at the whim of the Secretary of State unless your Lordships choose to amend the Bill in such a sense. In this Committee we are perfectly free to instruct the Secretary of State to put matters into the RSS or to say that the RSS can contain certain matters, but the Minister has told your Lordships that the Secretary of State is to bar himself from putting anything into the RSS which is not already in the RPG. If that had been made clear on the face of the Bill in Clause 1 a lot of trouble would have been saved.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions, which have enabled me to find what I hope is a satisfactory answer. I almost rose before the noble
964
Lord, Lord Hanningfield, because the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, did not actually move the amendment. She specifically said that she was not going to pursue it. I thought that would be one debate that we would not have and all of a sudden we have had a debate. The words, "I beg to move" have not been uttered. I have been careful on this point. We are making laws under the Bill, and we have had a debate on a group of amendments. I have a very short speaking note and I hope I have an answer to the central issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I will never come to an agreement on Liberal Democrat policy, but the whole thrust of all the speeches from Liberal Democrats in this Committee is that there will be regional governments in every region. That is the underlying assumption of every speech to which I have listened and I have listened to too many. That is why I made the point.
Lord Greaves: The Minister is mistaking party policy and our faith that if there is a referendum in any region on a decent regional government we can persuade people to vote for it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I shall stick to the issue. This group of amendments raises the issue of what is a regional spatial strategy. I realise that so far I have been inadequate in explaining it. The amendments raise the issue of whose policies such a strategy will contain and what those policies may address. As drafted, Clause 1(2) defines the regional spatial strategy as setting out the Secretary of State's policies, however expressed, in relation to the development and use of land in the region. Clause 1(3) clarifies that the regional spatial strategy may contain policies for sub-regions.
Amendment No. 4 would remove both that definition and the clarification. Amendment No. 5 seeks to alter the nature and contents of the regional spatial strategy. Instead of setting out the Secretary of State's spatial policies, it would simply have regard to those policies. Amendment No. 10 would specify that the regional spatial strategy would set out the Secretary of State's policies only if there were no elected regional authority for the region.
Noble Lords have made quite clear their view that they do not believe that there should be regional plans for which the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible. They want the regional plans only where there are elected regional assemblies. However, their approach would create and not solve problems. Our regions are not identical. Their circumstances and the challenges that they face are each different and unique. We need regional plans. Without the plans there would be a vacuum. It is only at regional level that we can sensibly address important strategic planning issues. Many of those issues are region-wide and those that are not—sub-regional issues—do not respect the boundaries of county areas. It is that latter point that demonstrates why Clause 1(3) is a vital provision in the Bill.

965
It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that Amendment No. 5 is not acceptable. If an elected regional assembly were responsible for the revisions to the regional spatial strategy, the right relationship to the Secretary of State's policies would be that of having regard to them. But this amendment foresees two sets of regional spatial policies: those in the regional spatial strategy and those of the Secretary of State. I cannot imagine that the noble Baroness would want the Secretary of State to have policies for a region that had its own elected governance—that is a different issue—if that is the result of the referendum.
The regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's policies in relation to the development and use of land in the region. The regional spatial strategy can include different policies for different areas within a region. If there is any conflict between the policies and any other statement or information in the regional spatial strategy, the policies will prevail. All current regional planning guidance, with a few exceptions, will be converted to the regional spatial strategy in regulations. Those exceptions will be RPG3, which covers London; 3A, strategic views in London; 3B and 9B, the River Thames; and 9A, the Thames Gateway. Those documents will be replaced in large part by the Mayor's London plan and were not subject to public examination when they were prepared.
I wish I had been able to say that earlier. The notes were there for another debate and they are quite specific because reading the Bill as drafted, and with what I had said earlier, that cannot happen, but it might have appeared as though the Secretary of State, at a whim, on a hunch, or on a prejudice, could influence the regional spatial strategy in a way that would be wholly unacceptable to the Committee, to the other House and to anyone else who is a democrat. That cannot happen anyway under the rules for the regional planning guidance, and the way in which they are put together. There will be nothing in the regional spatial strategy that is not in the RPGs, but it may not include all that is in the RPG. I did not give examples of what is not in it because one could make a big policy change by omission—which is what the suspicion would be.
By making clear the specific exceptions, I hope that I have knocked on the head any suspicion, which would legitimately have been there—although it would be a very unfair aspersion to cast on the character of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Nevertheless, in being specific about that, I hope that I have satisfied the points that were made. We shall obviously return to the issue, particularly in view of the Government's defeat earlier.
Viscount Ullswater: I wish to say something before my noble friend on the Front Bench decides what he is going to do with his amendment. The Minister is making a fundamental error. He has not accepted that current planning guidance—RPGs—are there to guide the structure plans, which are open to examination and inspectors' reports. They are not structure plans; they are guidance. The Bill turns guidance, which for the
966
moment is guidance for the making of structure plans, into spatial strategy plans. Guidance now becomes statutory. What is unsettling is that something that is now a form of guidance is to become a statutory framework.
Lord Rooker: This is where we go into the areas where, in some ways, we need the lawyers at work. RPGs may be guidance, it is true, but my experience in the past couple of years or so with some of them is that they are treated as being almost statutory because we wish to change a figure or suggest a change here and there. I am not saying that they are more than guidance, but I say that because of the way in which they are produced, following public examination, because of the way in which I in my day job conduct discussions on the growth areas, particularly in the south-east, and because of the care, attention and detail that people bring to what is in them. I may be wrong—I shall return to the issue if need be—but I do not get the impression that they are informal, casual guidance documents. They are treated much more seriously than that, even though they do not have the statutory back-up that they will get when converted to regional spatial strategies. I have probably dropped myself in it by saying that, but that is the impression that I get doing my day job.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Well, indeed, the Minister's impression from his day job or night job is correct. However, I wonder whether he would accept that the reason why the guidance is taken so seriously is that it is currently put together by members of local authorities. The only structure available to produce the guidance comprises members of authorities who have been responsible for producing unitary development plans and county structure plans in their own authorities. One thing that makes us nervous about any proposal to lessen the involvement of county councillors—for example, in planning in their area—is that in the intervening period before the creation of some sort of elected regional body there will be a hiatus during which no one feels any real ownership. At that point, the Minister is in danger of losing the coherence that he has rightly identified.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If my noble friend Lord Hanningfield will indulge me, I have a question similar to that asked by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I am a bear of very little brain and, although I heard what the Minister said about regional planning guidance that was omitted from the generality of the list, I want to test my understanding. Is it simply a matter of chronology that the regional spatial strategy has already been dealt with by the mayor and is shortly to be published, so that the documents that have been eliminated become academic once the mayor has taken his action?
Lord Rooker: I do not know. I do not have the detail of the way in which the London plans are put together, as it is some time since I dealt with it. I do not know whether it is a matter of chronology.

967
The noble Lord's intervention has given me the opportunity to receive a note, which points out that the same people prepare the draft revisions of the regional planning guidance as the regional spatial strategy; in other words, the same people prepare the revisions. I hope that answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is "Yes".
Lord Hanningfield: I return to my original amendment, which would have removed the word "must" and put in the words "have regard to". We shall have a lot of discussions about the whole issue, during the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Government do not seem to realise this, but we are here to help. We would all like planning processes to be speeded up, and we would all like local people to be involved. We shall have a discussion about the definition of "sustainable" at some point—but we would all like to see the involvement of local people and sometimes difficult decisions taken that benefit communities.
We believe very much in a bottom-up approach, while the Government seem to believe that it would work to have a top-down approach. We do not believe that will work. The Minister was kind enough to make some kind remarks about me, and I had some meetings with him yesterday with my other hat on. That sort of discussion is what achieves results—not the Secretary of State saying, "You must do this" or "You must do that". That builds up enormous resentment locally, and will not achieve what the Government want.
I hope that in the course of our discussions in the Chamber we might improve the Bill, and that we will take away the "nationalisation" of the planning system, as it has been described, which is very much resented by local authorities, and even more resented by people in the localities. They want to be involved in discussions that go upwards and end up in development. It simply will not work otherwise; as I said earlier, we shall be back here in three or four years' time looking at another Bill. If the Secretary of State believes that he can impose regional policies, it will not work.
As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, there is conflict between what is said in the Bill and in the guidance, which we have just considered. There is a whole raft of things that need to be questioned and discussed, but we may end up speeding up the processes if the Government will only listen to us a bit more about local accountability, and the need for local people to be involved and for the process to go up rather than down the whole time.
We shall have many discussions along those lines in the next few days. I am sure that we shall return to the matter. Although I shall not press my amendment today, we shall have to pursue the matter further as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Maddock: I apologise for being rather careless about the way in which I introduced Amendment No. 4. I wanted the debate because of the amendments connected to it, and the debate has been very useful. However, for reasons that Members of the Committee can see—particularly with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves—what happened earlier this afternoon has caused complications. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved]
7 p.m.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "(however expressed)"
The noble Lord said: I wish to make it clear that I do not dispute the need for Secretary of State to have the right to inform the regional planning authority of the direction that he wishes it to take—if necessary in some detail. The Secretary of State already has such a right, and our planning system has worked well, with overall central control in the hands of the Secretary of State implemented on the ground by elected councillors. That is the system that I wish to see continued, but we must avoid unnecessary hazard—and I believe that the words "however expressed", referring to the policies of Secretary of State, is such a hazard.
I give an example. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State has issued precise guidance on a controversial matter. He is invited to appear on the BBC's "Today" programme at eight o'clock and faces some critical, perhaps hostile, questions. He replies forcefully and well and may express himself with some freedom, perhaps exceeding the more cautious words in his more formal guidance. As I understand the phrase "however expressed", his words on the radio interview then have legislative effect. That is legislation by mouth.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister of a celebrated case in which one of his predecessors was involved. The year is 1947. The Minister is Mr Silkin. The issue is the designation of Stevenage as a new town. The decision to so designate the first new town had been taken before the necessary legislation had been enacted and had aroused fierce criticism locally. The Minister went to Stevenage to explain the decision and he had a rough time of it. At one point he said, "It is no good your jeering. It is going to be done". The Minister was taken to court and Mr Justice Henn Collins held that the order was nol: ultra vires but that the Minister had been biased in his consideration of the order and he quashed the order. Some weeks later, when the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament, the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal by a committee presided over by Lord Oaksey.
I wish to avoid any such embarrassments in future. I hope that the Minister will understand my motive in seeking to delete the two unnecessary words. My intention is to be helpful to him by improving the text of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: We on these Benches support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, says, at a public meeting there could be some extraordinary expressions from the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State and we could have some very funny policies. One could have planning policy by e-mail, for example. They would be expressions of the Secretary of State.
Through this provision, the Government seek to give themselves maximum latitude in setting planning policies. The noble Lord must consider whether these words are appropriate. I hope that the Minister will say that these words are unnecessary. They seem extraordinary and somewhat absurd to most of us.
Lord Cobbold: I support the amendment. If these unnecessary words are excluded, they should be deleted also from Clause 11(3) on page 6 of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: They also appear in former Tory legislation which I presume Conservative Peers voted for in this House. Perhaps the noble Lord was not present then.
I give an example. While I fully respect the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, it is not legislation by mouth. I understand the reaction— shock and abomination—on first seeing such words in legislation. It is not quite as bad as it seems. The amendment deletes the words. However, I hope to demonstrate that that would undermine our intention for a more integrated spatial dimension to policies. That is true: it is not just because it is stated here. The words are important.
We have used the word "spatial" a great deal. It is not a new idea. The concept of a "spatial strategy" is already on the statute book in the form of the Greater London Authority Act provision for the Mayor's spatial development strategy. Therefore, it is time to remind ourselves of what we mean by spatial planning and why it matters.
Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function. That includes policies which impact on land use, for example by influencing the demands on or need for development but which are not capable of being delivered solely or mainly through the granting or refusal of planning permission and which may be implemented by other means.
The current wording of Clause 1 (2) makes it clear that the regional spatial strategies can contain such policies—that is, not those exclusively for land use. To delete the phrase "however expressed" potentially limits the scope of the regional spatial strategy to be what its title says it should be: that is, a spatial strategy for the region.
There is a good precedent. The words "however expressed" can be found in a number of Acts of Parliament, including relevantly—if I were to quote an Act which was not relevant to the Bill it would probably undermine the point—in paragraph 17(3) of
970
Part II of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This provision is not unique. It is not designed to allow the Secretary of State to operate "policy by mouth" in a radio interview; far from it.
The inclusion of the phrase absolutely does not mean that the Secretary of State can create regional planning policy outside the regional spatial strategy. He can issue national policy statements. They would affect the region. What it does mean is that those policies within the regional spatial strategy can properly be spatial, as I outlined earlier, and not within narrow confines. So the words have an important legal meaning with regard to the Bill and a genuine spatial strategy. There is a precedent in the Town and Country Planning Act which I suspect was not debated in this House when it went through Parliament in 1990.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish my noble friend Lord Greaves was present. This discussion is closely linked to the question he raised about what is a regional spatial strategy. The Minister's remarks will repay careful reading.
Although this point may not be right having heard his last sentence or two, what may be meant is "wherever expressed". It is about spatial strategy but it might not have the heading of regional spatial strategy. That is why I link it with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I am so ashamed of myself. Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has not formed part of my bedtime reading. The fact that terminology is already in legislation does not mean that it is unchangeable. It means that one should hesitate to change it. But if it is causing the confusion which still reigns in my mind, despite the answer, it bears closer examination.
Lord Avebury: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings. However, what the Minister has just said will confuse readers of the proceedings today when they look back to what has been said on previous amendments.
The noble Lord made clear that the initial RSS would contain nothing which was not in the regional planning guidance. Certain exceptions which are at present in the regional planning guidance—the Minister helpfully outlined what those are—may not appear in the RSS. How can one express something in addition to what is in the RPG? The words "however expressed" mean that at some point between the passage of the Bill and the first revision, dealt with under Clause 5, an idea might occur to the Secretary of State. He expresses it in whichever form he chooses. It may be an order or a speech in Parliament. It appears to give him a discretion and latitude which the Minister's previous remarks did not claim. He sought to tell the Committee—I found it reassuring—that there was no intention by the Secretary of State to lay down in an RSS anything which was not already contained in the RPG; and even that was not the totality of it because there were certain exceptions which the noble Lord outlined.

971
The words "however expressed" seem to indicate that the Secretary of State is giving himself the right, at some point in the future, to put things in which are not in the RPG, because otherwise there would be no purpose in having the words. The reference back to the 1990 Act, with great respect to the Minister, is not relevant in this context.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am profoundly reassured, for personal reasons, by what the Minister said in response to the debate. I am genuinely fond and admiring of the Deputy Prime Minister, but even his closest friends would not deny that he has certain stylistic idiosyncrasies of personal expression. The fact that the Minister has been able to quote legislation, and particularly copper-bottomed legislation brought in by a Conservative government, indicates that there was no such consideration in those words in parentheses. I am greatly reassured that that is so.
Lord Bridges: I am grateful for the Minister's reply to my question. As I listened to the comments on my amendment, it seemed to me that the nature of the communication between the Secretary of State and the region will be of fundamental importance. Will it simply be an anthology of the existing guidance that he wishes to see reproduced—we were given that impression earlier this afternoon—or will he issue some more binding instruction? It is not altogether clear where we shall end up. I suspect that there will be further debates on this subject as the Bill proceeds. Therefore, I do not intend to pursue the matter further this evening.
However, there is another way of doing this. There is something to be said for a degree of formality in the communication between the Secretary of State and the regional planning authority. Indeed, one might go so far as to suggest that this should take the form of an order under a statutory instrument and that the Select Committee of the House that studies these matters might be able to give him some helpful advice on how that should be formulated. That degree of formality would not be very much in accord with the discussions that we have heard this afternoon, but the nature of this communication is, in itself, fundamental. We shall have to return to the matter at a later stage. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"() The RSS shall specify the area of land to be provided for caravan sites and group housing schemes for travellers residing in or resorting to the region."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 95 and 103. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bridges, I have every intention of helping the Government. In these amendments I want to assist them in solving a planning
972
problem that has plagued the country for more than 40 years. It is the problem of where Travellers and Gypsies can find to live in a countryside that is increasingly used for other purposes, where many of the stopping places which the travellers used to frequent have now become overrun by buildings, roads or other structures.
The number of Traveller caravans on unauthorised sites increased by about 600 between January 2001 and January 2003, according to the count which was made by the local authorities and published by the ODPM. This is the direct result of the repeal by the Conservative government in 1994 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which placed an obligation on local authorities to provide accommodation for Gypsies residing in, or resorting to, their area. Up to that point, and for the next few years after repeal, the local authorities had been getting on top of the problem. If they had continued to develop new sites after 1997 at the same rate as in the years before that date, then, as a matter of simple arithmetic, we would have 1,000 more pitches now than there actually are. It was impossible for the private sector to make up for this loss. We told the government then that a time would come when the losses would begin to show up in increased numbers of unauthorised sites. The then Labour opposition, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, agreed with us.
One way of remedying that deficiency and preventing an indefinite increase in the number of homeless Travellers year on year in the future would be simply to restore the duty on local authorities to provide sites. That was, in effect, one of the main recommendations of the Birmingham University report by Pat Niner to the ODPM on which Ministers have said that they will comment in April. My impression is that they had already ruled this; out before they brought in Mr Bill Forrester from Kent County Council to look at these issues. It would be very helpful if the Minister would tell us exactly what his terms of reference were.
But if local authorities are not to provide sites then they must at any rate grant planning permission for sites in the places where the Travellers are at present having to camp on the roadside, on somebody else's land, or on their own land without planning permission. That is a phenomenon that has caused a great deal of complaint. This morning, I was talking to officials of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council who are currently having difficulty with an unauthorised site that is occupied by about 21 Gypsy families, on which the local authority has obtained a court order for possession. The point there is that there is nowhere for these people to go. If they are driven off that site, the local authority is not making alternative provision for them but has told them that they have to seek land on which planning permission might be granted. We all know how difficult that is.
I am sure that it is not necessary to persuade the Government that circular 194 has been a failure. That was the Tory government's feeble attempt to persuade local authorities to have regard to the needs of Travellers in their development plans. Of course, hardly any of

973
them did so. As a general rule, Travellers have been able to make only insufficient provision for themselves by purchasing land, applying for permission and then going to appeal when they meet the inevitable refusal. In spite of the clear evidence of the January counts, which show that this haphazard process is not delivering, the Government have been deaf to the suggestion, made to several Ministers since Labour took office in 1997, that we should monitor the rate of success of Traveller applications for planning permission and of appeals. Ministers have told me that the planning inspectorate has the figures—the Minister will recognise that phrase—but Donald Kenrick has shown that they are seriously inaccurate.
In the debate that we had last June on Gypsies and social deprivation, the Minister who replied, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, offered some encouragement. He said,
"the Government are reviewing planning procedures, and gypsy and traveller provision will be looked at as part of that review".— [Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1581.]
So this is the moment when the Government can deliver on that undertaking and also take into consideration what the Minister said on an earlier amendment; that is, that this is a once in a double decade opportunity. He is absolutely correct, because the last occasion when we had the opportunity of solving the problem of Gypsies at a single stroke, as it were, was after the report of Sir John Cripps in 1977. So 26 years have elapsed since then and if we do not take this chance that we have under the planning legislation, we may wait another 25 or so years for a solution.
The first of these amendments requires the Secretary of State to set targets for the regional spatial strategy in each of the regions for the amount of land which is to be allocated to Traveller caravan sites and group housing schemes in the same way as the Minister has described on an earlier amendment that there will be a numerical target set for the regions for the amount of housing that they will contain. I should perhaps explain that the phrase "group housing" refers to schemes that have been developed in the Republic of Ireland and which have since been extended to Northern Ireland. They have proved very popular with Travellers because they allow extended families to remain together, as their culture demands, while at the same time putting down some roots. Although many travellers still aspire to a nomadic way of life, or at least to be able to go to festivals up and down the country and family occasions, some are happy to settle down as long as it does not mean their separation from the extended family. We have not tried group housing in Britain, but it is an idea that I have been pressing on Ministers for some years. It was among the recommendations made by Pat Niner.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, also said in the June debate:
"The ultimate answer to homelessness is to have an adequate number of authorised sites for gypsies and travellers in which to camp".— [Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1582.]
I suggest that in order to do that we need to look at the numbers who are at present homeless, and that means the number living on unauthorised sites who are by definition homeless according to the definition in the Housing Act 1996. It should be a simple matter of arithmetic to calculate how much land would be required to accommodate all the gypsies in a particular region just by taking the number on unauthorised sites and applying to them a density which we know is appropriate from the provision that has already been made.
The next question is how responsibility is to be divided among the local authorities in the region. That has always been the major difficulty because, even when the local authorities have a duty, every time that there was a proposal for a site there would be objections and councillors were reluctant to get into arguments with vociferous groups of their own constituents. It was always difficult to persuade residents within a particular locality where a traveller site was planned that a well designed and well managed site would be a much better alternative than an unauthorised site where there was no rubbish collection or proper sanitation, inhabited by people without a stake in the neighbourhood and that cause trouble.
In the planning system now being created by the Bill, as I understand it and as I think the Minister made clear earlier, the provision of housing in each local authority will be decided initially by the Secretary of State, no doubt after consultation, as the Minister has explained, with all the local authorities in the region. Since travellers normally live in caravans, I suggest that it would be a breach of the ODPM's obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act if, in carrying out the function of preparing instructions for counsel for the drafting of this legislation, the department had not paid due regard to the need to promote equality between travellers and the rest of the population in terms of housing accommodation. That means that whatever provision they make for housing should be accompanied by an equivalent traveller site.
I should say at this point that although gypsies were defined in non-ethnic terms under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 there are now recognised groups of travellers who are defined in ethnic terms; those are the Romanies and the Irish travellers. It is considered by many that Scottish travellers are also a separate group, although that has yet to be clarified by the Scottish courts or the Scottish Parliament. It also follows that the descendants of marriages between members of these groups and the settled population are entitled to the same consideration under the RRA. Since there has been a great deal of intermarriage over the generations, it is best to assume that people claiming the status of travellers possess it. That would be in compliance with the OSCE's principle that to belong to a national minority is a matter of personal individual choice.
Therefore, if there is to be a development plan document for housing, then either it must detail the provisions that are to be made for traveller accommodation so that travellers are not disadvantaged by the travelling system, or better still, as the second of these amendments suggests, there should be a separate

975
DPD spelling out the provisions to be made for travellers in each planning authority. That, as I say, is the purpose of the second of these amendments.
The development plan document is defined in Clause 36(3)as,
"a document which… is a local development document, and… forms part of the development plan".
The DPDs taken as a whole, plus the RSS—or in the case of London the Mayor's spatial development strategy—form the development plan as defined in Clause 37. I have to acknowledge that my scheme is incomplete because it does not require the SDS to contain a target for the amount of land to be allocated to traveller sites in London. That is because it may be appropriate for the Mayor to set that target rather than for Parliament to do it for him, though I have to say that I am uneasy about giving Mr Livingstone that discretion considering the lack of interest that he has displayed in traveller issues in the past.
The ideal would be for local authorities in each region to consult among themselves and decide what provision each of them will make in its DPD for traveller accommodation. If they do that, and if at the end of the process the contribution that they make collectively adds up to the target set in the RSS, then the shortage of traveller accommodation will be on the way to a solution. If there is any shortfall then my third amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to any local authority requiring it to provide land for extra sites. Of course the Secretary of State already has a power of direction, but I am spelling it out in this amendment.
The power is modelled on a similar power that exists in the Caravan Sites Act, and that proved most effective when it was used sparingly in the last few years of the Act's existence. There, of course, the requirement was for the local authority to construct and to run the site. Here it is to allocate the land in a DPD and it would still be for private enterprise of an RSL or for the gypsies themselves to undertake the construction work and to operate the site.
In view of the fact that the Minister has been very sympathetic, and that we know that Miss Yvette Cooper, the Minister responsible in the ODPM for gypsies, has herself been touring the sites and seeing for herself at first hand the effects of the lack of provision, I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and either accept my amendments or come forward with alternatives themselves to solve this problem once and for all. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker: In supporting these amendments, I am aware that the Government are carrying out a review of accommodation for Roma, gypsies and travellers, set out by my honourable friend Yvette Cooper in her letter of 15 January to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I appreciate this long overdue concern which does the Government credit. But whatever the conclusions of the review on means, this Bill gives an opportunity to create the necessary framework for further steps which should not be missed, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said.
976
I know personally of Roma families who cannot get authorised sites—I will not weary the Committee by detailing their insecurity. These people are our oldest indigenous minority and the prejudice and discrimination that they suffer is no less severe by being usually unacknowledged. It is seen in the higher mortality rates of their children, lack of educational attainment, even of attendance, poverty and ill health. I hope that my noble friend can help now.
Baroness Maddock: I strongly support the words of my noble friend Lord Avebury except possibly for his views on the Mayor of London—who may not always be the Mayor of London and who, as my noble friend sitting next to me has pointed out, may even be the outgoing Mayor.
I was in local government when the first major changes regarding travellers were made. I think that we forecast what would happen. My noble friend Lord Avebury has very graphically explained it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has backed that up. I am fortunate that I live in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed where the local authority has an absolutely excellent traveller site. Anyone who goes on the railway line can see it from the line—it is absolutely spotless. It is right in the middle of the town and we have no problems. I was also a councillor in Southampton where we also had a very successful site. Where the sites exist, it works. It is in the interests of the travellers. The children go to school and are enabled to live life as they wish to do. Given everything we have heard from the Government, I hope that they will take this opportunity to do something about it, even if it is not exactly what we are asking today.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I want to be as helpful as I can but I shall probably not be as helpful as noble Lords would wish at this stage of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing forward the amendments which provide us with the opportunity to put some of the issues on the record regarding the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers and how they might be addressed in the new planning arrangements.
There is no question that this is an important point; namely, how the needs of gypsies and travellers, both those wishing to settle on sites and those who still travel for a living, might be met under the new arrangements.
As the noble Lord knows, we are currently undertaking a review of our gypsy and traveller policies. The review includes consideration of how site provision will be secured under the new planning arrangements and we are taking close account of the ideas proposed by the Institute for Public Policy Research in its document Moving Forward which I understand will be published shortly. I certainly do not wish to prejudge the outcome of our review, but it might be helpful if I sketch out one of the ways in which gypsy and traveller needs might be identified and incorporated into the new planning regime.

977
The leading option we are considering is to assess the site and pitch needs of gypsies and travellers under a process similar to that used for housing need assessments—possibly as part of that very same process. Under such an arrangement gypsy and traveller site needs could be identified and incorporated into the regional housing strategy which, under our current proposals, is then reflected in the regional spatial strategy in terms of numbers of sites by local planning authority. The identification of where the sites should be in each authority's area would then be the responsibility of the local planning authorities in preparing their local development documents.
Clearly, once site and pitch requirements are identified in the regional spatial strategy they may be subject to public examination and the Secretary of State must agree the finalised strategy. It will, of course, be a requirement that local development documents are in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. I should stress that our ideas of exactly how we will ensure the needs of gypsies and travellers will be met are at an early stage. But we are satisfied that we shall be able to integrate their legitimate requirements into the new planning arrangements without amending the Bill in this respect. I say that in Committee but certainly we have ongoing work in this respect.
The ODPM review of gypsy and traveller policy is reviewing all aspects of ODPM policy responsibility, including planning, site provision and managing unauthorised encampments. It is not the case that Ministers have ruled out an expansion in provision. I do not know where that rumour has come from. However, it would be quite wrong of me to comment on any particular planning case. I understand these situations. As I say, for a year I was the planning Minister at the ODPM and dealt with several cases. I have part of some correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and Yvette Cooper, the policy Minister in the department. She indicated in a draft of the reply, which I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has yet received:
"We will be conducting some seminars on this issue in the very near future in Cambridge, Liverpool, London and Derby starting next week to run to probably nearly the end of February going over the issues of land use policy, planning consent for private sites, improving access to health, education and other services, public site provision and management and general issues including unauthorised camping".
We are in close contact with the organisations representing gypsies and travellers. Indeed, we shall let the noble Lord know the precise dates and locations of the seminars. If he wishes to take part in any of them, he will be more than welcome. I say that in a genuine spirit of helpfulness. I am not trying to avoid responding to the issues that have been raised. Some thorny issues will have to be tackled once we have conducted the policy review. I refer to the expenditure proposals and the 2004 spending round. Nevertheless, we treat the issue with the utmost seriousness. It is an important issue so far as the department is concerned.
978
I cannot go much further regarding that point tonight; otherwise, I shall go down the road that I hate going down; namely, that of referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury and finance. The central issue is to establish the policy and to ensure that we put in place a process within the new planning system whereby it is not possible to avoid providing the required number of sites. The need must be measured and assessed openly. The connection between the regional spatial strategy and local development documents does not allow a local authority to opt out and say, "We are not having such a measure. We have no need of it". As I say, we shall ensure that local development plans by and large conform to the regional spatial strategy. We can solve this problem for the foreseeable future, not just for a few years. This is a generational issue for our fellow citizens. We shall do our best to come up with something that is acceptable to all parties concerned, including, of course, as a priority, gypsies and travellers themselves.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer and for inviting me to take part in the forthcoming seminars. I shall certainly take up that offer when the dates are announced, just as I shall take up the invitation from Yvette Cooper who has kindly invited me to discuss the matter personally with her. I very much value that opportunity.
As the noble Lord suggested, the Bill can take care of the accommodation needs of gypsies just as it takes care of the accommodation needs of the rest of the population. I agree with the noble Lord that one of the best ways of doing that is what he called the leading option; namely, to assess the needs of gypsies as part of ordinary housing needs and therefore to incorporate their requirements in the regional spatial strategy. As I understand it, the RSS will set an overall target for every region regarding the amount of accommodation that is necessary for people in the settled population. It will also add a separate element of accommodation for gypsies. That was one of the two alternatives that I mentioned.
Then, as the noble Lord says, local planning authorities will have to identify in the local development documents what contribution they will make to the attainment of those targets. As the noble Lord said, there is no opt-out there. As I understand it, local authorities in a region will collectively have to provide a total number of sites that equates with the figure set out in the regional spatial strategy.
The noble Lord did not mention the third leg of the policy. If the total number of gypsy sites within a region did not match the target set out in the RSS, a reserve power of direction exists in the legislation. I referred to that in a separate amendment. I suggested that the power should not be exercised in the first year after the coming into force of the Act so that local authorities have every chance to get together voluntarily to provide the relevant amount of accommodation. If they have not achieved that objective after 12 months, the powers of the Secretary of State will come into play.
I am sure that we ought not to take the matter any further this evening in view of the helpful reply that the Minister has given. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment and hope that it will not even be necessary

979
to return to the matter on Report subject to my discussions with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I propose that the Committee recommence not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
7.39 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17 December 2003 be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 is to make the legislative changes to allow the implementation in Northern Ireland of the new contract for the provision of general medical services by GPs. It amends the provisions of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and replicates measures introduced in England and Wales by the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 and in Scotland by the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill.
The new contract represents the most radical change to the way in which general practitioner services are delivered since the inception of the National Health Service. The contract was negotiated with the profession in response to UK-wide demands from GPs for new working arrangements that would enable them to control their workload and achieve a better work/life balance. The new contract has the overwhelming support of the profession and the changes it will introduce to GPs' working arrangements should ensure that qualifying doctors continue to be attracted to general practice for the future.
As well as being good for the profession, the contract will deliver real benefits to patients, other health care professionals and to primary care as a whole. The emphasis it places on team working and the opportunities it offers to provide a wider range of services at the primary care level will facilitate the future development of primary care for Northern Ireland.
I shall comment briefly on the main provisions of the draft order. Article 3 inserts provision into the 1972 order to place a new statutory duty on health and social services boards to provide or secure the provision of primary medical services for persons in their area. The responsibility to provide such services currently rests with the general practitioners.
Article 4 inserts into the 1972 order broad regulation—making powers which will be used to set out the detail of the terms and content of new contracts, including who may provide services and the rights and obligations under such contracts.
Article 5 introduces powers to make transitional arrangements in respect of persons who are providing services under the existing general medical services contract and for the resolution of disputes in relation to new contract. The measures are intended to ensure continuity of service in the period spanning the date of implementation.
Article 6 amends existing legislation to reflect the fact that the current changes have implications for those who are providing services under a personal medical services arrangement and Article 7 abolishes the statutory requirement to pilot such arrangements.
Article 8 provides regulation-making powers to prescribe the way persons providing general medical services under the new contract are to be listed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17 December 2003 be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for her clear explanation of the order. In paper terms it is quite large. However, as the introduction tells us, it takes Section 4 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act and transfers it into law in Northern Ireland. My party had no dissent with Section 4 of the Act and hence I have no dissent in principle with the order.
I have some questions. I am a little concerned about costs. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us in paragraphs 19 and 20 that extra cost will be incurred. I am always somewhat suspicious when the Government admit that something they are doing will increase costs. My life experience tells me that significant change in most matters—certainly in business life—almost invariably incurs extra cost. I hope that those costs will prove to be a sound and profitable investment and the investment will be delivered in improved service. In principle, I support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order. Its aim is to replicate in Northern Ireland some of the PCT elements that pertain in England and Wales. The main provision is new GP contracts. That is a matter which the Liberal Democrats have supported.
However, there are concerns about the provision of out-of-hours services. Previously general practitioners were contracted to provide out-of-hours services that are now the duty of primary care trusts in England and Wales. PCTs there are having problems in providing services at night. That is a particular problem in rural areas, where there may be only one GP. Given that we are aware of the difficulty, can the Minister say what

981
steps the Government are taking to ensure that the problem does not arise in Northern Ireland, where there are many rural practices?
Furthermore, in England and Wales there is provision for lay members on PCTs. That is also true of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland. But they cover large areas. Have the Government any plans to introduce a more local lay element, other than at the sub-regional level, of the health and social services boards?
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, my colleagues and I welcome the new medical practitioner contract, but while I feel that the legislation comes not a moment too soon, the Government must be scrupulous in ensuring that the interests of both the patients and the general practitioners are protected.
I understand the difficulty of out-of-hours working, but will the proposals under the new legislation provide a better service when GPs are under contract and do not provide an out-of-hours service but instead register with some agency or body that does? Will the position be similar to that of the nursing profession? Ultimately, agency nurses cost the health service more than it can by directly employing them. Consequently, hospitals should be encouraged to build up their own nursing banks, rather than go through agencies, because otherwise they have to employ the agency staff above their permanent staff. The issue must be carefully considered regarding GPs.
Apparently, recruitment to GP training schemes in Northern Ireland is declining and if GP services are improved in Great Britain, there would be—I realise that I will sound selfish, but it is realistic—a movement of many Northern Ireland doctors to the mainland. I can understand why our recruitment is declining. In the past many of our young graduates from Queen's University doing their junior house and senior training found it exceedingly difficult to find GP training posts in Northern Ireland.
We must arrest that decline in recruitment to GP schemes in Northern Ireland. We are still producing medical graduates. If we do not produce more of our own GPs who will remain in Northern Ireland, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, implied, in rural areas, we will have further difficulties in providing the service that the taxpayer has come both to expect and deserve.
The new legislation prescribes a practice-based contract, instead of a contract for individual GPs. Who will be responsible for seeing how that contract is implemented? Will a senior GP in a practice say what his staff should be paid or will the staff be employed directly by an outside service? Regarding finance, I welcome the guaranteed increase of 34 per cent over the next three years, but the Government must provide funding after that. Will sufficient funds be made available to maintain the changes after they have been put into place?
982
It is unclear why we are emphasising heart diseases, strokes, asthma—from which I suffer—diabetes, epilepsy, mental health problems and other chronic diseases as indicators to encourage our GPs to organise their practices better and to be more responsive to patients' needs. When we start especially prescribing like that, there is a temptation to focus on just those conditions. It is an issue that has not been properly thought through. Therefore, I ask that other important issues, particularly children's health, are not overlooked.
Access targets have been mentioned for childhood immunisation for flu vaccines; routine monitoring of anti-coagulant therapy and rheumatology drugs; patients with depression; dealing with drug, alcohol or homelessness problems; and providing services for patients with a history of violence. These all are enhanced services, but who will be the doorkeeper? Will it be the GP who refers patients? How long will it take to get through to the enhanced services?
There is an urgent need to reorganise the system and to do it as accurately as possible. I must remind the House that this is the first major shift in policy since 1948 and it might be well into the 21st century before we get a similar opportunity. We must get it right.
The Government must ensure that this legislation, when implemented, is targeted at making effective changes that penetrate the top-heavy system as it now exists and provides a better deal for both patients and general practitioners.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I shall try to address all the points that have been raised.
The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Rogan, asked about costs. Funding for these arrangements will be guaranteed for five years. With respect to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I assure him that it will improve the range and quality that is available to patients and the importance of patients' views will be strengthened through the patient satisfaction element of the quality and outcomes framework. The noble Lord's concern about improvement in the monitoring service is dealt with.
The noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Rogan, expressed concern about out-of-hours services. Where GPs exercise their right to opt out, the responsibility for providing services will rest with the health and social services boards which, at the request of the department, are currently working with colleagues and other bodies on the details of the most appropriate alternative arrangements to put in place. I can assure noble Lords that contracts will be implemented in such a way as to ensure no loss of access to out-of-hours services.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about lay members on the PCTs. The department introduced new structures in 2002 in the form of local health and social care groups whose membership comprises primary care professionals and community representation. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's concern.

983
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked a number of questions with respect to recruitment, training and retention of GPs. The new contract is specifically designed to make general practice more attractive to aspiring doctors. On the movement of GPs, the contract is UK-wide and will provide the same benefits to GPs in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that difficulties with respect to recruitment and retention, which are current in Great Britain, will be prevented in Northern Ireland.
On payments to practice staff, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, they will be provided within practices. On agency nurses, agencies are private companies which negotiate their rates with the boards. GPs will contract with the boards on the basis of terms and conditions set out in the contract and laid down by regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also asked about priorities with respect to services. A number of additional services will be covered. The noble Lord was particularly concerned about children. This will include child health surveillance. The enhanced services will be commissioned by health and social services boards as a need is recognised.
I hope that that addresses all the points which have been raised.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it was good to have her assurances about the health and social services boards making provision for night-time cover. Bearing in mind the rurality of Northern Ireland, can she give a hint of the kind of arrangements that the health and social services boards are looking at?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not have the detail of that because the health and social services boards are currently looking at the kind of arrangements which could be put in place locally to provide a comprehensive service outside normal practice hours. If the noble Lord will permit me, I will happily write to him once we have more information about the matter. It is clear that any arrangements put in place must include a proper set of standards which must be met by the providers of such service. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2004
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 is to relax some of the existing statutory controls on betting and gaming in Northern Ireland. In doing so, the order will, for the most part, bring the
984
Northern Ireland law in these areas more closely into line with the corresponding law currently applying in Great Britain.
The draft order will amend the 1985 order to ease restrictions on betting and gaming in the following areas: the regulation of football pools competitions; betting on race tracks, including a change to allow on-course Sunday betting and the provision of employment protection rights for track betting workers; the licensing and conduct of bookmaking offices; the registration of clubs under the 1985 order for gaming machine purposes; gaming machines, including the premises in which they may be used and the conditions applying; and the advertising of bingo. The order will also transfer responsibility for the grant of bookmaking office licensing from courts of summary jurisdiction to county courts.
During the recent consultations on the proposals for a draft order, interest focused mainly on the issue of a change in the law to allow on-course Sunday betting. The response to the consultation demonstrated clearly that there is strong support among race-goers and other racing interests in Northern Ireland for on-course Sunday betting. The consultation exercise, however, also recorded the concerns of those for whom Sunday is a special day. I have the utmost respect for their views, but of course this is a matter of personal choice. When the law is changed, people will be able to choose whether they wish to go to a racetrack and bet on a Sunday. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. For many generations, gambling has been an integral part of Irish life. On many occasions, it has led to considerable social hardship in many of the poorer areas of the 32 counties of Ireland, not merely the six counties. For many years when I served on the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, there was a considerable and strong Presbyterian movement against any form of active recreation or sport, which even included allowing the opening of public swimming pools and recreation centres anywhere in the Province. Only in recent years has that changed and mellowed, largely because of the excellent management of such centres.
I took some time to make inquiries about the consultation that took place and about the number of those who responded who were in favour and the number of those who were not. On reading the note that I received from the officials, I was satisfied that there was certainly a significant positive response. There was also a large negative response but, in my opinion and obviously in that of the Government, not sufficiently so to stop the order going through. However, we should not think that there are not a significant number of objectionists to gaming of this kind—on Sundays, in particular.
I am encouraged by the order. I know that another Bill is to be introduced on betting and gambling in the United Kingdom. I believe that the more open the

985
laws, the better they are managed and the better and more easily they can be policed, the less opportunity there is for significant illegal betting on all kinds of things—that has always been part of Irish life—and it is hoped that that will lead to a reduction in social hardship of one kind and another. I may be dreaming. I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh. But drinking and betting, and all that goes with it, have always been a problem in Northern Ireland. I believe that when a government change the laws in this area, they need to be aware of the social problems relating to legal and illegal gaming, gambling and betting on Sundays. If the order is to help the policing and management of such activities, as I believe is the Government's intention, I support it.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I believe that the order brings Northern Ireland into the 21st century. We accept that some people believe that the Sabbath should be kept. However, I do not believe that the order affects the rights of such people because, as the Minister pointed out, this is a question of individual choice. Those who want to keep the Sabbath can keep the Sabbath and those who want to make merry can make merry.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's outline of the order. I rise today to make a few observations on it but, from the outset, I wish to add my support for the legislation as it seeks to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
First, I welcome Schedule 1, which concerns the rights of betting workers as respects Sunday working. I am pleased to see that the new protection rights against dismissal purely on the grounds that a track betting worker does not wish to work on a Sunday will apply irrespective of age, length of service or hours of work. Your Lordships will be aware that a great number of people in Northern Ireland do not wish to find themselves compelled to work on a Sunday for whatever reason—family, social or conscience—and it is only right that their views are respected.
However, perhaps I may suggest that where, under the prescribed form "Statutory rights in relation to Sunday betting work", the words,
"your employer… does something else detrimental to you",
appear in paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 1, the word "detrimental" should be more clearly defined. The form gives the example of the employer failing to promote the employee, but other scenarios are apparent here. Does "detrimental" include failing to offer overtime or training opportunities, or does it go so far as to include a negative attitude, manifested in how the employee is spoken to and generally treated by the employer, which could seriously affect the employee's working life?
Moreover, if we are building into the legislation protection for those who disagree with Sunday working, should we not also be looking to protect
986
those of other religions, such as the Muslim and Jewish faiths? Should we not protect the right of workers from other religious groups to observe religious holidays and respect their requests not to work on them?
I should also like the Minister to clarify the reasoning behind why the employee must give his employer three months' notice in order to opt out of Sunday working. That is absurd, given that most employers require only one month's notice to terminate a contract of employment. Why does the Minister expect it to take so long for a written notice to be adhered to?
I am slightly concerned about the potential impact of Article 4 relating to the relaxation of some restrictions on betting on horse and dog tracks and, in particular, allowing permanent structures on licensed tracks to be used for bookmaking purposes. With opportunities for betting on all kinds of sporting and other events substantially increased, it logically follows that a larger amount of money will change hands at the track. Therefore, is there not room for concern regarding security at these premises and the safety of bookmakers and their staff?
I also wish to raise some concerns about the reduction to one year of the notice and waiting periods for non-sporting clubs seeking registration under the 1985 order for gaming machine purposes. Can the Minister explain why that has been reduced and assure us that non-sporting clubs will undergo the same assessment procedure as before?
I also ask the Minister to explain why the Department for Social Development would look more favourably upon certain licensed bookmaking offices when deciding how many gaming machines they may have. Indeed, why is the department to be involved at all, given that, as it would appear from other sections of the order, the responsibility for granting permits for gaming machines at other venues, such as amusement parks, lies with the district council?
Article 10 outlines restrictions of access to gaming machines to people under the age of 18. I understand the intention of these provisions but wonder just how reasonable it is to expect all premises to ensure that£25-prize gaming machines are located in a separate area and protected by an effective physical barrier. Your Lordships will be aware that young people have a habit of duping bouncers into thinking that they are older, and they are often quite adept at knowing which establishments are more likely to let them in. Are we expecting someone—say, from the district council—to carry out routine assessments of such premises and instigate action against those who are not complying? Otherwise, how does the Minister expect these well intentioned provisions to be enforced?
Finally, I hope that the Minister will say a few words to explain the staggered commencement date of the order. By not allowing the legislation to commence immediately, the Government are suggesting that they are somehow concerned about its implications and about how well it will be received.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the support they gave the order. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was concerned about possible social hardship. As the package of measures is so modest, we do not consider that it will increase the social dangers of gambling for vulnerable people, but I take the noble Lord's point and I welcome his comments on the importance of transparency in the policing and management of the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked a number of questions. On detriment he was particularly concerned about employment protection. All track betting workers employed by bookmakers and Tote operators based in Northern Ireland, except those contracted to work only on Sunday, will have the right not to be dismissed, not to be selected for redundancy, nor subjected to any other detriment such as exclusion from a general pay rise or bonus and discrimination in promotion and training opportunities for refusing to work on Sundays.
Should an employee consider that he or she has suffered detriment, their employment rights may be enforced by way of a complaint to an industrial tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, will be aware that detriment is well defined in employment law and through case law.
On whether we should be looking to protect those of other religious faiths, the employment protection provisions are included in the order because it introduces on-course betting on Sundays.
On the issue of three months' notice, employers will be required to give every track betting worker who enters into a contractual agreement that includes Sunday working a written explanatory statement setting out their right to opt out. If an employer does not issue such a statement within two months of the worker entering such a contractual agreement, the three months' opting out notice period is reduced to one month. I hope that that response addresses the noble Lord's concern.
I turn to the issue of permanent structures on licensed track. The security of these premises and the safety of bookmakers and their staff are primary commercial issues for the trade interests involved and, if appropriate, the police.
The order will reduce notice and waiting periods for registration of clubs to one year to achieve parity with the notice and waiting periods for clubs applying for registration under the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The assessment procedure is otherwise unchanged.
On the question of the involvement of district councils, bookmaking offices are adult-only environments considered suitable for the use of higher-prize gaming machines. When they are licensed by the courts for bookmaking purposes, they will be automatically entitled to a maximum of two gaming machines. The department has no operational role in the process. It is also considered unnecessary to involve district councils.
988
Age was a major concern for the noble Lord, Lord Laird. If the conditions applying to a permit are not complied with to its satisfaction, the relevant district council may refuse to renew the permit. In addition, Article 120 of the Betting. Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 provides that where any condition to which an amusement permit is subject is contravened, the permit holder will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of the statutory maximum, or six months' imprisonment, or both. On indictment, a fine, or imprisonment for two years, or both, apply. A court also has the power to cancel an amusement permit if the permit holder is convicted of an offence under Article 120.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised the issue of commencement dates. The Government do not have any implications about how well the order will be received. The staggered commencement dates are required mainly for administrative reasons. Those provisions coming into operation after three months are those for which trade, legal and other interests require notice to make the necessary arrangements. Those provisions that come into operation by commencement order will require subordinate legislation by both the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Court Service. I hope that that response addresses the points made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2004
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 December 2003 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order specifies a new initiative to provide facilities and activities intended to reduce the social exclusion of young people, to be funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF).
I shall explain the process which brings us to this point. We made a commitment last July in the National Lottery funding decision document to establish a new lottery young people's fund. At present, as is well known, the New Opportunities Fund can distribute lottery money only on projects which are designed to give effect to initiatives specified in an order by the Secretary of State under Section 43(b) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Those are at present health, education and the environment. We are adding "young people" to that.
Before I go further I should say that in my view the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
NOF funding has produced more than£2 billion to a range of initiatives within the categories of health, education and the environment, which are making a real difference to the lives of individuals and communities

989
throughout the United Kingdom. Our proposals as set out in the decision document are designed to build on that success.
The decision document announced our intention to set up a young people's fund, funded initially with£200 million from NOF's balances. Our aim is that the young people's fund might develop into a cross-distributor programme adding value by drawing together the various strands of activity relating to young people.
The focus of the young people's fund will be on projects promoting youth inclusion—in other words, against social exclusion—specifically by providing facilities and activities both after school and in holiday periods. In England it will be very much in line with the aims and principles of the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, which we published last September. It will cover being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving, including developing the skills for adulthood; making a positive contribution to the community; and overcoming socio-economic disadvantages to achieve full potential in life. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there will be a similar focus but it will be as determined by those nations to suit their own needs.
We are carrying out consultation with groups of local children and young people and we shall complete that before we make decisions. Involving people in this way means that we shall be funding provision that young people feel ownership of and will want to use. We have carried out consultation which reveals, as I think is well known, that young people are particularly concerned about the phrase "having things to do". That comes out in many aspects of social research. They would like more places to go where they can not only spend time in a safe environment but have access to more structured activities.
The young people's fund will be spread across the country but in order to help those most in need it will be targeted at those who are at greatest risk of social exclusion. It will build on the experience of previous initiatives including Splash, the lottery-funded Splash Extra and the Positive Activities for Young People initiatives.
We have carried out an evaluation of the Positive Activities for Young People. That suggests that those involved in the scheme both as professionals and as young people perceive the programme as working, with evidence of increased school attendance; reduced noise and youth crime; improved behaviour; and improved community cohesion.
Through the young people's fund we shall be able to offer young people an opportunity to take part in activities which they not only enjoy but which can help them to make a real difference to their lives and the communities in which they live.
The responses to public consultation on the decision document have shown clear support for the development of a young people's fund. They build on the work which NOF has already done to help thousands of communities to improve their health, education and local environment. This fund will address the particular
990
problems faced by young people at risk of social exclusion and will provide a welcome new focus for lottery funding for this age group. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 December 2003 be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mclntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his clear explanation of the provisions specified in the draft order.
As the Minister stated, the order establishes a new funding initiative, administered through the New Opportunities Fund by money raised as a result of National Lottery ticket sales. This new initiative, which will grant funding for facilities and activities, is intended to reduce the social exclusion of young people thus implementing the Government's proposal to establish a new lottery fund for young people. The initial funding for this initiative has been set at£200 million and the proposals are said to be closely aligned with the objectives detailed in the September 2003 Green Paper, Every Child Matters.
I read with interest Hansard from yesterday's debate in the 4th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on the provisions of this draft order and I have a number of concerns, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address.
To begin with, I am concerned that the term social exclusion is rather vague and non-committal. Whilst I understand that the precise scope of the fund is still under consideration, would the Minister agree that it is imperative that the ambit of such an initiative should be closely targeted and monitored to ensure that it is working effectively? Her Majesty's Opposition have often expressed unease at the method by which the Government have altered the mechanism of lottery funding since they came to power in 1997. This criticism relates to the way National Lottery funding has been used to further Government spending objectives. The Government appear to have become increasingly willing to intervene in the way that National Lottery money is spent.
We welcome the assurance from the Minister in another place and the Minister's this evening that this new funding initiative will not be attributed to Government spending. However, we are keen to ensure that public confidence is restored, with lottery money being used to fund genuinely good causes, in particular helping young people and their communities. I should like to echo the concerns raised by the honourable Member for Surrey Heath yesterday in Committee in another place. The New Opportunities Fund must ensure that the money reaches the projects where it is needed and that any unnecessary bureaucracy is avoided.
My Lords, make no mistake, I wish to support the purpose of this order. Indeed, as a mother with three teenagers, that phrase "having things to do" rings regularly in my mind. I remember being the same when I was a young person constantly complaining there was not anything to do. However, much depends on its effective implementation. We welcome the Government's commitment to promoting social

991
inclusion for young people yet we believe that lottery funding should not be used to further Government spending targets or meet policy goals. The phrase "social inclusion" requires further thought and consultation and we welcome the Government's move to address this concern. It is for these reasons that we do not oppose this order and we hope that its objectives can be successfully achieved.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for explaining the order. I have to confess we have little enthusiasm for it. It continues the practice we deplore—the use of lottery money as a substitute for Exchequer spending. We have had discussions on this in the past. The New Opportunities Fund will now be permitted this additional project—a young people's fund—to add to the three which it already has: health, environment and education. The Minister has amplified some issues in the explanation. They all sound very worthy but are rather loosely presented. We would not disagree with any of them but we would not be so opposed to the setting-up of a young people's fund through lottery money if there were a clear good cause with long-term aims.
In this order the vagueness of these proposals has been amplified by the Minister's amplifications. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has expressed some sympathy with them. I suppose if I thought a little longer I might well have the same sympathy. However, the irritation that the Government are meddling again in lottery funds makes that difficult for me to do. Perhaps tomorrow I may think more kindly of it. The Government are trying to do what is best left to the distributors. Persistent meddling of this kind with lottery funds goes directly counter to their own policy as stated in the July White Paper on the lottery. We would not have disagreed at all with the policy of additionality stated in it. All this takes place against a background of falling lottery sales that will ultimately dilute all of the good causes. Most of us have views on why sales are declining. I dare say the noble Baroness has similar views to mine. But when are the Government going to come out and tell us what their views are about this decline and what do they think can be done to address it?
I take this opportunity to register a concern of noble Lords on these Benches. It is a concern, which has been echoed by the Government, about the£3 billion undistributed lottery moneys. They say that something will be done but nothing happens. What is going on? Is this some kind of float being used by the Government for future eventualities?
To end, perhaps I may draw attention to the fact— because I think it is relevant—that since the lottery was introduced the DCMS budget has fallen by roughly one third. When registered as a percentage of GDP, in the year 1993–94 it was 0.16 per cent and in the year 2003–04 it has sunk to 0.11 per cent. In comparison with other countries the allocation for culture is absolutely pitiful. When represented as a percentage of state expenditure, the United Kingdom commits 0.29 per cent against 2.4 per cent, which is committed by both France and Germany.
992
What kind of record is that when one considers the original aims of the lottery—and one does not need a very long memory—which we in this House and in another place agreed. I am sorry to take this rather jaundiced view of the order. Of course there is nothing that we can do about it, but it leaves a somewhat nasty taste in the mouth.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the order. I declare an interest as the chair of the New Opportunities Fund. It seems to us entirely appropriate that the programmes that the New Opportunities Fund funds continue to fit strategically with government priorities, while at the same time aiming to meet the needs and wants of young people at a local level, particularly those in disadvantaged areas.
I have no doubt in assuring the House that the fund is a genuine good cause and that it will be spent in the interests of young people. In view of what has been said, perhaps I should also assure the House that the issue of balances is taken very seriously by the lottery distributors, as is the issue of additionality. The distributors feel just as strongly about that as do other noble Lords who have spoken.
In preparation for the young peoples fund, the New Opportunities Fund has undertaken a mapping exercise of organisations and programmes working with young people, which resulted in a database of relevant projects. In addition, members of the fund have held informal meetings with key players in the youth sectors. There are a number of themes which we want to pursue through this fund, including helping children stay safe, supporting activities and facilities for young people, and enabling young people to contribute to their communities through grants, to individuals or groups of young people.
Once we receive the policy directions we will consult with key stakeholders in government departments and in the voluntary and community sector, outlining the prospectus or framework for the programme. We will also consult with young people. We aim to ensure that some elements of the fund are launched and open for activities by this summer and expect the remainder of the strands to be launched by the autumn.
In conclusion, perhaps I may also point out that as young people have been involved in consultation about the programme they will also be involved in the evaluation of it, so that we can use this fund really to address the needs of this most important group.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very grateful for the responses of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and less grateful for the response of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is of course entirely right that it is important that what we do with this new initiative should be closely targeted and monitored—I think those were her words. I hope that she has been given some reassurance by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
I would also add that the proposed work builds on the Positive Activities for Young People programme, which I described and which has been closely targeted

993
and monitored and indeed can be well-defined as an appropriate good cause. The noble Baroness expressed some concerns about the way in which the objectives have been altered. The New Opportunities Fund has survived without its objectives being altered since the beginning. We were finding that the conditions on the New Opportunities Fund were a little tight. Confining them to concentrating on health, education and the environment meant that some things that were targeted on people rather than on themes did not fit into any of the categories. That will be possible now, with this additional initiative.
The issue of additionally was raised particularly strongly when the legislation to set up the New Opportunities Fund was introduced. We argued that through in some detail in this House at the time—I remember it well. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not right in thinking that it is necessary for public confidence to be restored. There has been continued public confidence. I certainly have not seen or heard the kind of generalised criticism that was anticipated when the New Opportunities Fund was set up.
Similarly, it would not be right to follow the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and leave the matter to the distributors. We the people ought to have a say in this. We have been successful; the distributors have been successful in maintaining what they want, which is an arm's-length approach from government and the assurance that we are not spending the money on things that the Government would otherwise do. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that it is important to avoid bureaucracy. I am glad that she welcomed the social inclusion element of this new initiative.
I hope that the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has helped to convince the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we have a clear and specific good cause here, not least because we have piloted it in the positive action for young people. Of course we are concerned with the decline in lottery sales. We rely on Camelot to redress that with continued new marketing initiatives and new products. It has approached this imaginatively.
The noble Viscount referred to "undistributed lottery money". It is only undistributed in the sense that it has not been taken up by those to whom it has already been committed. All lottery money, except for a margin, is committed. However, it is the nature of the beast that many of the projects to which it is committed take months or even years to complete. The money is not actually distributed until it is needed. In any case, any balances are held, and both the money and any interest on the money are devoted to good causes.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about the DCMS budget falling as a percentage of GDP. The DCMS budget has not fallen in real terms. The economic policies of this Government have been so successful that GDP has been rising faster. Of course, we would all like more money for DCMS subjects. I will treasure his words and make sure that they are used in our submission for the 2004 spending review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.40 p.m.]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"() The RSS will set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region."
The noble Lord said: This amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies set the spatial frameworks for the economic strategies of the regional development agencies. The Bill is silent on how all the various regional strategies will relate to each other. Not only would this be a recipe for confusion, it could result in the strategies working against each other.
We do not support these moves towards regional spatial strategies away from county structure plans, but we recognise that it is important that the different regional strategies are integrated and co-ordinated and that provision is made for this in the Bill. If it is left to guidance, the mechanism by which we can deliver joined-up policies at the regional level will remain unclear and will not be subject to a proper debate in Parliament.
The drawing up of planning responsibilities from counties to regional planning bodies in the Bill reinforces the importance of having one overarching spatial framework at the regional level. The negative consequences of this fragmentation can at least be partly offset by a clear hierarchy, in which a regional development agency's objective of maximising economic performances does not unnecessarily conflict with a regional planning body's statutory duty to provide sustainable development.
It is not a question of the RPBs controlling the RDAs; it is simply a question of recognising the potential for conflict between the two and ensuring that regional planning becomes a genuinely spatial framework. If the regional spatial strategy does not set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region, it will be neither regional nor strategic. If the Minister does not support the amendment, can he explain exactly how the Government will prevent the achievement of important cost-cutting objectives such as reducing the need to travel being undermined by conflicting strategies that have equal status?
There is one final issue to which I draw attention in support of the amendment—that of democratic accountability, which we have raised several times today. The Bill does not offer much comfort to those who believe in local democracy and it is deficient in the

995
provisions it makes for community participation, as we mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, regional planning bodies will probably offer more scope for democratic input than regional development agencies. As such, it is better if the regional spatial strategy is in some sense a pre-eminent strategy for the region, as this will go some way towards helping to strengthen the democratic dimension at the regional level of decision-making. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 which are grouped with Amendment No. 9. Their purpose is similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in Amendment No. 9. We seek to ensure that regional spatial strategies set a spatial framework for all other regional strategies, particularly—the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to this point—the regional economic strategy. We believe that it also needs to be consistent with the regional sustainable development framework. We believe that, if regional spatial strategies replace all the regional planning guidance, we should ensure that we have an overarching regional spatial strategy that cuts across all other regional guidance.
One reason for exploring that at this stage is that there is a danger that the opportunity will be missed to get this part of the Bill right. I gather that in Committee in another place the Government indicated that the guidance will set out a two-way relationship between the regional planning body and the regional development agency. I shall quote from Tony McNulty, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. When discussing this matter in Committee he indicated that the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy should "reflect each other", which to us sounds a little ambiguous. The draft New Planning Policy Statement 11—Regional Planning published for consultation in October 2003 states:
"it is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies".
Again, that could lead to some ambiguity and muddle. Experience has shown that despite the requirement for regional development agencies to further sustainable development in their operations, some in practice have actively tried to undermine the sustainable land use and transport objectives. There are several examples of that. I shall refer to a couple of them: first, a regional development agency in the north-east—where I live—was very resistant to higher brownfield housing targets in regional planning guidance, which other people thought would make better use of existing urban potential. Secondly, there was a problem in Birmingham—which the Minister may know about—where an enthusiastic regional development agency supported a western orbital road in the face of widespread criticism, which included an independent panel that had examined the draft of the regional planning guidance.
If the Bill goes forward as set out, we need to try to sort out this point. It is important that the regional spatial strategy is a truly spatial framework. By
996
definition it should integrate all the regional level planning strategies; and it should set the framework from within which other strategies operate, using their own expertise and resources to implement the spatial planning framework. I hope the Minister will recognise that from the discussion so far it is far from clear that we have the matter right in the Bill. I look forward to his comments.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I ask the Minister to say something about transport in the development of regional spatial strategies, particularly with regard to the plans developed by the delivery arms of transport, particularly the Strategic Rail Authority and the Highways Agency. Clearly, there is little point in regional strategies being drawn up that are simply wish lists of schemes that may well never take place. On the other hand, at the moment it is also clear that the kind of criteria that the Strategic Rail Authority or the Highways Agency use to develop their future schemes are rather different from those of the people drawing up the plans. I am quite keen to hear about how we can ensure that there is not some sort of mismatch between all those plan-making bodies.
Lord Marlesford: This is an important amendment, because it relates to time-scale. Economic and other developments, such as transport, come and go and are crucially important for those who are around today. However, we must consider how the country will be in the time of our children and grandchildren. If we do not get the long-term pattern right, we could do irreversible damage.
I shall give what is perhaps a silly example, but one that helps to make the point. In a sense, setting up national parks was producing for those areas a regional spatial strategy—I do not myself like that particular bit of jargon, buv no one has thought of anything better. That means that there are many other possible uses for national parks, which are not taken into account. I hope that no one would think of putting a new town in a national park, because that is not what national parks are about.
The issue is the time-scale. If we get the spatial strategy right, we can have the economic and development policies that are appropriate to the time but do not pre-empt the long-term objective of keeping the country in the form in which we would wish to hand it on to our descendants.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord. Lord Marlesford, is right in saying that this is an important short debate. I am impressed and interested that all Members of the Committee who have spoken are concerned to ensure that the regional spatial strategy should fit, work, interact and interrelate with other strategies in the region. Their amendments give voice to that concern.
Amendment No. 9 would include a requirement that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework for the economic strategy of the regional development agencies in each region. Amendment No. 11 would extend the requirement for the RSS to

997
set the spatial framework to all regional level strategies in the region. As the regional economic strategy is simply one of a number of regional strategies, albeit a particularly important one, and for the reasons that have emerged in the few minutes in which the group has been discussed, it is important to take the amendments together.
Taken at face value, we would all want to support the principle expressed in the amendments, although not the inclusion of such statements of detail in the Bill. It is absolutely right that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework of other regional strategies in the region, although that must happen as part of a two-way process. That was what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, was suggesting. The regional spatial strategy needs to be shaped by other regional strategies as well as shaping them.
Baroness Maddock: I wonder if I could clarify something. It was not me who suggested that; it was suggested by the Minister in another place. I am querying how practical it is, whether it is not a little ambiguous, and how we can ensure that it does what we want.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the point that the noble Baroness makes; I gathered that that was what she was after.
I suspect, however, that the intention of the amendments is to make the regional spatial strategy pre-eminent among regional strategies. I believe that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was after, and it is certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield was after. The Government do not believe that a hierarchical relationship with the RSS at the top would necessarily be appropriate.
We would argue that each serves a different role and different function. What is essential is that those bodies responsible for drawing up the regional spatial strategy, whether economic or housing, work together to develop a shared understanding of the issues, objectives and opportunities. We emphasise that in draft Planning Policy Statement 11 on regional planning (PPS11). Even if securing pre-eminence for the regional spatial strategy among regional strategies is not the intention—it is clear that it is—the very fact that it could be construed as such means, we believe, that the amendments are flawed. Amendment No. 12 would amend Clause 1 to require the RSS to have regard to and be consistent with the regional sustainable development framework for the region.
The problem is simple. We cannot set this out in legislation as the regional sustainable development framework has no statutory basis itself. It is flawed in that simple way. Broadly speaking, we are supportive of the principle that the RSS and the RSDF—although I hate the jargon it is necessary—should be complementary and work together and, more than that, mutually support one another. PPS11 makes clear that the RSDF is an essential part of the background against which regional strategies are prepared.
998
We cannot support the hierarchical notion. We recognise the importance and centrality of the regional spatial strategy. But it is important that these things work together. While we understand and support the principle of that, we do not think that the amendment is necessarily the right way to achieve it. We believe that we have the provision already in PPS11.
This short discussion is valuable. I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about the importance of democratic input. Given the fullness of time and the development of elected regional assemblies, we shall have that elected, democratic, over-arching body which we all support—although not the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to question the Utopian vision with which the Minister presents us, with every strategy being supportive of and consistent with each other. I wish I were quite so optimistic. I take the noble Lord's point that if there were elected regional government it would be easier to co-ordinate.
Can the Minister explain to the Committee the basis of the other strategies referred to? Do the Government's guidance or papers have the same weight as regards the new planning policy statement for the regional spatial strategy? I realise that it is difficult to pursue the point without understanding the genesis of those other strategies. Are they created in the same way? Do they go through the same consultation procedures?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness's question is not clearer.
Baroness Hamwee: The PPS11 to which the Minister referred states that the RSS should be consistent with and supportive of other regional frameworks and strategies including the RSDF and the regional, cultural, economic and housing strategies. How do those come about? Do they go through similar processes to the regional spatial strategy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that I can answer the noble Baroness. The regional spatial strategy takes forward the regional housing strategy. The regional transport strategy is part and parcel of the regional spatial strategy. If there is an inconsistency between draft revisions to a regional spatial strategy and a regional economic strategy, when they are examined and made public documents there would be an opportunity as part of a consultation process to ensure that any inconsistencies at that point are ironed out. The documents are published; they are there for consultation. In a sense, the other regional strategies get pulled into the spatial strategy and that is the overriding driver for it.
9 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Is the Minister confident that if a group of people or a society has a real problem with a decision that comes about and chooses to seek a judicial review, the processes that he has outlined, with all their fuzziness, would stand up to a judicial review challenge which would seek to

999
demonstrate that a decision had not been made with due processes? It is very hard to pick out what those due processes might be.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the process would be robust, because it would be informed and the strategies would be the product of a form of consultation which would enable people, organisations, local authorities, agencies and others to offer their views as part of the process. They would play a part in the creation of those strategies in the document. The answer has to be, "Yes, we think that the processes are robust in themselves".
Lord Hanningfield: As the mover of the original amendment on this, I do not think that the Minister's replies have been that helpful. We feel—not just those of us in the Committee but also professionals and people who have been involved in creating all these strategies—that there could be a lot of confusion and that a definite system should be laid out so that everyone knows where they are. RDAs have considerable amounts of money which the planning side might not necessarily have. There could be undue influence because of the amount of money that RDAs have. There could be more influence from the RDAs over the regional spatial strategies than there should be. We are going to have to come back to this issue.
We have noted what the Minister said, but—going back to an earlier subject of laughter—in some of these matters we are trying to help. If something is going to happen, it must work. I moved this amendment on the advice of professional people. Therefore, we should look at it again. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very pleased that the noble Lord has come back to this point in a very constructive way. I think that he is trying to be helpful here. I have outlined how we see the system working reasonably fairly and accurately, but we shall have a very close look at what has been said and endeavour to reflect on the important points that have been made.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that comment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 aims to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make existing regional planning guidance, or parts of it, part of the regional spatial strategy, and so part of the development plan, without going through the procedures outlined in Part 1 of the Bill. The removal of subsection (6) is consequential.
This is a complicated amendment, but we feel it is very important. To elaborate further, Clause 1(5) strikes me as a strange and unwelcome piece of
1000
drafting. While the rest of Part 1 of the Bill establishes regional spatial strategies—what they are, how they will be revised and so on—subsection (5) undermines all of that by empowering the Secretary of State to decide which bits of regional planning guidance he wants to be in the regional spatial strategy for a region. Can the Minister explain why the Bill establishes the procedures for regional planning bodies to follow in order to produce regional spatial strategies—only for it to render those redundant by giving the Secretary of State the power to dictate what will constitute a regional spatial strategy—without going through any of the processes thought necessary for the construction of the spatial strategy as set out in Part 1?
I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The Bill contains the procedure for tile preparation of revisions of the regional spatial strategy. Clauses 5 to 11 assume that there is a regional spatial strategy and that the responsibility of a regional planning body is to prepare a draft revision.
There are two reasons why a procedure for adopting a regional spatial strategy is necessary; one is practical, the other is principled. The practical reason is that the Bill does not put in place a regional spatial strategy by some other means. Under Clause 1(1) there is to be a regional spatial strategy. But there is merely a power to make regional planning guidance the regional spatial strategy for a region in Clause 1(5). Even if that power remains, it will not be necessary to exercise it. Furthermore, the existing regional planning guidance might be inappropriate as a regional spatial strategy.
I hope that I have made myself clear on all that, but it is very complicated. I just about understand it myself. I do not know whether I have been able to explain it to everyone else.
A regional spatial strategy is, after all, different; the Government intended it to be part of a development plan; they intend more weight to be attached to it; and they intend local development plan documents to be in general conformity with it. Draft Planning Policy Statement 11, on regional planning, says that these documents are intended to be more specific. So there needs to be a procedure to create a regional spatial strategy from scratch. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Our Amendment No. 23 is in this group—which at least takes us on to page 2 of the Bill. Clause 3(1) provides that the regional planning body must keep the regional spatial strategy under review. We suggest that rather than it being required to do so,
"it shall have regard to the need to".
That is perhaps a little tongue in cheek. The philosophical and political point is the autonomy and discretion of the regional planning body. The tongue in cheek bit is that they might think that the regional spatial strategy which they have inherited from the Secretary of State is so perfect that they do not need to revise it.
Lord Cobbold: Amendment No. 24, in my name, is also in this group. As it raises an issue that has already been much discussed today, I shall be brief.

1001
The idea is that the new regional planning bodies will have no influence on the initial RSS but only on its subsequent revision. The initial RSS is defined in Clause 1(5) as,
"so much of the regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes".
The initial RSS is thus 100 per cent top down. While accepting that that deals with the problem of a possible vacuum in the transitional period, I think that the new regional planning bodies should have some input on the initial RSS and that the Bill should reflect that, if only the right to comment and to seek early review.
As I said, this matter has already been much discussed. I do not expect the Minister to change the views that have already been expressed on this issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made it clear that the amendments are really about making regional planning bodies start from scratch—I think that that is what he is after—in preparing a regional spatial strategy under the new arrangements, rather than allowing them to build on existing regional planning guidance.
Amendment No. 13 would delete from Clause 1 those subsections that provide for the Secretary of State to convert such guidance as he prescribes into regional spatial strategies. We do not see why the noble Lord would want to delete what seems to us such a commonsense provision. It is our intention that all current regional planning guidance, perhaps with a few exceptions, will be converted into an RSS in regulations. Those exceptions—which are worth recording—will be RPGs 3 (London), 3a (Strategic Views in London), 3b and 9b (River Thames) and 9a (Thames Gateway).
These documents will be replaced in large part by the Mayor's London Plan and were not subject to public examination when they were prepared. In other words, each region will have a regional plan from the outset. We accept that those regional plans will not be perfect—we expect them to be revised over the next few years and turned into more genuinely spatial strategies—but nor should they be tossed aside. They express important regional policies that have been built up over the years and reflect the input of people across the region.
The consequence of not converting RPG in each region to RSS would be serious. It would leave a gap, certainly in the transition period and perhaps beyond that, prior to the preparation of a new RSS—a process that would take at least two years—in which there was no strategic regional level development plan document. We do not believe that it is sensible or practical in terms of regional planning for there to be no strategic regional level development plan document. This would make the preparation of new local plans almost impossible. It would create uncertainty for communities, developers and business. We do not believe that is desirable particularly in terms of economic regeneration.
1002
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Amendment No. 47 would insert a new clause after Clause 4 to require the RPB to prepare a draft RSS if no RSS had been prescribed for the region or part of the region and apply Clauses 5 to 11 to the preparation of a draft RSS in the same way that they apply to the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS. I hope that the noble Lord followed that.
Amendment No. 48 would insert a new clause after Clause 4 to require the RPB to prepare the draft RSS and apply Clauses 5 to 11 to the preparation of a draft RSS in the same way that they apply to the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS.
Let me deal with these two amendments together as they are very similar. If the Committee accepts that Amendment No. 13 will be damaging, these amendments become unnecessary. As I have said, we can envisage no situation where it would be helpful for there to be no RSS for the region and the RPB to start from a completely blank sheet of paper. A revision of an RSS can and often should represent the opportunity for a radical reworking of the existing document. It is certainly not about tinkering at the edges. The Bill already provides for the RPB to do exactly that. The current wording does not need to be changed.
Amendment No. 23 would amend Clause 3 to require the regional planning body (RPB) to have regard to the need to keep under review the regional spatial strategy rather than simply stating that it must keep the RSS under review. We do not think that that amendment is helpful. Keeping the RSS under review is a central function of the RPB. The current wording of the Bill is clear and succinct in that regard.
Amendment No. 24 would amend Clause 3 to require the RPB to prepare the RSS as well as keep it under review. This amendment does not seem to us to be necessary. Clause 5(1) already provides that the RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS when it thinks it is necessary to do so, at such time as is prescribed or if directed by the Secretary of State. If the purpose of the amendment is to enable the RPB to prepare an RSS from scratch, I believe that we have already covered why that provision is not required.
For all those reasons we do not think that these amendments are helpful although we understand and appreciate the spirit in which they were tabled. With those comments I hope that noble Lords will not feel the need to press the amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister sits down, I wish to say that such issues take us back to a discussion that we had earlier. I am afraid that it is boringly repetitive. The Bill does not say anywhere, nor does the guidance in PPS 11, that the regional planning body is responsible for the preparation of the regional spatial strategy. But that is what it amounts to: the regional planning guidance will be the prescribed part of any regional planning guidance to form the basis of the regional spatial strategy; but the regional planning

1003
body will then be responsible for ensuring that the regional spatial strategy is issued, implemented and reviewed.
Half of the mischief is that the Bill does not say that. It does not mention the regional planning body in terms of the initial regional spatial strategy, nor does it in planning PPS 11. We will need to insert that in Clause 1 or 2, because that is its role. It may be, as part of that, that the regional planning body will then "take account of" or "have regard to" the regional planning guidance as laid down by the Secretary of State. As I said earlier, there is a lacuna here that the Minister may wish to address now. If not, or if there has not been a satisfactory answer, we will have to move an amendment at the next stage to try to insert that provision.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened to the noble Baroness, but I thought that Clause 5 made clear that the regional planning body did have particular responsibilities. Clause 5(1) does say:
"The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS".
The point is that the regional planning body inherits a body of knowledge, of experience, from what is there already. So, in a sense, we are talking about a strategy for dealing with revisions; that is what is required. It is not as though we are starting from scratch. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, wants us to start from scratch, but we do not. We do not start this with a blank sheet of paper—we already have certain matters in place. Those strategies are there. In the real world we are talking about a strategy for revising and keeping that process going. I said earlier that we foresee potential for radical revisions of the current approach and strategy. Yes, there is something in place; yes, changes are expected; but we are talking here about having a process of revision, even though those revisions may be fundamental. That is our approach, it is quite plain in the Bill and I think that I have made it plain in this debate.
Baroness Hanham: I am sorry that the matter has become tedious. The provisional regional spatial strategy is an initial document that arises out of subsections (1) and (2), but it does not say anywhere who is responsible for it other than to state that what the Secretary of State provides in the regional planning guidance is a mandatory part of the spatial strategy.
Clause 5 deals with revision of the RSS. The regional spatial strategy covers 15 to 20 years. It is proper for it to be revised. It cannot possibly stand as a document for 20 years without revision. That is what I understand Clause 5 to be about; but we have not yet reached it. I am complaining about the initial regional spatial strategy which is, apparently, to be dealt with by the regional planning body, but nowhere in the Bill does it say that that is the situation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that it is self-evident, it is axiomatic, that the regional planning body undertakes that process. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not clear on that. If we need to do more to add clarification then we will be happy to
1004
clarify that in correspondence and share that with other noble Lords who have taken part in such an entertaining debate.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for such an entertaining and short debate. His comments have clarified the Government's position. We are simply turning all the regional planning guidance that we have now into regional planning strategies. That is contrary to most of our discussions about consultations that involve people. For the time being we shall have to accept regional planning guidance as regional planning strategies. That point has therefore been clarified. In response to my amendment, we would have liked the new regional planning bodies to sit down, look at the problems of their region and devise their own strategies. But that clearly is not what the Government inend—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is important that the noble Lord understands that that is exactly what they will do. However, they cannot start front scratch because the world goes on. I made it plain that we cannot have a situation in which there is a gap of a year or two when nothing much happens because, self evidently, no strategic plan is in place.
If the noble Lord really wants the East Anglian economy to grind to a halt—it would not do so—because of the absence of a powerful economic strategy for the region, he can wish that on the greater region which is the county of Essex.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I can enter into the debate. I think I understand the sequence the Government are proposing, but it requires a regional planning body to be in place immediately in order to start thinking about revisions. Clause 2 provides that the Secretary of State may give a direction recognising an RPB. Can the Minister fill in any gaps about timetabling around that? Assuming that ultimately the amendment carried today does not remain in the same form—and who knows?—what timetable do the Government have in mind for creating the RPBs so that they can inherit an RPG, get on with it and turn it into their own RSS?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Rooker that since last April the regional chamber has been performing that responsibility. Therefore, a structure is already in place.
Lord Hanningfield: We have had a considerable debate and we must return to these issues. The Minister has clarified the Government's position and we know how the proposals will work. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regional planning bodies]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to "region" in line 4 and insert "The elected assembly shall be the regional planning body for the"
Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (6).
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment No. 15 having been agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 16 to 22. I should perhaps have mentioned that matter before, but I am sure your Lordships were aware of it.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [RPB: general functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 20, leave out "may be expected to"
The noble Lord said: We have moved on faster than we thought and we must therefore collect our thoughts as we move to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. With this technical amendment, we return to the discussions that we have just had. We consider it right for the regional planning body to keep under review the regional spatial strategy. Surely, a given function of the planning system, and for those who oversee it, is to monitor existing policies to ensure that they continue to deliver the most effective planning framework for their area.
However, I am very concerned that the rest of the clause seeks to prescribe to the regional planning body in a great deal of detail—earlier today the Ministers said that they did not want too much data—exactly how and when reports to the Secretary of State should be made. I will come on to that matter later.
In Clause 2(3), the regional planning body is charged with keeping under review matters which may be expected to affect development in its area. Those are the words used, but it is not clear to me what is meant by the phrase,
"which may be expected to affect".
What is the difference between saying that and saying simply "matters which affect"? To my mind, either something is relevant to the development of an area, in which case it should be kept under review, or it is not, in which case it need not be kept under review. I do not see what is to be gained by muddying the waters in this way.
The language used here is imprecise and too general and it should be removed from the Bill. Regional planning bodies must have a duty to keep abreast of current issues—as we discussed just now—which
1006
might have an impact on development in their area. In doing that, they will be taking a flawed view. The current wording in the Bill does nothing to clarify that.
Amendment No. 26 is also a technical amendment. Put simply, we believe that reference in the Bill to the planning of development draws an unnecessary and unhelpful distinction with "development" plain and simple.
The sentiments of the entire Bill are that a new planning system should have the ability to be proactive and more flexible in its approach to development. It is obvious that, in keeping under review matters affecting development in the region, that must include the planning of development. Indeed, it is hard to see what else it could mean or what else a planning authority would be doing in keeping a spatial strategy under review. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As the noble Lord has also spoken to Amendment No. 26, I should remind the Committee that, if that amendment is agreed to, it will be impossible to call Amendment No. 28.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which are grouped with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. They do not concern the same matter but they relate to the same part of the Bill. That is presumably why they have been grouped in this manner.
The reason for tabling the amendments is, again, to attempt to point a dagger at one of the essential issues at the heart of the Bill—that is, whether its purpose is to enhance and assist development per se or whether it is to improve and enhance the planning system in all its aspects. Clause 3 has the heading "RPB: general functions". Subsection (2) states:
"The RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect—

(a)development in its region or any part of the region;

(b)the planning of that development".

It does not say anything else. It does not say anything about the use of land in general; it does not say anything about improving the quality of the environment; it does not say anything about planning not to develop part of it but preserving it or enhancing its existing uses, which under planning law would not amount to development; and it does not talk about maintenance and management of the physical environment of the region. It simply talks about development.
There is a presumption here of change, of movement and of applications to do things and change uses. There is a presumption that that is what the Bill is all about but it seems to me that that is flawed. Good planning is, indeed, about the encouragement and management of good development. But it is also about resisting development where that is the sensible thing to do. It is about enhancing the environment and about enhancing the other matters that have been referred to in the context of sustainable development.

1007
Therefore, at line 23 I would like to leave out subsection (2)(b). Subsection (2)(a) refers specifically to
"development in its region or any part of the region".
My Amendment No. 27 would replace paragraph (b) with,
"the planning and management of that development and other use of land and of the quality of the environment".
I am looking for a balanced approach, not a static approach that says there must be no change and no development. I am building on what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said earlier this evening about the importance of planning in, for example, preserving and enhancing the countryside. Often that does not involve development, but it is an important part of planning. There are of course many others.
At the end of line 23, which refers to the planning of that development, my Amendment No. 28 would insert,
"and other use of land".
The planning system is not about development alone, but the use of land overall. Some of that is changing uses and developing land, some of it is resisting change and development.
Amendment No. 29 would add a further paragraph to subsection (2), so that the RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect not just development and the planning of the development, but also,
"the quality of the environment in its region or any part of its region".
That is a test of how genuinely the Government are looking to the new planning system not just to develop change or to promote development in the interests of faster economic growth, but to create a balanced approach that also considers the quality of the country in which we are living and all aspects of its environment.
In researching Clause 3 I searched in the Bill for a definition of development. Like many other definitions in the Bill, it is the same as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. What is the meaning of development in the Bill? Am I right in believing that it is defined in Section 55 of the 1990 Act? If I am not right, will the noble Lord tell the Committee where it is defined and on which definition we are working?
Section 55 reads:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, "development," means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land".
I believe that all of us who have ever been involved in the planning system in any way at any level are used to that definition of development and I am happy with it. But if this is the meaning of development in Clause 3, it means that it is just one part of the planning system when surely the regional planning board should be keeping under review the entire purpose of the
1008
planning system, which is maintenance of the physical environment in which we live and not just managing the change in that environment for economic progress.
Baroness Hamwee: It occurred to me to build on what my noble friend has just said. Clause 38 requires, among other things, any person or body exercising the function under Part 1 to do so,
"with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
It could not do so and therefore have any meaning without some addition such as that proposed by my noble friend, because of the rather constricted nature of the description of its duties under Clause 3(2). I very warmly support, as I would have done anyway, the amendment spoken to by my noble friend. However, linking those two together adds to the need to be clearer in this early part of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: I think I have the answers; I hope that I have. The amendments all look to find a better form of words than we have so far discovered, with the help of the parliamentary draftsman, to express the regional planning board's review function in relation to what is happening in its region. In answer to a question on the previous debate, as far as the regional planning board is concerned, we intend to issue directions recognising bodies as regional planning boards very shortly after the commencement of the legislation. In other words, there will be no gap. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
We do not think that we are fundamentally at odds with what we think the regional planning board should be doing in that regard; that is, its functions in relation to what is happening in its region. The regional spatial strategy sets out the spatial strategy for the region over a 15 to 20-year period. It is essential that the regional planning board reviews whether development is being planned and undertaken in accordance with that strategy having due regard to the economic, social and environmental considerations and the need to integrate land use and other policies. I shall explain briefly why I think the amendments do not improve what is currently set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 25 would amend Clause 3(2) to require the regional planning board to keep under review those matters that affect the development of its region or the planning of that development, rather than requiring it to keep under review matters which may he expected to affect these things.
We are expecting the regional planning body to look forward as well as reviewing what is happening now. It will not always be possible to determine precisely what may affect development in its region—change in national policy, demographic changes, and so forth—but we would expect the regional planning board to he proactive about considering these, not restricted to considering only matters that it could be sure would affect development. That would be the effect of the amendment, so it would be somewhat restrictive.

1009
Amendment No. 26 would remove from Clause 3(2) the requirement for the regional planning body to keep under review those matters that it expected to affect the planning of development. It is rather strange that a regional planning body should not be expected to keep under review such matters. It is absolutely the regional planning board's role to take a step back and review not just development in the region but how that development has been planned for. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill places a requirement for local development documents to be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy and for local planning authorities to request the regional planning board's opinion on this issue. Central to the regional planning board's function is ensuring that at a local level the planning of development is taking place in line with the strategic regional framework.
In that respect, Clause 3(2) refers to development. That includes the use of land in planning legislation and it is unnecessary to state that specifically; that is, under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The planning of development, including the use of land, covers both conservation and change. I assume that there are accepted definitions of what we are referring to in the Bill, which have been tried and tested in the courts in the past. So, from our point of view we are in no doubt about what "development" means.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 overlap but collectively they would amend Clause 3(2). I keep referring to "regional planning board" and "regional planning body". So far as I am concerned it should be "regional planning body", otherwise people will think that there is another body. I am reluctant to use initials. It sounds appalling if anybody ever tunes in. What I said at Question Time was bad enough today but to use initials is terrible.
I shall start again. Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 overlap but collectively they would amend Clause 3(2) to require the regional planning body to keep under review not simply those matters that it expected to affect the planning of development but also the management of that development, the other use of land and the quality of the environment.
These amendments appear to swing a little too far the other way. It is properly the regional planning body's job to review what development is taking place and how that is being planned for. However, "management of that development" implies oversight that relates to operational rather than strategic matters. That is what management means: executive action; looking at things; making things happen on the ground. This is not the regional planning board's role. In case there is any misunderstanding, that is the situation. Creating the regional spatial strategies that look beyond narrow development considerations is at the heart of what we want to achieve.
Land use should not just be considered in terms of development, but also in terms of what is happening on the land—what sort of environment is being created in that space—and in terms of preservation of the natural
1010
environment. The consultation draft of Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states,
ng authorities should continue to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes and wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources."
Sustainability is at the heart of the policies of my department. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill places a requirement on those making and implementing plans to do so with a view to contributing to the achievements of sustainable development. I daresay we shall have an over-long debate when we reach Clause 38.
We can agree with much of the intention of this amendment, but it is simply not necessary. Spatial and environmental considerations are already embedded in the regional planning body's survey role. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation on the definition of development to satisfy noble Lords that the amendments are unnecessary. As I said, we agree with the intention of them and I have every confidence that the issues will be covered in reality.
Lord Marlesford: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is saying. The Minister quoted those splendid words from, I think, Planning Policy Statement 7. Those are the sort of words I would like to see in the Bill. Is there any way in which that can be contrived?
Lord Rooker: You cannot have everything in a Bill. We have a consultation draft out at the moment. It has been out for some time. I am not sure when consultation finishes. I remember I was part and parcel of the initial development and drafting of this when I was responsible for planning. The Government, through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, through the publication of Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is saying those wonderful words. They are a statement of government policy. Planning authorities will be expected to make a reality of those words. Just because they are not in this Bill but in a planning policy statement on sustainable development in rural areas does not devalue them.
We expect that planning decisions made in rural areas will fit that definition of requirement to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character. That is very difficult to define but we know what we mean by it. I know what I mean by the intrinsic character of the beauty and diversity of the landscape and the wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources. We do not need to put that in this Bill. It is already written in a government document that will have to be followed as Planning Policy Statement 7 when it becomes a final document. I do not expect those words to change.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: The difference between a Bill and a planning policy statement is that a Bill is much more permanent. I am not saying that we should have all or exactly those words. Planning policy guidance—as it

1011
was—can, has been and needs to be changed. When one gets the rather general but very important intentions referred to in the new wording in PPS7, it would be nice to feel that that could be enshrined in primary legislation because, as we all know, other things are easier to change. Although I would have confidence that this Government would implement it, the Bill may well last longer than that.
Lord Rooker: All I can say to that is this is one quote that was offered in my speaking notes. I know and remember from the early drafts of the document that there are hundreds of such wonderful words in PPS7 on the rural areas, about which noble Lords could urge, "Get it in the Bill because it will last longer". But it is not possible to put that form of wording in primary legislation.
I suspect that the parliamentary draftsmen would find that quote appalling. Hence, the difficulty we have had on Clause 38—with which we shall deal at some length later on—in trying to get a form of words that puts across the required meaning, that is not worthless but which does not have the effect of allowing people all over the country to stop development in its tracks.
I do not know for how long the previous PPS lasted on rural areas—quite a while. This one will last for some time. It is a major statement from the department. It is in no way devalued by the fact that those words are not in the Bill. I will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but we are at one in our aim to make sure that those words are a reality so far as concerns planning authorities.
Lord Greaves: The issue has become more interesting as a result of the Minister's reply. It was quite fundamental to a major flaw within the legislation. What the Minister seems to be telling the Committee is that it does not matter what is on the face of the Bill—we do not need to put anything there—because it is all going to be in documents issued by his department and sent out to people in the country; and nowadays what matters really is documents sent out by his department and not what Parliament actually entrenches as the law.
There is a fundamental difference between the two. We are talking about documents which the Government can or might change. Even this Government will not last for ever. They think they will, but they will not.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Honestly, what the noble Lord is spouting is absolute rubbish. I want to explain why and to give him an example. If a planning application is dealt with one way or the other and ends up with an appeal, it will go before the planning inspectors, which are independent bodies. In arriving at a decision on whether that planning application is good or bad, a range of issues will be put before that inspector, including not just primary legislation because that is not detailed enough but all the other guidance, documents and statements from which I have quoted.
The noble Lord may say, "Well, it did not go to Parliament. The Government have issued what they wanted". The planning inspectors will issue reports on
1012
whether or not to allow an appeal, which will go to the Secretary of State. If the precise rules are not followed then we will be subject to a judicial review. So the noble Lord's idea which implied that we act on a whim, that we are bypassing Parliament and that these things do not matter, frankly is absolute rubbish. I feel that he evalues the debate by what he has just said.
Lord Greaves: I understand how the planning and appeal system works. I have been involved with it on many occasions. And of course what the Minister says is quite right—not that I am talking rubbish.
The point I am making is that there is a fundamental difference. The Minister can indulge in all the personal abuse he wants, but it does not alter the fact that there is a fundamental difference between what is on the face of legislation and what is issued by the Government under that legislation. That might carry a great deal of weight. Because it is detailed, it might be what carries most weight of all the advice that goes to the planning authorities, the development control authorities and the inspector dealing with the appeal. That is not the point that I am making. What fundamentally matters is the primary legislation.
We are not asking for all these great, exciting, flowery statements telling us what a wonderful countryside we want to live in to appear in the legislation. All that I am asking for in these amendments is some balance in what is set out in the Bill. What I am proposing is hardly longer than what is set out in the Bill, but it provides the balance. As far as I understood what the Minister said in response to my amendments, he agreed with them. He thought that they were basically right. That is what the Government were going to do, but he will not put them in the Bill. He did not provide any good reasons for that. I will read Hansard carefully, and I will read what the Minister said carefully, before deciding what further to do.
The Minister is saying, "let us have a one-page Bill that simply says there shall be a new planning system, and the details of this new planning system will be issued in statements sent out by the department". Let us argue each issue on its merits, and not on whether we are adding or taking out a few words in an overlong Bill.
I asked whether the definition of "development" that is to be understood in reading this Bill is the definition set out in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, I would like it in writing. It is important. Is it the Government's view that the definition of "development" includes no change? Does it include a situation in which in planning terms there is no change, in other words, no material change in the use of land and no actual physical development that classes as development requiring planning permission? Is a "no change" situation in planning terms encompassed by the word "development"? If it is. that

1013
is a new definition of the word "development" that we have never heard before, but it is one that we would like to take away and think about.
Lord Rooker: With respect, I have not given any personal abuse to the noble Lord—far from it. I criticised the tone of his speech. When I spoke, I specifically answered both the questions that he just asked me. I can repeat what I said—I will repeat it now, so it will force him to read Hansard tomorrow. I said that Clause 3(2) refers to development. This includes the use of land in planning legislation and it is therefore unnecessary to say specifically "i. e. that it is under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". I said that when I spoke to start with in answer to the debate.
The answer to his question is "yes", but that is the reason why it is not specifically defined as such. I also said separately, but speaking at the same time, that planning of development including the use of land covers both conservation and change. One could argue that conservation might be doing nothing. In certain circumstances it may mean making adjustments, but it covers both conservation and change. With respect, if the noble Lord is still unclear, he can come back to me, but I answered both those questions—both legitimate questions—when I originally replied to the debate.
Lord Greaves: I will be brief. I heard exactly what the Minister said when he replied. I did not understand what he was saying. I still do not understand what he is saying. That might be my fault; I will read it carefully in Hansard. The question that he has not answered is where the definition of the word "development" is in this Bill. Where do we go to for a definition of what the word means?
Lord Rooker: I actually said that because of the way "development" is referred to here, this includes—this is the way the accepted term is used—the use of land in planning legislation. It is therefore unnecessary to say specifically "i. e. that it is under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". We think Clause 113 may be relevant, but I need to check that. We may have something that will help the noble Lord—it will certainly help me. Clause 113(1) states:
"Expressions used in this Act and in the principal Act have the same meaning in this Act as in that Act".
That covers it: the principal Act is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There will not be different definitions of the same word in the principal and the non-principal Act. Referring to the other Act as the principal Act does not mean that we devalue this Bill—it is no less important because it is not the principal Act. However, the definitions of the words are the same. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Greaves: I think the Minister is making my point for me, but I will do some more research on it.
Lord Hanningfield: I should like to come back to my original two amendments. I have some sympathy with
1014
the Minister; he has his parliamentary draftsmen, but I am sure that everyone preparing amendments is also getting advice and support from planning barristers, for example. I do not want to keep going over what "development" means, but there is some dispute over what development and the planning of development mean among people who participate in the legal side of planning. My amendments were intended to be helpful; they come from people who have been giving me advice on the Bill.
We have had this discussion backwards and forwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, and we will read what was said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.30:
Page 2, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove the duty on regional planning bodies to prepare an annual report for the Secretary of State on the implementation of the regional spatial strategy for a region.
We accept that a regional planning body should be monitoring and, if necessary, should be in a position to report on how a regional spatial strategy is being implemented. Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause more than satisfactorily make provision for that.
What the Bill proposes, however, is an unnecessary and expensive burden on a regional planning body. I think that generally, in their approach to other tiers of government, central government places undue faith on the virtues of reporting upwards. Of course, that may be a particular fault of these proposals—perhaps where there is no democratic accountability, there is no mechanism other than to report to the Secretary of State for ensuring high-quality performance.
Reporting requirements may look innocuous in the context of a piece of legislation, but I can assure your Lordships that they look very different on the ground. They can be exhausting. In some instances, they drain the organisation of resources, manpower and motivation. To have officers working round the clock to produce reams of paper, endless reports to satisfy the insatiable demands of government departments, is futile and detracts from what the organisation is meant to be doing—that is, providing a service.
As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State would have complete control over what the regional planning bodies will have to show him at the end of each year. I fail to see how the House can pass a measure of this sort without having an extremely good idea about exactly what these reporting requirements will consist of. Without knowing how onerous they will be, it is difficult to form a judgment about their utility.
As all noble Lords know, regulation through reporting is a fairly blunt instrument. It depends on the notion of balance—balancing the level of risk involved against the harm that might result from something going wrong. I should have thought, from the

1015
Secretary of State's point of view at least, that there is very little that can go wrong. The Secretary of State is all over these provisions. To describe the provisions protecting the Secretary of State's interests as belt and braces would be to undersell them. There is in the Bill every conceivable mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State's interests are protected. This is simply another such mechanism. I am sure that the Minister will be sceptical about the value of this amendment, but he will recognise that a process that lends itself to annual reporting also lends itself to arbitrary, counter-productive box-ticking. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I have also added my name to the amendment, but not because we do not believe that reporting is an important activity—clearly it is. Our objection is to the prescriptive nature of the function. If the regional planning body is required to undertake its other functions, at least it could be given discretion as to when and how it reports and not have to do so to a pattern or to the tune of the Secretary of State. Other points have been made earlier and I support the deletion of these provisions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am amused by this amendment. I am sorry but I shall make an accusation. I know it is late but I shall not detain the Committee long. I believe that noble Lords opposite should indulge in joined-up opposition. On a number of occasions I have spoken from the Dispatch Box against an amendment moved from the Benches opposite seeking to impose the duty of an annual report on the Government. Here we have an amendment to do exactly the opposite. I have often teased the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, that when stuck for an amendment on which to defeat the Government, the Opposition bring forward one that imposes a duty of an annual report. I am somewhat staggered by this amendment.
I am particularly amused and somewhat surprised, given that we have heard much about democracy and accountability in the context of the Bill. We believe that it is right that the regional planning body has placed upon it a duty to monitor and to prepare an annual report on the implementation of regional spatial strategies. It makes perfectly good sense to us. Planning is a continuous, ongoing process which needs to be reviewed and considered. We believe that it is absolutely essential. This amendment would drive a hole through what we believe is the very important process of review and monitoring. We also believe that that is how the regional planning body can keep a check on whether the strategy is effective and working and what changes need to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that it was a burden. He probably wanted to know more of the detail. I shall provide that now as it is right that we do so. We expect regulations under Part 1 of the Bill, which we published in draft for consultation, to require the regional planning body to do the following: it must identify any policy in the regional spatial
1016
strategy which it thinks is not being implemented; it must cover in its annual report the reasons why; and it must set out what action it intends to take and whether it intends to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to change the policy. Because the regional spatial strategy is also central to housing delivery, the regional planning body will also be required to report progress against its housing delivery policy.
The regional spatial strategy sets out the Secretary of State's spatial policies for the region so, in our view, it is right that the regional planning body should prepare an annual report to the Secretary of State. In that the regional planning body will also be required to make the report publicly available particularly through its website.
We all know that planning is not a one-off; it is not something that just happens every so often; it is a continuous process. Our view is that it is undermined if those policies are not delivered.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have tried to restrain myself given the lateness of the hour and the gathering of the Whips. Would the Minister reflect on the fact that one of the reasons that we have a problem with these provisions is that the regional planning body has no executive authority? It does not do anything. The noble Lord is suggesting that this is a way in which to hold it to account for elements of the strategy which are or are not delivered, but the body itself has no powers to deliver any of those things. What it will be doing under the provisions of the Bill is simply to go through a long and onerous task of examining the delivery that has been done by other bodies. It will have to explain, for example, why it is that the Highways Agency has not built a road or why some piece of land has not been brought forward for industrial development.
The point that we are making is that the Government seem to be asking the regional planning body to give an account of the progress or lack of progress, when it is simply not in its powers to do so. That is why we have such a problem with the measure.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has a problem with that. However, she seems to have retreated to a position in which we just let things happen in a vacuum, without anyone holding anything together to see exactly where plans, processes and procedures have led us. The noble Baroness makes an acceptable point—which is also, I suppose, fairly obvious—that the regional planning body itself is not an instrument of delivery. However, surely it must be right that we know exactly what is going on. For that reason, we believe that the annual report and review and monitoring process should be put in place.
I know that Lib Dems have a problem with things being looked at and examined and processes being constant. I am sure that they would like to haw things free-floating and airy-fairy; that seems to be within their spirit. However, that does not take us anywhere.

1017
We need to ensure that the planning process is ongoing, continuous and understood, and that we can see what comes out of it and what is delivered.
I suggest that the amendment is actually extremely damaging. As I said at the outset, I am somewhat surprised, given that the opposition parties, which often argue the case for an annual report to ensure that we are being held to account, that things are there on the record and that we do understand what is going on, have done something of a volte-face in this Bill and want to undermine its effect by taking this important system of measurement away from the legislation. I hope that noble Lords opposite will retreat to a position of consistency with all other demands that they make under other forms of legislation, in which the monitoring and review of the process is firmly in place.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord says that he is amused by the amendment. He worries me terribly, and I believe that the mechanism controlling his amusement is badly in need of adjustment. However, that is perhaps not a matter for the Committee.
Parliament has a duty to scrutinise the acts of the executive and hold them to account. I cannot speak of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred, but that is why opposition parties very often propose the
1018
sort of amendment that he mentioned about Secretaries of State making regular reports. We are in a different situation here; there is a distinction.
Lord Hanningfield: We have had an interesting debate on the amendment, and we have noted the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Wearing various hats, I am involved in many annual reports, and I have had several discussions with James Strachan of the Audit Commission, whose motto is, "deregulation, deregulation, deregulation". The Audit Commission is scrapping lots of annual reports of this type not of the type that reports to Parliament.
We feel that that report is an onerous piece of bureaucracy to put on these bodies. Of course, they have to report, but the box-ticking of an annual report is not the right way forward. I am sure that we shall return to the matter, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Energy Bill [H.L.]
(Second Day)
Tuesday, 20 January 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Welcome to the Grand Committee on the Energy Bill. I am not going to read out the preamble. I shall merely remind the Committee that members should speak standing and that the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. Speakers on the Back Benches should place themselves near a microphone so that Hansard staff may record them. There will be no Divisions. If there is a Division in the Chamber, which I believe there may be, speakers should stop speaking and the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 5 [Supplemental provisions of designating directions]:
[Amendment No.13 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 8, after "payments" insert "from any revenues accruing to the installation, site or facility"
The noble Lord said: As a prologue to the amendment, perhaps I may express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for taking on board my amendments last week when I was unable to attend. He has a frightening ability to read my mind and I am most grateful to him.
This is a small amendment that I have tabled to probe the Government's thinking about the sentence at the end of Clause 5(2). It refers to a direction giving the NDA responsibilities and,
"may require the person with control of the installation, site or facility to make payments to the Secretary of State".
My mind went straight back to the 14th century, when offices of profit were issued under the Crown and I found myself thinking, "What on earth are we talking about?" Why on earth is the poor individual, who may receive only a modest salary, making payments to the Secretary of State because of his responsibilities? The amendment is intended to probe the background to that simple statement.
It is not quite that simple. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the responsibilities of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That is perfectly plain and straightforward. Clause 5 also deals with the business of the Nuclear
GC 254
Decommissioning Authority, until we come to the last sentence when, suddenly, an unspecified individual is required to make payments to the Secretary of State.
The individual may well be someone who is working in an appointment given to him by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, so there may be some rationale behind it. It may even be that this is an antique Bill-drafting convention that dates from the 14th century and that it has always been expressed in that way. In which case, all I can say is that it is time we changed. I find that wording in the Bill very strange. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: If the money does not come from the revenues accruing to whomever is the operator of the site, where will it come from? The Government's answer may be that that is the only conceivable source and that we do not need to write that into the Bill. However, anyone reading the Bill might say that the authority can come along and simply make a charge for whatever reason. That would bear no relation whatever to the revenues that might be accruing from the operation of the site. My noble friend has made the case that the issue should be clarified. It is not clear at all.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tempts me. There was a time when I was an expert on Tudor economic documents and I would love to follow him down the byways of yesteryear, when corruption was the order of the day and the only way in which the state was run. However, I shall resist the temptation and attempt to tell him what the clause is intended to achieve.
The noble Lord's amendment would remove the polluter pays principle. It would limit a private sector operator's liabilities for clean-up to future revenues from the installation or facility concerned. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, it is unlikely that there would be future revenues.
Where the NDA takes on designated responsibility for securing the clean-up of a site—for which it does not bear the financial responsibility, let me make that clear—the Government's intention is to recover the costs of clean-up from the operator concerned. That is an absolutely fundamental point to which we adhere.
That responsibility does not rest on the installation and its ability to cover its own clean-up costs; it applies to the operator under the existing statutory and regulatory regime. Whether or not a particular installation has generated sufficient revenue, the operator is not absolved of his responsibility to discharge any and all liabilities that arise as a result of operating that installation.
The NDA is likely to be involved only when an installation has to be decommissioned and cleaned up. No further revenues are then likely to be forthcoming. If insufficient provision has been made for the decommissioning of a plant from its own revenues, that would lead to a shortfall that the NDA would be unable to recover. We should not limit the scope of the NDA to recover its costs in this way.

GC 255
Accordingly, on the clear principle that the reason the legislation is drafted in this way is not a carry-over from 16th-century economic legislation but to adhere to the principle that the polluter pays, I hope the noble Lord will feel that his amendment would detract from that fundamental position.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Having heard the Minister's explanation, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if the installations, sites or facilities have polluted Scottish land, the payment would be made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to Scottish Ministers.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have an amendment to deal with the relationships between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Scottish Ministers. We will discuss a range of issues that will arise today. I hope that I will be able to address the question within that context. Suffice it to say that within that debate I hope to give satisfactory answers to a range of issues. There may be one or two issues about which I may not be able to be entirely specific. At this stage, I am not in a position to give the noble Baroness a direct answer. I apologise for that, but I hope that when we get to the main debate on the issue I shall have an answer to give to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With respect to the Minister, I am not trying to be clever about this. There are people who are concerned about this issue. It has been put to me that we need to find an answer to the problem. That is why I asked the question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: That is entirely proper. I always assume the highest motives behind the noble Baroness's interjections for obvious reasons. I like to reply as accurately as I can.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gives all directions in Scotland but, as set out in the legislation, Scottish Ministers certainly have important roles in relationship to the process. The noble Baroness asked a precise question to which I do not have a direct, unequivocal answer at this moment. I beg for a little leeway on the issue. I shall certainly not forget the point made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Ezra: May I ask the Minister, first, how the payments will be assessed? Secondly, why is payment not made to the NDA rather than the Secretary of State? After all, it is the NDA that will incur the costs.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The NDA will certainly incur the cost, but the noble Lord will recognise that it is working under the overall direction of the Secretary of State. When payments of such significance are to be made related to clean-ups, as an important principle of the Bill, it is right that we should identify the Secretary of State as the person to whom the payments are made.
The assessment of the costs will be what is reasonable in terms of necessary expenditure incurred for the process. I should have thought that the
GC 265
principle was obvious enough. The NDA is not seeking to wrest from the former operator any profit or advantage; it merely seeks to embrace the principle that, where pollution has occurred and has to be cleared up, the proper costs incurred should be met. The liabilities cost what they do to discharge them. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State funds the NDA through grant payments. The NDA returns any income that it gets. Obviously enough, although it is not extra income, the income derived from replenishment for costs that have been justifiably incurred on clean-up are payable to the Secretary of State.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am glad that I tabled the amendment, because it has provoked some discussion. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that he has not satisfied me. I have no difficulty at all with the principle that the polluter should pay. However, I have difficulty with the way in which the Bill suddenly jumps from the responsibilities of the NDA and supplemental provisions designating directions to the NDA to this one simple sentence. I understand that it is not a problem for an individual, but a proper restatement of the principle that the polluter should pay.
I find it an oddity to include, as a sort of supplemental supplement, designations to the NDA. If we are to have the provision, it should be quite clear and plain that it is in the Bill in its own right. Putting it in in such a way is almost trying to hide it, so it makes me even more suspicious. Perhaps the Minister could give me a direct example of how it would work, but it might be unfair to bowl at him at this stage of the afternoon. He might want notice of how to answer that, so it would be prudent at this stage to express my concern and, having done so, to withdraw the amendment.
Further explanation is necessary. I hope that we receive it, otherwise we will certainly need to return to the point simply for the sake of clarity of the meaning of the Bill. At the moment, it seems very obscure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Designations relating to Scotland]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 17
Page 6, line 22, at end insert "and obtain their approval before issuing the direction"
The noble Lord said: This probing amendment is designed to elicit where the border lies between the overarching powers of the Secretary of State and the devolved powers of Scottish Ministers.
The fact that the Bill lays a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers implies that, were he or she not so instructed, he or she might not do that. It further implies that, in not consulting, he or she would be well within his or her rights. Consultation itself achieves nothing. It is the resulting action, if there is any, that progresses the situation. The Bill makes consultation mandatory but remains silent on how

GC 257
progress is to be accomplished. Agreement between the parties concerned is unlikely to cause a problem. On the other hand, dissension is a possibility and should be legislated for.
It is possible to envisage many situations that could result in disagreement. One such might involve waste disposal where it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to consult on the use of, for example, a remote Scottish island. Of course, there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry might have the same ideas about that island; they might want it to be on yet another island.
Under the conditions in the Bill, the Secretary of State could consult, overrule any objections, and carry on with the Whitehall plan. However, were he required to reach agreement, he might have to incorporate more stringent safety rules, transport arrangements, storage parameters and so forth. We need only glance at the kind of directions that might be given by the Secretary of State to understand how important that is and the sensitivity of the subject as regards Scotland.
For example, Clause 3(3) states:
"Before giving a direction under section 3",
the Secretary of State might have to give,
"the NDA responsibilities for the operation in or on a licensable site in Scotland of a facility for the non-processing treatment of hazardous material".
Or the Secretary of State might have to give the NDA,
"responsibilities for the operation in or on a licensable site in Scotland for a facility for the storage of hazardous material".
In the past, those of us who have been at the other end have known some extremely cantankerous Secretaries of State for Scotland. I can think of one from the noble Lord's party who had as much difficulty in obtaining agreement with his Cabinet as he had in obtaining agreement with us. On some of those issues, it is highly likely that that individual might take a totally different view to that taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I do not refer exactly to the Secretary of State for Scotland because he, poor chap, must feel like a displaced person in his own office. His powers have been so dramatically and drastically cut by devolution that now he is what might be called a part-time Secretary of State for Scotland whose main duties lie with transport.
As regards Scotland, many issues are raised. I have given just one or two examples, but one does not have to look far in other parts of the Bill to see that there are much wider implications than at first might seem likely. We will return to this and other issues that affect Scotland, but I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance that the Government are looking seriously at the matter. If he is unable to do so, we shall have to come back to the issue on Report to try to persuade him a little more. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My name is also attached to the amendments. I support my noble friend Lord Gray. I am perhaps not one to apologise for the slight hint of
GC 258
a skirl of bagpipes in the background of the Committee. There are issues that concern Scotland. I am not fully aware of whether there are nuclear sites in Scotland where some of the non-processing of nuclear waste treatment is carried out, but, if it was introduced, one can understand that the Scottish Executive might feel that it should be subject to planning permission. We should like to know how far the powers of the Secretary of State in Whitehall would go in being able to overrule that.
Using the excuse that these matters are Scottish issues, the other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 17—namely, Amendments Nos. 45, 51 and 52—concern a single principle. The NDA prepares annual plans and reports progress against them. Those plans and reports are then distributed to all who are directly affected. However, there are others whose interests may be affected both by the priorities as set out in the plan and the nature of the progress achieved. If nuclear matters are not to any degree devolved and if they are in all respects a UK matter, all those affected throughout the UK should be kept as fully in the picture as is consistent with state security. If they are in any way devolved, that fact should be made clearer and the Bill drafted accordingly.
The order of priority given to the activity of the NDA may excite considerable interest among Scottish Ministers. At the moment, the dividing lines are blurred. For example, the nuclear industry employs people who require to be trained in order to play their part to best effect. The plans and reports of the ND. A, even where they do not concern specific Scottish sites and facilities, may contain information relevant to future skills and requirements. That may be of value to Scottish Ministers in planning and providing the training necessary to cope with decommissioning when it directly affects them. The timetable laid down for producing the annual plans does not allow much time for skills training before the indicated action is due to commence.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the Minister explain why Clause 6(1) states that a direction,
"may be given only by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, acting jointly",
while Clause 6(3) states that the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Gray referred, apply, namely that the Secretary of State must consult Scottish Ministers? What is the difference? As my noble friend pointed out, "consulting Scottish Ministers" is not the same as "acting jointly". If the Scottish Ministers said "no" to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the island to which my noble friend referred, what would happen? We need to know that. Will the Minister explain the difference between the circumstances in which the Ministers have to act jointly and those where there is a consultation?
On Clause 14 and annual reports, an important point should he made. It probably would riot make much difference to the procedures. There are so many aspects in which there will be overlap between what happens south of the Border and north of the Border. Decisions taken south of the Border may affect those

GC 259
taken north of the Border later on. It would be so much better if the annual report had to be laid also before Scottish Ministers and the Scots Parliament.
Lord Davies of Oldham: First, I shall address the common theme that has run through the contributions made by all noble Lords. The Bill touches on intricate issues surrounding the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and devolved matters. We must therefore proceed with considerable care. A vast amount of work has been done. That is reflected in the way in which the Bill depicts relationships between UK and Scottish Ministers. I bow to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, when considering difficulties that may arise through personal quirks of Ministers, but I assume that we are discussing the formal powers in the Bill. There will always be interaction between colleagues of which we must all take account, but which can scarcely be written into the Bill. If they were, we would find ourselves in difficult circumstances.
The issue of consultation was raised. Consultation is obviously different from having direct powers. Where the legislation requires consultation, the person who is required to consult—in most of the cases covered by the clause, that will be the Secretary of State—must set out the issues, hear representations, consider them and then decide. He must demonstrate that that process has been fully followed through. Consultation is a formal requirement that has weight in the process that the Secretary of State must follow.
However, there cannot be a requirement that the parties reach agreement. By definition, consultation is an attempt to work towards an understanding and agreement on action to be taken. We could not require agreement to be reached as a result of consultation; otherwise, we would be involving joint powers, not consultation. The issues involved in consultation are different from powers. The amendment, and the anxieties of Members of the Committee who spoke, relate to the extent of the definition of the powers in the Bill; the relationship with the Scottish Executive; whether its powers are clearly defined; and whether the balance is struck accurately.
The provisions on the level of involvement of Scottish Ministers reflect the extensive discussions that took place between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers in the preparation of the Bill. The complicated nature of the provisions, at which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, hinted, is unavoidable because of the various matters for which the NDA will have responsibility, and which are to be handled under the clear terms of the devolution settlement. The operation of the NDA, its United Kingdom responsibility and the specific requirements regarding the Scottish position are difficult areas.
The devolution settlement regarding nuclear matters is complex. Sites licensable under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and Crown sites are reserved matters for the Secretary of State. On the other hand, environmental protection and the regulation of the disposal of radioactive waste are, in principle,
GC 260
devolved matters. Members of the Committee, therefore, immediately will see a basis for difficulty and the need to get the legislation right.
The NDA's functions inevitably cover reserved and devolved matters. In some cases, it is difficult to draw the line between the two; hence the extensive discussions that we have been obliged to have with our Scottish colleagues—with great enthusiasm, of course. It is always a pleasure to engage in discussion on such matters with our Scottish colleagues, as, I am sure, Members of the Committee will attest.
It has taken some time to determine the powers that Scottish Ministers should have in relation to the NDA's responsibility. There is no hiding the fact that the general principles behind the Act lead to some difficult issues, on which there has not always been easy agreement.
The Duke of Montrose: Is the pleasure that the Minister mentioned enhanced by the fact that he and the Scottish Ministers are of the same political party at present? Those difficulties may be thrown into sharper relief when voting requires different political approaches at different ends of the United Kingdom.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am talking about the principles behind the Bill, so if ever there were changes in political representation—a rather far-sighted concept, as the noble Duke would agree—if ever that distant day came, we, as the UK Parliament, would have agreed on the principles of the Bill, which will govern those relationships.
I suppose that there is a more friendly tone, but the noble Duke will recognise and would be the first to advocate that, irrespective of their political stance, the Scots are well able to advance the cause of their interests. I assure him that the difficulties we have had with the Bill have been because Scottish Ministers of my party are as keen to establish the contours of their powers and those of their successors as Scottish Ministers under the Bill as they should be, in seeking to discharge their responsibilities to their electorate.
Those discussions have produced an agreed position, and we believe that the Bill's provisions properly reflect that agreement. We understand that Scottish Executive officials are now poring over the measures in order to satisfy themselves that we have captured the ministerial agreement that underpins the Bill's drafting.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gray, freely acknowledged, the amendments would certainly extend the powers of Scottish Ministers into areas that clearly fall into reserved powers. It is because the amendment would clearly cross the line maintained by the Bill that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it, in the hope that his intention was to probe whether we had sufficiently addressed ourselves to the contours of the relationships between the UK and Scottish Parliaments. I can assure him that extensive work has been done on that, because we all recognise that the NDA faces difficult issues of discrimination between reserved matters and others. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: I ask the Minister to address the subject raised by Amendments Nos. 45, 51 and 52: notification of reports to the Scottish Executive when they do not necessarily contain matters directly under Scottish geographical jurisdiction.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are of course eager that the process of reporting shall be as open as possible. The noble Duke made a useful point when he said that experience derived from UK operations would be valuable to Scottish operations and to the Scottish Executive, because they could learn from that experience. It would be ridiculous if there were a barrier that obstructed the exchange of that information; I certainly seek to allay fears on that score.
To the extent that the NDA will handle, store or dispose of radioactive waste at sites in Scotland, the Bill provides that the annual report should indeed be sent to the Scottish Minister, as the Committee would expect. In practice, therefore, Scottish Ministers will receive a copy of the report for decades to come—for as far into the future as we can foresee. If and when the NDA no longer has any decommissioning or clean-up responsibilities in Scotland, there would then be no reason for Scottish Ministers to be involved in its activities.
The NDA's annual report will be presented to Parliament, published and available to anyone in the UK, but if the question behind the amendments was whether the NDA would report to and present a report to the Scottish Executive, the answer is "Yes", in so far as it has direct responsibilities in Scotland.
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall withdraw the amendment, but one point still bothers me. We can return to it later. I am still concerned about what happens if agreement is reached between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland, but not necessarily with the First Minister. At the end of the day, whose will prevails?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has suddenly dropped me into even deeper waters than those in which I was already splashing about in an ungainly manner a few moments ago. I sought within the framework to describe the relationship between the UK Minister for Trade and Industry and the Scottish responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Scotland negotiates with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on a range of matters. But in this area we are talking about Scottish Ministers, who would pursue the matter on the basis that we have agreement for the nature of the legislation involved.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister did not reply to my question on how the divisions are made between where agreement must be reached between the two, where they act jointly and where they consult. He must do much more thinking on the matter, as there is confusion.
GC 262
The Minister said that he hoped that the day was far ahead when different parties would be in power in the Scots Parliament and at Westminster. That may be so; I can understand his sentiment, but I think that I am right in saying—the Minister will know this—that civil servants working for the Scottish executive and those at Westminster try very hard, when the Government legislate, to ensure that the arrangements are robust enough for the very circumstance when there are different parties. We cannot just hope that such a change will never happen; it will probably happen one day, and all our legislation must be robust enough to stand up to it. The point made by my noble friend Lord Gray is very important in that respect. I hope that, if my noble friend withdraws his amendment. the Minister will think a lot more about the issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I apologise to the noble Baroness for my egregious political quip that it would be many decades before the political parties changed. I agree with her entirely; we must look at how the legislation works irrespective of the political relationships between the parties.
Lord Gray of Contin: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Supplemental functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Special functions in relation to pensions etc.]:
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 8, line 4, leave out "means" and insert "includes"
The noble Lord said: I apologise for being unable to speak at Second Reading and, unfortunately, for missing the first Committee sitting last week. I have read the Committee's deliberations in Hansard. Had I been present, I would have supported those in favour of reducing CO2 emissions, particularly through more nuclear build in future.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 are tabled in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and my noble friend Lord Lea. They relate to pension provisions for staff employed in nuclear decommissioning. The Bill refers to pension provision in several clauses and schedules. References in other parts of the Bill appear to give the NDA sufficient powers in respect of its own staff either to set up its own scheme or to keep them in the combined pension scheme. Clause 8 is important, because it provides the NDA with fairly wide powers to set up arid/or maintain an industry-wide scheme. We strongly welcome that.
In our view, an industry-wide scheme would allow for the provision of equivalent benefits to new starters and to contractors who do not have pension arrangements comparable with those already in place for people currently employed in the industry. This

GC 263
would also ensure future pensions continuity in the event that one of the current incumbent organisations on licensed sites failed to renew its contracts. The scheme should be open to all in the clean-up work force in order to provide an incentive to staff to remain in the industry for the long term.
The purpose of the amendments, therefore, is to ensure that aims can be fulfilled on a fully inclusive basis, thus avoiding the creation of a two-tier work force as regards pension arrangements. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My noble friend has already indicated that, under the terms of Clause 8(2), the provisions in relation to the ability of the NDA to run pension schemes are quite wide, enabling the position of existing public sector employees to be safeguarded and to provide for other workers who might be brought in. However, his amendment would have the effect of an open door on expanding the definition of "relevant employees" for whom the NDA could either establish or run a pension scheme, one without clear limits and which would effectively change the precise definitions set out in subsection (2). Employees could be added who are employed by private sector contractors and sub-contractors throughout the nuclear sector. That would mean that the NDA could establish or run a pension scheme for employees unrelated to its own principal function, which is the clean-up and decommissioning of designated sites.
The amendments could have an indirect effect whereby the NDA's focus would be diluted away from that main function, turning the body into a portmanteau pension fund administrator for people working on and off within nuclear premises. That is not the Government's intention for the new authority. We are seeking to give a certain degree of flexibility for both existing and new employees to be brought into the scheme, but not to make it an open door. That would not be in the interests of the core members of the scheme or of the existing employees due to join it.
I turn to the amendments seeking consultation with employees' representatives. That is a desirable principle and one which we would expect the NDA to pursue regarding all aspects of its pensions provision. Reference is made to the NDA establishing appropriate stakeholder functions, which would include addressing the issue of relationships with its employees. However, because the proposal referring to consultation with representatives of employees relates to the amendments seeking to push wide the door to allow all kinds of different groups of employees to come in, it is not particularly obvious why the NDA should be required to consult the representatives of people whose activities do not form part of the core functions set out in this Bill. It is difficult to envisage why they should be members of the scheme. So while we would be under a clear obligation to consult the trade unions and representatives of the NDA's own employees and pensioners, the amendment would require that consultation to go much wider.
GC 264
I shall have to resist the broad-based nature of my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: The Minister's response is not entirely surprising, although it is a little disappointing. We did not have it in mind to seek to extend the pension provision over such a wide area that the NDA would end up with a portmanteau pension burden. We envisaged points beyond which the pension provisions would not extend. Perhaps I should take the proposal away and seek a clearer definition of the points beyond which the provisions would not go. A proposal defining the extent to which consultation would take place might be more acceptable to the Minister. I shall reflect on the amendments and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [General duties when carrying out functions]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe moved Amendment No. 26
Page 8, line 23, at end insert "; and
(e) the need to protect the social and economic life of local communities"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 26 deals with a key group of stakeholders. Although radioactive waste is a national and international problem, any solution found by the Government or the NDA will have an impact on several communities of people and not just on the host community. Those communities must be considered as part of the deliberation process and not as part of the implementation. Transportation through communities; the impact of construction; environmental and economic impacts; and communities' familiarity with nuclear establishments must be taken into account. It is essential that trust be developed between any new responsible organisation and all of those stakeholders.
We hope that the amendment will not be contentious. Clearly particular local communities are likely to be directly affected—for example, in Caithness and Cumbria. The amendment, therefore, would make the promotion of their economic and social well-being a matter of duty for the new NDA. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend Lady Miller and I were privileged to be invited to meet the staff at Harwell. We spent most of Friday there. Harwell has a remarkable record of replacing a large number of individual nuclear facilities. Many of the oldest "piles", as they were then called but which became research reactors, have been successfully decommissioned. A slide-show was presented to us where every alternate picture contained the same image as the one that preceded it with the word "Gone" written across it.

GC 265
That is the decommissioning aspect of Harwell's work. However, we were impressed particularly by the extent to which UKAEA has been able, in collaboration with developers—and, no doubt, with local authorities and others—to find good uses for the land that is thus freed up from its original research and development function.
We were impressed, first, by the fact that new buildings have been constructed on the site, as has happened at Winfrith, for which UKAEA is responsible as well as for Harwell. In some cases, housing can be built on the site. A science park is being developed at Harwell. That is perhaps rather easier there than it may be in other places as it is close to Oxford. I suspect that there will be considerable demand there.
We were impressed also by the way in which the authority that carried out all that work had remained closely in touch with the local community. In one case, the groundwater of an area of land had become seriously polluted. We saw that the plant was effectively drawing in the polluting liquid, passing it up through filters and returning it to the ground. I believe that a local authority school shares a boundary with that site and that the UKAEA has good relations with it. There is plenty of experience to show that that can be done. I do not know whether it needs to be written into the Bill.
Cumbria may be a special case—as, indeed, may Dounreay. It is some years since I have been up to Dounreay; it takes a long time to get there and a long time to come back. I do not intend to reopen our debates on Second Reading and last Thursday about new nuclear build, but most sites of decommissioned power stations would be highly suitable for new build, if it were to happen. That would have the support of local communities, provide continuity of employment and have many other beneficial effects. However, there may be individual sites where that is impossible or inappropriate, so there should be a duty on the NDA to take account of the consequences of decommissioning and its impact on local communities.
From my experience in the Department of the Environment, when I was dealing with inner-city problems, I know that if we approach them in the right way and seek what I call bottom-up solutions, successful regeneration can often be accomplished with the support of local authorities and other agencies. If we try to impose that on people top-down, it does not work. There is plenty of evidence for that.
If the NDA will be doing the actual decommissioning work on the ground, it will in the course of preparing a site for decommissioning have the opportunity to engage in consultation to recognise the needs of the local community. I should be surprised if it did not regard it as part of its duty to do that work. Given that the UKAEA has been successfully doing that work on several sites for 12 years or more, there need not be too much gloom and despondency, feeling that we are sterilising land for several generations and so on. It is not: like that at all.
GC 266
I was both surprised and impressed by the story that the UKAEA told us. I report to the Committee that there can be an atmosphere of optimism in those circumstances that ought to enter our debate. I hate the idea that all we are doing is running things down. It must not be like that; all sorts of new opportunities can be created if people approach the matter in the right way. Other Members of the Committee might find it worthwhile to see the same presentation that we were given and to meet the impressive people doing that work on the Harwell site. Then they would recognise that there is life after death. There is sometimes too much feeling that there will be nothing after.
I end by describing one further experience. I had to handle the closing of the Chatham dockyard. I went down to Maidstone on a winter's day, when we had great difficulty getting through the snow, and encountered a community and a county council in the absolute depths of despair. Chatham dockyard was to close; what on earth could conceivably take its place? I can only suggest that people go down to see what is happening to Chatham now. There has been a huge resurgence of activity in the whole of that area, helped by sensible government policy. We need to create hope. I hope that the NDA must recognise that that is an important part of how it can create the psychology in which its work will become fruitful.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall speak to Amendment No. 32, which is grouped. My amendment would add to the powers of the NDA, where it is given,
"power to make grants or loans to persons undertaking activities benefiting the social or economic life of communities".
The Bill does not mention the environmental aspects of those communities. My amendment proposes that the environmental aspect should be grant-aided by the NDA in the same way as the social and economic life of the community.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell me that under the general duties in Clause 9(1)(b),
"the need to safeguard the environment",
satisfactorily covers the need to have regard to the environment when giving grants to communities. But I am not sure whether that is so. Some sites might need a great deal of environmental regeneration above and beyond the removal or containment of radioactive material. Therefore, the NDA should be able to grant aid in the form of environmental grants.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 26. I agree that regard to the social and economic life of those communities is extremely important. Providing that it is not necessary to go down the new nuclear build road to fulfil the spirit of the amendment, I support it, while remaining neutral on the other question.
I agree that current nuclear power sites may be suitable sites for new nuclear build, should that be the policy decision. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, those sites may also be suitable for other activities. A wind farm is already proposed for the site next to the nuclear power station at Hinckley Point.

GC 267
The Minister will recall that last week we had an interesting debate in your Lordships' House about tidal power from the Severn estuary. Hinckley Point might be a place where tidal power could be developed. For example, it could become a centre through which some tidal power infrastructure could be delivered. To that end, I support the noble Lord's amendment.
The Duke of Montrose: I am interested in the subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. My understanding is that she is mainly addressing the concerns that must have been addressed in Clause 9(1)(b) about what might be produced from a nuclear site. But if the element of,
"persons undertaking activities",
concerned with the environmental life of communities becomes part of the Bill, does the Minister see that extending to people wanting to plant a bank of trees to protect the environment not from the activities of the nuclear industry but more generally?
Lord Christopher: Perhaps I may add a word in substantial measure of support for what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. I shall not repeat it, but there is experience of what he said to be found in America. However, under the Bill, there is the additional aspect that contracts will be awarded. Experience has been that contracts have not always gone to local people, local firms or local work forces. If ever a history is written of what has taken place in the past 20 years under contracting out, we would find a remarkable amount of information to show that we have made savings, but that a comparable bill has been picked up by social services. There is no benefit in that whatever for communities. It is important that it is stated in the Bill that the local community must be considered with respect to contracts.
The other aspect is future job prospects, which certainly bears on what was said by my noble friend Lord Brooke and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is particularly the case in small areas. One could argue that in parts of Britain it is not a great problem because other opportunities are around in the community. That is not true in parts of Scotland or in Cumbria. I hope that the Minister can help, but the NDA or someone else needs to consider what will happen afterwards. Where are people who have had a decent education in Cumbria going to work if things have been run down over the decade?
I hope that we can include a provision in the Bill to bring comfort and encouragement and answer those questions.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some important speeches have been made on the amendments. I certainly support the spirit of Amendment No. 26, although the Minister may point out difficulties that would dissuade me. It seems important, not only for the immediate future, but for the long-term future. Communities that may be identified in future as places where new nuclear build might happen are far more
GC 268
likely to be sympathetic to having it in their midst if they know that people have been treated really well in the past.
As most nuclear power stations are in rather remote places, the community, such as it is, matters even more. As the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said, the job prospects and quality of life that pertain in that place matter desperately. I am simply sorry that noble Lords who have represented areas with power stations in Scotland are not in Committee, as I am sure that they would reiterate the point. Amendment No. 26 is very important.
Lord Whitty: I start by reassuring Members of the Committee that the role that the UKAEA and BNFL have played in the communities in which they operate will continue as an aspect of the NDA's activities when it takes over responsibility. I am familiar with what has gone on at Winfrith—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—and to a lesser extent in the Sellafield area. I am afraid that I have not revisited Harwell since I stopped working there 35 years ago.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I suggest that the noble Lord takes a map next time he goes, because he will not recognise the place.
Lord Whitty: I suspect that that is true. Clearly, where a big employer—in particular, a big public sector employer—changes the pattern of employment, and probably reduces it in this case in the short term, there are responsibilities. That is why we have ensured that the NDA will have sufficient funds to cover such activities.
Amendment No. 26 would put that duty on the same level as the duty to safeguard the environment, the duty to protect health and safety, the central duty to ensure that clean-up takes place, and the need to preserve nuclear security. That would unbalance the picture a little. I think it unlikely—I am speaking slightly out of turn—that the UKAEA under present statutes has an equivalent duty. However, it, BNFL as a limited company and the NDA will be able to use that power in future. Indeed, that is provided for to a significant extent in Clause 10(2)(c), which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, wishes to amend.
Nothing in the Bill as it stands prevents the NDA from acting in such a way. It is clearly the intention that it would, and it would be a corporate responsibility on the NDA to take account of the effect of its decisions and the manner of its decommissioning, for example, on the surrounding work force and community. To elevate that to a duty of the same order as its main functions, which would be far greater than one would expect of any large employer, would be going substantially further.
Moreover, if we get into an area to which my noble friend Lord Christopher, in particular, referred—placing responsibility on the NDA for regeneration of those sites—we move away from the focus of NDA activity. To a large extent, where a large employer, including a nuclear employer, cuts back on

GC 269
employment opportunities in an area, under our general regional policy we would expect the regional development agencies in England to take responsibility for regeneration, not a functional organisation such as the NDA. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to duplicate by giving the NDA a statutory responsibility for socio-economic regeneration. The NDA will have a function, under Clause 7(1)(e), and powers, under Clause 10(2)(c), to encourage and support economic regeneration. We would expect it to work with local authorities and others in delivering that regeneration, as has been the case with existing nuclear authorities.
The Government announced in December that we are setting up a strategic task force charged with developing a sustainable vision and plan for the economic and social regeneration of west Cumbria. That will be a collaboration between central Government, local authorities, the private sector and the social sector, involving BNFL and other large companies in the area, but it will be led by the North West Development Agency. That is the appropriate way forward for socio-economic regeneration. The NDA has a function and power, but it would be a step too far to impose what is suggested as an equivalent duty.
By Amendment No. 32, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, suggests that we extend Clause 10(2)(c) to include environmental projects. She suggested that there were inadequate powers, functions and duties regarding the environmental aspects of the site. The NDA's duties on site clean-up cover all necessary environmental remediation on those sites and any others on which it has an effect. Those duties are clear and therefore always apply. Slipping "environmental" into this clause would make the duty much wider, and would go beyond the direct and indirect consequences of the NDA's own activity and that of its predecessor organisations on the site.
Nevertheless, there is perhaps an argument for considering the amendment in the context of environmental schemes, such as the school referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Involvement in providing clean water away from the site would not necessarily fall under the clean-up and environmental duties related to the site. Nevertheless, the NDA may wish to make a grant or a contribution in kind to delivering such an outcome. The word "environmental" may need to be included, although obviously the example given would be covered by "social" and probably "economic" life. I am therefore unsure whether the exclusion is particularly evident.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The water example is particularly interesting. So long as water suppliers operated under the local authority and were part of the public sector, nobody knew anything about the underground pollution that had apparently existed for many years. As soon as a private sector water undertaker took over and recognised that it would be responsible for delivering clean water supplies, it carried out a number
GC 270
of test drills on the site and discovered the considerable pollution that had lain undisturbed for many years. It had been added to, as industrial processors had simply been dumping waste, which percolated through the chalk and entered the groundwater.
That is an interesting case, as exactly the same thing happened with the nuclear industry. Not until it faced the prospect of privatisation did the question of the liabilities for clean-up and so on come to the fore. That is why, originally, nuclear power stations were withdrawn from the electricity privatisation arrangements. It is when the private sector recognises that it is facing liabilities that the work is done; that is, the necessary numbers are discovered so that it is possible to embark on the clean-up. That is an interesting thought and I shall leave it with the Minister.
Lord Whitty: I shall treat it as an interesting thought. The NDA would be responsible for any historic or current pollution deriving from activity on the site for which it was responsible. That would apply in the public sector and would not necessarily require any change of ownership for the body to have to face up to the liability.
Amendment No. 32 asks whether, in addition to the environmental liabilities and consequences both on and deriving from the site, the NDA should be able to engage in environmental schemes more widely throughout the community, as well as whether they are covered by the term "social" in this context. I should like to take that point away for further consideration.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this short and interesting debate and I am pleased that it will be put on the record. In particular I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that we have some very good examples of what has been done, although problems have arisen and continue to arise in certain areas. It is important that responsibility is accepted for those problems and efforts made to resolve them.
I am not certain whether I could fully allay the fears expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, if we had the offer of a rebuild on an existing site. But I do not think that such a proposal is current and so I shall make no further comment on it.
I take the major points made by the Minister about the difficulty of seeming to impose a full duty on the NDA in the way provided for in the amendment. In the light of that, I shall consider carefully what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert—

"(e) not to act in a way which will or may put a site licensee in breach of any of its nuclear site licence conditions, nor shall it give any direction to a management and

GC 271
operations contractor to act in a way which would put its site licence at risk or lay it open to enforcement proceedings; and

(f) to maintain the commercial confidentiality of BNFL and UKAEA and any management and operations contractor in respect of information disclosed to the NDA in the course of its performance of its functions pursuant to the provisions of any part of this Act."

The noble Baroness said: In a few moments I shall address Amendment No. 29. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding will cover the other amendments in the grouping. While we are still discussing the future course of this Bill, I want to raise with the Minister a very important issue. I shall do so now because this is my first opportunity to speak today. I hope that he will treat my remarks with the utmost seriousness, as I believe they could involve an issue of parliamentary privilege.
On a number of occasions when I and colleagues on this side of the Committee have been seeking information from operators within the industry, we have encountered what I can only describe as—if not exactly a climate of fear—certainly an atmosphere of anxiety. We have been told that if information is provided to us, then those organisations providing such information fear that they could face serious adverse consequences from a government department. I presume that they were referring to the Department of Trade and Industry.
That is astonishing and I should say to members of the Committee that I have no intention of mentioning any names. However, it is correct that I should tell the Committee that three companies have spoken to us within the past few days. That is a serious matter.
I have dealt with many Bills and with many Ministers—although I have never had the pleasure of dealing with this Minister—and I have never encountered such problems. It certainly would be a breach of privilege if any signal had been given to any organisation by any civil servant, special adviser or Minister that a public body should not be open with a Member of the House on an issue that is not commercially sensitive. That we would understand.
Can the Minister make a clear statement on the record that neither he nor any department has discouraged or will discourage any public sector firm or body from assisting or briefing Members of the House on the Bill? Can he confirm on the record that neither he nor any member of his department has asked for any reports on private briefings given by the industry to Members of the House? Can he also give a clear statement on the record that he encourages the fullest co-operation with opposition parties? After all, the issue of the future of the nuclear industry will span many decades. It is certainly not the private possession of whichever government is in power.
I have been extremely disturbed by suggestions that people have been leant on not to brief opposition spokesmen fully. If that were the case, it would most definitely be a breach of privilege. I hope that the Minister can provide an unequivocal assurance on that point.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: When I first heard about this, I was deeply disturbed. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to my noble friend before she goes on to move the amendment. I am sure that he will be as disturbed as we were when we heard about it.
I have dealt with six if not seven Bills opposite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and we have always experienced very good relationships in the past with whomever has briefed us—often they have briefed the Government and ourselves. That is not a problem. I do not know why the issue has arisen on this Bill, but it needs sorting out before we consider the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the Minister responds to the question, I very much endorse what has been said by my noble friend Lady Byford. We should quickly clear up the matter because, after all, the amendments relate to confidentiality.
I have certainly experienced it. There are one or two issues that we shall put forward in Grand Committee on the Bill—the amendments are already on the Order Paper—in respect of which I have felt it necessary to agree, with some reluctance, to a request that the source of the amendment should, in no circumstances, be disclosed. It was a public body. We were invited to visit Harwell by the senior manager of the decommissioning unit. At the "Energy Choices" conference, he asked whether it would help if he showed us some of the decommissioning work that the UKAEA had carried out. His head of communications wrote the next day to follow up that arrangement, and we went there last Friday.
In the midst of all the splendid information that we were given—I hope that I gave the Committee a flavour of it a few minutes ago—we detected more than a hint that perhaps people there were telling us things which their political masters would not be best pleased about. I find that horrifying. I believe that it stems from the culture of control that emanates right from the top. Like my noble friend Lady Miller, I have taken part as a Minister and as an opposition spokesman in a large number of Bills. I have never come across anything like that.
We have received briefs from some of the public sector companies. Is that frowned on? The Minister needs to give a firm reassurance to the Committee and to those outside who have expressed such apprehensions that this not a part of the Government's policy and that any attempt to lean on the directors and managers of such companies will be firmly resisted and will not be allowed to happen. Otherwise, I can see that we may get ourselves into considerable difficulties. Perhaps the Minister would like to respond to that point.
Lord Whitty: I find this somewhat difficult because, although a number of accusations have been made, they have necessarily been made in general terms. I understand why noble Lords feel the need to protect their sources. I am certainly not aware of any instruction from my department or the Department of Trade and Industry to prevent the normal courtesies

GC 273
and information being provided to all Members of the House from whatever party. It is possible that, as with many other Bills, where we have known there has been briefing coming from organisations public and private we have asked to see such briefings. So, as regards that part of the noble Baroness's remarks, that kind of situation could have occurred and might have been misunderstood by those who provide such briefings.
It is difficult to know whether there is any substance in the fears that people have obviously expressed to noble Lords. A part of the nuclear industry has been subject to such fears in the past, and there is concern in elements of the nuclear industry about the way in which the Government are dealing with the role of nuclear power in the future. This has led to some people being prepared to believe anything of Ministers. But, as I say, I would be astounded if any instructions were to go from any of my colleagues— or, indeed, from our senior civil servants—to prevent the normal courtesies being afforded to Members of the House.
I shall obviously make inquiries on the basis of what noble Lords have said today. If any noble Lord wishes to speak to me privately, I shall be happy to do so to see whether we can throw any further light on the situation. That is probably all that I can say at this point. If necessary, I shall come back to the Committee at a later stage to report on what, if anything, I have found out about what lies behind the accusations. I hope that we can leave the matter there for the moment.
I recognise the seriousness of the concerns expressed by noble Lords and agree that they need to be looked into. Even in an industry where a great deal is confidential and secret, people need to be reassured that there will be openness with parliamentarians. My colleagues and I certainly accept that principle.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for that answer. I apologise to him that the issue arose only two or three minutes before I came into the Committee, otherwise I would most definitely have given him notice of it.
The Minister said that, if necessary, he would come back and report to the Committee. I believe that that will be necessary on the points I have made, which he can read in Hansard tomorrow. We want it on the record that such things should not be happening; that they will not happen again; and that, to the best of the Minister's knowledge, they have not happened in the past. That is important.
I should like to speak now to Amendment No. 29. The amendment would add two essential paragraphs to Clause 9, which relates to the general duties of the NDA when carrying out its statutory functions. Although the amendments to the NDA's duties are essential, they are not in any way onerous. Indeed, they cover the way in which we would expect the NDA and any responsible public body to act without being told. That, however, is not a reason why the issue should not be spelled out in unambiguous terms in the Bill, which is after all the constitutional charter of the NDA.
GC 274
There are two short additional paragraphs which are, as I am sure that Members of the Committee will see, entirely self-explanatory. In the first, the NDA, which is being given very wide powers over nuclear sites, is forbidden to give directions which make the site operator fall between two stools. That is an important issue to which we will want to return in more detail. On the one hand, we are talking about disobeying a legitimate requirement of the NDA, and on the other about breaching the terms of the licence.
In that context, I would like to draw the Committee's attention to a provision similar to the amendment, which is to be found in Clause 18(7). It reads:
"A direction under this section cannot authorise a contravention in relation to an installation, site or facility of any obligation to which the person with control of it is subject by or under an enactment".
In other words, the NDA is forbidden to give a direction that contravenes a statute or a statutory order. My amendment deals with directions given by the NDA which do not contravene an actual statute, but which contravene a licence given by the Secretary of State. In the interests of consistency, the same regime should apply in both circumstances.
I propose my second new subsection to the clause because many companies—BNFL is one—are engaged in trading activities relating to the nuclear industry. They are all concerned about the commercially sensitive and confidential information that the NDA might legitimately demand of them. As my noble friend pointed out, the group of amendments is to do with confidentiality. Those trading companies are entitled to expect that commercially confidential information should be kept confidential. Having been forced to impart information that they would normally keep under the tightest of security, they do not want to find it published in some report or handout of the NDA, passed on to a competitor in response to some query, or even—I agree that it is far less likely—blurted out in a moment of indiscretion.
On more than one occasion, I have been refused a detailed answer to some legitimate question by Ministers, although not this Minister, on the grounds that the information that I sought was commercially confidential and sensitive. I do not complain about that, nor do I suggest that the Ministers concerned are in any way being evasive. However, it is required that the NDA understands right from the outset of its existence that the same high standard of confidentiality is required of it. It must understand that with its power to demand information to enable it to carry out its statutory duties comes the duty of respecting the property rights of those being interrogated and questioned. By that, I mean their rights to their own commercial secrets. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: We are discussing a large number of other amendments with Amendment No. 29, and they are all concerned with the issue of confidential information. We had what proved an interesting debate on the subject on Thursday in relation to certain matters that came up earlier in the

GC 275
Bill. As I said at the time, we found the Minister facing two ways. In one way, he sought, no doubt from perfectly honourable motives, to promote transparency in the matter. At the same time, however—
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5 p.m. to 5.12 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): We have had 12 minutes since the adjournment. Perforce but rudely I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, so perhaps he would like to continue his speech.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am tempted to echo the Mayor of London in his first speech after being elected. He started by saying, "As I was so rudely interrupted", which I thought was a good start. I was not rudely interrupted; I was interrupted under the Standing Orders.
We return to the same issue that we debated last Thursday; namely, the apparent conflict between what is in the Bill, which provides protection only for matters of national security, and the Freedom of Information Act. It will come into force next year and, in addition to national security, it allows for commercial confidentiality.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will recognise that perhaps Thursday's debate was not his finest hour. He said a number of things from which I take some encouragement. He stated:
"I would be verging on the excessively optimistic, if I thought that this was the last that we would hear of the argument in the context of this Bill".—[Official Report, 15/01/04; col. GC 177.]
Perhaps he did not recognise that the argument would arise again the following Tuesday. Later, he stated:
"The whole point of the Committee stage is for us to think seriously about such representations".—[Official Report, 15/01/04; col. GC 179.]
I shall say no more on that aspect. I hope that the Government are thinking seriously about the matter. It is not only Members on this side of the Committee, but others who have studied the debate, who felt that the Government's position was untenable. It is perfectly clear that the NDA and contractors must have the same action as will be open to them when the Freedom of Information Act comes into force. I do not intend to take that point further.
This group of amendments refers to a number of functions of the NDA that arise later in the Bill. It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that many of the amendments are in virtually identical form. They have been tabled because they refer to different aspects of the NDA's activities, but exactly the same considerations of confidentiality apply.
I shall refer in a few moments to Amendment No 36, which deals with Schedule 2. What I shall say on that amendment will apply equally to the others. Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 refer to the NDA's strategy reports and documents; Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 refer to the NDA's annual plan; Amendment No. 54
GC 276
refers to the annual report; and Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 refer to directions given by the NDA to contractors. The same considerations apply to all.
I draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 36. I shall not read it all because noble Lords will have it in front of them. New paragraph 5A(1) forbids the disclosure of information,
"otherwise than under an enactment"—
if there were a statutory authority, that would override it—
"[that] would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any person".
Then it requires that the NDA,
"shall consider whether the disclosure of the information is strictly necessary in order to fulfil such requirements and shall not disclose the information unless it is strictly necessary".
Secondly, it states:
"the NDA shall not disclose the information unless or until the person to whom it is to be disclosed has agreed to be bound by confidentiality obligations in substantially the same terms as those which are binding on the NDA".
That is the requirement that there should be no disclosure unless it is strictly necessary and that the person to whom it is to be disclosed should be bound by the same obligations.
Amendment No. 37 refers to anything,
"the publication of which would…constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any person and anything".
Amendment No. 38 states:
"The NDA may exclude from what it publishes under this paragraph anything which constitutes a trade secret or the publication of which would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of any person".
The requirements set out in Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 are substantially the same as those in the other amendments in the group. I need not weary the Committee by going through them seriatim. I do not think that the Committee would approve of that.
The issue is the same: there are matters of commercial confidentiality which it would be highly undesirable to breach and for the information to become public. The amendments set out the conditions that the NDA must fulfil.
There are several aspects to this. On Thursday, we considered whether contractors would be willing to bid for contracts if they thought that their commercial information and trade secrets would become public knowledge. There was also the question of whether individuals would be damaged if information that did not need to be published was published.
There are two aspects that I would like to add to that. I start with an apology to the Committee. It has recently come to our attention that there will be considerable problems between the NDA and the various regulators that will operate in this field—for instance, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, part of the Health and Safety Executive, and various other nuclear bodies with regulatory functions. It has been drawn to my attention that there should be some provision in the Bill to regularise that aspect and to

GC 277
make it clear that the addition of a new body in the form of the NDA will not merely add yet another layer of control, regulation and interference.
As we have said repeatedly, we support the creation of the NDA and the thrust of Part 1 of the Bill, but there are problems. We will probably have to return to them on Report as it was only comparatively recently that they were drawn to our attention.
There is one other matter on which I invite Ministers to comment. It is widely recognised that Ministers have been taking advice from experts in commercial firms and consultancies around the world. Much wisdom is to be gained in the field of decommissioning, not least from the United States of America, along with other countries. I assume that the NDA, with a comparatively small staff of only 200, will also want to rely substantially on consultancy advice from a variety of experts.
It has been pointed out that there would be a considerable conflict of interest if a firm were to provide advice to the DTI or to the NDA—and in doing so be privy to much of the information that flows into those bodies—and then to challenge existing operators for a new contract. It would be difficult for it to sit on both sides of the table.
Is there a case for Chinese walls within those firms? They are firms with international reputations. The answer one hears is: "Well, we could have a Chinese wall, but nobody would trust it". One cannot expect a large firm with substantial interests around the world somehow to maintain a clear dividing line between those privy to the information from the Government or the NDA and those who are not, with only the latter entitled to go into contract. Nobody would trust such a system and it is clearly not the answer.
I do not know the answer; I know only that there is a problem—one that the Government need to address. Perhaps safeguards cannot be written into the Bill. 1 have looked at how that might be done. It is difficult to see how one could do it without imposing unreasonable restrictions on the Government or the NDA in seeking outside advice. An arrangement has to be made for those who are privy to important, secret, commercial information about an operator which is known both by the NDA and the Government. It is right that such information should be made available to the advisers. Otherwise, how can they offer advice? However, there is a danger that those same advisers and the firms that employ them can then use the information to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
I am sure that the Minister's department has been made aware of this anxiety and knows all about it. The amendments raise the whole question of commercial confidentiality. I have referred to two areas in which it may be necessary; namely, the interaction of the various regulatory bodies and the position of competing contractors, some of whom have an inside
GC 278
track. I hope the Minister will recognise that those are serious matters which should be addressed before the Bill reaches the statute book.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall start on a note of agreement. They certainly are serious matters. When I foretold last week that we would not progress far with the Bill before the issue of confidentiality re-emerged, I had not anticipated it being quite so soon. The noble Lord chided me then that it had not been my finest hour. We are granted only one hour that is our finest. Therefore, I am sure that he will not mind if I again descend into the mundane today. I assure the Committee that I may well speak for an hour because I want to respond to a substantial number of points. The issues under discussion are essential to the satisfactory work and operation of the NDA once the Bill becomes law.
Let me start by addressing the issue of regulatory compliance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, raised. I want to reassure her that the regulatory requirements under a licence are statutory obligations that flow from the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. I do not think, therefore, that her anxiety in this respect is well founded. The statutory obligations already in place mean that the requirements will be the same as anything prescribed in statute. I hope that the noble Baroness will be assured that we are watertight on the clarity of the obligations being laid on those concerned with regulation.
The Bill does not change the regulatory regime applying to nuclear sites designated to the NDA. Site licensees or persons with control—to use the parlance of the Bill—remain bound by regulations that derive from existing legislation. That includes all the regulatory obligations set out in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and the Pollution, Prevention and Control Regulations 2000, as amended, or made under Section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. All these are recognised statutes, and the obligations flow from them.
I can give the noble Baroness a further clear assurance: the NDA cannot require a person with control to contravene such obligations. A direction from the NDA that purported to authorise a contravention of a licence condition or other regulatory obligations would be unlawful. Persons with control of a site could not be obliged to comply with an unlawful direction. The essence of the arrangements set out in this Bill is that the regulatory framework, with all its obligations and enforcement mechanisms, remains quite unchanged. However, it is not good practice to include provisions for that in legislation, since we have all the relevant statutory duties in place.
We recognise the importance of this issue, and I appreciate the terms in which the noble Baroness sought to express her concerns. Effective working relationships between the regulators, the NDA and the site licensees and contractors—the "golden triangle" of decommissioning and clean-up activities—lie at the heart of the new arrangements provided in the Bill. We

GC 279
have devoted considerable efforts to ensuring that regulators are comfortable with what we propose. A draft memorandum of understanding between the regulators and the NDA has already been agreed. Regulators will need to finalise the details with the NDA once it has been established. Regulators will be key contributors to the development of the NDA's strategy and annual plans, and the site remediation plans to be produced by site licensees.
Regulators will work with the NDA to assist persons with control to produce work plans for the sites that are consistent both with the strategy of the NDA and the regulatory imperatives. Nothing will compromise the independence of the regulators to rule on appropriate safety, security or environmental standards.
We believe, therefore, in relation to concern that persons with control or contracts might be caught in the middle of the NDA and the regulator, as I think that the noble Baroness suggested, that it is quite clear that such anxieties are ill founded. The duties of a site licensee in respect of regulatory compliance in Clause 17(2) place a negative duty on persons with control to ensure that, in discharging their responsibilities to the NDA, there is no contravention of other statutory obligations, including regulatory ones.
That is as far as we can properly go to spell out what continues to apply as a matter of good regulatory practice. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she does not need to press Amendment No. 29.
I shall turn to the other substantial issue, that of commercial confidentiality, which relates to the proposed new paragraph (f) in Amendment No. 29 and to some other amendments, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke at some length. We considered the protection of commercially sensitive information in outline at our previous sitting. I am pleased that I have the opportunity to advance the Government's case a little further. Although I made the position as clear as I could last week, I recognise that I did not obtain universal satisfaction throughout the Committee, and I accept the fact that the amendments reflect that anxiety. I shall therefore take them as probing amendments that give me the opportunity to give all the reassurances that Opposition Peers want on the matters today.
First, I shall set out the Government's broad approach to the question, which we discussed to an extent last week. The Government are of course committed to the NDA being a champion of openness and transparency. The White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy, stated that the ability of the NDA to command public confidence was to be a measure of its success as much as its operational performance and cost-effectiveness. Public accountability through open and transparent operation will be absolutely fundamental to the NDA's success. We will set specific objectives for the NDA in that respect in, for example, the context of providing information to the public, and to local stakeholders in particular. We have been
GC 280
developing a stakeholder engagement framework with that in mind, which we expect the NDA to take on and to develop once it is established.
That effort has been a central part of carrying all stakeholders—employees, local communities, unions and environmental groups—with us. Excessive secrecy is seen as one of the failings of the nuclear industry in the past. It is something that we must change if the NDA is to command public confidence.
Secondly, the NDA is the body responsible for securing safe, secure and cost-effective clean-up. It must have access to and be able to take decisions on the disclosure of information that it considers necessary to carry out its statutory functions effectively. In that regard, BNFL and the UKAEA as existing site licensees become vehicles for the NDA to achieve its objectives. They will operate their sites for the sole purpose of meeting the NDA's objectives.
Under Clause 17(2), the person with control of a designated installation, site or facility can use it and any interests or rights in it—under subsection (8), that includes a process, information or document—only in order to discharge the NDA's responsibilities. It is very important to keep the nature of the relationship between the NDA and its site licensees, and the fact that the only party with an interest in the information is the NDA, firmly in mind.
Thirdly, the NDA's relationship with its contractors will, of course, be governed by contract. Notwithstanding the powers of direction in the Bill, which provide the necessary framework for the NDA to exercise its powers in the absence of a contract, our intention is that the NDA will secure clean-up through contractual arrangements for the management of the site licensee companies. Many of the powers of direction fall away with the existence of a contract. It is for the NDA and the contractors to make provision for confidentiality in their contract. It is not the intention, nor is it desirable, that the Government should legislate on the content of contracts. Should there be such provisions, the NDA, as any party to such a contract, will be bound by them. With those factors in mind it becomes easier to see the limits of the legitimate commercial interests of the different players and the appropriate treatment of commercially sensitive information in a particular case. The NDA will have access to information on the contractors on the basis of the contract drawn up.
I shall respond to the areas covered by the amendments in turn. I apologise for the length of my speech, but it goes to the heart of some of the most substantial issues in the Bill, which have already caused considerable concern earlier today and during last week's sitting.
Proposed paragraph (f) in Amendment No. 29 provides for a general duty on the NDA to maintain the commercial confidentiality of BNFL, the UKAEA and contractors. As will have been clear from the general principles that I have just adumbrated, the NDA's approach to protecting commercially sensitive information in respect of its management and operations contractors will be governed by contract.

GC 281
In respect of BNFL and the UKAEA as site licensees, the NDA has a principal interest in the operation of the designated sites and any related information. It is appropriate, therefore, that the NDA should be free to decide what information in that area it should disclose. As the beneficiary of commercial activity at its designated sites, the NDA will have a direct interest in ensuring appropriate protection of sensitive commercial information. But it must be free to decide what needs to be made available to potential contractors so that it can facilitate effective competition for contracts to manage site-licensee companies. That point was at the heart of discussions last week, and I hope that I have clarified it today.
The site-licensee companies will not be market players in the sense that their role is not subject to competition. The Government's view is that the current work force and, in some shape or form, the companies for which they work will remain in place for the duration of the clean-up programme to ensure continuity and provide regulatory assurance. Consequently, and given what I have already said about open and transparent operation providing a basis for public confidence in the NDA, the Government do not consider general provisions on protecting commercial information either necessary or helpful.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Before the Minister departs from that point, will he clarify what he means by saying that site licensees are not subject to competition? As I understand it, under the arrangements they are appointed for a time-limited period that appears to be quite short. The agencies that are so contracted must regard themselves as subject to subsequent competition for subsequent contracts. That could press down heavily on operators.
Lord Davies of Oldham: For the time being, the site licensees will fit within the rubric that I identified—in a separate category from other contractors. That is how they would fit into the pattern regarding the confidentiality of the information that they would possess. They will be in a special relationship with the NDA; therefore, the NDA is bound to be the arbiter of any information that is put into the public domain.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, discussed Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 on the NDA's strategy, and Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 on the NDA's annual plan. He also dealt with Amendment No. 54 on the NDA's annual report, which would require it to secure the agreement of third parties before disclosing information that would constitute an actionable breach of confidence, and to abjure from disclosing trade secrets and information whose disclosure would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of a third party. The only parties in those circumstances will be NDA contractors and site licensees. As I sought to describe, they are in a relationship with the NDA covered by the principle regarding the nature of the information that will necessarily be made available.
GC 282
For the former, I reiterate that the protection of commercially confidential information will he governed by contract. The contractor, like any other person, will have recourse to the usual legal sanctions to enforce such a contract. The NDA will be bound by the contract with site licensees, because their sole purpose will be to operate their sites to facilitate the discharge of the NDA's functions. To reiterate the point to the noble Lord, there is no distinction between the site licensees' interests and those of the NDA. It is therefore surely right that the NDA should decide what it needs to disclose in its relationships with them in pursuit of its overall objective of public accountability.
On Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, which focus on NDA directions to the person with control to disclose information to the NDA, I have already explained the nature of the NDA's relationships with its site licensees. Their interests are identical. To the extent that a site licensee is exposed to claims for breach of confidence, the NDA, which stands behind the site licensees, will be exposed to the financial consequences of a breach of confidence that it has sanctioned.
In the normal operation of the NDA, it will be natural—indeed, essential—for the NDA and site licensees to work closely together. They can be expected to have a common interest in appropriate protection of commercially sensitive information. It bears repetition that the NDA has responsibility for ensuring effective clean-up and encouraging effective competition for site management contracts. It therefore must have power to make decisions about what information concerning the operation of facilities at sites needs to be made available to potential contractors.
I apologise for the length of my response, but all sides of the Committee regard the amendments as important. I bear in mind that this may not be our last discussion of these issues, but I am doing my best to guide the Committee, so that we focus on the points of real disagreement between us.
Amendment No. 61 refers to protecting commercially sensitive information in respect of designation directions for related sites. That was mentioned during our previous sitting. Directions for designated sites will set out what is being designated. They will be a factual description of for what the NDA is being given responsibility. It is important that the NDA and the person with control of the site are clear about the precise extent of the NDA's responsibilities, which must be made public. The only justifiable exclusion for identifying what is to be dealt with would be on grounds of national security. Anxiety has not been expressed in the Committee about the definitions that relate to information that is necessarily protected for reasons of national security. I therefore cannot understand what commercial interests could be involved, and ask that Amendment No. 61 is not pressed.
We take serious note of the Committee's concern about the question of commercial confidentiality. I hope that what I have said goes further than I managed

GC 283
last time in clarifying the issues and demonstrates why the Government have taken the stance that we have. There is no intention for the NDA to play fast and loose with commercially confidential information to which it has access. It has as much, if not more, at stake in the game than any of the other players—especially site licensees. We are trying to allow the NDA to operate against the principles that we have adumbrated: as much openness and accountability as can be obtained while conducting itself with its contractors and site licensees in a way that guarantees that anxieties about commercial information are misplaced.
On that basis, and apologising once again for the length of my response, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: Before my noble friends respond, can the Minister first elaborate a little on his reply to Amendment No. 36? He made it clear that what is required in this Bill is the same as the statutory requirements set out in other Bills. I think that he quoted legislation from 1965, 1993, 1999 and the PP&C regulations issued in 2000. Can the Minister guide me on where to find such a reference, because I cannot find it?
Secondly, if nothing is written down and it is simply to be accepted by assumption, would it not be sensible to accept Amendment No. 36? I say that because the Minister has not explained why he objects to it other than to say that he thinks that this appears somewhere else. He has not taken apart the wording proposed by my noble friends. Can the Minister direct me to the provisions in the present Bill which ensure that we do not need to worry about Amendment No. 36? If there are no such provisions, does he not agree that this would be an ideal opportunity to reinforce the point?
As I have said many times when debating legislation with the Minister's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, to expect people in the outside world to refer back to legislation produced in 1965, 1993, 1999 and 2000 is perhaps rather silly. Would it not he more sensible to include an appropriate form of words? Even if he is not willing to accept the proposal of my noble friend—whose words are rather good—I hope that the Minister will accept that it would be more sensible to specify this point.
It should not be possible for the NDA to pass confidential information to any person and a form of words should make that clear. I would be grateful for further comments.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall address the second point put to me by the noble Baroness. We can certainly look at the question of clarification because we are always mindful of the concerns expressed about cross-referencing in legislation. However, the premise behind the Bill is that we do not have to include all the provisions set out in past Acts governing the regulatory operation of the NDA because they derive directly from such legislation. I recognise that the
GC 284
noble Baroness may consider that I cited a rather obsessive list—it was quite a mouthful—but she will see that we are not referring to Acts of Parliament which go back for aeons. The oldest Act referred to was passed in 1965 and I referred to only three Acts in total.
If the noble Baroness is not referring to an issue of principle here but rather addressing the effort of the amendment to make things clearer, then perhaps we shall be able to look at it. However, we seek to minimise cross-referencing in legislation and we have to balance the argument that including every reference to previous measures in new Bills means that the statutes grow too thick. If we were to include every cross reference in new legislation we would be padding out these documents even further.
The legislation relates to the sources of the regulatory obligations and puts them on a statutory basis. They go far wider than the responsibilities put on the NDA. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that we are seeking to define the regulatory obligations which relate to the NDA whereas the Acts of Parliament to which cross-references are made involve much wider provisions than those relating to that body. Therefore it would not be appropriate to include them in the framework of this Bill. I shall certainly consider whether it will be possible to meet the noble Baroness's point of clarification in other parts of the Bill.
The noble Baroness will recognise the issue of principle that I am seeking to establish in this area. We are not creating anything afresh for the NDA with this legislation in terms of the nature of its obligations. That is why I was able to give an assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in respect of Amendment No. 29.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend responds to the speech of the Minister on Amendment No. 29, perhaps I may offer one or two observations on what he said about the remaining amendments.
I was intrigued by his reference to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. It was the first piece of legislation in which I played any part as a Member of Parliament—then as now as an opposition Member. It was made perfectly clear that the Bill was on the stocks at the time of the election and the incoming government wisely decided to introduce it. That was quite a long time ago.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord but I get the impression that we are aiming at a moving target. On Thursday we were given a long description—I shall not repeat it—of the way in which the Freedom of Information Act would apply to publications by the NDA, and were told that people will have a commercial confidentiality defence available under the FIA.
The Minister has shifted his tack today. Over the weekend he has probably recognised that that was a rather difficult argument. If the FIA was going to give protection, why not say so in the Bill? He has now moved to the rather different view that this will all

GC 285
come under a contractual relationship between the NDA and the contractors, and that it will be for the parties to that agreement to decide how far commercial confidentiality should go in terms of the publication of the documents referred to—the strategy document, the plan, the annual report and so on.
I shall study the Minister's words very carefully because it seems to me that he may be on stronger ground today than he was last Thursday. I find the idea that this matter could be properly dealt with within a contractual relationship rather more attractive than the suggestion that it could all be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. I shall consider the matter very carefully between now and Report.
I do not need any lessons on the value of transparency in this matter. I was, after all, a member of the Select Committee of the House which looked at the whole question of nuclear management and nuclear waste. One of our recommendations was very clear. In the summary of conclusions, at paragraph 8.8, we stated that openness and transparency in decision-making were necessary in order to gain public trust. We then went on to say that by themselves they are not enough, which of course I accept.
As I said at Second Reading, I totally welcome the commitment to transparency, but there clearly is a conflict as to how that will work in relation to what the Minister has recognised could be commercially sensitive information. He has suggested now that this could be dealt with by contract. I shall wish to consult on this with those advising us and to look carefully at what the Minister said. I was conscious of the fact that he was sticking closely to his brief on this issue, which obviously means that someone has given the matter a great deal of thought. I recognise the process. Clearly we cannot vote on the amendment now but I shall look very carefully at the issue.
I had hoped that the Minister might say, "There are serious points here. Obviously the Opposition will wish to look at what I have said". It would have been jolly nice if he had clearly said that there were serious points at which we would want to look again before Report. If he had said that, we would have gone home happier, but he was very careful not to say it. Perhaps that was a mistake.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The length of time that we have taken in explaining the amendments, and the large amount of time that the Minister took to reply, point to the very importance of what we were talking about. The Minister said that he was very glad that this was a question on which we had tabled probing amendments, so that he could probe when giving his answer. All amendments are probing amendments in Committee; we can do nothing other than probe and highlight issues, to ask Ministers what they think. When we get a long answer such as that given today— it is a long time since I moved the amendment—we need to look at it very carefully to ensure that we have understood exactly what has been said, as we think the matter important.
GC 286
I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that we are not going home exactly exuberant, but that we have certainly been led to look at that answer very carefully. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 22, after "State" insert ", who shall report to the appropriate Parliamentary body,"
The noble Baroness said: The Minister, in summing up, said that he did not think that there were any concerns about the information that needed to be protected in the interests of national security. Perhaps the amendment is not so much about a concern as about probing—I accept that probing is all that we can do. The point is minor, but I wanted something on record about what would happen in the event that the Secretary of State directed or notified the NDA that the information needed to be protected in the interests of national security. Therefore, it could not be in the public domain or discussed or seen by the public.
My amendment simply enables the Minister to tell us how the Secretary of State will be accountable. To what parliamentary body does he report, if any? I am thinking of the way in which the Intelligence and Security Committee keeps an eye on sensitive information coming out of the MoD. Where will any parliamentary input be made into such information? That is an important point. Although I can see the reason why some information will need to be protected in the interests of national security, I would not like to think that the decision about such information rests alone with the Secretary of State, without anyone else having input or oversight at all. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness is better at asking questions than providing solutions to the problem. She will recognise that Parliament makes very particular arrangements for sensitive information relating to national security. Within the framework of the issues affecting the nuclear industry, I cannot see that we can be anything other than entirely secure and scrupulous.
Clause 9(7) sets out to protect national security by requiring the NDA to protect information which the Secretary of State considers to be sensitive and requiring protection in the interests of national security. Surely that is entirely appropriate and in keeping with government practice on how to handle sensitive information. Amendment No. 30, to which the noble Baroness has just spoken, proposes that under Clause 9(7) the Secretary of State should report to Parliament whenever the NDA is notified about sensitive, protected information.
Of course the Secretary of State will take advice before deciding to notify the NDA of information that should be protected in the interests of national security. We are addressing here the most fundamental interests of our society. While we want the NDA to

GC 287
operate with the utmost openness and transparency, we must have appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive nuclear information, which we all recognise could be used against us should it fall into the wrong hands.
Where national security considerations are involved, especially in the current climate, appropriate limits must be set on the disclosure of information. Clause 9(7) sets those limits to ensure that the NDA protects sensitive nuclear information,
"in the interests of national security".
The Secretary of State has a fundamental obligation to fulfil that function in relation to the NDA. I do not see that the information could come within the framework of accountability, save through the arrangements established by Parliament for the supervision of national security.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Is the Minister saying that there would be an appropriate parliamentary committee for the Secretary of State to report to? The tone of his reply suggests that I am arguing against this information being protected. I do not argue the fact that some nuclear information needs to be protected. I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence reports to Parliament. Of course, I have no knowledge of exactly what he reports, not being a member of the committee, but I understand that sensitive information is overseen by a group of senior parliamentarians. I simply ask whether the same arrangements will apply here.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course there are arrangements for dealing with extremely sensitive material in terms of parliamentary accountability, but they are very specific. If the noble Baroness has in mind a concept of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry carrying out that task, I am not sure that it would command wide assent either in this House or the other place.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The Minister continues to misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting a committee that meets in private along the lines of the one that keeps an eye on, for example, MI5 and MI6. That information is never put in the public domain, yet a parliamentary committee keeps an eye on it. That is what I am getting at.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Such a proposal is not within the purview of this legislation. When the Secretary of State decides that the NDA has obtained information which, should it become more widely available, could pose a threat to national security, then it could be considered in the parliamentary sense, but only through questions addressed by the very special body that is concerned with national security. At this point, however, we should not be proposing an additional framework to consider such important and sensitive information.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall read carefully what the Minister has said in response and
GC 288
take advice from those parliamentarians with greater experience than I in this field. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): After Clause 9, I call Amendment No. 31 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I beg the pardon of members of the Committee. Clearly I need a better optician. I should have referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"COMMERCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF NDA

(1) It shall be the duty of the NDA in carrying out its functions to have regard to each of the matters referred to in this section.

(2) The NDA shall use its best endeavours to maximise, or permit or encourage the maximisation of, the income of operating plants when within the NDA's responsibilities.

(3) The NDA shall provide advance justification to the Secretary of State for the closure of any operating plant (including the economic case for such closure).

(4) The NDA shall maintain decommissioned sites in a condition suitable for reuse, particularly for use for future nuclear purposes.

(5) The NDA shall provide reasonable encouragement and support for education, skills development and the maintenance of a national research and development capability in the field of generation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants."

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment, as is obvious from the text, is to impose certain commercial obligations on the NDA. What has to be avoided in a hugely complex, very expensive and long-term operation is for the NDA to press on with its activities and policies without having regard to the financial implications for the nuclear generating industry and, no less important, for the taxpayer.
I suggest that the operative provisions of the new clause are almost self-explanatory and are mere matters of commercial common sense, as well as not being over-prescriptive or imposing unduly onerous obligations on the NDA.
Let me look at them one by one. Subsection (2) calls for the NDA to maximise the income of operating plants under its jurisdiction. I shall not enumerate the ways in which a plant might obtain extra income; suffice it to say that those which can currently do so. What has to be avoided is the NDA deciding, for one reason or another, that it no longer wants to be bothered.
Subsection (3) requires the NDA to be accountable to the Secretary of State in advance if for some reason it decides to close an operating plant, as indeed it surely will because that is what it is there for. The point is that, although there may be a good reason to close a particular plant within the terms of its remit, there may be factors outside its brief for not doing so or for not doing so at a particular time. Those factors include, for

GC 289
example, the lack of replacement sources of power, a matter which will cause the Government some problems in the not too distant future.
Subsection (4) calls on the NDA, as part of its duty in dealing with plants which it has successfully and completely decommissioned, to keep them in a condition for potential re-use, possibly for future nuclear purposes. What we do not want is derelict sites abandoned more or less for ever. That is not because the NDA will not leave them 100 per cent safe, of course; we are sure that it will do so.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin has already told members of the Committee that he and I visited Harwell last Friday. We saw a local site that has been cleaned up and now has a school right on its edge. UKAEA is justifiably proud of its achievement at Culcheth in Lancashire, the site of its former engineering metallurgy group. That site has been transformed into a much sought-after housing development. Noble Lords should bear in mind that it is now part of ordinary conveyancing procedure for solicitors to request an environmental report showing the use of sites and others in the vicinity. However, it is still the perception which counts, even when that perception is wholly misconceived.
Within the property company of which I am a director we thought long and hard before deciding to invest in a property that had been built on the site of a former petrol station. In those days, people looked askance at such developments and were not happy about them. Further, one only has to recall how long it was before something was found to do with contaminated land on the Isle of Dogs.
A particular and blindingly obvious possible use for old nuclear power station sites is to use them for building new nuclear power stations if, at some stage, that is what the Government want to do. At a stroke you avoid major planning problems, especially Nimbyism, and you can take advantage of the investment made in public relations by the previous operators. With the same stroke, you have a location which has clearly established itself for that particular purpose. Further, there may well be the residue of a skilled and trained workforce who were previously employed at the plant. Those workers may well have had problems finding new jobs. The local economy, which may have suffered as a result of the closure of the old plant, will be rejuvenated.
Having a ready made market for the site, which would remove the need to keep it secure and prevent it from becoming a derelict eyesore, is an example of how the NDA could maximise its income, as specified in proposed subsection (2).
Proposed subsection (5) would require the NDA to provide encouragement and support for skills development in the field of generation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
The achievements and proven track record of UKAEA, to which I have referred, are a case in point. British skills in all kinds of scientific and engineering endeavours have long been an invisible export. For example, British engineers built long stretches of
GC 290
South American railways as long ago as the 19th century. Furthermore, it is had enough that current government policies, or the lack of them, will make us entirely dependent on foreign suppliers for our fuel. Surely we do not wish also to be dependent on foreign countries for know-how on building, operating and closing down our nuclear power stations, if that is what the Government decide to do in the future.
As I said, I do not believe that my amendment would impose an excessive burden on the NDA; nor, as a responsible public body, should it be unwilling to undertake that burden. I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I welcome the opportunity provided by Amendment No. 31 to raise some important issues. It is important to gain clarity from the Government about their intentions for the sites currently managed by UKAEA in particular
The UKAEA has a mandate to restore the Dounreay site to a greenfield condition. Admittedly, that will be some decades down the track, but concern has already been expressed—not surprisingly—that an operation that has sustained high levels of local employment since the mid-1950s and promises to continue to do so during the period of decommissioning should not be left to swing in the wind at the end of the process.
One is asking the Government, not to make detailed predictions about what kind of work might be appropriate in or near those sites, but to indicate the desirability of development either of the site, which will be owned and managed by the NDA after the Bill is enacted, or those proximate to it, which will work in close conjunction with the sites.
The amendment would impose a duty on the NDA to bear those issues in mind. That is a wholly sensible proposal. Proposed subsection (4) is particularly sensible. The position in a number of the authority's sites differs; for example, it is not the same at Harwell as it is at Dounreay. I hope that the narrowness of the definition of the NDA's responsibilities will never be used to impede an initiative by the NDA or one of its contractors to develop cognate work on or close to the site that could benefit the local economy.
A related issue is raised in proposed subsection (2) of Amendment No. 31. That would encourage the maximisation of the income of operating plants. It is clear that work is being done involving leading-edge technology, in which there is advantage in seeking to exploit Britain's position for commercial purposes, and perhaps even to offset some of the high costs involved in decommissioning by attracting new contractual work. I hope that that would fall squarely within the terms of the new agency, and that the Government would welcome such developments.
The proposal that the NDA should provide reasonable encouragement and support for education on decommissioning seems highly sensible, if its task is to be discharged without the hazard of having to rely on uncertain sources of such experience, drawn from outside our country. That seems prudent and might allow, for example, the development of suitable

GC 291
industrial educational schemes and apprenticeships squarely within the remit of the NDA, in its interests and those of the country.
I hope that the Minister will reply that none of those objectives is precluded and that all are possible within the Bill as drafted. It is certainly important that, if that is not the case, the Bill be strengthened in the ways proposed by the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: To some extent, we have come to the heart of the matter on the role of the NDA in the Bill. In some circumstances it may be highly beneficial to the NDA's core role for it to be able to carry out many of the activities touched on by Members of the Committee, including many of those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. We want to give it such flexibility. However, it would be utterly wrong for us to give the NDA wide-ranging responsibilities for effectively ensuring the continuation of the nuclear option, and for engaging in matters that are not central to its core role of clean-up and decommissioning.
At certain points, the Committee has broadly accepted that the Government's position is correct—that the NDA is not the appropriate body to lead consideration for the future of nuclear power. Some Members of the Committee may believe that some other body should do that, but they do not really believe that the NDA's main role should be as the repository of nuclear strategy or the nuclear contribution to energy policy. Its central role is to become an effective expert in the decommissioning and clean-up of nuclear installations, sites and facilities, and to use that expertise in the most economic, efficient and safe way.
The amendment gives the NDA a range of new responsibilities of at least equal proportions. Proposed new subsection (5), for example, would impose on the NDA an obligation to support skills and research capability of nuclear power generation. I recognise that that is an important issue, and one to which a number of noble Lords referred both at Second Reading and in Committee. We will return to it this evening, I hope, and if not, certainly not far into our proceedings. The issue of nuclear R&D is important; however, it is not the NDA's responsibility to carry the burden of maintaining and enhancing nuclear research and skills over and above those necessary for its own purposes.
The Bill allows—this touches on the noble Baroness's point—the NDA to ensure that others could use the research facilities at its designated sites for whatever purpose, including the purpose of nuclear research. For example, Clause 10(2)(e) will enable researchers into the future of nuclear power to have access to the necessary facilities, and enable the NDA, in the course of decommissioning or clean-up, to ensure that that operates.
But, again, it is not an obligation on the NDA so to do. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment seeks to place another duty on the NDA to maintain
GC 292
decommissioned sites with future nuclear purposes in mind. Clearly the NDA and government policy need to consider the possibility of there being future nuclear build at some point, but it should not be central to the role of the NDA to prejudge the end-point of every site it manages. Its job is to clean-up and decommission.
Clause 12(4) requires the NDA's strategy to set out its objectives in respect of the decommissioning and clean-up of different installations and sites, and the NDA itself will need to manage that in order that it meets what it considers to be its own appropriate endpoint in the context of that decommissioning. That is then subject to ministerial endorsement through the Secretary of State's role in the approval process for the strategy. The Secretary of State can specifically require the NDA to modify its strategy in respect of the objectives it has set out for a particular site. But it is not part of the operation that the NDA shall be required to look at a specific future use of those sites.
The Government's policy on decommissioning is of course subject to a current process of consultation, which is due to end shortly. The Government's position on the policy for determining appropriate end-points will be clear in their response to that consultation and well before we establish the NDA and it is in full operation. It will provide a framework for the NDA's own consideration of end-points, but it will not provide a basis for the NDA itself to take those decisions.
Proposed new subsections (2) and (3) in the amendment would place a duty on the NDA to give commercial considerations relating to the operational facilities a great deal of significance—too much significance in my view. The amendment implies that it should give as much significance to the commercial considerations in terms of maximising its income as it should to its decommissioning and clean-up responsibilities. That significance would be a misplaced focus. Clearly the NDA, in the course of running a site, will need to have an eye to commercial opportunities and making money out of a site and income derived from a site, but it is not appropriate that that should have the same level of significance as its role in relation to decommissioning.
The implication of proposed new subsection (3), in particular, is that a decision by the NDA to close an operational facility should be subject to a different and higher test than decisions relating to other activities on the sites—for example, whether or not a site could be kept open for future nuclear use.
The Bill already charges the NDA with ensuring that facilities at its sites are operated in a manner that it considers most beneficial to the public—that is in Clause 9(3)—and on this basis we would obviously expect the NDA to secure the operation of all facilities in such a way that maximises the net benefit of securing clean-up. As the NDA receives that financial benefit in any case—which, through the operation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Account, will contribute to future clean-up activity—revenue generation clearly has to be one of its considerations. But it cannot be the determining factor in how it goes about decommissioning the sites.

GC 293
Continued operation of the facilities beyond what is beneficial to the NDA itself and beneficial to the cleanup and decommissioning programme could distort the issue and it should not be the NDA's responsibility to allow that degree of distortion. Clearly there are issues of minimising the cost to the taxpayer of the clean-up operation, and the Government will need to take on board the potential alternative use of a site, but that should not remove the focus from the NDA's core role.
We recognise that the NDA, in developing its expertise, will contribute to the Government's consideration of the future role of nuclear power generation. In that respect, it obviously has the beneficial side effect of developing this expertise in one place. As noble Lords have said, this will lead the NDA to take advice from world-wide experience on the issue. That will need to be taken into account and respected in terms of future decisions on the deployment or otherwise of nuclear power.
A central problem is that a number of noble Lords are trying to use the Bill and the NDA to provide a basis for the future development of nuclear power. We debated this at least once on the first day in Committee. There are two questions. There is the question of whether or not future energy policy will require nuclear power and, should the answer at some future point be yes, there is the question of how far the NDA should be the body responsible for delivering it.
Both those in favour of a bigger role for nuclear power and those against using the NDA as a vehicle for delivering nuclear power capacity and making some of the decisions on whether to facilitate the development of nuclear power are missing the point. Whatever the future role of nuclear power, we need to clear up the legacy of its past. That is the NDA's prime role. If the Government change their mind on new nuclear build, other institutions will come into play. The Government will deal with the strategy and ensure that it is taken into account so that the appropriate infrastructure is put in place, but that is not the same as the role of the NDA dealt with in this part of the Bill.
The narrower point of alternative uses for a site will also be relevant to the NDA's activities but will not predispose a site for future nuclear use. The strategy, the annual work plan and so on will ensure that the NDA keeps under continued assessment the use of a site. We do not want the NDA to be seen as a body operating in a way that maximises the possibility of future nuclear build and which will itself become responsible for the provision of a base for that nuclear build. It is not a nuclear continuation authority; it is a decommissioning and clean-up authority. If we distort that distinction we will misinterpret this part of the Bill by using it to deal with somewhat wider issues on which there is clearly a difference of opinion. We will not resolve that difference by imposing extraneous and burdensome duties on the NDA in carrying out its central duty.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I feel somewhat challenged by the Minister's assertion that, in supporting the amendments, one might be seen as explicitly supporting the view that sites would be used
GC 294
for a particular nuclear build project. It is well known that I am sceptical, at least, about the Government's view that it can meet the nation's energy needs by relying on the resources outlined in the energy White Paper. But that is no part of my argument in favour of these amendments, or at least what I understand lies behind them.
The nuclear decommissioning business is highly expensive and it is public money that is going into it. It is business which could be of immense value to the Government, the country and the taxpayer. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to look for ways in which the return to the taxpayer can be maximised, a point which has not been sufficiently underlined in the language of the Bill.
It is right for the Minister to focus on the prime obligation of the duty on the NDA—decommissioning—but it is possible to do that at the risk of overlooking the considerable ancillary benefits which could flow to the country from managing well this enormous, billion-pound business. I illustrate my concern that the Minister is downplaying this aspect by citing his treatment of new subsection (5). He referred to the encouragement of education, research and development capabilities in this field as an absolute responsibility to be placed on the NDA. However, that is not what is set out in the amendment; it talks about providing "reasonable encouragement", which is rather different from what the Minister sought to bat away.
If the Minister can say that such activities already lie within the powers of the authority, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to press the point. However, if he is saying that it is no business of the NDA to provide any resources or encouragement for skills development in the process, I must ask whose responsibility it is. Are we as a nation to be held to ransom as the result of a shortage of skills?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I certainly did not seek to imply that the NDA would have no responsibility for research and development. Clearly it will need to develop those resources to aid its own areas of activity. Further, I did not object to the first part of new subsection (5). "Reasonable encouragement" are rather unusual words to use in legislation, but one can hardly object to them.
However, the last part of the new subsection refers to,
"the maintenance of a national research and development capability in the field of generation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants".
That would place a requirement on the NDA to be responsible for creating a centre of excellence for everything concerned with both the decommissioning and generation roles of nuclear science. The implication here is that all that should be the responsibility of the NDA. Other bodies will continue to be involved in those activities—most currently in the public sector. But if we opt for new nuclear build, we shall see substantial private sector responsibility for

GC 295
those areas as well. The final words of new subsection (5) suggest that NDA should bear the burden of the total research effort. That is why I oppose it.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention in so far it helps to clarify what is in the mind of the Government. I accept that a distinction must be made between the first and second parts of new subsection (5)—the first covering the "reasonable encouragement" of skills, development and so forth and the maintenance of a national research capability. However, it is also arguable that the maintenance of a national research capability is a reasonable objective for this country if it is not to risk being held to ransom. If skills development activities are not undertaken, that must be regarded as a risk.
It may be that such skills shortages will not show up in the short term, but it is obvious that other companies, whose interests lie almost wholly overseas, where profits would be remitted, are circling around this lucrative business with a view to entry into the field—if possible, in a monopolistic fashion. Those are not unreasonable concerns, although I am happy to accept that the drafting could be improved. Perhaps it would be desirable to return to the matter at a later stage.
Although we must accept that the purpose of the agency is to deal with the issue of decommissioning, we should not be so short-termist in our espousal of that prime objective that we do not look down the road at the dangers that may arise for our national effort in this sphere if we do not maximise the opportunities for internationalising and selling our expertise elsewhere and providing for that kind of development.
That is the great advantage, in a sense, of being as far ahead of the game as we are. We are not unique, but we are quite far ahead of the game. I hope that something on the lines of the amendments, which I did not draft but with which I am in sympathy, will be thought suitable by the Government— just as recognition of those ancillary responsibilities. They are not intended to cut down the prime duty or burden the authority; they are simply intended to allow the authority to embrace those subsidiary objectives as necessary and appropriate in doing its job properly in the longer term.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We all understand what the Government are trying to do and why they are limiting the application of the Bill, but we must not allow the opportunity to go by without taking advantage of the current situation, which will develop during the next few years, to build a bridge to the future. There is an opportunity to keep things going in the right direction—to maintain people, thinking, research and everything else mentioned in the amendment. If the Government refuse to allow the NDA to do any of those things, they will miss a massive opportunity and we shall have to backtrack in future to do them.
GC 296
I am not being very clear, but we must be careful that the political strategy and practical matters on the ground do not conflict.
Baroness Byford: I have only two quick points to make, because other Members of' the Committee have said what I wanted to, especially on skills. I recognise that the NDA's first priority is decommissioning and clearing up: on that the whole Committee is agreed.
I shall have to read Hansard carefully, but I think that the Minister said that proposals are out to consultation at present. If he could tell me exactly what they are consulting on, that would be immensely helpful. Can he tell me when that consultation will finish? He said that it would be shortly and before the NDA came into force. Will it be before the Motion that the Bill do now pass from our House, let alone anywhere else? I record this on every Bill, but it is unacceptable to have matters that will affect the Bill with which we are dealing now out to consultation, so that we do not know the outcome.
The Minister has realised that subsection (5) of my noble friend's new clause may need to be split off later, because national research and development may well need to go elsewhere. I should be grateful if he would answer my queries and pick up on our concern around the Committee—although no one has spoken from the Labour Benches—that we may well lose skills that are important to retain, if there is nowhere for them to be practised. Once decommissioning has happened, if there is no immediate nuclear build—we are not saying that there should be—skills may well be lost, as was well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. I should certainly be grateful for an answer about the consultation.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is correct: she always complains about that. Policy issues are always subject to some degree of consultation; this consultation relates to decommissioning. It will be concluded by the end of March—no, February. I should therefore expect the results of the consultation to be available before the Bill completes its course. However, the response to that consultation will form part of future directions to the NDA.
To repeat, the Committee is missing the point about research and, to some extent, skills. The NDA can under the Bill maintain skills, engage in research and pay other people to perform research into decommissioning, clean-up and related matters. But that is not the totality of the Government's commitment to research in the nuclear industry. Under the auspices of BNFL, we have the NSTS. At the end of 2002, we completed a review of the nuclear and technological skills needed. We have extended the sector skills council that covers chemicals and gas to include nuclear technology, so a new push will be delivered to skills. Some research will continue to be carried out in what is currently UKAEA, and there is still a substantial budget for nuclear research in universities.
So it is not as if there is a huge gap in provision that must be loaded on to the NDA. The NDA's responsibility for research will lie in its particular area,

GC 297
but those other streams of research will continue and, we intend, maintain the UK's position as one of the leading countries in nuclear technology and expertise.
Earl Attlee: The Minister said that there was a substantial UK university research budget. Can he tell us what is the size of that budget?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that I can, but I will let the noble Earl know.
Lord Gray of Contin: To pick up on some points raised earlier about the relationship between Ministers here and in Scotland, I should be surprised if the Scottish Parliament's attitude—I obviously have no knowledge of its inner thinking—towards the new development agency was not similar to that outlined in the amendment, especially on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. I should imagine that Scottish Ministers will look to the new organisation to support just the sort of things advocated in Committee today.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: First, I thank all Members of the Committee who supported the amendment. Each one made a valuable contribution, mostly making different points. My noble friend Lord Gray repeated that the amendment was reasonable.
I have some sympathy with the Minister, because he has to keep saying, "That is not the role of the NDA". At the end of our first sitting, I replied that it might well be that I had placed the responsibilities in the wrong place, but this is an Energy Bill. Most Members of the Committee fear that we will face an enormous loss of energy, one way or another, so we keep trying to find ways to make certain points. As I have told the Minister, I always try to help the Government if at all possible. The Government say clearly: "We are keeping the nuclear option open". Actually, we know not what that means, other than that they continue to say it. If that is a fact, when decommissioning takes place it would make sense to leave sites in a suitable condition to help the Government should they decide to keep open the nuclear option. Perhaps they never will, but the sites being decommissioned would be available if the Government ever wanted to activate that option.
In that context, I found interesting one of the sentences in the Minister's response to the amendment. What did he mean when he said, "Of course, if the Government change their mind on new nuclear build"? Did he mean, for example, changing their mind on keeping the option open? I found that sentence very convoluted and confusing. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and decide in due course what we might do in the future. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 10 [Powers for carrying out functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause II [Strategy for carrying out functions]:
Lord Maclennan of Rogart Lord Maclennan of Rogart moved Amendment No. 34
Page 10, line 25, after second "time" insert "review and, if necessary,"
The noble Lord said: This amendment, to which the noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and Lord Lea of Crondall, have attached their names, is an attempt to probe the Government's thinking on strategic planning and how the oversight of the decommissioning programme is to be handled in practice.
The schema set out in the Bill seems to vary from that in the Government's White Paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy for Action. According to that paper, the Liabilities Management Agency (LMA) was to have operational freedom. But I find it difficult to understand how that was held to be manageable given the degree of oversight that the White Paper described in subsequent paragraphs. It stated that strategic control would he exercised through an annual meeting at which Ministers would review the LMA's strategies and annual work programmes, take stock of its performance and set new performance measurements for the year ahead. I do not know what is left for operational management if managers must be subject to such detailed hands-on control.
The new language of the Bill does not specify that degree of intervention. Clause 11(1)(b) states that it will he the duty of the NBA,
"from time to time to revise that strategy".
One must ask why that should be mandatory if the strategy in place is seen to be working. Clearly, that is not what the Government have in mind. Schedule 2 sets out the detailed review process to precede or accompany the drawing-up of strategies.
This is an invitation to the Minister to indicate the extent to which he envisages the Government being involved in this process. According to the Bill, the strategy must be drawn up at least once every five years, although, if circumstances change in certain ways, it is open to the agency to go about it again. It would be helpful at this early stage if we could have a clearer view of what the Government envisage.
On the whole, it seems desirable for non-departmental bodies not to be constantly pulling themselves up by the roots and looking at their objectives with a view to changing direction—that is extraordinarily unsettling. Five years may be a perfectly reasonable period, but there seems to be an assumption, at least in Clause 11, that the strategy will not last and will have to be changed. What do the Government think? I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The amendment is very simple; it does not ask the Government much. Clause 11 is quite interesting. It states:
"It shall be the duty of the NDA".

GC 299
If it is a duty, one must do it. Subsection (1)(b) states that, from time to time, the NDA must revise its strategy. Let us assume that the NDA, having drawn up a strategy, would like to contemplate whether it is necessary to revise it before doing so. I can see no harm in adding the simple phrase that it is the duty to "review and, if necessary" revise. It seems peculiar to place on the NDA a duty to revise, come what may.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wish to point out in all friendliness to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, that Clause 11 is one of the clauses that later in the Bill the Government reserve the power to change by order. I therefore have a horrid feeling that it does not matter what we put in those clauses, because, subject to affirmative procedure, the Government can change them later. The words proposed by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon are inoffensive and simply clarify.
Lord Whitty: Clearly, it is envisaged that the NDA strategy will cover the whole clean-up process. That will include what is happening on each site, the NDA's forward planning, research efforts, training and all the aspects that we have discussed on previous amendments. From time to time there must be an opportunity for the strategy to be reviewed, not only by Ministers, but by the NDA's stakeholders. We wish, therefore, to provide for a minimum five-year period for Ministers and stakeholders to be engaged in that process.
The amendment may involve a degree of semantics. Members with a classical education will know that "revise" simply means to look at again. We will look again with Ministers and stakeholders at whether changes are needed. In five years, given the rapidly moving energy climate and changing economic and environmental scenarios, it is extremely unlikely that the whole of any strategy will be absolutely right. It is therefore likely that some changes would be made. That does not imply a wholesale revision; it gives Ministers and others the opportunity to engage with the NDA in validating the strategy after five years. As is always the case, in a reasonably long-term strategy there will be more detail on the first five years than on latter years; for example, seven to 10 years ahead. As one moves through the process, one will probably want more detail. It is a racing bet that some changes would be required in the strategy, albeit that the broad brush is still considered correct. It does not seem unreasonable to build in a review and revision every five years.
In this area of energy policy, technological change, particular problems at particular sites that might lead on to more general conclusions would need to be reviewed. We should not limit this. We should have a review and a revision every five years, which is what the clause as printed would require.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. There is a semantic point here and I am sure that he is right, but it is none the less strong for that. It is noticeable that this
GC 300
provides for a five-year review. although paragraph 4.22 of the White Paper spoke of strategic control being exercised through an annual meeting at which Ministers would review the strategies and annual work programmes of the LMA.
Does the Bill constitute a change of thinking? Is it really being suggested that the authority should be kept at a greater arm's length in its strategic oversight of the mission than was suggested in the White Paper? The White Paper clearly suggests that Ministers would be constantly involved in review and oversight, and in setting performance measures for the year ahead.
There is an issue here which is more than semantic. It is about the extent to which the Government want either to leave the authority to do its own thing—subject to the requirement that within five years they will review and revise—or whether they really want to review more frequently. Is that how they expect to operate? This is a probing amendment to divine whether the Government seek to take a hands-on or arm's-length approach.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord probably exaggerated the degree to which the White Paper and the LMA sought total hands-on ministerial activity. We envisaged annual discussions on the way things are going rather than hands-on control. I anticipate that there would be quite frequent discussions between the NDA and Ministers, but we would not want to build that into statute. The minimum statutory requirement is a five-year review. But Ministers will have to engage with the NDA more frequently than once every five years. Budgets are not set that far in advance. Hence, fairly close consultation will be required, probably at least on an annual basis.
The statutory requirement on the strategy itself would be five years. It is not a huge change, but it is a change which means that statute bites only every five years. However, the NDA management will need to talk to Ministers more frequently than that.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 11 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Procedural requirements applicable to NDA's Strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 35
Page 135, line 14, after "activities" insert "or any proposed changes in the activities"
The noble Lord said: At last the Government will be able to relax a little, because I confidently expect them to tell me that my amendments are unnecessary. However, I thought it worth tabling them. Amendment No. 35 deals with page 135. That is part of Schedule 2, which deals with some of the detail of how the strategy should be prepared. I specifically raise the issue of consultation. Amendment No. 47,

GC 301
which is grouped with Amendment No. 35, deals with page 137 and raises the same point in relation to annual plans.
My concern on reading the provisions was that we have consultation by the NDA and various groups. Paragraph 4(2)(h) of Schedule 2 refers to,
"every body established—

(i) by the NDA, or

(ii) by a person with control of a designated … site or designated facility,

for the purpose of consulting persons about activities carried on at, or in connection with, such an installation, site or facility".
Generally speaking on consultation, particularly in relation to plans and strategies, what concerns people is not what goes on at the site, but the changes that will go on in future.
I am confident that I shall be told that my amendment is unnecessary. However, I wanted it to be quite explicit that the consultation was not confined to activities on the site, and that it had been specifically designed so that the public and all the people who needed to know what changes were to take place did so. Therefore, I thought that I would table the amendment to enable the Government to make explicit what I thought was the intention of the Bill. I beg to move
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord anticipates my remarks. I was not entirely clear on the intention of the amendment but, if it is simply to make it clear that the consultative bodies set up by the NDA and the licensees would have to discuss a change in activities as well as activities ongoing, our view is that "activities" subsumes changes in activities, their delivery, the amount of money provided for them, who is employed in them, and so on. It is a fairly substantial requirement to consult about those activities, which clearly includes any change in them. Therefore, I would have thought the amendment unnecessary, but the noble Lord has my clarification on record.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that brief reply, which makes the point that I wanted made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Content. s of strategy]:
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe moved Amendment No. 39
Page 11, line 6, after "how" insert "and when"
The noble Lord said: Our amendments in the group are in two sections. The first section is Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, which relate to the contractual regime under which the NDA will operate. Although the White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy for Action, envisaged benefits from competition, in practice achievement of other White Paper requirements on openness, transparency and high safety and environmental standards called for
GC 302
collaboration. Although we accept that competition is an objective, we are strongly of the view that it must not undermine the other key objectives in any way.
Furthermore, it is clear that setting site management agencies in competition with each other may not be conducive to the pre-exchange of information required in order to achieve synergy and sharing of lessons learned. Such collaboration needs to take place on the basis of equal access to knowledge. Long-term relationships will need to be created, with measures identified to foster innovation. Supporting that framework, it will be vital to fund generic research to underpin nuclear clean-up.
Lessons from previous experience—clearly illustrated by the contrasting regimes at Dounreay and the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment—show that key criteria include, first, minimising the number of organisational interfaces, in particular with regard to safety implications but also in regard to other regulatory dimensions such as planning; secondly, value for money considerations taking account of the benefits of wide-ranging expertise, allowing lessons learned in one area to be applied in subsequent projects with no additional costs; thirdly, requiring all contractors to have sufficient funds to deal with contingent liabilities arising from their work; fourthly, the principal contractor being able to demonstrate effective control over site operation at all times; and, fifthly, requiring all contractors to provide independent evidence of high technical and managerial quality.
All these requirements imply a more open, longer-term, iterative approach to contractorisation than is normally the case. The overall aim must be to facilitate a process that avoids fragmentation, supports bids of a high quality and encourages continued innovative participation. This is what we have in mind with Amendment No. 40, which calls for appropriate competition, although we accept that further work is needed to define the competitive framework more precisely. That is why Amendment No. 41 calls on the Secretary of State to provide guidelines to support this process. An appropriate next step would be to issue draft guidelines for consultation, as is currently being done in respect of the draft framework for stakeholder engagement.
We strongly support this approach although, as our second section of amendments—Amendments Nos. 42 and 43—indicates, we think the current provisions need strengthening. There is, for example, nothing to stop the NDA ignoring completely any of the points that emerge as a result of the stakeholder dialogue. It is in no one's interests—least of all in terms of building public confidence in the NDA—to present a shop window with nothing at all behind it.
To deal with this we would like to see a mechanism whereby the outcomes of stakeholder meetings are put to the NDA board, which should then come up with a clear decision for or against taking action on particular proposals. This is not intended in any way to impede NDA decision-making and we fully recognise that decisions will need to be taken that do not always

GC 303
command universal support. However, if the Government are serious about stakeholder engagement, it is necessary to ensure that the loop is fully closed and that there is both transparency in decision-making and a clear channel for bringing decisions to the public arena. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall deal with the two sections of amendments separately. As regards the first three amendments dealing with competition, clearly we would expect the NDA to describe how it intends to promote competition. This will include details of priorities, time scales and so on. The five points raised by my noble friend in this regard would undoubtedly be party in one way or another to its approach to competition.
But it is difficult to write into statute or the strategy an exact prescription of how competition in all contexts will be carried out. More particularly, the amendments would have the unhelpful effect of requiring the Secretary of State to define the nature of "appropriate competition". This is precisely what we are asking the NDA itself to do.
Of course the Secretary of State will have a close interest—indeed he will have final approval of the overall approach in the strategy—in respect of competition, but it will be the NDA's expertise that will tend to determine what particular points are pursued as appropriate. It is not entirely clear what the distinction between "appropriate" and "effective" would be.
My noble friend is right that the level of expertise required to be an effective competitor for most of the large-scale NDA contracts as envisaged would be fairly rare and would require companies to have built up a significant amount of expertise in the area. There will be other contracts, of course, for which that range of expertise will not necessarily be required. With the main site contracts, clearly that is what we are talking about.
The NDA will need a fair amount of information to ensure the spread of best practice, to be able to identify synergies between what it is doing and requires and what the company is offering and to judge the basis for site management contracts. That is why some of the information will undoubtedly be commercially confidential and there will be issues that we touched on in the debate earlier.
I do not see the benefit of changing the wording of what the NDA has to put in its strategy. In particular, it would not be appropriate to place the duty on the Secretary of State in the Bill.
As regards Amendments Nos. 42 and 43, we want to see openness, transparency and engagement with stakeholders by the NDA. We support that general thrust, but the implication that the rather rigid process of dialogue between the formal stakeholders' meetings and the NDA board would improve that situation and that engagement seems a little fanciful. If, in effect, the stakeholders' meetings were not entirely consensual, particular propositions would come down to majority
GC 304
votes being presented to the board, and the board would formally have to say whether it accepted the proposition, accepted a part of it or rejected it. That is a mechanistic relationship which is not in the best interests of positive and creative stakeholder dialogue. I therefore would not accept the wording of that part of the amendment. There may be aspects of the amendments that we are prepared to consider in terms of improving the stakeholder dialogue, but I would not be happy with the one to which I have referred. No doubt the noble Lord may wish to return to the issue in a more general sense at the next stage, but not in the form of the amendment.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I support the amendments, particularly the first group. I agree with what the noble Lord said in support of them.
It is important to realise that once a contract has been allocated, if the main consideration in the mind of the contractor is how to sustain his position against other possible contractors who may be invited in at a later stage, that will alter the priorities in an undesirable fashion. Therefore it is right that the contractor should have in mind how the job is to be done as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible in general terms at each stage of the development of the work within the allotted period.
If it becomes necessary constantly to demonstrate at each site at which a contract has been allocated that that is so, it is bound to impose additional and perhaps unnecessary responsibilities that will add to the costs of the operation without necessarily improving it. Competition will be periodic in its term, but if it is continuous in its effect it could be more disruptive of the work than helpful. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his reluctance to have ministerial guidelines on what is meant by "competition" inserted into the Bill.
There is a peculiar kind of competition in the industry and the decommissioning business. There are few players, and the work is extraordinarily specialised and leading edge. A great deal of emphasis was placed earlier on the whole question of commercial confidentiality. How that impinges on competition is difficult to work out.
It is not entirely clear what is meant by competition here. We would like greater clarity about that. That is against a background of it being widely perceived in the nuclear industry—particularly by the UKAEA—that excessive contractorisation at an early stage was disadvantageous to the objectives. Those who have observed that hope that we can learn from those mistakes and that the Government are willing to spell out—perhaps not today, but later—exactly how they see that competition operating. There is a large question mark over the duration of the contracts and the relative priority that the Government give to the matter in Clause 12(2)(c) over other matters that must be borne in mind by the NDA.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention, which was helpful. In our

GC 305
opinion, these will not be the straightforward types of contracts that we normally encounter. The somewhat lengthy debate that we had earlier about confidentiality and about what can or cannot be disclosed impinges, to a degree, on the kind of problems that may arise here.
I am pleased that the Minister at least said that a definition will need to be produced. He said that the NDA will he required to produce a definition for the contracts. I did not know whether that was an invitation to me to move an amendment to delete "Secretary of State" and insert "NDA". But the more I listen, the more I suspect that that invitation was not being extended. None the less, I endeavoured to define what we meant by appropriate, as distinct from straightforward, effectiveness in a contract to try to demonstrate that that will be different to contractorisation that we normally encounter. I would be grateful if the Minister would read in Hansard what I said, in the same way that I shall read in more detail what he said to me.
As for Amendments Nos. 42 and 43, we would not want a mechanistic process to be introduced. If the Minister feels that what we are proposing is too mechanistic, we will take the provision away and see whether we can find something that might be more flexible. From personal experience as a non-executive director of National Air Traffic Services, where we have stakeholder council meetings taking place twice a year, in the main, most stakeholders reach a consensual approach on issues that then find their way to the hoard. But, beyond that, there is no requirement for anyone to do anything when it finds its way up to the board.
There is possibly a case to be made for a little clearer direction for the purposes of openness and raising respect for the stakeholder council and its relationship with the NDA hoard in future. From my experience in NATS, we may need more than we have at present. Therefore, we will consider the matter and may return at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): I take it from what the noble Lord said that he will not be moving Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 inclusive.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Annual plans]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 44
Page 12, line 30, after "NDA;" insert—
"() for the carrying out, during that year. of research and development;"
The noble Baroness said: I have been watching the clock for the past few moments. That is not because I was not grabbed by the interesting debates that we have been having, all of which were fantastic, but because I must apologise to members of the Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, who was unable to stay. It is a pity that only now are we about to discuss
GC 306
research and development, to which these amendments refer, because it is a subject that must be given consideration. In any event, whatever we say is probing. Therefore, I shall speak about what Amendments Nos. 44, 53 and 62 are intended to achieve.
Of course, research and development should be of primary importance to the NDA, a point we discussed when considering other amendments earlier today. Good, targeted research and development has the potential to reduce the costs and time-scales of nuclear decommissioning programmes. The Minister pointed out that the Government have made much of this subject in their reports.
We believe that the Bill neither gives adequate weight to the importance of research and development activities, nor puts sufficient onus or responsibility on the NDA to ensure that research and development programmes are maintained under the authority. These amendments seek to underline the importance of the need for the NDA to focus on research and development.
We believe that the attitude of the Minister to these amendments will demonstrate the Government's commitment to keeping the nuclear option open. I shall say no more than that. It is a question of how much importance the Government attach to it. The amendments would provide concrete measures to ensure that the important activities of research and development are given appropriate weight under the NDA regime.
Amendment No. 44 would require the NDA to add research and development activities to its annual plan, while Amendment No. 53 requires a report on R&D to be included in the annual report. To an extent, therefore, Amendment No. 53 is consequential on Amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 62 simply seeks to make the clean-up responsibilities include an element of R&D, thus emphasising its importance.
I have set out our views on R&D for the Minister and I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: This is an important amendment and I rather regret that we are starting it at twenty past seven in the evening. I have been keeping an eye on the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to see whether he is girding his loins to rise and bring our proceedings to a close, but he is not. Either we shall need to interrupt the debate half way through, or we shall need to work beyond half past seven.
Two quite separate elements are sought in this small group of amendments. The White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy, contains a substantial section beginning at paragraph 3.36 dealing with what was then envisaged as being the research obligations of what was then called the LMA and is now known as the NDA. I shall quote the beginning of the paragraph:
"BNFL and UKAEA commission research where necessary to improve safety and operational performance and develop solutions to specific clean up problems".
It is perfectly clear that the NDA will have to undertake research on clean-up problems and it is equally clear that there is a good deal of wisdom and experience residing in both of those organisations.

GC 307
However, in paragraph 3.37 the White Paper goes on to state that:
"More generally, the LMA will have a direct interest in the improvement of the technology available for clean up and of the underpinning science".
That clearly implies that the NDA will carry out a good deal of research as its work proceeds. The Minister is nodding vigorously, so I do not need to dwell on that point; I must be right.
However, as my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon indicated, there is another aspect relating to keeping the nuclear option open. I am sure that many noble Lords will have received the December issue of Postnote - The Nuclear Energy Option in the UK. It was an extremely helpful and balanced note on the position. When one looks at the provisions envisaged by the Government for keeping the nuclear option open, one feels some alarm. Page 3 states:
"The research programme 'Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy', operated jointly by three research councils, will spend approximately£5m on general nuclear technology research over the next four years".
I have attended a number of conferences recently, notably the "Energy Choices" conference, to which reference has already been made. I can inform Ministers that that figure of£5 million is greeted with derision by the scientists involved in the programme. They see it as not measuring up at all to what is required.
When the Government gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into what is now called RD&D—Research, Development and Demonstration—they stated:
"Nuclear fission R&D has been declining steadily over the last 10–20 years. Publicly funded research into fission reactors began to decline with the privatisation of the electricity sector in 1990/91. DTI (previously Department of Energy) funded nuclear research has decreased from£164m in 1989/90 to just£17m in 2000/01–a reduction of 90%. All of this current expenditure is on fusion related work and there is currently no expenditure on fission R&D".
That was a source of some dismay to the Select Committee, whose remarks I shall not read; it was then answered in the Government's response to the committee's report.
If "the nuclear option" is to have any meaning—here I touch on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart—and if this country is not to become wholly dependent on technology and work overseas, we must undertake more research in this country. There are options for new reactors. I refer to the admirable Postnote, which identifies three designs as the likeliest contenders in the short term. The first is the ACR 700—the advanced Canadian Deuterium-Uranium (CANDU) reactor 700Mwe, designed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Those reactors are now being sold around the world. It is building them within their cost estimate and within the time-scale quoted for completion. That technology exists, but it is not British; it is Canadian. The second design is the BNFL-Westinghouse AP1000, which is an advanced-passive 1000MWe reactor. The third is the European
GC 308
Pressurized Water Reactor 1600M We—EPR—designed by Framatome ANP. All those are substantially foreign.
That is not all. I do not know what work is being done now—I shall come to my questions in a moment—but there are, in addition, what are called Generation IV projects. The Generation IV nuclear research programme is currently being examined by an international consortium. A contribution is being made indirectly to the Generation IV work through the EU, I understand, but one is left with the astonishing figure of£5 million to be spent over the next four years on nuclear fission research.
I attended the "Energy Choices" conference, which was addressed by the Minister of State for Energy, e-Commerce and Postal Services, Stephen Timms. He announced that the position was under review and might change. There was a glimmer of hope that the Government were beginning to recognise that, if we are to be able to take advantage of any of the new technology and have power stations that have substantially longer lives, are substantially cheaper to construct and operate and are, in many cases, even safer than those that we have, we must do the research in this country. That is what this is directed at, not just the question of research on the whole decommissioning process. I am sure that the NDA will do that, but it will be for the Government to make sure that research is done in a way that enables the British energy generating industry, if it becomes necessary—I have made it clear that I think that it will, but others may take a different view— to take advantage of it and not go cap-in-hand to foreign suppliers and, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, said, find ourselves held to ransom.
The situation that we are in is probably as worrying as almost anything else. There are clauses coming up about skilled nuclear manpower—nuclear engineers and scientists—and there is a new clause at the end of this part of the Bill. That is equally important, but here we are dealing with research. Unless the Government are prepared to recognise that they must do more, the credibility of the nuclear option becomes almost meaningless. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. I suspect that many Ministers recognise that there will come a time when we will have to replace nuclear with nuclear, otherwise we will not keep the lights on and meet our Kyoto objectives.
Research is at the heart of the matter and I hope that the Minister will be able to add something to what was said by his colleague from the DTI, Mr Timms, at the conference that I attended in December.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: During an earlier debate
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am very conscious of the fact that what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said was right: we have started a major debate. We thought that it would be more limited but, clearly, it is a major debate. I am mindful of the time, so, if the Committee will forgive me for not anticipating the

GC 309
situation more accurately, it would be better if my noble friend moved the adjournment of the Committee.
Earl Attlee: On the basis that we can re-start with the amendment?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I do not want to weary the Committee, but one of the amendments that we might have come to but was not in the grouping is government Amendment No. 72. It will extend the Henry VIII clause to give the Government the power to modify Clause 12 by order. That has not been put before the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Having drawn their attention to the matter, will Ministers do anything about it? It will be difficult to debate the clause if it has not yet been examined by the Committee, unless it has decided that it does not need to do so.
Lord Whitty: I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue and bringing it to our attention. It was mistakenly not drawn to the Select Committee's attention earlier. In fact the amendment to Clause 32 is a minor, consequential amendment to correct an oversight from the division during the course of the drafting of what was originally Clause 11 into what are now Clauses 11 and 12.
Contrary to the noble Lord's implication, there is no change in policy. A memorandum to the Select Committee sets out clearly the powers in Clause 32 to
GC 310
modify the provisions in Chapter 1. We have contacted the Committee to explain the effect of that and why it has arisen. The chairman agreed that there is no need to call a meeting of the Committee to consider the amendment, so that need not delay us.
It is unfortunate and I apologise to the Committee, but in the light of the explanation that I have passed to the Select Committee, it is unlikely that it will want to comment substantively on the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am a member of that Committee. Do I understand the Minister to say that the amendment has not been before it?
Lord Whitty: No, we contacted the chairman and he has accepted our explanation. The Committee can return to it, but he says that in his judgment there is no need for us to delay consideration until the Committee meets. That is his judgment, on which the Committee will be able to take a view, but because the amendment is consequent on how the Bill has been drafted rather than a new matter, his view is that we do not need to delay its consideration.
Lord Triesman: This may be a convenient moment at which to adjourn the Committee until Thursday.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday at 3.15 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  FCO: Questions for Written Answer
  FCO: Questions for Written Answer
  Prisons and Special Hospitals: Spiritual Care
  Prisons and Special Hospitals: Spiritual Care
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Foreign National Detainees
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Foreign National Detainees
  Terrorism: Detection of Chemical and Biological Substances
  Terrorism: Detection of Chemical and Biological Substances
  Deportation of Suspected International Terrorists
  Deportation of Suspected International Terrorists
  Gender Recognition
  Gender Recognition
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  Drug Free Sport Directorate
  UK Sport
  UK Sport
  Contemporary Works of Art: Deaccessioning
  Contemporary Works of Art: Deaccessioning
  Health Cash Plan Providers
  Health Cash Plan Providers
  Medicinal Products: Clinical Trials
  Medicinal Products: Clinical Trials
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Trout and Trout Fisheries: Ligula Tapeworm
  Trout and Trout Fisheries: Ligula Tapeworm
  Sudden Oak Death Virus
  Sudden Oak Death Virus

  Planning Service: Costs and Fees
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has today published The Planning Service: Costs and Fees. This is a report prepared by Arup Economics and Planning into the way in which the powers in Clause 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill might be used. Using the report, we are considering the nature and scope of any fees and charges that might be prescribed by the Secretary of State under that clause. The objective is to ensure the proper resourcing of planning services so that they can deliver for business and communities. We will bring forward full proposals for public consultation in the summer.

  Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.host?n=2445&1= 2.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Part 4 Powers
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is today laying before Parliament a draft order to continue the powers of detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCS) for a further 12 months. It will be debated, by this House and in another place, by early March.

  The public emergency which necessitated the introduction of these powers—and which arises principally as a result of the threat of international terrorism posed by foreign nationals—still exists. Where terrorism is concerned, our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. Where a foreign national is suspected of terrorism of the sort which led to September 11 2001 and is considered to be a threat to national security but
  WS 42
  cannot currently be removed—and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option—we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal. The person would be free to leave the United Kingdom if he wished to do so.

  The draft Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in Force of Sections 21–23) Order 2003 provides for the continuation of the immigration powers under Part 4 of the 2001 Act to certify, and to detain pending removal, suspected international terrorists, subject to safeguards. The continuation is from 14 March 2004 until 13 March 2005.

  To date, 16 people have been certified and detained under the powers contained in Part 4 of the ATCS Act. Two of these have chosen to leave the United Kingdom as the detainees are free to do at any time. One further individual has been certified but is currently detained under other powers.

  The Home Secretary's decisions to certify and detain these individuals were made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. All those certified have appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) including the two who left the United Kingdom. SIAC has rejected the appeals against certification made by the first 10 ATCS detainees, which were heard between May and July last year. The determinations for a further two cases that have been heard have not yet been handed down.

  The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a superior court of record. It has the power to overturn the certificates which the Home Secretary has issued in respect of those detained.

  The detention powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act are a cornerstone of the UK's anti-terrorism measures. It is essential that we are able to take firm, swift action against those who threaten the safety of this country.

  We will be looking carefully at the conclusions and recommendations of the report of Lord Newton and his committee, which was laid before the House on 18 December 2003, together with the reports of Lord Carlile, the second of' which will he laid before the House shortly. We will be reporting to the House when we come to debate Lord Newton's report and the renewal powers, and I look forward to a full and vigorous debate. None the less, we continue to believe that the Part 4 powers are a necessary and proportionate response to the current threat.